SPEECHES
}

SPEECHES


OF


THE RIGHT HONOURABLE


CHARLES JAMES FOX.


VOL. •VL


n




FOIL LONGMAN, HURST, BEES, ORMI:, AND BROWN,
PATERNOSTER-BOW ;


.AND 3. RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY.


181 4.


cc


-r -


ti THE
rh


SPEECHES


OF


THE RIGHT HONOURABLE


CHARLES JAMES FOX,


IN THE


HOUSE OF COMMONS.


IN SIX VOLUMES.


VOL. VI.


LONDON:


Strahxn and Preston,
Printers-Street, London.




CONTENTS


Or


THE SIXTH VOLUME.


1795'
,......e.., Page


Nov. lo. Treason and Sedition Bills I
16. The Same 9




17. The Same 16
23. The Same z8
24. The Same


33
25. The Same


35




27. The Same
47




3o. The Same
47


Dec. 3. The Same 61




ro. The Same
74


Nov. z3. Mr. Reeves's Libel on the British Constitution 8o




z6. The Same 85




Dec. 4. The Same 87
9 . King's Message respecting a Negotiation with


the present Government of France
89


4. Mr. Whitbread's Bill to regulate the Wages of
Labourers in Husbandry


103
1796.




Feb. tz. The Same
los


15. Mr. Grey's Motion for Peace with France
106


18. Abolition
of the Slave Trade 116




March 15. The Same
123


Feb- 26. Mr. William Smith's Motion respecting the Loan 132
March 4. Mr. Curwen's Bill for the Repeal of the Game


Laws
140




April 29. The Same


143




March 22. Duties on
Legacies of Personal Estates




145




April 5. The Same
148


8. General Smith's Motion respecting the Expen-
diture of Public Money in Barracks




149
II. Mr. Francis's Motion respecting the better Re-




gulation
of Slaves in the West Indies ...... ..., 156




286
289


300
305
319


329
339
370-


383


422
422


455


i803•


May 27•


'804.
Feb. 29.
March 15.
April 23.
June IS.


18o5•
Feb. i8.
April 8.
May 14.


June 20.


2I.
18°6.


Jan. 27.
March 3.


April 23.
May I.


15.
30.


June to.


Mr. Fox's Motion respecting the Mediation of
Page


Russia
530


Volunteer Consolidation Bill
Naval Administration of' Earl St. Vincent
Mr. Fox's Motion on the Defence of the Country
Additional Force Bill
List of the New Administration


Property Tax
Proceedings respecting Lord Melville
Mr. Fox's Motion for referring the Petition of


the Roman Catholics of Ireland to a Com-
mittee


Mr. Grey's Motion on the State of Public Af-
fairs


Continental Alliances


538
546
551
569
569


575
577


586


615
621


Funeral Honours to the Memory of Mr. Pitt
625


List of the New Administration
63


Lord Ellenborough's Appointment to a Seat in
the Cabinet


631
King's Message on the War with Prussia




641
Slave Importation Bill


648
Property Tax


649
Limited Service in the Army




651
Abolition of the Slave Trade


658


Vi CONTENTS. CONTENTS: Vii
1796.


May 5. Duty on Succession to Real Estates
The Same


6. Mr. Grey's Charges against Ministers relative to
the Expenditure of Public Money




Jo. Mr. Fox's Motion on the Conduct of the War
with France


178
Oct. 6. Address on the King's Speech at the Opening


of the Session


209
18. Invasion - Augmentation of the Militia




219
31. The Same


228
Dec. 7. Budget for 1797 - Terms of the Loan - Ad-


vances to the Emperor without the Consent
of Parliament


237
8. The Same


246
14. Mr. Fox's Motion of Censure on Ministers for


advancing Money to the Emperor without
the Consent of Parliament




252
30. Mr. Fox's Amendment to the Address on the


King's Message respecting the Rupture of
the Negociation for Peace with France ......


263
1797.


Feb. 27. Stoppage of Cash Payments at the Bank
28. The Same ............


March z3. Mr. Harrison's Motion for the Reduction of
Useless Places, Sinecure Offices, &c.


23. Mr. Fox's Motion on the State of Ireland
April to. Mr. Pollen's Motion for Peace with France




May 23. Mr. Fox's Motion for the Repeal of the Trea-
son and Sedition Bills


26. Mr. Grey's Motion for a Reform in Parliament
Dec. 14. Assessed Taxes Bill


i800.
Feb.






3. King's Message respecting Overtures of Peace
from the Consular Government of France


1801.
March 25. Mr. Grey's Motion on the State of the Nation


List of the New Administration


Nov.






3. Address on the Preliminaries of Peace with the
French Republic


I8oz.
March 16. Character of the Duke of Bedford


466
29. Arrears of the Civil List


473
1803.


May 24. Mr. Grey's Amendment to the Address on the
King's Message relative to the War with
France


484


Page
163
164


165




SPEECHES
OF THE


RIGHT HONOURABLE


CHARLES JAMES FOX,


<ST' cfS'c'


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


November 1795.
TNconsequence of the indignities offered to his majesty in his


way to and from the House of Peers on the first day of the
session, a proclamation was issued on the 31st of October, offering
a thousand pounds for the discovery of any person guilty of those
outrages. On the 4th of November it was followed by another,
wherein it was said, that previously to the opening of parliament,
multitudes had been called together by hand-bills and advertise-
ments, who met in the vicinity of the metropolis, where inflamma-
tory speeches were made, and -divers means used to sow discontent
and excite seditious proceedings. These meetings and discourses
were followed three days after by the most daring insults to the
king, by which his person had been imminently endangered. Ru-
mours had also been spread, that assemblies were to be held by
disaffected people for illegal purposes. In consequence of those
proceedings, it was enjoined by the proclamation to all magis-
trates, and well affected subjects, to exert themselves in prevent-
ing and suppressing all unlawful meetings, and the dissemination
of seditious writings. So great had been the alarm and indigna-
tion, created by the treatment of the king, that as soon as he had
gone through the reading of his speech, and had left the House,ictoNi visalsiltiamttitoiendi‘avtaes held by to be cleared of all strangers, and a


eld by the lords, in what manner to proceed
suoplvoend


upon,
an occasion. An address to the king was re-


intending


to alul a conference with the House of Commons to
request their concurrence therein. The majority agreed in this
measurefore ; but the Marquis of Lansdowne accused the ministers of


seize this opportunity to work upon the passions andfears
the people, and to lead their representatives into conees-


VOL.




TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. ic
sions derogatory to the public liberty, and debasing to their cha-
racter, in order to confirm their own power at the expense of the
constitution. A conference with the Commons was held accord-
ingly in the course of the day, and witnesses were examined in
relation to the outrages committed. Their evidence was commu-
nicated to the Commons, and both houses unanimously concurred
in the addresses proposed.


On the 6th of November, Lord Grenville introduced a bill into
the House of Lords, for better securing the king's person and
government. The motive he alleged was, the necessity of pre-
venting abuses similar to those that had taken place on the opening
of the session. He explicitly attributed them to the licentious
language and maxims held forth in the meetings, which had been
so long suffered, without due notice on the part of the legislature,
but which were now arrived to such a degree of insolence, that
they required immediate restriction. He would recur on this
occasion, he said, to precedents framed. in approved times, the
reign of Elizabeth, and the commencement of the reign of
Charles II. In order more effectually to obviate so great an evil,
he would move the passing of a bill, which he produced, and
which was entitled, " An act for the safety and preservation of
his majesty's person and government against treasonable and
seditious practices . and attempts."


On the 9th of November, Mr. Pitt moved in the House of
Commons, that the royal proclamations in consequence of the
late riot, should be taken into consideration. He grounded his
motion on the necessity of preventing such insults being offered to
the sovereign, as he had experienced on the opening of the session.
He presumed every loyal subject would unite with him on this oc-
casion, and that methods would be taken to obviate those causes
from whence the outrages proceeded, which were the factious
meetings of disaffected people, wherein seditious discourses were
constantly held, and principles maintained utterly subversive of
good order and obedience to government. The pretence of these
meetings was to petition the legislature for rights withheld from
the people; but the real motive was, to promulgate opinions,
inimical to government, and calculated to bring it into contempt.
If' the executive power were not invested with sufficient authority
to controul these meetings, they would finally endanger the exist-
ence of the state. The rights of the people doubtless ought to
be respected, but it was equally indispensable to obviate their
abuse. The question before the House was, Mr. Pitt said,
Whether the pressure of the moment did not require an instant
remedy? A precise and acknowledged power was wanting in.
the magistrate to disperse such meetings as threatened disorders.
This power indeed ought not to extend to meetings held for lawful
purposes, but only to authorize him to watch over the proceedings
of any large assembly, whatever might be the object of those
who assembled. To this intent, notice should be given to the
magistrate previously to the intended meeting; he should be em-
powered to be present, and if it appeared of a seditious tendency,
to seize the guilty on the spot; to obstruct. him should. be made


795] TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
3


felony ; and if the meeting did not disperse at his command, the
penalties provide d in the riot-act should be. inflicted on the re-There was, Mr. Pitt added, another species of meeting,f ractory.
ICnoeiisisting of persons who attended public lectures on political


;subjects the lecturers were mca notoriously disaffected to go-
vernment, and the doctrines they delivered were calculated to
instil the rankest principles of resistance and rebellion to the
established powers. In order to obviate this effectually, the act
against disorderly houses should be applied to meetings of this
kind, whenever they exceeded, by a number to be stated in the
act, the real family of the House. Mr. Pitt concluded with
moving, " That leave be given to bring in a bill for the more ef-
fectually preventing seditious meetings and assemblies." As soon
as the Speaker had read the motion,


Mr. Fox said. he trusted it was unnecessary for him to.pre7
face what lie had to say, by a declaration which he hoped, for
every member of that House, was equally unnecessary; that
he felt as much horror at the attempt which was made against
his majesty as any man in the kingdom; quite as much as arty
man who might move, who might second, or who might sup-
port the bill, which it seemed was to be offered to the House.
Having agreed so far with the minister that night, there lie
must take his leave of him. lie did not think he should well
express his feelings, if he declared that his indignation at
what had happened even on that day, was more than equal to
what he felt from what he had heard this night. The right
honourable gentleman had adverted to a bill, at that time in
the other House; which was stated to have for its object the
better security of his majesty's person, and on which, it was
probable the House would have some communication with
their lordships. He believed it would be difficult for the
right honourable gentleman to shew the necessity for that bill,
if he meant to ground that necessity upon the assumption that
what happened on the first day of the session was Sin conse-
quence of what passed at meetings to-which he had alluded.
He disapproved highly of all these experiments, which were
professed to be intended as securities for the enjoyment of all
the blessing's of our constitution. He knew the constitution
had existed for ages sufficiently guarded by the law as it now
stood, and therefore, if the right honourable gentleman had
not opened his plan, which, he declared, struck him with
horror; if he had not said a single word upon that detestable
plan, he should have given his negative to the proposition in


breaches of


because the proposition itself laid it down as an
assumed fact, that the law at present is insufficient to prevent


t le public peace. It was said, that a seditious
meeting had been held somewhere in the neighbourhood of


n 2,




4
TREASON AND SEDITION DILLS. [Nov. IO


the metropolis a few days previous to the meeting of parlia-
ment; that at such meeting very alarming -proceedings had
taken place, striking at the very existence of parliament itself.
That such proceedings took place he did not know; but, this
he knew, if speeches were made that had such a tendency,
the speakers were amenable to the law. If hand-bills were
distributed that 'had such a tendency, the distributors were
amenable to the law. If any person had so conducted him-
self as to be the means of causing the people so assembled to
form a resolution, having such a tendency, he was amenable
to the law, and, when proved guilty, was liable to adequate
punishment. But this bill was to proceed upon the flimsy
pretext, that all the violence and outrage that had been
offered to his majesty was the result of this meeting, of which
there was not the colour of proof. He knew, indeed, that
the right honourable gentleman had attempted to connect-
them; he knew, too, there had been, and would 1.)e endea-
vours to confound the two things.


It was, Mr. Fox said, ridiculous to talk of these things
being perfectly notorious; that these proceedings were clearly
seditious; they were points upon which that House could not
regularly proceed, for they were points on which there was
no proof. Nothing was more clear than that the House of
Commons ought never to proceed upon any measure that
might trespass upon the rights of the public, without evi-
dence that was decisive, even in cases of extreme necessity;
but there was no evidence whatever to connect any of the
proceedings of these meetings with the daring insult offered to
his majesty. The right honourable gentleman had said, Should
not the House endeavour to prevent the repetition of such an
insult ? Undoubtedly it should. But then it should be upon
evidence; and here the right of persons to meet any where
to consult on public measures, was to be affected in conse-
quence of what happened to his majesty on the first clay of
the session, although there was no evidence to prove that the
outrage arose from any proceedings that were had at any
public meeting previous to that day. Some persons, perhaps,.
might consider the proclamation itself as evidence. He could
agree to no such rule: he well knew there were those who
doubted the truth of the proclamations : who believed many
of them to be the acts of ministers for certain purposes of
their own ; and he was sure it was not regular in that House
to take things for granted, merely because they appeared in a
proclamation.


These were strong objections to proceeding upon this sub-ject without better evidence. All this, however, was trifling,
in comparison with what tile right honourable gentlenian had


r795.] TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
subject. He had said, that there might be a


confessedcslalItlipltoynilebuses of
ot
that


preserve
right. the Difficulty


of petitioning, and -to prevent
a ses


'


e


able gentleman talked


not embarrass licachimy
he
for, he said


i


l e


t


d with


d


ease
Thus the right honour-


a


settled in
icn thethereo


they might
igelirt :


be
but tttlIel


on the rights of the subject, as.
if he expected to bring the public to submit to the most rigid
despotism. In that detail, Mr. Fox said, he would never take
a share, for he would never attend the detail of a measure
which in its essence was so detestable. The right honourable
gentleman had hinted at two points. With regard to the
first, that of public meetings for the discussion of public sub-
jects, he must not only confess them to be lawful, but must
allow them also to be agreeable to the very essence of the
British constitution, and to which, under that constitution,
most of the liberties we enjoyed were particularly owing.
The right honourable gentleman had said, that these meetings
were not to be prevented, they were only to be regulated.
" Attend," said Mr. Fox, " to the regulation. I thought I
knew the rights of man — aye, and the rights of Englishmen.
[Here was a prodigious cry of Hear ! hear What, said he,
that is a slip you suppose. The rights of man is a sentence
without a meaning. Do you say that men have no natural
rights ? If so, Englishmen's rights can have no existence ;
this House would have no existence. The rights of man, I
say, are clear; man has natural rights; and he who denies it
is ignorant of the basis of a free government; is ignorant of
the best principle of our constitution."


The people, he had always 'thought, had a right to discuss
the topics from which their grievances arose. In all instances,
they had a right to complain by petition, and to remonstrate
to either House of Parliament, or, if they pleased, to the
king exclusively ; but now, it seems, they are not to do so,
unless notice be given to a magistrate, that he may become a
witness of their proceedings. There were to be witnesses of
every word that every man spoke. This magistrate, this
jealous witness, was to form his opinion on the propriety of
the proceedings ; and if lie should think that any thing that
was said had a tendency to sedition, lie had power to arrest
the man who uttered it. Not only so, he was to have the


• ,•


power of dissolving the meeting at his own will. " Sa y at
once," said Mr. Fox, " that a free constitution is no longer
suitable us say at once, in a manly manner, that upon an
ample review of the state of the world at this moment, a free


k 1 .
1


constitution
senators isof


not
D


fit for you; conduct yourselves at once as
the
acknowlede, and enmar


; lay down your freedom, and
be ante accept of despotism. But do not mock the


13 3




6 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. To.,


understandings and the feelings of mankind, by telling the
world that you are free — by telling me that, if out of the
house, for the purpose of expressing my sense of the public
administration of this country, of the calamities which this


• war has occasioned, I state a grievance by petition, or make
any declaration of my sentiments, which I always had a right
to do; but which if I now do,. in a manner that may appear
to a magistrate to be seditious, I am to be subjected to pe-
nalties which hitherto were unknown to the laws of England.
If in stating any of these things out of the House, a magi-
strate should be of opinion that I am irregular, he is to have
the power to stop me: he may say — The cause which you
allege for your grievance is unfounded; you excite, by what
you say, jealousies and discontents that are unfounded ;' and
if I say what in his judgment or his wishes ought to be con-
cealed, he is to have a power-to stop me, and to treat me as
a rioter, if I do not obey him. I ask again, if this can be
called a meeting of free people ? Did ever a free people meet
so ? Did ever a free state exist so? Did any man ever
hypothetically state the possibility of the existence of freedom
under such restrictions? Good God Almighty, Sir! is it
possible that the feelings of the people of this country should
be thus insulted ? Is it possible to make the people of this
country believe that this plan is any thing but a total annihi-
lation of their liberty ?"


The right honourable gentleman had next adverted to a
bill which had been passed to prevent the assembling of per-
sons for the discussion of questions on the Lord's day, from
which he was to bring in a bill to prevent the discussion of
questions on any day; and this, he said, was to be applicable
to all cases where money was to be taken. Why all questions
were to be prohibited where money was to be taken, merely
on an allegation that such questions might produce mischief;
was, he confessed, beyond his skill to understand. But this
was not all : it was to he applicable, it seemed, to places,
where no money was to be taken, because, in truth, persons
might be admitted by means of tickets; and they must not
amount to a number beyond a certain one which the minister
should be pleased to insert in his bill, unless duly licensed by
a magistrate. He would again ask — Was this, or was it
not, to prevent all political discussion whatever? Let them
spew him when this had obtained since the Revolution, or
at any time when this country could be called free. The
people are to be prevented from discussing public topics
publicly : they are to be prevented from discussing them
privately. If then, without this private intercourse or pub-
lic debate, the grievances of this ,country are to 'be kit,


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


.7
1795.1
and are such as to call forth a general desire that they should


what are the public to do? They must send,
it seems, a_ magistrate, and under they
n: e o


be


redressed,


permitted




his good leave t
ermitted to proceed. [Here there was a cry


I er r t dreteo ,


from the treasury bench of No ! no " I do not mean,"
said Mr. Fox, " to overstate this power, God knows there is
no occasion for that, for there seems to be sufficient care
taken of magisterial authority in every step of this proceed
inc. Behold, then, the state of a free born Englishman
Before he can discuss any topic which involves his liberty,
he must send to a magistrate who is to attend the discussion.
That magistrate cannot prevent such meeting: but he can
prevent the speaking, because he can allege, that what is
said tends to disturb the peace and tranquillity of this realm.


' Sir, I hope this bill will never come into this House. I ant
not friendly to any thing that will produce violence. Those
who know me will not impute to me any such desire; but I
do hope, that this bill will produce an alarm; that while
we have the power of assembling, the people will assemble;
that while they have the power, they will not surrender it,
but come forward and state their abhorrence of the principle
of this proceeding; and those who do not, L pronounce to be
traitors to. their country. Good God, Sir, what madness,
what frenzy has overtaken the authors of this measure ! I will
suppose for a moment that the only object which they have
in view is the preventing a revolution in this country. But
that they should have proceeded upon a plan which has no
regard for the liberty of the people, no regard for the glo-
rious efforts of our ancestors, no regard for their maxims,
no esteem for the principles and the conduct which have Made
us what we are, or rather, if this bill be countenanced, what
we were, is to me astonishing ! For to proceed thus, in order
to suppress or prevent popular tumults, appears to me to be
the most desperate infatuation. Good God, Sin! We have
seen andowdin have heard of revolutions in different states. Were
t yto the freedom of popular opinions? Were they
Owing to the facility of popular meetings? No, Sir, they were
Owing to the reverse of these; and therefore I say, if we wish
to avoid the danger of such revolutions, we should put our-
selves in a state as different from them as possible. What
are we now doing? Putting ourselves in a condition nearly
resembling the periods when these revolutions happened.
In the reign of Charles I., the most interesting period to
which we can look in the history of this country, was free-
dora of speech indulged to any latitude; or were libels suf-
fered to pass without notice? On the contrary, were not both,
at that tune, punished with an extraordinary degree of ri7


B 4




8 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [NOV. Ie.


gour? Is it the intention of ministers, by these arbitrary
measures, to bring the country into the same disastrous situ-
ation in which it was plunged during that unhappy reign?
It might have been hoped, that the impressive lessons of
modern times, and of events still fresh in their consequences,
had not yet been forgotten. Look to France before the
period of her revolution. Was it the facility of public meet-
ings, or the freedom of discussion granted to the subject, that
tended to produce that great change ? On the contrary, was
it not the absolute prerogative of the king? Was it not the
arbitrary power lodged in ministers? Was it not the oppres-
sive privilege of issuing Lettres de- Cachet against all who
dared to utter their sentiments, and complain of existing
grievances, that excited the indignation of the people and
accelerated the downfall of the monarchy? If, therefore, one
view on which the present measure is held out to your accep-
tance, be in order to prevent the troubles arising from the
frequency of popular assemblies, on that very ground ought
the friends of peace and of order to resist the adoption of
the measure. In countries where men may openly state their
grievances and boldly claim redress, the effect of their com-
plaints and remonstrances may, indeed, for a time be ob-
structed by the operation of ministerial corruption and in-
trigue; but perseverance must ultimately be effectual in pro-
curing them relief. But if' you take away all legal means of
obtaining that object, if you silence remonstrance and stifle
complaint, you then leave no other alternative but force and
violence. These are means so dreadful in their effects, that
it may be matter of question whether any good they produce
can possibly compensate for the evils with which they are
necessarily attended ; such means as scarcely even the best
cause can justify. Let us examine a little closely the argu-
ment on which so much stress is laid, namely, the danger that
may arise from a popular discussion of grievances. If the
pretext of grievances be groundless, and not warranted . by
any immediate pressure, the more it is discussed, the less
effect it will have in exciting discontent. But if you pre-
clude these political humours, if I may so call them, from
having a vent, you then leave no alternative but unconsti-
tutional submission, or actual violence. If ever there exists
a just cause of grievance, one or other must he adopted; a
tame acquiescence, incompatible with the spirit of freedom,
or an open resistance, subversive of the order of government.
I know that peace and quiet are the greatest of all blessings,
but I know also, that rational liberty is the only security for
their enjoyment. I admire the British constitution, because
it gives scope to the people to exercise the right of political


II




795']
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 9


discussion ; not merely, with the permission of a magistrate,
or under the control of an executive force, but on all occasions
to state, in bold and plain words, the grievances which they
feel, and the redress which they desire. I have only now to
express my firm determination to oppose the bill in every
stage of its progress. And, in the first instance, I shall con-
ceive it necessary to move. for a call of the House, as it is
impossible for me to suffer a question, which involves so
material an alteration of the constitution, to pass in this
House, without solemnly calling on every member to give a
vote on the discussion.


The motion for leave to bring in the bill was also opposed by
Mr. Stanley, Mr. Maurice Robinson, Mr. Curwen, Mr. Sheridan,
and Mr. Grey. The House divided on the motion for leave to
bring in the bill :


Tellers. Tellers.
Mr. Grey


YEAS
{Lord Belgrave


Mr. R. Stewart j 2I4--NoEs 1Mr. Sheridan} 42 ' •
Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill, and, on the


motion of Mr. Fox, a call of the House on that day fortnight was
agreed to.


November 16.


The bill " for the safety and preservation of his majesty's person
and government, against treasonable and seditious practices and
attempts," passed the House of Lords this day, and was brought
down to the Commons. After it had been read a first time, Mr.
Sheridan, insisting that no proofs had been adduced to authorize
so harsh a measure, and that ministers had no right to bring
forward such a bill without the clearest proofs of its necessity,
moved, " That a committee be appointed to inquire into the
existence and extent of the danger of seditious meetings, as re-
ferred to in his majesty's proclamation." The motion for an
inquiry was opposed by Mr. Powys, Mr. Windham, Mr. Pitt, and
the attorney-general, as creating a delay that might be productive
of much danger. The tranquillity of the public, they said, re-
quired the promptest measures. The latter expressed great
solicitude in vindicating his conduct at the late trials : he insisted
on the propriety of the bill in question, which, he said, would, at
the most, prove the adoption of a lesser evil, to prevent a greater.


necessary.


Air. laws of the land were, in his opinion, inadequate to
prevent the appearance of such publications as he had read, and
of such meetings as had been held ; new laws were of consequence


Air. Fox said, that as he did riot wish, in the present stage
of the business, unnecessarily to detain the House, he would




IO TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [NOV. 16.


principally advert to what had fallen from the honourable,
and learned gentleman who had last spoken, who had gone
into a very wide field, and introduced different topics, partly
of a personal nature, and partly of a more general description,
as applying to the question before the House. He was not
one of those 'a ho thought that the attorney-general ought
not, in the recent instances, which had been referred to in
the course of debate, to have prosecuted for high treason.
The declaration of the two Houses on that subject was decisive.
Whenever it was the opinion of the attorney-general that
persons had been guilty of high treason, it was his bounden
duty to prosecute.. But itndid not follow, because those
persons had been acquitted of the crime of high treason, that
if they had been tried upon a different charge, they would
have been found guilty of a misdemeanor. He had no
doubt, that under this alteration of the charge, the jury would
have conscientiously exercised their judgment, and brought
in an honest verdict according to the circumstances of the
case. The honourable and learned gentleman said, that ac-
quittal did not disprove guilt. Fie was not one of those who
would contend that acquittal was a decisive or unequivocal
proof of innocence. In common cases there were many cir-
cumstances that might engender doubt as to the question of
guilt or innocence. First, when the existence of the offence
was ascertained, the difficulty was to prove by whom it had
been committed, to what particular quarter the guilt should
attach. Secondly, even when there was a moral certainty,
with respect to the authors of the offence, there was often ex-.
treme difficulty in bringing home the charge to the individual,
by legal proof: Neither of these circumstances, however, ex-
isted in the case of the individuals tried for high treason.
There could neither be doubt as to their persons, nor diffi-
culty in proving that they were the authors of the acts charged
against them. They were acquitted by a jury not less respect-


:,
able than the committee of that House who had drawn up the
report respecting their proceedings. He would say not less
respectable, from their situation in life; and in his opinion,
not less respectable; because they were removed from those
objects of ambition which might be supposed to have had
some influence with the members of that committee, and
which some of them since might have been deemed pretty
well to have attained. In the course of the business, he had been
early convinced of the want of evidence sufficient to convict
those men, and had broadly stated his sentiments on that
subject ; but the honourable and learned gentleman had said,
that Mr. Erskine and Mr. Gibbs, the prisoners' counsel,
thought differently. For one of those gentlemen, from habits


1795']
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. II


of long intimacy, he entertained sentiments of the highest re-
gard and friendship ; of the other, from all, he had heard of
b iro, lie had been taught to think with the greatest respect.
But he should not have felt for one that ardent friendship, nor


phect
ook{, he have deemed the other entitled to that sincere re-


s if, in a question of life and death, where they were
shoul


called upon to act as counsel, from any speculation of their
own, with respect to the guilt or innocence of the prisoners,
or With respect to the nature of evidence, they had neglected
to set up that defence which was infallibly- calculated to save
the lives of their clients. Was it in consequence of the result
of the trials that the bills were brought in ? He was told that
not from these trials only, but from their subsequent proceed-
ings the dangerous temper of these meetings had been proved,
and that their mischievous tendency could not be corrected,
except by some new legislative regulation. He would appeal
to ministers what had been the effect of the former regulations
they had adopted. Had they not suspended the habeas corpus
act, upon grounds which he must ever contend to be slight,
and such as by no means warranted so violent a measure?
Had they not afterwards renewed that suspension ? The sus-
pension, however, they had afterwards allowed to drop during
the interval of the sitting of parliament. He had congratu-
lated himself at the beginning of session, when he heard
his majesty talk of the spirit of order and submission to the
laws, which, with a very few exceptions, had discovered itself
among his faithful subjects. Coupling this declaration with
the conduct of ministers, in allowing the suspension of the
habeas corpus to drop, he had flattered himself that ministers
had now renounced the opinion, that the evil to be dreaded
from certain principles would be diminished by vigorous judi-
cial proceedings, and the prosecution of the war with France.
He did not think for his own part that the evil was in any de-
gree diminished ; but he conceived that ministers had begun
to form more just opinions on the subject, that they had begun
to perceive the folly and inefficacy of their former measures,
and to adopt in the course of their future' proceedings the
suggestions of a milder spirit and more enlightened policy.Unhappily, however, for the country, it appeared from the
present measure, that he had been mistaken in these expect-
_atinns. Was it in consequence of the meeting at Copenhagen-
house, or the meeting at St. George's Fields, that they had
been induced to brimg forward the present bills? Both these
m


eetings, he remarked, had taken place previous to the com-
me


ncement of the present session, when the ministers put into
the mouth of his majesty a declaration of the spirit of order
and submission to the law, which had manifested itself in the
country. Would they then say, that any thing which had




1.7


12 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 16.


occurred at those meetings, was the ground of their pre-
sent measures? If they did say so, he defied even credulity
to believe them. He had stated, that notwithstanding the
prosecutions which had been carried on in this country ; not-
withstanding the still more disgraceful judicial proceedings in
Scotland, which exhibited a mere mockery of justice; still he
had hopes, from the conduct of ministers, in allowing the sus-
pension of the habeas corpus to drop, that that law would
be left to its course, and even that liberty would revive. But,
then, what had happened on the 2 9th of October — that out-
rage on his majesty, which they all equally deplored. He was


„tola that outrage was connected with the proceedings of cer-
tain societies. He was referred for proof to the coincidence
in point of time, and the notoriety of their transactions. Here




795


II W]
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


gence, which they might deem it essential for the interests or
s
safety of the state to communicate, and these he should set
a


down as useful or meritorious spies. There were others who
went certain lengths in order to acquire information, and
made certain sacrifices, in order the more completely to get
into the secrets of others ; these he should reckon at least
doubtful. But there wereaitha


iit.celd themselves
so


their
rt, -wl


inholit.odetrhteocsoeiii.five-


creoo7 those w from they


insnu


wished to betray, not only affected
adt si imilarity of sentiment, but even spurred and goaded them on,
and prompted them to adopt more violent language and more
reprehensible propositions, than they would otherwise have
employed—of such characters there were no words in the




fioEnng LI which could sufficiently mark his contempt
detestation. This was the description of spy, which most


frequently appeared in the cases that solicited their notice—
the trials at the Old Bailey. In all instances, the spy had
been found the most furious in his sentiments, and the most
intemperate in his language. He had often been the exare-


' b
rated and falsifying reporter of those proceedings, of which
he himself had been prime mover and contriver. [The at-
torney-general here interrupted Mr. Fox, 'to tell him that an
information had been preferred against one of the witnesses


jfor perjury, but had not been proceeded upon by the grandury.] Mr. Fox resumed. It was no proof to him of the in-
nocence of the man, that a bill had not been found


.against
.him. But he would here refer to the trial of Mr. Walker, of


Manchester, the proceedings on which were of such a na-
ture, that they made his blood run cold, whenever he read or
thought of them. Mr. Walker was not, indeed, put in peril
of his life, for it required the oaths of two witnesses to have
brought him to condign punishment; and fortunately for hu-
man nature, a second Dunn was not to be found. But he was
put in hazard of his character, his liberty, and his fortune;
and in the course of the trial it was found, that the person by
Novalitohnolfltileli, v


ery
.accused was notoriously perjured. Yet on the
iy Irian., one of the name of Paul, had, for sometoilienec,obneveinet keptpt in prison. To be sure he was liberated upon


ation did ministers6:o
f


from the falsehood'e




n


perjury of his accuser. But what repar-




victual


grant to this man, thus exposed to suffer,




their '


and corruption of' another ? It was, surely,




the di


, ,y of government to make amends' to the innocent indi-
ment, agfise,ounibltlis'e.tethe to the disgrace and hardships of confine-
were times MI:nc: r gence of ministers, or the depravity of


The honourable and learned gentleman said, that these
c I. ire could not contemplate without the most


he remarked, that while ministers declined giving that proof
to which the House was entitled, and which they ought to
have received before they consented to entertain a question of
such deep importance to the constitution, they brought a sort
of evidence which was worse than all ; evidence was brought
from a proclamation of the executive government. An at-
tempt was made so far to degrade the House, as to bring in a
bill upon the evidence of a proclamation of his majesty's mi-
nisters. Part of the honourable and learned gentleman's
speech he confessed had strongly affected him. He talked of
the contempt into which parliament had fallen. If parliament
were so careless of their duty, so lost to all sense of character
as to take a-proclamation of the executive government as evi-
dence of the facts, upon which they were to ground their pro-
ceedings, they would, indeed, deserve that contempt which
they were said to have incurred. The honourable and learned
gentleman had read a number of papers, in order to show the
atrocious spirit and dangerous views of the persons who com-
posed these meetings. It was a sort of evidence which he
confessed lie received with much suspicion, in consequence of
the distrust with which he was accustomed Ito receive every
Such communication from that quarter of the House. If such
facts existed, as had been stated by the honourable and learned
gentleman, why were they not brought before the House in
such a way as might constitute a proper ground for their pro-
ceedings? Why ought not the House to have the spies of
the right honourable gentleman at their bar, in order to ex-
amine them as to their report of the facts which might have
come under their inspection ? The honourable and learned
gentleman said that spies were instruments whom government
had at all times found necessary to employ. Mr. Fox ad-
mitted that there were different sorts of spies. First, there
were persons who might by chance be privy to sane intelli-




14 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 16.


serious apprehensions with respect to the fate of all who were
dear to him. He confessed that he- did not think less se-
riously of the times than the honourable and learned gentle-
man. It bad been asked, whether it was filir to set down the
whole of the friends and supporters of ministers as in a con-
spiracy against the liberties of the country ? To this lie
would answer by another question, Did not the honour-
able and learned gentleman believe that there were in the Cor-
responding Society some men who were morally good, and
who were by no means actuated by those detestable views and
malignant passions, which were, upon every occasion, indis-
criminately ascribed to the whole of the body? So in the same
way lie might believe, that there were some supporters of mi-
nisters, who really meant well, though they were blind dupes
of the folly, or unconscious instruments of the wicked policy
of ministers. But though he by no means confounded every
supporter of ministers under the same censure, yet if lie saw a
rooted design on the part of ministers to invade the liberties
of the subject, followed up by successive efforts, all directed to
that object, he should think himself wanting in his duty, if
he did not take all peaceable means of stirring up opposition
on the part of the country t- the progress of their measures.
The honourable and learned gentleman had prefaced his
speech with different views of the nature of the British con-
stitution, in some of which he agreed with him, in others
he thought his own opinions more applicable. Ile agreed
with the honourable and learned gentleman, that the constitu-
tion was better adapted for the enjoyment of practical liberty
than that of any other country, but he rather thought that had
been the case formerly more than it was at present ; it would
be invidious to state any precise epoch when the alteration
began to be most manifest, yet without meaning any thing,
either personal or disrespectful to the king, he must state, that
from the time-o • the Revolution till the accession of his pre-
sent majesty to the throne, practical liberty had been greater
than it had been since, and that the system which had been
acted upon in this reign • was more hostile to liberty than that
acted upon during the period to which he had alluded. He
declared he could discover nothing in the present-state of
the country that could justify this new infringement on the
liberties of the subject intended by the bill. So far from it,
the power and influence of the crown were obviously so enor-
mons, that all the liberty that subsisted in the country was
preserved only by the freedom of speech and the liberty-of
the press; if either of these were given up, or in any degree
taken away, the only barrier -that we had against the annihi-
lation of liberty would be completely destroyed.


1793'1
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


15


The operation of the present bill would interrupt the meet-
ing of clubs, occasional attendance on which formed the chief, if
1, 6t the sole, luxury of persons in certain stations. [A cry of


If it did not do so, he could only say, that as it was
t expressed, he did not understand it. The honour-


Naq
at present


nsl leraenoedn
li
learned gentleman told us, that the whole of govern-


ment was attacked. He was not an advocate for attacks on
government, but he was an advocate for human nature, when
it was oppressed. It had been well said in a former war with
respect to the Americans, "You drive them to madness, and
will you quarrel with them about their ravings?" When he
looked to the many calamities which the war had brought upon
the country ; when he saw, during them all, an acquiescent
and confiding House of Commons, he thought he could ac-
count for some part of that spirit of murmuring and discon-
tent which pervaded a great body of the people. He stated
this to have been the only war since the peace of Utrecht,
which had in no one instance given rise to any inquiry in the
House of Commons. Eyeu during the famous wars of • Chat-
ham, and the. victorious campaigns of Malborough, inquiries
were instituted respecting some of the operations. Had this
been the only war so eminently brilliant, so uniformly success-
ful, so clear in its details, so economical in its arrangements,
as to claim exemption from that accuracy of investigation,
which had been displayed at former periods in the military
history of this country ? With this negligence of the House
of Commons before , their eyes, with the experience of their
own accumulated sufferings, was it to be wondered at that men
should complain, more especially, when the betrayers of their
interests, and the authors of their misfortunes, were at the same
time ngahktsiT an attempt to deprive them of their dearest and
bes


An honourable gentleman, (Mr. Powys,) the sting of whose
eloquence chiefly consisted in its personality, had alluded to an
immense number of people, who had that day been assembled
without tumult or disorder. He appealed to the gentlemen
who istv ere presen t, thle ,


immense concourse had not
e seriously impressed with the import-


ance of the question, and deeply interested in the issue. He
must confess, that of the many meetings which in the course3 • 3
of'his public duty,he had been called upon to attend, he never
leadtdhisecyovweelle.edwitn ssed one, which, from its numbers or deportment,


so strong an imprcision of the object for which
met,


, and so fixed a determination to pursue it by all
. Proper means. You may prevent men from complaining, said3A,oftrl.rFboixll,s bllutttts3t,oitnac nnot prevent them from feeling. Either


remain waste paper, or they must becarried




6 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [NOV. I7:


into execution with circumstances of the greatest oppression.
Arid depend upon it, if men speak less, they will feel more, and
arms will be left them as the only resource to procure redress
to themselves, c)r exercise vengeance upon their oppressors.


Mr. Fox then proceeded to refute the pretexts for not going
into an inquiry, from the supposed urgency of danger. He
stated the little advantage which ministers had derived from
their system of alarm and terror, from an instance personal to
himself. If, at the commencement of the war, it should have
been proposed, that he should make a speech, as he had that
day done to thirty thousand people, the question would not
have been, whether he should have been suffered to speak, but
whether he should have been suffered to exist. By that large
concourse he had that day been heard with unanimity and ap-
probation; so great was the change that had taken place in
their sentiments ! He concluded with recommending mi-
nisters to abandon a system, which had hitherto only been
marked by reverses and disappointments. The pressure of
the war was the original source of the discontents of the people,
and the measures taken to repress these discontents, had only


'
increased the evil. The bad success of their policy ought to
induce them to trace back their former steps,


Iterate cursus •


Relictos ;
and to try what effects they could produce upon the people,
by treating them with respect and gentleness. He reminded
them of the saying of a great man, whom he had often occasion
to quote, (Mr. Burke,) " Try all means of gentleness; terror
can always be applied to, but never without danger; for if it
fails in one instance, it produces contempt ever after."


The motion was also supported by Mr. Jekyll, Mr. Curwen,
and Sir William Milner. The House divided : for Mr. Sheridan's
motion 22 : against it, 167.


Novem ber 17.


The motion for the second reading of the sedition bill was
strongly supported by the solicitor-general. He was replied to,
most ably and eloquently by Mr. Erskine, who denied that the bill
was consistent with the principles of the British constitution. The
statute enacted in the r 3 th of Charles H. was, he observed, the
acknowledged precedent of the present bill : by the tenour of that
statute one hundred thousand individuals might assemble in order
to concert together a petition : the only prohibitions contained in
that act, were, to hawk the petition about for those to. sign, who


1795.]


TREASON AND SEDITION DILLS.


might not know of the grievances complained of, and that more
than ten persons should present the petition to the king. It also
empowered magistrates to interpose their authority when overt
acts of tumult tookbuptlancoe,maendetingtonorle. teliie security against anyugaiIts


bwireaertaelecihflo.orfbIlde nevpnedia.d fferent, exclaimed Mr. Erskine, was this act from
cteu;multuously petitioning was the only thing for-


the bill now depending, which even prevented men from petition-
ing! He concluded by animadverting on the language once used
by Mr. Pitt himself, on the subject of parliamentary reform. " We
had lost America," were the minister s words, " through the cor-
ruption of an unreformed parliament, and we should never have a
wise and honourable administration, nor be freed from the evils
of unnecessary war, nor the fatal effects of the funding system, till
a radical reform was obtained." But the man who had spoken
these true and memorable words was the same who now charged
with sedition all those who thought and spoke as 11<,


had done, and
who reprobated the measures, which, after he had so bitterly com-
plained of them in that speech, he had now thought proper to
adopt! — The bill was defended by Mr. Dundas, who took occasion
to observe


'


that. no member of that House had so. frequently dis-
tincmished himself by appeals to the people as Mr. Fox, combating
ministers in popular meetings one half' of the day, and attacking
them with equal fervour in parliament during the remainder. He
had acted the same part during the American war to as little pur-
pose, however, as it would appear he had done 'at present. Mr.
Dundas inveighed, with great asperity, against some particulars in
his political conduct and connections.


Mr. Fox said, that if he possessed much of that vanity,
which the right honourable gentleman had been pleased to
impute to him, it would have been no small gratification to him


• to have formed the subject of not merely one or two or three,
but at least of four different speeches, which he recollected the
right honourable gentleman, considerable in abilities himself,-
high in situation, and great in power, to have made upon his
character and public conduct. On several occasions, he re-
membered to have been publicly addressed from the same
quarter, in a similar style of catechism, upon his -opinion re-
specting the extent and mode of reform in parliament, and re.,
specting his sentiments upon the influence of the crown and
the proper limits of the royal prerogative. The right honour-
able secretary had at that time received several hints from his
right honourable friend near him, (the chancellor of the ex-
ch


equer,) not to push his enquiries too fhr. On the present
occasion, however, he was not fortunate enough to reap the
benefit of so kind a hint, and therefore he would answer the
different questions


-in the catechism, with all the plainness aridsin
cerity in his power. The first inquiry of the right honour-able secretary related to his conduct in the famous MiddleseNt




TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 17.


election ; in reply to which he was at liberty to affirm, that
while he gave his decided opinion in favour of the sovereignty
of parliamentary law, he never had uttered any sentiment which
was in the least unfavourable to the right which the people
indisputably possessed of expressing their sense of every public
measure. From the Middlesex-election the right honourable
secretary had proceeded to catechise him upon his conduct
during the American war, and by talking of his erecting a stage
without doors, he seemed to speak with some contempt of the
manner in which he (Mr. Fox) had acted at certain meetings,
that were held at Westminster-hall and other places, upon these
occasions : he found himself accused with having pronounced
invectives against persons who were then in high authority.
The right honourable gentleman had forgotten the conduct
which his right honourable friend (M •. Pitt) had adopted, and
those eloquent speeches he had at that time delivered, in which
public harangues to the people were described as the most
agreeable and most useful duty which representatives in par-
liament could discharge to their constituents. In answer to
the charge, that he had, in a personal manner, attacked those
who had no opportunity of appearing in their own defence, he
had to say, that it was the duty of every man, and particularly
of every member of parliament, when the conduct of the exe-
cutive government was called in question, to represent the
characters and conduct of members in their true colours.
-
What was the use or the value of a popular meeting, upon a
political subject, without that freedom ? At meetings held in
Yorkshire and other places at that time, such had been the
practice of others. Although he had then spoken freely of
government, when he opposed its measures, he was willing to
allow others to oppose lhm. In the year 1784, for instance,
the house would recollect what had happened. Mr. Burke,
in his emphatical language, had called the parliamentary con-
duct of some gentlemen the revolution of 1784. In that year,
the House could not have forgotten how he had been opposed ;
what invectives had been employed against him, and those in
places, where, as the right honourable gentleman had said, he
could not be present to answer. Did he ever make one un-
manly murmur upon that occasion ? Did he ever complain of
that invective? Did he ever say one word against tile sacred
right of the people to assemble and freely discuss political
subjects when those discussions were against him ? Never in
any one instance had he uttered a syllable that went to ques-
tion the' right, or to blame the practice, of holding public
meetings of the people. He had endeavoured to answer much
of the reasoning that had been urged against him at these0 0
meetings; but he had not said a word against the propriety


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


079holding them. What was the principle of the presentbill? To restrain the exercise of free discussion at all those
In honourable secretary had asked, what advantagesmeetings.l


rig.rntie


had resulted to the country from those political meetings
during the American war ? He did not mean to arrogate to
himself any extraordinary share in the opposition which he
made to that war. It did not become him to say much upon
that subject; he trusted he might, however, be pardoned, if
he said that the popular meetings in question, tended to hasten
tile conclusion of that war. Was the right honourable gen-
tleman of that opinion, or was he not? What did he think
of the meetings that were held at Norwich and at other places?
Upon this head the right honourable secretary might have
some information from one of his present friends"', if he


any Those measures went further thanwanted information.
to put an end to the war; they contributed to the correction of
some of the abuses of administration, since the celebrated bill
of Mr. Burke, which did that gentleman so much honour, was
founded on those measures. Perhaps he should be told, that
all the meetings that had any effect (indeed, he had been told.
so already,) were called by the sheriff, and that all that was
said at the meeting at Westminster had no effect, because it
was not a meeting which had that authority. He wished to
know what magic there was in a meeting that was called by
the sheriff, in preference to any other public meeting ?


So
much of the subject, therefore, as related to public meetings,
he recollected with pleasure and satisfaction. Public meet-
ings had contributed to put an end to the American war : and
if he had said some things against any of those individuals who
advised it, he was consoled with the reflection, that if he had
helped to shorten that destructive war only one year, he had
contributed to prevent the increase of the number of helpless
Orphans and mourning widows—he had contributed to lessen
the distress of the poor and friendless. Let him not be told,
then, that he had acted an unmanly part, by frequenting those
public meetings. He must again say, that if there was
.iarillyt


•Iglaltobryloir;putting an end to the American war, he should
fo hhear that he had, in common with others, a share


reflect


o:wthraihNvnVihen the right honourable secretary talked of
out at those public meetings, against per-i icsozinizs‘cv_ho


, were not present, he would recommend to hill to
what had happened the day before at the meeting at


yard. He knew, and if necessary, he could prove, that


Mr. Windham. See the note to Vol. v. p. 208,
C 2




20 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 1 7.


there had been manifested a good deal of zeal: in fact, an
active canvass had taken place on the part of ministers, in
order that their friends might attend that meeting. Messages
were sent about, stating that it would be agreeable to govern-
ment if their friends took care to be present. The consequence
was, an attendance was procured,- and many friends to govern-
ment, persons of authority, were there, among whom was his
noble colleague, Lord Hood, and two honourable gentlemen
in his eye (Messrs. Canning and Jenkinson); he hoped, there-
fore, the right honourable gentleman would not complain
that any attacks had been made on ministers in the absence of
their friends that day.


The right honourable gentleman had also accused him of
having altered his course for some years with regard to public
meetings ; that he had been fond of attending them in the
earlier part of his parliamentary life, but that he had of late
declined them. He admitted the observation to be founded in
truth ; the reason was, that for some time past he did not see
that his attendance at public meetings could be of any use to
the public: whenever he thought it might become so, he was
ready to attend ;' and this he thought a part of his public duty,
whatever opinions other persons might entertain upon that
subject. If ever such attendance had been necessary, it was
so at this time ; when the constitution was attacked, it was the
duty of every man to exert himself in its defence : he should
therefore give all the authority he could pretend to, to such
meetings, for the purpose of supporting the rights and liber-
ties of the people. Avowing that for his motive, he was ready
to meet any ministerial censure that might be cast upon him.
The right honourable gentleman had asked him, if he thought
that any efforts of his could be heard with attention ? and
whether he imagined his eloquence could make any impres-
sion on such a multitude as thirty thousand? He had no
such idea; he had nevertheless used all his endeavours to ex-
plain to them the nature of the subject which they had to
consider. The right honourable gentleman had also asked,
whether he thought they applauded him ? I-lis answer was,
that he was not so vain as to expect it : he attended not for
the purpose of receiving applause, or commanding assent ; he
went for the purpose of learning the sense of his constituents
on the most important political topic which could be presented
for their deliberation. It was, he confessed, somewhat un-
pleasant, particularly at his time of life, to attend popular
meetings ; the labour and fatigue, however, he considered. as
the merest trifles, when compared with the fate of the ques-
tion which had yesterday been submitted to the inhabitants of
Westminster, whose applause at the meeting arose from the


13




1795'3
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


feeling which those present had of the propriety of the mea-
sure they were met to adopt. This arose out of the detesta-,
tion they felt for the bill before the House. - In that view he
saw the utility of such meetings, and it was on that ground
that lie attended them. At that meeting the bill met what it
ought to meet, and what, if the public had any regard for
their liberties, it would meet all over the kingdom — general
execration and abhorrence. Execration that would be in-
creased in consequence of certain opinions that had been lately
delivered in that House. The more the public had that feel-
ing (which, thank God, they began to manifest,) the more
he thought it his duty to give such meetings his countenance;
meetings on which, perhaps, depended at this moment, the
very essence of our constitution. That was his firm and sin-
cere opinion ; and that he believed to be the opinion of the•
public; for very plain and very decided language must at
this moment be spoken to save the country from absolute
ruin.


The right honourable gentleman had been pleased to pay
him compliments on his talents, and had intimated a wish
that they should never be exercised any where but in that
House. To this he would answer, that lie attended that
House not for pleasure, but for duty; and he trusted that his
attendance there might be more or less useful to the public; of
how much use it was, it did not become him to determine.
The right honourable gentleman had then asked, if he ex-
pected to convince that great multitude by his eloquence ?
Most certainly he did not; as little did he expect to convince


, that House. It had been said, that the majority of that mul-
titude came pre-determined ; perhaps they did. Did the
majority of that House come wholly undetermined ? Was
there no resemblance between the House and that meeting in
that respect ? He had some experience of the House ; and
whenever he wholly despaired of persuading the majority ofbtleiecaHusoe tuise on points where the constitution was .t stake, hettihlo


eught attending such meetings as those alluded to useful,
public. tenLded


to enable him to arrive at the opinion of


had no effect upon it, his attendance there would be useless,


- It was matt


et t Hs be stated to the House; and if this


and even burtl


the hien:v(71;y




mentary


of' observation, that the debates on


b




the bill
had


of ;l
a:


-


3 it


fforded


had


the
to
first


the throne,
occasion,


of
since
an open and


accession
liaofouse


espousal of the cause of the house of Stuart. On theprecedino- night




Frat


been said by an honourable baronet,(Sir lets Basset,) and the idea had been borrowed that
C 3


21




21 TREASON IUD SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 17.


evening by the solicitor-general, that even if there had been a
revolution in the reigns of George the First and Second, it
would not have been accompanied with the same dangers
which would flow from a similar event taking place at the pre-
sent crisis; as in the former case, the descendants of the
house of Stuart might have been reinstated on the throne;
whereas, at the present moment, anarchy, and a general
dissolution of all the principles of civilized society, would fol-
low any dispute about the constitutional rights of the sove-
reign. This was jacobitism in perfection, and he was not at
ail surprised at hearing jacobites come forward with such rea-
sonings. What would the house of Stuart have done, had
they been established on the throne? They would have in-
troduced the catholic instead of the protestant religion. They
would, perhaps, have put an end to parliaments, resumed the
rights of juries, and subverted the liberty of the press. They
would not, it was said, have invaded the rights of property,
nor invented the detestable name of French equality, the
inroads of which our British heroes swear by their lives and
fortunes to resist. But if in the choice of dangers, a man
Must fbrfeit his life and property, in order to avoid a greater
evil, (for the blessings of the constitution were out of the
question, under the government of the Stuarts,) whatever may
be the theoretical distinction, there was very little practical
difference between the one or other alternative.


The right honourable gentleman had deprecated the idea
of the legislature adopting the doctrine of resistance as a prac-
tical principle, though, at the same time, he allowed, that
resistance must inevitably follow from a system of oppression
long pursued. A most worthy and enlightened man, (Ge-
neral La Fayette,) in a neighbouring kingdom, which it was
the fashion to refer to for instances of atrocious criminality,
had affirmed resistance to be the most holy of duties, which
the people of England were called to exercise ; and perhaps the
difference between him and the right honourable secretary
would, on a second thought, appear but trifling. No man
ever supposed that the legislature should adopt the doctrine.
of resistance, as a direct and practical maxim, though every
man was convinced, and even the speech of the right honour-
able secretary himself strengthened the conviction, that re-
sistance, in certain circumstances, was impossible to be
avoided. With respect to the right which parliament pos-
sessed, of altering the bill of rights, he agreed with the right
honourable secretary. He never could consent to the pro-
position that there were some fundamental laws of the consti-
tution which parliament was incompetent to alter. They
certainly were competent to make any alterations iii the code


I 795']
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


23


either of civil or criminal law, so far as their acts would
necessarily be recognized in the decisions of all the various
courts of judicature in the kingdom. But though they might
be competent in point of power, it would not be prudential or
expedient in many cases to use that power. There were many
laws of the constitution which never ought to be repealed,


pPraivrliiiaeigneesntof the represented as the only source
people which never ought to be


iolnf'vdta.ecnidei raden.ss, and infallible object of public confidence. But
who did not know, that if our ancestors had trusted every
thing to parliament, their posterity would not have inherited
that constitution which it has been their happiness to en-
joy; and that the provision for petitioning the legislature
would never have found admittance into the bill of rights.
Even in the reign of King William, the Marquis of Harting-
ton moved, in the House of Commons, for a power to be
vested in the people of petitioning his majesty to hold or dis-
solve the parliament, and to remove the grievances to which
it might be their fate to be subjected. Perhaps he might be
laughed at for the superstitious veneration in which he held
the names of some great and ancient families in the kingdom.
There was no one for which he had a more profound respect
than that of Cavendish ; and sorry was he to see, that in a
question of such great constitutional importance, not one of
that illustrious family, who had so many seats in parliament,
was to be found either in the minority or the adverse ranks.


Mr. Fox defended the sentiments of his honourable and
learned friend, Mr. Erskine, which had been misunderstood
or misrepresented by the right honourable secretary. His
honourable and learned friend did not mean, and no man who
pretended to the character of a statesman, he was convinced,
would presume to say that property ought not to have great
political weight. But even the right honourable gentleman
himself would not contend, that property had an exclusive
right of thinking and speaking upon subjects of constitutional
importance. This would be to rob man of his natural and
indefeasible rights, and to reduce society to its original ele-
ments. In another place, report declared that a person of
high authority, considerable talents, and great learning (the
Bishop of Rochester) had said, that the mass of the people
had nothing to do with the laws, but to obey them. And this
strange assertion had been made by a member of that order,
who beyond all others were taught in their religiom to_recog-
nize


e the natural equality of man. But he trusted that the
people of England would not tamely surrender their indis-p
utable and hereditary right, whatever inclination an arbi-


t


minister or a supercilious prelate might betray, to
c 4




24
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 1 7.


wrest them out of their possession. How absurd was it, that
because a man had not the good fortune to have a freehold
cwelification of forty shillings , valued rent, he must not be al-
lowed to speak his sentiments on subjects which involve his
dearest and'most important concerns! At present he would
not enter into the arguments for and against parliamentary re-
form. The sum of the argument on the one side was, that the
people of the country were not equally represented; and the only
answer bearing the smallest semblance of speciousness, which
had been made, was, that though the people were not equally
and individually represented, the aggregate body was to all
intents and purposes, virtually represented ; and that, for
instance, the member for Westminster was equally zealous in
promoting the general interest of the country, as he was in
consulting the more immediate interests of his constituents.
From this reasoning, the inference which naturally occurred
was this, that they who had not an equal influence in chus-
ing representatives in parliament, and who, in fact, had none,
should by the exercise of petition have an opportunity of
making their grievances known to those who were the virtual
representatives of the nation. Whereas, in the present bill
the privileges of petition, as well as the powers of election,
were confined to boroughs and corporations who actually
had representatives whom they had it in their power to entrust
with the exercise of their functions. Would it not, said Mr.
Fox, be much more suitable and becoming to extend .this
privilege to the poor householders, and the millions of un-
represented people in the country who have no other medium
through which to make known their grievances, and to pour
in their complaints? Deprive them Of this right of petition-
ing, and you take from them all that is valuable -in their
political existence. In this view, then, the bill went to in-
stitute a final distinction between the constituents and non-
constituents in the kingdom; a distinction which was suf-
ficient to destroy the harmony and peace of the country; to
confute the only argument which could be adduced in oppo-
sition to parliamentary reform, and to convert the government
of the country into an aristocracy, or an oligarchy.


Mr. Fox proceeded to inquire how far the bill actually
went in its provisions, to limit the right of petitioning. The
sheriff must call the meeting. But what was to be done, if
he refuse to call a meeting upon a subject of' pressing im-
portance? Can a meeting be held without his permission or
not? But was not the sheriff an officer nominated by the
crown; and what a mockery was it, to solicit permission
from the crown, to meet in order to petition the crown ?
Suppose, for instance, that the object of the petition were to


795.3
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.. 25


be a dissolution of parliament, would the crown countenance
a


such purpose, as long as the king found
it for


for any
st to retain. the parliament then in being?


On the


petition
interest that redress of public grievances was the


object, how could the people expect the countenattce of thosemen to such an object, from whom all their grievances pro-
ceeded, and who afforded the real cause of complaint? The


however, was not the least exceptionable; after
had been convened, a justice of peace might,


unde various, s pretences, dissolve it; so that its proceedings
were to be entirely subject to his caprice: Suppose, for
example, that a petition for a reform in parliament was to
be the subject which occupied the attention of the meeting;
the magistrate might take it into his head, that the very idea
conveyed an implied contempt of' the present organization
of the House of Commons, and under this impression might
order it immediately to disperse under pain of military exe-
cution, before any of the purposes of the e,me tine.


were axl-
swered. All is referred to a discretionary power, which can
be amenable to no earthly tribunal, as no man is accountable
for the errors of his understanding.


Mr. Fox applied this reasoning to the meeting at Copen-
hagen House, the object of which he contended to be strictly
legal, whatever were the forms of the petitions which were
then drawn up, but an object which would have been resisted
ci princip'o, had the bill now pending been previously in'
force. There was another clause which was almost too ri-
diculous to mention, namely, that which prohibited all public
lectures delivered for money. 'What would become of the
professors of the different sciences in the universities? Would
they not be clearly involved in the operation of this clause?
But even in its most qualified construction, he could not
conceive by what principle of policy a man was to be pro-
hibited from acquiring his subsistence by instructing the
people in the principles of the constitution. Of Mr. Thel-
wall and his lectures, he was entirely ignorant. If, however,
they were innocent, why should he be disturbed? If they
were seditious and treasonable, why was he not prosecuted
under the existing statutes? The same observations applied
to the papers which had been read by the noble lord (Mor-
ningtou): iff theywere treasonable, the authors of them were
a
menable to the treason laws. He would not be understood


as delivering an opinion whether they were or not, nor even
whether seditious paper which was circulated


b
oueht tobe submitted to the course of law. He rather thought that


a judicious selection of the most elating and dangerous oughtto be made by the attorney-gene al.




26 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. .


Mr. Fox then adverted to the general principle of the bill
in the most animated and pointed terms. It was not, he said,
a blow at the outworks of the constitution — it was a daring
attempt to subvert its very foundation. Upon the liberty of
the press and freedom of discussion, the basis of the con-
stitution was known to rest. Take away these, and the whole
fabric must fall. No man would deny that there were many
abuses and defects in the practice of the constitution. Its
chief value consisted in the excellence of the foundation ; and
when that was destroyed, the rest would not be worth pre-
serving. For almost any other shock which it could have
received, a remedy might have been found. Had parliament
thought proper to alter the succession to the crown from the
present family on the throne, dreadful convulsions would no
doubt have ensued, but the investiture of a new prince with
the sovereign power might have quieted the commotion.
Had parliament made a bold and open attack upon the trial
by jury, a speedy remedy would have been found iu the
deluge of argument and declamation which would imme-
diately have issued from the press. Petitions would have
been poured in, remonstrating against the assault on pub-
lic liberty ; and the voice of the people raised with una-
nimity and firmness, would have awed the proudest minister
into submission. But when the power of speaking was taken
away, what was there left but the patience of implicit sub-
mission? What hopes could be entertained that grievances
would be removed when those who felt them dared not com-
plain? In such a case, it would give him but little anxiety
that a spirit of resistance was found impossible to be sup-
pressed. At present he believed a spirit of discontent to be
pretty general in the country, and he had no hesitation in
saying, that it originated in a bad government, in wicked
and ruinous measures, and in the blind and unmeaning con-
fidence which the people had reposed in an unfortunate and
desperate administration. The discontent might, perhaps,
exist in some degree previous to the war, but he affirmed
that it had spread since to. a much more alarming extent.
If the discontent originated in French principles, it was
indebted for its currency to the measures of Beitish ministers.
He wished to bring them to issue upon this point. They
said the people of England were loyal; so said he. They
asserted that there were malcontents in the country; in this
also he agreed. But he would ask, whether the danger to
be apprehended from French principles, was greater now or
two years ago? Let them say either the one or the other;
but he intreated them, for God's sake, not to say both. Fore
his own part, he thought it was greater. If it was, he de-


1795.]
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 27


tracting the danger was by continuing this system, of which
the present bill seemed to form a most prominent part.


danger had
ministers had adopted ; and the most effectual mode of pro-


mantled,


afoiw
theyje apply


prosecuted? If the danaer was dimini h ,
why




Id


of universal suffrage and annual parliaments. They had been


been unfortunately was unjustly commenced, and had
b


ct hea n:1iistoeu


ase.


ncWroelav'sa esttetiovoerrdad
stood,


rather than lessened by the remedy propos
The


w


a l


Mr. Fox next adverted to what had been said of the danger


if the increase of danger was not owing to the


was the degree of danger in which the country


principally arisen from a system of terror, which


as described as raging with its utmost fury?


was firmly of opinion, that it would be in-


a more hazardous remedy, than when


proposed.


represented as the cause of the subversion of the old French
government, and they were described as the instrument em-
ployed by the Corresponding Society, to demolish the British
Constitution. He professed himself no friend to either; but
he quoted the high authority of the Duke of Richmond, by
whom they had been supported, and drew this inference,
that the opinions of those in the higher and lower stations
of society were treated in a very different stile of respect.
When tile members of corresponding societies think now,
as the Duke of Richmond thought some years ago, there is
a general outcry, Will you presume to touch the sacred ark
of the constitution with unhallowed hands? But nothing was
said when a daring minister conies forward, —not, indeed, with
unhallowed hands, for a minister's hands are like those of the
high priest of old, which it would be sacrilege even to look
at, — not to touch it only, but to tear it in pieces.


The sole reason assigned for this outrage against the con-
stitution, was, that when new occasions happen, new changes
must take place. Mr. Fox here exposed the fallacy of the
assertion, that universal suffrage was the cause of the downfall
of the ancient despotism of France, and of the overthrow of
the first constitution. He urged upon the serious consider-
ation of ministers the situation into which they had reduced
the country, and implored them to give up a system which
was pregnant with ruin, and to employ every lenient and


there


,tilNiNatlso. ry means for gaining the affection of tile people,
annadrelyattaching them to the constitution: He said, he knew


a ;frit in the country to ward off the ravages of
lie hoped, also, there was a spirit to resist the strides


of oppression. Before he sat down, he would say a few
words with respect to the general scarcity of provisions that
Prevailed, though not connected with the subject before the
House. If the war was not the principal cause of the scar-




28 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 23.


city, that it was an integral part could not be disputed.
Thou gh the harvest was in general abundant, yet wheat was
not so productive as had been expected. Other articles of
consumption which were more plentiful were equally dear;,
so dear, that the poor could not, for the price of labour (which
was in no proportion to the dearness of provisions) buy enough
of bread. There were many other mischiefs that followed in
the train of a destructive war, the expences of which had
lowered the value of money, as it had increased the price of
necessaries. Though the blessings of returning peace could
not in a month, or a year, restore plenty, and repair the
hardships of the war, still they afforded the only cure for
famine and poverty. Thus he might in some degree say —
Sublata causa, lollitur ej'ectus. The war ended, peace would, ,.,,
it' not immediately, at least in time, bring back the country
to its former state of prosperity. Mr. Fox concluded a mas,
terly speech by saying, that he should consider it an unpar-
donable omission to conceal from the people, that they had
to reproach themselves for a great part of their calamities
by their supineness, in not bringing ministers to an account
for their destructive measures, and with calling on the House
to be aware of what they were doing, and not to continue a
blind confidence in government to the ruin of the country.


The House divided on the motion for the second reading of the
bill :




Tellers. ' Tellers.
Solicitor-General} {Mr. Erskine 1




YEAS {Mr. Neville 2I3.-NO
Es Mr. St. John S 43'


November 23.


Mr. Pitt having moved, " That the order of the day for going
into a committee on the treason bill be discharged, and that
the House do resolve itself into the said committee on the 25th
instant ;"


Mr. Fox said, he felt himself called upon by the expression
of the right honourable gentleman, who had asserted, that
the voice of the people had not been fairly taken, and that
delays were made for the express purpose of misrepresent-
ation. How was this proved? He had applied, it was true,
for delay : but was that a proof of misrepresentation ? Cer-i
tainly not. It was uniformly the wish of those who mis-
represented facts and opinions to hasten precipitately to their
object. They must know that every hour would unveil some
part of the delusion, would demolish some part of the artifice.


1 795.]


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 29


He wished for the delay, because it appeared that these bills
were mast reprobated where they were best known, and that
they met with an equivocal approval only where their merits
had not been discussed. The ample discussion of the sedi-
tion bill, as it was termed, had afforded ministers an oppor-
tunity of refuting every misrepresentation. Did it however
appear that theie• . explanations had satisfied the country ?
By no means. The right honourable gentleman expressed


discussion of the bills, and a confidence
ianw'ttseh eftfoerctthoeffutlri taleidiscussion.ti c cu sion. Had he not had an oppor-
tunity of discussing them; and had lie not seen and felt that
the spirit of the country rose with the debate? If such had
not been the case, he should have been mortified and hurt.
The right honourable gentleman had charged him with ar-


He had not practised any. Hetifice and misrepresentation.
had stated nothing without doors that he had not stated
within ; nothing that was not consonant with his sincere
opinion : if he expressed himself 'in strong terms without
doors, he had spoken with equal ardour and vehemence within
those walls. His opinion on the bills was precisely what he
had declared it to be — that they repealed the bill of rights,
and subverted the constitution of the country. He had no
recourse to indirect means; nor did he, as the right honour-
able gentleman had done, exert his influence by under agents.
He courted public discussion, being well assured, that the
more the principle was discussed, the more general would be
the odium and detestation with which it would be regarded.
He did not wish to see the bills altered or amended; he
rather hoped they might pass in their present form, because,
as the attack was to be made upon the rights and liberties
of the nation, he wished that


.
attack should be open, broad,


and intelligible to the people at large. He wished the bills
to be pushed fairly forward, with all their force, that the
people might feel and see the full extent of the danger that
stluie


rroctoniiicitietcili had
ec,.itated, should not steal upon them bys


urprize, and by gradation sap and undermine them. He
palates, but that poison of these bills to be sweetened to their
against the dreadful d people should be prepared. and cautionedg


rai " We would not vote for these'g
bills," say the members to their constituents, " if we could
foresee the intended mischief." What attention however had


ielgr
die os ef x ?


the
right honourable gentleman paid to public opinion ?


'


Where is his charge of misrepresentation ? Has he heard
e voice id


the country? Has he heard the voice of West-muist
Of the common hall of London ? Of' the countyMiddlesex




30 TREASON AND SEDITION' BILLS. [Nov. 2 3 ,


If, indeed, the opinion of the majority were in favour of
these bills; if he scould believe it possible that the people of
this country were so degraded and abject as to prefer
slavery to liberty, or to countenance these bills with any thing
like their approbation ; if they did not so generally express
their abhorrence of them, as to show that they yet retained
an unabating attachment to the constitution of their ancestors;
he could only say, that he could no longer be a profitable
servant of the people. He might sit down in silence, and
enjoy in the tranquillity of private life, the society of his
friends; but he could not, with the feelings he possessed, be
a profitable servant of the people. If, on the contrary, the
people of England were, as he truly believed them to be,
decidedly against these bills ; not a mere concerted majority,
but the great mass of the people against them; then, un-
doubtedly they bad a right to demand his services, and he
should hold himself hound to obey the call. He had a right
to hope and expect that these bills, which positively repealed
the bill of rights, and cut up the whole of the constitution
by the roots, by changing our limited monarchy into an ab-
solute despotism, would not be enacted by parliament against
the declared sense of a great majority of the people. If,
however, ministers, so resolute on their spirit of destruction,
were determined, by means of the corrupt influence they
possessed in the two Houses of Parliament, to pass the bills,
in violent opposition to the declared sense of a great majority
of the nation, and they should be put in force with all their
rigorous provisions, if his opinion were asked by the people,
as to their obedience, he should tell them, that it was no.
longer a question of moral obligation and duty, but of pru-
dence. It would, indeed, be a case of extremity alone which
could justify resistance, and the only question would be,
whether that resistance was prudent ? He was aware that
these words were liable to misconstruction, and he knee:
that ministers were adepts in the art of misrepresentation ;
but a public man must not shrink in times of' danger from
strong expressions, because they may be misconstrued, or
misrepresented. What he said, he said deliberately ; and it
was for the authors and abettors of the bills to consider
whether they would hurry the parliament to the passing of
them, before it could be ascertained whether they had the
sense of the people with them or not. With regard to the
amendments that might be made in the committee, he re-
peated what he had said before on the subject, that no mend-
ing could qualify this attack on the constitution. He repeated
it, the poison might be concealed, it might be made more
palatable, and it would be so much the worse. If, how-


795.]
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 311 .


ever, the constitution was to
in


violated, lie wished that the
people might see the attack all its glaring, open treason,


might be roused to its defence. He certainly, there-
fore,
h a t they


s
hould not lend himself to qualify the atrocious wicked-


ness of these bills. Mr. Fox concluded with moving to adjourn
the debate till that day fortnight.


Mr. Pitt said, he did not rise to follow the right honourable
gentleman through. the whole of his speech ; but there were sonic
passages in it which, consistently with his duty as a member of
parl iament, with his feelings as a man, with his attachment to his
sovereign, and his veneration for the constitution, he could not
hear, without rising instantly to express his horror and indignation
at them. The right honourable gentleman, he observed, had
made a bold, broad, and unqualified declaration, that if his argu-
ments and his measures did not prevent the passing of bills, which
a great majority of the House conceived to be necessary for the
security of the person of the sovereign, and the preservation of
the rights of the people, he would have recourse to different means
of opposition. He had avowed his intention of setting up his
own arguments in opposition to the authority of the legislature.
He had said, that if he was asked his advice, he would put the
propriety of resistance only on the question of prudence ; without
adverting whether the consequences of this advice might be fol-
lowed by the penalties of treason, and the danger of convulsion ;
thus openly advising an appeal to the sword, which must either
consign its authors to the vengeance of the violated law, or involve
the country in anarchy and bloodshed. The right honourable
gentleman had taken care not to be mistated ; happily for the
country, this declaration of his principles was too clear to admit
of a doubt. With all the horror he felt at such language, he was
glad the right honourable gentleman had been so unreserved and
explicit. The House and the country would judge of that gen-
tleman's conduct from his language ; they might see the extent
of his veneration for the constitution, and of his respect for par-
liament, when in violation of his duty, in defiance of legal
punishment, he could bring himself to utter such sentiments.
He was glad the right honourable gentleman had made that
avowal, because lie hoped it would warn all the true friends of the
constitution to rally round it for its defence.


Mr. Pox said in explanation : The right honourable gen-
tl


eman's talent for misrepresentation is neither unknown to
myself nor to the House. I rise to re-state my expression,
but not to retract one word of what I have said. Let the
words be taken down at the table. They express the senti-
ments of an honest Englishman, they are those sentiments
for which our forefathers shed their blood, and upon whichthe rev


olution was founded : but let me not be mistated. The
Case I put was, that these bills might be passed by a corrupt




32
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 23.


1795.]
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 33


majority of parliament, contrary to the opinion and sentiments
of the great body of the nation. If the majority of the people
approve of these bills, I will not be the person to inflt me their
minds, and stir them up to rebellion ; but if, in the general
opinion of the country, it is conceived that these bills attack
the fundamental principles of our constitution, I then main-
tain, that the propriety of resistance, instead of remaining any
longer a question of morality, will become merely a question
of prudence. I may be told that these are strong words; but
strong measures require strong words. I will not submit to
arbitrary power, while there remains any alternative to vin-
dicate my freedom.


Mr. Sheridan repeated what Mr. Fox had stated, with respect
to resistance. If, he said, a degraded and oppressed majority of
the people applied to him, he would advise them to acquiesce in
those bills, only as long as resistance was imprudent. They had
affirmed, that these bills went directly to overturn the constitution;
if they were sincere in that language, what other answer could
they give to the people than that which they now avowed ? What
contemptible wretches must they be, if, while under the shelter of
their privilege, they professed the measures to be calculated to
overturn the constitution, and infringe the bill of rights, they
shrank hack on such an occasion, from stating that which they.
conceived to be the undoubted right of the subject — to resist
oppression, when all legal means of redress were refused. To the
declaration of Mr. Fox he implicitly subscribed. It must be the
feeling of every true Englishman ; of every man Who acknowledged
the principles which seated the illustrious family of Brunswick on
the throne. His right honourable friend had said, that if the
people of England were so dead to all their former feelings, that
they wished for these bills, then he was no longer a fit servant for
such a people W and he had no occasion to have made that declar-
ation ; they did, and must know that the frame and texture of his
soul could never suffer him to be the servant of slaves, as they
must be if these bills passed into laws. — Mr. Grey also said, that
from the principle which had been maintained by his right ho-
nourable friend, he would not shrink ; and. he would repeat with
him, that if, by the government of the country, measures were
carried into effect, contrary to the wishes of a great majority of
the people, and contrary to the liberties of the nation, if he
should be asked, whether the people ought to refrain from resist-
ance, he would say, that they-should only he induced to refrain.
by motives of prudence. With respect to the bills themselves;
he concurred entirely with his right honourable friend, that no
modification could make them otherwise than hostile to the prin.,
ciples of the constitution.


November 24.


Mr. Erskine having this day presented a petition f•:n the
merchants, bankers, and other inhabitants of London against tha.
_treason and sedition bills, its reception was opposed by Mr. Serjeunt
Adair, Alderman Newnham, and others.


Mr. Fox said,. that several things had been observed and
stated in the course of the debate, which ought _not t6 go
unnoticed. Insinuations against the conduct of noble dukes
appearing at public meetings, and the novelty of such be-
haviour had been thrown out. The Middlesex meeting was
not, he observed, the first instance in which peers and mem-
bers of parliament had taken a share in county meetings. In
the year 1780, meetings of that sort had been frequent, and
had proved highly useful. He was convinced by the influence
and spirit they had excited, that they had tended to abridge,
by at least one or two years, the duration of a cruel and im-
politic war. Similar meetings had on various occasions been
held, and he would defy any man to deny the


1advant; a s that0ehad resulted from them to the country.
Alarms, it was asserted, had been spread concerning the


tendency of the bills now pending in parliament, and that
these meetings were calculated to inflame and irritate the
minds of the people against measures of no serious consequence
to their liberties and the constitution. Was it possible that
he should forget the zeal and activity which had been exerted
to spread alarm without doors concerning the tendency of his
India bill ? One right honourable gentleman, the present
chancellor of the. exchequer, in arguing against that measure,
had boldly avowed, that•he would employ every means in his
power to spread alarm among the people; and while he


ilvlcs the
recollected. the circumstance, it was with the utmost satis-
faction


ti


nature of those
e


lcileutyr'eof
recollected


l ever
y the answer he then returned, that ita


III


nsituation• my member to explain to his constituents


affairs,




0
in which he 1111(1 been placed, had he forgotten


0


lose measures by which th y were to be aPcted.


rea
I


or ceased
d to respect the right of the subject to investigatepublic


hen it , th atrs,tene
nor


d
did lie attempt to check that discussion,w


.


to be unfavourablele to the measures whichlie




timent‘i
gentlemen, and . f


country


an alteration in the language of


the
cd


posed, and which he was convinced were advantageousto




the He declared, he considered it as a symptomof decay o the principles of the constitution, when, sincethe year


Upon that im
oulu


1 78o, such a revolution had taken place in the -e.n-


. VI.
A


portant point.COL
0 ' 0




TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Noy. 24,,


With equal astonishment bad he heard the attempts which
had been made to detract from the weight of that almost
universal public disapprobation by which the bills had been
condemned. It was roundly asserted that other petitions
would come forward to counteract the influence of those al-
ready presented. Of that the House knew nothing ; it was
an absurd and ridiculous preference of speculation to facts,
which it was presumptuous to indulge. A worthy alderman
(Mr. Lushington) had not only undertaken to answer for the
merchants and bankers of London, and for his constituents,
in contradiction to the positive vote of the Common Hall, but
for three-fourths of the householders of the kingdom. Where
were the facts upon which this assertion rested ? Were three-
fourths of the householders of 'Westminster for the bills?
Would the worthy alderman tell him that the supporters of
the bills Lad appealed to the parochial meetings with more
success than they had appealed to general meetings? It was
almost incredible, he said, that gentlemen should blind, not
merely their understandings against the reception of truth,
but even against the testimony and demonstration of their
senses. It indicated a perverseness of mind, which would
hear and see and judge of nothing that was unwelcome, and
which, in spite of the clearest evidence, doubted of every fact
that was disagreeable. Will they tell me, said Mr. Fox, that
three-fourths of the inhabitants of Westminster are not against
these bills, without contradicting my very senses ?


But it was said, that the opposers of the bills bad been
guilty of misrepresentation. Be it so, for the sake of argu-
ment, said Mr. Fox. They tell us, that other petitions will
appear, and testify a different sense in the people. This, at
least, was a powerful reason for delaying the progress of the
bills till these actually were brought forward. It had been
said by a learned friend of his, (Mr. Serjeant Adair,) that
these very petitions did not speak the sense of those who
signed them. This was, at once anal without proof; to take up
a particular case, instead of the general presumption. The
learned serjeant had accused his learned friend near him of
misrepresenting the scope of the bills, when he said that such
a meeting as that from which the petition was presented could
not take place were the bill passed into a law. With the
explanation lie had repeatedly given, he would plead guilty
to this accusation. He had stated, he said, that in such a
meeting, no matter could be discussed freely, or to any effect.
They might meet, no doubt, but for how long a time ? No
longer than till the magistrate thought, or chose to appear to
think, that something improper had been done, on which lie
might disperse them, and prevent their . coming. to any reso-


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS: '
35


lotion. It must be admitted, therefore, that no misinter-
pretation had taken place; but that it was indubitably true
that a meeting in such a situation was merely a nominal
vilege, and that the efficient importance or utility of it was
entirely done away. With regard to the responsibility of the
magistrate, a difference of opinion certainly was entertained,
but none as to his right of interference. Why, then, flatter
or delude men with the idea that they have the right to meet
and deliberate, when its exercise depends on so precarious a
circumstance as the virtue or the caprice of the superintending
magistrates? Was it ever contradicted that this was the case?
Whatever might be the degree of responsibility, it was un-
doubted that the meeting might be dissolved. — Mr. Fox was
proceeding, when lie was called to order; and it was stated
that the argument into which he had gone was irregular.
Mr. Fox made an observation or two upon the call to order,
and then said, that he should not trouble the House farther
than to declare that if it had been supposed to have been
literally stated by his honourable and learned friend, that
no meeting could be held in future, that supposition was
certainly unfounded ; but if it had been supposed to have
been stated that no free meetings could be held in future, to
that statement lie pleaded guilty. The distinction wnS so
frivolous, as to be wholly unworthy of any man of sense and
understanding.


The petition was ordered to lie on the table.


November 25.
This day a motion was made by Mr. Curwen to postpone for


one week the discussion of the two bills. It was supported by
Mr. Harrison, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Lambton, and Mr. I'ox. Mr.
Whitbread animadverted with uncommon warmth upon the bills.
Ministers, he said, pretended that the bills were to secure the
liberties and constitution of the country. He was not surprised at
such pretences, for he knew that it had been the practice of weak
politicians and of furious bigots, in all ages, to pretend, while they
secretly undermined any institution, that they were putting that
stitution on a firmer basis. had not the axe, the whael, and the
stake, been used to enforce that mild religion we professed ? Now,
he would unequivocally affirm, that these bills were exactly of a
similar nature, and equally detestable with the most despotic mea-
sures of the most accursed tyrant upon earth. Instead of behold-
mg the people prosper under a government of freedom, justice,
and mercy, we should soon see them sink under a government of
tyranny, cf persecution, and of blood — aye of blood! Was -there
no blood in this bill ? What did it tend to .


but the shedding the
blood ofhis majesty's subjects, when it so slightly enforced military
execution ? The bill was a severe and rigorous act ; and if


D 2




36 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [NOV, 25e


was possible to heighten the rigour of it, it was now to be passed
into a law without the smallest shadow of necessity.— The motion
was opposed by Mr. Wallace, Mr. Hiley Addington, and Mr.
William Grant, afterwards master of the rolls.


Mr. Fox said, he had listened with sincere pleasure, in
common with every man in the House, to the able and elo-
quent speech delivered by the learned gentleman who hid just
sat down. He respected the talents of that learned gentleman,
and admired his ingenuity. Nor did he mean any thing in the
least disrespectful to the masterly display of both, which he
had made on the present occasion, when he said, that though
his speech was full of argument, and replete with eloquence,
a man Might safely subscribe to every statement he had
brought forward, and every conclusion he had drawn, and yet
vote against the present bill.


The ingenuity of the honourable and learned gentleman
had, indeed, made no inconsiderable impression upon the
House; though his arguments seemed not so much to bear on
the principle of the bill under immediate discussion, as on the
general policy of legislation. He felt the difficulty, therefore,
in replying to a speech of that nature. Able and extensive
as it had been, lie was not in the least disposed, nor did he
believe any sober politician would be inclined to controvert
the principles laid down by the honourable and learned gen-
tleman in the beginning of his speech. His position was, that,
at a time of considerable danger, it was proper to give up part
of the constitution, in order to secure the remainder. That
maxim abstractedly considered, was incontrovertible ; before
it could have any weight, however, when applied in a practical
view, it was necessary to prove the existence of the danger, its
extent and magnitude ; it would also be necessary to she•,
that the remedy called for was exactly a surrender of that por-
tion of the constitution which it might be proper to sacrifice,
and not more than the value of the object to be secured. The
degree of constraint which government was to impose, could
be the only ground of doubt and difference of opinion. That
government was in its application a system of restraint upon
human action, was clear and -Undeniable. It was important,
however, to consider well the quantity and the quality of the
restraint which circumstances might require.


The honourable and learned gentleman had complained,
that it was the temper of the times to take every general prin-
ciple as ;meant to apply universally, and to fasten upon the
person who employed it all the absurd consequences which
might arise from such an application. He admitted the truth
of the observation, and was convinced that no man had better


] TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. • 371797.
reason to complain than himself: The honourable and learned
gentleman . luid accused gentlemen on that side of the House
of wishing to produce this dilemma, either that the people
were animated by an universal spirit of loyalty, or that they
were inflamed with a spirit of disaactioa. He had never
said that the people were completely harmonious in their poli-
tical sentiments or opinions, or that no discontent prevailed.
It


had, however, been often stated on his side of the House,
and he would call upon the honourable and learned gentle-
man to say, whether he believed the spirit of dissatisfaction
was greater or less at present than it had been previous to the.
war. He had never stated, because he had never believed,
that the state of public affairs was wholly without danger. If
it was allowed to be greater, to what cause was the increase to be
attributed ? He was surely entitled to presume that it was oc-
casioned by the discontents excited by an impolitic and un-
just war ; by the measures of a corrupt, incapable adminis-
tration ; and that it was ascribable to the complicated mise-
ries arising from the decay of commerce, and the pressure of
famine, into which the country had been plunged. The war,
then, had produced an effect directly the reverse of that stated
by ministers themselves as the chief reason for triumphing in
its success. If', on the other hand, the ground of apprehension
was less, why were the sacrifices required for public security to
be increased ? He asked pardon of the House for the repetition
in which he indulged; but when the same arguments came
from the opposite bench, and the same objections were offered
to gentlemen on his side of the House, he could not forbear
repeating that material question.


With regard to the point of danger, of which the honour-
able and learned gentleman was so anxious to have a specific
declaration of his sentiments, he had always stated, that some
discontent existed, which might not be unworthy of attention,
but which would never justify the legislative remedies pro-
posed. The honourable and learned gentleman had affected
to treat as a paradox the observation of his honourable
friend, (Mr. Lanibton,) that the danger of an attack was
often created by the injudicious mode of defence. If it was
a paradox, however, it was one of those which frequent experi-
ence proved to be true. Who could deny that many political
evils were rendered desperate by the absurd methods pursued
to remedy or to remove them? Was the honourable and
learned gentleman so much more of a Whig than himself; as
to impute the whole evils of the civil wars, and the resistance to
Charles I. to which the nation owed its liberties, to the conduct
of that ill-fated monarch ? Did the honourable and learnedgentleman believe all these calamities were to be ascribed to the


D 3




38 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


[Nov. 2 S.


illegality of ship-money, or of various other acts of that prince?
Had there not been at that time a body of persons, previously
inimical to the constitution ; and was not the attack upon the
monarchy rendered formidable, and even tragical in the event,
by the rigorous measures which rendered the breach irrepara-
ble? The honourable and learned gentleman had also men-
tioned the case of the Americans. When that unfortunate dis-
pute was first agitated, and when he heard scraps of pam-
phlets and papers read, to prove . that there was a settled design
formed to shake off the connection with this country, he had
never been so unqualified a supporter of America, as to as-
sert that no such designs were entertained. He was con-
vinced, however, that those who had conceived the project
of separating from the mother country were few indeed. By
injurious attempts to remedy the evils then complained of, the
catastrophe which it was intended to prevent was realised.


The honourable and learned gentleman had recurred to the
fallacy so often answered, of which gentlemen on his side were
accused, that they ascribed the discontents to the measures of
his majesty's ministers. The honourable and learned gentle-
man asked, did not these discontents exist before the war, to
which much of the discontent was imputed, had been com-
menced? Here again he would recall the two examples he had
already employed. In the time of Charles the First there
might have existed causes of dissatisfaction, which, neverthe-
less, the extravagant pretences of that prince, and the in -
policy of his ministers in urging them, carried to that height
which proved so fatal to themselves. At one period a com-
promise with America was practicable, but the opportunity of
conciliation was lost, and the desperate system pursued in
this country for ever cut off ail hopes of that compromise being
effected.


It had been said, that much danger was to be apprehended
from that party hostile to the constitution drawing to itself all
the discontented persons of the country. If the strength of
this party depended upon the discontent which a bad govern-
ment produced, and as the worst administration necessarily
would occasion the most discontent, he would defy any man to
deny that a great part of the ill humour arose from the bad
conduct of ministers. If the discontented were composed of
two kinds, those who were enemies to the constitution, and
those who, from a spirit of discontent, joined their party and
encreascd its number, correct the abuses which had been so
much the subject of complaint, introduce moderation and
economy in the public expenditure, and banish that cor-
ruption which had crept into the representative body. Such
a proceeding would separate those from the disaffected who.


"II


1795.] TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 39
were displeased with abuses, and at the same time reconcile
those to the constitution who had been alienated by its


honourable and learned gentleman, in animadverting
odiel fTNevciell:as.t .had been said to come from gentlemen on his side, had
only engendered a monstrous doctrine to show his dexterity
M demolishing it. It had never been said, much less con-
tended, that the verdict of juries on the state trials had proved
that no seditious practices existed, but merely that the traitor-
ous conspiracy was proved to be ill-founded. He had no he-
sitation to declare, that he considered the verdict of the jury
on that point to be of more w.Light than the report of die secret
committee. The honourable and learned gentleman had at-
tempted to point out On inconsistency between the language
at present held, and that which they had heard upon the re-
port of the secret committee. The honourable and learned
gentleman likewise had confounded a variety of circumstances,
and, from the result of his own combinations, had endeavoured
to fix on his side of the House that inconsistency which he
had first invented, and then urged as a charge of incon-
sistency.


With regard to the degree of danger the honourable
and learned gentleman imputed to the corresponding and
other societies, (principles which he charged upon no authority,)
it was impossible to believe that, among the whole, there was
a majority unfavourable to monarchy. They might, indeed,
have professed to maintain the doctrine of annual parliaments,
and universal suffrage. These principles, however, were not
borrowed from the French ; they had been inculcated in dis-
courses and writings, by respectable characters in Great
Britain many years since; and if they contained the evil im-
puted to them, the French might complain, with more justice,
that they had been imported into France from this country.
Those societies, the honourable and learned gentleman had
observed, must have some determinate object; either they were
deserving of encouragement, or of disapprobation. Could
there, he exclaimed, be no division of men, or opinions, which
they might overlook, without being censured for their appro-
bation, or accused for their neglect? Must the intolerance ofFrench politics be adopted, which permits no minority, but
which proceeds to violence, bloodshed, and extermination?


learned gentleman


many opinions which it was indifferent to approve,
Dr to condemn; and the dilemma which the honourable and


eci gentle an employed was the most absurd and ridicu-
lous that had ever been framed. Was a man bound to attack
every opinion different from his own? He had never been
advocate for annual parliaments; yet that opinion had been


D 4




40
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. r.sTov. 25.


avowed and maintained at various periods Within this century.
By the tories it was held as a favourite doctrine; and it had
been said that the restoration of that system was a part of the
plan of politics taken up in the beginning of the present reign,
though that condition had never been observed. Instead, then,
of attempting to legislate on this subject, it would be most
proper to allow the public to judge for themselves, and trust
to the good sense of the English nation. He had stated all
his opinions. He had never evaded an explicit declaration.
It was now to be considered how far the bill was applicable to
the object it professed to have in view. If Englishmen had
been seduced from their attachment to the constitution, how
could it be restored by the present bill? Meetings might, in-e, 5
deed, be put a stop to, but a total communication of senti-
ment could not be prevented. The intercourse of the mind
would remain. If there were, as represented by the honour-
able and learned gentleman, something so fascinating in the
opinions it was to proscribe, the prospect was indeed alarming.
Good God, Sir ! said Mr. Fox, in such a case, what must be
the horrors of our situation, when, in addition to its other
evils, this detestable bill, strong as the measure is, is found to
be inadequate to its purpose !


The honourable and learned gentleman had treated with a
degree of contempt an opinion of his honourable friend,
(Mr. Sheridan,) that the difference of habits, government,
and character, would prevent the people of this country from
ever sinking into the horrors to which the French, unpre-
pared for freedom, had been exposed. Did the right ho-
nourable gentleman think that the negroes of the plantations,
or the subjects of Russia, Turkey, or Germany, were capable
of that liberty with which an Englishman might be indulged ?
It was not fair, therefore, to reason from Frenchmen to
Englishmen, or to argue that in such dissimilar circumstances
the same events would take place. Was the honourable and
learned gentleman correct in his information concerning the
French revolution? The jacobin club produced, per laps,
terrible effects upon minds not prepared for so great a change.
Yet many of those events, to which their future disasters were
owing, such as the depriving the clergy of their lands, and
the nobility' of their titles, took place previous to the establish-
ment, at least to the credit and authority of the jacobin club.


The honourable and learned gentleman had stated, that the
whole of the confusion which had desolated France had arisen
from the jacobin clubs; that the number of them were few,
that the original republican club in Paris consisted only
of seven members, and that they afterwards produced the re-
volution of the I oth of August, 1792. Would 'that honour-


1
1795:3


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
41


.


able and learned - guitletnan seriously say .he believed it rational
to frame a legislative provision which was to affect a whole
nation, with respect to the most important part of its rights,
on the ground of the determination of seven persons ? The
revolution in France was not to be accounted for in that
manner, nor was that the period at which they were to date
its commencement. When, then, was the period ? What
WAS the cause of' the revolution of the loth of August, 792 '?
Be it remembered, that he was no advocate for the conduct of
the jacobins; no liberal man would accuse him of it ; though
he knew he must put up with that ill-founded charge from
others. Let them inquire into the cause of the success of the
jacobins in France ; such an inquiry was necessary in order to
be able to follow the arguments of the honourable and learned
gentleman upon that subject. He would say, then, that they
were concluding irrationally indeed, if they said it was owing
entirely to the doctrine.


of the jacobins that the horrors of that
day were exhibited, or that they were the cause of the dreadful
catastrophe or the late unfortunate monarch of that country ; a
prince whose cruel fate might induce them to overlook the
errors of his reign. In fact, his fate was in a great degree
owing to his avowed connection with the nobility of that coun-
try; a nobility whose views were hostile to the interests of the
people. He believed the king and his ministers were guilty
of planning what was attempted at that time against the
people. Supposing even that they were not, he would ask, was
not the suspicion that they were guilty, a great cause of the
revolution of the moth of August, 1792 ? At that time the
king's brother had left him ; and the situation of his family,
and theirconnection with the house of Austria, then known
to be enemies to the government of France, were so well as-
certained, that their objects could not be doubted. Did not
these circumstances give ample room for suspicion, on the
part of the French, as to the intentions of the king, and those
ministers by whose council he was so fatally guided? If
this were admitted, be had a right to say, that the cata-
strophe was no more accelerated by the wickedness of those
whtoenadett(ai cked, than by the baseness and folly of' those who


The honourable and learned gentleman had observed, that
if he had said some years ago, that the then constitution of
France would not last so long as our own, he should, by
many, have been treated as a person who spoke in a very
visionary re, m.n and idle manner. In what company that gentleman
had been, or from whose sentiments he formed that conjec-


Fox said, he did not know; if the learned gentle-
man had alluded to him, he had never said any thing like it•,




TREASON' AND SEDITION DILLS. [NOV'. 25.


On the contrary, he had always entertained and professed a
different doctrine. Would any man assert, that although he
had often said, that the first French revolution was a glorious
event, he had asserted, that the systems which had been built
upon that revolution were good ? So far from it, the most mo-
derate of them appeared to him to be unstable at least. That
was his opinion ; and the right honourable gentleman opposite
to him knew it to be so; in one particular instance, he had em-
phatically so pronounced it. He meant to allude to a motion
made for a reform of parliament. On that occasion, he had
stated it as his opinion, and he had not changed it, that an
old edifice, well altered and repaired, was more likely to be
useful, than one built on an entirely new construction, of
the structure of which they had no experience*. That was
his opinion then, and it was his opinion at the present ; the
honourable and learned gentleman's allusion to opinions, there-
fore, if directed to him, was unfairly directed, and the sar-
casm ill applied.


The rest of the honourable and learned gentleman's speech
was what was commonly called pathetic, and he thought it
necessary to take some notice of parts of it. He had stated,
that if there was a violent party in this country, who pre-
tended to have in view the destruction of the power of minis-
ters and the correction of abuses, and they should once succeed,
they would not stop there: that not only the minister would
be the object of their fury, but they would aim at the destruc-
tion of others who had any authority in the country from their
talents, independent of any connection with the government.
If the honourable and learned gentleman did him the honour
to include him under that class, he would tell him plainly, the
caution to him was needless ; by such an observation the ho-
nourable and learned gentleman only brought to his mind what,
indeed, had been but seldom absent from it for many years.
66 If ever," said Mr. Fox, " those persons who wish to destroy
the constitution of this country, as was done in the French
revolution, by rapine and plunder, by carnage and desolation,
should become a triumphant party here, though I may not be
the first, I am well convinced I shall not be the last object of
popular fury." If ever the day should come, which God
avert, when men's lives should be subject to that sort of po-
pular fury, he thought there were others who would go before
him, and those were the authors of the present measures ;
and from that time, in his conscience, he believed, his life
would be short indeed ; and therefore the honourable and


See Vol, v. p. 109.


1 7.95•J TREASON AND SEDITION :SILLS. 43


learned gentleman need not warn him upon that subject. He
saw that danger clearly; but he was not one of those who
looked at to I the danger on one side only. The honourable andlearned gentleman had said, if he joined bad men, he could
not shake off his companions, nor check their excess; a truth
which history confirmed. Was it not true on the other side
also ? If it was true,, that if he acted with men of bad princi-
ples, the effect of such a junction might be that those who had
served them in a particular cause might have no power to resist
their fury, was it not, however, undeniably true, that those
who joined a particular minister, and assisted bin in his at-
tempts to destroy the constitution of the country, would feel
the same inability to check the progress of his ambition ?
Was it not as clearly true, it' he had lent his assistance to bring




about that euthanasia of the constitution, that he must after
wards yield his life to that accursed power who had effected
the destruction of their country ? He believed the time was
not very distant, when those who had lent the minister, what
he would call very honourable assistance, would not deny that
they were become his personal slaves. He believed that some
of them had felt it, and he thought he had seen some symp-
toms of that fact already. Certain gentlemen smiled at this :
he did not mean to say any thing that could be deemed a per-
sonal degradation to them, if they did not feel it for them-
selves. But when he saw, day after day, and year after year,


system pursued, which tended to bring this country to that,
euthanasia predicted by Hume, he could not say he was
willing to be an assistant in its accomplishment. With regard
to the mischief; which was dreaded from the junction of men


. who only wanted to reform abuses with those who wished
'the destruction of the constitution, he would apply the
remedy proposed by Mr. Burke, in the case of America, who
had said on that occasion, that he would wish to separate the
by ---not by separating the north from the south, not
by separating the east from the west, not by separating Bos-
ton front Philadelphia, -but by separating those who were
merely discontented with the abuses of the constitution, front
those who had a hatred for it, and wished its total destruction.


The honourable and learned gentleman had asked, in what
manner they should enter into a negociation with these dis-
contentedpersons ? He believed there would be some diffi-
culty knowing with whom to treat. As to the question,how




• we should treat ? his answer was, by conciliation. This
wouldbe done, as Mr. Burke had said, by separating them.1-loa- •w ere they to be separated ? By setting about to correct
abuses in earliest, as much as possible, whether in that House,
or in any other part of the government. This would remove




44 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 25,


all ground of jealousy and discontent on the part of' those who
loved the constitution, and who wished only to see the abuses
eradicated ; and this would destroy the alliance between them
and those who really harboured a hatred for the constitution
itself. This was the sort of separation .which Mr. Burke re-
commended with regard to the Americans; and this was the
separation which he would recommend, of the discontented
in the country, at this time. Strike out the bad part of our
present system, add to the beautiful parts, if that be possible;
but, at all events, strike out the bad ones; and then, although
they should not reconcile to their system, those who hated
the constitution itself, they would deprive them of their force,
by taking away the arguments by which they prevailed on
good men to join them, and by which alone they could ever
become formidable; namely, that of stating the ablies of our
constitution as they subsisted in practice at present. What
were the arguments that these men made use of to gain to
their party those who loved the constitution, and which had
been said by the honourable and learned gentleman to be so
seducing? Topics of abuses in the constitution ! Reform
those abuses, and. they took these seducing arguments away.
It was, indeed, the whole of their argument ; for as to their
theory of government, that he was sure would not make any
deep impression on the body of the people, who had too much
good sense to be misled by such egregious fallacies.


The honourable and learned gentleman, in one part of his
speech, and only in one, seemed to have a reference to the
bill before the House. The honourable and learned gentle-
man admitted that the House was going to make a sacrifice
by the measure before them ; but had contended that what
was retained of the rights of the people was still of higher
value; the history of governments was certainly better than
theory ; in this, therefore, he agreed with the honourable and
learned gentleman. IIe did not, however, agree with him,
that what they were to retain was superior to what they had
to lose, if the bill were passed into a law. That which was
to be taken away was the foundation of the building. It might,
indeed, be said, that there were beautiful parts of the building
still left. The same might be said of another building that
was undermined : " Here is a beautiful saloon, there is a fine
drawing-room; here are elegant paintings, there elegant and
superb furniture ; here an extensive and well chosen library."
But if the foundation was undermined, there could be nothing
to rest upon, and the whole edifice must soon fall to the
ground. Such would be the case with our constitution, if the
bill should pass into a law. Our government was valuable,
because it was free. e What, he begged gentlemen to ask


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.'
45795 :-]


were the fundamental parts of a free government ?
tkIleenk'siciel7s t'here was a difference of opinion upon that subject.
His own opinion was, that freedom did not. depend upon the
executive government, nor upon the administration of justice,
nor upon any one particular or distinct part, nor even upon
forms so much as it did on the general freedom of speech and
of writing. With regard to freedom of speech, the bill before
the House was a direct attack upon that freedom. No man
dreaded the use of a universal proposition more than he did
himself; he must nevertheless say, that speech ought to be
completely free, without any restraint whatever, in any•go-
vernment pretending to be free. By being completely free,
he did not mean that a person should not be liable to punish-
ment for abusing that freedom, but he meant freedom in the
first instance. The press was so at present, end he rejoiced it




was so; what he meant was, that any man might write and print
what he pleased, although he was liable to be punished, if he
abused that freedom ; this he called perfect freedom in the
first instance. If this was necessary with regard to the press,
it was still more so with regard to speech. An imprimatur
had been talked of, and it would be dreadful enough; but a
dicatur would be still more horrible. No man had been dar-
ing enough to say, that the press should not be free : but the
bill before them did not, indeed, punish a man for speaking,
it prevented him from speaking. For his own part, he had
never heard of any danger arising to a free state from the free-
dom of the press, or freedom of speech; so far from it, he was
perfectly clear that a free state could not exist without both.
The honourable and learned gentleman had said, would they
not preserve the remainder by giving up this liberty ? He ad-
mitted, that, by passing of the bill, the people would have_
lost a great deal. A great deal ! (said Mr. Fox,) Aye, all
that is worth preserving. For you will have lost the spirit,
the fire, the freedom, the boldness, the energy of the British
character, and with them its best virtue. I say, it is not the
written law of the constitution of England, it is not the law
that is to be found in books, that has constituted the truep
rinciple of freedom in any country, at any time. No ! it is


the energy, the boldness of' a man's mind, which prompts him
to speak, not in private, but in large and popular assemblies,
that constitutes, that creates, in a state, the spirit of freedom:
This is the principle which gives life to liberty ; without it the
human character is a stranger to freedom.


• If you suffer the
liberty of speech to be wrested from you, you will then have
lost the freedom, the energy, the boldness of the British clia-;
meter. It has been said, that the right honourable gentle-
man rose to his present eminence by the influence of popular




ir


46 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [NOY. 2,5.;


favour, and that he is now kicking away the ladder by which
he mounted to power. 'Whether such was the mode by which
the right honourable gentleman attained his present situation
I am a little inclined to question ; but I can have no doubt
that if this bill shall pass, England herself will have thrown
away thatladder, by which she has risen to wealth, (but that
is the last consideration,) to honour, to happiness, and to fame.
Along with energy of thinking and liberty of speech, she will
forfeit the comforts of her situation, and the dignity of her
character, those blessings which they have secured to her at
home, and the rank by which she has been distinguished
among the nations. These were the sources of her splendour,
and the foundation of her greatness


Sic fortis Etruria crevit,
Scilicit et rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma.


We need only appeal to the example of that great city,
whose prosperity the poet has thus recorded. In Rome, when
the liberty of speech was gone, along with it vanished all that
had constituted her the mistress of the world. I doubt not but
in the days of Augustus there were persons who perceived no
symptoms of decay, who exulted even in their fancied prospe-
rity, when they contemplated the increasing opulence and
splendid edifices of that grand metropolis, and who even
deemed that they possessed their ancient liberty, because
they still retained those titles of offices which had existed
under the republic. 'What fine panegyrics were then pro.
flounced on the prosperity of the empire !--- " Turn tutus bos
prata perambulat." This was flattery to Augustus: to that
great destroyer of the liberties of mankind, as much an enemy
to freedom, as any of the detestable tyrants who succeeded
him. So with us, we are to be flattered with an account
of the form of our government, by King, Lords and Com-
mons— Eadem magistratuum vocabula. There were sonic
then, as there arc now, who said that the energy of Rome was
not gone; while they felt their vanity gratified in viewing
their city, which had been converted from brick into marble,
they did not reflect that they had lost that spirit of manly
independance which animated the Romans of better times,
and that the beauty and splendour of their city served only to
conceal the symptoms of rottenness and decay. So if this bill
passes you may for a time retain your institution of juries
and the forms of your free constitution, but the substance is
gone, the foundation is undermined; —your fall is certain
and your destruction inevitable. As a tree that is injured at
the root and the bark taken off, the branches may live for
a while, some sort of blossom may stal remain; but it will


1795'1 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 47


soon wither, decay, and perish : so take away the freedom of
speech or of writing, and the foundation of all your freedom
is gone. You will then fall, and be degraded and despised
by all the world for your weakness and your folly, in not
taking care of that which conducted you to all your fame,
your greatness, your opulence, and prosperity. But before
this happens, let the people once more be tried. I am a friend
to taking the sense of the people, and therefore a friend to this
motion. I wish for every delay that is possible in this im-
portant and alarming business. I wish for this adjournment


" Spatium rcquieinque furori." Let us put a stop to the
madness of this bill ; for if you pass it, you will take away the
foundation of the liberty of the people of England, and then
farewel to any happiness in this country I


The House divided on the question of adjournment :
Tellers.Tellers.


yzA8 S Mr. Curwen
Mr. Steele


WhitbreadS 70' —
N°ES Mr. Wallace 2 657"


November 27.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on the


sedition bill, Mr. Fox rose merely to ask when it was probable
that the report, and the third reading of the bill, would come on.
He said, he supposed when the bill had gone through the coin-
mince, that it would he reported, and then ordered to be printed.
Mr. Pitt said, that immediately after the bill had gone through the
connnittee, he should move for it to be printed, and that the further
consideration would probably come on about Tuesday, Dacem-i
her I., and the third reading on the Thursday following. Mr. Fox,
Mr. Grey, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Whitbread, General Tarleton, Ge-
neral Macleod, and the other opposers of the bill ( Mr. Sheridan
excepted) immediately rose and left the House. Mr. Sheridan
said, he did not attend for the purpose of proposing any- amend-
inents to the bill, being persuaded that no alteration, except that
of negativing every clause in it, would be of service, or render itpalatable to the great majority of the public. He attended chiefly
to watch some things which were going forward, and to hear what
amendments would be proposed.


November 3c.
On the motion for going into a committee on the treason bill,


'Mr. Erskine opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair. He observed,
that the bill diminished the liberty of the subject, without adding
to the safetysafety of the king's person. It was a political maxim, he
said long standing, that the best government was that whichproduced the greatest security with the fewest restraints, and
the worst, that which increased penalties without undisputed evi-




TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [NOV. 30.48
deuce of their propriety. Another maxim, of equal force, was to
preserve ancient laws in their primitive simplicity, till experience
had proved them inadequate to their intended purposes. The sta-
tute Of Edward III. concerning treason, had not been proved, but
merely asserted, to be unequal to the punishment of the outrages
referred to in the two bills. In the opinion of one of the greatest
luminaries of the law in this country, the lord chief-justice Hale,
that important statute had been enacted, as a remedy against
former oppression, and to secure the subject against illegal pro-
secution. To compass, or even to imagine, the death of the king,
was, by that statute, declared high treason : could words be found
of stronger import, or of plainer meaning? To levy ivar against
the king, or to grant comfort and protection to his enemies was,
by that statute, made equally criminal ; but it did not make the
compassing to levy war against him high treason, because the le-
oislators of that- day did not consider a conspiracy to levy such a
war as more than a misdemeanor, which, like many others, mightr,
not deserve material notice, while no clear and overt act could
be adduced to prove it, and without which act no treasonable in-
tentions could lawfully be presumed. Mr. Erskine argued, from
the decision of lord-chief-justice Holt, that overt acts alone,
properly established, ought to be admitted as proofs of guilt in
trials for high treason. The bill in contemplation would, he ex-
plicitly affirmed, extend the crime of high treason to such a
multitude of trivial cases, that every petty misdemeanor might be
brought within its construction.— Mr. Erskine was replied to by
the attorney-general, after which,


Mr. Fox said, it did not appear to him from what he had
heard, that there was any thing very auspicious to the free-
dom of the people of this country to be expected from the
progress of the bill before the House. The honourable and
learned gentleman had begun his speech with finding ?<lull
with his learned friend (Mr. Erskine) for having blended the
two bills in argument on the present occasion. 'Though his
honourable and learned friend had spoken at considerable
length, and with an effect which he trusted would not easily
be forgotten, and though the two bills, in their component
parts, might be traced to the same principle, and considered
as the result of a connected attempt on the liberties of the
country, he called upon the house to recollect that his ho-
nourable and learned friend had spoken most distinctly to
the bill then before the House, and also on the system which
ministers had lately adopted for the purpose of subverting the
liberties of the people of England. in this his honourable
and learned friend was perfectly right, because the charge lit
made was just. He spoke of one in consequence of the con-
nection which it evidently had with the other; they were
both branches of the sonic system, which ministers had adopted
against the liberties of the people; and he must say again,.


1795.] TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 49
that, from the manner in which the honourable and learned
gentlema n had taken up the subject, it did not give him the
most favourable opinion of the manner in which this business
was intended to be conducted by •its advocates; by the spe-
cimen he had witnessed, he was not led to expect any great


of
the then before the House undoubtedly was, the


nCEtaltTiudiio.leet1)


the present bill; he hoped, however, he was not
mistaken when he expected that parliament would consider
that the preamble of a bill and its enactments were two sepa-
rate and distinct things. If that were true with respect to a
bill that originated in that House, did it not more emphati-
cally apply to a bill that originated in the other House of
parliament? And if the bill then under consideration not only
came from another House of parliament, but came also from
persons who were suspected of not being attached to the
best principles of our constitution, upon that view only, if
there had been no other, he was desirous that the bill should
be rejected; because he could not help thinking that the House
would do well to consider the state of the country, to watch
with anxious care and constitutional jealousy, every thing that
tended to abridge the rights of the subject, and then consider
the state of public affairs, and adopt some measure-for its
safety, if, upon mature deliberation, some measure should be
found to be necessary.


To him, Mr. Fox said, there had appeared to be one way
of considering a bill which could not fairly be objected to;
that was to attend to the preamble of it. He had flattered
himself that he knew something of the bill from some recol-
lection of its contents : however, the speech of the honourable
and learned gentleman had staggered him ; certainly the
speech he had heard bore no resemblance to the ideas he had
entertained of the bill. From one part of that speech a
person who was a perfect stranger to the bill, would have
thought the bill was a declaratory law on the crime of trea-
son, and on the meaning of the statutes which defined it.
He would have expected to have heard read as an int


•oduc-
tion to the bill, words to this effect: " Whereas. doubts have
arisen respecting the law as it now stands with regard to the
crime of treason; be it declared, &c." Instead of this, he ,
only found that reference was had to, and loose, very loose,
co


mments made on what had recently happened, and on facts
nvhich had lately been brought forward in a court of justice.
The honourable and learned gentleman had done no more
than this, and then appeared to insinuate, to render the bill
a little less disgusting, that it was intended to be only tem-poiaz


...


V.
would ask, if the bill was to be temporary,
OL..


II




3'0 TREASON AND SEDITION [Nov. 30., 17951 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
where was the propriety in making it of' a declaratory nature?
A declaration must be either true or false: truth was eternal
if, therefore, the bill depended upon the truth of its declara-
tion, it should not be a bill passed for a temporary purpose,
but ought to be made a permanent law. This, however, was
not the case with respect to the present bill; it was made
use of as an argument for the moment, to take it in that
light by way of justification of its enactments; but the bill
itself was only an experiment to try how the people would.
bear it. If any part of the learned gentlemen's speech was
attempted to be opposed to the reasoning of his honourable
and learned friend, by way of answer or refutation, it was
that which related to the construction that had been put from
time to time by judges on the statute of the 25th of Edward III.
Was the bill a measure to set that question at rest, as the
honourable and learned gentleman had stated it ? Was such
a declaration necessary? If the honourable and learned gen-
tleman thought so, would it not be necessary to bring in a
bill to make that declaration explicit? Upon the necessity of
making that declaration he might agree with the honourable
and learned gentleman. " Tiiat the declaration of the ho-
nourable and learned gentleman and mine upon that law
would be different, I have, said Mr. Fox, as little doubt as
that we differ upon this; but the bill surely cannot be con-
sidered in the light of a declaration, because it is temporary,
and says nothing upon treason as to the levying of war.'
With regard to the act of Edward he must make a dis-
tinction between an attack upon the natural life and political
power of the king. He could easily conceive that any per-
son, who should be guilty of an attack on the natural life of
the king, that was to say, who had, by overt-act, proved that
be compassed or imagined his death, should be subject to the
highest penalty of the law ; and yet that an attempt at the
destruction of the political power of the king should only be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. He knew it was a popular
argument; he had conversed with many who urged it, and
said, " Why, is it not absurd to say you will guard the
natural life of the king, which, in a constitutional point of
view, cannot be more important than the political power of
the king, more than you will guard that political power:"
In his opinion, that argument was wholly fallacious; because
the laws of a state were not to be governed by the ideas of
guilt, and in proportion to our feelings as to the mischief
which might possibly ensue, but in proportion to the difficulty
or facility with which the object might be attacked. It was
in this last view that the wisdom of our ancestors had framed
the law of Edward III. They had said, that he who should,


by overt-act, prove that he compassed or imagined the natural
death of the king, should be guilty of high treason. Why?
Not because the natural life of the king could be more con-


_


stitutionally important than the political power of the kingly
office, but, as his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Erskine)
had well observed, because the death of the king could be
accomplished by one man who was wicked enough to de-
termine on it; and this he could do in an instant with a
pistol or a dagger, or in any other way; and therefore the
legislature had done wisely to declare, that lie who should
compass or imagine the death of the king should be guilty
of high treason. To such an act there ought to be the highest
possible penalty annexed.


Mr. Fox said, he was read y
to admit that the king's person


was not so well guarded as he could wish, but It was as
strongly guarded as it was possible to guard it by law.
Guards of another description, indeed, he might have, but.
nothing of that sort was proposed by the present bill; and
he trusted they never would be proposed by any parliament,
because it would be highly unconstitutional. With regard
to the political power of the king, he must observe, that
although, constitutionally speaking, that was a still dearer
and more precious object to them, yet there was no necessity
of guarding it in the same manner ; because, the destruction
of the political power of the king could not be effectually
attacked by one man, nor could it be accomplished, like the
other, in one moment. Levying war for the destruction of
government could not be the act of a single man, it must
be the act of multitudes; it must, indeed, be a sequence of
acts, upon which a government might wait with safety until
something was done, instead of' declaring that the com-
passing or imagining constituted the guilt, as the law declared
in the other case. The difference was, in the one case the
king might be assassinated by a single individual in a moment,
whereas the constitution could not be assassinated but by a
series of acts committed by a multitude of persons; that was
the reason why our ancestors had made an attack upon the
lire of the king, a different offence from that of an attempt to
subvert the monarchy. The distinction had been well marked
by a• common expression — " the constitution may be de-
stroyed, but it cannot be assassinated."


Mr. Fox having thus observed on the wisdom of our an-c
estors with respect to the statute of Edward


wished to
been
Say a few words with regard to the construction which had
rovedput upon it. He might be asked, whether he ap-p of the construction which had been put by the judges


upon that statute ? He admitted the inferiority of his




52
TREASON AND' SEDITION BILLS. [NOV. 3ct;


merit to that of those learned persons; he must, however, •
form it from the best lights he was able, and having done so,
he had no difficulty in saying, that he (lid not agree with
them according to the statement of the honourable and learned 10
gentleman that night. If he were asked, whether he thought
the judicial determination of the judges from time to time
made part of the law of the land ? he would answer, he was 'W
not competent to determine that question. This he would
nevertheless say, that an act of parliament was a part of the
law of the land, as interesting as the judicial determination
of the judges, and often more intelligible to the mass of
mankind; and it was and ought to be, of higher authority.
If, therefore, there was a doubt as to the real meaning of the,
act of Edward III. he had no objection to a parliamentary
declaration of the law in that respect; what that declaration
should be, he would be ready to argue hereafter. For the
sake of the argument, he would allow, that all the judgments
which had been given by the judges were correct ; and then
he would maintain, that gentlemen on the other side had not
proved, that this bill was not a material alteration of the law
of the land; but that he would not enter into at that moment,
but merely observe, that his honourable and learned friend's
arguments upon that, as well as other points, had not at all
been answered. Whether the point was to be given up, he
did not know ; but as it stood at present, it made conspiracy
to levy war a substantive treason. [The Attorney General
explained, that it only put under this description a conspiracy
to levy a direct war, and not to levy an indirect war.] Then,
continued Mr. Fox, the point is gained; if, in some instances,
it made a conspiracy to levy war a substantive treason, and
in others not, it was evident that a material innovation had
been made. 'With respect to the construction of the law of
Edward III. he had always thought, from what he had read
from Hale, from Foster, and other authorities, and he had
read their works with attention, that the point was clear,.
particularly the case of a special verdict. He conceived that
-when there were charges of levying direct war, stated as high
treason, for deposing the king, they were always stated in.
that way, that they were overt acts, to prove the intention of
compassing and imagining the death of the king ; and, upon
that, the question came to this : whether such acts proved
the compassing or imagining? If that levying of war be of
itself treason without the compassing or imagining, then a
verdict that the defendant did so conspire and levy war, with-
out saying one word of the compassing or imagining, would
be a complete verdict, and whatever the opinion of the jury


1795'] TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 53
might be with respect to the imagining the death of the king,
the crime would be complete.


He would ask the honourable and learned gentleman one
question. Suppose A. and B. had conspired to levy war


t
wraihst the king, and with hostile arms proceeded to depose
tile king, and that the jury on the trial should find the con-
spiracy and the appearing in hostile arms, but should find
that there was no intention of putting the king to death,
would the honourable mid learned gentleman then say, that
judgment should follow against the defendants for high treason
as a consequence of law from that verdict ? If the honour-
able and learned gentleman would boldly say this, then he


3would allow that his construction of the law of treason was
a bad, and the learned gentleman's a good construction. In-
deed, he believed the learned gentleman would not maintain
that doctrine ; and he -believed too, that the very essence of
the.


crime of high treason, was that of compassing and
imagining the death of the king; and that if the jury did not
find the compassing and imagining the death, the verdict
would be null and void. Such, he maintained, was the law
at present ; but if the bill passed, that would not be the law;
then the law would be, that the bare finding of such verdict
'as he had stated, would be sufficient to convict any person of
high treason ; and he would maintain, that it was extremely
material to attend to that distinction. The subject ought to
be protected in his rights upon all occasions ; the House
should, therefore, be extremely cautious in agreeing to any
thing that encroached upon them ; but, above all, in cases
of high treason ; they should not forget that, as the crime of
high treason was a crime to which the highest penalty was
attached, it was also a crime in which the power of the ma-
gistrate ought to be looked at with the highest degree of
jealousy. In all other charges made by the crown against its
subjects, the chief magistrate had no distinct interest in the
conviction ; but in the charge of high treason, he was to be
swayed by considerations of a personal nature, and thence
hadsprung all the regulations of giving to the accused a list
of the jurors and the witnesses, and all the various other
checks which the wisdom of our ancestors had provided.
These were not jealousies of his own, stated for the purpose
of supporting the debate, they were jealousies of the law of
the land, jealousies which had been shewn in a variety ofinstances, constitutional jealousies, that ought to be con-
sidered attentively by that House. They ought still further
to be careful how they proceeded in a measure that abridged
the functions sl ,o4i( mke
rite


olfaajury; independent of other considerations,
a formidable invasion of the law : the


-


E 3




54 TREASON AND SEDITION BILL& [Nov. 300


j ury would not hereafter have to consider the mind of the
person accused ; they would have nothing to try but the fact
stated in the indictment; the rest would be mere inference
of law; and although the jury should negative the intention
of putting the king to death, yet judgment must pass upon
the defendant.


Mr. Fox slightly adverted to the history of the two acts,
the statute of Edward III. and that of Charles IL which
were referred to by gentlemen of the other side as the pm-
cedents that made the foundation of the present measure.
The statute of Edward III. was the old constitutional law of
treason. Its introduction had freed the jurisprudence of the
country from much uncertainty ; and it had, in no instance,,
been deviated from in later times without producing con-
siderable mischief. The other act was brought in at the period
of the Restoration, when the people were wearied of the
evils they had suffered under the former usurpation, and were
willing to throw all their liberties into the hands of the clown.
Let the House look at the statutes, and recollect the prevail-
ing spirit of that day. They would find that parliament,
‘vhich the present was about to imitate, giving to the king a
power to raise a military of his own, and money to pay then),
which was to be applied afterwards without the consent of
parliament. They gave to the king the power which they
ought to have kept in their own hands; a scandalous negli-
e,ence and for which the people suffered most deplorably !b 5
That reign was a dreadful one to the people; infamous and
detestable as that reign had been, if there was any one part of
it that called for the execration of the historian more than
the rest, it was the public prosecutions that had been in-
stituted in the course of it. Englishmen had, indeed, the
happiness to feel that justice had been administered in this
country for a century past, in a manner more mild, more pure,
and more independent, than perhaps in any other country
-upon earth for the same period; they ought nevertheless to
take care not to copy the sort of laws that were enacted in
those abominable times of blind submission. They were about
to adopt laws similar to those passed in one period of our
history. e And what period ? the period of the reign of
Charles II., that period which of all our history was most
abominable and scandalous in the administration of its justice;
the most scandalous, perhaps, in the world, under all the
circumstances of it.


With regard to that reign, one of its most 'remarkable
features was, that the names of those who perished on the
scaffold for high treason, were among those that were most
dear to the recollection of Englishmen. He 'knew that


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
57 9 5-3


Sydney and Russell were not, indeed, tried by the statute
which he had alluded to, the time being expired within which
that law allowed them to be accused, but those eminent men
perished on the scaffold for high treason. He said this to
shew the general spirit of jurisprudence that governed this
country at that period, and disgraced that reign. Those,
therefore, who admired that reign, were not to look to its
ministers cr its judges, but to those who expired on the scaf-
fold for high treason. The law which then was enforced, was
such as the law under consideration was proposed to be; it
expired, however, with the prince for whom it was brought
forward. Richard II. was also a prince for whom such a law -
was enacted, and soon after he was deposed and assassinated.
Charles II. had a long, and, as some said, a flourishing reitm;
but it was not flourishing in the mind of any man who really
knew what a flourishing reign was. Was there any one who
looked to the history of those times, to the unprincipled
policy of the court, and the o pen profligacy of public mea-
sures, who did not consider it as a blemish on the English
character, and a reproach to the spirit of our ancestors, that
'the reign of that monarch was suffered to be protracted till
the period of his natural life? Were those auspicious times,
from which to derive a precedent for their present conduct ?


Two reasons had been adduced in favour of the present
bill. The first he should dispose of very shortly. It was
said to be a declaration of the meaning of the statute of
Edward III. A declaratory act it could not be, because a
declaratory act must be plain and simple; and, indeed, that
part of the case had not been seriously insisted upon by
the honourable and learned gentleman. The other reason
was, the general prevalence of libels; and in proof of this,
much had been said about the disposition of some people to
treat all authority with contempt. It was true that a stone
had been thrown at his majesty; but whoever attended to
speeches upon that subject, would find how small a part of
the people were concerned in that outrage, or tinctured with
the disposition he had just maintained. The act, every body
knew, was an odious and a detestable one; but ought the whole
people ofoafctE?ngland to be deprived of their rights on account


that
The honourable and learned gentleman, Mr. Fox observed,


had adverted to what passed at the Old Bailey last year. If
the temper of some of the people had been seen to be so
dangerous at that time, it was extraordinary that the mea-
sures then proposed had not been proposed sooner. The
truth was, ministers had not an opportunity to suit their
Views till just at present. They took the advantage of the


E 4




56 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Nov. 3c. 795 .7 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 57
generous indignation of the people at the atrocious outrage
offered to his majesty, and, under pretence of providing
against a similar outrage, were going to deprive the people
of their rights. They turned the best passions of the people
of England into a delusion, in order to deprive them of their
dearest s interests. He was justified in saying this; else why
had not the bill been brought forward sooner ? Be could
say much more upon this topic, but that he deemed it unne-
cessary, after the very able and eloquent mariner in which it
had been treated by his honourable and learned friend,
(M•. Erskine). •it'h respect to the state trials, the learned
gentleman. contended that they had proved much, and that
notwithstanding the persons indicted had been acquitted, the
trials were calculated to produce a considerable effect on the
public mind. So they certainly had, but not the sort of
.effect the learned gentleman would insinuate. In that ac-
quittal he, for one, had already declared, that he much exulted,
and he should ever continue to exult. That acquittal, in his
view of the subject, tended to produce an impression of the
happiest kind. If there were men to whom the constitution
had begun to appear odious, that acquittal must have softened
their animosit y, and disposed them to regard it with a friendly
eye; if there were others wavering in their sentiments, it
must have had the effect to revive their attachment, and
confirm them in the line of their duty, more than all the
penal laws that the legislature could enact in a century. Even
if those persons who had been tried entertained opinions
hostile to the constitution — and he did not deny that in the
societies there were some men of that description — still he
considered it as a glorious event for the constitution itself, that
those persons had been acquitted. Nay more, if even men,
whose .sentiments were hostile to the constitution, had found
refuge from that strict and impartial justice which it adminis-
tered to all, such an event he could not but consider as cal-
culated to convert disaffection and enmity into admiration and
applause. This he believed to be the real effect of these trials,
although the learned gentleman made use of them in his
argument, in order to spew a spirit of disaffection to the con-
Stitutionin a considerable part of the people.


'with regard to the other part of the bill now before the
House, that which regarded the penalty of misdemeanour, it
called for. animadversions,- as it referred to an offence more
likely to occur often than the offence of high treason. The
learned gentleman had urged, „ that it did not, in the first in-
stance, create new misdemeanour ; be did not know that it did ;
this, however,. he .knew, that it defined that which, by the
law as it stood, was subject only to the penalty of misde-




meanonr, to the penalty of felony, although it should not be
stated in the indictment to be a felony. He wished to know,
whether the provision in the late would be allowed
to apply to the new law, or whether the bill was not to renew


ti!
yil u(surpation of judges upon the old law, and deprive the


of the privilege of examining into the intention of the
accused, and front that intention to find their verdict; or,
were they to be left to find the dry matter of fact, and was all
the rest to be in the hands of the court, to be disposed of as
mere matter of law? The most material part of the case in
this view was that which subjected a man for the second mis-
demeanour to transportation. How the honourable and
learned gentleman would answer this he could not tell, but lie
was sure it was not in the power of human skill and ability
to answer it satisfactorily. His learned friend (Mr. Erskine)
had observed., that this description of offence was so wide
and general, that by applying a sentence of equal severity
whenever an offence was repeated, the same punishment
might be made to include the most venial errors, and the
blackest crimes. It was a great principle of justice, that the
punishment should be proportionate to the offence; but by
the regulation proposed, this principle would be entirely de..
feated. Would the honourable and learned gentleman say,
that by the analogy of law a comparative distinction could be
made between the second misdemeanour and the first ? Was
it not essential, that the distinction should be kept up between
a misdemeanour and a felony ? And was it not essential that
there should be a proportion between the punishment for one
and another misdemeanour? There were some misdemeanours
of so slight a nature, that though a thousand times repeated,
they would not, in point of enormity, be equal to one of a
more serious description. Under the head of misdemeanours
was defined, whatever might tend to excite hatred and con-
tempt against the constitution. He, who complained of the
inequality of the representation, and, in illustration of his
argument in support of a reform in parliament, referred to a
borough so and so situated, might, from the operation of this
bill, be sent to Botany Bay for seven years !


I wish (said Mr. Fox) you had made it death ; the pu-
nishment would not have been more severe ; and your law
Would be better understood by it. Compare this with the
most atrocious misdemeanour in cases that are not political.
Suppose a man be convicted of an assault, with intent to kill
his own father, and repeats it as often as imagination can
Suggest, still he will be punished as for a misdemeanour only,
which is fine and imprisonment : but if he be guilty twice of
insisting on the propriety of a_ reform in parliament, he may





58 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


[Nov. 30:


be punished with transportation to Botany Bay ! I have
stated this case in the extreme, to s pew the enormous dispro-
portion which this bill creates in the punishment of offences.
It was in the nature of the thing, he said, that misdemeanour
should be punished by a discretionary sentence, and that it
should stand distinct from felony ; a thousand misdemeanours ,
could not, by the spirit and genius of the law of England,
amount to, or be punished as, a felony. That was to con-
found all the principles of our law. The sort of punishment
which the bill enacted for misdemeanours was for the first time
introduced into the country from the pretended law of Scot-
land ; though such was the horror with which Englishmen
regarded it, that when, some time since, it had been presented




b • 5


to their minds, it excited an universal sentiment of indigna-
tion. He called it 64 pretended law ;" for he would never so
far degrade Scotland, as to suppose it could really be the law
of that country. Had any want of effect, he asked, been
experienced from punishments formerly inflicted, because they
were not sufficiently severe ? He adverted to the case of
Messrs. Muir and Palmer, men of enlightened minds, of re-
spectable rank in society, of irreproachable morals, who, be-
cause they expressed themselves warmly with respect to what
they considered to be grievances, were sent to Botany Bay,
to associate, not merely with the lowest of men in point of
rank, but with a description of persons so degraded and
abandoned, that the necessity of associating with them under
any circumstances, was a deep disgrace, and must itself consti-
tute a considerable punishment. What effect did ministers
pretend to say that had produced ? Had it produced a greater-
reverence for the laws, or occasioned a cessation of those libels
which were the subject of complaint? No ; for they were told
that libels had increased since that period a thousand fold. If,
on the other hand, it had produced those effects, what neces-
sity was there to resort to new measures ? If it had failed,
did not experience demonstrate the futility of again having
recourse to a similar policy? But it was said, that in Scotland,
where those measures had been adopted, no discontent existed.
He believed the case was quite the reverse, and that the dis-
content really felt in that quarter was not the less because the
expressions of it had been subdued by the terror of severe and
unwarrantable punishments. If the state of Scotland was, as
they pretended, they ought not at least to think of extending
the penalties of the bill to that country. The best way to
attach the people to the constitution, would be to preserve the
mildness of its laws. Could the honourable and learned gen-
tleman, or any of his friends, learned in the history of this
country, point out an instance of such a punishment as that


1795.]


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
59


which was proposed by the bill ? He warned them against
of multiplying new codes of penal laws, and ofthe policy


oppressive restrictions beyond what the temper
oletluienl peopleiil could bear ? But in answer to all this, they had
been told, that the corresponding and other societies did such
end such things ; and he was applied to on a former night,
by an honourable gentleman, who said, that he avoided
stating his opinion upon those societies. He did not avoid
stating his opinion. That honourable gentleman had asked
him, what those societies meant ? To that question he had
answered, that he could not decisively say, because he be-
lieved there were some in that society who meant one thing
and some another. He had distinctly said, that there might be
a few persons in those societies hostile to the constitution, but
the greater number he believed to be sincere in the object
which they professed — a parliamentary reform. That there
might be others who had different views he did not deny;
but he could not separate the whole from a part ; and there-
fore in the mass lie gave them, as he thought he ought, credit
for the sincerity of their professions. Such he should always
give to large bodies of people. There had been long established
in this town a society against what were called republicans
and levellers. What was his opinion of that society ? The
same as his opinion was of the corresponding society ; that
they were in a mass sincere in what they professed ; that they
were in favour of the constitution. Did he believe that one
of them wanted to overturn the monarchy of this country, and
the other to make it absolute ? No such thing; he gave them
each credit for being sincere in preserving the constitution ;
the one dreading one event, the ether dreading the oppo-
site event. He knew none of the kaders of the corresponding
society ; he however knew the leading member of the society
against republicans and levellers ; be know lqr. Reeves. Ile
knew lie had published libels after libels, attacking the con-
stitution ; that he had, year after year, circulated such publi-
cations ; that he had circulated a pamphlet, a direct libel on
that House, in which it was said that rotten boroughs, ex-
travagant courts, selfish ministers, and corrupt majorities were
e
ssential to the well-being of the constitution of the country,


Dumber


conclusionto be drawn . from such abominable doctrine,
he did not ascribeoe to every man in that society; the greater


believed to have united, in order to guard the
con


stitution against a danger, which they supposed to bepressing and imminent. The few who took advantage
of theiragefears f01 • t le constitution, in order to forward their own de-


signs for its destruction; of those he judged from their actions.
Ile knew that, with respect to those societies, there were




Go TREASON AND SEDITION SILLS. [Nov. 3,1,


violent opinions on both sides ; but he saw Mr. Reeves's SA*
ciety with as much industry, and with more means, because.
with more money, circulating such doctrines as were contained
in the sentence he had just quoted ; he saw circulated by the
same authority a book called " John Bull to Thomas Bull," ,
and he saw such doctrines accompanied with incendiary hand-
bills against the protestant dissenters, and fraught every
species of gross and inflammatory misrepresentation. He
saw, on the other hand, libels ascribed to the corresponding
society, so monstrous, that he could only compare them with
the ()Oilers to which he had referred ; with this difference, that
when it was proposed to enquire into their authenticity, the
proof was denied. He would say, therefore, that those who
professed that they had no other aim but a reform of parlia-
ment were in earnest in the mass, as he said of the society
against republicans and levellers, and he saw no ground for a
parliamentary provision against the mass of either society,
although individuals among the , members of each of them
might deserve censure,


His two principal objections to the bill, Mr. Fox repeated
-it, were, that it narrowed the power of the jury in cases of
treason, and that it provided for misdemeanours a new pu-
nishment, which would apply with undistinguished severity to
the greatest and least degrees of delinquency. The honour-


. able and learned gentleman had stated the increased and in-
creasing number of libels as a justification of the present bill;
some of these libels, he understood, had been punished pretty
severely; and the publishers, who might have been in their
beds at the time the books were sold, and who at any rate
had only been in the exercise of their business, without being
aware that they were committing a breach Of the law, had
been confined for two or three years. Some had been con-
victed on the oaths of witnesses notoriously perjured. One
man had been convicted and punished at Manchester, on the
oath of a person named Dunn, who was afterwards proved to
be guilty of perjury, and another upon the same evidence
at Lancaster.


It had been said by the honourable and learned gentleman
that libels were so numerous that they could no longer be pro-
secuted. Was he satisfied that the severity of the bill would
infallibly diminish their numbers, or that he should be able
more safely to apply the new law than the old ? If there was
a spirit of discontent so widely diffused in the country, and
still likely to increase, arising, as he verily believed, from the
bad administration of public affairs; and as the honourable.
and learned gentleman thought from the obstinacy and per,
verseness of tie people ; it would be proper, in' order to stop


1795.3 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 6r


the progress of the evil, to send whole fleets of libellers to
Botany Bay. The honourable and learned gentleman had
spoken of libels against the king and other persons. His
opinion was, that libelling the king and individuals had not
been sufficiently punished. He would prosecute with the
utmost severity, all libels on the characters of persons, with
whatever party they were connected. The most exemplary
rigour of that sort he would connect with equal temperance
in respect to libels of another description. He would punish
whatever reflected on the dignity of the chief magistrate, or
the fair fame of individuals; but all political libels he would
leave to themselves ; discussions on government, so far as
they did not interfere with private character, he would per-
mit to pass entirely unrestrained; that was the way to make
the press respected and useful; and lie was convinced, that
if this policy had been adopted sooner, things would not have
been in the situation in which they were at present ; but such
was not the object of the bill; the chief point which its pro-
moter had in view was to terrify the people from making free
with him under the name of government. Mr. Fox concluded
with declaring himself against the principle of the present bill.
He should therefore vote against the Speaker leaving the
chair. If another bill should be brought in less exceptionable
in its clauses, and better calculated to answer the purpose ill
view, he should have no objection to give it his support.


The House divided on the question, That the Speaker do leave
the chair,


Tellers. Tellers.yEAS Mr.John Smyth"), ,
Mr. Whitbread"v,i• s20 .3 .---Noest Mr. Anstruther J i vetr. Jekyll S `P°


December 3.


A debate took place on the third reading of the seditious
meetings bill. The bill was supported by Mr. Hardinge, Mr. N.
kontaele Mr. Powys, Mr. Abbot, and Mr. Dundas ; and opposed
by Mr. Sheridan, Mr. William Smith, and Mr. Grey. Mr. AbbotConcluded his speech with these words : " It must ever live in our
memoq, for the words sunk dee p


into our minds, that the right ho-
nourable gentleman, whose words are still unexplained, (Mr. Pox, )
did openf3', declare, that if these laws should be ratified by the
royal sceptre, and the people of England should afterwards ask of
hint, what they ought to do ? He would tell them :


is no


oblig
longer a question of duty, it is no longer to question of moralation; it is a question of mere prudence alone, whether you
should obey or resist.' I endure the painful task of repeating
these words, only to ground a representation to that right ho-




62 TREASON AND SEDITIO' BILLS. [Dec 3.


pourable gentleman who so spoke; and I conjure him to speak
out again, in terms not ambiguous, nor oracular, but plainly and
distinctly ; Whether now, if these laws, amended as they are,
shall be passed, he will again repeat his signal to the inquiring
people of England, and bid them wzfurl the standard of rebellion?'


Mr. Fox immediately rose. He said he was called upon in
a very polite and civil, but at the same time in a very unpar-
liamentary manner in that House to account for his conduct.
The honourable gentleman might have taken notice of the
whole that he had said on a former night. He would then
have afforded him an opportunity of restating his words if
they had been misconceived ; upon all this he had no par-
ticular complaint to make; he should only say, that the prac-
tice of attacking a member of parliament for what he said on
former occasons, in that general manner, was wholly new in
the course of parliamentary debates. That an y individual
member, for he made a difference between such a character
and a member of his majesty's council, should be thus called
to account, was very extraordinary, and what the honourable
gentleman, when he had taken more pains to become ac-
quainted with the usages of the House, whatever abilities he
might display in his speech, and however politely he might
conduct himself, would not he was persuaded frequently prac-
tise. Indeed, there was hardly any part of the speech of that
honourable gentleman which, in former times, would have been
suffered to be delivered in that House. He wished to know
whether it would be of advantage to the proceedings of that
House, that the sentiments of every individual, and every part
of his parliamentary conduct should be the subject of particular
debates, unless part of that conduct was such as called for the
particular cognizance of the House ? He knew there was
a species of artifice, of which he did not accuse the honourable
gentleman, to call on individuals in advanced stages of debates
upon a bill, to explain what they bad formerly said, and this
was done with a view of making it impossible to have a fair
debate. This he had experienced more than once; lie hoped
however he possessed a temper that was not to be discomposed
by such an artifice, and at the same time not to be damped
by any species of catechism.


The honourable gentleman had asked him questions, with
regard not only to expressions which he had used on a former
debate, but also with regard to his former conduct; and he
seamed to think he had a right to know why he did not at-
tend the committee on the present bill. He thought he had
told that honourable gentleman and the House already his
reason for his non-attendance. He would repeat it. it was


795.]
TREA,SON AND SEDITION BILLS.


63


because the principle of the bill was so detestable, so radi-
cally vicious, and so dangerous to the constitution of this
country, that he believed it to be impossible to amend it to
any good purpose. He did not wish to gild a pill which con-
tained in its essence such a noxious medicine. He wished to
speak plainly upon such a subject, and he scorned to defend
himsclt by any species of garbled explanation. He believed
that he was not singular, nor were those with whom he acted
singular, in abstaining from the committee upon this bill. He
would ask gentlemen who were so forward to put questions to
him upon this occasion ; nay, he would ask those who were
the most forward to countenance the practice, but who did
not choose to come forward themselves with such catechisms,
whether they did or did not aftend the committee on the
India bill, which be had formerly brought forward in that
House? Whether they had attempted in a committee to gain
something in that bill for the East-India company? It was
well known they declined altogether to attend that committee.
Why ? They stated, that they conceived the principle of tho
bill (whether right or wrong, was another question,) to be so bad,
that they would not endeavour to amend it in the committee.
Let him ask the right honourable gentleman and the majority
of that House, who seemed to have forgotten the conduct of
the minister and his adherents upoa that occasion, whether
they would not then have blamed him if he had asked them
whether they did not think that their country would regard
them as acting with partiality ? But. he never thought of cen-
suring the right honourable gentleman for his conduct on that
occasion, or- of inquiring into the grounds of his secession.
He put it to the candour of the House, if it was worthy of the
the character of gentlemen, or if they imagined that the
country would really consider those as honest men, who at-
tacked the same measure in one man, which they applauded
in another, merely because he had the influence of the crown
at his back, and because he had places and pensions and peer-
ages to bestow? In his own opinion, such conduct reflected
as little credit on their honesty as patriots, as on their under-
standings as men. He knew the honourable gentleman to
whom Ile alluded to be versed in the proceedhe.


of parlia-is
ment, and with the knowledge which he possessed he certainly
could not be ignorant that at one time there was a regulation
that no one who disapproved of the principle should attend
ou the commitment of a bill. The rule, however, had not,
of late, been rigidly observed; nor did he himself wish to ob-
serve it in every instance ; there might, indeed, be cases in
%rind'


he disapproved of the principle of a bill, and yet mightbe induced to attend the detail of it in a committee. But




64 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Dec. j,
then it must be such a bill as would be capable of being mc,
dined by amendment, so as possibly to produce some good.
With regard to the present measure, he was clearly of opi-
nion, that no amendment whatever could make the bill safe,
wise, just, or in any sense constitutional.


With respect to the other points, which the honourable
gentleman had stated against him, and on which he had been
so much catechised, although he disapproved of such a mode
of debate altogether, as a personality, it did him no injury,
because he never had expressed an opinion, in that House or
out of it, which, if he had reason to alter, he was not ready
to retract; or to which, if he still continued in the same
opinion, he was not willing to adhere. The honourable gen-
tleman had said, that he had explained away at one time,
what he had said at another. He would ask that gentleman,
whether this was a fair charge, whether it was correct in
point of fact, whether it was candid in point of inference?
That honourable gentleman had stated certain words of his,
but had omitted to accompany those words with the reason
which followed them. The honourable gentleman had charged
him with stating a certain doctrine, to which he was still
ready to adhere; the honourable gentleman, however, had
omitted to accompany that doctrine with the application of it.
Ile would ask that honourable gentleman, was it in reality
to the doctrine, or the application of it, that he objected ? He
thought a just, or a candid, or a wise man, would have en-
deavoured to understand the distinction between a doctrine
in itself dryly laid down, and the application of that doctrine.
This applied to what he had formerly said, when he had stated
what it was that would justify resistance on the part of the
people of this country. He never said any thing upon that
topic, which he was not prepared to defend; and what he had
asserted from principle, he would scorn to explain away,from.
caution. He was ready, therefore, to repeat the doctrine
he bad stated to its full extent, and he would repeat, that
neither lords nor commons nor king, no nor the whole legis-
lature together, were to be considered as possessing the power
to enslave the people of this country ; they might separately
or unitedly do such acts as might justify resistance from the
people.. Was this doctrine false ? 'Was it necessary to urge
any argument to support its truth ? It was a doctrine which
he had learnt from his early youth. He had been taught it not
only by Sydney and by Locke, but by Sir George Savile and
the late Earl of Chatham. Had he any fear upon uttering
this doctrine ? Yes; one fear he confessed he had, and that
was, lest same persons might imagine that he was too pusil-
lanimous to maintain this doctrine without referring to audio-


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
Gs


5795.]


'''


to support it, and that he might be considered as a slave
rauthority. To avoid this, he would state, at once, that, if
to o authority to support it, he would maintain it bythere was nhimself. He was not singular, however, in that opinion ; fbr
he believed that every man who really valued the principles of
our constitution, entertained the same sentiment ; and this had
been eloquently expressed in a celebrated sermon recently
preached by Dr. Watson, the present Bishop of Landaff.


Mr. Fox said, that he himself had no such idea of the om-
nipotence of the whole legislature of the country, as to
pose


sup-
that it could not so conduct itself as to justify the resist-


ance of the people. It was more necessary than ever to main-
tain this doctrine ; since it had of late become the fashion in
that House to refer to precedents in the slavish reign of the
Stuarts. It seemed that some gentlemen were extremely fond
of reviving doctrines that were popular in those abject times.
Many men, of slender talents, had been encouraged by the
countenance which that eloquent man, and great genius, Mr.
Burke, had lately been supposed to give them. He lamented
that talents so brilliant should have been so employed ; they
had contributed, in a great degree, to render odious principles
palatable. He trusted, however, that the spirit, the energy,
the vigour of the English character, was not to be depressed;
and that there would be always found in the country men bold
enough to assert, aye and to maintain also, that king, lords,
and commons, uniting to compose a legislature, might so con-
duct themselves as to justify resistance on the part of the people.
Did any man say, or would any man maintain, that they were
so omnipotent that nothing which they did could justify the
resistance of the people? He believed there was not one,
amongst the most base, contemptible, and servile of mankind,
who was yet prepared to stale, that the people could, in no
case, be justified in resistance, even to the whole legislature.


He came next to the application of this doctrine, which,
for some strange reason or other, those gentlemen who ac-
cused him, bad totally omitted in the course of the late de-
bates. In referring to that, the House would do him the jus-
tice to recollect, that when he spoke of resistance, he did not
speak of actual resistance, or the propriety of it at the present
tinge ; he only stated it as an argument, to spew that it might
be just; and he observed, that it ought to be considered at-
tentively by that House, when they were passing a bill, which,
if all its provisions were enforced, after the declared sense of
the majority of the people was against it, might provoke that
resistance. He was sure that the House would also do him
the justice to recollect, that he z,uraed it as an advice to the go-verttors, not an incitement to the governed. Let gentlemen,


VOL. Yr.




TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Dee. 3,


then, not mistate his words, or the meaning of them, nor mis-
represent them again. He was not, he said, surprised at the
misrepresentation that had taken place ; since the same thing
had happened with regard to the words of his honourable
friends upon the same subject, and particularly those of his
honourable friend (Mr. Sheridan,) who had been accused that
night of having recommended passive resistance. In that case,
he must declare, that his honourable friend had been very un-
fairly treated. Be had not recommended resistance, either
passive or active; he had more than once or twice, in discus-
sing the subject of resistance, stated, that if there should be
any persons determined to make resistance, the mode he should
recommend them to adopt would be that of a passive nature.
That, however, as well as other expressions, had been taken
without the qualifications by which they were accompanied,
which marked too plainly the sort of candour that was shewn
to himself and his honourable friends. But, after inflicting
the most cruel wounds upon the constitution, the only re-
source which was left them, was to cover their conduct by
misrepresentation, and of this resource, he allowed, they
availed themselves in its utmost latitude.


Mr. Fox said, he was not a correct measurer of words;
but at the same time, when his meaning depended upon the
precise expressions which he employed, he did not chase that
his words should be misrepresented, or, what was the same
thing, partially given. The honourable gentleman had stated,
that on a former evening he had shortly said, that if the pre-
sent bill should pass into a law, resistance would no longer be a
question of duty but of prudence. This he certainly said,
but lie would have it recollected that he said a good deal
more. His expressions were, that if the bill now before the
House should pass into a law, contrary to the sense and opi-
nion of a great majority of the nation, and if the law, after
it was passed, should be executed according to the rigorous pro-
visions of the act, then, in that case, resistance would not be a
question of duty but of prudence. These were the words which
he had used, and from which he would not now depart. And
if the general doctrine was admitted to be true, and if it was
the opinion of the country, that the bill was a direct invasion
of the rights of the subject, and a daring attempt to subvert
the constitution, the application of the doctrine could not be
false. The nature and tendency of the bill was the point at




issue between him and the honourable gentleman ; and upon
this point the House was now called upon to decide. He had
laboured to prove that it not only struck at the out-works and
bulwark of the constitution, but that it struck at the very vitals,
and went tctondermine the pillars upon which the fabric rested.


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
67


This he had not only stated as an Opinion, but he had argued
it in different stages of the bill, and though he had not been
so fortunate as to convince the House, it was neither arro-
gance nor presumption in him to affirm, that his arguments
were completely satisfactory to himself, and that they never
had been answered. And if the House consented to any bill,
the real effect of which was to give a mortal stab to the con-
stitution, he could not understand how any man could deny,
that resistance on the part of the people involved only a question
of prudence, and not of duty, if it was at all their province to
guard it from danger, or to repel the assailant. The honourable
n ,


C'
gentleman, however, was not content with imputing to him the
fecision on the question of right; he also thought fit to make


him decide upon the question of prudence, a question on which
he had left the people entirely to determine for themselves.
In talking of resistance, however, he must again observe, that
he could not recommend it; for prudence, in his opinion, dic-
tated quietness to mankind under many severe oppressions.
There was a maxim from a celebrated character of antiquity,
of which he was fonder at this time than when the ardour of
youth had greater influence on his passions. The more he
thought, the more he was convinced of the philosophy of the
maxim, Iniquissimam pacem justissimo bellu antefero. That
appeared to him to be one of the wisest sayings of that wise
man, and it expressed his opinion upon the point of prudence
in these cases. He must also add, that if the people of this
country, who felt that they were called by Providence into a
free state, should revolt at such a measure as the present bill,
he should not wonder at it. If they saw a conspiracy against
that liberty which made them happy, a conspiracy proved, as
it was, by the bill—for the bill repealed the bill of rights, and
reduced Englishmen to the character of slaves—he should not
wonder if they resented it. If, therefore, regardless of the
maxim which he had just quoted, the people of England
glsahuNiolu


t might


be so unwise as to commit acts of resistance, ministers
might condemn them, parliament might condemn them, the


ig t condemn them, prudence might condemn them, but
he believed no good man could ever accuse them of moral


The honourable gentleman had been pleased to accuse him
roundly for sentiments which he had uttered on a former
night, and which he now repeated. He would ask that ho-
nourable gentleman, if he approved of the names of Sydney
and Russell? Were they dear to that honourable gentleman ?
" Dear to me they are (said Mr. Fox); dear is their very
name ; dear to this country are the descendants of the illustri-
ous Russell. I see the spirit of .


that great men at this day
2




68 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [DCC. 3.


animating his . descendant ; I see-a man of high rank, splendid
talents, and patriotic spirit, emulating the virtues of his an-
cestor: I admire his principles, they adorn his character, and


• will I hope be rewarded with glory. I say he emulates thd:.
virtuous principles of his ancestor. Perhaps, some people
in this country wish he may share his fate. I, assuredly, have
no such wish ; but I have hopes, when I see the descendant at
the illustrious Russell possessing the spirit, the patriotism, the
fortitude, and the perseverance of his ancestor, that he will be
rewarded in like manner by the affections of an admiring
people. Why do we admire the great characters of Russell
and Sydney? Is it because they were unjustly condemned ?
Certainly they were unjustly condemned, for they were con-
demned illegally, on defective evidence, and against law. But
although they were thus condemned, is there a man this day
who has read their history, and does not believe they had in
contemplation a resistance to the prince then upon the throne?
Why do we admire them then ? The simple injustice of their
execution .could have reflected disgrace only upon their ac-
cusers, and their judges. No; it is because we know they
had that resistance in contemplation ; that they were determi-
ned to resist principles which then prevailed; principles which
were odious to the people of this country, much too nearly re-
sembling some modern doctrines among ourselves : they found
the law insufficient, and they endeavoured to bring about a
revolution favourable to the liberties and rights of English-
men ; and if this be the cause at present, the question
is still nothing but a question of the application of the same
principle. These are the reasons why we admire the characters
of these great men, and admired they will be while a spark of
liberty. animates the bosom of an Englishman." These, Mr.
Fox said, were his sentiments ; and he would maintain them
to the hour of his death. If others, who heard him, did not
approve of them, let them use what arts they pleased to blacken
him in the opinion of his countrymen ; he would still perse-
vere; for he knew he had pronounced principles, independent
of which his present majesty never could have been placed
upon the throne of these kingdoms.


He wished it again to be understood, that he did not mean
to shelter himself under the authority of names; he spoke for
himself; but he could not here help referring to the venerable
Earl of Chatham's speech on the American war. That great
statesman had said, " that he rejoiced the Americans had re-
sisted." A noble sentiment ! and although he differed on other
points from that illustrious man, he would say, that in that
event he rejoiced also; for considering the point which was
then at issue between America and this country, the had rather


179$.] TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 69


America should be independent of Great Britain, than
that, by the meanness of her servitude, she should have in-
fected this country by the baseness of her own slavery. Upon
that occasion Lord Chatham had said, in his own peculiarly




emphatic strain, 44 rather than slavery should be established, let
discord reign for ever ;" and "old as he was, he wished to
see the question tried between government and the people."
The phrase was, perhaps, a. little harsh, but the principle was
excellent. He was sure he had heard similar sentiments from
the late Sir George Savile. But after all, he would beg
leave to say, that, of all the attacks to which he knew he was
exposed, there was but one he feared ; that of incurring the
charge of pusillanimity. He must therefore again say, that,
from the course of his education, from the disposition of his
mind, and from the principles he had uniformly maintained, in




that House and out of it, he should be a fool if he did not
believe these principles to be true, and a coward if he did not
profess them.


Mr Fox then adverted to another article of charge, which
had been brought against him ; namely, withdrawing from
the committee on the bill. The motive which had been as-
cribed to this proceeding was very extraordinary indeed. For
how the honourable. gentleman could make out, that he had
obtained a


• triumph over his rival by -withdrawing from the
committee, he could not conceive. Had he attended, and
persuaded the House to alter some of the most obnoxious
clauses, then- with some justice, perhaps, he might have got
the credit of a triumph ; but it was the first time he had ever
heard that to absent one's self from a debate was the way to
obtain a victory. But, when he attributed his conduct on
that occasion partly to another motive, which was, that the
bill might go-into the country with all its limits upon its head,
the supposition was not so incorrect, and, as far as it imputed
a crime, he would plead guilty to the charge. He confessed
that he wished the bill to go abroad in its native deformity, as
it was impossible for any amendment to render it worthy Of
retaining a place in the statute books of the kingdom.


On the different clauses of the bill he would not enter
much at large, after the eloquent and irresistable speech which
had been delivered by his honourable friend, no argument of
which had ever been touched. There was only one or two
points on which he wished to make a few remarks. It had been
contended by a learned gentleman (Mr. Hardinge), that not
only meetings which were really dangerous ought to be stopt, butb
that all meetings whatever, whether the debates were inflam-
matory- or argumentative, ought to come within the operation
of the bill. The learned gentleman saw that it was impossible




1 0 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Dec. 3,


accurately to draw the limits between one speech that was
merely argumentative, and another which might contain some
appeals to the passions, and therefore he wisely confounded
all those trifling distinctions, and brought both within the
reach of the law. For instance, were he, in a public meeting,
to state coolly and dispassionately, the inadequacy of our re-
presentation, and the disproportionate influence of Old Sarum
to some large and populous towns, in choosing their representa-
tives, he might be taken up for sedition, a justice or magistrate
might dissolve the meeting, and, on their refusing to disperse,
he might call in the military to murder them. With respect
to the conduct of magistrates, he had little to add to what had
been said by his honourable friend. He bad received a letter,
however, that day, from a most respectable magistrate, who
held that office muchto his honour, and the benefit of the place
in which he resided, in which he expressed his terror at these
bills. Heretofore, men of different political principles had
held the office of magistrates together, and, forgetting all
private opinions on politics, had united in consulting the in-
terests of the poor, and in forming plans for their relief; where-
as, henceforward they would be forced to depart from their
civil capacities to decide controversies between Mr. Burke and
Mr. Paine. In short, it would be almost impossible for two
men, differing in their political sentiments, however honest,
however expert, however useful in their office they might be,
to be in the same magistracy. They were directed by this
bill to check the progress of sedition in popular meetings.
How was it likely they should, for any length of time, agree
upon the propriety of interfering their authority, unless they
were all of One opinion?


In the course of the debates upon this subject, it had been
taken for granted, that the preamble of the bill was a proof
of the object of it. That was a curious way of taking a point
for granted; it never could be taken as a thing that was true
of course, and he did not believe it to be true in this instance.
The preamble of the bill talked of seditious meetings. A
learned gentleman had said, that as to the intention of these
meetings, he had evaded the question. That learned gentle-
man had asked what these societies were? A pretty compre-
hensive phrase, " corresponding and other societies !" He
had said, on a former occasion, that some of them meant one
thing, and some another. The learned gentleman had said
that was Scrub's answer. He really did not care whether it
was Scrub's answer, or the answer of any other person ; it
appeared to him to be the only good answer which a man
of common sense could make. Where there were a great
number of men, there must of course be a variety of senti-
ments, and upon that he must refer to the observations




TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
7795']


already made by .his honourable friend. The general ,prin-
ciple of every society be took to be that which it professed.
He knew it might be said, that the language which was held
forth on behalf of these societies was moderated- in conse-
quence of the course which parliament was then taking.
The general principle of every society he took to be that
which it professed. It had been said that Thelwall had lately
become more moderate, and that his moderation proceeded
from terror of the strong measures now threatening to be
adopted. He could not speak to the fact; but if it was as
had been represented, he rather supposed that any improve-
ment in moderation had been owing to the prosecutions being
suspended by the attorney-general. For he was convinced,
that lenient measures would be more effectual than violent
steps, in subduing those who were disaffected to government.
Mr. Fox denied that there was any ground for the calumnious
allegations advanced against the meeting at Copenhagen-
house. The meeting had assembled in a legal and consti-
tutional manner, for the legal and constitutional object of
petitioning; but if there were a few individuals intent upon
desperate designs, that was no reason for throwing out a
general aspersion against the whole body. In great meetings
lie always conceived, too, that their ostensible object was their
real object, because it was impossible to bring twenty or thirty
thousand persons to practice dissimulation in unison. He
would ask any gentleman to show him the probability of a
person holding forth, in a very large popular assembly, any
doctrine that was not agreeable to the real feelings of the
mass of that society? He would ask any gentleman to give
him proof that the proceedings even at Copenhagen-house
were in any degree seditious, and to show him that the meet-
ing there had any idea of recommending an attack upon his
majesty? The petition presented to that House contained
sentiments of a different nature. He would ask the attorney-
general himself, if he knew of any




b
proceedines at that place


which called upon him to institute a prosecution ? What they
had done upon that subject could not have been blamed in the
bad reign of Charles II. whose shameful example they were
at this time so fond of servilely imitating. They had not
gone beyond the limits which were then prescribed to those
who wished to petition the king. He did not know that these
Proceedings opposed in the slightest degree, the sentiments of
those who censured Jeffreys and impeached North. He did
not know that they had clone any thing illegal; and he could
not presume the proceedings were seditious, merely because.
it was so insinuated in the preamble of the present bill. He
knew that to take any thing for granted, without evidence,


4




72 TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


[Dec.


was contrary even to the principles laid clown in the slavish
reign of Charles II. and directly contrary to all the principles
of our constitution. But gentlemen, when they talked of
seditious meetings, adopted general terms —" these societies"
--by which they converted t"them as it were, into a species of
body corporate of sedition. Now, instead of considering them •
as a body corporate, he considered them just as he did every
other large body of men, as consisting of sonic good and some
bad persons; and the mass of that body he considered to be
good. Such lie had considered, and had. more than once
stated to be, the body of the society of which Mr. Reeves was
president. He knew, indeed, that some of the publications
of that gentleman, as also those of Mr. Arthur Young, were
directly hostile to the best principles of our constitution, and.
that they had been circulated with a mischievous avidity ; he
was, nevertheless, willing to allow that the mass of that society
were what they professed to be, namely, friends to the con-
stitution of this country, as consisting of king, lords, and
commons. Precisely the same. did he think of the London
Corresponding Society. By the way, there fell into his
hands very lately a pamphlet which contained much admir-
able reasoning; it was stated in the form of a dialogue, sup-
posed to have been supported by two opposite characters, the
one a friend, the other an enemy, to the London Correspond-
ing Society. The enemy says, " I hate the society because
it has for its object the destruction of all monarchy." The
friend says, " Have you found any thing of that kind in their
proceedings?" " No," says the other; " they are too cunning
to profess that." " What," says the friend of the society,
" were the 30,000 men all cunning?" Now, Mr. Fox said,
he fell very much in with this sort of reasoning, on behalf of
the society, because he believed it was very difficult to collect
together at any time, or at any place, 3 0,000 men, all of them
so cunning as to conceal their real object.


In proposing the question the other night to the pro-
moters of the bill, as to their opinions upon the effect it was
likely to have upon all societies, Mr. Fox declared he had not
done so for the purpose of endeavouring to amend the bill,
but merely to get, if he could, at the opinion of its authors as
to the probable extent of it. It had been contended, that the
sense of the people of this country was not averse to the
passing of the bills. If they had eyes and ears, he:could not
conceive how they could ever maintain such a proposition,
which the experience of every day demonstrated to be false.
And if they had lost the use of their senses, it was not to be
expected that he could make up the loss by any arguments
which he could adduce. Peace was said to have been the


1795 3' TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.


charm which wrought upon the populace to make them sign


!
petition s against the hills ; but, were not loyalty to the sove-
•ian, and the support . of the constitution as popular words
as peace, and were they less frequently or less artfully used
to procure signatures to petitions of a different nature? But,
if gentlemen were willing to be deceived, in God's name let
them be deceived. If they would shut their eyes, let them
persist in their error. The opposers of the bills had also
been accused of misrepresentation; but he would ask on
*whom the suspicion of misrepresentation was most likely to
attach ? The accusers would not admit a day's delay, in order
to rectify these misrepresentations : whereas the accused wished
for nothing.


so much as for a little delay, to compare their
representations with the fact. With regard to what had been
said upon the general opinion of the public upon this mea-
sure, he believed it to be, in the true sense of the phrase, as
clearly against the general sense of the people of the country,
and as entirely unpopular, as any measure that had ever been
brought before parliament. That he was sure would be
evident to every unprejudiced man in the kingdom. Upon
looking at the petitions,


which had been presented, and.
stated to be in the nature of approbation of the bills, scarcely
one would be found directly to approve of them. They
prayed generally for such measures as the wisdom of parlia-
ment might adopt, and were founded chiefly on an idea on
which there could scarcely be two opinions in the country,
namely, that of congratulating his majesty on his fortunate
escape from the late daring outrage upon his person.


With regard to the general topic, that the present were fit
times for temporary restrictions upon popular rights, his
opinion was directly the reverse. He thought that the people
of the country were more enlightened at the present period
than ever they had been, and that they could be more safely'
trusted with liberty than the inhabitants of any other part of
the habitable globe; because, the better they understood the
principles of liberty, the better use would they make of them,
and consequently the more and more might and ought they
to be trusted with liberty. When gentlemen, therefore, asked
him what measure he would adopt to prevent confusion, he
would answer, " meet the evil; reform those who are adverse
to-your Constitution by reforming its abuses; reform —I do
not say upon what system, that may be discussed hereafter —
but reform the representation of the people in this House:
keep your word with the public: tell them they may safely
confide in your promise: proceed immediately to the abolition
of that infernal traffic the slave trade: shew them the con-
stitution of this country in its perfection : show them that.


73




TREASON AND SEDITION /311.,Ls. [Dec. to,


is favourable to the principles of liberty, and then your
enemies will be so few that you indeed may despise them.
These, Sir, are the points by which you will preserve the
constitution of this country. I know that liberty is the
greatest blessing that mankind can enjoy, and peace the next;
but, 'from the experience I have had of the human character,
and particularly of the people of England, persuaded I am
that this bill will drive the people to this alternative: they will
feel that peace and liberty cannot be enjoyed if the provisions
of this bill be enforced. If the provisions of this bill be still
obstinately endeavoured to be carried into effect, the attempt
will disgrace our government. I know that some persons
are of opinion, that, if this bill be not passed, government will
be disgraced; and I believe that some of the promoters of it
are of that opinion, and therefore wish to pass this bill ; but
that they do not intend to act upon it. I think that would
be next to throwing out the bill. As for myself, said Mr.
Fox, let gentlemen catechise me as much as they please ;
let them spread papers, stating me to be the enemy of my
country; let them blacken me as much as they please; let
them even be successful, if they can, in their endeavours to
make me odious to my countrymen ; still will I persist in
doing my duty to the public, and never relinquish it but with
my life. I am not vain enough to suppose, that any efforts
of mine have contributed much , to the spirit and the energy
which has been manifested in this country; I should be proud
to think they bad; I should be glad to learn that any efforts
of mine had contributed to awaken my countrymen to a sense
of the value of their own freedom. A great orator, whose
chief defect has frequently been stated to be vanity, has said,
Nobile .jusjuranans juravi, ne quid omitterem ut Ilespublica
denique salva sit. That is far from being my opinion of myself:
but ambitious I am to preserve the liberties of my country.
I have therefore opposed these bills; and I trust the spirit of
the country will resent them, especially as they are avowedly
only a part of what is intended for them by those ministers,
who have brought on the present distresses of the country.


The House divided:
Tellers.


266--No ES
T .ellers


YEAS {Mr. A. Neville ') 1 Mr. Sheridan.Mr. Steele 3 Mr. Whitbread P •


December t o.
The motion for the third reading of the treason bill was this


day strongly opposed by Mr. Harrison, General Tarlcton, Mr.
13


I 795'1


TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.
75


Western, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Maurice Robinson, Mr. Jekyll, and
my. Fox ; and supported by Mr. Alderman Newnham, Sir W.
Pulteney, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Mr. Jcnkinson, the attorney-
general, and Mr. Pitt.


Mr. Fox said, he entirely agreed with his honourable and
learned friend (Mr. Jekyll) in thinking that there were no terms
of reprobation and contempt too severe for the two important
bills which ministers had brought, on the sudden, into parlia-
ment. After hearing several speeches of the learned attorney-
ceeneral with all the attention of which he was capable, and
after examining minutely the amendments which the present
bill had undergone in the committee, he confessed that at
that moment, as much as ever, he was disposed to object to
every tittle and clause of it. He still retained the same ob-
jections against the clauses relative both to sedition and misde-
meanor that he had ever entertained. He was prejudiced
against the bill from its very preamble. An outrage had been
committed upon the person of the sovereign, and a new enact-
ment was made, not for the better security of the life of the
king, for that was impossible, but to constitute an attempt to
overawe the Houses of parliament into a substantive treason.
He was told that the present bill was merely declaratory ; and
he was told, at the same time, that it was merely temporary :
now, a temporary declaratory bill, he had no hesitation to
pronounce an absurdity, and a contradiction in terms.


That the bill went to create new treasons had been con-
fidently denied; he must, however, affirm the direct contrary,
and assert that it did create new treasons, if it was admitted
that there was any difference between an act being high trea-
son, and an act being only evidence of high treason. At
present, an overt act was an evidence of high treason; but by
the provisions of this bill, those acts which were before only
evidence of treason, became in themselves substantive treasons.
And if' new substantive treasons were created, new construc-
tions would be made upon these treasons; so that not only
all the constructions of the present statute would be . con-
stituted into substantive treasons, but new constructions would
arise upon these new created treasons, which would perplex
the statute to a degree that would render it impossible to be
fairly understood. He had no objection to a declaratory


'explanatory of the statute of Edward III., by which it
might be reduced to its plain, simple, and original meaning.
1'he bill, however, he did not consider to be by any
means calculated for that purpose. It was, indeed, the fashion
to say, that it was necessary to give sonic additional security
to the person of the sovereign. He would nevertheless con-


P.?




76 TREASON AND SEDITION' BILLS. [Dec. r a


tend, that it was not the natural effect of the extension of
penal laws to confer security; and he appealed to the history
of the world for the truth of his opinion. He asked, if ever
there was an instance in any country in which the sovereign,
whether he was individual, or whether that power Was de-
puted to an assembly,. was indebted for security- -to the se-
verity of a penal code? He called upon the House to look
into the history of the bad times of the world, and to com-
pare his observation with facts : and, if they were not sa-
tisfied with that comparison, he desired that they would
judge of it upon the experience of more modern times.Was the overthrow of the primitive monarch y of France
owing to lenient laws, or a lenient execution of those laws ?
And when the government of France was overturned, was the
fall of Robespierre owing to the gentleness of his principles, or
the mildness of those laws which he had framed for the pur-
pose of protecting his person ? If they looked to the assassi-
nation of the King of Sweden, would they attribute that event
to the extension of liberty, or to an unusual licence of speak-
ing and of writing ? Or would they not rather ascribe it to
the enraged fimaticism of the people, at seeing themselves de,
prived of those liberties in which they were born, and under
which they thought they had a right to live ? From what
time were the regulations of the present bill borrowed ? Were
they not copied from the reign of Charles II., a prince against
whom, certainly, not the fewest personal. attacks had been
directed.


As far, then, as the bill respected the law of treason, in his
opinion, it created new substantive treasons, by constituting
an attempt to overawe the parliament an overt act of treason.
What was to be construed an attempt to overawe the parlia-
ment? Did the framers of the bill intend that an attempt to
overawe the parliament, by the violence of prayer and of
petition, should be considered as an overt act of treason? •
But,: if they meant to affix the penalty to hostilities directed
against parliament, the provision, he considered, as super-
fluous, as it would be impossible to wage hostilities against
either house of parliament, without, in the first place, making
an attack upon the person of the sovereign. It had been
stated, that a convention had met for the express purpose of
overawing the legislature; but of this he had never heard any
proof. He had some material objections to another clause
respecting treason, which had been somewhat altered in the
committee, but which in some respects had not been altered
for the better. The clause to which he referred was that in
which " writing or overt act or deed " was mentioned. The
word " other" was put out, bat he could not understand what


795'] TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 77


lens meant by the words which were suffered to remain, for if
there was either sense or grammar in the expression, some-
thing else than an overt act was meant. And if writing was,
contra-distinguished from an overt act, to be considered as a
substantive treason, he demanded with what propriety, or
upon what grounds it was declared, that the present bill was
merely explanatory of the statute of Ed ward


?
Having said this much upon the treason part of the bill,


which he thought the least objectionable, he proceeded to re-
mark upon the clause respecting misdemeanour. And here
also it was contended, that the bill did not go to create any
new misdemeanour, which he positively denied ; because, the
judge would have it in his power to say to the jury, " Do you
find that these words and sentences were spoken with a design
to excite the hatred and contempt of the people against the




House of Commons as at present constituted ?" and if the jury
should find such a design to be proved, the court would have
nothing to do but to claim the right of explaining the law, and,
under the legal construction of the act, to enforce its penalties.
Upon this principle, a meeting could not be held for petitioning
ibr a reform in parliament, without incurring the penalties de-


' nounced in the provisions of the act. With regard to the
penalty of transportation for the second offence, he did not
think that the arguments which he had adduced on a former
night had ever been answered. He had then asserted, what
he was not now disposed to retract, that the same offence
ought never to be punished with different penalties, particu-
lagneyNev.hen there were diffiirent shades and degrees •in the


Gentlemen on the other side had pleaded the power of his
majesty to pardon, as an extenuation of the severities of the
act. This privilege Mr. Fox considered as absolutely neces-
sary in a goverment similar to that of England ; but there
Was a wide difference between this privilege when applied to
genera! and to political crimes. It was notorious, that this
privilege of the king was controuled in its exercise by his mi-
'lister& In cases of felony he would trust the compassion of
iniyii )minister, but in state prosecutions he would be backward
in trusting any minister, because these were connected with
circumstance in which ministers were particularly interested.
Far less would he trust the present ministers, who had sanc-
tioned the iniquitous and cruel sentences of the court of jus-


i "I I.


Scotland; sentences not less execrable than any
which had been passed in the reigns of Queen Mary, or of
Cha les


It was said that sedition was the reigning crime of the day :
if it was, it looked ill for administration ; because popular




78
TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Dec. I 0,


discontent was the usual and, indeed, the natural consequence
of ministerial misconduct; and he ventured to predict, that if
the present system was obstinately pursued, still more alarm-
ing consequences would ensue. Such laws as the present bills
would constitute against sedition, were to him objects of ab-
horrence, because they were novelties unknown to the Eng-
lish constitution. He was more and more convinced of the
rectitude of his opinion, when he reflected on the detestable
system of criminal law practised in Scotland ; the iniquitous
and cruel sentence of the court of justiciary in which part of
the kingdom, his majesty's ministers had not only sanctioned
but elaborately defended. The trial of Mr. Muir, and the
other unfortunate gentlemen who suffered a similar fate,
Mr. Fox said he could never think of without expressing his
utmost abhorrence. The sentence was an eternal disgrace to
the court ; and the Scotch judge who had affirmed, that no
punishment was too severe for the man who was guilty of
sedition, that the wretch ought to be exposed to wild beasts—
that judge, Mr. Fox said, merited the universal execration of
mankind, and it would entail lasting disgrace on the present
times, as nothing more harsh, brutal, and unfeeling was to
be found. in the arbitrary and oppressive reigns of Charles II.
and Queen Mary. In the bill before the House, the abomi-
nably intolerant spirit of the Scotch court was attempted
to be established. The proceedings were a national disgrace,
and were not excelled in the barbarous code of the most bar-
barous ages. Had Mr. Muir's case been submitted to an
English jury, he would, undoubtedly, have been acquitted :
but, whether totally acquitted or not, he was fully persuaded
that he never would have been consigned to the sufferings
which he had experienced. The noble and generous spirit of
England would have revolted at such excessive and over-
strained punishments. And it ought never to be forgotten,
that, notwithstanding the grand jury found the bills against
the persons tried at the Old Bailey, the petty jury acquitted
them.


Mr. Fox condemned the unlimited power which the bill was
about to repose in the executive government. By the infamy
of spies and intrigues, both he and his countrymen were ex-
posed to the indignation of the court party for the time being.
He deprecated such an unconstitutional power, and bestowed
unbounded praise on our ancestors for their wisdom in resist-
ing any appearance of such abominable encroachments upon
the liberties of the people. If the detestable spirit of the
Scotch law respecting sedition were established in this coun-
try, then farewell to all liberty of speech I farewell to the
familiarities of conversation The servant who stood behind


1795.] TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 79
his chair, if wicked . enough, might betray him ; and, seduced
by those in power, might give information which would en-
danger both his liberty and his life. The abandoned maid-
servant of Mr. Muir had acted in a similar manner : violating
the confidence reposed in every servant by a master, she com-
municated to the friends of government the honest, midis-
cruised expressions of Mr. Muir's mind. All that he had fre-
quently expressed was, a wish for reform of the abuses which
he daily saw ; and no good man could lay his hand upon his
heart, and deny the rectitude of his mind, when provoked by
such a system as sullied the country which gave it birth.


Mr. Fox said, that even if Mr. Reeves should be found
guilty of the libel on that House, which had lately engaged
their notice : if he should be found to have recommended and
circulated another infamous libel against the constitution,
written by Arthur Young; arid if he should also be found to
have published at different times libels against the protestant
dissenters, marking them out as a description of people who
ought to be exterminated, he would even go upon his knees
to beseech his majesty not .to enforce against Mr. Reeves a
sentence of transportation.


A good deal had been said respecting his majesty's refusing
his assent to these bills. His own wish was for that preroga-
tive of the crown to remain dormant and quiescent. It was a
prerogative which, he believed, would only be a favourite,
while it was not attempted to be exercised. He trusted, that
if the bills should pass, they would meet with a speedy repeal.
He rather trusted that the people would petition his majesty
to dissolve parliament, which was their undoubted right, if
ever parliament had acted in such a way as to require an in-
terference of that kind. He rejoiced, that on the present occa-
sion, the spirit of the people had shewn itself to be alive; and
he trusted, that the display which had been made of the
energy of the public mind, would be attended with thehappiest effects. The bills formed a crisis in the history
of the country; inasmuch as they were a departure from
the whole system of the principles of the constitution.
The present bill was modelled upon an act of Charles II.
The people of England had, in his opinion, committed a
Worse offence, by the unconstitutional restoration of that mo-
narch, than even by the death of Charles I. It was a mea-
sure .


which originated in a period when the parliament gave
up to the king the disposal of the military force, and surren-dered the liberties of the people at the foot of the throne.
There was one clause in the act of Charles II., which spewed
the spirit of those times. By this clause it was made penal
to say the king was a papist. And why? Because such was





8o TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. [Dec. I o.


the precise fact. It was rather inauspicious in the present
moment, that it should be thought necessary that a bill
should be adopted to prevent people from telling the truth.
No man would say that George III. was a papist. But what
was the object of the present bill ? By this bill men were
forbidden to speak of the defects of government, and of those
abuses which were growing up from day to clay, to destroy
the spirit of the constitution. If ministers had not been
conscious of the existence of those defects, they would not
have forbidden men to discuss them. He had somewhere
read, that after the defeat of Brutus and Cassius, a decree
had been passed that Augustus, who was then raised to the
highest. dignities of the state, should not be called a boy, —
"puer, ne majestrati populi Romani detractaret." Augustus
passed no such decree at the latter end of his reign ; nor did
Tiberius, at any period, feel such a decree to be necessary.
The present was a law against proclaiming the defects of the
constitution, at a period when the government were every
day bringing on fresh abuses. The bill was itself an intole-
rable grievance. This is the last opportunity, (said Mr. Fox,)
that I may have to state my sentiments with respect to these
bills. I feel it therefore incumbent upon me to declare, that
my objections still remain unimpaired. The one is calcu-
lated to prevent the liberty of speech ; the other the liberty
of writing and publishing. If these bills be carried into
effect, and if their influence extend to the national character,
other nations will be enabled to say, that England, which has
conquered others, has at last made a shameful conquest of
herself.


The House divided on the motion, That the bill be read a third.
time :


Tellers. Tellers.
YEAS -


{Sir W. Yonne' C Mr. Jekyll}
Mr. John Smyth 2 26' No ES I Mr. Whitbread} 4'5'


The bill was then read a third time and passed.


MR. REEVES'S LIBEL ON THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.


November 23.


THIS clay, Mr. Sturt in presenting to the House the petitionof the London Corresponding .Society against the Treason
and Sedition bills, justified that body from the aspersions thrown


THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.
8 i1795'1


out against them and their writings ; and to prove that things at least
as exceptionable had appeared from the partizans of the ministry,
he read to the House several passages from a pamphlet, entitled,
" Thoughts on the English Government," written by Mr. Reeves,
the framer and president of the association against republicans
and levellers, and among others the following : " With the ex-
ception of the advice and consent of the two Houses of' Parlia-
ment, and the interposition of juries, the government, and the
administration of it in all its parts, may he said to rest wholly and
solely on the king, and those appointed by him. Those two
adiuncts of parliament and juries are subsidiary and occasional ;
but the king's power is a substantive one, always visible and active.
By his officers, and in his name, every tiling is transacted that
relates to the peace of the realm and the protection of the subject.
The subject feels this, and acknowledges with thankfulness a
superintending sovereignty, which alone is congenial to the sen-
timents and temper of Englishmen. In fine, the government of
England is a monarchy; the monarch is the ancient stock from
which have sprung those goodly branches of the legislature, the
Lords and Commons, that at the same time give ornament to the
tree, and afford shelter to those who seek protection under it.
But these are still only branches, and derive their origin and their
nutriment from their common parent; they may be lopped off, and
the tree is a tree still ; shorn, indeed, of its honours, but not like
them, cast into the fire. The kingly government may go on in
all its functions, without Lords or Commons, it has heretofore
done so for years together, and in our times it does so during
every recess of parliament ; but without the king, his parliament
is no more. The king, therefore, alone it is who necessarily sub-
sists without change or diminution ; and from him alone we un-
ceasingly derive the protection of law and government." Mr.
Stun then moved, that the House do order the attorney-general
to prosecute the author of the said pamphlet. The Speaker said
that the motion could not be made in that form. The honourable
member must first make his complaint, and then move that the
passage complained of be read by the clerk. Mr. Pitt said, he
would not say a word upon the merits or demerits of the pamphlet,
but he called upon the House to decide whether they ought to
sacrifice the important. subject of discussion, which was expected
to occupy the attention of the House a great part of the evening,
to a subject of inferior moment, which had accidentally oc-
curred. He therefore moved the order of the day. — Mr.
Jekyll hoped there was still enough of honour and indepen-
dence in a British jury, and virtue sufficient in English judges, to
bring the author to condign punishment. The question was not,
whether the House of Commons ought to be calumniated, but
whether it ought to be lopped off as an excrescence. He spoke
on the ground of privilege, and therefore the question which he
spoke to was entitled to the priority of every other discussion. He
appealed to the highest authority of the House if he was not per-
fectly in order. — The Speaker said, that questions of privilege
celit.oa r,ii: vi.lyclaimed a precedence in discussion; and all that Wag




IVE. REEVES'S LIBEL. ON [Nov. 23,
necessary, to be done at present, was for the House to consider
whether it was a question of privilege.— Mr. Erskine, taking for
granted that the passage quoted from Mr. Reeves's pamphlet was
a libel, argued either that it was a question of privilege, or that
it was not. If it was not, he contended that it was prejudging
the case to direct the king's attorney-general to file any inform.
ation he had received against the libeller. But if it was a libel,
(and if it. was not, he knew not what was, for not only the con.
stitution, but the very existence of the House of Commons was
represented as a matter of little or no concern,) the only point to
be settled was, whether a libel upon the House of Commons was
or was not a question of privilege. Here Mr. Erskine referred to
the instance of the king versus Stockdale, in which the attorney-
general was directed to prosecute Stockdale for a breach of pri-
vilege of the House, not very dissimilar from the present. The
Speaker had given a decided opinion_ on the point, that a
question of privilege claimed a priority of discussion. The chan-
cellor of the exchequer, on the other hand, had pressed the im-
portance of the bill, as if the people of England were more
anxious to have their liberties taken away than to preserve the
very existence of the right of representation ; a position which
that right honourable gentleman might endeavour to palm upon
the House, but which would require much more ingenuity of ar-
gument than he could command to render it palatable. — Mr. Pitt
said, he did not mean to argue upon any of the sentiments con-
tained in the pamphlet ; the leading consideration was, whether
it was a breach of privilege or not ? And, if it was, he thought,
instead of recommending the attorney-general to prosecute, the
House should vindicate its privileges by acts of its own. How-
ever, he was at present for passing to the order of the day.


Mr. Fox considered the objection which had been started
by the chancellor of the exchequer as the strangest he had
ever heard. A member of parliament had complained of a
breach of privilege ; .and, because an informal remedy had
been proposed by a single individual, was this to alter the
fact in limine ? But the great object was to get forward to
the order of the day. Oh, how differently (exclaimed Mr.
Fox) do you feel on the code of liberty, and on the code of
despotism ! France emerged from a state of slavery, and
shook off the chains of her tyrants — a general alarm was
the consequence — an armament was ordered war was de,
dared — millions of treasure have been expended, and thou-
sands of lives have been sacrificed. Poland was robbed of
her liberties by the lawless grasp of overgrown ambition. In
.one speech of the minister, a lamentation was made over the
scene of oppression, and shortly after a treaty was signed to
guarantee the robbery The Corresponding Societies came
forward with spirit in the cause of parliamentary reform, and


-4 few paltry libels were published; the habeas corpus aCt was


1795•] THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION. $3
suspended, indictments for high treason were drawn up; new
treasons were enacted, and the bill of rights was repealed.
A -more atrocious libel than any that had been published now
appears from the pen of a ministerial hireling, against the
House of Commons, and the motion which is made by the
chancellor of the exchequer is that we should proceed to
the other orders of the day Mr. Fox, though in general he
declared himself no friend to prosecution for opinions, called
upon the House to come forward on the present occasion,
in vindication of their privileges, their dignit y, and their
existence.


Mr. Windham said, that after hearing the passage read, he was
not prepared to deliver his mind upon it.; but it was not conform-
able to the interpretation given it by gentlemen. As far as he
was then prepared to decide on it, it might be perfectly innocent.
It was, he thought, merely the opinion or declaration of an
antiquarian or historian, speaking his sentiments of the British
constitution. It merely meant, that monarchy was antecedent to
the other parts of the constitution ; and might possibly survive or
subsist without them. It was merely such an opinion as an his-
torian might give of any form of polity. He was persuaded, that
if it were tried before that tribunal which gentlemen sentenced it
to, there was not sufficient to condemn it. With respect to the
person who was said to be the author, very indecent language;
had been used; but the gentlemen who so traduced his cha-
racter had good reason : he incurred their displeasure, in pro-
portion as he gained the good will of the country.


Mr. Fox said, that he was always sorry when he felt him-
self obliged to arraign the general character of any man;
but of Mr. Reeves he must say, that he never could mention
him with respect, since he saw in the public prints a letter
respecting him by Mr. Law. He asked, was this a solitary .
libel ? He always doubted the wisdom of prosecuting for opi-
nions ; but when opinions were made the grounds for the
alarming bills then pending, it was for the House to see,
whether they ought not to hold this libel in equal abhorrence
with any that ever came before them. He said, he was not
fond of prosecutions for opinion, and he proposed merely
that the House should publicly declare the sentiments they
entertained of this atrocious libel. Great God ! said Mr.
Fox, 'shall it go out into the world, that a gentleman of dis-
tinguished talents, and powerful influence in the cabinet,
holds the doctrine which this passage inculcates ! If he ad-
heres to that opinion, it is a demonstration that the system
of the cabinet is changed, that a settled plan of overthrowing.
the liberties of the people is _entertained. He was glad that


0 2




84 MR. REEVES'S LIBEL ON [Nov. 23.


those ministers who had been once his friends, were the per-
sons who displayed some openness and candour, for from
their declarations, the opinion of their colleagues was to be
gathered. He wished to know, whether the secretary at war
could possibly defend this libel as innocent; and therefore
he hoped that gentlemen would discuss it. He hoped the
House would come to no opinion on the passage, till they
had heard the context. He hoped that the House would
agree to the reacting of the whole of the pamphlet, and that
they would not proceed on detached scraps, as they did in
bringing in the bills.


The question was put, that the said pamphlet be read, which
-was agreed to without a division. After it had been read by the
clerk, Mr. Sheridan said, that it must now be admitted upon full
proof to be the falsest, foulest, dullest, and most malicious pamphlet
that had ever issued from a prostituted press. Doubts had been
stated, whether the author was of importance enough to attract
and call for the weighty and immediate notice of that House : but
they should consider, that this person was the main agent and
abettor of all those associations which originated and circulated
those alarms about French principles, that had contributed so
much to the unhappy state in which the country, stood at that
moment. He considered him however as too despicable for that
species of trial which Sacheverell, whose works contained no prin-
ciples more detestable, had suffered. He would therefore move,
" That the said pamphlet is a malicious, scandalous, and seditious
libel, reflecting on the glorious Revolution ; containing matter
tending to create jealousies and divisions among his majesty's loyal
subjects, to alienate their affections from our present happy form
of government, as established in king, lords, and commons, and
to subvert the true principles of our free constitution ; and that
the said pamphlet is a high breach of the privileges of this House."
The master of the rolls finding it impossible, he said, to make up
his mind to an instantaneous decision upon such a mass of matter,
moved, " That the said pamphlet be taken into further consider-
ation on Thursday." In this he was supported by Mr. Pitt and
Mr. Sergeant Adair ; and opposed by Mr. Erskine, who moved
that the word " to-morrow" be inserted instead of " Thursday."


Mr. Fox said, it had been asked, why he had not brought
on the consideration of the pamphlet before ? In answer to
which, he begged leave to say, that he did not know whether
be should have brought it on at all. He conceived that dan-
gerous opinions might be stated in a publication, and that yet


might not be of consequence to proescute the author. But
when such a publication as the present was brought forward
in that House ,it was then incumbent on them to show that they
Were not parties to libels upon the constitution, nor the pa-
-tioni of those by whom such libels were circulated. The


THE
]


BRITISH CONSTITUTION.
855795'.


existence of the treason and sedition bills formed another
why this publication should not be passed by ; for if


was found that arbitrary doctrines were recommended, and
Ftorowt


if arbitrary measures were in the course of being adopted by
ministers, he then thought it of consequence that the House
should not subscribe to the opinion of the right honourable
the secretary:of war, that the passage in that publication, which-
had been particularly referred to, appeared to be innocent.
A learned gentleman (Mr. Adair) admitted it to be a libel on.
the constitution, and yet was an advocate for delay. Why did
he not narrow his condemnation to the doctrines contained in
that particular passage ? Notwithstanding all the partiality of
ministers for arbitrary power, he did not conceive that many of
their advocates would be found to come forward to support
those doctrines. A delay, then, was on their part desirable, in-
order that they might concert, in the interval, whether any de-
fence could be set up for this passage, in all probability- the-
production of one of their own agents. But, he asked, was
this exceptionable passage so long, was it so doubtful, that
after having heard it once r ead, the House could have any
hesitation with respect to its tendency ? Did ministers wish.
for the delay of a few days, in order to give notice to the-
author of the libel, to get out of the way? Did they wish
for time in their distressed situation, in order to palliate the
atrocity of the libel by some straining and twisting of the-
other parts of the pamphlet, and justify the declaration set up-
by the right honourable the secretary at war, that it was per-
fectly innocent? It was, Mr. Fox declared, a libel of a more
dangerous nature, and a worse tendency, than any that had
been issued by the Constitutional and Corresponding Societies.
It was not difficult, however, to perceive the tenderness of mi-
nisters for this libeller on the House of Commons, nor to pe-
netrate into the motives of their conduct ; and he thought it
a bad omen for the country, that while such dispositions were
manifested, it should be urged, that not a moment was to be
lost in coming to a decision on bills, which, under the pretence
of giving greater security to his majesty's person, were, in
reality, calculated to strengthen the hands of government, and
overturn the privileges of the constitution.


The question for adjourning the further consideration of the
pamphlet till Thursday was carried without a division.


November 26.
The debate on Mr. Sheridan's motion being resumed, it was


-strongly opposed by Mr. Windham, who defended the pamphlet
In a speech of considerable length.


0 3




86 MR. REEVES'S LIBEL ON
[Nov. 26, 179$.J


THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.
87


Mr. Fox asked, whether the right honourable secretary at
war would have taken the same pains to find out a different
meaning had any other pamphlet been the subject of discus-
sion? Supposing it had been from Mr. Paine's ? If so, he
would then, indeed, pronounce him impartial. Or, if he,
(Mr. Fox,) had endeavoured to explain any pamphlet coming
from a member of the Corresponding Society, whether that
right honourable gentleman would have exculpated him from
the charge of partiality towards that body; then, indeed, he
would give him credit for impartiality on the -present occa-
sion : bat when he saw him employing his ingenuity in order
to give a sense to the pamphlet different from what it would
obviously bear, he could not help thinking that the right ho-
nourable gentleman entertained some lurking partiality to-
wards the principles asserted in that pamphlet. Would any
gentleman venture to declare, that there did not appear as set-
tled a design in Reeves's association to attack the constitution,
as in any of the corresponding societies? To the pamphlet
of Mr. Arthur Young, an express vote of thanks, signed by
Mr. Reeves, as chairman of the association, and an appro-
bation of the doctrines contained in Mr. Young's pamphlet.
were subjoined. The principles which Mr. Reeves's association
wished to adopt were, that rotten boroughs, extravagant courts,
selfish ministers, and corrupt magistrates, formed the security
for the constitution of England. What could such doctrines
proceed from but a settled design in that society to destroy
the constitution of this country? If' they analized the pam-
phlet minutely, they would find the doctrine contrary not only
to fact, but to the language of the statute-book, which declared,
that the government of this country was not simply a mo-
narchy, but a government in king, lords, and commons.
My own difficulty (said Mr. Fox) is what the conduct of the
House should be on this occasion. I profess myself an enemy
to prosecutions for libellous attacks; and yet, at such a time
as this, when Mr. Reeves's association arc spreading their
pernicious doctrines abroad, I am anxious that the House of
Commons should express their disapprobation of principles
recommended by that association. I wish to get at the author
of this pamphlet; and this is so material an object, that I
think the better way would be, for the House to keep this
business in its own hands.


The motion was carried, and a committee was afterwards ap-
pointed to enquire who was the author of the said libel.


December 14.


The reports of' the committee appointed to enquire who was the
author of the pamphlet, entitled " Thoughts on the English Govern-
ment," being this day taken into consideration, Mr. Sheridan
moved, " That one of the said printed books be burnt by' the
hands of the common hangman in the New Palace-yard, 'West-
minster, on Monday, the zest day of this instant December, at one
of the clock in the afternoon ; and that another of the said printed
books be burnt by the hands of the common hangman before the
Royal Exchange in London, on Tuesday the 22d day of this in-
stant December, at the same hour; and that the sheriffs of London
and Middlesex do attend at the said time and places respectively,
and cause the same to be burnt there accordingly." As an amend-
ment to this motion, Mr. Secretary Dundas moved, " That an
humble address be presented to his majesty, humbly to desire his
majesty that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to his
attorney-general to prosecute John Reeves, esquire, as the author
or publisher of a printed pamphlet, entitled " Thoughts on the
English Government, &c.' After the amendment had been sup-
ported by Lord Sheffield and Mr. Sylvester Douglas,


Mt. Fox said, that with respect to the danger to be appre-
hended from the pamphlet, he could not allow that the danger
of an arbitrary government being established was wholly chi-
merical, though he was ready to admit that the recent feeling
which had been excited by the two bills had, in a considerable
degree, diminished his apprehension of such an event. In a
mixed government like this, however, all publications were
dangerous which tended to give to one of the parts of that
government too great an ascendancy over the rest. It might
be asked, why, if no prosecution were wished, all the facts had
been stated ? For this plain reason, to convince the House of
the impropriety of the pamphlet. What was it that'be de-
sired? It was this, that as a pamphlet such as this bad been
brought before the House, the House should not content them-
selves with a mere vote of censure, but should make the pam-
phlet undergo, as it were, the ignominious punishment of
burning. With regard to precedents, he contended that, with
a very few exceptions, they ran in favour of the original
motion. Early in the present reign, a pamphlet, called
" Omit le Roi," had been complained of, censured, and burnt.
At the commencement of the American war, another pam-
phlet, called " The Crisis," had also been complained of and
burnt. Why, then, should it be for the honour of the House
at present to thew such tenderness for the doctrine contained


0 4




88 MR. REEVES'S LIBEL, &C. [Dec. 14,
in the pamphlet, as to exempt it from the punishment which
had been inflicted on similar doctrines?


An insinuation had gone forth, that a wish to oppose Mr.
Reeves had existed, and a noble lord (Sheffield) had stated,
that that gentleman was to be prosecuted because he had
counteracted the views of gentlemen on his side of the House.
Now, he would fairly own, that Mr. Reeves had counteracted
his views. His views had been to put an end to all religious
differences. Mr. Reeves's association, however, had tried to
light up the flame of religious discord all over the king-.
dom. His own object had always been to preserve the ba-
lance between all the parts of the government. Mr. Reeves,
by the circulation of Mr. Soame Jenyns's doctrines, and
other pamphlets, had tried to destroy that balance. He
was, therefore, not ashamed to say, that Mr. Reeves had
counteracted his views. He had mentioned Mr. Soame
Jenyns's pamphlet ; lie had read it when it first came out;
he thought it ingenious and innocent. But though Mr.
Jenyns wrote it innocently, did Mr. Reeves circulate it in-
nocently? The material difference lay in that circumstance
altogether.


Arguments had been used to shew that the House, if they
adopted the motion, would, at the same time, be judge and
jury. Was it not in the nature of things that it must be so ?
And in a case which related to its own privileges, how could
it be otherwise ? Could any of the courts below vindicate their
privileges, in any other manner than by acting both as judge
and jury ? If he were asked, whether he would stop there,
his reply would be, that he had no objection. He had no
objection also to sending for Mr. Reeves to the bar. At the
bar he might make his defence, and comment upon the evi-
dence that had been adduced against him, in order either to
disprove it or abate its force and application. About punish-
ment he was little solicitous, and he should even have cared
little about burning the pamphlet, if Mr. Reeves had not been
at •the head of these associations ; and if this and other pam-
phlets, circulated by those associations, had not proceeded
from the same shop. The removal from a place of trust was
certainly a severe punishment; but was it not inflicted in cases
where particular tests were not taken? Had it not been in-
flicted in similar cases to the present. In the case of the
Bishop of Worcester, who had interfered in an election, did
not the House petition the Queen to remove him from the
office of almoner to her majesty ?


Mr. Sheridan's motion was put and negatived ; after which
Mr. Dundas's motion for the attorney-general to proceed against
Mr. Reeves was agreed to.


s795.]
KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING, &C.


$9


KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING A NEGOCIATION WITH THE
PRESENT GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.


December 9.


ON the 8th of December, Mr. Pitt presented the followingmessage from his majesty :
" GEORGE R.


" His majesty relying on the assurances which he has received
from his faithful Commons, of their determination to support his
majesty in those exertions which are necessary under the present
circumstances, recommends it to this House to consider of making
provision towards enabling his majesty to defray any extraordinary
expence which may be incurred for the service of the ensuing year,
and to take such measures as the exigency of affairs may require.
His majesty, on this occasion, thinks proper to acquaint the House,
that the crisis which was depending at the commencement of the


. present session has led to such an order of things in France, as will
induce his majesty (conformably to the sentiments which he has
already declared) to meet any disposition to negotiation on the part
of the enemy, with an earnest desire to give it the fullest and speedi-
est effect, and to conclude a treaty of general peace, whenever it
can be effected on just and suitable terms for himselfand his allies.—
It is his majesty's earnest wish that the spirit and determination
manifested by parliament, added to the recent and important suc-
cesses of the Austrian armies, and to the continued and growing
embarrassments of the enemy, may speedily conduce to the at-
tainment of this object on such grounds as the justice of the cause,
in which this country is engaged, and the situation of affairs, may
entitle his majesty to expect."


On the following day the said message was taken into consider-
ation, when Mr. Pitt moved, " That an humble address be pre-
sented to his majesty, to return his majesty the thanks of the
House for his most gracious message : To acknowledge, with the
utmost gratitude and satisfaction, his majesty's condescension and
goodness, in haying been graciously pleased to acquaint us, that
the crisis which was depending at the commencement of the session,
has led to such an order of things in France, as will induce his ma-
jesty, conformably to the sentiments which he has already declared,
to meet any disposition for a negotiation on the part of the enemy,
with an earnest desire to give it the fullest and speediest effect, and
to conclude a treaty of general peace, whenever it can be effected
on just and suitable terms for himself and his allies : To assure his
majesty, that, until that desirable period shall arrive, it is our firmdetermination to continue to afford his majesty that vigorous sup-
port which we are persuaded is essential to the most important




90
interests of his kingdom ; and that it will yield us the highest grati.
fication, if his majesty's powerful preparations and exertions, added
to the recent and important successes of the Austrian armies, and
to


the continued and growing embarrassments of the enemy, should
have the happy effect of speedily conducing to the restoration of
a general peace on such grounds as the justice of the cause in which
this country is engaged, and the situation of affairs, may entitle his
majesty to expect."


Mr. Sheridan avowed himself of opinion, that the intention of
the minister was to frustrate the motion for peace, of which his
honourable friend Mr. Grey bad given notice. What other mo-
tive, lie asked, could induce the minister to this change of lan-
guage respecting the French, whom he • had so lately represented
as unable to continue the war, and on the brink of destruction?
The•men who governed that country were the same who had put
the king to death, and with whom, our ministry had declared, no
settled order of things could ever take place. But, whoever were
the governors of France, Mr. Sheridan insisted, that no reason•of
that sort ought to prevent an accommodation . On that ground
he would move the following amendment : " Your majesty's faith-
ful Commons, having thin manifested their determination to give
your majesty the most vigorous support in the further prosecution
of the war, in case just and reasonable terms of peace should be
refused on the part of the enemy, and having declared the cordial
satisfaction they feel at your majesty's gracious intention, to meet
any disposition to negociation, on the part of the enemy, with an
earnest desire to give it the fullest and speediest effect, cannot at
the same time avoid expressing the deep regret they feel, that your
majesty should ever have been advised to consider the internal
order of things in France to have been such, as should not have
induced your majesty at any time to meet a disposition to negocia-
tion on the part of the enemy :— And your faithful Commons feel
themselves at this conjuncture the more forcibly called on to.
declare this opinion, because, if the present existing order of things
in France be admitted as the motive and inducement to negocia-
tion, a change in that order of things may be considered as a ground
for discontinuing a negotiation begun, or even for abandoning fi
treaty con cluded : Wherefore, your majesty's faithful Commons,duly reflecting on the calamitous waste of treasure and of blood,
to which it is now manifest the acting on this principle has so un-
fortunately and so largely contributed, and greatly apprehensive
of the grievous and ruinous consequences to which the persevering
to act on such principles must inevitably tend, do humbly and
earnestly implore your majesty, that it may be altogether aban-
doned and disclaimed ; and that the form of government, or internal
order of things, in France, whatever they may be, or shall become,
may be no bar to a negociation for restoring to your majesty's sub-
jects the blessings of peace, whenever it can be effected on just and
suitable terms for your majesty and your allies : — And as the
principal bar to a negociation for peace appears to have been your
majesty's having been hitherto advised to consider the order Of
things in France as precluding your majesty from meeting a dis,


1795•]


A PEACE WITII FRANCE.
91


h
)osition to negociation on the part of the enemy, your faithful
ommons now humbly beseech your majesty to give distinct direc-


t ions that an immediate negociation may be entered on the above
salutary object."


The amendment was seconded by Mr. Grey, who advanced a
variety of facts and reasonings upon them, to prove the propriety
of treating. Mr. Pitt replied, that until the present opportunity,
none had offered to encourage ideas of peace, which, however, had
not been prevented by the mere existence of a republic in France,
but by a total absence of any species of regular government. The
change now was manifest : the new constitution was contrary to
the doctrine of universal equality; the French had now a mixed
form of government, admitting of distinctions in society ; and their
legislature was not constructed on a pure democracy. This fully
authorized ministry to consider them in quite another light than
formerly ; but did not furnish any pretence for depriving ministers
of their right to act in the name of the executive power, without
undue interference, which must certainly be the case, were the
amendment to be adopted.


Mr. Fox said, that however he might differ from much of
what had fallen from the right honourable gentleman, how-
ever he might object to the terms of the address which had
been moved, there was one thing which must give him plea-
sure; he must congratulate the House and the country on
the complete change which had happily taken place in the
language and in the system of government. The House
would believe him when he said that he rejoiced, and when
he congratulated them upon this change, since he had also to
congratulate himself upon the occasion, as this change of
language and of system pronounced his pardon, and was a
complete absolution of all his past sins. Ministers had made
a total rctractation of all the charges they had brought against
him for the motions he had made, and for the doctrines he
had held from the commencement of the war to the present
day; they had fully acquitted him, and had positively de-
clared that, in every sentiment he had uttered, he was right,
and that the House should have acted upon his opinion ;
for all along he had maintained the doctrine now laid down
in his majesty's message. Three years ago, namely, on the
15th of December 5792, lie had made a motion for a negoci-
ation for peace. In June 1793


he had done the same thing;
be had also moved an amendment in the course of the same
session, tending to the same purpose. In January 17 94


15,?.
had supported the motion of an honourable friend; and in -
the latter end of the same session he had maintained and
supported in argument the same sentiment as that now con-
veyed in his majesty's message, namely, that it was fit and
Proper to negotiate with the existing government of France.


[. 9KING'S MESSAGE 'RESPECTING Dec ,





92 KINGS MESSAGE RESPECTING
[Dec. 9.


It had been his uniform argument, that, at every moment
from the first commencement of hostilities to the present, it
was wise and politic to make the declaration which had been
now submitted to the House, — that France was in a state
to negociate with this country. He had, therefore, at present,
this triumph, that ministers retracted by this message all the


nlanena they had held in answer to his motions, and all thela guage


which they had thrown upon him. 44 What !"
they said, " treat with men whose hands are yet reeking
with the blood of their sovereign ! What ! treat with men
who would come here with principles that are destructive of
all government !" Such were their arguments, and yet mark
their conduct: they now declared themselves ready to treat
with the new directory of France, four members of which bad '
actually participated in the judgment and death of their
sovereign, and were directly implicated in that act. He
regretted exceedingly the absence of some gentlemen from
the House this evening, who had signalized themselves by
reprobating his sentiments and conduct in the severest terms,
because from them also he might have received the same
sentence of pardon and absolution, and because they might
now have been ready to confess, that the censures in which
they had so liberally dealt were the effect of sudden irritation,
or gross misapprehension. Other modes of attack had been
practised; not the least remarkable of which was, that he
and his friends left nothing to the discretion 'of ministers.
When by their motions they had merely called upon the
House to consider the existing government of France as
capable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity with
their allies, a complaint was made on behalf of ministerial
discretion, and the supporters of the motions were accused
of a wish to deliver over his majesty's advisers bound hand
and foot, to the governors of France. They did no such
thing; neither his two amendments, nor the motions of his
honourable friend (Mr. Grey), went so far as the present
message from the crown. His amendments did no more
than declare, that there were no embarrassments to treating
in the form of the government of France; nothing that made
it impossible or improper for this country to treat. The
motion of his honourable friend was still more gentle. It
was, that there was nothing in the government of France
that tended to retard a negotiation. But the present mes-
sage declared at once their readiness to treat under certain
circumstances, and the House were now called upon to do
what had then been declared to be so improper, so degrading,
and so ignominious. All these foul epithets, however, were
now completely retracted, and justice was dohe to the good-


A PEACE WITH PRANCE.1795'3 93
intentions, and to the sound policy of the gentlemen on his
tsii:/eTemhoehiscaltIlaidei


by insinuating that his honourable friend
sco.f the exchequer had thought to involve


had argued against the address. But this Mr. Fox positively
denied, for he had not opposed the address, but thinking it
inadequate fully to express the sentiments which the House
ought to feel on the occasion, he had proposed an amendment
more definite in its object, and more comprehensive in its
provisions. He could not, however, but protest against a
mode of arguing, by which a person was not allowed to
approve of an address if' he ventured to express his disap-
probation of the measures by which the situation was pro-
duced in which the address was moved. If it should be said,
that it was an opposition to the address, because they pro--
posed an amendment, he must protest against such reasoning,
which tended to deprive him of' the freedom of speech. If he
must agree to a proposition only in the terms in which it was
put, he was deprived of deliberation, and was no longer
permitted to be a free reasoner. But this would not, he
supposed, be seriously disputed ; and it would not be ascribed


. to him, that he was an enemy to peace because he agreed
to an amendment to a message which was extremely equivocal.
An enemy to peace ! The whole tenor of his reasoning from
the commencement of the war was, that every moment was
favourable to a negotiation for peace. Had he any objec-
tions to that peace being concluded by the honourable gen-
tleman? None; for he should think it an addition to the
blessings of peace, if the country could along with it procure
the advantage of bringing his majesty's ministers into dis-
grace; and he should conceive that they were completely
disgraced by the retractation of every assertion they had made,
and by the surrender of every object which they had held
out as the pretext of war. If this should be said to be ani
nvidious mode of speaking, he bad no objection to plead


guilty to the charge, for he most assuredly did think, that
next to the blessings of peace would be the disgrace of mi-
nisters, who had entered upon the war without reason and
r
ejected every opportunity of concluding a peace upon terms


the country


more favourable for the country than any that they


than they were now likely to obtain, still they had brought
soling idea, that if they had rejected peace upon better terms
were now likely to obtain. It might, however, be their con-


country to such a pitch of calamity, and so clamorous
were the people, that peace upon any terms would be received
from them as a boon and an atonement for all their trans-gressions. Such might be their feeling. But, if it were
Possible to believe that the members of that House could so




94 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [ Dec. g.


far surrender their pride, their independence, and their spirit,
as to justify such a sentiment, he could only say, that they
surrendered their public principles to personal motives, but
that such conduct was inconsistent with their duty as repre-
sentatives of the people, and incompatible with their' cha-
racter as men of honour. 'No; though they should give
peace to the country, he would not agree to forget their de-
merits. He should still think himself bound to accuse them
as the authors of all the calamities that we had suffered, and
he should not think it was a sufficient atonement for their
conduct, that they had prevailed on a majority of that House
to support them in the system.


He now came to consider the question of the amendment.
And first, it was necessary to inquire whether the address
wanted explanation ; and secondly, whether it was not neces-
sary, in addition to the declaration which it contained, to
come to some precise expression of the sense of the House as
to the necessity and wisdom of negociation, whatever might
be the form of the government of France. The right ho-
nourable gentleman, had said, that they should be left open
to negotiate, but not be obliged to it. Upon this lie would,
inquire, whether there did exist at this moment a form of
government in France, that in the opinion of his majesty's
ministers made it wise, fit, and practicable for them to treat?
This was the question. Was it not the intention of gentle-
men, that with such a government they should treat ? Last
year, when his honourable , friend made a motion for paci-
fication, the right honourable gentleman objected to it as
being a practical declaration for treating, and he moved an
amendment, which he called a conditional declaration, that
we were disposed to treat, 'whenever there was a form of go-
vernment in France capable of maintaining the accustomed
relations of peace and amity with other countries. That
time was come. I-Bs majesty's message expressly declared
that they were now come to such a form of government. Nay,
a more precise term was used than in the amendment of last
year, for, instead of other countries, the message expressly
stated Great Britain. Then, if they were come to this state,
why not declare, said Mr. Fox, that you will treat with them ?
Why not act upon your owri declaration ? Why not be steady
to the principle which you have pronounced, and declare that
you will treat? Since that declaration was made in the month
of June last, there was not a statesman in Europe, except his
majesty's ministers, who did not believe that France was in a
state capable of maintaining . the relations of peace and amity
with other countries. Their conduct to neutral powers had
demonstrated the fact. Prussia had acted upon the demon-


13


795']
A PEACE WITH FRANCE. 95


and had concluded a peace accordingly. It was
s.t:iadtetto all the world, then, except to the king's ministerseviden


if they had been sincere in the declaration that they madein die month of June last, it would have been manifest to
them also, and they would have acted upon it. With this
alaring fact before their eyes, would the House again leave it
in their power to juggle with words, and to evade their own
declarations? Would they not now think it necessary in pru-
dence to bind them down to a specific act upon their own
words? If they did not, what possible confidence could they
have in the present declaration more than in the past? They
might say, it was true that at the time of making such decla-
ration there appeared to be a disposition in France to treat;
but now circumstances have changed, and there is not the
same disposition. They might affect to see circumstances un-
known or totally disregarded by the rest of Europe, and
might say that they were not bound by the present declaration,
and that the House had come to no opinion which made it
necessary for them to treat; such had been the result of their
former conduct. The right honourable gentleman had per-
suaded the House to leave them to the exercise of their own
discretion, and they had neglected the time which other
statesmen and other cabinets had wisely seized and happily
improved. If the House desired, therefore, that the blessings
of peace should be restored to the country, they must take
care that the present address should be precise and definitive,
If it was not clear and intelligible, it was fit that it should be
amended, and the experience of last year ought to convince
them that no loop-hole should be left, no latitude given, totitude a,


,


that disposition to equivocate which they had so much reason
to lament.


Speaking of France, the right honourable gentleman said,
that the present was a fit government with which to treat;
and he had accused his honourable friend (Mr. Grey) of hav-
ing made a slip of the tongue, when lie said that by a singular
state of things they might be said to be attacking the French
constitution which ministers were defending. It was no slip
of the tongue; nor was there any thing wrong in the reason-


I-Iis honourable friend never otherwise hail defended
the former constitutions of France as being <rood o•overnments.


relationfor the people of that country, but good in relatio to others.
Re and every gentleman around him had contended, not that
the constitutions of France were well framed for the happiness
of the people of that country, but that they were sufficient for
all the purposes of good neighbourhood, and of preserving
1?eace and amity with others. They never attempted to de-
lend the government of Robespierre. The right honourable




96 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [Dec. 9,


gentleman would not do him the injustice to impute to him
an approbation of that detestable monster. He had always
said, that every one of the successive governments of France
had shewn a disposition and capacity to maintain their
treaties with foreign nations. . He was of the same opinion
still; and if any one man should rise in his place, and assert
that he saw good reason to believe that the present govern-
ment of France was more capable than any of its predeces-
sors to maintain those relations, he must only say that he
should very much doubt either his sincerity or his judgment.
It had been a darling expression to call the state of France
for three years past a state of anarchy. It would have been a
more correct description to have called it a state of tyranny,
intolerable beyond that of any, perhaps, that ever was expe-
rienced in the history of man. To say that he rejoiced in the
probability of its termination was, he hoped, unnecessary.
He certainly rejoiced in it as much as he did in the fall of the
tyranny of the House of Bourbon. But, was that tyranny
capable of maintaining terms with foreign powers ? Most
certainly it was. And if this assertion should be denied, he
called upon gentlemen to produce a single instance in which
they had departed from the strict performance of their en-
gagements; a single instance in which any one of the adverse
parties that tore one another to pieces, and in their despicable
and horrid conflicts tore also the bosom of their country, ever
violated the engagements they had made out of France. Did
not the Brissotinc party maintain the treaties of their prede-
cessors? Did not the execrable tyrant Robespierre himself;
observe with equal fidelity the treaties made by Brissot?
Were not his successors uniformly steady in their adherence
to the external system which had been adopted ? It had been
observed with truth, that no one period in the French revo-
lution had been marked by a more sacred regard to the neu-
trality of foreign powers, than the reign of that execrable
tyrant Robespierre; and it would not be denied, but that
treaties had been made with tyrants as execrable; and con-
sidering what sort of treaties ministers had made, with whom
they had made them, and what acts of base and abandoned
tyranny they had not discountenanced, it was not worthy the
manly•character of the British nation to abet them in their
resistance to a treaty with France.


Having thus shewn, in his mind, the futility of all objections
to treat on account of the insecurity of treaty, Mr. Fox came-
to their next argument, that now France was in the greatest
possible distress. Granted. Was that a reason for treating
now? Was it because this very stable government was on the
point of annihilation, that it was capable of 'maintaining the


A PEACE WITH FRANCE. 97e795 .]
relations with foreign powers? The absurdity was too grossifor argument. But, if their distress was a reason for treating
with them, had they not experienced this distress a twelve-
month ago ? Let the House remember the speeches of the
right honourable gentleman and his noble friend (Lord Morn-
ington) on the state of their assignats, when they said that


depreciation was at the rate of 8o per cent. Aye, but
they had not then come to sufficient distress to be solicitous
of peace, and now it seems they were come to this disposition.
And what was of more consequence, it seemed that they had
now a constitution which was quite fit for all the purposes of
neeociation. If ministers depended upon this slender thread,
our security was slight indeed. He was not about to praise or
to censure their new constitution ; that he owned could be
properly estimated only by experience. But whether it was
good, bad, or indifferent, did not signify a farthin g the6present argument. Whether it was calculated to rive happi-
DM to the people of France, was none of their concern;
it was not with the constitution but with the government of
France that they had to do. That government they had be-
fore, and had, he would venture to say, in as perfect a shape


-as they had 110W. Nay, if he could trust to an assertion
that had been made in that House but very lately, had more
perfectly, since it was said, that some of their generals had
violated the treaty that had been made with Prussia. What
was the construction to be put upon this conduct? That this
government, the only one under which the slightest violation
of treaty had been known since the Revolution, was also the
only one with which it was proper for this country to treat.
[It was whispered across the House by ministers, that this
violation happened before the establishment of the presentgovernment.] Before ! said Mr. Fox :—the fact was ex-
pressly stated as an argument by the other side of the House,
that day se'nnight ; that it was totally without foundation he
believed ; he certainly never had head it except in that House
upon that occasion. But now they were to have perfect con-
fidence in these identical men, because France had now two
houses of legislature instead of one ! Their nature Was to be
changed, their insincerity to be obviated, and every objection
to be at an end, because France had now two houses instead
of one ! There was something so extremely whimsical, and
so enworthy of statesmen, in this mode of reasoning, that he
Ivoeld not stop to reply to it. He did not mean to criticise
the present French constitution; he certainly thought it bet-
ter Planned than any of the preceding; -but he could not look.ito it with greater confidence than to any of its forerunners.H m ee ca now to speak of the origin of the War, in WWI


1-01,,




98 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [Dec. 14,


he would not cease to say, that ministers were the aggressors.
It was their eternal answer to this charge, that France had
declared the war. Their incessant recurrence to this feeble
subterfuge proceeded from a conscious qualm that the accus,
ation was well founded. In his opinion, even in a case of
actual insult, it was the duty of statesmen to attempt to pro•
cure redress by negociation before they recurred to the argu-
ment of war. Had ministers taken this course? The pretexts
were, that the French had threatened to deprive our allies,
the Dutch, of the free navigation of the Scheldt, and that
they had made a declaration, threatening all the world with
the dangers of fraternity. Grant that these were legitimate
grounds upon which it was the duty of this country to demand
satisfaction, was it not the duty of ministers to negociate for
that satisfaction ? The French had a minister at this court.
Why did they not express to that minister the terms upon
which they would continue their amity ? In every corre-
spondence of the sort, it was incumbent on both parties to
state explicitly what they desired to be done, and what they
would do in return. Let gentlemen look at the correspond-
ence which had been published, and they would see that
there was no declaration on the part of ministers upon what
terms they were disposed to continue their amity. But grant
even to government their demand, that the French were the
aggressors, and that this was merely a defensive war : then it
was the nature of a defensive war that it should be pursued
on the motives of defence, and that every moment should be
seized upon when it might be possible to obtain the security
for which it was undertaken. He appealed to the House and
to the country if this had been their conduct. He demanded
whether, after the defeat of Dumourier, when Belgium was
recovered, and when French Flanders was over-run, a peace
upon the terms of security, and upon such terms as-we had
not now either reason or right to expect, might not have
been obtained ? If the war had been really defensive, if it
had been undertaken only to resist encroachments, terms
ought then to have been offered upon which we might have
procured reparation, security and indemnity. Terms were
offered by the French : Maret was sent here commissioned'to
offer terms. But they were rejected. Upon what principle?
Not because we were fighting about a limit, about a boun-
dary ; but for that security which could only be obtained by
the destruction of their government. He would not say that
it was- expressly stated that the ancient monarchy should be re-
instated, though, by the by, Lord. Hood, in his declaration
at Toulon, had impressed that opinion upon every part of
France ; • but both then, e.nd at every time -sinhe, it had been


A PEACE WITH PRANCE.




1795'1 99
time avowed object of ministers in the war, to destroy the
J
acobin government. 'Was the jacobin government destroyed ?
Vas the government founded on the rights of man at an


end ? Had the declaration of the 1 9th of. November 1792,
been any otherwise abandoned than it had been two years


•.) Why had they not then treated before?
Because theyago,


had objected to treat expressly with any government founded
on the rights of man. He would not say that the right ho-
nourable gentleman had gone the length of asserting that it




would be a bellum ad internecioncm ; he had said there might
be a case of extremity, but he made use of a quotation which
had this effect, that it left an impression of his meaning on
the memory, and the words were not liable to misconstruction.
His quotation was,


—" Potuit (lux plurhna virtus
Esse, fuit. Toto certatum est corpore regni."


Such was the right honourable gentleman's declaration. But
now we were come to a government when we might surrender
all our former assertions, and safely treat for peace. Had
we then obtained the objects of the war? The first was cur
obligation to defend our ally, the States-General. He had
always lamented the fate of that unhappy people. They
were entangled in a situation, from which, whoever were
conquerors, they could not escape; whoever gained, their
ruin was inevitable. Had we saved our ally? It was the
boast that we had taken the Cape of Good Hope. Good
God ! was this safety for Holland ? We had abandoned their
possessions in Europe to France, while we had marked out
their dependencies in the East for our share of the plunder.
Our protection was like that of our allies toward Poland; we
divided it for its safety ; and it was an argument for having
abandoned all its European possessions to France, that we
had seized, or were about to seize, on all its Asiatic territo-
ries for ourselves.


He could not help again digressing to one of the.attaeks
which had been made upon himself: -What, it had been
said, would you be so dastardly as to negociate for a peace


ail


With France, and leave Holland in their hands ? Now even
from thisthis attack he was delivered, ministers had agreed to




become
da stards, and to treat with France, possessed of


Holland.
t This they must acknowledge, or agree with him


that there was nothing dastardly in the proposition last year.
He wished to God it were as probable DOW as it was then,
that it might be recovered by negociation. He still trusted it
would be so. But there were other reasons that now induced
them to negotiate for peace. The domestic state of this


H 2




100 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [Dec. 14


country was changed. He could not avoid remarking ho*,
`the arguments varied. If they were speaking upon the sedition
bills, and he were to assert that there were no excesses in the
country, that called fir such unconstitutional restraints, he
should instantly hear a set of pamphlets and hand-bills read,
to prove that Great Britain was almost in a state of rebellion;
but if he - were to demand, why the present was a more fit
time than any other to negociate for peace, he should in-
stantly be answered, because we were happily sale at home
against all danger of jacobin principles. If he should say,
that by the increase of our debt, and the growing load of na-
tional burdens, there was much discontent in the country,
it would be answered, No such thing ; the example of France
has checked every symptom of discontent with the present
order of things. Then why pass the abominable bills?
'Why? it would on the other side be answered, because there
was something so perverse and obstinate in the seditious mul-
titude, that nothing but depriving us of our constitution
could make us safe. In this way did they reason. Each
measure had its own stile of argument ; and it was thought
necessary to insult the understanding, as well as to impose
chains upon the person.


We had failed, then, in Holland ; and we had failed at
home. What had we done for the rest of Europe ? What
for Prussia, for Spain, for Austria ? 'What had been the
fate of the war in general? His honourable friend had
spoken generally of our disasters, with the exception of our
naval exploits. The right honourable gentleman, with that
peculiar cast of candour which belonged to himself, bad thrown
out an insinuation that his honourable friend had forgotten the
achievements of his illustrious father. What fortunate im-
pression his candid sneer had made upon the House, he would
not inquire. His honourable friend had spoken generally
of the disasters of the war, without thinking it necessary to
enumerate the particular instances in which, under the con-
duct of great and gallant officers, even the incapacity of mi-
nisters had not deprived the British arms of glory. But
swhat great advantages had we obtained in the West Indies,
except the glory of Sir Charles Grey's achievements ? Would
any man say that the manner of the loss of Guadaloupe and
St. Lucie did not make us lament their previous 'conquest?
Again, therefore, he asserted, that the war had been dis-
astrous, inasmuch as we had failed in every object. We had
lost Holland, which was one object of the war ; and we had
settled and rivetted discontent on the minds of the people of
.England, not merely by the calamities arising from the war,


'1 A PEACE 'WITH rrtarcer. let1795
nut from the measures we had taken, and were now taking,
tola)that


however,
r uas


Peace,ifl t h now said to be near. Perhaps he
thought it was near, but he did not think so on account of
the message from the throne. He thought so because mi-
nisters felt the sense of the country to be declared against
the war; because, however they might affect to misrepresent


st e


the feeling of the country in their speeches, they felt in their
hearts, that there was not one man in the kingdom, the race
of money jobbers, contractors, and interested persons only
excepted, who was not sick of the war, as well as of the mi-
serable pretexts for carrying it on. He thought, therefore,
that to fix ministers to the point, they should adopt the
amendment, which contained a much more clear and specific
declaration than that contained in the address. He knew




that it was a vulgar opinion, and surely it was the most vulgar
of all vulgar opinions, that the proposers of a negociation,
always stood the worst chance in that negociation. He
wished to know one instance in which this had ever been the
case. In the present circumstances of Great Britain and
France, he thought the advantage was evidently on the side
of the proposers. For in both countries there was an evident
desire for peace in the great body of the people; so that it
would be impossible for the executive government of either
country to reject any proposals which might be made, if they
were not altogether unreasonable. If, therefore, at this mo-
ment, we were to make proposals to France, if they were not
grossly dishonourable, their committee of directory and
council of ancients, would not dare to refuse them, because,
by refusing them, they know that they would lose the con-
fidence and respect of the people.


The right honourable gentleman had not thought it neces-
sary to open his motion for the address, with any exposition
of the reasons why the message had been brought down at
this very remarkable conjuncture. The speech from the
throne was made on the zyth of October, and then no such
intimation was given ; but the right honourable gentleman
had said, that a declaration tantamount to the present was
made in the king's speech, and that the people from that
speech would have been justified in expecting the present
message. They must judge of the impression by the effects.
The speech from the throne had produced no sensation on
the funds. What had the message produced ? A rise in the
funds that day of 5 or 6 per cent. He came therefore now
to a material part of the present inquiry. Why had not the
right honourable gentleman made known the substance of this
message before, or at least why not stated his reasons in justi,


H 3




102 MESSAGE RESPECTING A PEACE WITH FRANCE. [Dec. 14.


fication of doing it at this most suspicious moment? It had
been the good practice till his time, of closing the loan only
the day before it was opened. to parliament. If the right ho-
nourable gentleman had made his loan in that way, he must
acknowledge that with the words of this message in lis pocket,
he ought to have made terms materially different. If he had
this message in his mind, and felt himself bound not to make
an open loan, in what predicament did he stand? Messrs. Boyd
and Co. very handsomely left it to him to propose the terms ;
then, with the knowledge of this intention, ought he not to
have made a bargain upon the ground of the impression which
this message was calculated to make? Were the circumstances
of the country such, that he was bound to make the bargain a
week before he opened it? Perhaps the suspicion was well
founded, that his secret contract with the gentlemen, on ac-
count of bills coming due on the r oth of December, stipulated
that the bargain should be made before that day. But he
called upon every gentleman who heard him to say, if he
could believe it possible, that any change could have hap-
pened so material as to justify the concealment of this intima-
tion until after be had made his bargain, and then to bring it
forth to swell the bonus to such a height; or, if any circum-
stances had arisen to justify the concealment then, and the
intimation now, to say why the right honourable gentleman
should not be called upon to state them. A loss had been
suffered by the public of not less, on the meanest computation,
than one hundred and fifty thousand pounds. This had been put
into the pockets of persons who talked loudly of their independ-
ence, and of the disinterested support they gave to ministers.
It was not his practice to impute any thing personally corrupt
to the right honourable gentleman, and he did not impute
to him any thing of the kind now ; but he did think that, in
decency and in -duty, in regard to himself as well as to the
country, he was called upon to explain this extraordinary
transaction. It was a direct robbery upon the public of y or
6 per cent. upon the whole loan, if with the knowledge of his
intention he made his bargain without a public declaration of
the change that had taken place ; and he must prove that be
did not know of this change but a week before he . declared it.
The change however was now announced. He trusted the
declaration would not have the fate of former declarations.
He should rejoice in the day of peace, come when it would.
-
When it did come, he should certainly be thankful ; but he
Should by no means consider the restoration of peace as su-
perseding the necessity of an inquiry into the origin, principle,
and conduct of the war. For if this were neglected, it might
establish a precedent upon which any minister might under-


MR. WHITBREAD'S BILL, &C.795•]
wark without principle, conduct it with incapacity, andtae a


be acquitted of all his misdeeds immediately upon the patching
up a peace. He trusted that, with the return of peace, we
should also have a return of the constitution. He should truly
rejoice if, with the blessings of peace, we were also to have
the next desirable blessing, that of freedom, of which we
were about to be deprived. With regard to some persons in
the cabinet, with whom he had been long in the habits of
agreement and friendship, he knew not what effects peace was
to produce upon them. They had differed upon the prin-
ciples of the present war. If peace should put an end to
the differences between them, and restore them to their
former habits of thinking and acting, he should undoubtedly
see the day with peculiar sensibility. He owned, however,
that he had very little expectation of such an event. Ile
was not so sanguine as to look for such a return. However
that might be, he should ill discharge his duty to his country,
if he did not steadily resolve to do his utmost to bring mini-
sters to a strict account for all the calamities that this war had
engendered. He sat clown, begging not to be understood as
opposing the address, or disapproving of the sentiments it con-
tained. He only wished that it had gone as far as the amend-
ment which had been proposed by his honourable friend.


Mr. Sheridan's amendment was negatived without a division ;
after which the original address was agreed to.


MR. WHITBREAD'S BILL TO REGULATE THE
LABOURERS IN HUSBANDRY.


December 9.


R. WHITBREAD presented to the House a bill ‘ c to ex-
..C1 plain and amend so much of the act of the 5th of Elizabeth,i
ntituled, An act containing divers orders for artificers, labourers,


servants of husbandry, and apprentices,' as empowers justices of
the peace, at, or within six weeks after, every general quarter
sessions held at Easter, to regulate the wages of labourers in hus-bandry." The bill was read a first time. On the motion for the
second reading, Mr. Whitbread said, that he had brought forwardthis bill under the idea that it was possible, by adopting its regula-
tions, to give great relief to a very numerous and useful class of the
community. The act of Elizabeth empowered justices of the
peace to fix the maximum of labour. This bill went only to em-
P ower them to fix the minimum. However, the House might


I3 4


V/AGES 02




104 MR. WHITBREAD'S BILL TO REGULATE [Dee. 9,


decide with respect to his bill, he trusted at least that the act of
Elizabeth would be repealed. He should move that the bill be
now printed, and read a second time on an early day after the
holidays.


Mr. Fox said, that the bill was undoubtedly a bill of great
delicacy and importance, and with respect to which, he ad-
mitted that, to a considerable extent, there might exist a
rational difference of opinion. The act of Elizabeth, as his
honourable friend had truly stated, empowered the justices toe
fix the highest price of labour, but it gave them no power to
:fix the lowest. It secured the master from a risk which could
but seldom occur, of being charged exorbitantly for the
quantity of service ; but it did not authorise the magistrate
to protect the poor from the injustice of a griping and ava-
ricious employer, who might be disposed to take advantage of
their necessities, and undervalue the rate of their service. If
the price of labour was adequate to the support of the poor in
ordinary times, though not equal to the accidental high price
of provisions at the present moment, it might be contended,
that there was less necessity for any new legislative regulation.
But, taking the average price of labour for some years past,
including that period during which the scarcity had operated,
no man could deny that the price of labour was greatly dis-
proportionate to the rate of provisions. That the general
price of labour should be adequate to the support of the ge-
neral mass of the community was indisputably a right prin-
ciple. They all knew that a very extensive tax was exacted
from the country, under the denomination of poor rates, and
that such a tax must be continued. It was understood, that
to this fund none could apply, but those few to whom, from
particular circumstances, their labour might not be suffi-
ciently productive to secure an adequate support. But he
feared that the reverse was the case ; that the exception was
with respect to the few who derived sufficient means of subsist-
ence from their labour, and that the (Treat mass of the labour-
ing part of the community were under the necessity of apply-
ing to this fund for relief. If the House, as was proposed,
were to form an association, in order to pledge themselves to
use only a particular sort of bread, with a view to diminish the
pressure of the scarcity, ought they not at the same time to
form an association, in order to raise tile price of labour to a
rate proportionate to the price of the articles of subsistence?
With this view, he called upon the House to consider the
principle of the bill and its provisions. Be would call upon
them also to attend to the subject, in a constitutional view,
though he could not hope, from the complection of recent


496.] THE WAGES OF LABOURERS IN HUSBANDRY.
10-


transactions, that this was a view of the subject which would
have great weight. It was not fitting in a free country that
the great body of the people should depend on the charity of
the rich. In the election of members of parliament, all those
were strictly excluded from exercising any franchise, with a


who had at any time received relief from
'‘t'leileTpfae;ivslelexceMpt7insaosi't becoming in a country like this, that the


fgeneral mass of the labouring, part of the community, except-
d
ag those who derived relief from the bounty and generosity


individuals, should be excluded from the exercise of their
most important privilege as freemen ? He admitted many of
the rich to be humane and charitable; but he could not al-
low that those who were the most useful and industrious
members of society should depend upon a fund so precarious.
and degrading, as the occasional supplies derived from their
bounty. If the price of provisions had for two years been
such as to put every poor man under the necessity of applying
for the aid of parochial charity, and if that circumstance con-
stituted a positive disqualification with respect to the exercise
of a constitutional right, what, he asked, was the state of a
country which first compelled every poor man to dependence,
and then reduced him to servitude? If they were to go into
associations, pledging themselves to use a particular sort of
bread, with a view to alleviate the scarcity, it was surely of
more importance that they should associate in order to redress
the more material grievance, and strike at the fundamental
source of the evil. With this view he should be glad, as he
had already suggested, to see an association in order to put
the price of labour upon a footing adequate to the rate of
provisions. If the regulations of the present bill should not
be adopted, he should be happy that any other legislative
enactments should be brought forward, in order to afford
relief and protection to the poor.


February 12. 1796.


Mr. Whitbread moved the second reading of his bill. He was
supported by Mr. Honeywood, Mr. Lechmere, and Mr. Fox ; and.opposed by Mr. Burden, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Vansittart, and Mr. Pitt.


Mr. Fox said, it was necessary for him to say a few woxds
to explain the reason of the vote he should give, if there
should be a division upon the subject. No man was more
against the idea of compulsion as to the price of labour than
he was himself. His opinion he had often expressed to be on
the other side. The question now was, not on the general




sir


ICU mt. GREY'S MOTION [Feb. 1.5,


principle, but on that particular state of the law, which rendered
some measure necessary to be adopted for the relief of the
labouring poor, while the law, as it stood, was saddled with so
many restrictions. He approved of the bill proposed by his
honourable friend, as calculated to correct that which was bad
in its present operation, and to secure at least to the labourer
the means of partial relief. But if the House objected to the
measure as improper, if they were of opinion that it was not
the most judicious or desirable that might be applied, under
all the circumstances of the case, he hoped that they would


sider


to
o to the root of the evil, and provide some remedy adequate


the extent of the grievance. If, therefore, they should give
a negative to the second reading of the bill, he should con-


that by so doing they pledged themselves to take the


subject into their early and most serious consideration. Andhowever eligible the proposition of his honourable friend
might be, he was convinced that if what he had brought for-
ward should induce the House to go into a full examination
of the subject, and to provide a remedy commensurate to the
evil, he would not only have accomplished his own benevci:.
lent intentions, but would have done a much greater service
to the country, than even if the bill which he had now brought
forward were adopted.


The motion for the second reading of the bill was negatived.


MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE.


February 15.


r HIS day Mr. Grey moved, " That an humble address be pre-
sented to his majesty, stating, that it is the desire of this House,


that his majesty may graciously be pleased to take such steps
as to his royal wisdom shall appear most proper, for commu-
nicating directly to the executive government of the French repub-
lic, his majesty's readiness to meet any disposition to negociation
on the part of that government, with an earnest desire to give it
the fullest and speediest effect." He observed, that contrary to
general expectation, the ministry, in lieu of a negociation for peace,
were making preparations for a continuance of the war. But with
what well-grounded hope of success could they persist in this un-
fortunate system? There was no confidence nor unity of views in
the remaining parts of the coalition ; and yet this country WaS to
bear the weight of this pretended alliance in favour of the common
interest of Europe. The public was exhorted to rely on the


1796.] FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. I07
cretion of ministers ; but were they worthy of any trust, after be-
ing deceived in their allies in the most material points, and still ex-
pressing a forwardness to depend on promises so repeatedly broken?
The French, it was now acknowledged, were in a situation to be
treated with ; we ought, therefore, no longer to stand aloof.—Mr.
Pitt opposed the motion. He urged the necessity of confidence
in ministers, and observed that, if the House thought this confi-
dence could not be safely vested in them, the proper mode was to
address his majesty for their removal. He asserted that the French
bad almost exhausted their means of carrying on the war; and
said that, since his majesty's message had been delivered, ministry
had taken every measure, consistent with the interests of the coun-
try, to accomplish the object of' it. The point to be considered
was the probability of obtaining just and honourable terms ; but
such terms must be very different from those which the public
declarations of the French had for a long time past indicated.


'Mr. Fox rose and said :— Notwithstandine• Sir, the mode
of arguing which the right honourable gentleman has adopted
this day, in introducing matter somewhat irrelevant to the
question at issue, I intend to confine myself almost entirely to
the subject of my honourable friend's proposition. The House
will pardon me, however, if' I make a few preliminary obser-
vations upon the manner in which the right honourable gen-
tleman commenced his speech. Far be it from me to dis-
courage any inclination that may be shewn to negotiation, or
in any degree to retard the advance to peace; for whether the
season for negociation be advantageous, when compared with
those which have occurred at periods which are past, it is cer-
tainly advantageous, when compared with any that may he
expected in future, however numerous our victories, or how-
ever unprecedented our success. I cannot, however, refrain from
saying a word or two upon the past, not with a view to ex-
aggerate the difficulties of the present, but merely in my own
vindication, for having proposed pacific measures, when they
were refused to be adopted. Will it be said, that when the
Low Countries are in the hands of the enemy, when Holland
is become a province of Prance, and when they are in pos-
session of St. Lucie and St. Domingo, that we are in a situ-
ation in which more honourable terms of peace may be
expected, than when they were driven out of the Dutchprovinces; when they were routed in every battle in Flan-
ders ; when they were compelled to retreat within the limits
of their own territory; when Valenciennes was taken ; when a
con


siderable impression was made upon them by the emperor
in the north, and by Spain upon the south ; in short, when
they did not hold an inch of ground without the boundaries
of Old France ? Then we were told, that it would be hu-




rob


MR. GREY'S MOTION [Feb. Is.


miliating for the country to offer terms of peace, and that we
should wait till the misfbrtunes of our foes should lay them
prostrate at our feet.


When I proposed a pacification in the beginning of tia,
year 1794, I was told, that the late


''


campaian had exhibited a
series of triumphs more brilliant than any which the annals of
the country could boast. Last year a negociation was moved
for, before Holland was totally lost, the recovery of which was
assigned as a principal cause of the war; and then it was
said, that any proposal on our part would be degrading to the
honour of the country. I hope, however, that he who thinks
it possible to propose an honourable ncgociation now, will no
longer accuse us of having entertained a wish to humiliate
the country, by advising the government to offer terms of
peace, under circumstances in which it was infinitely more
advantageously situated. My argument at present, does not
turn upon the propriety of proposals for peace coming
from one country more than from another, but upon the
seasonableness of the time. I perfectly agree with the right
honourable gentleman, that the present is the most proper
season which may well occur, and in the faith that he is in-
clined to improve it, I have the less disposition to press the
errors of the past. But here a question occurs — Who shall
make the first step towards peace ? In all wars, I think, this
is a point of little importance ; and in this war, I think it
of less importance than almost in any other. When hos-
tilities commenced between the countries, the French held it
out as a principle, that they were determined to propagate
their government all over Europe. How long they perse-
vered in maintaining this absurd principle, it is of little con-
sequence now to decide. Suffice it to say, that it afforded a
real or ostensible ground of hostilities, and that the principle
has been formally renounced in an official declaration, ab-


juring all interference in the internal government of any coun-try. This is an example which we ought to follow; and
when the French have announced themselves at amity with
the English constitution, the English government ought to
abandon every idea •of intermeddling in the affairs of France,
or of altering any form of government which they may think
proper to adopt. Perhaps I may be told, that even if terms
of peace be proposed by this country, they may be rejected by
the French, and that this rejection may render it necessary




for us to interfere in the settlement of their form of govern-
ment. But if we do not formally publish the declaration, we
may at least announce our readiness to make it. And even
then we do not go so far as they have done.


There was a word in the minister's speech; which, not-


1 796.] FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE.
109


withstand ing all its pacific complection, I was sorry to hear,
an d which to me appeared to indicate, that it is his opinion,
that the present government of France has not arrived at
that crisis which was particularly described in his majesty's
speech. It was this, that the French government were per-
haps disposed to grant to this country, as a compensation
for all the losses which it has sustained from


.
the war — the


honour of its fraternization. But, does the French govern-
ment persevere in that system now ? I hope and trust it does
not. And if it does not, why rake up the recollection of for-
mer wrongs, and renew the causes of discord which no longer
exist? The subject, however, chiefly depends upon a question
of time. On the 8th of December, a message was sent down


. from his majesty, stating, that the affairs of France had ar-
rived at such a crisis, as to render negociation possible. On




the 29th of October, in his majesty's speech, there was a para-
graph upon the subject, the meaning of which appeared to me
to be by no means clear. We were told, however, that it was
afterwards explained, and that the subsequent message was
nothing more than the natural consequence of the king's
speech. If, then, the ideas conveyed by the message were hy-
pothetically the opinion of the minister, who was certainly to
be considered as a principal assistant in framing the speech,
we are to trace the measures of government back to the 29th
of October. But even supposing that the 8th of December
was the earliest time that the king's cabinet ministers formed
any definitive opinions upon the subject, when we take into
consideration, not only the lapse of time, but the very extraor-
dinary circumstances attending that lapse of time, it is natural
to ask, did it require two months (or if we date it from the
29th October, did it require three months,) to come to an un-
derstanding with our allies; or rather, was it not reasonable
to expect that something might have been done in that time?
The expectation was the more reasonable, when we consider
what those two months were. They were not two months in
the heat of a campaign — they were not only in a season, when
God and nature united to create an armistice, but when an
armistice had actually taken place — they were not during
the sitting of the parliament, (though I am not one of those
who consider the sitting of parliament as an impediment to
negotiation,) but during a parliamentary recess, prolonged,
as the friends of the minister gave out, for the purpose of leav-
nrg


unshackled to carry on the negociation. When these
circu


mstances are considered I wish to know why no steps
Lav e been taken ?


I must here advert to a passage in the right honourable
gentleman's speech, in which he represented it as having15eet1 the policy of France to divide the allies, and when she




110
MIL. GREY'S 31OTION [Feb. 1


*as on the eve of sinking beneath their combined pressure, to
detach some of them from the confederacy. Perhaps I am
not so well acquainted with the circumstances of the war as
the right honourable gentleman, or at this moment I mad=
not have such a lively recollection of the details of its history ;
but I certainly do not remember any peculiar difficulties under
which the enemy had the misfortune to labour, at the particu-
lar conjuncture when our allies seceded from the treaty. I do
not recollect that France was in circumstances of partite
difficulty, when. the King of Prussia renounced the c n
of the allies. I do not recollect that France was in a situation
of unusual hardship when she concluded a peace with Sp:•
Nor do I recollect that the Elector of Hanover and the
German princes were exulting in the abundance of their v ic-
tories when they commenced a negociation. On the contrary,
I think I have heard that Spain sued for peace, not when
Spain was in the unimpaired possession of her territory, but
when the principal provinces of the empire were in the hands
of the French. Nor from any information which I have re-
ceived upon the subject, can I pay such a compliment to the
King of Prussia and the princes of Germany, as to say, that
they offered terms of peace to the enemy when they were in:
the career of conquest, and the zenith of their glory. I con-
fess I cannot see (a . the professions of the right honourable
gentlemen be true) what renders an explanation of the pro-
ceediogs of the government of this country a subject of so
much delicacy in the present war. If he admits that he h
engaged in a clandestine negociation, of the benefit of which
he means to deprive our allies, and of which, of course, he
would wish to keep them ignorant, then I conceive some mo-
tive for his conduct, and I am ready on such a supposition to
allow his argument, if not honourable, to be at least logi-
cal. But if, as lie declares, he is really acting in concert with
our allies, where would be the harm, if he were to lay all the
papers which have passed upon the subject before the House?
And here I cannot refrain from making one observation on
the difference of situation, in which we have stood with respect*
to our allies in the course of this contest. I cannot help re-
membering a glaring defect which was pointed out last year,
in the terms of the loan which was then voted to the emperor.
It was then objected, that we did not bind him to persevere
in the prosecution of the war longer than he thought fit. The
answer was, if we bind the emperor to prosecute the war, we
must ourselves come under the same restriction. And now
we are told, we cannot make peace, except in concert with our
allies. I mention this merely to chew the different represen-
tations that are given of matters according td the pressure of
different arguments.


96.1 FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. I II
The right honourable gentleman has given us to understand


something in his speech. It is material to know what be
roily intends to convey, to understand how much, and the




precise value of what lie has advanced. I understand him to
have said, and I beg to be corrected if I am mistaken, that
measures have been already taken by ministers, with a view
to avail themselves of whatever circumstances may occur fa-
vourable, either to making or receiving overtures .


of peace
with France. I certainly do not mean to quibble upon words,
and therefore it cannot be supposed that lie can mean a con-
tinuance of the war to be one of those measures which he
hopes are introductory to negociation. If it be understood,
that since the message of the 8th of December, he has endea-
voured, by means of communication with our allies, to learn
the grounds on which they wish. to negociate, this certainly is
something ; but it is an instance of tardiness for which it is
difficult to account. And even admitting these steps to have
been taken, it still remains a question of serious urgency,
whether the motion of my honourable friend ought to be
agreed to by, the House ? That the manifestation of a sincere
desire to negociate would in this country produce an effect
highly popular, is a fact not to be disputed. To the rest of
Europe such an inclination would be no less grateful; and I
will put it to the judgment of the House, if they really think
the country will make worse terms of peace with France, be-
cause the French government know our desire for peace to be
sincere .? Is it not to be feared, on the other hand, that the
mutual alienation of affection, and the mutual distrust which
have subsisted between the countries, will create a more se-
rious difficulty with respect to the success of any negociation, 9than even the terms that may be proposed? In former
wars, we have found that the obstructions to pacification arose
more from the temper of the adverse countries, than the spe-
cific terms which were brought upon the tapis. In the war of
the succession, which, without exception, was the most glo-
rious of any that this country was ever engaged in, is there a
Whig at this day so bigotted as not to believe that the con-ferences of Gertruydenburg might have led to peace, had
they been properly conducted, and that the prolongation of
the war arose from unextinguishable jealousy, and unyielding
rivalship ? I am not so sanguine as to expect that no diffi-
culty will arise in negociation about terms. I wish to God
that the situation of the country were such as to afford any
reasonable ground for such an expectation. But what I
contend for is this, that such has been the asperity displayed
on both sides, in the course of the contest, that


• the temper
of the governments will occasion a difficulty no less formi-




I 12 MR. GREY'S MOTION [Feb. Is,


cable, than any that may occur in the discussion of terms —
a difficulty which I am sorry to say the concluding part of the
right honourable gentleman's speech was by no means calcu-
lated to remove. It may be said, that the language held by
the directory was insolent in the extreme. But because inso-
lent language is held by the directory of France, is that a
reason why the government of England should assume the
same tone of insolence? Were we to adopt conciliatory Ian-
nuarie the effect would be immediate upon the temper of theb French government in softening asperity, and silencing abuse.
And if such would be the effect in France, what might not be
expected here?


It was stated by the right honourable gentleman that the
motion of my honourable friend, if agreed to by the House,
would so cramp, fetter, and humiliate government, that it
would be impossible to negotiate with honour. This is an
objection which has been stated so often in the course of the
war, that it has entirely lost its force. When on a former
occasion it was proposed to declare the government of France
in a negociablc situation, the 'proposition was rejected with
scorn, and now this very declaration has been made by minis-
ters, and we have experienced no inconvenience from it. As
to the prerogative of the crown of making peace when and how
his majesty pleases, no man doubts of it ; but no man, on the
other hand, will doubt of the prerogative of the Commons of
England, to advise his majesty, both as to the time and the
terms of pacification. The present is not a matter of right,
but a matter of discretion. I have put a case before to the
House, which is so appropriate to the present circumstances
of the country, that I may be allowed to quote it again — the:
case of the American war. In the course of that war, We
heard from a noble lord, that it was the height of indiscretion
in parliament, to interfere with the prerogative of the king m
making peace. Parliament wisely rejected the noble lord's
argument, and not only declared that America was in a ne-
gociable situation, and that the states should be acknowledged
as independent, but they even declared that no offensive war
should be carried on against America ; and this very decla-
ration enabled the right honourable .gentleman and his asso-
ciates at that time to conclude a. peace, the terms of which
were certainly not such as the country, in my opinion,
bad reason to expect from its circumstances at the time, but
which redounded much to his credit, when compared with
the misfortunes to which it had formerly been subjected.


There are certain bugbears which have always been held
out by ministers to parliament, and which have been disposed
of according to its good sense at the time. The pretences of


FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE./ 796.]
state secrets, and parliamentary confidence, have always been
held forth as a shield for the measures of the servants of the
crown; fortunately for the people, however, their consti-
tuents have not been always inclined to pay- that attention to
them, which to superficial observers they may seem to claim.
As to the state paper to which the right honourable gentleman
referred, and which he said was published at Hamburg' ', and
was industriously circulated in this country, I have not seen
i t, and therefore am not qualified to. reason upon it. But
allowing the sentiments of the directory on the subject of
peace, to be as wild, fanciful, and extravagant as it is possi-
ble for them to be, that is no reason why these sentiments
ought to deter us from offering terms of peace. The time in
which we live„ is a time in which government must pay some


• attention to the opinion of the people whom they are ap-
pointed to govern. Were a disposition for peace, on the
part of the government, discovered to the people of England,
it would diffuse general happiness over the kingdom; and if
it was made known to France, I am convinced that her con-
cessions would be as ample as we could wish. As to the po-
pular opinion in this country, it has for some time been
evidently against the war; and I say it to the credit of minis-
ters, that they have sacrificed something to the constitution
of the country, in permitting the opinion of the people re-
specting the war, to have some weight in regulating their
conduct. If the demands of France are exorbitant, let


-us
meet them with reasonable overtures on our part, and mode-
ration will have a greater effect than the most strenuous re-
sistance, in relaxing their exertions. I know reason has too
little to do in the government of the world, and that justice
and moderation must often yield to power and lawless might.
This has been unhappily exemplified in the fate of Poland.
Still, however, it is no light matter in national as well as pri-
vate concerns to have reason on our side. I know I have
been sometimes thought absurd, when I argued, that honour
was the only just cause of war; but I still believe, and there
has been nothing in late events to contradict the opinion,
that reason and justice in any cause are the most powerful
allies. If this be the case, let us manifest to France, toEurope, and to the world, a spirit of moderation ; and let us
this night address his majesty to commence a


gne Yociation
ofwith the republic of France. I say the republic of France ;


for there is more in names than one would sometimes be apt
to imagine. Ministers have talked of " the French rulers,"
of" persons exercising the government of France," &c. If
they are serious in their intentions of making peace, they
toast hold a


blannuarie more explicit. They have sent an am-VOL. yr.




I 14 R. GREY'S MOTION [Feb. Is,


bassador (Lord Macartney) to the court of Louis XVIII.
Do they imagine, after such an insult to the present govern.
ment of France, that a negotiation can be entered upon with-
out a previous and direct acknowledgement? That govern..
ment has been recognised in various acts, both by us and our
allies; in the exchange of prisoners, the release of the prin..
cess royal, &c. There is no injury, therefore, but on the
contrary much advantage to be derived from a more full and
explicit recognition. At the peace of Utrecht, the negotia-
tion and conferences at Gurtruydenberg were injured by
Louis XIV. employing an ambassador in the interest of the
pretender : why, then, the Count D'Artois should now be so
much countenanced by government as ambassador from an
unfortunate prince, I am at a loss to conceive. Is it not
highly necessary, then, to make an explicit declaration, that
we are really desirous of a suitable and honourable peace.
Let us, however, come to the point. Ministers say, all this is
very good, if you let us do it; but if the House of Commons
suggest it, it. is very wrong. Do they think, however, that
there is a cabinet in Europe, or even that there is a man
who reads a newspaper, who believes, if the motion of my
honourable friend were to be carried this evening, that it was
forced upon administration ? Nay, would he not rather
think (if in decency I may be allowed to say so), that minis-
ters had made the House of Commons adopt the motion ?
Allowing the right honourable gentleman all the confidence
•which he can desire, as much even as his right honourable
friend:. beside him (Mr. Dundas) reposes in him, nothing
could tend more to evince the confidence of the House in ad-
ministration, than the motion that has been made this evening.
Even if it be the etiquette of the minister, that all declara-
tions of this nature shall originate in the crown, (an etiquette
which I do not understand,) I would not put a declaration of
the crown in comparison; in point of authenticity, with that
which the present motion, if carried, would convey. Let
him recollect that every moment of delay is a moment of
danger, and therefore let him not procrastinate in making
the ''declaration. He may, perhaps, have -intended the speed
of this evening to serve the purpose of a declaration : but
he cannot but know the wide and immeasurable differenCe
between a speech which may or may not go abroad in an sk
citrate manner, and a resolution inserted in the votes of the
House of Commons.


I shall not say one word on the relative situation of Great
Britain. I am not one of those who are inclined to think
despondingly of the situation of the cOuntry. But if all
thing .could make me despair, it would be fhatspecies • of ree'


FOR PEACE WITH - FRANCE.1 796.] I i '


Boning, which, after telling me of the increased national debt,
the load of taxes, and the consequent misery entailed upon the


desires me to look to the ruined finances of Francepeople;
for comfort, which are quickly hurrying that power to the
precipice of destruction. So that, in proportion as the enemy
retreats from the common abyss which would swallow up
both, we are encouraged to he under no apprehension for


I will allow, that the French may be inour ui t
ndisstayrfeests .than the people of this country are at this


o;:but to me it appears to be very poor comfort to the
afflicted to hear, that their enemies will fall a little before
them. Even supposing France to come and bow at our feet,
supposing that Louis XVIII. were to be proclaimed rightful
heir of the crown, and supposing that she were tamely to
surrender all the conquests she has made, it would be no re-
compence for the loss that we have already sustained. Ac-
cording tot he statement of the right honourable gentleman,
the territorial rental of the kingdom does not exceed twenty-
five millions annually. The taxes, if they turn out as pro-
ductive as they have been estimated, will amount to twenty-
one millions, which with the poor rates, will make a sum
equal to the whole landed rental. Now, though I am not
one of those, who with a late petitioner, (Sir Francis Blake,
think that land pays all the taxes, I think the weight of them
lies upon the land, which cannot exist very easily under a
burden of twenty shillings in the pound. I am told that
things are worse in France ; but, will any man be bold
enough not to wish for peace, because the finances of France
may be in a state still more deranged than ours ? Rather
than continue the war for another campaign, independent of
the moral reasons against its prolongation, I would not un-
questionably give up our honour, our dignity, or our liberty,
which, till I die, I trust I shall never fail to assert; but I
would give up all questions of etiquette and accommodation,
and in fact every thing short of what most nearly concerns our
character. Let it not be understood that I wish for a dis-
honourable peace, or peace on any other terms than those
which are suitable to the interests, and consistent with the
dignity of the country ; but I am sanguine enough to think,
that even now this country may have fair and honourable


• terms of peace. The governors of France dare not refuse any
reasonable terms which we may oiler; if they do, others will
then be appointed in their place, who will dare to accept of
them, When peace shall be proposed, however, I hope and
trust that it will not be proposed on the dividing system, and
that this country will never give its sanction to any such trans-
action as the infamous partition of Poland. Dearly as I love


x 2




ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. [Feb. 8.


peace, exclaimed Mr. Fox, and anxiously as I wish for it,
that such a peace may never prevail, I most heartily pray.
I hope, when peace shall arrive, that the interests of huma-
nity as well as of kings, and that of every particular state
will be consulted, and that tranquillity will be re-established
on the broad basis of justice, in answer to the prayers of
mankind, who are now fatigued with war, slaughter, and
devastation.


The House divided on Mr. Grey's motion :
Tellers. Tellers.


Mr. Grey Mr. Steele , Q
YEAS' Mr. Whitbread 50.—Nots {Mr. Adams j 9'


ABOLITION OP THE SLAVE TRADE.


February 18.


THIS day Mr. Wilberforce moved, "That leave be given tobring in a bill for the abolition of the slave trade, at a time
to he limited ;" and then proposed that the said motion be referred
to the consideration of a committee of the whole House. The
motion was supported with much eloquence and ardour by Mr.
Fox, Mr. Pitt, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Courtcnay ; and opposed
by General Tarleton, who moved the other orders of the day,
Mr. Jenkinson, Sir William Young, and Mr. Secretary Dundas.


Mr. Fox said : —The sentiment of opposition, Sir, to this
trade is one, which if it has once got possession of the breast
of an honest man, it is impossible that any mode of debating
or of resisting it should add to the impression which must
already be made on his mind. But if it were possible that
any mode of resistance to the question of abolition could have
the effect of inspiring me with a greater degree of earnestness,
•than I -already feel on the subject, it would be that which has
been attempted by the right honourable gentleman who spoke
last (Mr. Dundas). I confess, that I am not a little indignant
at the mode in which he has treated the subject. The honour
of the House, the honour of the legislature, and. a regard to
the principles of the constitution, make me feel warm upon
the occasion. As for the general subject, it has been already
so repeatedly discussed, that it cannot be necessary for me
again to bring it before the view of the House. It has been
this night so ably handled by the right honourable the chan-
cellor of the. exchequer, whose opinion with ,this House


1796.] ABOLITION OP THE SLAVE TRADE,


likely to have more weight than mine, that I will not venture
take from the impression of any thing he has said. I must ;to


however, take notice of one assertion of the honourable
baronet, (Sir William Young,) that there were many matters
cleared up with respect to the characters of the planters.
Tlie honourable baronet will give me leave to say, that it is
not to those who live among slaves, that I would naturally look
for examples of humanity. To the charges which have been
brought of the cruel treatment of slaves, I grant there may
he many honourable exceptions. But when I am desired to
look for examples of the most exalted humanity and benevo-
lence, to those men who framed the barbarous laws of
Jamaica; when I am referred, as a model of mildness and


• mercy, to the conduct of the men concerned in carrying those
laws into execution, I must hesitate a little. What, Sir,




must be my feelings, when I read of laws by which men are
condemned to be exposed in cages to the burning influence of
the sun; and when I learn that such laws have actually been
carried into effect ! From the perusal of such facts I must
necessarily recoil, though, upon the whole, I am not apt to
believe that the planters are distinguished by any particular
inhumanity in the exercise of a power, with which, I contend,
no man ought to be entrusted.


I must remind gentlemen, that at present the question is
not emancipation, but abolition. How far the argument of
my honourable friend (Mr. Seijeant Adair) might go to the
point of emancipation it cannot be now necessary to discuss.
The question is, Whether we will suffer a horrible injustice
to be carried on under the sanction of our laws? The question
is not one that interferes with the local jurisdiction of the
colonies; it is, whether we shall exert a right, which un-
doubtedly we possess, to determine with respect to the con-
tinuance of a trade, which depends on ourselves ? The
confusion in this instance has arisen from the idea, that if the•
abolition takes place, it must necessarily be followed by the
emancipation. I hope and trust that it will; but this point I
leave for the decision of the proper legislature, with whose
province I have no wish to interfere. But we are told, that
ye ought not to join with the negroes against their masters.
Undoubtedly it would to us be matter of greater satisfaction,
if we could in this business obtain the concurrence of all the
Planters, But how does this argument agree with the other
statement of the right honourable gentleman, that by aaree-
in,a to the abolition we shall afford an argument to Victor
fugues, who will be enabled to say, " The French con-
vention liberates slaves, the British parliament takes no care
4f them ; it abolishes, indeed, the traffic in slaves, but leaves-


r3




8 ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. [Feb. 18'


to their fate those, who are already in bondage?" Indeed, I
do not see how this argument can possibly apply, except I
were to conceive, that the right honourable gentleman was
arguing for the emancipation. I think it is net necessary to
employ more than one argument with respect to the character
of the House, "Did you not, four years ago, pledge your-
selves at this time, to abolish the detestable traffic in human
flesh ?" The honourable baronet says, that the House then
acted from the opinion expressed in the numerous petitions,
which were received from different parts of the country.
What, then, would you have it go abroad, that the House
supposed it right to act from the opinion of the public, in
order to ensure a little popularity, and promote their petty
interests at elections, and the moment that the pressure of
that opinion is withdrawn, conceive themselves to he justified
in renouncing the pledge which they had solemnly adopted ?
And, what is the period at which you choose to hold up the
House in this light ? — after the passing of the two bills
which have thrown difficulties in the way of expressing the
public opinion. Is it at such a period you think proper to
hold out that you are so much inclined to favour the cause of
slavery, in opposition to truth, justice, and humanity, that
though you formerly truckled to popular opinion, you now
come forward in your genuine colours, and, in violation of
the most solemn and deliberate pledge, announce yourselves
the advocates and supporters of slavery ? If any thing can
add to the flagrancy of the case, it is the conduct which has
been adopted by the House of Lords since this question came
before them. I suppose that it is not regular, in this place,
to arraign the conduct of the House of Lords, and there-
fore I will not arraign it. But there is one ground suggested
by the right honourable gentleman, on which I can, con-
sistently with order, advert to their conduct. The right ho-
nourable gentleman said, that the House of Lords had as
much right to their opinion, as this House has to theirs.


. Now let me state a case. If, after a long and laborious in-
vestigation, on a point deeply affecting the honour of the
national character, and the general interests of humanity,
their lordships had communicated to us the result of their
deliberations, involving an issue of the most pressing urgency,
and of the greatest practical importance, and had called upon
us for our decision ; and if we, after four years, had come to
no resolution, and taken no notice of such communication, I
have no hesitation to say, that in such a case we should have
betrayed our trust, and have had no right to sit as a branch
of the legislature. What chiefly appears extraordinary is,
that the Lords should take no step at all in the'business; that




ABOLITION OF THt SLAVE TRADE.
1191796.]


should flinch from the proceeding, and abandon it, as itthey
re, to silent contempt. Undoubtedly, every branch of the-


legislature has a right to expect from the others, either agree-
ment or dissent to any measure, which it may choose to bring
forward. And it is well known, that if this House takes the
business to the House of Peers; as it ought, it never will
experience such mortifying neglect, or such contemptuous
silence. The right honourable gentleman will not deny that
if a majority of this House cordially concur as to the principle
of the abolition, and agree as to the necessity of carrying it
into effect with the smallest delay, the House of Lords will
also concur in the propriety of taking some immediate steps
for the purpose. But if the House of Commons never are
in earnest in the business, it is in vain that they carry their
resolution to the House of Lords. That House will see
through the pretext, they will second the policy, and will
suppose, that by such neglect and delay, which amount, in
fact, to rejection, they better comply with the wishes of the
House of Commons, as to the real state of the question,
than by giving it the most cordial reception, and the most
diligent attention. It is necessary for the honour of the House,
that this reproach should not attach. Iii order to vindicate
the dignity of their character, anal the consistency of their
proceedings, it is incumbent upon them to shew, by adopting
the motion of the


gentleman,
entlema that if the reSo-honourable


lution which they some years since passed for the abolition of
the slave trade be rejected, it is the limit, not of the Commons,.
but of some other part of the legislature.


But it has been said, that if you abolish the trade, other
powers will take it up. This is an argument which cannot at
all affect the line of conduct which we are bound to pursue.
The question is, whether you have not the power of com-
pletely abolishing it in your own colonies ? Unquestionably
You have, notwithstanding what has been urged, that they
will still continue to be supplied from other powers. You
may certainly as easily put a stop to any contraband trade of
this sort, as to the trade which was formerly carried on of
importing provisions from America. There is no vigour of
means, or language of authority, which you ought not to
employ for that object. This country ought to threaten with


, iindependence every colony which, after the int rd ction of
the legislature, should still persevere to carry on this infamous
traffic. But it is farther said, that even if the trade were
abolished by us, the- interests of humanity would not be be-
nefited, and that it would be carried on with circumstances
of still greater cruelty and oppression. Upon the same prin
ciple might we justify every crime. It might be alleged, that


1 4




124 ABOLITION OP TAE SLAVE TRADE. [Feb. 18.


crimes must be committed in society, and that therefore we
will anticipate the criminal purpose, in order to prevent its
being perpetrated with more wanton outrage, or determined
ferocity. By this reasoning the robber might defend his
occupation of plunder; he might say, "It is an advantage to
myself, and I exercise it with less injury to others, than
more hardened or savage offenders." The same argument
might be brought to extenuate the crime of murder ; it might
be alleged, that it was less reprehensible, because it was ac-
companied with fewer circumstances of excrutiating torture,
or persevering malice.


The right honourable gentleman treated as a figure of
rhetoric, the expression, " 6 to drive the shame of this iniqui-
tous traffic from ourselves." A figure of rhetoric ! Good God !
can any appeal be more forcible and impressive, more directly
practicable, more powerfully urgent ? Is it nothing to drive
from ourselves the shame of such a traffic, at a period, too,
when great revolutions have seemed, in future, to demand a
more intimate connection between politics and morals; when
nations affect to hold out the principles of eternal justice, as
the basis of their conduct, and to establish a character for
something better than the artifices of intrigue, or the re-
sources of their power ? Is it nothing to wipe away the guilt
and the stain of a traffic which the right honourable gentle-
man has himself admitted to be inconsistent with humanity
and justice? If the House of Commons still mean to per-
severe in the trade, for Heaven's sake let them, at least, act
fairly and manfully. Let them not use a timid caution, or
skulk behind the shameful negligence of others. Let them
boldly and openly declare, that after they have confessed the
trade to be cruel and unjust, they still mean to carry it on to
an unlimited extent.


But the right honourable gentleman has alleged as a reason
why we ought to give some quarter to this trade, the respect
which we owe to our forefathers. We ought not, forsooth,
to load their memories with all that accumulation of guilt
which is charged upon this traffic, or to brand with such harsh
epithets a practice which they encouraged by their example.
Reverence for their characters, and regard to their manes
ought to sink the consideration of injustice, and extenuate
the horror of cruelty. The tendency of mankind to dege-
neracy has been a common topic of declamation among
moralists and poets. If the complaint be well founded, we
ought at least, by getting rid as much as possible of the
vices of our ancestors, to endeavour to compensate for the
particulars in which we fall short of their virtues. But if
antiquity shall be found to sanctify injustice, 'and reverence
for former times to diminish the detestation of cruelty --


/796.) ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. 121


we shall conceive it to be a point of honour to throw a gloss
over the crimes of our ancestors, v bile we are led from a
sense of duty to their manes, to copy them in our own prac-
tice, then truly the prediction of the poet will be fulfilled


" }Etas Parentum, pejor axis tulit
Nos nequiores, mox daturos


Progeniem vitiosiorem."


It was amusing enough, however, to hear the right honour-
able gentleman talk of this pious veneration for the memories
of our ancestors, this charitable covering for their failings,
and deprecate all harshness of obloquy, and general terms of
condemnation as applied to the slave trade, which he had
himself previously admitted to be inconsistent with justice and,
humanity. After this admission, it might have been supposed
that few epithets could have been added of more severe
obloquy, or more general condemnation. The right honour-
able gentleman objected that the trade ought not to be
abolished immediately, and instanced Grenada, which was
by no means in a state ripe for the abolition, and would re-
quire for that purpose a period as long as had been granted
from the date of the former resolution. 'That was a point
which would come regularly to be discussed in the committee,
and there, if it should be found expedient, the period of
the abolition might be fixed for the year 1799. As to the
plan of the right honourable gentleman to effect the abolition
by calculations with respect to the'ages of the negroes im-
ported, I must remark, that those who think it impossible at
once to abolish the trade, and yet conceive that the object
may be effected by such regulations as these, strain at small
difficulties, and swallow large ones. It has been stated, that
it would be desirable for us to proceed with the concurrence
of the gentlemen interested : experience, however, has shewn
that we cannot hope to obtain it. We do not pretend to
legislate for them on the point of emancipation, nor ought
we, so far as relates to the abolition, to suffer them to legis-
late for us. The question is, whether the House, by its pre-
sent decision, shall spew itself to have been hypocritical or


honourable in its former declaration. It is even of more
Importance. It is whether the nation, after pretending to


• spend oceans of blood and millions of money, in the cause of
:religion, social order, and humanity, shall continue to carry
on this shameful and unprincipled traffic, and by a conduct
s0 inconsistent with its professions, so injurious to its honour,incur the charge of the vilest simulation, or the most har-
dened effrontery. It is surely a point of no small importance,
Whether, under these circumstances, the legislature shall




I 22 . ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.
[Feb. IS,


permit, (and to permit is in some cases to enjoin,) the Con.k.',
tinuance of a trade, which, after a long and laborious in-
vestigation, they have pronounced to be inconsistent with,
humanity and jiistice.


But the honourable baronet has discovered a new reason
why. we should not .agree to the abolition. He has said,
that we must look to an indemnity for the expellee we have
incurred in the prosecution of the present war. And where
arc we to look for •it? In the \Vest Indies. So that we shall
want fresh _ cargoes of slaves, in order to cultivate our new
territorial acquisitions, and so to render them productive as
to constitute an adequate indemnity. Consequently, it turns
out at last, that 'the reward of those crusaders in the cause of
social order, justice, religion, and humanity, is to be an in-
creased profit on the slave trade ! I, for one, never can
consent that the country should purchase an indemnity at
such a price. Whether the motion shall succeed or not, I
beg leave to express to the honourable mover my thanks
for bringing it forward, and m y confidence that he will
never suffer the question to rest till it is finally decided.
we are influenced by any sense Of duty to ourselves, by any
honourable principle of action, we shall not suffer a session
to pass over without bringing forward the subject for con-
sideration. It is a subject which becomes peculiarly urgent
from the situation of the West Indies. Whence arises our
weakness in that quarter? Why are we so extremely vul-
nerable on every side? From the existence of that abominable
slave trade; which is as miserably impolitic as it is odiously
unjust. The motion is for leave to bring in a bill to abolish
the slave trade at a time to be limited. In the committee
I certainly shall vote for the earliest day that shall be pro-
posed. It is now about eight or nine years since the subject
was first brought forward, and if the House keep their word,
they cannot avoid taking some decisive step. It was matter
of joy to us, when we learned, that the slave trade was to
be • abolished in Denmark; but when afterwards we under-
stood that the period of the abolition was not to take place
till the year x Soo, our satisfaction on the occasion was con-
verted into contempt and ridicule. At present I see no pro-
bability that the century will put an end to this shame of
Great Britain. I cannot submit to sanction this infamous
traffic by mere regulations ; there are some things so bad,
that even to regulate them, is in some measure to, participate
in their criminality. Let us send the bill to the House of
Lords; if it is there rejected, let us send it up session after
session. Satisfied with the grounds on which we have brought
the measure forward, let the perseverance of 'our exertions


1 7966.) ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. I 2 3
rrespon d with the justice and humanity of our cause, andco


' let us at least prove that we shall not be wanting to vindicate
the honour of our character and the consistency of our


prorrcheeeIliilOgs.u e divided on General Tarleton's motion, " That the
other orders of the day be now read."


Tellers. Tellers..
f Gen. Tarletonl1Sir


6^. NOES 1 Mr' Ryder
- Mr. Rob. Smith 93*1+"s1+"s'r W. Young /ng


So it passed in the negative, after which Mr. Wilberforce's
motion for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the slave
trade, at a time to be limited, was agreed to.


March i s.


On the order of the day for taking into consideration the report
ofthe committee on the bill for the abolition of the slave trade,
at a time to he limited, the bill was again strongly opposed by Sir
William Young, General Smith, Mr. Rose, Mr. Secretary Dun_
das, and General Tarleton ; and. as strongly supported by Mr.
Francis, Mr. Fox, Mr. Montagu, and Mr. Pitt. In reply to what
fell from Mr. Dundas,


N.U. Fox rose and said: —As the right honourable gentle-
- man- seemed in some part of his speech particularly to allude


to me, I am desirous to take this opportunity shortly to give
my opinion on the subject of the debate, which at all events
I should have felt to be necessary in the course of the even-
ing. i am glad that the right honourable gentleman has
found himself sufficiently recovered to attend on this occasion,
and more especially that he has been able to enter into so
fail,


a discussion of the question. 'When, Sir, we consider
his abilities, his opportunities of acquiring information on the
subject, and the great attention which he has-paid to it, we
may flatter ourselves that we have now heard the whole force
of the argument against us. When I say against us, I am
aware that I do dot use the most parliamentary way of
speaking; but I must confess, that I have been so long en-
gaged on one side of the question, that I have now formed
a strong predetermined opinion. I do not affirm that I am
not to be shaken by reasoning, but so intimately interwoven
Is my conviction, that I cannot easily be persuaded, that any
reasoning can be found to induce me to alter it. There
were many parts of the speech of the right honourable
gentleman, which must be considered as highly favourable
to the cause of those who are friends to the abolition.. The




124
ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. [March I s,.


whole of his argument is a complete answer to those advocates
on the other side, who contend, that the question ought to
be left at rest, that the discussion is highly improper, under
the peculiar circumstances of the present time, and that it
ought not at all to be agitated. I am happy to find that the
right honourable gentleman and myself agree in our pre-
mises, however we may differ with respect to our conclusion.
He admits that the trade is not only inconsistent with hu-
manity and justice, (and I should suppose, when I had got
that I had not much to ask,) but with policy and prudence
in time of war. It appears, then, that we only differ as to
the mede . of abolition.


The right honourable gentleman states a powerful objec-
tion to our mode, if it be well founded ; namely, that it is
impracticable. Let us examine it, as contrasted with that
mode of abolition which he has himself proposed, and see
to which of the two this objection of impracticability may
most justly be applied. First, the right honourable gen-
tleman states that our mode cannot be carried into effect
without the consent of the planters, which we cannot expect
to have. I have no hesitation to state, that if to the accom-
plishment of the abolition of the slave trade, we attach, as
a necessary condition, the consent of' the planters, 'we do not
see the question in a fair and manly light. What ground
of hope have we, even from their professions, that they will
ever be induced to give their consent to such a measure?
And if we advert to what has been their conduct in every
former instance, we cannot have the smallest prospect that
such an event is ever likely to take place. On a former
occasion, I trust I may make the allusion without any ir-
regularity, [Mr. Fox here alluded to the line of argument
adopted.. by Mr. Dundas, when he proposed his plan of gra-
dual abolition,] I remember great pains to have been taken
to hold two different languages to the different parties in this
question, to persuade the planters that if they did not accede
to terms of gradual abolition, an immediate abolition would
be effected; and the enemies of the trade, that if they did
not accept of their object upon the same terms, there would
be no abolition at all. This attempt to persuade both
parties completely failed. It did not succeed with me, be-.
cause I was persuaded that the abolition might be effected
in a different manner; and I have not understood that it
has gained one proselyte among the West Indians. The
right honourable gentleman says, that whatever laws may be
passed, the traffic in slaves will not be extirpated, and that
the whole of the navy of England cannot prevent illicit inter-
course. I am fully aware of the truth of this position, and


ABOLITION OF TI1E SLAVE TRADE.1796. ]


fdtoliliffiee,cutitlye,


of the inefficacy of laws to suppress any commerce which-
holds out the tempting prospect of high profit; but this
refutes the reasoning of those who condemned the severity


n


of penalties imposed by the present bill ; as it is evident that
rigour of the penalty ought to be in proportion to the


of suppressing the offence. In this respect, there-
right honourable gentleman made the fullest defence


of those penalties, which have been so much reprobated.
On the penalties themselves he did not dwell much; in fact,
he did not seem to take them at all into his consideration.
When he asked, " Will it not be practicable to smuggle,
notwithstanding the operation of the law ?" ought not another
question to have suggested itself, " Is it not also possible,
that those concerned in smuggling may be detected?" May
it not be expected, that the law will at least have some effect
in securing the object in view; that in some instances the
vigilance of its operation will arrest the criminal; and that
in others, the contemplation of its penalties will prevent the
offence? But another objection is, that these laws cannot be
executed without the co-operation of the West Indians them-
selves. Are there not already laws in force, prohibiting any
intercourse between the West Indians and North America,
for the purpose of procuring provisions?' Has there been
found any deficiency with respect to the observance of those
laws? And yet provisions may be purchased more easily than
slaves.


Allusions have been made to an expression brought for-
ward by me on a former evening, and repeated this night by
an honourable friend of mine, (Mr. Francis.) From the
construction put upon that expression, I conceive that it has
been misunderstood. My honourable friend did not say,
46 the West Indies are of little consequence, let them go;"
he merely answered a speculation that the consequence of
the abolition of the slave trade would be the loss of our West
India possessions; a speculation which, by the bye, is very
uncertain. To the assertion on the one side, he only opposed
an assertion of his own, that


.
oven if the speculation of the


loss of those islands should be true, we should be as well
without them : and then came in the case of America. On
that subject, I confess that I hold a different opinion. I
c
onsider the loss of America as a grievous misfortune to the


British empire. I always should be inclined to coincide with
those prudent men, who arc not disposed to risk any great
stake on the chance of speculation; and if even, in the con-
test between Great Britain and her colonies, I had been of
the opinion of the Dean of Gloucester, that the independence
of America was desirable, I should not have ventured to have




126 ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. [March Is.


acted on that opinion. But in this case, if' the West India
planters should present the alternative, " either we will
separate from Great Britain, or continue the slave trade,"
I should have no hesitation. I would say, " Separate, go to
America, or if you think proper, go to France." When I
threaten them thus, I mean to convey, that the separation
would be infinitely more inconvenient to them than to Great
Britain, and that they are but little prepared for such a step.


The right honourable gentleman entered into a detail of
the amount of the importations, but was afterwards obliged
to admit, that not much stress was to be laid on a calculation
of that sort. He entered also into a speculation with respect
to the rivalship of America in point of manufactures. The
probability of what this country may suffer from such a rival-
ship, I consider to be very remote. The extent of land to
be cultivated in America, compared even with the increasing
rate of population, must retard such an event for a great
number of years. But when I venture to put the case of
the loss of the West Indies, I talk so from a certainty that
there is rio danger of such a separation, and from a firm
conviction that it cannot be the result of the present bill. As
to the point of right, I affirm that, from the nature of the
connection, no right can be more unquestionable than for
the legislature of Great Britain to interfere in regulating the
external commerce of her colonies. The right honourable
gentleman says, that if you cut them off from one branch of
trade, you become yourselves bound to supply the deficiency.
In point of fact, the argument is not founded, for you have
already interdicted them from many branches of commerce,
which you do not supply. But what is the extent of his
argument, as applied to the present case? To say that you
are. bound to supply the West India planters with slaves with
your own hands and your own _capital, till such a time as
those gentlemen are convinced that no fresh -supplies are
necessary, is to suppose that you have formed something like
the worst of all contracts. It is to suppose that you have
sold yourselves to the Devil to the end of time, and are
engaged to do his service, without the possibility of redemp-
tion. When the right honourable gentleman talks of the
danger to be apprehended from slaves newly imported front
a country, where neither from religion, morality, nor philo-
sophy, they have acquired any laudable sentiment or pod
disposition, where neither precept nor example has caai-
eurred to form them to amiable manners and habits of vir-ale,
what is the obvious inference? If there is one country ID the
world so peculiarly unfortunate, so totally depraved, is n
this wretched picture of our nature owing to the existence


ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.
1 27 271796.]


°


f that abominable traffic, which thus tends to eradicate
from the character any thing good, amiable, or even hunian ?
Can there exist any obligation to be the conductors of such
a trade? We cannot have made such a contract. If we
have, it is one of those few contracts, which ought to be
violated


The right honourable gentleman, in taking notice of the
particular clauses of -the bill, lamented that there should be
one, enacting, that those slaves, who are already in the islands,
should be taken from one island to another, and thus sepa-
rated from their acquaintance, and the connections they may
have formed. If such are his feelings with respect to a re-
moval from Barbadoes to Jamaica, if he conceives the attach-
ment which binds them to the place they have once inhabited
to be so strong, with what sentiments must he contemplate
that separation which they, in the first instance, experience
from their native soil—that separation which breaks asunder
all the bands of nature, which tears them from every object
of sympathetic fondness, from every scene of early endear-
ment? With respect to the other clause, which enacts, that
those negroes who shall be attempted to be brought over for
the purpose of illegal commerce, shall be sold, and the money
applied to particular purposes, I certainly shall regret its
operation, and I sincerely wish that any other mode of dis-
posing of them could possibly be suggested. It is urged
against us, " You say, that they are unjustly torn from their
friends and their country : why, then, do you not take the
means to restore them ?' If it were possible to secure this
object, I should grudge no expence with which it might be
attended. But one of the evils of this robbery is, that it
leaves no means of restitution. Should we attempt again to
convey those wretches to the coast of Africa, they might only
be left to perish by famine, or might be exposed to a repetition
of the same sufferings which we now deprecate; and this cir-
cumstance in itself I can only consider as a fresh stigma which
attaches to this abominable traffic, and a more convincing
proof of its foul atrocity.


As to the practicability of the different plans, so far as they
are connected with the question of the co-operation of the
s
olonies; if the plan of abolition can be carried into effect


With the consent and co-operation of the colonies, my plan isfully as easy and practicable as that of the right honourableg
entleman : but if it must be enforced without their con-


sent, his plan is more difficult in execution, and less certainin its operation than mine. Evasion becomes easy, in pro-p
ortion as distinction is difficult. Would it be harder to pu-


niah a man for importing negroes, or for only importing them




128 ABOLITION OF TILE SLAVE TRADE. [March


above a certain age? In the one case, the enactment is broad
and positive, and removes at once all difficulty and deception
the other, the distinction is matter of intricacy and doubt, and
opens a wide door for imposition and subterfuge. But is the
right honourable gentleman prepared to say, that he is autho.
rind by the West-India planters to state their co-operation
to the plan which he has proposed? Have they not constantly
opposed the utmost obstacles in their power to every step
which has been taken in this business? Did not the act to
prevent the exportation of negroes to other islands meet also
the opposition of those gentlemen who are enemies to the
abolition ? Their co-operation we cannot hope, and we never
shall have it. 'Doubts have been attempted to be raised with
whom the right rested to decide upon this question. Un-
questionably the assembly of Jamaica may decide upon mat-
ters of internal jurisdiction, but it belongs to the parliament of
Great Britain to regulate the concerns of external trade. It
is not fit that the assembly of Jamaica should take upon itself
the province of the British legislature. Yet such is the scope
of that reasoning, which goes to affirm that this trade cannot
be abolished without the consent of the colonies. With re-
spect to the existence of a supposed engagement sanctioning
the trade, and pledging the faith of parliament for its conti-
nuance; whenever parliament at any time thinks proper to
encourage a trade in point of' policy, it by no means binds
itself either to carry it on, or to compensate for its abolition.
When I opposed the commercial treaty with France, on the
ground that it would be prejudicial to our trade with Portu-
gal, I never pushed the argument so far as to contend, that
because, by a former treaty, we had encouraged the trade with
Portugal, we were still indispensably bound to afford it the
same countenance, and not to divert commerce into any other
channel. But what have we done this session and the last?
We have in this country, on the ground of the scarcity of
provisions, entirely stopped a great trade, the distillery trade.
No proposition can be more evident, than whenever any mo-
tive of policy requires a trade to be suppressed, the legislature
are immediately authorized to employ measures to suppress it.
But the suppression of this trade is called for, not only by
motives of policy, but of humanity; and by what is far supe-
rior to any considerations either of policy or humanity—the
principles of justice.


The right honourable gentleman admits, that without some
regulations the trade not only cannot be carried on, con-
sistently with policy and prudence, but consistently with hu-
manity and justice. When he admits this right of regulation,
all question with. respect to the right of interference is at an


/796.] ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.
129


end. If we have a right to stop the importation of all slaves
above twenty, why not. stop the importation of all ? If the right
honourable gentleman had brought forward what be stated,
respecting a commission, to take into consideration the situ-
ation of the West Indies and the claims of the planters, as a
specific proposition, I should certainly, in that form, have
Given it all clue attention. At most, it can only weigh as an
rgument for him, to bring up a clause for that purpose to be


inserted in the bill.
In the course of his speech the right honourable gentleman


took notice of the unfounded calumnies circulated against the
planters, who had been represented as men devoid of humanity.
Undoubtedly a great body of evidence had been brought
forward to prove, that many acts of cruelty and tyranny land
:a different times been perpetrated, under the sanction of this
odious traffic. This, indeed, is no good reason why the
planters, who partake of the characters of any mixed body of
men, should be branded with one general stigma. It cannot,
however, be denied, that wherever there is slavery, there will
be abuse. If, with respect to the West Indies, we judge of
the national character from that which has always been con-
sidered as its best criterion, the national laws, we shall form
no very favourable conclusion. What can be more detestable
than the laws of Barbadoes, which have been referred to on
a former occasion ? And if any thing can exceed the letter of
the law of Barbadoes, it is the practice of Jamaica, as de-
scribed by Mr. Bryan Edwards, a man who is justly entitled
to every praise. I do not impute that spirit of cruelty to in-dividuals; it is the inevitable consequence of slavery. This
trade, it is said, has existed a hundred years. Slavery, it is
to be lamented, is much older. We have had writers on
slavery among the ancients, and there we can trace the same
effects, produced by this detestable practice, as we have oc-
casion to witness in modern times. The authority of Aristotle
has been quoted, and what does he say on the subject? " TheBarbarians are slaves by nature, and made for the service of
the Creeks." Finding the practice subsisting among hisCountrymen, this occurred to him as the easiest and most sa-tisfactory mode of accounting for its origin ; and in another
place he says: " You must not introduce what is too impro-
bable, even in fiction ; therefore you must not represent a slave
as a good man; for the character, though not impossible, is
co


ntrary to nature and to general experience." Nothing, in-
deed, can be more true than that all the virtues of man are
alli ed to liberty : in the generous soil of freedom they take
deep root, and acquire full vigour and maturity ; their


VOL. VI.




[March I °
130 ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.


) •


vices foster on the dunghill of slavery, and shoot forth with
nauseous luxuriance.


But the right honourable gentleman says, that even if we
should abandon the trade, from a principle of justice, we
should still gain nothing on the score of humanity. I will.
not again repeat the argument already so often enforced, that
we ought t9 abstain from crimes without any consideration of
consequences. But I will ask, if we abandon the trade at the
present moment who arc likely to take it up? Win the French,
the Dutch, or the Americans readily embark in such an un-
dertaking? If, from a principle of justice, this great country
takes the lead in renouncing this abominable and disgraceful
traffic; if America bears testimony to the same cause, and
France, already pledged by her own declarations, perseveres
in the course she has adopted, may not this powerful example
be supposed to be the most effectual step to bring about a
.complete and final abolition? I ask those who question your
right to legislate for Jamaica, what right you have to legislate
for Africa? what right Englishmen have to tear the unoffend-
ing inhabitants from their native soil, and to devote them as
the victims of their [avarice and cruelty ? what sort of law
that is which sanctions the commission of injustice ? what sort
of morality that is which teaches us to commit crimes, because
they are countenanced by the example of others ?


An honourable friend of mine (General Smith), supposing
that a general burst of exclamation which proceeded from
those who were adverse to the trade was meant to interrupt
him, said " it was very well for gentlemen to decide on the
question, without thinking of the claims of those in the West
Indies, and then retire to their luxury or repose." I rather
suppose that exclamation proceeded from those who were
thinking of the claims of persons in the West Indies, though
not of the description intended by the honourable general—
from those who were thinking of the claims of the poor ne-
groes. Good God ! are we placed in those circumstances of
comfort and ease which he has described, and can we hesitate
a moment to decide whether we shall leave the African in
possession of the common blessings of nature; of the en-
joyment of his freedom, and the privilege of his industry, or
whether we shall barbarously tear him from his home, and
doom him to be the drudge of avarice, and the victim of
tyranny


But, if I have already shown the plan of the right honour-
able gentleman to be most exceptionable in point of practica-
bility, how does it stand in point of humanity and justice?
What must we think if Great Britain, giving up the general


1796.] ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. 13 1


point of her right to carry on-the trade, and openly avowing
i ts injustice, should still continue to exercise that- trade with
respect to the weak and the helpless ? Is it of consequence
for a nation to be moral? 'What impression, then, must it
(rive to other states, that Great Britain declares that she feels
file inhumanity, that she acknowledges the injustice of the
slave trade, that she henceforth renounces all privilege to
traffic in those who have arrived at manhood, and attained
their full strength, but reserves to herself the power to prey
on helpless infancy and unoffending innocence, without con-
sidering the feelings of those who are thus bereaved of their
children, or the sufferings of the poor victims thus dragged
from the bosom of parental fondness, to drink the bitter
draught of slavery ? Can a government continue respected
or respectable, which places humanity and justice in one -
hand, and policy and gain in the other? And yet, this must
he the case if you do not abolish the slave trade, and
still more so if you adopt the plan of abolition proposed
by the right honourable gentleman. My honourable friend
(General Smith) says, that an act of parliament will never
pass to abolish this trade. I am persuaded that the opinion
of the House of Commons, firmly and decidedly expressed,
will have great weight in influencing the ultimate decision ;
and you ought to lose no time in giving it the utmost possible
effect. I am astonished that our proposition should be termed
abrupt and hasty ; it is now eight years since the business was
first brought forward; the abolition, by a vote of this House,
was fixed for 17 96, and we now come to ask it in 1797 ! Of
all other charges, that of precipitancy is the least applicable to
the supporters of this bill. If the other branch of the legis-
lature shall still be found to differ from us in 'opinion on 'this
subject, let us at least shew by our conduct, that it is not the
fault of the House of Commons that the continuance of a
traffic was sanctioned, which every man admits to be contrary
to humanity, policy, and justice.


At the close of the debate, General Tarleton moved to leave
out the word " now," and at the end of the question to acid thew
ords " this day four months." The question being put, that the


Word " now" stand part of the question, the House divided :
Tellers.
Tellers.y8As J Lord Muncaster,


General Tarleton7o. — NOESZ Mr. M. Montagu
Mr. Robt. Dundasf 74'


So it passed in the negative. After which General Tarleton'sro
otion, that the report be taken into consideration upon this dayfour months was agreed to.


X. 2




1 79 6.] RESPECTING TIIE LOAN. 133132 MR. SMITH'S MOTION [Feb. 26.


MR. WILLIAM SMITH'S MOTION RESPECTING THE LOAN.


Febr/My 26.


T N the course of an investigation into the circumstances attendingI the negociation of the loan for this year, it appeared that a very
extraordinary and marked preference had been given by the mi.
nister to the mercantile house of Messrs. Boyd, though conducted
on the professed principle of a free and open competition, and that
the equally respectable house of Mellish and Morgan would have
taken it on terms considerably more advantageous to the public.
The attention of parliament was called to the subject by Mr.
William Smith, who moved several resolutions of censure on the
subject. On the first resolution being put, viz. " That it ap-
pears to this House, that the principle of making loans for the
public service by free and open competition, uniformly professed
.by the chancellor of the _exchequer, has been very generally re,
cognized, as affording the fairest prospect of public advantage ;" a
debate of great length took place. An amendment to the reso-
lution was proposed by Mr. Sylvester Douglas, who moved that it
should stand thus : " That it appears to this House, that the prin-
ciple of making loans for the public service by competition, which
was introduced, and has in general been acted upon, by the present
chancellor of the exchequer, has been productive in many instances
of great public advantage ; but that this principle could not be
applied in its full extent, to the bargain for the late loan, consist-
ently with the peculiar circumstances of the case, and with that
attention to the equitable claims of individuals, which ought always
to be shewn in transactions with them on the behalf of the public."
Afer the terms of the loan had been defended by Mr. Steele, and
Mr. Pitt,


Mr. Fox said, that exclusive of the importance of the
subject now before the House, he must, from the evidence
before him, vote for the original proposition of his honour-
able friend, and against the amendment which had been
proposed, for that amendment alledged for a fact that
which was not true; and among the reasons which lie had for
the vote which he should give, was that of some expressions
of the learned gentleman who proposed the amendment, and
also of the minister himself; who had held pretty lofty
language upon this occasion. He had said, that they had in-
ferred guilt where there was no evidence of it, and had made
insinuations which they half retracted. He thought lie knew
his duty too well ever to make any insinuation of guilt, where
there was no suspicion. It was wholly against his, nature to


make that sort of attack on any man, to pretend to say there
might be guilt, when he thought there was none ; nor should
he ever be backward in stating it where he had suspicions.
But with regard to the guilt, as it appeared to him in this
case, he would state it to the House, as well as what he
conceived to be the nature of the accusation.. The minister
had stated, that the accusation originally made against him-
upon this subject was, that he held a negociation in concluding
the bargain for the loan, that was to be used for the purposes of
of corruption, and that it might be made use of to influence
the members of that House to vote for him. This was in-
correct. No such accusation was ever made against that right
honourable gentleman. The original mover of the resolutions
now before the House' had never imputed that to the minister.
He too, had always acquitted the right honourable gentleman
of personal corruption ; and for this the right honourable gen-
tleman said, he did not thank him. I care not, said Mr. Fox ;
I claim not his thanks, nor shall I ever complain that I do not
receive them. But I accused him then,and I accuse him now, of
having made an improvident bargain for the public. Even
improvidence, in a minister of finance, Mr. Fox contended to
be no small crime; and he could


.
not help saying he was sur-


prised to hear that sort of improvidence stated as a mere pecca-
dillo. 'What ! improvidence in a chancellor of the exchequer,.
to the vast extent of this loan, a mere peccadillo ! It was not
so to be called; it was a very serious charge against a minister
of this country to say that he had in a transaction of this vast
importance made an improvident bargain. The bargain was
not improvident merely ; it was made under such suspicious
circumstances, as the House ought not to be too ready to ex-
cuse. But he must protest against the doctrine that no bad
motive should be assigned to the minister, if it could not be
proved what that motive was. This was against the common
order of things, which he conceived in the present instance
e
ntitled him to say, that the motive, be it what it might, could


not be a good one where the effect was so bad, and the cir-
cumstances so suspicious.


The right honourable gentleman had insisted that he wastotally
.fexculpated from all attempts to influence, by this loan,


thi
the votes of the members of' that House. He dared to say that


s was true, for he did not see in the present state of the po-
litics of this country, that the right honourable gentleman
had any occasion to increase his majority in that House, and


this
loan was made a subject of influence, it mustbe i


nfluence of another kind. The right honourable gentle-
Man, as well as the learned gentleman who opened the debate,had insisted much that the merchants in the city, who were


x 3




1 34


MR. SMITH'S MOTION [Feb. 26.
subscribers to this loan, were not concerned in any way of di..
rect influence; but that was not the charge which he madejagainst the minister. If there was any species of improvidence-hich it was proper in the house to check rather than another,
it was that species which went, not to affix political weakness
and political disgrace on the character of the minister, but
which tended to procure for him; from great and powerful
men, great and powerful support. In the present case, the
loan was diffused among a class of men, from whom the mi-
nister, even supposing him innocent of any corrupt intention,
might derive much more solid advantage than from a few
votes in the House of Commons.


The first point in the business to which he would call the
attention of the House, was the mode of transacting the loan.
The right honourable gentleman had all along been an advo-
cate for free and open competition. He begged leave to dis-
miss all cavil upon the expression "free and open competition;"
lie meant it in the fair and candid sense. But how stood the
matter in point of fact with regard to the conduct of the chan-
cellor of the exchequer ? In 17 9 3, he brought before the House
a bargain so extravagant and wasteful to the public, that he
attempted to defend it only by stating, that it had been the
result of a free and open competition. This proved how much
merit the minister thought there was in free and open compe-
tition, since he rested his defence in a case so desperate wholly
on that circumstance. Why then, he could not help suspect-
ing the fairness of that loan, in which the minister abandoned
this mode, and that, too, in a loan as extensive and extrava-
gant as any we had ever heard of. This loan, therefore, was
as extravagant in point of terms and more objectionable in
point of manner, than the loan of 1793 ; and here he must
make an observation, that the right honourable gentleman's
exceptions were greater than his rules. For it was not true,
that he had in substance followed the principle of public com-
petition in loans; particularly if we looked to quantity instead
of number of loans. The last two loans were not made by
competition, and in point of quantity they nearly equalled all
the others put together; amounting to pretty nearly fifty
millions. The minister, therefore, had abandoned the prac-
tice, which he extolled in theory, of public competition ; fifty
millions had been added to the capital of our debt, and that
without a competition in the bidding for the loans. He wanted
to know whether, according to the principles of common sense,
he was not called upon to say that this loan was an improvi-
dent bargain, on the part of the public? And he would ask
the House, whether such a man should pass uncensured,
merely because it could not be proved what his motives were?


/796.J RESPECTING THE LOAN. 135


Here Mr. Fox proceeded to take notice of the evidence as
printed in the report, and to comment on the various circum-
stances of that evidence, by which he inferred that a pre-
ference was really intended by the minister to be given to Mr.
Boyd. At all events, it was extremely material to the honour
of his character, fairly to tell when he had the first notice of
Mr. Boyd's claims. He had pressed him often for an answer
to this question, and never had obtained any specific reply.
On this point he thought Mr. Boyd's evidence inconsistent
with the right honourable gentleman's declaration. Mr..I3oyd
said positively, on his examination, that as early as October
he preferred his claim to the chancellor of the exchequer, and
that the chancellor of the exchequer, being convinced of its
justice, came under promise to give him the preference. Ile
was willing to make every allowance for omissions amid the •
multiplicity of business with which the attention of the right
honourable gentleman must necessarily be distracted, but to
forget such an important subject as this, admitted neither of
palliation nor excuse. Was it nothing, after having come
under a positive promise to prefer an individual, to give notice
to the governor of the bank of his intention to hold out
proposals of public competition, in which he knew at the
time it would not be in his power to persevere, and which, in
fact, he had been obliged to abandon ? And here he would
say something upon the claim of Mr. Boyd. If the claim was
invalid, it would only vary the degree of guilt; and if it was
valid, it was a singular circumstance that it should have been
entirely forgotten. It certainly was not a claim founded upon
a direct written or verbal agreement: but even though the
claim was good, it was not sufficient to stand between him and
the public ; and though gentlemen were extremely fond of
appealing to the governor of the bank, the evidence that he
gave before the committee went directly to invalidate his
claim. The opinion of Mr. Giles was fortified by fact and
justice. For supposing, which he really believed was the case,
that it would have been better for the nation to have given
the contractors a pecuniary compensation, if the chancellor
of the exchequer, or if the country, were bound to the con-
tractors, they were bound to the contributors; and if such a
compensation had been granted, it would have been but fair
that its advantages should have been extended to the contri-
butors, as well as to the contractors. Supposing, for instance,
that 3 or 400,000l. had been voted to Mr. Boyd and his
friends for the loss they sustained, the House would certainly
have provided that the compensation should extend to all the
subscribers as well as to the contractors; for how the country
could be bound to the contractor and not to the contributor,


K 4




I;6 MR. SMITH'S MOTION
[Feb. 26. 796.] RESPECTING THE LOAN. t


he was at a loss to conceive. It was said that these come
under some degree of risk. But how long did it exist? Only
till the deposit was made. What was the nature of the risk''
A risk might be so much that it might be nothing at all.
The contractor might sometimes be obliged to hold scrip for
a considerable time ; but so was the contributor, and the risk
on his part was only less, as the contractor had commonly a
greater share than the contributor. In justice, then, and the
nature of things; there was certainly nothing to authorize the
claim. There had been many a loan bargained for in this
country; but there had not been a sufficient number of in-
stances to constitute a custom on this head.


Much stress had been laid on the conversation which took
place between the chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Boyd,
in 17 94. It seemed, the chancellor of the exchequer, in order
to hasten the payment of the loan, had said, that the following
February would be too late for the last instalment, because it
might be necessary to negotiate a new loan before that time.
This expression of the chancellor of the exchequer was re-
presented as a virtual recognizance of the claim of Mr. Boyd.
But it *as not necessary to ascribe this conversation to a ten-
derness for Mr. Boyd's right, when it was much more natural
to suppose it proceeded from a concern for the public in-
terest. This casual expression, however, had such an effect
upon the mind of the right honourable gentleman, that
he could not efface the idea of Mr. Boyd's peremptory right
to shut the market against new loans, till the last instalment
upon the preceding loan should have been paid. To all this
the right honourable gentleman asked, " Have I shewn any
symptoms of partiality to Mr. Boyd? On the contrary, was
it not with the greatest reluctance that I deserted my favourite
system, in order to satisfy his claim?" We have seen reluc-
tance (said Mr. Fox) often used as a veil under which we con-
ceal the commission of acts which we ought not to have com-
mitted. With what " sweet, reluctant, amorous delay," the
right honourable gentleman took leave of his professions I
know not. Still, however, lie maintained that he kept up
some degree of competition. But if he was aware that it was
such a competition as to excite contempt, Mr. Fox said he could
give it no other character than that of a miserable expedient
to cover his determination ; and if he had a better opinion of
it, why did he abandon it on the opinion of two angry men ?
But here occurred a question of moment, respecting the time
at which the loan was made. On account of some pressing
business in the House of Commons, he could not bring on
the budget, but yet he could not put off the loan, but con-
cluded the bargain twelve days before he notified it to parlias,


men t • whereas, on Rimer occasions, it used only to be eon-
eluded one, two, or three days before the opening . of the
budget.


From the circumstances of the loan Mr. Fox proceeded to
the


he motives which actuated the negociation. And ifspeak
it was not allowed to operate as an instrument of corruption,
it certainly had sonic reference to a transaction which took
place in September, in which Mr. Boyd raised 2,500,0001.
for government, upon treasury bills, bearing a fictitious date
at IIainburgh though drawn here. This transaction Mr. Fox
reprobated, on the authority of the governor of the bank of
England, as extremely discreditable to government, and as
disgraceful to those who set it On foot. When he saw the
right honourable gentleman abandon his principles; when lie
saw him abandon them at the suit of an individual; and when
he saw him abandon them in favour of this individual, after
being engaged in a discreditable transaction with him, the
observation could not but excite some suspicions, and it would
require stronger reasons than any that he had adduced to
establish his innocence. But, said the right honourable gen-
tleman, this was only a necessary supply, which Mr. Boyd
advanced in the most liberal manner for the service of the
country, in a time of difficulty, when her resources were ex-
hausted, and when it would have been exceedingly incon-
venient to have convened parliament. This representation
served only to enhance the favour conferred by Mr. Boyd,
and to establish the relation between that transaction and the
negociation of the present loan ; for to relieve the minister
from such difficulties as those, and in which he had involved
himself by improvidence or extravagance, was an obligation
which would naturally in these circumstances be too highly
valued to be easily forgotten. He might have negociated a
short loan in September, which would have operated as a pre-
sent supply till after the holidays; but this could not have
been explained to France, nor would it have given that power
half the idea of our financial superiority which she must ne-


with mockery


cessarily have formed from such a highly-creditable trans-
action, as raisi a money by means of fictitious Hamburgh
bills !


no


Mr. Fox adverted to the report, and to that part of it espe-
a stated the conduct and the evidence of Mr. IVIor-


gan, both of which he said, appeared to him to have been na-
tural enough. That gentleman had expressed himself in his
evidence consistently. Much had been said, that Mr. Morgan
t
appeared to be angry with the minister on this occasion. Was


unnaturalilr l in a man, who felt that he had been insulted
of competition ? He had lost that which was




138 MR. SMITH'S MOTION [Feb. 26.


the object of his heart, the loan, and therefore there was no-
thing wonderful in his anger. Every candid man would agree
that some allowance ought to be made for a man irritated by
disappointment. Mr. Morgan had said he wouldhave made
a bargain for the loan, which would have been better for the
public than this. Here was at once, then, the best of all possible
evidences, the evidentia rei, that the bargain was an impro-
vident one. Why, it was asked, did Mr. Morgan not hid
above Mr. Boyd by his proxy in the House of Commons when
the subject was debated, up to the whole amount, which he
stated the public to have lost? The answer to this question
was plain, and Mr. Morgan had already given it. He did
not hid for the public good, but for his own good, and there-
fore, when he was bidding to the House of Commons when
they were called upon to ratify a bad bargain, a sum consider-
able enough to make that bargain much better for the public,
the less he advanced the better for himself. Such was the
admission of Mr. Morgan ; and he had not the smallest
scruple to declare, that he felt as much willingness to be-
lieve a man who thus admitted that he wished to take care of
his own interest, as he who pretended, in money matters, to
have nothing in view but the public good. Here, then, we
had a man preferred by the minister, with whom transactions
of a very suspicious nature had been carried on, and this pre-
ference had cost the public an immense sum of money. What
was he to say on such a case ? What could he say, but that
the minister proceeded upon some motive or other that, from
the circumstances and the manner of it, had rather the ap-
pearance of a bad than a good one ; it had certainly operated
to the very great detriment of the public at large, and to the
ill character of the pecuniary concerns of this country.


Mr. Fox next proceeded to take notice of the different
causes, which the minister had assigned for the rise in the
price of the funds soon after the loan was contracted for, and
declared that he was clearly of opinion, that the king's mes-
sage, which came to that House on the day after the budget,
was the chief cause of that rise. The right honourable gen-
tlemen contended, that. the news of the Austrian victories,
had a considerable share in promoting the rise. These victo-
ries, let it be recollected, were pretty generally known before
the 2gth of November. The rapid decay of the French
finances was assigned as another cause of this political pliwno-
menon. He begged however to know, whether, after the
25th of November, the French finances had decayed so ra-
pidly, that even the most sanguine calculator found his calcu-
lations far short of the truth. He was the more surprised at
hearing this language when he recollected that about eight


1796.] RESPECTING THE LOAN. 139
months ago they were described as being in the agonies of death,
in the very gulph of bankruptcy. All arguments respecting the
decay of the French finances, he considered as so many childish
and contemptible pretences to veil (and a thin veil it was,) the
suspicious conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer. When
the right honourable gentleman was obliged to have recourse


pretexts, in his opinion, no accuser could say moreto such


d
against him. He was asked, how he came to calculate upon
ui average rise of stock, and of course the average premium


On the loan from the temporary effect of any particular news ?
He replied, that he calculated upon the price of stock, when
subscribers made their first deposit, at which period the cra-
nium afforded a clear profit of twelve and a half per cent. He
admitted, for argument's sake, that the message might be
the natural effect of the minister's comment on the king's
speech at the opening of the session ; but who did not know
that a formal message from the throne carried much greater
weight with it than an occasional speech of a minister in par-
liament ? The fall of stock was not to be wondered at, be-
cause the public had never seen the message acted upon, and
therefore it was but natural that the funds should sink to their
former level. The conduct of the commissioners appointed
to manage the funds for the liquidation of the national debt,
in buying into the four, instead of three per cents., Mr. Fox
stated to be another matter deserving the attention of the
House; and a due consideration of it would, he said, easily
satisfy them, that it was to be regarded as a part of the cir-
cumstances, that bore relation to the late improvident bargain
with Mr. Boyd. He concluded with maintaining, that the
terms of the loan were much more extravagant, not than the
country had paid at former times, but in comparison with the
terms which might, when the loan was made, have been ob-
tained by free and open competition. He sat down, with
giving it as his opinion, that the chancellor of the exchequer
had been guilty of a breach of duty, and on that ground he
must give his assent to the original resolution.


Mr. Smith's first resolution was rejected, on a division, by 171
-against 23 ; after which Mr. Douglas's amendment was agreed to.




THE REPEAL OF THE GAME LAWS.
141I 796.]144


MR. CURWEN'S BILL FOR [March 4,
was not considered to involve any moral guilt, and therefore
it was to be altered and avoided, and always would be altered
and avoided, as much as possible, by every wise legislature.


The question here was, whether the good (if there was any)
which • was gained by these game laws, was so much as to
overbalance the evil they were the cause of? It was said, that
gentlemen should have great inducements to live in the coun-


MR. CHRISTEN'S BILL FOR THE REPEAL OF THE GAME
LAWS.


March 4.


'HIS day Mr. Curwen moved, " That leave be given to bring in
a bill to repeal the acts of the 22d and 2 1 d of Charles II. the


1st of James I. the 4th and stir of William and Mary, the 5th and
9th of Anne, and the 2gth of George or such parts thereof, to
be particularly specified, as relate to the Preservation of Game ;
and for substituting other provisions in lieu thereof." Mr. Buxton
was of opinion that game should be made private property. Mr.
Windham wished for a modification of the game laws, but upon
general principles he felt a very great repugnance to accede to any
sudden change in any ancient system.


Mr. Fox said, he hoped that no effectual opposition would
be made to the motion of his honourable friend that night,
which was-only for leave to bring in a bill, hereafter to he
discussed. He should not offend the right honourable gen-
tleman who spoke last, by saying any thing upon the doc-
trine of natural rights. But although, on the principle of
property, it might not be absolutely unjust to make a dis-
tinction between the qualification to kill game and any other
qualification, yet, on the principle of congruity and of policy,
the game laws were indefensible, for by them it appeared, that
a great number of the most opulent part of the people of this
country were not permitted to enjoy the luxury of sporting
with game. This was obviously incongruous ; it would be so
in any state, and therefore improper, but much more so in
that state under which we had the happiness to live. So much
for the consistency of these laws. Was it not true that these laws
were ineffectual ? That they were almost universally broken?
That there was no place whatever where game was not, or
might not be purchased, contrary to these laws ? What was
the use of laws to prohibit the sale of game ? As long as
rich men wanted game, poor men would procure game. Was
not that the result of the ,game laws ? Did not that call for a
repeal of the game laws ? He would not say that he would
never agree to a proposition that made that criminal by law
which was not morally considered criminal ; yet it was cer-
tainly clear, that that law was best kept which declared that to
be criminal, which the general feeling and sentiment of man-
kind regarded as morally criminal. That law would thrive.
It would be generally obeyed. It always had been, it always
would be, otherwise with a law which prohibited that which


try. Certainly they should ; it was proper and beneficial ;
men of high situation in life and of large fortunes, were, un-
doubtedly, fit objects of the attention of the legislature in every
point of view. He was willing to grant that care should be
taken to protect them in the enjoyment even of their amuse-.
me.nts. Be it so. It was, however, his opinion, that the
repeal of the game laws would not tend to the diininution of
that object; and that ought to go a great way towards the
repeal of those laws. He could not say, like an honourable
gentleman, that lie was quite impartial on the subject, be-
cause certainly he indulged in the amusements of sporting as
much as his leisure would allow. So did the honourable gen-
tleman who made the present motion. That could not ren-
der either of them, from the part they took in this case, the
more liable to distrust by those who wanted to protect the
game. With respect to the game laws, his opinion was, that
there might easily be found a much better system than they
were for the protection of the game, supposing the House to
have nothing else in view upon the subject. He thought that
the better way would be for the House to adopt the idea of.
an honourable gentleman, (Mr. Buxton,) and make game pri-
vate property. If he was bound to take his choice out of
three cases, either that the laws should remain as they are, be
totally and nothing else, or that be made pri-
vate property, he should certainly say, " make game private


If, however, he was compelled to clause between two ques-
tions, whether these laws should remain as they were, or be
totally repealed, and nothing else, he should have no diffi-
culty in saying, that they should be all repealed without any
thing being substituted in their stead. The greater part of
these laws were so arbitrary, the principle which ran through
them all was so impregnated with tyranny, that they were en-
tirely unfit to exist as laws in a free state. Such was their
Principle. The practice arising out of them was equally liable
to objection ; for the penalties sued for must be solicited by
Parties who were generally too much affected by animosity
to the party against which they sued. Nor was it always quite
a Clear case that the magistrate who pronounced the convic-
tion was strictly impartial. The whole of the system was, in




142 MR. CURWEN'S BILL FOR [March • •


fact, amass of insufferable tyranny, which no gentleman had
ever ventured to defend in a direct way. If gentlemen thought
proper to assert that the game laws tended to protect the
game, he would answer them directly, that they did no such
thing. He would ask any person conversant with the subject,
whether, in point of fact, where game was preserved, it was
not from the law of property, and not from the game laws?
He was sure it was owing to the law of property, solely, that
game was preserved. Where had game been well preserved, ex-
cept where the holder of the land was the proprietor of it, and
had the right by law to kill game ? Had it been so where
the holder of the land was not the proprietor, and had not
the right to kill game ?


He would say again, that the preservation of the game was
entirely owing to the proprietors of land, and not to the game
laws, and therefore it was the principle of property which
protected the game. He spoke confidently upon this subject,
and he was glad he spoke in the hearing of many who
knew the matter better than he did. But what was the pro-
position of his honourable friend ? Only that a penalty of sl.
be imposed on a person who should, after notice, trespass on
the land of another, and kill game there. He thought that
game should be made private property. That was his opinion.
He knew that the prejudices of men were a long time in wear-
ing out, and that was a point that was much to be considered,
and great care to be taken of it ; for would it be an easy thing
to make the public regard game in a field, in the same light as
any other property? To conquer that prejudice would re-
quire time, and the House might consider of that hereafter.
The question, however, here was, whether the House would
not agree to bring in a bill, to repeal laws which no man in
the House defended in principle? Why not agree, then, to
the introduction of the bill, and when it went into a com-
mittee, propose some substitutions for the laws? But al-
though this was his opinion, yet the question, he was willing
to confess, was not so pressing or so urgent that the Houser,
should not take time to consider it. That the game laws were
really mischievous and created crimes ; that they increased the
number of offenders against themselves, and thereby increased
the number of persons who were ready to commit other crimes,
could not possibly admit of any doubt. He should hope,
therefore, that the bill would be permitted to be brought in
and would pass. He was perfectly sure, that the game laws
were not good for the preservation of game. It seemed to
be agreed that they were bad for that purpose: they could,
therefore, be kept only (if they were to be kept) for the sake
of the invidious distinction which they establislied. 1;


1796.3 THE REPEAL OF THE GAME LAWS. 143
Mr. Jenkinson said, that although he considered the game laws


i„ an objectionable point of view, yet he was so averse to any al-
teration taking place in a system so long established, especially at
a time like the present, when every deviation from legal custom
ought scrupulously to be guarded against, that he must oppose thc..


. He therefore moved, That the House do now adjourn.
Upon this the H


ell
ouse
ers.


divided :
T


Mr. Jenkinson
Tellers..


YEAS 1 Mr.
-,,, { Mr. Curwen




motion


--- IN 0 ES
M Buxt n




50.
I


W allace
So it passed in the negative. After this, Mr. Curwen consented
withdraw . his motion, and the House agreed to go into a com-to


mittee of the whole House, on that day sennight, to take the said
acts into consideration.


April 29.


On the it th of April Mr. Curwen obtained leave to bring in a bill
for repealing certain statutes relating to the game, and for the bet-
ter preservation thereof, and also for extending the privilege of
killing game, to the owners and occupiers of land. On the motion
for the second reading of the bill, on the 29th, Captain Berkeley
moved, That it be read a second time upon that day three months.
The bill was also opposed by Sir Richard Sutton, who stated, that
in Germany game could be bought and sold at the public market
by those who were qualified ;


and recommended the same regulation
in this country.


Mr. Fox said, that lie was a very warm friend to the prin-
ciple of this measure, though some of the clauses of the bill
might be thought exceptionable. He wished to abstain from
general arguments, he hoped however the House would con-
sider what the houourable baronet had advanced with regard
to the German laws, as totally inapplicable to the question.
What, he asked, was there in the British code to resemble
in the least the laws of Germany ? He was surprised to hear
any thing like the introduction of them into this kingdom.
The arguments, however, of the honourable baronet as far
as they were right, most assuredly went to the fundamental
repeal of the game laws. He said, that in Germany, and
he recommended the same regulation to be adopted here,
game could be bought and sold at the public market by those
who were qualified. How then did the matter stand ? The
l rof the manor might employ a game-keeper to kill hisgame; but the lord of the manor must sell it. He was firmly
Persuaded, that to give the land-holder his just right over the
game on the grounds which he occupied, would be the best
cleans of preserving the game. The land-holder had an in-




144 BILL rOR THE REPEAL OF THE GAME LAWS. [April 29,


disputable right to the game on his ground, and much man,
so, assuredly, than the man who obtains a fictitious right to
kill game, by taking out his qualification. With regard to
poaching, he confessed he was no friend to it, but he would
not go so far as the worthy baronet, and say, that he would
have no mercy for poachers. But, if the worthy baronet en-
tertained such an idea of the criminality of a poacher, a
person whose situation might be some alleviation of his guilt,
what did he say to those by whom he was employed ? Were
they not, in a moral point of view, equally, if not more
culpable in inciting him to the violation of the laws of his.
country ? He never could look upon the breach of the laws
with more horror, as far as related to the poor, than he did
with respect to the rich ; who, in many instances, conceived
that they were free from guilt, as long as they escaped with
impunity. When gentlemen called for vengeance against
these unfortunate men, he could riot look upon those with
complacency who trafficked for boroughs, and purchased seats
in the House of Commons. He could not persecute the
poor poacher with indignant rage, without manifesting his
detestation at the conduct of many of his superiors. To
prevent the evil, the remedy, he maintained, was in the prin-
ciple of the bill; for he insisted that, conformably to the
doctrine of the most eminent writers on the criminal juris-
prudence of this country, , the game laws were not only in-
effectual, but disgraceful to the nation. It was shocking that
a penal law should exist, which was daily broken, and without
the possibility of being enforced. And what was the conse-
quence? The consequence was obvious; it increased the
number of persons acting against law, who were, from their
bad habits, the more liable to fall into other offences. Take
away, therefore, the corner stone of these crimes, the tempt-
ation to the private sale of game ; for in proportion as the
laws were infringed with impunity, so did crimes invariably
increase. This law, so often broken, added considerably to
the melancholy catalogue of criminals. If he were asked,
would he repeal the game laws without any substitution? he
would answer, certainly, rather than they should exist, with-
out any amendment. But the substitute was provided by the
bill, by making game private property. A reciprocal desire
to oblige prevailed throughout this country between the tenant
and landlord; and if the present bill, properly amended,
was passed, gentlemen would not find themselves more re-
strained than they were at present in their amusement. He
again pressed the House, if the preservation of game was
its object, to give the land-holder an interest in its pro'
tection, and he called on the right honourable gentleman,


Is


1796,E DUTIES ON LEGACIES OF PERSONAL ESTATES. 145


(M•. Windham) to say whether in the great sporting county
where he occasionally resided, it was usual for farmers to
warn gentlemen off their grounds ? The reverse, he believed,
was the fact. Thus was the game, he insisted, diminished in
consequence of the acts passed by our ancestors for its pro-
tection, as the farmers were indifferent as to the persons by
whom it was destroyed. The vote he should give that night,
certainly would be for the second reading of the bill, which
might be amended in the committee, and lie over to another
session, until it was maturely considered by the members of
the House.


The House divided on the motion, " That the bill be now read
a second time:


Tellers.
Tellers.


YEAS {Mr. Curwen ) iCaptain Berkeley )




Mr. Crewe 17. ---N"s IMr. Sumner


i 48.
The motion that the bill be read that day three months was then


put an d carried.


DUTIES ON LEGACIES' OF PERSONAL ESTATES.


March 22.


ON the order of the clay for taking into consideration the
report of the committee on the bill for repealing certain


duties on legacies and shares of personal estates, and granting
other duties thereon, Mr. Pitt moved, That the said report be
now taken into consideration ; as an amendment to which, Mr.Alderman Newnharn moved, that it be taken into consideration
on this day four months.


Mr. Fox said, he should concur in the motion for post-
poning this bill. As to the time, perhaps he might differ
from the worthy magistrate who made the motion. With
respect to the bill itself, he had considered it I'rom the verybeginning to be a measure altogether impracticable in the
present state of the country. He did not think that anyc
lause could be introduced into the bill which would do awaytobjections to it; for the whole principle of the bill wasradically unjust. He was exceedingly sorry, however, that


he bad been prevented by indisposition from attending when
the bill was in the committee, and examining the different
cla


uses as they were proposed, for he now professed himself
von. yr.




46 DUTIES ON LEGACIES OF PERSONAL ESTATES. [March 22,
incapable of understanding them. Objections, however, to
the whole bill were too obvious to pass unnoticed. Every
species of commercial property must by this bill be laid hold
of and exposed by government. He was told formerly, that
this inconvenience might be avoided. His answer was, " that
is morally impossible;" for the very idea of making a man
pay a profit to government for his property ad valorem, must
necessarily imply that the value of that property shall be
ascertained. This must also necessarily make public the
value of all the bequests in the kingdom. It was not neces-
sary for him to dilate upon this subject. This ascertainment
of the value of every thing hereafter to be bequeathed, must
necessarily depend upon a balance between debts and credits.
Now, there might, and there must be, cases in which this
system would be attended with great injustice. It was said,
that as we cannot ascertain the value of a person's property,
it shall-be taken according to the profits afterwards received.
The House should consider the tendency of this system.
There must be thus annually laid before parliament the whole
state of our commercial prosperity and adversity. A man
might lose upon one branch and gain upon another; he
might have a partner in the one case, and he might be con-
cerned alone in the other, and he might bequeath a legacy
to the partner who had sustained this loss; then there must
be a deduction of six per cent. out of such bequest. This,
perhaps, was an injustice which was not intended, but it was
an evil that was inseparable from the very nature of the bill,
and therefore could not be avoided. Now, he would ask,
how it was possible for a man to give an account ad valorem
of the profits of a trade complicated with a thousand circum-
stances? And how this account was to be made to govern-
ment without the whole of the circumstances of that trade
being made known to the public ? In short, made known to
every man in the world who should choose to inquire into
them ? With regard to the practicability of estimating the
value of property under this bill, suppose, for instance, a
certain capital left between six persons, the interest of
which only was to be enjoyed by one at a time : suppose it
should go to the uncle in the first instance, the brother in the
second, the nephew in the third, until the whole capital be
made absolutely in the sixth person in succession. How could
the claim be made on the part of government ? If it be laid
upon the capital in the first instance, it must reduce the value
of the interest of the legacy to the first annuitant, while a
calculation must be made of the lives of the other parties,
which could never be precisely determined, on account at
various accidents. In case of any contingently happening t°


X96.J DUTIES ON LEGACIES OF PERSONAL ESTATES. 147


the second or third annuitant after the death of the first, if
restitution be made to the third or fourth, what restitution
eould be made to the first annuitant ? Or how was any res-
titution provided for ?


There were many other objections to the provisions of the
bill. It was well observed by the worthy magistrate, that a
°Teat hardship would be cast on children who had the mis-
fortune to be of illegitimate birth. How was this to be ma-
nand ? Was there to be a power to institute an inquiry into
the legitimacyof the children ? Was there to be an inquiry
into the legality 'of the marriage of the father, or the grand-
father. Had government that power? If they had, what a
scene of confusion and intolerable vexation would follow from
the exercise of that power ! If this bill was consented to,
there would be other taxes of the same kind brought forward,
and no good argument could then be found for opposing them.
Admitting the principle of this to be just, he could not see any
te
good reason why it should not be extended; for what was this
but a mere shift to levy a duty on all species of bequeathed
property ? If this should succeed, he would dare to say the
mode would be deemed an eligible one. He then took no-
tice of property in the funds. There was, indeed, a solitary
act of parliament which recognized the practice of recurring
to it as an object of taxation. 13ut he did not think that just;
for when we funded a debt we contracted with the holder of
it, that he should enjoy it without diminution by a tax
while he lived, and that he should bequeath it to his posterity.
He thought, therefore, there was a considerable objection to
that measure; but there was a great deal more to this. He
thought, also, that there was a great deal of force in the ob-
jection of the worthy magistrate about not bringing forward
the other bill with regard to the tax on landed property.
He saw no good reason why they should be separated, but
many why they should be kept together, and chiefly that the
House might see the real extent of the plan upon this sub-
ject; and by applying it to landed property, the impracti,-
eability of doing any thing like justice in the execution of it
would be more striking.


He lamented, indeed, that the House was so indifferently
attended; but that was a thing which he had reason to la*
meat upon subjects of greater moment, even than the present.
al
-Re did not see any necessity of postponing this bill for four


enths; four weeks would be sufficient for the House to make
'IP Its mind on the subject. But both the bills should be de-
bated touether, and the House ought not to pass this without
eic"wingb whether they could ever pass the other. He had
'eallY objections to the particular provisions of the bill, but


L 2




I48 DUTIES ON LEGACIES OF PERSONAL ESTATES. [April 5.
they were all as nothing when compared to his objections to
the general principle. The idea of an ad valorem estimate or
taxation on a man's property was repugnant to sense and kis_
Lice in any country, but particularly in such a state as ours,
where it was impossible to calculate the inconveniences to
which it would give birth. It might, for aught any man
could say to the contrary, endanger even the very existence
of our commerce. Indeed, he wondered that the House,
which had in it so many men well acquainted with the nature
of commerce, felt so easy under a measure so alarming as this.
Feeling so many objections as he did to this tax, and wish-
ing the people to understand its nature better than he believed
they did at present-, he should at all events vote for some de-
lay i11 this business. He, indeed, was confident that a sense
of his duty to the public would command him to vote for the
rejection of the bill altogether. He -should now, however,
only desire that this bill should be delayed until the oth
bill for taxing landed property should 'be laid before t
House,


• t


Mr. Alderman Newnham's motion was rejected, on a division,
by 46 against 16.


April 5.


On the motion, that the bill do pass,


Mr. Fox said, that he did not mean to trouble the House
with any observations, either'upon the principle of the bill or
any of its clauses, though he was clearly of opinion, that if the
principle was followed up to its full extent, it would put an
end to that commercial prosperity, which, impaired as it at
present was, still enabled us to support those burdens to which
we were subjected. It had been said, that this bill was of a simi-
lar nature with another intended to be brought into parliament,
proposing a corresponding tax upon land. What he meant
now to propose, was to postpone the third reading of this bill,
till the propriety and practicability of the other should have
been discussed. The principle of both was allowed to be the
same ; but the provisions of each, from their nature, must be
different. Allowing the principle to be just, if the provisions
of the other bill were found, upon discussion, to be impracti-
cable, he asked, in what situation the House would be placcu •
They would have sanctioned a tax upon personal property,
which, it was allowed, ought equally to attach upon real pro-
perty; but, perhaps, the tax upon real property might be


foriiii tol
The


g


1796. ] ItIOTION RESPECTING BARRACKS, &C.
149


found to be impracticable, and then the present tax would
incur the charge, at least, of being partial. Upon this ground
he moved, " That the debate be adjourned till this day


Douse divided on Mr. Fox's motion :


f Mr. G
Tellers.


yers 1 16.—NOES { S TOelileleirtOs; GenA'Ir. Hobart . v4.YEAS Mr. Ald. Newnham j
So it passed in the negative.


GENERAL SMITH'S MOTION RESPECTING THE EXPENDITURE
OF PU-BLIC MONEY IN BARRACKS.


April 8.


THIS day General Smith moved, " That it be referred to a com-
l. mittee, to examine into the expenditure of public money in


the construction and furnishing of barracks since the year 1 790 ;
as also to investigate by what authority such an expence, amount-
ing to upwards of one million sterling, has been incurred." The
general affirmed, that 1,400,0001. had been employed upon them.
The patronage accruing from them to ministry was the appoint-
ment of no less than fifty-six officers for their management, with
considerable salaries. The number of barracks already constructed
were sufficient for the reception of 34,000 men, which were more
than a peace-establishment by 14,00o. Did not such a measure,
he asked, tend to impress the strongest conviction upon the public,
that ministry were determined, in the words of one of their princi-
pal members, to exert " a vigour beyond the law ?"— Mr. Wind-
ham, the secretary at war, admitted the expellees of the barracks
to be great, but the importance of the object in view required them:
their intent was to exonerate publicans, and people of that descrip-
tion, from the heavy charges to which they had so long and so un-
reasonably been liable, and of which they had so often and so
J ustly complained. The necessity of procuring public-houses for
the reception of soldiers on their march occasioned sundry incon-
veniences, which these barracks were calculated to remove : they
Would afford shelter, and a temporary stay, when necessary, with-
out producing trouble and expence to innkeepers and others, who
kept places of accommodation on the roads. In the event of a
Peace, they need not contain any larger numbers than would be
requisite for the usual establishment ; but while the war lasted, the


thspensible necessity of holding men in readiness, in such critical
kept as the present, and the lesser expence at which they were
'eP t together, with much more comfort and convenience to them.


L 3




411.
150 MOTION RESPECTING THE EXPENDITURE [April 8•
selves, and utility to the public, than by the former method of quar.
tering them, were, he presumed, sufficient arguments in favour of
barracks ; nor would he omit the propriety of removing soldiers
from the danger of being contaminated by the seditious dispo,
sition of the lower classes.— In reply to Mr. Windham,


Mr.. Fox rose and said I am happy, Sir, that the right
honourable gentleman opposite to me, as being particularly
connected with the department to which belongs the cogni-
zance of that which is the object of this evening's discussion,
has thought proper to come forward in so full and explicit a
manner. I am, at the same time, proud to confess, that I differ
with him upon almost all the points which he has advanced,
and have no hesitation to declare in what that difference con-
sists, though I do not intend to go at length into the consider-
ation of all of them. He has, however, alluded to one general
principle that particularly claims my attention; and in doing
so, has noticed an expression of mine on a former occasion,
made use of when I advanced a general principle, which I
always have entertained, and ever shall entertain, a principle
which he himself formerly espoused, and which I believe to be
espoused by almost all those with whom I have the honour of
acting. I mean the general principle of resistance; the right
inherent in freeman to resist arbitrary power, whatever shape
it may assume, whether it be exerted by an individual, by a
senate, or by a king and parliament united. This I proclaim
as my opinion. In the support of this principle I will live and
die. The discussion of this principle is not necessarily in-
volved in the present question ; I shall therefore content myself,
for the present, with thus again fairly stating it.


The right honourable gentleman has also brought forward
another general question, more closely connected with the sub-
sect of debate, but at the same time not altogether necessary
in its decision: I speak of the connection which ought to sub-
sist between the military and the rest of their countrymen.
Upon this point I am, indeed, proud to differ with the right
honourable gentleman. " Because," says he, " there are bad
men and bad principles abroad in the country, the military
must be secluded from the society of their fellow-subjects." He
then most aptly introduces the language of the Mock Doctor,
and says, " If I cannot make others dumb, I can make them
deaf." I will place them entirely out of reach, where no such
doctrine shall assail their ears. What, Sir, is the full meaning
and extent of this doctrine ? Can tile right honourable gen-
tleman make his troops partially deaf? Can he prevent them
from listening to the voice of sedition, without, at the same,
time, shutting them up from the knowledge,of those genept!


/ 796.] OF PUBLIC MONEY IN BARRACKS. 15 I
iples i of i the liberty, whose animating influence, ought,


say, to inspire t le soldiers of a free country ? They ought
to be taught disobedience. God forbid that11):1:,1csays he,'


they should ! but is it not a plain proposition, that indiscrimi-
nate obedience is not the duty of an Englishman, whether he
be a soldier or any other citizen ? `L' here commands are il-
legal, it is his duty to resist them. The right honourable
gentleman, surely, does not intend to say, that his troops
should be altogether deaf. If he does, it will be in vain fbr
him to look fin. an army in this country, possessed of this phy-
sical advantage. He must call in foreign mercenaries. Ig-
norant of any language but their own, they would be suffici-
ently deaf for all the purposes of despotism. It would be
enough that they should understand their officers, and might
easily be brought, as in former times has been attempted, to .
act against this House and the general liberties of the


c"ExtrLsively of what I have already urged, I differ in this
question, upon the point of prudence and policy. If one sys-
tem be more corrupt and inimical to freedom than another,
it is the system of barracks. What was actually the case in
France ? Was not the mode in which their army was can-
toned out in barracks a principal operative cause in pro-
ducing the Revolution ? It is beyond all belief astonishing,
that while we'declaim so violently upon the state to which
France has been reduced, we are at the same time pursuing
those very same measures which are likely to bring us every
day nearer to a similar situation. The right honourable gen-
tleman speaks of those who preach up doctrines hostile to the
constitution : but permit me to say, that it is not Mr. Paine,
nor much more ingenious men than he, who by any thing they
say can injure the constitution. Those are its real enemies
who are constantly making practical comments upon such
authors. Those who, with me, admire our constitution, arc
of opinion, that, if strictly adhered to, it has sufficient energy
to defend and preserve itself. Paine says that our constitution
is a mere farce, a mockery; that there is no real check upon
the exercise of the powers of government. Do not ministers
practically say the same? Do they not, day after day, year
after year, pass acts in direct violation of the acknowledged
principleol;iitloiecoinpl Thesestf constitution? Their manifest breach of the
appropriation act, as lately proved, must be fresh in our recol-


iese deviations they pretend to justify on the plea
necessity. this plea is at any time to be received with


Jealousy, it must be in the present instance ; and it is indeed
curious to observe the language by which this measure is at-
tempted to be defended. In the mode of ()Tooting the


L 4




MOTION RESPECTING THE EXPENDITURE [April 8 179 6.] OF PUBLIC MONEY TN BARRACKS'. 153
money, says the right honourable gentleman, there may pos-
sibly have occurred some deviation from strict form, but no-
thing has been done substantially prejudicial. What! is it
from him that such language was to be expected ? From
him who has a sanctified horror at every thing which bears
the semblance of reform? From him who on the subject ora
reform in the representation, trembled at the bare idea of tak-
ing one step towards innovation ? Is he the person who
comes forward and tells us that forms may be dispensed with ?


But let us sec what is actually the form, as it is called, which
we are desired thus to dispense with. Are we not rather de-
sired to dispense with a fundamental principle of the consti-
tution ? Are we not desired to dispense with the exercise of
that control which we ought to have over the public purse,
and called upon to sanction those expellees which never ob-
tained our consent? The constitution says, that money can-
not be raised without the consent of parliament. Has that
not been done in the present instance ? I ask, is it, or is it
not, a principle to be advanced and supported in this House,
that where considerable expence is to be incurred, leave for
that purpose is to be obtained from parliament, and not from
the executive government ? When the question of barracks
was under the contemplation of government, should it not
have been solemnly brought before parliament, have under-
gone that grave consideration which the importance of the
subject demanded, and not merely be laid before them for their
approbation, atter all the expencc has been incurred? In the.
common affairs of life, if a servant comes to his master want-
ing I cool. for any particular purpose, the master would na-
turall y deliberate on the propriety and necessity of the pro-
posed measure; but, were his steward to inform him he had
actually expended a few thousand pounds in such and such
a way, the master, I p •esutne, would be apt to startle at this
being done without his previous consent; and were the steward
to justify his conduct, by saying he considered that as a
mere matter of form, the master would no doubt give his ser-
vant to understand, that such forms were not to be dispensed
with. The steward might then be induced to justify himself
on the score of necessity. Cases might certainly occur where
such a plea might be admissible, but they must be cases.
neither of any great magnitude, nor where the same purpose
could be equally well effected in a different and more satis-
factory manner.


We are told that the magnitude of the expence is nothing,
for that ail state expenses must be great; but I have always
understood, that in proportion to the magnitude of the ex-
pence, is the propriety of instituting an inquiry. The eN-


pence in the present instance is unquestionably great ; and
how is it attempted to be justified? We are told that the
different circumstances occasioning it were unforeseen. This,


if any, is the only excuse which can be made: but
mark the inconsistency, observe the application of this ex-
ciiuladsreked't o the manner in which the subject has been treated this
evening. We are told that barracks were erected, and ex-
pence incurred upon the spur of the occasion. This is the
excuse; but not satisfied with this, the right honourable
gentleman, in the same breath, enters into an elaborate jus-
tification of the propriety of keeping them up as a permanent.
source of expellee. He informs us, that necessity produced
all this of a sudden, and at the same time assures us that it
has been long a matter of experience, that the military could
not be properly accommodated in any other manner. The:
plan has avowedly been long in agitation, but ministers hate
never thought proper, as they ought to have done, to bring
it regularly before this House. They have, on the contrary,
incurred all the expence, and gone on in the prosecution of
an extensive system, not only without the authority, but in
absolute defiance of parliament. -When I talk of erecting
barracks on a system, the right honourable gentleman may
perhaps not chuse to understand me. I remember a dispute
I had with him upon the laws of nations. Those he treated
with very little ceremony, and seemed to be of a similar
opinion with Citizen Genet, who thought that without any
great loss, they might all be thrown into the sea. If this
system is to be defended, and defended in such a manner as
I have heard this night, we may dispose in the same manner
of all the laws of England. 'We may, when we please, throw
into the sea, the commentaries of Mr. Justice Blackstone,
and the brilliant speeches on this subject delivered by the
late Lord Chatham. We are triumphantly told, that our
ancestors gave their occasional consent to such a measure.
What ! can the right honourable gentleman say, there is any
resemblance between small cantonments partially taking place,
and the whole army of this country being constantly secluded
from the rest of the inhabitants, and shut up in permanent
barracks ? I certainly do not ask much upon the present
occasion, when I state it as my opinion, that before we in-
troduce innovations contrary to the avowed doctrines of
..1r. Justice Blackstone and other constitutional writers, par-liament ought to be consulted, ought to have time for deli-beration, and ought to have given its solemn decision.


Great reliance has been placed upon the argument, thatthis
subject was actually discussed in the debate upon a


motion brought forward by my honourable friend who spoke
3




1 54 MOTION RESPECTING THE EXPENDITURE [April 8.


last, (Mr. M. A. Taylor.) That motion was for the pur-
pose of passing a resolution, that such a system as was then
entered into of erecting barracks, was contrary to the prac-
tice and example of our ancestors. What was then done by
the House? They did not put a direct negative upon it,
but got rid of it by the order of the day. Can this be called
a solemn decision of parliament, upon the principle of this
measure? The most that can be said of it is, that they did
not disapprove of what was immediately doing; but that
decision gave no countenance whatever to the unauthorized
expenditure of public money. I very well recollect, that that
debate, in which I took 'a share, by no means turned upon
the principle, but upon the words .of the motion. The right
honourable gentleman has certainly logic enough to perceive
the difference, and to allow that the denial of any particular
proposition is not an universal affirmation of its opposite.
But how stands this question with the constitution? its op-
posers say it is but a name, but a mockery of a constitu-
tion. How many melancholy facts daily occur to justify the
assertion ! Large sums are,expended, without consulting par-
liament, without bringing forward any estimate whatever;
a thing surely not difficult to be obtained. An argument
has, with propriety, been adduced from the civil list. The
king has it not in his power to make any arrangement in his
parks or pleasure grounds, where a salary is to be given to
the amount of 5 ooi. without an order passing the sign ma-
nual, and being approved by the lords of the treasury. I
applaud this with reluctance, as I do any thing relative to
the management of the civil list. But I have not heard of
any estimate on the subject of barracks being approved by
the lords of the treasury; if there has, why has it not been
presented to this House?


The right honourable gentleman seems to hold all argu-
ments of fact extremely cheap. He says, he understands
our manner on this side of the House. I think he was long
enough with us to understand our sentiments too; and he


s)ouoht to know, that when we talk of the increase of pa-
tronage, it is not as a mere matter of declamation, but as an
object of serious apprehension and danger to the liberties of
the country. He defends himself by saying, What ! would
you deprive the poor officer of this his last resource? I know
not how many worthy objects may be selected to fill such
situations under government, but I do venture to say, on
good authority, that many are appointed for no real purpose


See Vol. p.49.


OF PUBLIG MONEY IN BARRACKS.
1551796.]


but that of forwarding ministerial elections. There is an
ostensible and a secret purpose combined. It is, in the lan-
,uaae of the right honourable gentleman himself, like a the-
nltrical dress, where the gold and embroidery serve to conceale dirt and dowlas beneath. The right honourable gentle-
man tells us, that no barrack-masters were appointed without
an intention of erecting barracks. I hardly, indeed, could
suppose that they would be so absurd as to appoint barrack-
masters without any intention at all. He allows, however,
that there were three instances where no duty whatever was
performed. He has appealed to the honour of the gentleman


e that department, the barrack-master-general,at tb head of
for the propriety and economy of the manner in which the
business is conducted. Does he not recollect, that to pledge
a man's honour is not the most honourable mode of account-•
Mg? and that to such a man it may be answered, I have no
intention of disputing the point of honour, but I want to
know what you have done with the money ? For these different
reasons I exceedingly approve of appointing a committee of
inquiry; and if it still be resisted, I do say, however liable
I may make myself to invidious observations, that we have
but a mockery of a constitution. If ministers disregard all
fundamental principles, if this House calmly tolerate their
excesses, if the power of raising and applying money be
exercised, not by the House of Commons but the king's
ministers, what is our constitution, but a farce and a mockery?


We hear, Sir, many orations upon the necessity of obe-
dience and subjection to the laws; but if those at the head
of the government paid equal deference to the laws, with the
other orders of the community, we should have little reason
to complain. Example would avail ten times more than
precept. It is strange that those who have the law constantly
in their mouths, should, with equal perseverance, be acting
in direct opposition to it. My honourable friend who spoke
before me, illustrated this subject by an allusion to what passed
on the fortification act. The illustration was certainly in
point. if this House had not entered into the examination
of that system previous to its being carried into execution,
what would have been the consequence? Would it have met
with the fate which it experienced ? By no means. Had
the expence been first incurred, and the plan brought for-.
ward afterwards, this House, I believe, would have acceded
to the measure. I am not, indeed, so sanguine as to imagine,
that the barrack-system would, in these degenerate days,


i a i ,


been resisted, even if it had been brought forward in a way
equally regular. But at all events, ministers would have
acted more openly mid avowedly in the business : and if it




156 MOTION RESPECTING THE REGULATION [April


had been carried, it would have been, as it . ought, an act of
the legislature, and not merely of the executive government.


The only tools which ministers seem not to think dangerous
are edge-tools; they play with them with all the com1;lacency
imaginable. I repeat, that the maintaining of a standing
army in this country, and dissolving the connection between
the soldier and the citizen, is a subject of the highest delicacy,
of the greatest intricacy, and is not thus wantonly to he
sported with by ministers, without condescending to consult
the wisdom of parliament. We seem to have thrown away
all that constitutional jealousy which ought ever to be awake
in a free country. We have sacrificed it to a false alarm.
The exorbitant power and influence of the crown in this
country must ever be pregnant with danger to its liberties:
In better times than these, the opinion was that it ought to
be curtailed; and, in the present day, is there no ground.
for a continued and watchful jealousy ? On the contrary, the
more power we give, there is the greater cause for jealousy.
Such was always the opinion of our ancestors; such ought to
be our opinion ; and before ministers dared, in the present
instance, upon a plea of necessity, to trample upon the rights
of Englishmen, it would have been but decent, even for
form's sake, to have given this House an opportunity of
exercising its deliberative functions, before a measure was
carried into execution so hostile to the general freedom and
happiness of the nation.


The motion was also supported by Mr. M. A. Taylor, Mr. Wil
ham Smith, Mr. Courtenay, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Sheridan. The
House divided :




Tellers. Tellers.




YEAS {
Mr. Sheridan (Mr


.


Steele
Mr. M. A. Taylor 1 24' — NOES Mr. Sargent} 9"


So it passed in the negative.


Mr. FRANCIS'S MOTION RESPECTING THE BETTER REGU-
LATION OF SLAVES IN THE WEST INDIES.


April I t.


MHIS day Mr. Francis moved, " That leave be given to bring
in a bill for the better regulation and improvement of the


state and condition of negroes and other slaves, in the islands,
colonies, or plantations in the West Indies or Amdrica, under the




1796.] OF SLAVES IN THE WEST INDIES. 157
dominion of his majesty, his heirs, or successors." After the
motion had been opposed by Mr. Serjeant Adair,




roseox.r and said : — The case, Sir, which we haveM F
now before us is unquestionably one of very.considerable mag-
nitude. I am still, however, ready, when called upon, to
(rive a decided opinion upon the subject, and to show the rea-
sons upon which that opinion is formed. Before I enter upon
the discussion of the question, it is impossible for me not to
premise, that whatever may be the result of the motion, the
House and the public cannot fail to be gratified with the
abilit y and philanthrophy of the honourable mover, and must
ever do honour to his humane intentions. It is undoubtedly
a question attended with many and serious difficulties, and
nothing of an extraneous nature ought, if possible, to be in-
troduced or enlarged upon ; the attention ought not to be
diverted from the main object immediately submitted to our
decision. I cannot, however, refrain from taking notice of
what has been said relative to this country or America, being
the proper asylum where the friends of freedom may expect to
find themselves secure from the encroachments of arbitrary
power, and the miseries of unjust oppression. My honoura-
ble and learned friend opposite to me has talked of the bless-
ings of this free constitution, and the advantages resulting
from it to those who live under ler it. Such things may have
existed ; but, if I am to speak of our constitution as it now
exists, if the retrograde movement which has commenced is
suffered to continue, if the present system of government is
persevered in, there is an end of all those blessings ; we may
go any where else we please in search of true liberty. Let us
look back, Sir, to the year 178 4


; let us trace the progress of
ministers at different periods, but let us particularly consider
what has passed in the present session, and we must perceive
such enormous alterations in this constitution, that those who
were formerly acquainted with it, could not possibly know it
again. America is said to have a new and untried constitu-
tion: the observation may be just; but I cannot help think-
ing, that from the late wonderful innovations, the constitution
of this country may practically be said to be of a later date,
than even that of America or any other country whatever.
Upon this, however, I shall not enlarge farther at present.


As to the object of my honourable friend's motion, it seems
to be admitted, that the principles upon which it is supported,
are of the most desirable nature. So much, indeed, do I con-
ceive this to be the case, that I think it unnecessary to argue
upon the wisdom of them, considered in an abstract point of
view. He has likewise admitted that the improvements he
looks up to, must be of a gradual nature; and he has cer-




5 S MOTION RESPECTING Tut REGULATION [April f


tainly hit upon the most solid and natural basis on which to
build his future superstructure, when he 'proposes to emu-
mencc his operations by establishing a system of property'
among the negroes. Independently, then, of the principles
abstractedly considered, the chief questions seem to be; first,
how far in a prudential point of view, it is wise in my ho-
nourable friend to bring forward the proposition he has now
Clone, as connected with, and introductory to the final aboli-
tion of the slave trade ; and secondly, what arc the means by
which he intends his principles to be carried into practice ?


My honourable and learned friend who spoke last, seemed
to consider this as a debate upon the propriety of adopting the
proposition now made to the House, or of deciding for a total
abolition. how happy should I feel were that actually the
case, and with how little hesitation should I prefer a total
abolition ! I do not consider that my giving my vote one way or
the other this evening, is to be considered as an instance of my
receding one step from the ground which I have always taken
on the question of the entire abolition of the slave trade. I have
pledged myself to the House upon that point. Those honourable
gentlemen who have been equally, if not more strenuous than
myself in this cause, I do not presume have any intentions of
abandoning it ; but sure I am, that no session shall pass,
while I have the honour of sitting in this House, without my
exertions being employed to accelerate this desirable event.
I, for one, 'am determined not to contribute to the increase or
perpetuation of that stigma which must ever be attached to
this House and to this country, while that abominable traffic
is permitted to exist. If, Sir, we were at the beginning of a
session, and there was any solid hope that an abolition was
likely to take place, I would yield to the argument of my
honourable and learned friend : but the bill introduced for
that purpose has been lost. I know not exactly, if the forms
of the House admit of the introduction of another, for the ac-
complishment of the same object; or if they did, I sec no
certainty of better success. When I look forward, I see
little rational ground of hope, particularly when I reflect upon
the characters and situation of some men who were in the
minority on the late question. To say, that men of the
greatest power and influence in the country, and of unques-
tionably- great abilities, -could throw little weight into the
scale in the consideration of any question would indeed be ri-
diculous. What was actually the case? The question was
introduced during the administration and with the approba-
tion of a man, who surely had neither less influence nor less
personal talents than any of his predecessors, and yet the plan
has failed. If this be so, when, where, how' are we to pro'


1796.] OF SLAVES IN TILE WEST INDIES. 159


cure success ? The plan too, Sir, was defeated, after a
parliament ; and having disgraced them-this


ofi
s


aneful manner, what right have Ito hope that
another occasion will soon be presented for the attainment of
this desired object? What, then, does my honourable friend
prop
• •


forget ? That the House will not totally et all those


solemn c i ndecision


honourable, humane sentiments they have formerly uttered
upon the occasion ; but that if they are not inclined to fulfil
all they have promised, they will at least shew a desire of
doing something.


I now come to consider the nature of the means by which
my honourable friend proposes to carry his proposition into
execution ; and upon this undoubtedly the whole difficulty
rests. The right of taxation and of general legislation have, I
conceive, been improperly confounded together. They are,
to all intents and purposes, practically different. This dif-
ference was constantly acknowledged in the great question of
American independence. The Americans never found fault
with our legislative acts, until they involved the question of
taxation. Lord Chatham, in a speech which he made in this
House, and I do honour to his memory for the sentiment,
said, that he rejoiced in the resistance made by America, to
every attempt to tax her, for the purposes of revenue : and
in the very same speech he added, (I do not say I go all that
length with him,) that he nevertheless would not permit any
matter of commerce to take place, not even a hob-nail to be
made in America, without the sanction of the British legisla-
ture. I mention this chiefly to shew the distinction that has
been made betwen legislative acts of the one kind and the
other; but in the American dispute there was a difference
taken, not only between acts of general legislation and of
taxation, but between acts of taxation for the purposes of in-
ternal regulation, and acts of taxation for the increase of the
revenue. Acts of taxation for the regulation of the Post-
office were quietly acquiesced in. It was only when we
offered them the alternative to accept or refuse indiscrimi-
nately acts of every description passed by the British senate,
that they discovered signs of serious resistance.


With respect to the West Indies, we have already re-
nounced every right of taxation. My learned friend says, we
Have no right of this kind. So do I. But he says, that he is
not ready to admit in what respects legislative acts of any
other nature may be passed, and he has brought forward the
case of Ireland as in point upon this question. The act passedfou .teen years ago put that matter right as to Ireland. In
1,10 instance could the difference between acts of legislation and
taxation be more clearly ascertained. I from this source




6o MOTION RESPECTING THE REGULATION [April


drew my arguments during the American war. In every case
either of external or internal regulation, the Irish were per.
fectly submissive; but if the bare intention of raising a tax for
the purpose of revenue had gone abroad, it would inevitably
have produced resistance. I must confess, at the same tii*
that to legislate for colonies, is at no time desirable ; it ;ought
only to be done when necessity calls for it. How far is this
the case at present ? I do not wish, it must be observed,
upon this occasion, to repeat the mere letter of the law. My,
learned friend, and every other professional man, would cer-
tainly tell me, that a statute that relates to any transaction as
passing in Jamaica, would be as binding as if it took place in
Middlesex ; but I am not fond of unnecessarily exercising this
legislative authority over persons not actually represented, and
where the local situation is almost totally unknown. But we
are at present reduced to an unfortunate dilemma, and I am
obliged to put this question to myself, " Whether it be better
to make use of a partial remedy which may in some respects
be exceptionable, or permit the evil in its full extent to con-
tinue ?" I have been accused of throwing out the threat of
independence upon the subject of the \Vest India islands. I
do, in answer to that, most decidedly affirm, that if it were
to become a question, whether these islands should be con-
nected with this country, and in consequence of that connec-
tion, all the stigma attending the abominable system of slavery
should be ignominiously continued, or that their complete inde-
pendence should take place, I should not have one doubt on
the subject. I am by no means blind to the danger of such a
separation. I desire it not: but if the colonies were inclined
to refuse their assent to so wise and humane a proposition as
has now been made for the amelioration of the state of the
slaves, I should not feel myself inclined to employ either
armies or navies to reduce them to subjection, but would, in
the language of a


• gentleman, who, though not present, I
cannot name, as being a member of this House, desire them
to " go and be happy in their ON111 way," if happiness could
be found by acting contrary to every principle of justice, policy,
and humanity.. If, however, it be acknowledged that the
British parliament has the power of general legislation, and
that it may in some cases of necessity be exercised, I ask,
what case of greater necessity can be put, than a case which
involves the character and honour of the British name ?
have occasionally said, that a war to preserve our honour is
the only justifiable war. Even this principle, were it neces-
sary, I should not find myself at a loss to support; but if in
any case a legislative act is demanded for the purposes of in-
terest, policy, aggrandisement, or the increase of commerce,


1796.] OF SLAVES IN THE WEST INDIES. 161


are any such objects to be compared with that of removing
the national dishonour, which must ever be connected with
the support and continuance of this trade in any of its
branches ? I shall for these reasons unquestionably vote
for the introduction of this bill.


Were any person to give me a reasonable ground to hope
that an abolition of the slave trade would speedily take place ;
were it held out to me that any other step would be taken
towards an amelioration of the state of the slaves in the
`'nest Indies ; were I to be told that a recommendation should
come from the throne to effect the desirable purpose, I might
perhaps be silent upon this occasion ; but let me no longer
hear of expectations from the acts of colonial assemblies !
When I look at the infernal code of laws under which the
poor negroes languish, when I see they are not considered -•
as men, and reflect one moment upon the penalties to which
they arc subjected, and the oppression under which they
labour, I expect nothing from assemblies who give counte-
nance to such proceedings.


It was urged as an argument by my learned friend, that the
question of abolition to which he so heartily gives his assent,
by no means involves the dispute on the right of legisla-
tion, but that every provision in that bill comes within the
acknowledged authority of this House; but permit me to say,
that the opposers of that bill, and some of them high in au-
thority, constantly held out as an argument of some weight,
the opinion which those immediately upon the spot in the
West Indies, or immediately connected with them, might
entertain upon the subject. This, therefore, is no fair ground
for opposing my honourable friend's motion. As to the
question of representation, the West Indies are not, properly
speaking, represented in this House, nor is it practicable, •
perhaps, that they should be so ; neither is Ireland ; neither
Was America. As to their representation in the West
Indies, it might be called a pure representation -of property,
in consequence of the number of blacks. But we ou ght, inthis case, to consider the difference between a real and a
virtual representation, and the proportion which, in this
respect, the West Indies bear to any other instance known in
this country. Were we even to bring to our recollection the
time when so many Irish landholders residedin this country,
and held seats in this House, and when so much land in Ire-
'and was tinder mortgage in this country, yet would that bear


n
nu proportion to the power and influence of West India pro-
rn ile,Ototr.svIt.it the present moment. A country may, undoubt-


ealy, be virtually represented. I do not say it is in every
31




162 MOTION RESPECTING THE REGULATIO7'1", 8;..c. [April 1/,


instance the-best mode ; but standing where I now do, I must
acknowledge the fact; and, surely, if any country was ever
virtually represented, it is the West Indies in this House.
Does not every gentleman who hears me, feel, from the fate
of the bill for the abolition of the slave trade, that they are
both virtually and powerfully represented in this House?
In short, Sir, no case can appear to me to call in a more
pressing manner upon the legislative authority of the British
parliament than the present, unless we consider as nugatory
all we have ever heard, either from those who promote or
oppose the abolition of the slave trade. Good God Mr.
Speaker, have we come to a solemn decision upon the sub-
ject, and yet pass year after year, without taking a single
measure to carry our resolutions into execution ? We are
guilty of hypocrisy of the basest sort. I am constrained to
vote for any measure of the kind proposed, in order to prove
that there is yet some sincerity left in the House of Commons.


.I hoped, Sir, that my learned friend in opposing this mo-
tion, and with the anxiety he expresses for a total abolition,
would have thrown out some prospect of such an event being
likely to take place ; but I am sorry to say, I see none such
at the present period. After what took place in the year 1792,
and the subsequent flagrant breach of promise that has been
exhibited, all assurances coming from this House must na-
turally be looked upon as vain and frivolous. At the same
time, I confess I even now think it would be something, were
the House, during the present session, to come to some solemn
resolution on the subject. I have already said, that a vote on
this question must necessarily be given with some degree of
difficulty ; but I give mine clearly and conscientiously, because
such a measure, with all the obstacles attending it, is less ob-jectionable, and less contrary to humanity and justice, thandoing nothing to alleviate those miseries which are at th4
moment attached to slavery in the West Indict. Were an
entire abolition of the trade to be proposed in 1796, or were
it now to be proposed at any fixed period, I should probably
object to any regulations of an inferior nature ; but the ques-
tion of abolition is lost, and I have no option left. It is
deed, conic to this, that the British parliament have refused
to abolish the abominable traffic in human flesh, and the
slaves in the islands are to be left to the humanity of the
West India proprietors ! If it were apparent from authentic
documents that the colonial assemblies would pass those acts
which humanity demands, or that an abolition of the trade
would be effected by parliament, there would be no occasion
for ally such measure as- the present ; but if no such thing is


/796.3 DUTY ON SUCCESSION TO REAL ESTATES. 163


likely to take place, I find myself under the necessity of
voting for the motion of my honourable friend. .


The motion was negatived without a division..


11•7101=11n3•nn
••..1....0.1.11711•1n


DUTY ON SUCCESSION TO REAL ESTATES.


Mcv 5.


nN the motion that the bill for granting a duty on succession
•-• to real estates in certain cases be immediately recommitted,
Mr. Rashleigh moved, that it be recommitted on that day three
months.


Mr. Fox said, that this measure laboured under two ob-
jections; first, the novelty of the principle, as a tax upon
capital.; and secondly, the iniquity of the application. It was
a system which, if acted upon to the extent to which the prin-
ciple might be carried, (and he admitted the present instance-
to be only a slight degree,) would enable the state to seize
upon the whole property of the country. Of all shapes in
which despotism had ever appeared in history, the most
frightful was that under which the sovereign became heir to
the whole property of individuals ; and were the principle of
this measure once admitted, it was impossible to calculate how
far it might be extended. From brothers and relations in a
collateral line, it might in time reach to children, and from
four or five per cent. the tax might be increased to ten or
twelve. This was his principal objection to the bill. He
had another, however, grounded upon the particular hard-
ship which would in certain cases attend its operations.
In cases of marriage settlements, children were most fre-
quently the objects fbr whom provision was made, but some-
times collateral relations had an interest in the settlement. A
case of that kind had come under his own experience. In
case of the death of his nephew, Lord Holland, he was to
succeed to the estates of his elder brother, by


an article in
the marriage settlement. As it happened, he had not given
any consideration for the contingent benefit of this settlement.
Re might, however, have paid his brother some consider-
ation for it, and in this case, were the tax to attach upon
this property, the contract would be violated, because he would
Hot receive it in the saine circumstances in Which it ftS When.


II 2




1,41


164 DUTY ON SUCCESSION TO REAL ESTATES. [May 9,


he concluded the bargain. On these grounds he seconded the
amendment.


The question being put, that the word " immediately" stand
part of the question, the House divided :


Tellers. Tellers.
YEAS


Solicitor-General } e
Mr. Douglas 05. — N OES


{Mr. Rashleigh
Mr. Jekyll - 2+.


May 9.


On the motion, that the report of the committee on tbe said
bill be now taken into con,sideration, Mr. Crewe moved, that it
be taken into consideration on that day three months.


Mr. Fox said, that all his objections to this measure re-
mained in full force. It was; in fact, what he had stated it,
a tax upon capital, for it was levied in proportion to that
capital. If it was really a tax upon income, why not fairly
lay it upon income? It was said, that it was to be paid by
instalments during the first four years, but if the same was
paid by the man who enjoyed four, and the man who enjoyed
forty years, it could not with propriety be said to be a tax
upon income. In such a country as this, all taxes on capital
were particularly dangerous. He did not mean to undervalue
the constitution of this country, but he believed that much
of our prosperity might be owing to the complete disposal of
property which was enjoyed. If this tax had been laid on
the transmission of property by sale, he believed no man
would have denied its bad effect ; but when freedom of •dis-
posal even at death was iMpaired by annexing burdens to the
transmission, the bad consequences would, in a certain degree,
be felt. In all cases where the payment of the tax depended
upon the terms of succession, production of deeds was in-
evitable. Whether a brother succeeded as heir to bis brother
or to his father, in a variety of possible cases, he would be
liable or not liable to the tax; of course, a minute examin-
ation of settleimints would be necessary, if the tax was meant
to be effectively levied. With regard to the levying of


oo,00d. by the tax, it was not the extent of this sum, but
the precedent that was thought to be dangerous: it might be
extended to direct succession; and he saw no difference in the
principle. It was said, there was less right to expect in the
cases subject to the tax ; but there were many instances where
the expectation was greater in collateral than in direct descent,


ail 04c ease of entails, wlore the heir bad a greater ccr-


1 796.] CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. I 6S
minty of the possession than a son, whose father might dis-
pose of what part of his estate he pleased. Upon the whole,
there was no principle of taxation more destructive than that
which tended to destroy forcibly the power of exchange and
t ransmission, and thereby lessen the desire of acquisition.
And, as this bill encroached upon this principle, be hoped,
notwithstanding the result of former divisions, that the House
would consider seriously the consequences that might follow
from so new and unprecedented a system of taxation.


The House divided on the motion, That the word " now" stand
part of the question :


Tellers. Tellers.
Attorney-General
, Mr. CreweYEAS 0 I . — INOES
.Mr. Ai MontaguLord Cavendish 2


MR. GREY'S CHARGES AG AINST MINISTERS, RELATIVE TO
THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY.


May 6.


THIS day Mr. Grey brought forward several heavy charges
against ministers. They had, he. said, violated the act of


appropriation, the main pillar of the pecuniary privileges of par-
liament, by diverting the grants of money to other purposes than
those for which they were voted, and they had endeavoured to
screen themselves by spurious accounts. He then detailed the
particulars in proof of his accusation, adding, that if the necessities
or the times had compelled them to have recourse to such methods
for procuring money, they ought, without disguising the fact, to
have applied to parliament for indemnity. The House of Com-
mons had, he said, been notoriously faulty in not setting limits to
the extraordinaries durinp: the American war ; and the committee
appointed to examine and digest the public accounts had par-ticularly pointed out the ruinous consequences of such negligence.
Mr. Pitt bad censured it himself with peculiar severity, but bad
nevertheless been more guilty than any of his predecessors. Sodetermined was the House to put a stop to these infractions of its
rights, that it passed, in 1784, a resolution, that should parliament
be dissolved before the act of appropriation had passed, to misapply
the money granted should be reputed a high misdemeanor. An
act had also been passed under the present minister, to obviate the


Pi
bad consequences of balances remaining with


- the paymaster-gene-
, and to provide for the constant pay of the army ; but this act


n..ad been notoriously infringed ; the paymaster having actually in
hands a balance of eighty-three thousand pounds. Mr. Grey,


m 3




166 CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. [May 6.
after mentioning other instances of misapplication, adverted to the
disposition-paper, a species of voucher first used in the prodigal
reign of Charles II. and established at the Revolution, as an au,
thentic document, to inform parliament in what manner the sup.
plies they had granted had been expended. This paper ,he eon,
sidered as a mere deception ; its contents represented the sums
voted by parliament, as issued and applied conformably to its
intent, which was contrary to truth. This he might be told was
only a form ; but the practice was in fact directly opposite to the
regulations enacted by the legislature, in order to preserve to
itself the power over the national purse, against the attempts of
ministers to dispose of the nation's money at their own discre-
tion. On these various premises, Mi. Grey moved the following
resolutions :


" That at all times, and under all circumstances, it is the
indispensable duty of the House of Commons vigilantly to super.
intend the expenditure of the public money, and strictly to inquire
into the application of the grants made by parliament to the service
for which they have been voted.


2. " That by an act passed in every session of parliament, theparticular sums granted for each particular service are specified,
and the money that shall be paid into the exchequer is appro-
priated to their discharge : and that it is strictly directed that such
aids and supplies shall not be applied to any use, intent, or pur-
pose whatever, other than the uses and purposes mentioned in the
said act.


"
That it appears from an account presented to this House


,


on the gist of April, 1796, that the sum of 644,1o61. 7s. 9d. was
then due to the several colonels or commanding officers of his ma-jesty's forces, for net off-reckonings and clothing for the years 1794
and 1795, although, by acts passed in 1 794 and 1795, money was
granted to discharge the same; and although the said acts direct
that the money so granted shall be applied in discharge of the same,
and not otherwise.


4. "'That it appears from an account presented to this Hose
on the z ist of April, 1796, that the slim of 146,900/. 12s.
now due to the general and staff officers of his majesty's forces
for the years 17 9 3, 1794, and 1795, although, by acts passed in
the said years, money was granted for' payment of the said sum:
and although the said acts direct that the said money so granted
shall be applied in discharge of the said sum, and not otherwise.


5. " That it appears from an account presented to this House
on the a ist of April, 1796, that the sum of 34 , 3 131. I38. 3 d. is.
now due to the several governors, lieutenant-governors, and other
officers of his majesty's forces and garrisons, in Great Britain and
parts beyond seas, for the years 1794. and 1795, although, by acts
passed in the said years, money was granted for discharging the
said sum ; and although the said acts direct that the money so
granted shall be applied in discharging of the same, and not
otherwise


6. " That it appears from an account presented to the House
on. the zest of April, 1796, that the sum of 31,0561. 3 d. clue to


CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS,
1671796.]


e general and staff officers of his majesty's forces, for the year.
was paid out of grants for the year 1796, although, by an


atlic;n'passed In 17 94, money was granted for discharging the
. said


stun ; and although the said act directs that the said money so
granted shall be applied in discharging the same, and not other-
wise.


" That it appears from an account produced to this House
the 2 1st of April, 1796, that tile sum of 172,1oc/. due for off-


reckonings, to the 24th of December, 17 94, and which remained
due on the 21st of January, 1796, was discharged out of the vote
of credit granted for the express purpose of defraying expences
that may occur in 1796. By an act passed in 179 4, money was
granted for discharging the said sum ; and although the said act
clirccts that the money so granted shall be applied in discharge of


Tha t it appears to this House, that by an act passed in
the same, and not otherwise.


the 23d year of his majesty's reign, for the better regulation of the
office of paymaster-general of his majesty's forces, it is enacted,
That no money for the service of the army shall be issued from
his majesty's exchequer to the paymaster-general of his majesty's
forces, or shall be placed or directed to be placed in his majesty's
hands or possession ; but the same shall be issued and directed to
be paid to the governor and company of the bank of England, to
be placed to his account.


9. " That it appears to this House, from an account produced
on the 2 zd of April, 1796, that, in open contempt and defiance
of the said act, the sum of 430,2ocd. has been issued directly to
the paymaster-general of his majesty's forces, in exchequer bills,
on the vote of credit for 1796 ; and that a balance of 83,300/.
was remaining unissued in his hands on the said 22d of April,1796.


" That it further appears to this House, that, by the said
act, the paymaster-general of his majesty's forces is directed and
required to form his memorials and requisitions to the treasury,
and to issue his drafts upon the governor and company of the bank
of England, upon the. 24th day of June and 24th day of December
in every year, in equal payments, to such person or persons as have
a regular assignment from the several colonels, lieutenant-colonels,
com


mandants, majors, captains-commandant, and captains, for the
monies appropriated for the clothing of the non-commissioned
officers and private men of his majesty's regular forces.
r " That it appears to this House, that the sums of money


app ropriated for the clothing of his majesty's regular forces, and
wh ich, according to the provisions of the said act, ought to have
been issued on the 2 4th of December, 17944.the 2 4th of June and24th of December, 17 95, had been directed to other purposes, and
stil l


remained due on the 1st of January, 1796, in open contempt
and defiance of the said act.
, 1 2 . " That it appears, that an account is annually presentedco this House, shewing flow the money granted for the service ofthe preceding year has been disposed of; distinguished under the
several heads, and the parts remaining unsatisfied, with the defi-
ciency thereupon.


51 4




163 CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. [May 6.


13. " That such account was Intended to be, what in its title
it professes to be, a real account, shewing how the money given
for the service of the year had actually been disposed of, in order
that the House of Commons might be informed of the state of
the public expenditure, and satisfy themselves as to the application.
of the money voted to those services for which it had been granted
by them.


14. " That an account of the above description has been pre-
sented to this House in each of the years, 1794, 1795, and 1796,
in which the money granted for the services of each year is stated
to have been applied to the services for which it was voted by
parliament, although it now appears, from accounts since presented
to this House, that the sums of 644,1o61. granted for off-reckonings
for the years 1794 and 1795 ; the burn of 1 46,9001. granted for the
pay of the general and staff officers of his majesty's forces for 1793,
1 794, and 1795 ; the sum of 34,3131. granted for the pay of the
several governors, lieutenant-governors, and other officers of his
majesty's forces in Great Britain and parts beyond seas, for the
years 1794 and 1795, and severally stated to have been disposed
of for those services, still remain unsatisfied.


15. " That, in the instances above mentioned,, his majesty's
ministers have been guilty of presenting ffilse accounts, calculated
to mislead the judgment of this House, of a flagrant violation of
various acts of parliament, and of a gross misapplication of the
public money."


The reply, made by Mr. Pitt, stated, that though ministers were
bound faithfully to appropriate the public money to the purposes
specified, yet there were a multiplicity of cases wherein that rule
could not strictly be observed. Services of the most critical im-
portance, and the most imperious necessity, often compelled them
to deviate from the letter of the act of appropriation : but was
that, or was any other act, to stand in the way of material services
due to the nation by those who were entrusted with its safety and
preservation ? These deviations were founded on wise precedents,
and sanctioned as just, by long and repeated experience. Ex-
traordinaries were the inevitable attendants of war, especially such
an one as the present, which requiring unprecedented exertions,justified unprecedented methods of conducting it. Mr. Pitt ad-
duced a number of facts to prove that he had acted comformably
to the practice authorized in former wars. The very act of ap-
propriation, he said, evinced the propriety of extraordinaries, by
making good several millions expended under that head; and no
objection was ever made to the principle itself.


Mr. Fox said, he knew not what character the right ho-
nourable gentleman would be disposed to allow him for can-
dour, but he was under the necessity of speaking upon the
question before the House, and he should speak as he felt, as
was his custom. He had listened as attentively as lie could
to a very able speech delivered by the right honourable gen-
tleman. 'What struck him first upon review'ing- that speech


r 796.] CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. 169
was, that the right honourable gentleman had made great
exertion where there was the least occasion for exertion, in
point of real argument. Where his honourable friend who
had made the motion, had dwelt the least, and touched on




lts as being merely incidental, there the right honourablep011 •
,tentleman had been the most elaborate in his answer. Where
his honourable friend had been the most forcible, there the
right honourable gentleman had been the least explicit. The
truth of this matter was, the right honourable gentlemen had
said much on points which required but little, and very little
on those which required a good deal. The right honourable
gentleman, however, had been very methodical, and he
should endeavour to follow him in the order he had adopted.
The part on which the right honourable gentleman was the
the most successful, was that which went simply to state,
that tile whole which had been clone by administration, against
the letter of the law, was the result of necessity. On this
he had justified the whole of his extraordinaries, upon the ex-
tent of which his honourable friend had spoken so ably that
day. Now, if any gentleman had heard the speech of the
minister that night, without hearing that of his honourable
friend, that was to say, whoever had heard the defence,
without hearing the Accusation, would have thought that the
accusation was merely the incurring of any extraordinaries at
all, not that they had been incurred improvidently, or that
they had been withheld improperly from the House, or
that when incurred or provided for, the money voted for
them had not been applied to their discharge. 'With respect
to army extraordinaries, he would first say, in a general way;
that, to a certain degree, they- were evils unavoidable. He
said this without diffidence, because extraordinaries had been
recognized by the House of Commons, precisely under the
description which he was then giving of them. The minister
himself had in his speech of that day admitted extraordinaries
to
This


be an evil, but had contended that they were necessary.
was the answer which he gave to that part of the charge,


although by what he had said, he had admitted them to be,
to a certain degree, contrary to the principles of our con-
stitution. He must therefore contend, ..that these practices,
Which partook of an unconstitutional nature, ought to be
avoided as much as possible in our executive government in
its future arrangements. The right honourable gentleman
had maintained, that if the expellees of the year exceeded
What the executive government had foreseen, and that in
matters which required immediate payment, we must pay
that service which had that- necessary demand upon us; and
when- that necessity demanded it, we must so far obey the




170 CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. [May p-
act of appropriation. Undoubtedly, this would always ap,
pear to be true, if it was to be argued generally, as the mi-
nister was pleased to argue it now : and this sort of argument
would be applicable to any other law, as well as the appro.;
priation act, inevitable necessity being an answer to eve
thing. This certainly, taken in its full extent, would appl
to any act of parliament, as well as the appropriation act.
It would, in short, apply to every thing as a general rule,
and only be subject to some particular exceptions, as most
general rules were.


The right honourable gentleman had alluded to the case
which was debated in the year 1744, where the House Of
Commons had inquired into the disposition of 40,0001., and
how far that was, or was not, a deviation from the duty of
the executive government to make the appropriation which
they did of that money ; whether there was ground f'
censuring administration ? and that upon that question
House of Commons had determined, that this conduct
the executive government was deserving of praise instead
of censure. He had no doubt of the regularity of that de-
termination of the House of Commons, nay, he would go
farther, and say, that had he been a member of that House at
that time, he believed he should have voted in the majority
upon that occasion. What principle did the agitation of
that question inculcate? It slimed to us this, that 145
members of the House of Commons of that clay thought
that the slightest deviation from the letter of the appropri-
ation act deserved to be censured, and here he could not help
observing, that the right honourable gentleman seemed to
think that he was speaking ad hominon to him, when he told
him, that that person for whose memory he had, as he ought
to have, great esteem and gratitude, (his father,) voted in the
majority. To which he could only answer, that. he believed
the right honourable gentleman would find on examination,
that another person equally entitled to the esteem and gra-,
titude of that right honourable gentleman, (the late Earl of
Chatham,) voted in the minority in the same division, and
therefore thought that it was proper to censure ministers for
applying this money, even on that occasion, contrary to the
provisions of the appropriation act.


But what was the accusation here ? Not that the payment
of a particular bill drawn should not be made, when that
became necessary for the service; such an accusation his
honourable friend was incapable of making, or if lie was,
Mr. Fox said, he was sure he would resist it ; but that the
extraordinaries had for a long time been studiously concealed
from the House, when the ministers ought to have stated


6.3 CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. 1 71 179


t,hboonok
,,


because they knew them. It had been stated, that in
which he admired as much as any one did, and also


in the report of a committee of that House in 1782, the
atraordinaries of the American war were censured. They


were so. The right honourable gentleman had
:1:tteadillitYhat the extraordinaries were very great in that war,
and that administration could not now be blamed for these
extraordinaries, any more than they were at that time. Upon
this he must observe, that the case was widely different be-
tween the condition of that administration and the present.
However desirable it might be to put an end to extraordi-
naries at. that moment, it was absolutely impossible. Was
the case the same with the right honourable gentleman ? In-
dianant as he professed himself to be at the amount of these
extraordinaries, and violent as he was at the administration
which had carried them to such an .extent, coming into
power upon these principles, and presiding in the govern-
ment of the country during seven years of peace, one would
have naturally expected, that in this particular at least, there
would have been some radical reform ; instead of which, the
present minister laid before parliament accounts of extra-
ordinary expences which far exceeded any that were ever
incurred by his predecessors. The right honourable gentle-
man had talked of our extraordinaries being no more than
thur million in three years. The fact was, they exceeded
that amount in this Very year; and upon this part of the
subject the right honourable gentleman had made for him-
self deductions which he did not allow in his calculations to
Lord North. Mr. Fox stated the sums, to illustrate his
observation.


He next proceeded to observe that the minister had that
day defended himself by referring to the American war, the
practice of which they had all reprobated, and the right
honourable gentleman most of any ; this was a little singular,
but however, so it was, and the House would do, well to
observe it. The right honourable gentleman had taken up
considerable time upon this, and lie was sorry he had imitated
him in that respect, for the point was too clear to require
much argument. The great matter to be explained was,
how did it happen that when the House had voted sums for
extraordinaries, that these sums were not applied to the
purposes for which the House thought they were intended?
That the services were not paid for as provided ? He wished
to know why they were delayed after they were provided for?


wished to know in particular why the payment of the
clothing of the army had been so long delayed, and that
contrary to the express direction of the act of parliament




172 CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. [May 6,
passed for that purpose ? Why- ! the right honourable gen.-
tleman would say, because money allowed for that purpose
was applied necessarily to other services. Surely, however,
that complaint should not have existed an hour after the vote
of the next, which included all these allowances, and made
up all these deficiencies. How did the minister answer this?
By acknowledging a system which tended to bring our
finances into a state of greater confusion than any man in
this country had ever thought of before. The system of the
right honourable gentleman was, that new votes for old de-
mands should, at the discretion of the executive government,
be applied to the discharge of still newer demands, so that to
the uncertainty of the application of money voted by parlia-
ment, there was to be no end. How was it possible to come
to any clearness in practice upon such a system ? What
excuse could there be Inade for such confusion ? Why not
apply money in general to the purpose for which it was spe-
cifically voted ? The extraordinarics were generally voted
early in the session. At least he was entitled to ask, why
we did not pay off arrears of former years, for which sums
had been specifically voted ?


To put this point in another way, the minister should here-
after candidly declare, that although he called on parliament
to vote a sum of money for a particularly described purpose,
he nevertheless meant to apply it to another. He heartily
wished that there might come a system by which they should.
understand directly what it was they were doing. That,
necessary, the House might vote so much occasionally for the
deficiency of supply of each preceding year under that head
specifically. Although this would appear extraordinary, he
could not help thinking it would be a considerable improve-
ment in the mode of transacting the business of the public..
They would then annually see how much the preceding year
was deficient, and clearness was essential in the transacting of
business. That„ therefore, instead of voting any extraordi-
naries, there should be voted sums to satisfy all demands for
services, the payments of which had not been fulfilled on ac-
count (to make use of a favourite expression of the minister)
of the diversion of former services. It would be better to do
so at once; for that in substance, although not in letter, they
had been a long time doing. That would not be a more sub-
stantial disobedience of the law than the present practice, and
it would be accompanied with the advantage of being more
intelligible to the public.


On what principle was it, that instead of settling our ar-
rears, they left those arrears standing on account of the ne-
cessity of settling new demands? Let the House sec to what


,-96.j CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. I 7
this practiceavould lead. The minister said that new
tic
ere often more urgent than arrears. Granted. The vote


of credit was exhausted. These new demands might be stated
arid then they should provide for them as they


eci ,oililissetead of postp oning the payment of arrears, insteadoc urred,
th


reicli
of distressing those who accused them of that shameful and
scandalous mode of conduct. These arrears fell heavy on the
persons to whom they were due first; afterwards on the execu-
tive government, and filially- heavy on the mass of the people,
Who must bear the whole of their load eventually. If some
regulation was not adopted upon this, where were they to
end? The minister said, that these were extraordinary ser-
vices for which it was necessary to appropriate money in pre-
ference to other services of last year. If the fact were so, he
must observe, that, unless some regulation be made of this,
new services would follow one another, so that the House of
Commons, or the people, could never know that the money
was applied to the purposes for which the law required it to be
applied. Besides the perpetual confusion which such arrange-
ments must produce in our accounts, how was parliament to
know where this system would end ? We might go on perpe-
tually contracting debt, and perpetually voting extraordinaries
for past deficiencies, but which were applied to new demands,
leaving always the arrears unpaid.


Having said thus much on the violation of the appropriation
act, he came next to the consideration of the paymasters' act;
which, lie contended, had also been most positively and un-
necessarily broken. If the bank would not receive the exche-
quer bills, which it was admitted they had a right to reject,
why didnot government issue money in another way for thep


for which these bills were issued ? They afterwards,
it seemed, came to some arrangement .


with the bank; but
supposing that this arrangement had never taken place, to what
situation would they have been reduced ? Had the bank, or
had it not a right to refuse these bills? They certainly bath
They did refuse them for some time; the consequence of which
Was a breach of the act of parliament. And if this arrange-
ment had never taken place, ministers would have been pm-
eisely in the situation of doing for a longer time, what they
actually did for a short time, and then the inconvenience to
the public would have been prodigious.


He then came to the disposition-paper, on which the right
honourable gentleman admitted there was much explanation
to be made. He was right in admitting that there certainly
was much to be explained. He had listened, however, very
attentively to what the minister called an explanation of that
subject, and he must confess that he did not hear any thing




11.
'74
CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. [May c,


that appeared to him to excuse or palliate the minister's con.
duct upon the subject; of what was in itself a breach of a p:ti.
sitive law without a just cause for it. It was said, that it h64
been the constant practice of the House to violate the appro.. •
priation act : that a committee had reported its disapprobation
of the breach of that act, but that as parliament had never
done any thing against the mode of appropriating money to
the discharge of the extraordinaries from time to time, they
seemed by that silence to admit there was no possibility of
preventing the abuse. He would not then question the yali-


ofdity f that reasoning. He owned, however, it appeared to
him to be at least doubtful. It seemed to him to be a little
hasty, to say that parliament had made no law against this
practice with regard to extraordinaries, and that therefore
they did not disapprove of the practice. But when parlia-
ment had declared, as decidedly they had done, that it was
contrary to the principles of the constitution, they must be
supposed at least to think that the . existing laws were suffi-
cient, if properly inforced, to remedy the evil. But, said the
right honourable gentleman, parliament, by making no pro-
vision to prevent these extraordinaries encroaching on the
appropriation act, shewed they connived at it. Ile would
bgrant the minister the whole force of this argument. If par-liament were of this sentiment, the more force there must be
in the acts which they had really passed, and which were de-
claratory of their sentiments on this subject, because those
who connived at some abuses, must surely be well convinced
of others before they prohibited them. Thus, by relying on
what they had not done, the right honourable gentleman had
given double weight to what they had done in the way of pro-
hibition. What had they said on the cloathing of the army?
When parliament despaired, if the minister pleased, of adopt-
ing any general regulation against extraordinaries, they de-
clared certain things must be done, and ordered a strict and
literal observance with regard to the cloathing of the army.
For this purpose they directed the paymaster to make certain
memorials at certain times; that he should draw such and
such bills, and that payments should be made on certain stated
times. The minister stated upon this point (to shew he could
state something on that subject) that this was not a charge on
the treasury, nor on him in his official situation. To this lie
would observe that his honourable friend did not complain of
him particularly, but of ministers .generally, upon this. sub-,
ject, and therefore there was nothing in the distinction of the
chancellor of the exchequer, upon that point.


Here, however, he must complain against the ministers
every day acted contrary to law, and that not a law made at


who


796.] CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. . 175
a time when the subject of it was not well understood. The
ininister said, that this was an ,act with which it was hnpossi-
ble to comply ; that it required a memorial to be presentediwhen that was impossible. Be it so: That it required the
Pa)anent of money when it was not in the possession of exe-government. Be it so. But it was an act of parliament
framed when the right honourable gentleman was himself a
member of that House, and active in the passing of the act,
(although that was not material). But this was not an old
act of parliament, formed when the business of the executive
ouov rnment was not understood, as it is by his majesty's mi-.
nisters. It was a modern act of parliament to prevent those
very abuses which, he contended not to be within the spirit of
the appropriation act. When the minister considered the
supply of the year, ought he not to take care he had consi-
dered . the law of the country? Ought he not to observe the
positive injunctions of an act of parliament which he himself
took a share in framing? Or was this all ? What were they
to say of an act of parliament that was made so as to be im-
possible to be obeyed, or its provisions complied with ? Did
the minister say that the provisions of this act were difficult
in times of war ? That it was an act of parliament, in which
it was impossible to proceed at all times ? Did the minister
come to the House, and complain of an act of his own making ?
Did he complain that it was wholly impracticable in time of
war ? That was the time for which it was principally made.
What reason had the minister to complain of this instead of
complying with it ? In the years 17 94


and 1795, he did not
comply with it. He seemed to leave the act as a monument
of the inefficacy of parliament ; a monument of the motives
of a man who only aimed at gaining a little popularity ; for
which lie seemed to favour a popular act, but with which,
after it was passed, he did not mean to comply, nor did coin-
ply when afterwards he came into office.


The character of men in that House had from many events
been questioned and suspected from time to time for the lastforty years; and he was sorry to say that many things were
done, that hal a very unfavourable effect on many characters
in the course of that time. He would not say, although he
felt much, what might he thought upon that subject in conse-
quence of what had happened within the last two years.These things should be recollected by that House. TheyConcerned the members of it nearly. The more especially
when certain doctrines which he had lately heard were to be
ma intained by the minister of executive government. Much
had been thrown out (he was not now enquiring whether right


wrong) against the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole, and it




176 CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS. [May 6.


was said in his time that man professed what he did not mean
to practise. That charge, he feared, was much more just
now that it was then. Men had some time ago so reprobate(1
the conduct of others, that they had gone so far as to say it
was impossible to make part of an administration with them.
What did they do now ? Only say to the people we will bring
in acts of parliament to amuse the public in which things thi
are theoretically right are maintained ; but when the authors
of them have gained a little popularity, they disobey the pro-
visions of such acts, and make speeches on the impracticability
of them.


He knew not what influence there might be in that House;
this, however, he knew, that it was impossible for that House
to have the confidence of the public, if they did not take care
that ministers obeyed acts of parliament, instead of talking of
the impracticability of them, when called upon to obey them.
The minister, to do him justice, had said that a great deal of
explanation was due to this subject. The misfortune was, that
he did not give that explanation. By the explanation which
he had given, the act of parliament,' to which he had at last
alluded, would be null and void ; because it never could be
told when the right honourable gentleman would be able to
calculate exactly what would be the expellee of the year ; and
till that time he had assumed a dispensing power with regard
to the provisions of the law. He agreed with the minister,
that to over calculate the expence of the year would be dis-
advantageous to the public. He agreed, too, that the very
best system was to make the estimate as great and the extraor-
dinaries as little as possible. Upon that point he had often
complained before, and he complained then, that the minister
had not done his utmost. An evident instance in the case
of the barracks presented itself. The minister himself bad
said, that it would have been more regular to have given to
the House of Commons an account of them in the first instance;
and yet those ministers who pleaded guilty in the instance of
barracks, told the House that in every other instance they
had done better than their predecessors.


Having said this, he must observe upon the general outline
of the subject before the House, that, in his opinion, a vote of
credit was better than extraordinaries ; first, because you pro'
vide in the former for the interest of the debt you incur ; se-
condly, you do not, by a vote of credit, disobey a positive act
of parliament, in complying with such vote. He must again
desire to know, whether extraordinaries might not be voted
immediately after they were incurred when parliament were
sitting? What advantages were there to be expected, in 3
financial point of view, to say nothing of then principle, if 0"


1796.] CHARGES' AGAINST MINISTERS. I 77
troordinaries incurred this day were to be voted immediately
by the House ? How stood the case, when compared with the
eloathing of the army, which was required by law ? He wished
to know why the minister did not provide for them at once, if
necessary, .by a vote of credit. The right honourable gentle-
man said, that his votes of credit bore a greater proportion to
the expellee than in former wars, and yet he would defray ex-
peaces of this year out of money voted in the last. He would
ask, why the vote of credit ought not to be increased, rather
than the service of last year should be unpaid ? The
right honourable gentleman .


had stated a number of suppo-
sitions. He said, he could not know the extent of the esti-
mates of the service altogether, or the time they would each
of them occur. Certainly. He said also, he could not esti-
mate when the supplies would come in ; the most certain in
that respect were, the land and malt ; another was the case of
the exchequer bills ; and most of was the period when the
loan was to be paid. Granted. But, what occasion had they
to suppose when they were talking of facts ? One loan came in
so early last year, that it was argued that a possible inconve-
nience might arise from the circumstance; that the loan Might
come in before they had use for it ; and that it wouldbe lying
dead upon our hands, while they were paying the interest first.
At this very period ministers were proceeding in direct dis-
obedience to the act of parliament, and they were scandalously
in arrear to the army. Then, he would say again, the minister
had no occasion to have recourse to supposition while he was
furnished with facts upon the subject.


With respect to this year, nine million had already been
expended in the army. He would leave the House to judge
what they were likely to do next year. As to the question,
What was the blame of the executive government ?. He would
say there was much indeed, under all the circumstances, in thedis


obedience of the law, in .their proceeding without informing
the House of what they were doing and what was the situa-
tion of the country. Had he then any difficulty in saying that
this was a great misdemeanor on the part of administration,
.and one that called for the public judgment? Most certainly
he had not. It seemed, however, that the right honourablegentleman thought of secu ringhimself by precedent. The
right honourable


- gentleman had heard of the case of the Earl of
,Maeclesfield, who, in many respects, was a worthy character..
What how stood the case upon the trial of that nobleman?


stcio
what was said by the wisest men of that day upon that occa-


:.0L1? tvhrat precedent of similar conduct in others ought not
, prevent the pronouncing of judgment upon guilt. He wouldther


efore say, that although precedent might be pleaded tozu,




1 7 8 3IR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE [May IQ,


prevent a rigorous judgment, yet it was no justification of the
breach of the law. On the paymaster's act, he would say no
excuse could be offered, far there was no precedent for its
breach. It was an act of parliament recently made after full
consideration of the subject; an act which all men were bound
to obey, and the minister more than any other, on account a
the share he took in framing of it. The minister had, however,
wilfully, wittingly, wantonly, and unnecessarily disobeyed it;
and he could not help saying, that administration, by such
conduct, had made the act a sheet of waste paper. He defied
any man to show what the act was good for, if the minister's
defence.was just. The minister said it was inapplicable to a
time of peace. This should have been stated to the House long
ago if that was really the feeling which the minister had upon,
the subject. He would again repeat, and he was sorry to be
obliged to repeat, that ministers had knowingly, wittingly,
:wilfully, and, according to their own statement, unnecessarily,
set this act aside, and made it a sheet of waste paper. Heartily


''


agreeina with his honourable friend, in all the facts he had
stated, Mr. Fox said, he should most cordially vote for the
motion before the House.


Mr. Steele having moved the previous question on the first reso-
lution, the House divided:


Tellers.


1 Mr. Neville 1-


Wit. FOX'S MOTION ON THE CONDUCT OF TEE -WAR
WITH FRANCE.


May 10.


I
N pursuance of the notice he had given,


Mr. Fox rose and addressed the House to the following
effect:—It having fallen to my lot, Sir, both at the commence'
anentand in the course of the present war, to trouble the
House with several motions Which have not been honoured
with their concurrence, and having last session proposed al.'
inquiry into the state of the nation, to which the House Aid
tot think proper to assent, it may be thought by some, per'
haps, to be rather presumption in me again to call their atten-
tion to the same subject. And I confess that if some eventts
had not occurred during the last year, rather singular in their


1796.3 CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
1-79


nature, I should have, however reluctantly, acquiesced in the
former decisions of the House, after having entered my solemn
protest against the plans that were adopted, and avowed myo.
strong arid complete disapprobation of the whole system of
measures that has been pursued. There certainly, however,
have happened, during the Jast year, some events, which must,
in no inconsiderable degree, have tended to alter the senti-
ments of those with whom I had the misfortune to differ, as
well as to strengthen and confirm the former opinions of those
with whom I have the honour to agree. The event of great
importance, and to which I particularly allude, is the negoci-
ation at Basle and the notice which has been given of the
negotiation with foreign powers. As I shall have occasion
to comment upon this transaction more fully hereafter, I
shall only say at present, that notwithstanding all the applauses
that have been bestowed upon it, the result cannot fail to draw
the attention of every thinking man to tile present posture of
public affairs; it must call the attention of every man who is
not determined to act blindly (a description of persons, of
which I hope there are none in this house,) to the situation of
the country, and that line of conduct which the government
ought to follow. For one thing that we have learned is, whether
ministers have acted wisely or not, (no matter which for our
present purpose,) that we have no immediate prospect of
peace. It signifies but little, whether the obstacle may have
arisen from the unreasonable demands of the enemy, or the
mismanagement of his majesty's ministers ; but of this we are
assured, that we have no prospect of peace, (an event much to
be lamented, but more especially in the present circumstances
of the country,) and that it is not in the power of those who
are entrusted with the administration of public affairs to ob-
tain terms from the enemy, which they dare to offer to the na-
tion. Whatever may be our opinions of the causes which have
led to this situation, we must all be agreed as to the effect;
and none, I presume, will dispute that our situation is worse
than it was at the period when, either ,by conquest or con-
cession, we had a prospect of approaching peace.


Having stated this point, upon which there can be no dif-
ference of opinion, I shall go into a detail of those circum-
s
tances which, in my mind have reduced us to the situation


Which we are now placed. I know the language which has
been held by the executive government on former occasions of
a similar nature, and the language which may be used by the
exe


cutive government on the present, because it is its interest to


?f
use it, is, that it is not our business to inquire into the causes


the evil, but into the best mode of remedy. If these could
lie separated, I admit that the conclusion would be just, but


N 2


Mr.Jenkinson
YEAS 209 —NOES


Tellers.
General Tarleton s
Mr. Randy!! Barch 3 •


"Av




Ii
180 MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE [May /


as long as man remains the same, I contend that there is le,
mode of extricating ourselves from danger, but by retracine
the circumstances by which we have been involved in
difficulties of which we complain. The first thing then to be
done, is, to take an impartial review of past events, which
have led to the situation in which we now stand, that the
country may be enabled to take steps to extricate itself from
the situation into which it has fallen. I shall, therefore, rather
look retrospectively than prospectively, and in that retrospect
I shall not go farther back than the American war. Most
members present will recollect the calamities which befel m
in that contest, and also the terms of peace which in the end'
we were constrained to make ; terms which I shall not argue
at present, whether it was or was not for the advantage of the
country to accept, in the circumstances in which it was then
placed. Many will also recollect the discussions which took
place in the course of that war, and the constant argument
which on all occasions was pressed from the ministerial side of
the House, that we ought to look not retrospectively but pro-
spectively; that when the House was on fire, the question was
trot how the fire was kindled, but how it could be most speedily
and effectually extinguished. The argument which we opposed
to that was one founded upon solid principles, and one which
the House listened to at last; that a consideration of past er-
rors would lead to future amendment, and that a change of
measures would lead to a change of circumstances. -And I
appeal to fact, whether the truth of this argument was not
confirmed by experience. As long as we declined going
into a retrospective inquiry, the war continued, and our misfor•
tunes increased; but from the moment that the House adopted
a resolution to inquire into its past errors, measures were put
into a train by which peace was obtained, and the national
prosperity restored.


Before we go into particular inquiries, let us first examine
whether erroneous maxims of policy have not been adopted,
and whether the principles which have been acted upon are
not fundamentally wrong. There is an argument, which has
been used by an ancient orator, the greatest orator that per-
haps the world ever saw, which, in my opinion, is not inap-
plicable to the present situation of this country. Demosthenes
uses this brilliant, and, in my opinion, no less solid than bril-
liant argument, in the introduction to one of his noblest
orations. When he observed the conduct and the fate of the
Athenians, and compared their calamities with the mismanag e


-ment of their rulers, this mismanagement so firs from be-
Lig a cause of despair, he directly stated as a ground


15


CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE./796.] NDUC


of hope. " " said he, " they had fallen into these mis-
fortunes by the course of natural and irremediable causes,
then, indeed, there would be reason for despair; if, on the
contrary, they are the fruits of lolly and misconduct, it
,nay be possible, by wisdom and prudence, to repair the evil."
In the same manner I would argue on the present occasion.
Had we not fallen into our present situation, from plans
formed and worse executed ; if every minister had been wise,
and every enterprise ably executed, then, indeed, our state
would have been truly deplorable. But if our policy has
been erroneous and our measures ill conducted, we may still
entertain sortie hope, because our errors may be corrected,
and the losses from our misconduct retrieved. I have often
had occasion to employ this argument, and I know it has been
said in reply, that the argument is good when carried to an
extreme, but that the natural imperfection common to every
man renders it inconclusive in any other case. But when
the misconduct was of such a nature as to be capable of being
remedied, when the mismanagement was such as ought to be
avoided, it shewed that the argument was true in a degree,
as well as true in the extreme. This I state as a motive


&against despair; and I contend, that upon the face of theling, when we compare the situation to which we are now
reduced, with that which we held four years ago, there is
ground for presumption, that the change has been in a great
measure owing to errors in the conduct of those who have
had the management of public affairs. In a survey of the
past, the period to which we are naturally apt to recur, is
the period of the commencement of the war. If we could
consider in one debate every particular of the external and
internal situation of the country, and more especially the
effects which the measures that have been adopted have
had on its constitution, we might go farther back : but this




would involve a detail too extensive for the discussion of
a single night, a field too large for the capacity of the
speaker.


I shall begin, Sir, with the opening of the budget in 792,
when a most splendid display of the situation of the country
was given by the minister, without alluding to any prior or
subsequent statement : and I take that day because it was aday on which his statement was more to his own satisfaction,
and more to the satisfaction of the House than at any other
Period. In the year 1792, three years after the French
trineRevolution, the minister came forward with his boasted andtphant description of the state of the country, of the pros-
Perity of our commerce, of the improvement (dour manufac-
tures, of the extent of our revenue, and the prospect of perma-


N 3




182 :kn.. PDX'S MOTION ON THE [May


neat peace." He then admitted that fifteen years' peace was,
perhaps, rather too much to expect, but he said that we had
as rational hopes of the continuance of tranquillity as ever had
existed in the history of modern times. Then—full two years
and a half (I wish to speak within compass) after the first
Revolution in France, after the time that the king had been


Assemblycompelled to return to Paris, that the National Asse had
annihilated the titles and destroyed the feudal tenures of the
nobility ; had confiscated the lands belonging to the church,
banished part of the clergy, and compelled those who re-
mained to take an oath contrary, in many instances, to the
dictates of their conscience ; — then, I say, it was, that this
prospect of fifteen years' peace was held out to the country.
It was after the King of France had been made, as was said at
the time, to stand in a splendid pillory, on the f ‘lth July,
that this expectation of lasting tranquillity was raised. So
that I have a right to conclude, that in the opinion of the
king's ministers, the annihilation of the titles of the »obi-
lity, and the degradation of the order, the exile of the clergy;
and the confiscation of the lands of the church ; that the
invasion of the royal prerogative, and the insults offered to
the sovereign, described as they then were by their friends,
by the terms pillory and imprisonment, (terms which I now
repeat, not with any view of courting the favour of those who
employed them, but merely to shew the light in which those
events wore considered at the time,) not only so little inter,
fered with the system of neutrality which they had adopted,
but were in so small a degree connected with the interests of
the country, as not to damp the prospect of peace, or even to
render the duration of tranquillity for fifteen years very un,
certain. I so far agree, therefore, with the opinion of mi.,
histers, that instead of the country being in danger from the
French Revolution, there were no circumstances attending
which rendered the continuance of peace more uncertain than
it was before it happened. It may be said, that at that time
France was professing pacific views. I have so often seen
these professions made by the most ambitious powers, in the
Very moment when they were thirsting most for aggrandize•
ment, that I repose little faith in them; so little, indeed, that I
cannot believe that the pacific views of ministers were found-
ed upon these professions which were made by the French.
But at that very time France was either engaged in actual
hostilities with Austria; or on the point of commencing hostili-


See Vol. iv. p.3fz:


/7963 CONDUCT or THE WAR WITH PRANCE:
183


'War was either begun, or there was a moral certaintyties.


l
that


discuss a point, (on which, however, I
eave no difficulty in my own mind,) whether Austria or France
was the aggressor, it was sufficient that ministers knew at the
time that an aggression had been made on the part of one of
those powers. And notwithstanding the defeats which at-
tended the French arms at the outset, it was the general
opinion that the Austrian territory was defenceless, and that
it would soon be over-run by the enemy's arms. But even
then a. fifteen-years' peace was talked of. And I must here
state a fact, which though not officially confirmed, rests upon
the general belief of Europe, that before hostilities com-
menced between Austria and France, an insinuation, or rather
a communication, was made by England to the latter power,




that if they attempted any aggression upon the territories of
Holland, which at that time was our ally, we should be obliged
to break the neutrality that we had observed, and interfere in.
the contest. This message has been differently interpreted.
Some have put upon it the interpretation, which I think, upon
the whole, is the fair one, that it was our policy to take all
prudent means of avoiding any part in the war. Others; I
know, have put upon it a more invidious constructioin, and in-
sinuated that our meaning was neither more nor less than this,
speaking to the French, " Take you Austria and do with it
what you please, but we set up the limits of Holland, beyond
which you shall not pass." I state this to shew that at that time
ministers did not foresee any probable event which might oc-
asion a rupture between this country and France. That this
also was the general opinion of the House in the spring of
1792, I need not spend time in convincing them. I shall,
however, barely mention a circumstance of a financial nature,tlielicilliethbappene


ii
happenedd nearthe close of the session, which proves


, beyond dispute. I mean the measure of funding the
4e elia. d ocents. At


1.."


that time the per cent. consols had risen to 95,
96, and even to 97, and it was the opinion of the right honour-
able the chancellor of the exchequer that they would rise to
ar; in this conviction, and with a view of a probable saving,


lost t le opportunity of a certain saving to the nation
of a perpetual annuity of 240,0001.; a thing of such maoni-z,


the
.-7,tilde as to prove to the House that at. that time n right ho-


nourable gentleman had no expectation that the peace was


1ilkiil


y to be disturbed since it induced him to forego the greatbgoodwthat was in his power, in the hope of the trifling ad-dition
, 0Lnat might have accrued on the event of the 3 per(cieelciitasr. arisin g


s which
to ar . I mention this as a fact subsidiary to the


the minister made at the commencement of
N 4




184 MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE [May


that session, and which proved, that to the end of it he con-
tinued to entertain the same confidence of peace.


Thus ended the session of 5792. In the course of the
summer of that year various events of various kinds took.
place. The Revolution in France of ;the loth of Ant*
chiefly deserves notice. I shall not now comment upon the
nature of that Revolution, I shall speak of it merely as a
member of the British legislature, and as an event connected
with the interests of this country. The great alteration it had
produced was the changing the government of France ii•orn
a monarchy to a republic. I know that these are excellent
words, and well adapted, as the history of our country has
proved, for enlisting men under opposite standards. But this
is not the view in which that Revolution is to be considered,
as affecting the policy of this country. Let us in the first
place consider its influence upon this country, in the way of
example, and the prevalence which it was likely to give to
Jacobin principles throughout Europe. After this countryhad seen the order of the nobility destroyed and their titles
abolished, when it had seen the system of equality carried to
as great a length as it was possible to carry it, except in
that one instance of the existence of a king, I ask those
who are fondest of the name of monarchy, (I beg not to be
understood as speaking in the least disrespectfully of that
form of government,) whether there was any thing in the
monarchy of France previous to the loth of August which
tended to fortify the English monarchy ? Whether there was
any thing in the subsequent Revolution which tended to render
it less secure than it was immediately before that event hap-
pened, when no danger was apprehended ? Whether there be a
greater or a less prospect of peace between this country and
France since the overthrow of the house of Bourbon than there
was before ? It is not my disposition to triumph over the dis-
tresses of a fallen family ; but, considering them as kings
of France, as trustees for the happiness of a great nation,
and remembering at the same time my old English preju-
dices, and I may farther add, old English history, can l
regret that expulsion as an event unfavourable to the
happiness of the people of France, or injurious to the
tranquillity of Great Britain ? No man who thinks that the
former wars of this country against France were just and
necessary, can refuse to say that they were provoked by the
restless ambition of the house of Bourbon. And can it then
be said, that the overthrow of that monarchy was either a
cause of alarm or a symptom of danger to Great.Britain ?


Lest, however, I should be thought by . some to approye
more of the conduct of ministers than I really do, I here fin('


/796.] CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH TRANCE. 18y


it necessary to say a few words by way of explanation. I ape
prove of their sentiments in 5792, in as far as they thought
h ilt the French Revolution did not afford a sufficient cause for


that country involving itself in a war, and I approve of their
conduct, in as far as it proceeded upon a determination to ad-
here to an invariable line of neutrality, provided universal
tranquillity could not be preserved. I differ, however, with-
them upon the means of preserving that neutrality. I think
there was a time before the war broke out with Austria, which
presented an opportunity for this country to exercise the great
end dignified office of a mediator, which would not only have
been highly honourable to herself and. beneficial to Europe,
but an office which she was in some measure called upon to
undertake by the events of the preceding year. The event to
which I particularly refer was the treaty of Pilnitz, by which
Russia and Prussia avowed their . intention of interfering in
the internal affairs of France, if they should be supported by
the other powers of Europe, which certainly was to all intents
and purposes an aggression against France. The circum-
stances of the transaction, still more than the transaction it-
self, pointed out the propriety of this mediation on the part
of Great Britain. This treaty, I really believe, was never in-
tended to be acted upon ; but this certainly does not lessen
the aggression, much less the insult which it carried to France.
The emperor at that time was importuned by the emigrant
nobility and clergy to interfere in the domestic affairs of France.
Austria did not dare to interfere without the co-operation of
Prussia, and Prussia 'did not wish to hazard the fate of
such an enterprize. When those powers were in this state of
uncertainty, that was the very moment for England to be-
come a mediator; and if this country had at that time pro-
posed fair terms of accommodation to the parties, the matter
aught have been compromised, and the peace of Europe pre-
served, at least for some time; for, God knows, the period of
Peace is at all times uncertain ! If England had then steppedf
orward as a mediator, the questions to be agitated would have


r
elated solely to Lorraine and Alsace. And, is there any man


Who believes, putting out of the question the internal affairs
of Prance altogether, that under the impartial mediation of
this country, all the difficulties respecting the tenures of the
nobility, and the right of the chapters in those two provinces,
Plight not have been easily settled to the satisfaction of thedisputants ? I cannot conceive that ministers, in concertingtheir schemes, and adopting the measures which they have
Pursued, could be influenced by any secret principle so de..P rayed and truly impolitic, as to be induced to contemplate
with satisfaction the growing seeds of discord, under the idea




186 MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE [May tz.


that this country would flourish, whilst the other powers of
Europe were exhausting themselves( in contention and Neve,.
Neutrality I admit to have been preferable to an active share
in the contest; but to a nation like Great Britain, whose pres
verity depends upon her commerce, the general tranquillity of
Europe is a fin- greater blessing (laying the general interests
of mankind out of the question) than any partial neutrality
which it could preserve. I hope, therefore, that it was upon
no such contracted views that ministers declined the office of
mediators at the period to which allude. One would think,
however, that after refusing such interference, they would
have been the last men- in the world to intermeddle with the
internal government of another country.


Having proved that the event of the loth of August made
no difference in our relative situation, I trust it is not neces-
sary for me to refer to the horrible scenes that were disclosed
in France, in the month of September. I merely mention them
that it may not be said that I wished to pass them over in si-
lence, or without expressing those feelings which in common
with all mankind I experienced, on hearing of atrocities which
have excited the indignation of Europe. However monstrous
they have been, they seem, notwithstanding, to have no rela-
tion to the present question ; they have no small resemblance,
at the same time, to the massacres in Paris in former periods;
massacres in which Great Britain was much more nearly af-
fected than by the events of the month of September 1792,
but in which she nevertheless did not interfere ; a conduct,
the propriety of which it fell to the province of the historian
to discuss; and to historians alone must the massacre of
September 17 92 be also left; for though individual members
might think them a fit topic with which to inflame the rage
of mankind, ministers never contended that they were a legiti-
mate cause of war.


We now come to that important event the successful inva-
sion of the Austrian Netherlands, by the French under Gene-
ral Dumourier. How far it would have been wise in this,
country to have permitted •France to remain in possession 01
this key to Holland, I shall not now argue. But what hap-
pened in October was apprehended in April; and if it is once
admitted as a principle, that it would have been impossible
for this country to have allowed France the quiet possession
of this territory, would it not have been wise in this country
to have prevented the invasion by a mediation between the
two powers? Perhaps it may be said, that they trusted that
the great military power of Austria would be able, if not to
resist the invasion in the first instance, at least to compel than
to retire. If this was the policy with which' they acted, it


796.3
policy more than ordinarily shallow.


N,%e'as abeen, perhaps, in this, as in every instance of aceritiakiinl3have
•e more wise to adopt a resolution at the outset,Aar nature,


id to act upon it with uniformity, firmness, and consistency.
31- a France to be successful, did you expect to strikeSupPosint,


et the end of the war, and speak to France as you did in
case of Russia and the Porte, when you vauntingly said to


:1110elutss eilt'oPne? You were not seconded by the country ; you


You shall not keep Ockzakow as an indemnity for
ences of the war ? What was the consequence,


however, when you came forward in this arrogant and impe-


were condemned, as assuming haughty and unwarrantable
pretensions by every impartial man in Europe ; and in the




• ,


end you were obliged to send a minister to Petersburgh to
renounce every thing that you had said. Had you pursued
the same conduct in respect to France, you would have been
reduced to the same dilemma. The more the aggrandize-
ment of France was to be dreaded, the stronger motives we
had to exercise the office of a mediator before the war come
menced. Shortly afterwards Lord Gower was recalled from
Paris; a circumstance which I always lamented, because from
that moment the continuance of peace between the countries
became more doubtful. And this brings me to the immediate
causes of the war.


The immediate causes of the war have generally been re-
duced to three : first, the way in which certain individuals
belonging to the Corresponding Society in this country were
received by the government of France; secondly, the decree
of the 19th of November ; and, thirdly, the claims which
were set up against the monopoly held by the Dutch of the
navigation of the Scheldt. The first appears to me to be so
insignificant as not to be worthy of a serious answer. In the
first place, in order to give it shape, in order to make it fit for
being put down upon paper, you must begin with assuming
that there was a government in France to whom you might
complain, and from whom you might demand redress. But,
was there ever any complaint made, or any dissatisfaction
stated ? Respecting the decree of the 1 9th of November, did
you ever complain of it? did you ever demand that it should
be either revoked or explained? This is a circumstance so
timately connected with the. existence of a government in
France, that I know not how to separate them. You refused
to recognize the government of France, and from that very
moment all the means of conciliation and explanation were at
an end. Things were then brought to the ultima ratio reollln •
for the moment that you cut off all means of explanation,
You virtually made a declaration of war. But though you


CONDUCT OF Tilt WAR WITH PRANCE,
181




88 MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE [May


arrogantly and unwisely refused to recognize the government
of France, you allowed M. Chauvelin to remain here, and
from the papers which passed between him and the Igs
ministers at the time, the French seem to have shown a strong
disposition to explain that decree. Why then, it will
asked, did they not explain it? Because they did not know
what explanation would be satisfactory. But it is admitted
by all the writers on the law.- of nations that I have read,
that an insult, or even an aggression, is not sufficient cause of
war, till explanation or redress is demanded and refused, and
that the party who refuses an opportunity of explanation to
the other is the aggressor. This opportunity, however, was
denied to the French ; and upon these principles England
was the aggressor. With respect to the opening of the
Scheldt, is there any man who does not believe, if a nego:
elation had been then attempted, that matters might not have
been arranged to the mutual satisfaction of the parties? This
was even admitted by the House. F'or what was the favourite
argument at the time ? " England is the last power in Europe
upon whom the French will make war ; but after devouring
the rest of Europe, they will swallow you up at last." Upon
this part of the argument I am a good deal relieved by subse-
quent events. And here I am sorry to allude to the opinions
of a gentleman (Mr. Burke) who is no longer a member of
this House, but, from the part he took in the politics of the
country at the time, and the effect which his eloquence pro-
duced, I find it impossible to speak of the history of the
times, without saying something on the doctrines and senti-
ments of that able and respectable man. In a most mas-
terly performance, he has charmed all the world with the
brilliancy of his genius, fascinated the country with the
powers of his eloquence, and, in as far as that cause went to
produce this effect, plunged the country into all the calamities
consequent upon war. I admire the genius of the man,
and I admit the integrity and usefulness of his long public
life; I cannot, however, but lament that his talents, when, in
my opinion, they were directed most beneficially to the in-
terest of his country, produced very little effect, and that when
he espoused sentiments different from those which I hold
to be wise and expedient, then his exertions should hoc
been crowned with a success that I deplore. Never, certainly,
was there a nation more dazzled than the people of this coun-
try were by the brilliancy of this performance of Mr. Burke !
Much of the lustre of his opponents, as well as of friends, was
drawn from the imitation of this dazzling orb; but it was the
brilliancy of a fatal constellation, which bore terror and deso-
lation in its train ; .and we arc to this day suffering its bane-


1796 . ] CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 189
lid effects. This able man had no bounds in his opposition
to joy proposition for recognizing the government of France.
ft was represented as a proposition to petition France for
peace, by throwing ourselves at her feet, to surrender our be-
loved sovereign's head to the block : in fine, entirely to give
up the constitution. And why ? Because it was to treat with
roricides, though the unfortunate event (for such I shall al-
wa'ys call it) of the death of the King of France had not as
yet taken place. When the question comes to be re-considered,
I am confident that the country will not be of this opinion.
At present I have even ministers themselves as necessaries to
the fact, after it has actually happened. By this petition or
message to the directory have they not acknowledged the
power of those very men who pride themselves upon the
part they took in promoting that unfortunate event, and who
110W celebrate it by an anniversary festival? For what purpose
do I mention this, but to skew that I did not wish to surrender
the constitution, which has been handed down to us from our
ancestors, cemented with their blood, and that it was no, part
of my design to bring the head of our beloved sovereign to
the block ?


But to return to the opening of the Scheldt. I am not one
one of those who conceive the navigation of the Scheldt to be
of no importance to Holland; in its present circumstances, I
think it was of very little importance. It may be'asked, how-
ever, are you to judge what is and what is not for the interest
of Holland ? Are not the Dutch much better judges of what
is for their interest than you are? Far, far better certainly, is
my answer. But did the Dutch themselves at the time think
it au object worth disputing about, or rather did not we drag
them reluctantly into the contest? A variety of other argu-
ments were used at the time. I do not wish to recal the lan-
guage of any particular gentleman to the recollection of the
House; but the argument being adduced against a proposi-
tion which I had the honour to make, I have more particular
lieoatsiolctti s


General


remember it. I was told, that we ought not to re-
cognize the French republic, for fear of disgusting our allies.
IA us inquire, then, who were our allies at the time? The
States


v.


ral were among the number. Then it was said,
that even those who were disaffected to the interest of the
Stadtholder, were so aristocratic in their sentiments, that they


urn with indignation at French principles, and that
an invasion would heal all the internal divisions which sub-


however,
in that republic. Notwithstanding these assertions,


n""ever, I have heard, and I know it is commonly believed,
that Holland was not conquered by the arms of France, but
by the disaffection of the Dutch to the cause in which they




190 MR. Fox's MOTION ON THE [May Io.
were engaged. Our other allies were Austria and Prussia,
Whether the King of Prussia has acted to this country with
fidelity and honour, or with falsehood and perfidy; whether
he has performed his engagements, or whether he has rio,
lated the faith of the treaty, we have never been informed by
ministers; but this I will ask, whether after granting him an
enormous subsidy, a subsidy which must be regarded as most
extravagant, when compared with the amount of the services
which he has performed; whether, if you had thought proper
to recognize the French republic before you entered into the
war, he would have deserted you one day sooner, or swallowed
up more of the treasure of the country than he has done?
With respect to Austria, is there any man who seriously
believes that, though we had recognized the French re-
public, we might not have availed ourselves as much as we
can do at this moment, of the service of that power ? Even if
Austria had been disgusted, all that she could have done
would have been to make a separate peace, which would
have probably been the means of restoring general tranquil-
lity, because that must have happened before we engaged in
the war. But if this danger would have attended the recog-
nition of the French republic before, may not the effect be
produced by the late negociation at Basle, in which Austria
was not a party? It was argued, that a recognition implied
an approbation of every thing that had passed. But this I
denied when the objection was taken, and still persist in
denying. On the question of—who was the aggressor? I
contend, that by the law of nations, as it is explained by the
best writers upon the subject, we were the aggressors, because
we refused to give to France an opportunity of redressing
those grievances of which we complained.


I now come to the period at which we began to take an
active part in the contest. When our armies first appeared
in the field, the enemy were forced to retire from the terri-
tories which they had occupied ; they were completely driven
out of the Netherlands, and we were in possession of almost
all French Flanders. At this period, it was reported that a
person of the name of Maret made proposals for peace, on
the part of the French, which were not listened to by his ma-
jesty's ministers. Why, then, I ask, did you not make peace
at this prosperous juncture ? when the enemy were defeated in
every battle, when they were driven from the frontiers of our
allies which they had occupied ; when we had made a con-
siderable impression upon French Flanders; when, excepting
Savoy, they had not one foot of land belonging to our allies,
and when they might have been disposed to purchase terms of
peace by a considerable sacrifice of territory ? Why did We


/796.] CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 191


not make peace in these . circumstances ? Why, because the
system on which ministers had set out was deserted ; because
you no longer confined your views to the security of your
allies, but, infatuated with success, you began to seek for in-
demnity. The declining to negotiate at this period, I set
down as a principal cause of all our succeeding calamities.


I cannot help remarking, that there has been a good deal
of inconsistency in the mode of o.arguin adopted by those who
have been adverse to negociation. When the French were
successful, I was asked — What ! would you humble the
country so far as to beg peace from the enemy, in the moment
of her victories? And when the allies were successful in their
turn, I was told, that we must not treat at a time when our
.armies were every where triumphant, and when nothing but
disgrace and defeat marked the progress of the enemy ; that
then was the period to avail ourselves of our good fortune,
and reap the fruits of our victories. It was even at one time
thought advisable to push our victories so far as to march to
Paris. Upon the project of effecting a counter-revolution in
France, having said so much on former occasions, I shall not
enlarge now. The great defect in the management of the
war, however, has, in my opinion, been the want of a deter-
minate object for which you have been contending. You
have neither carried on war for the purpose of restoring mo-
narchy in France, nor with a view to your own advantage.
While the emperor in Alsace was taking towns in the name
of the King of Hungary, you were taking Valenciennes for
the emperor — proclaiming the constitution of 1791 at Toulon


and taking possession of .
Martinique for the King of Great


Britain. What has been the consequence of this want of
object? You have converted France into an armed nation—
you have given to her rulers the means of marshalling all the
strength of the kingdom against you. The royalists in
France, also, so little understood your intentions, that they
did not join you; and the reason is obvious—they did not
know whether you were at war for the purpose of re-establish-
ing the ancient monarchy of France, or for the purpose of
aggrandizing yourselves by robbing France of her territories.
It might then have been imagined that we would have endea-
voured to conciliate the body of constitutionalists. No such
thing. We had acted so as to give . .the impression .


that we
were desirous to she• our enmity towards that body of men.


-The
unfortunate De la Fayette, who deserved the praise of


being a man of the most uncorrupted nature, who had the
merit of steering between the two extremes of the parties drat
agitated this country ; this firm, brave, and steady friend of


sovereign, — this gallant and distinguished uelltlernaD,1




192
MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE


[May 0,


equally the friend of his king and his country, emigrated after
the loth of August. Upon neutral ground he was seized by
certain robbers in the service of the King of Prussia ; he was
kept by that monarch for years in prisons and dungeons.
It might have been thought, if you had been desirous to
conciliate this body of men, whose constitution you announced
at, Toulon, that you would at least have made a point of
procuring the . enlargement of this estimable character. It
might have been thought, that in return for an enormous
subsidy, the King of Prussia could not hesitate at the en-
largement of one prisoner. But when a motion on the
subject was made by my right honourable friend (General
Fitzpatrick) it was said that it was impossible for this govern-
ment to interfere. He is delivered from the King of Prussia,
on his recognition of the French, to the emperor, because,
he said, he belonged to the allies generally, and by him he
is kept in the same scandalous and inhuman bondage. From




this dreadful captivity he endeavours to escape — a circum-
stance not very surprizing— he is taken and sent back to his
prison, to experience more rigorous treatment. At length
Madame de la Fayette, after enduring a series of most
dreadful sufferings under the brutal Robespierre, from which
she escaped by miracle, flew, on the wings of duty and affec-
tion, to Vienna, to solicit the emperor for permission to
give to her husband the consolation of her attentions in his
prison. The emperor granted her request. But on her
arrival at Ohnutz, the officer who had the care of M. dc la
Fayette, told her with openness and candour, that if she
resolved to go down to the dungeon to her husband, she must
submit to share in all the horrors of his captivity. [A burst
of indignation and sorrow broke from every part of the House.]
This, however, had no terrors for her affectionate heart ; she
plunged into his dungeon, and there they remain together,
the living, and yet buried, victims of' this inhuman power.
Nay, this is not all ; she applied for leave to have a female
attendant, instead of a male, about her person ; this, she said,
even the implacable Robespierre had not denied her; but
even this request was brutally refused ! As if it were not
enough that our ministers had not interfered for the de-
liverence of this gentleman, and for fear that it should be
misunderstood that they did not participate in the measure,
N. Alexander Lamed', one of the persons who retired from
France along with De la Fayette, bad, after a most cruel
confinement, come to this country to take the benefit of the
Bath waters. He had also been confined in the prisons
of Prussia ; but his health having fallen a sacrifice, the king,
yielded to the solicitation of his mother, and, had permitter


1796.3 CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 193


like to have a certain period of relaxation, and, having after-
wards made his separate peace with France, was easily per-
suaded to give him liberty. This gentleman, then, who had
co greatly distinguished himself as the friend of his king and


who had only been desirous to establish a limited
monarchy,liy, and who had fallen a sacrifice in his native land
w his endeavours to prevent the violence and injustice which
have unhappily been committed, sought to re-establish his
health in this country. He had not been here a single fort-
night, the greatest part of which he spent in his bed, before
he was ordered to quit the kingdom; and to every repre-
sentation of the alarming state of his health; and the impro-
priety of his being put on board any other than a neutral
vessel, very little attention was paid, and he was hurried
away, at the hazard of his being carried into Calais, and
conducted to the guillotine. What could be more injurious
to the country than such conduct ? Any person, who had
seen M. Lameth with his broken and decayed constitution,
would not have conceived that lie was in a state to be dan-
gerous to the government. Good God ! (exclaimed Mr. Fox)


Lameth an object of terror to the British government !
An object of terror no otherwise than of moral terror, which
his sufferings might excite, as exhibiting a dreadful example
of the justice of what are termed " regular governments,"
of the implacable temper of political animosity, and of that
severe vengeance, which jealousy and offended power ex-
ercise on their unresisting victims ! And thus this gentleman,
who had justly rendered himself clear to all who love rational
liberty, and to whom the emigrant nobility of France owed
such obligations, was driven from England.


Thus it appears, that it is not to loyalists of' every descrip-
tion that favour is to be sliewn; it is not to those who take
up arms in favour of the limited monarchy, which it was thepretended object of the allies, and of this country in particular,
to establish, but to those only whose endeavours aim at the
re


storation of the ancient tyranny, who are the friends of the
old feudal system. They, it seems, are the only royalists
whose loyalty is entitled to support. With respect to the
treatment of General Dumourier, though I do not mean to
place him exactly in the same point of view as the two gen-
tlemen I have just mentioned, yet the behaviour of the allies
towards him has not been less impolitic; for, certainly, to
afford an asylum and offer our protection, to those men who,disgusted with the party whom they served, withdrew their
assistance, 2?was the only effectual way to encourage othersto followv-


i.their example. It is said, that the legitimate object
Great Britain in this war was, to obtain from France a




194 MR. Fox's MOTION ON THE [WI


just and honourable peace, and that this was also the object
of the allies. Why, then, was not that object attempted
when the confederacy existed in its full power? Why were'
two of the powers, Prussia and Spain, suffered to melt away,
and their aid to be withdrawn from the general cause, with_
out making any overtures for such a peace? You may says
it was not your fault, that you could not foresee their secession;
let Inc, however, observe, that when statesmen take open
themselves to form alliances with other powers, they sliouil
know something of the characters of the princes with Wham
they make such alliances, and how far it is probable they will
keep to the letter of their engagements. As to the King of
Prussia, there was every reason to suppose, long before the
event took place, that he would make peace with France;
that it was his interest so to do: and . with respect to Spain,
it was apparent to the most short-sighted statesman, that her
ministers could not protract the conclusion of a peace with
the victorious republic, without endangering the existence
of the Spanish monarchy itself. It was, therefore, an incum-
bent duty on ministers to have foreseen the probable con-
sequences of their alliances: if they had possessed any of that
necessary foresight, they would, during the last session of
parliament, have used their endeavours to have procured a
peace, while the confederacy was acting in concert, and not
have waited till it was dissolved.


It is alleged, that the form of government in France was
not such as to enable ministers to treat for peace upon any
sure foundation. I, however, am one of those who think that
the government, so far as respected external relations, was
of no consequence to the contracting parties. If an absolute
government is, as it is thought to be, the best to enter into
engagements with, surely no one will deny but France was
an absolute government during the tyranny of Robespierre,
as well as during the reign of the prior and succeeding fac-
tions. The acts of those 'factions were never afterwards
revised, with respect to external relations. But, you say, you
must wait till there is a regular constitution established. IS
that the most proper time to retrieve your losses by nego0
ation, when they have settled themselves in a permanent
government, ascertained the limits and boundaries of their,
conquests, made the whole subject to their general laws, So
communicated to what was your territory every inherent
quality of their own departments ? We were told, several yeals
ago, that the French were reduced to such extremity, that
they could not possibly find resources to enable than t„
continue the contest much longer ; and only last session e•
was asserted, with the utmost degree of confidence, that they


X 796.]


CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
195


were not upon the verge, but in the actual gulf of bankruptcy,
that they were in the last agony.


• A twelvemonth has now
elapsed since they have been in that agony; and really it is
the first time I ever heard of any set of people continuing
so long in such a situation. I certainly must admit, that
last year, while France was labouring under this agony, the
emperor, with the assistance of this country, was enabled to
regain part of his dominions which had been wrested from
him, and this was looked upon as an accomplishment of the
prediction, that the French were reduced to the last ex-
tremity, and that they were not in a capacity ever to recover
themselves. It • might naturally have been expected, that
death would have been the consequence of this agony ; but
was that the case ? Far from it. The events of the last three
weeks have been of a nature sufficient to prove that their




agonizing struggles may in the end destroy their enemies,‘,„
and draw them into that gulf of ruin, in which they had
flattered themselves the French would have been irrevocably
buried.


The state of the French finances has been another argu-
ment to prove their inability to continue the war. God for-
bid, that the finances of this country should ever be so in-
volved ! But the French have now got over the worst con-
sequences resulting from the state of their finances. France
has been placed in that situation, wherein it has been neces-
sary to call forth all the property of the country, in order to
maintain the quarrel. Without recurring to the mode of ar-
gument which was made use of yesterday, with respect to the
new mode of taxing capital, I hope, if ever we should be in
the situation of the French, that we shall not hesitate to ex-
pend the whole capital of the country, rather than have a
constitution imposed upon us by a foreign enemy. I had ra-
ther that all should be taken away by the calamities of the
present war; I had rather that we should be forced to submit
to one, two, three, or four requisitions of all the adults in the
kingdom; all this I would rather submit to, than that the
Country should experience the misery of absolute servitude.
You have reduced France to the situation of absolute bank


; but that bankruptcy is past, and now they have the
Whole resources of the country to bring forth against you.
It is now twelve months since we conceived them in such a
state of bankruptcy, as to be incapable of resistance. It was
the boast of Austria, that she had recovered her losses; but
we see the campaign open this year with such gigantic efforts
on the part of the French, as to leave no room to hope that
we Can ever be able to resist them.


At the commencement of the present session, his majesty,
2




196 MR. Fox's MOTION ON THE [May I.


in his speech from the throne, intimated a disposition trene_
gociate, and had more fully manifested that disposition in his
message of the 8th of December. -Why did not ministers make
the attempt at that time, which was peculiarly favourable for
such a measure, as the campaign could not well be opened for
some months? instead of this, we -find that the first step
taken was on the 8th of March, threeltrionths: after the cone
munication of the earnest desire for' peace contained in the
king's message; and four months after the same sentiments
had been avowed in his speech from the throne. This delay
has not been occasioned by a wish to consult with our allies,
and obtain their concurrence, for it does not appear that they
either sanctioned or disapproved it. An allusion was made
to them in Mr. NATickham's letter; but in order to justify the
delay, the application should have been made in the name of
them all, 'and sorry terms should have been offered.
This was not the case. Mr. 'Wickham's letter was such as
might have been agreed upon in a quarter of an hour, instead
of three months. But this letter, after all, expressed nothing
more than was container in the king's speech, and cannot be
produced as a new proof of the desire of ministers for peace.


It has been said in this House, and his majesty's ministers
have particularly supported the opinion, that the contagion
of French principles is highly dangerous to this country.
Those principles and their supporters in France, have been
treated in: this House with every mark of insult and contempt,
with every expression of disgrace and detestation. The first
thing ministers should have done, was to remove the un-
favourable impression, the hostile disposition which their
language and conduct must have created; and the first step
towards accomplishing this, was a full and unequivocal recog-
nition .of the French republic. Towards the conclusion of
the American war, some gentlemen in this House thought an
acknowledgment of the independence of America should be
made the price of peace. I always thought otherwise, and
that it ought to be made freely and gratuitously. But whe-
ther I was right or not, the present is a question materially
different. We have no claim on France, like that which Ire
had on : America, and therefore the less would have been the
sacrifice in recognizing the republic. But so far from doing
this, Mr. 'Wickham's note does not even hint at the term'
that would be acceptable. This reserve may in some cases be
prudent and wise. In the present case I see neither prudence
nor wisdom. Instead of either recognition or offers, you tell
the directory, that your minister is not empowered even !(:'
negociate. To argue this point fairly, I must put myself ill
the situation of the enemy, and here I rnust .ask, \lila could I


1796.3 CONDUCT OP THE WAD. WITH FRANCE.
197


olio]; of such a communication from ministers, who for several
year:;a have traduced the principles and governments in France;v
,'Ind reviled all the ruling men in that country ; from ministers
who delayed that communication for three mouths? I could
not believe the sincerity of their offers.


It is not regular to-mention what has passed in former de-
bates; but, if I may be .permitted to allude to the arguments
advanced a fe'Ve evenings ago, upon the subject of the King
of Sardinia's subsab we shall find a full illustration of the
minister's motives,- in making the pretended offers of peace
through Mr. Wickham. On that occasion, it was said, that
i t was by no means certain; that the overtures of his Sardinian
majesty were made with the view of obtaining peace. It was
most probable, that they were made in consequence of the
pressure of circumstances, and that all his object was to know,




what were the conditions on which the French would consent
to a pacification; for he had no real intention of putting an
end to the war. I cannot conceive more happy expressions
to explain the views of his majesty's ministers, in making
overtures through Mr. Wickham. They were no doubt ac-
tuated by the same motives that guided his Sardinian majesty,
and the French might well suppose that their pretended offers
were produced by the pressure of circumstances, and made
with the view rather of protracting than concluding the war.
The pretence set up by the -French, that they could not give
up any territories which had been consolidated with the re-
public, is, indeed, a matter of regret, but it is a circumstance
that doubles my indignation against those ministers who
have brought us into this lamentable situation, who have de-
ferred any proposition for peace till a period when the diffi-
culties are such, that there is no prospect of obtaining it on
safe and honourable terms. I see great triumph on the other
side of the House, and I do not wonder at it. Their object
was to delay overtures of peace till they could not be accepted,
and they have succeeded. This may be a manoeuvre in war,
but It is not an act of which a minister, sincerely desirous of
Peace, ought to boast. That it was such a ]manoeuvre, I am
convinced, by the eagerness and exultation with which the
correspondence has been published. Is there no better means


ceifa' tniloank? Aingtlie government of France believe the sincerity of
Your wishes for peace? Why is it not considered how othertreaties


es


known
have been


various
made?


other channelsc
not malke


than
your


an
disposition


neg
for


.o
Peac


And above all, why not recognize the republic,


and Lord


renrdounce any design against it on account of the princia
Nes on which it was founded ? When that great man, the


Chatham, was consulted respecting the best mode
o3




19 gam. FOX'S NOTION ON Tilt [May c)


of terminating the unfortunate dispute with America, did he
send to know what were the terms demanded by the Ameri.
cans ? : his opinion was, that nothing would effect a corn.
plete conciliation, but a complete change in his majesty's
councils.— f A laugh on the treasury bench.] — Gentlemen
may laugh, but I do not understand how the calamities of the
people, brought on by the present councils of his majesty, can
be a subject of merriment. To remove those calamities, a
total change, not only in the councils of his majesty, but in
his counsellors, is absolutely necessary ; for to suppose, after
their recent conduct, that they will abandon those principles
of action which have brought on us so many misfortunes, is
absurd. They have not in any way manifested such a change,
The administration which conducted the American war, was
found unfit to settle the peace; and yet Lord North, of whom
as a private man I never can speak but with respect and
esteem, had a most conciliating disposition, and never was
considered to be personally anxious to establish our dominion
over America, neither had he spoken with so much acrimony
of our enemies as has lately been the case. He might have
treated with more advantage than our present ministers, and
yet it was found necessary that he should resign.


The change of feeling towards the French must have been
very sudden in the right honourable gentleman ; for at the
time he was making pacific professions, he was sending an
expedition to the coast of France, which if it had succeeded,
would have compelled him to declare Louis XVIII. king.
Had the island of Noirmoutier been taken in the name of
Louis XVIII. in whose name it was summoned by a British
officer, how could ministers have recognized the republic?
It appears, then, that their conversion is very sudden, and
sudden conversions are most suspicious. It is but too mani-
fest, that they never were sincerely desirous of negociating a
peace with the French republic. They might, indeed, draw
up a paper with the ingenuity of special pleaders, that might
serve as a declaration in a court of law, but which from its
ambiguous mode of expression, could not satisfy a more liberaljudgment of the sincerity of their wishes for peace. I do not
wish to visit the sins of the father upon the son ; I do not
wish that the descendants of the house of Bourbon should
be treated in the manner in which they treated the unfortu


-nate house of Stuart; but if your pacific offers were sincere)
you should have disowned Louis . XVIII. as King of France.
You should have recalled Lord Macartnev, who was sent as
ambassador to him, anti avowed that you made war on France
as a republic, and consequently that you recognized it as
such. It would have been a becoming act of justice in yo


96.] CONDUCT or THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 1 99
„, have declared this to Louis XVIII.; and it would have
been an act of prudence to yourselves, with a view of con-
„incing the directory of the sincerity of the change in your
sentiments; it would have freed the unfortunate emigrants
from all farther suspense respecting their fate, and would
have convinced the French government of your actual solici-


tude,l here
forr peace.


And must beg pardon of the House, for entering
into a short digression on the double dealing that has been
used towards the unfortunate emigrants from France, and
observe, that it a most consoling circumstance to me, that not
one of them owes the smallest atom of his misfortunes to any
thing I ever did or said. It was natural that those unhappy
men, when they heard that the estates of Englishmen were
insecure, unless the estates of the emigrants were restored ;
when they heard that we could not make peace with the re-
publicans, without laying the head of our sovereign on the
block ; when they heard that Great Britain was fighting for
her very existence; it was natural for them to' say, we may
safely risk ourselves in the same bark that carries Cmsar ; we
may venture our fortunes along with that of the British empire.
With these opinions, which they imbibed from speeches de-
livered in this House, the royalists had been drawn from all
parts of France, fully persuaded that they would be cordially
received here. But how have they been duped with ambi-
guous declarations, made purposely to deceive them into an
idea that they were to fight for the restoration of the French
monarchy, and of their own property ; when, in fact, they
were only set on to fight for the fluctuating views of ministers,
who never regarded their personal welfare, or the cause they
wished to support, as an object of real importance ! In this
manner many of the emigrants have been seduced to their.
ruin, and it would be but an act of justice to tell them we arc
not now fighting for the restoration of the French monarchy,
lye are not now fighting for the restoration of your property


our only object now is, to regain the territories we have
lost — we are -fighting only about the conditions of peace.
The question now is, whether ministers have really changed
their sentiments respecting the origin and objects of the war.
If they have, they should prove it by some unequivocal act or
declaration. If they have 'not, as I suspect is the case, then this
House should entreat his majesty to change his councils. I
know it will be said, ” What ! you have been speaking three
/lours, and all for the purpose of procuring a change of minis-
ters, because such a change might be advantageous to yourself."
To this I can only answer, that I never will take a part in the
government, till the principles upon which the present war has


0 4




200 MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE [May 10.


been made, till the principles upon which our domestic politics
-have been conducted during its continuance, have been cow,
pletely renounced and abandoned; for it is to them that we me
trace the source of all the evils with which we are now afilich .
No minister who commenced and carried on a war, ever made zin
advantageous peace; but if the present ministers expect to prove
an exception to this rule, they should shew that they are seriously
convinced of their past errors; they should renounce the prin-
ciples on which they have acted, before they can hope to put
an end, with safety and honour, to a war which they have
conducted with so much rancour and with so little success.
It has been said, let us persevere a little longer, and we shall
ultimately succeed ; mandlits are as much depreciated now, as
assignats were formerly; France cannot, therefore, continue
the contest long. In answer to this I will only say, look at
the effects of the war upon ourselves, and consider well how
long we shall be enabled to carry it on. Between fifty and
sixty thousand men have already been sent to the West Indies;
the mortality has been great among them, and the advantages
comparatively trifling, for if we have taken Martinique — St.
Vincent's and Grenada are laid waste. The Dutch posses-
sions, it is supposed, will form our chief indemnity at the
peace. I will say little as to the fairness of taking these from


. a nation, to preserve the territory of which we professedly
went to war. I am told, ministers do not now wish the
Stadtholder to be restored ; but I will only remark, that our
extensive colonies in different quarters are already a great
incumbrance to us in time of war; they exhaust our strength,
and if our maritime force shall ever be


• equally opposed by a
hostile power, their possession will be very precarious.


We have, Sir, completely tailed in all the objects for which
the war was commenced. Holland is lost, the King of France
exiled, and the aggrandizement and power of the French
republic


_ is more alarming than ever. Of our allies, the King
of Prussia, who was the first to treat with the French, has
sustained the least injury ; the King of Spain has been forced to
make peace, in order to save his dominions ; and the King of
Sardinia is now in the same predicament,- compelled, for his
own safety, to accept such terms as the directory may cause to
grant. The fate of this monarch, whose good faith was so
loudly extolled in a late debate, who was termed the very pat-
tern of fidelity, most forcibly and unequivocally demonstrates,
that in proportion as every ally of this country, in the present
contest, has been a pattern of fidelity, he has also been an
example of misfortune. The Empress of Russia has indeed
Buffered nothing. It is impossible not to see, that her only
object in the alliance was to plunder


. Poland; in which she


,796.] CONDUCT Or' THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 20I


has been collaterally supported by England. This is a mortal
blow to another professed object of the war, the balance of


Will any man believe that the avowed object of thepower.
the destruction of jacobinism in Poland, was the


real cause of dividing that unfortunate country ? And will
any man contend that England and France united, might not
have prevented that transaction, and by that means preserved
the balance of power in Europe ? But Poland was abandoned
to its fate, suffered to be sacrificed, annihilated, destroyed, for
the sake of those absurd and vicious principles, which govern
the policy of ministers, and which have involved us in the
present war. These principles must now be deserted. If the
country is to be saved, we must retrace our steps ; that is the
only course which presents any hope of an effectual cure for
the evil. All other remedies arc mere palliatives, which must
rather prove mischievous than useful. What I recommend
therefore is a complete change of system. Mr. Fox concluded
a speech which lasted nearly four hours by moving,


" That an humble address be presented to his majesty, most
humbly to offer to his royal consideration, that judgment which
his faithful Commons have formed, and now deem it their duty to
declare, concerning the conduct of his ministers in the commence
went, and during the progress, of the present unfortunate war.
As long as it was possible for us to doubt from what source the
national distresses had arisen, we have, in times of difficulty and
peril, thought ourselves bound to strengthen his majesty's govern-
ment, for the protection of his subjects, by our confidence and
support : but our duties, as his majesty's counsellors, and as the
representatives of his people, will no longer permit us to dissem-
ble our deliberate and determined opinion, that the distress, dif-
ficulty, and peril, to which this country is now subjected, have
arisen from the misconduct of the king's ministers ; and are likely
to subsist, and to increase, as long as the same principles, which
have hitherto guided these ministers, shall continue to prevail in
the counsels of Great Britain.


" It is painful to us to remind his majesty of the situation of his
dominions at the beginning of this war, and of the high degree
9E prosperity to which the skill and industry of his subjects
bad, under the safeguard of a free constitution, raised the British
empire, since it can only fill his mind with the melancholy recol-
lection of prosperity abused, and of opportunities of securing per-
manent advantages wantonly rejected. Nor shall we presume to
wound his majesty's benevolence by dwelling on the fortunate con-
sequences which might have arisen from the mediation of GreatBritain between the powers then at war, which might have en-
sured the permanence of our prosperity, while it preserved all
Europe from the calamities which it has since endured ; a media-
l ion which this kingdom was so well fitted to carry on with vigour
and dignity by its power, its character, and the nature of its go-




I


202
MIS. FOX'S MOTION ON THE L may i


vernment, happily removed at an equal distance from the contend,
ing extremes of licentiousness and tyranny.


" From this neutral and impartial system of policy, his majesty's
ministers were induced to depart, by certain measures of the
French government, of which they complained as injurious and hos-
tile to this country. With what justice these complaints were made.
we are not now called upon to determine, since it cannot be pre.
tended that the measures of France were of such a nature as to
preclude the possibility of adjustment by negociation ; and it is
impossible to deny, that the power which shuts up the channel of
accommodation must ever be the, real aggressor in war. To reject
negociation is to determine on hostilities ; and whatever may have
been the nature of the points in question between us and France,
we cannot but pronounce the refusal of such an authorised com-
munication with that country, as might have amicably terminated
the dispute, to be the true and immediate cause of the ruptare
which followed. Nor can we fin-bear to remark, that the pretences,
under which his majesty's ministers then haughtily refused such
authorized communication, have been sufficiently exposed, by
their own conduct, in since submitting to a similar intercourse with
the same government.


" The misguided policy, which thus rendered the war inevitable,
appears to have actuated the ministers in their determination to
continue it at all hazards. At the same time we cannot but ob-
serve, that the . obstinacy with which they have adhered to their
desperate system is not more remarkable than their versatility in
the pretexts upon which they, have justified it. At one period the
strength, at another the weakness, of the enemy, have been urged
as motives for continuing the war : the successes as well as defeats
of the allies have contributed only to prolong the contest ; and
hope and despair have equally served to involve us still deeper
in the horrors of war, and to entail upon us an endless train of
calamities.


" After the original, professed, objects had been obtained, by
the expulsion of the French armies from the territories of Holland
and the Austrian Netherlands, we find his majesty's ministers in-
fluenced either by arrogance or by infatuated ambition and vain
hope of conquests, which, if realized, could never compensate to
the nation for the blood and treasure by which they must be ob-
tained : rejecting, unheard, the overtures made by the executive
council of France, at a period when the circumstances were so
eminently favourable to his majesty and his allies, that there is every
reason to suppose that a negociation, commenced at such a junc-
ture, must have terminated in an honourable and advantageous
peace. To the prospects arising from such an opportunity they
preferred a blind and obstinate perseverance in a war, which could
scarce have any remaining object but the unjustifiable purpose Of
imposing upon France a government disapproved of by the inhabi


-tants of that country. And such was the infatuation of these nu
-nisters, that, far from being able to frame a wise and comprehen•


sive system of policy, they even rejected the few advantages that
belonged to their own unfortunate scheme. The general ex15t°


1 796. CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 203


ice of a design to interpose in the internal government of France
es;.as too manifest not to rouse into active hostility the national zeal
of that people; but their particular projbcts were too equivocal to
attract the confidence, or procure the co-operation, of those
Frenchmen who were aisaffected to the then government of their
country. The nature of these plans was too clear not to provoke
awn:lidab le enemies, but their extent was too ambiguous to conci-
liate useful friends.


"We beg leave farther to represent to your majesty, that at sub-
sequent periods, your ministers have suffered the most favourable
opportunities to escape of obtaining an honourable and advantage-
ous pacification : they did not avail themselves, as it was their duty
to have done, of the unbroken strength of the great confederacy
which had been formed against France, for the purpose of giving
effect to overtures for negociation they saw the secession of seve-
ral powerful states from that confederacy ; they suffered it to dis-
solve without an effcbrt for the attainment of a general pacification :
they loaded their country with the odium of having 6enuaged with
the most questionable views, without availing themselves of that
combination for procuring favourable conditions of peace. That,
from this fatal neglect, the progress of hostilities has only served
to establish the evils which might certainly have been avoided by
negociation, but which are now confirmed by the events of the war.
We have felt that the unjustifiable and impracticable attempts to
establish royalty in France, by force, has only proved fatal to its
unfortunate supporters. We have seen, with regret, the subju-
gation of Holland and the aggrandisement of the French republic ;
and we have to lament the alteration in the state of Europe, not
only from the successes of the French, but from the formidable ac-
quisition of some of the allied powers on the side of Poland ; ac-
quisitions alarming from their magnitude, but still more so from
the manner in which they have been made: so fatally has this war
operated to destroy, in every part of Europe, that balance of
power for the support of which it was undertaken, and to extend
those evils which it was its professed object to avert.


"Most cordially, therefore, did we assure his majesty, this his
faithful Commons heard with the sincerest satisfaction, his majesty's
most gracious message of the 8th of December, wherein his ma-
jesty acquaints them that the crisis, which was depending at the
commencement of the present session, had led to such an order of
things as would induce his majesty to meet any disposition to nego-
elation, on the part of the enemy, with an earnest desire to give it
the fullest and speediest effect, and to conclude a general treaty of
Peace whenever it could be effected on just and suitable terms for
himself


and his allies. That from this gracious communication,
they were led to hope for a speedy termination to this most dis-
astrous contest ; but that, with surprize and sorrow, they have
now reason to apprehend that three months were suffered to elapse
before 'any steps were taken towards a negociation, or any over-
tures made by his majesty's servants.


" With equal surprize and concern they have observed, when alair and open conduct was so peculiarly incumbent on his ma-




204
MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE


[May to.


j esty's ministers, considering the prejudices and suspicions whichtheir previous conduct must have excited in the minds of the French,
that, instead of acting in that open and manly manner which be-
came the wisdom, the character, and dignity, of the British nation,
they adopted a mode of proceeding calulated rather to excite sus,
picion than to inspire confidence in the enemy. Every expres,
lion which might be construed into an acknowledgment of the
French republic, or even an allusion to its forms, was studiously
avoided ; and the minister, through whom this overture was made,
Was, in a most unprecedented manner, instructed to declare,
that he had no authority to enter into any negociation or dis-
cussion relative to the objects of the proposed treaty.


" That it is with pain we reflect, that the alacrity of his majesty's
ministers in apparently breaking off this negociation, as well as the
strange and unusual manner in which it was announced to the mi-
nisters of the various powers of Europe, affords a very unfavour-
able comment on their reluctance in entering upon it, and is cal-
culated to make the most injurious impression respecting their
sincerity, on the people of France.


" On a review of so many instances of gross and flagrant mis-
conduct, proceeding from the same pernicious principles, and di-
rected with incorrigible obstinacy to the same mischievous ends,
we deem ourselves bound in duty to his majesty, and to our con-
stituents, to declare, that we see no rational hope of redeeming
the affairs of the kingdom, but by the adoption of a system radi-
cally and fundamentally different from that which has produced
our present calamities.


" Until his majesty's ministers shall, from a real conviction of
past errors, appear inclined to regulate their conduct upon such a
system, we can neither give any credit to the sincerity of their
professions of a wish for peace, nor repose any confidence in their
capacity for conducting a negociation to a prosperous issue.
Odious as they are to an enemy, who must still believe them
secretly to cherish those unprincipled and chimerical projects,
which they have been compelled in public to disavow, contemptible
in the eyes of all Europe, from the display of insincerity and in-
capacity which has marked their conduct, our only hopes rest on
his majesty's royal wisdom and unquestioned affection for his
people, that he will be graciously pleased to adopt maxims of
policy more suited to the circumstances of the times than those
by which his ministers appear to have been governed, and to
direct his servants to take measures, which, by differing essen-
tially, as well in their tendency as in the principle upon which
they • are founded, from those which have hitherto marked their
conduct, may give this country some reasonable hope, at no
very distant period, of the establishment of a peace, suitable to
the interests' of Great Britain, and likely to preserve the tran-
quillity of Europe."


Mr. Pitt answered. Mr. Fox at great length ; after which,


Mr. Fox said, that though he felt it somewhat unreasonable
again to trespass upon the patience of the House, by claim`


i6
ai


:96.] CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
205


illg
the usual privilege of reply, yet, at this period of the ses-


sion and of the parliament, he was so anxious to have his
sentiments fairly understood, that he would avail himself of
In indulgence which he would not otherwise have required,
and make a few observations on the speech of the right ho-
nourable gentleman. At the beginning of his speech the right
honourable gentleman seemed to dwell, with some degree of


upon an imputed inconsistency which he affected to
in his arguments on a former occasion, when Turkey


xs,a


endangered by the Empress of Russia, and, in the present
discover


elfle{lii.,a


instance, with respect to the recent dismemberment of Poland.
But, was the infamous partition of Poland in any respect to
be compared with the circumstances of Turkey at the period
alluded to? The Turks, after an unprovoked aggression,
were humbled by the power of the empress, and he had re-
probated


the idea of the arrogant interference of this country
to prevent her from obtaining that indemnification to which
she was entitled. He had said, that if the concurrence of
France, in a. situation to act with effect, could have been ob-
tained, he would have advised our interposition to prevent
that horrible injustice, the infamous partition of Poland ; a
measure which would have been justified by a due regard to the
balance of Europe. The right honourable gentleman how-
ever seemed to consider the balance of power as very little
affected, because the division which took place among the
three different states concerned in the transaction was so equal
as to preserve that relation of strength which they mutually
held to one another. This argument, upon its own principle,
could only be good, if the division had been so exact al-to
preserve the proportion, not in any three, but in all the
states of Europe, by assigning a correspondent share to each.
But when a minister went so far as to overlook the injus-
tice of a few


ts ilea o


wealth rnnd d


reat


was


in swallowing up the possessions&iiatti Id destroying the independence of the little surroundino
.., zpstates, and to sanction that robbery- which kings iniomightfina


y to practise, merely because the plunder was equally
divided amongst the guilty, there was an end at once of the


famy
balance of Europe. But what was the injustice and the in-


of this partition, how formidable the danger to thebalance of Europe, when it was considered that the popu-
onourable as equal to that of this country, and its


natural n aa resources great and important ! It was,
hindeeds a terrible principle, which was advanced by the


country


gentleman, that (no matter for this injustice) thebalance of power remains the same, as those states, who have
"`'Ided the plunder, have_ maintained in this new accession




206 RR. EON'S MOTION ON THE [May Io.
the proportion of strength they previously held to one
another.


With regard to what had been called his special pleading
on the subject of the communication between the French
government and certain societies in this country, he would
still ask, how it was possible for us, without acknowledf,
ing the French republic then established, to found any 1110',
ceedings upon those communications, or to take any offence
at the conduct pursued by the French, without referring
it to the government, and stating it as a ground of dissa-
tisfaction? It was certainly true, that he did consider the
minister, in 1792, as sincere in his wish for the continuance
of peace. The right honourable gentleman had said, that
this confession supported the presumption that ministers
bad not gone to war precipitately. 'What he meant to
show, however, was, that the general effects of the Revo-
lution in France were not the causes of the war; for, at the time
when ministers expressed pacific intentions and hopes, many
of the events so much insisted upon, had taken place, and he
wished to confine the real causes to the three points which he
had mentioned. The right honourable gentleman said, that
at the beginning of the war the success was such as to justify
the hopes they entertained. This was precisely what he had
intended to illustrate, that, whether good or bad success oc-
curred, the argument for the continuance of the war derived
equal support with ministers from either event. At the end of
1793, it was said, that proposals for negotiation would have
been humiliating, and would have produced an offer of terms,
which it would have been disgraceful to accept. But did the
right honourable gentleman recollect the language he held,
and even announced from the throne, with regard to the events
of 1793, when he said that the campaign had been as brilliant
as could have been expected, and equal to the most glorious
campaigns of the war of 1763 ? The support of monarchy in
France was justified as a desirable object of policy for the
purpose of dividing the French, and as a means of promoting
the security of this country. On the first point he presumed
to differ, and he considered the support held out by thus
country to monarchy in France as one of the causes of that
union which had prevailed among the French. -With regard
to security, it was a vague, indefinite object, nor was it easY
to know to what it related. He understood, that at the col'
mencement of the war, the establishment of monarchy OS
left out of the question ; nothing but atonement and satisfac'
tion were the topics insisted upon, arid it could only be fr°',11
the existing government that this satisfaction could be obtainen'
and for which purpose it was also necessary that the govern'


/796.]


CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 207


went should be recognized. With regard to La Fayette, he
,vas sorry that the right honourable gentleman, who found
Himself obliged so often to interfere in continental affairs, on
an occasion like this, possessed so little influence. But what
could he say with respect to the treatment experienced by
I. Alexander Lameth in this country ? The right honourable


gentleman said, that whatever might have been the conduct
of ministers, this House was not the place where he was to give
nay explanation. He had execrated the bill under which
ministers had acted, on its first introduction"', and had fore-
told the abuses that would be committed, which lie now found
to be realized. But it was then said, that the bill inferred a
responsibility on ministers for their conduct under it ; if so,
ministers had incurred responsibility, and this was the proper
place to inquire into the subject. He asked, then, for what


M. Alexander Lameth was sent away ? That gentleman
had been a constitutionalist, many of whom were employed by
reason ei


us, and those alone were treated with harshness, who would not
draw their swords against their native country. If any man
was deserving of particular respect and attention, it was the
man who had been the zealous assertor of limited monarchy,
who had been thrown unjustly into a Prussian dungeon, and
his health greatly impaired ; and yet he was marked out to
Europe as the severest victim of our persecution, and as an ex-
ample to those who should refuse to fight against their country.
It was said, that the effect of the motion was humiliating —
but for whom ? Not for-the country, which he wished to se-
parate from ministers as much as possible, but for ministers
alone. But it was said, that the war had been approved by par-
liament, and sanctioned by repeated votes. But did the right.
honourable gentleman recollect, that in 1782, when the Ameri-
can war drew near a conclusion, it too had been sanctioned by
repeated votes, and supported by very great majorities? In the
course of his reading that morning, lie had found in the works
of his deceased friend Mr. Gibbon, an observation, that during
that war the sense of the people without doors, which had ori-
ginally been favourable to it, began to turn ; yet the Houle
of Commons followed the change of public opinion, hod passi-
bus CC quis, —a remark, historical with regard to the past,
Which might have been prophetic with regard to the present.


By submitting his present propositions, he wished to give
the people of this country an opportunity of rescuing their
character from any share in the guilt which ministers had in-
curred. The right honourable gentleman had talked:of the


See Mr. Fox's Speeches on the Alien Bill, Vol, v. p. r.





2 o 8 .MR. FOX'S MOTION, &C. [May. :'o;


derangement of the French finances ; but if the right honour.
able gentleman reasoned from cause to effect, might notlie
reason from effect to cause, and, from the astonishing vigour
and success of the military operations of the French, conclude
that their finances either had not been deranged in the degree
alleged, or were now re-established ? It was said, that no an.
theistic accounts. were received. of the late successes ; but, he
believed, little doubt could be entertained of their truth.
It was little doubtful that the French had an army of . o,000
men in Italy, and he was persuaded, that when the Ger.
man accounts, on which the right honourable gentleman
relied so much, arrived, the army of the French would pro.
bably be stated to be more numerous. It was urged, that for-
merly it had been admitted by opposition, that if prop°.
sitions of peace should be made, and not accepted, the elfect
would be to divide the French, and unite the people of
this country. But surely it was understood, when this ob-
servation was made, that proposals were to be made in such
a way as to have a fair chance of success.


•As to what the right honourable gentleman had said of
Mr. Wickham's communication, he had made the best defence
of the conduct of the French; for was it to be expected that
any attention would he paid to a man who had no sanction
from the allies with whom we were connected, nor any autho-
rity to make specific proposals; or would the right honourable
gentleman have caused the correspondence with Mr. Wick7
ham, which was of a private nature, to be published, or have
published any private communications that might have been
made from the French, had he been serious in his desire of
pacification ? With regard to terms, certainly sonic atten-
tion should have been paid to the prejudices of the French.
If the right honourable gentleman reprobated the'conduct of
France, in not coining forward with proposals, why did he
not avoid the conduct which he considered to be presump-
tuous in them ? There might be reasons of policy which de-
termined the French to adhere in appearance to the principle
of annexation of the conquered provinces, as there the war was
to be carried on, and it night be prudent to consult the in-
clinations of the inhabitants of those provinces. This he
thought probable, but he stated it only from conjecture. He
certainly considered the recognition of the French republic
as of the last importance, and much more necessary as a pre"
liminary than the conditional recognition of America, duriuhr
the last war. Though the French, acknowledged by almost all
Europe, and triumphant in their military career, might not
condescend to complain. of the circumstance of not being r e


-cognized they.would feel and resent the indignity. II the




ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
209/796.]


French had talked of the British nation, without any notice
of his majesty or the government, would not the right ho-
nourable gentleman have dwelt on this as a proof of their
insincerity in their desire of peace ? Since tile French had
bestowed upon the various republics of Genoa, Venice, Berne,
8:e. their titles of Magnifique Doge, &c. they had been upon
better terms with these states. The French, therefore, felt
from his conduct, that the minister discovered no serious in-
clination for peace. Much as he disliked the system of an-
nexation which the French professed, still he thought that


a


fair chance had not been given to -any proposals for nego-
ciation. He wished the House to come to some resolution
which would bring forward a different system of measures.
Of the finances he had said little. He reprobated the prac-
tice of comparing the state of our finances with tile exhausted ,
situation of the enemy, and thereby deriving arguments for
perseverance. He was sensible that our resources were great,
and he was happy to consider them in that light; but the
efirts which the French had made, should convince us that
their resources were not exhausted.


The House then divided:
Tellers.
Tellers.


s


yE s IVIr. Whitbread /
42. ------ NOES


r. Sargent
Smyth 1


Jur.I Gen. TarletonSo it passed in the negative.


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF
THE SESSION.


October 6.


THE king opened the first session of the new parliament with
the following speech to both Houses :




" My Lords, and Gentlemen ; it is a peculiar satisfaction to me,thepresent
conjuncture of affairs, to recur to your advice, afterLie recent opportunity which has been given for collecting the


sense of my people, engaged in a difficult and- arduous contest,rer the preservation of all that is most dear to us. — I have omittedihlo endeavours for setting on foot negociations to restore peace toturope
p
, and to secure for the future the general tranqulillity.


el)ei
The Steps which I have taken for this purpose have at ength


oleL.d .e way to an immediate and direct negotiation, the issue,
' Which must either produce the desirable end of a just, honour-




210 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 6.


able, and solid peace for us, and for our allies, or must prove, be-
yond dispute, to what cause alone the prolongation of the ealanii.
ties of war must be ascribed. — I shall immediately send a person
to Paris with full powers to treat for• this object, and it is my aux.
ions wish that this measure may lead to the restoration of general
peace : but you must be sensible that nothing can so much contri.
bute to give effect to this desire, as your manifesting that we
possess, both the determination and the resources to oppose,
with increased activity and energy, the farther efforts with
which we may have to contend.— You will feel this peculiarly ne-
cessary at a moment when the enemy has openly manifested the
intention of attempting a descent on these kingdoms. It cannot
be doubted what would be the issue of such an enterprise ; but it
befits your wisdom to neglect no precautions that may either pre.
elude the attempt, or secure the speediest means of turning it to
the confusion and ruin of the enemy.— In reviewing the events of
the year, you will have observed that, by the skill and. exertions
of my navy, our extensive and increasing commerce has been pro-
tected to a degree almost beyond example, and the fleets of the
enemy have, for the greatest part of the year, been blocked up in
their own ports. --The operations in the East and West Indies
have been highly honourable to the British arms, and productive
of great national advantage; and the valour and good conduct of
my forces both by sea and land, have been eminently conspicuous..
— The fortune of war on the continent has been more various,
and the progress of the French armies threatened, at one period,
the utmost danger to all Europe; but from the honourable and
dignified perseverance of my ally the emperor, and from the intre-
pidity, discipline, and invincible spirit of the Austrian forces, un-
der the auspicious conduct of the Archduke Charles, such a turn
has lately been given to the course of the war, as may inspire a
well-grounded confidence that the final result of' the campaign will
prove more disastrous to the enemy ,than its commencement and
progress for a time were favourable to their hopes.— The appa-
rently hostile dispositions and conduct of the court of Madrid
have led to discussions of which I am not yet enabled to acquaint
you with the final result ; but I am confident that whatever may be
their issue, I shall have given to Europe a farther proof of my
moderation and forbearance ; and " I can have no doubt of your
determination to defend, against every aggression, the dignity,
rights, and interests of the British empire.


" Gentlemen of the House of Commons ; I rely on your zeal
and public spirit for such supplies as you may think necessary for
the service of the year. It is a great satisfaction to me to ob-
serve that, notwithstanding the temporary embarrassments which
have been experienced, the state of the commerce, manufactures,
and revenue of the country, proves the real extent and solidity 01
our resources, and furnishes you such means as must be equal 1°
any exertions which the present crisis may require.


" My Lords, and Gentlemen ; the distresses which were in
the last year experienced from the scarcity of corn are now, by. Ole
blessing of God, happily removed, and an abundant harvest afford


6


i 796.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
2 I I


the pleasing prospect of relief in that important article to the la-


British
community. Our internal tranquillity has


eirbed. The general attachment of my people
abiosourcholgra classess


undisturbed.
i its];


t
to the ish constitution has appeared on every occasion, and
the endeavours of those who wished to introduce anarchy and con-
fusion into this country, have been repressed by the energy and
wisdom of the laws. — To defeat all the designs of our enemies, to
restore to my people the blessings of asecure and honourable peace,
to maintain inviolate their religion, laws, and liberty, and to deliver
down unimpaired to the latest posterity, the glory and happiness
of these kingdoms, is the constant wish of my heart, and the uni-
form end of all my actions. In every measure that can conduce to
these objects, I am confident of receiving the firm, zealous, and
affectionate support of my parliament."—After an address in
answer to the speech had been moved by Lord Morpeth, and
seconded by Sir William Lowther,


Mr. Fox rose, and spoke to the following effect — It is
not, Sir, my intention to take up much of your time in what
I have to offer to the House on the present occasion ; but if I
were to give a silent vote upon the motion which has just been
made, I apprehend that my conduct might be subject to mis-
construction. I know that it may undoubtedly be considered
as presumption in an individual to take up any portion of the
attention of the House, merely to obviate the possibility of
misinterpretation, yet I feel that I should not do justice to my
own principles, if I were to sniffer the question to pass under
a silent vote. In the first place, then, the striking feature of
the speech is — that his majesty has been at length advised to
do what it has fallen to my lot to advise his majesty's mini-
sters to do repeatedly for the last three years, namely, to
open a negotiation; this, which is the leading feature of the
speech, ought undoubtedly to reconcile me to the address
which has been moved, and I should be happy if it contained


. no other features of a -less pleasing inspect, and that I could
have given my entire approbation to every part of the address.
Of that striking feature I most cordially and highly approve.


cannot forget how often I have advised this measure, nor
flow often, without success, I have pressed it upon ministers;but h


owever I may lament that the counsel was not taken
before a hundred millions of money had been spent, and thou-
sands of lives devoted to the cruel contest, yet it must drawfrom




me my warm approbation now that it has been followed.
‘1,-Ie who thought that the war was originally unnecessary, andat every moment since its commencement was a proper mo-
t,


il


Loi ent for beginning a negotiation for peace, cannot object to
measure which his majesty has announced that he hasbeen advised to take in the present moment. I will not sayo


Ile word about the particular and the fit time for such a
P 2





"212 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 6,
measure, all times appearing to me to be equally wise and
salutary for endeavouring to restore to the people the blessings
of peace. Nor will I recollect, much less retaliate, the per,
sonal invectives that were thrown out against myself; that an
attempt to negociate with such a people, was to lay his majesty's
crown at their feet, and that it was a degradation of the ho.
nour and dignity of Great Britain; that to propose to- open
a negociation was, in fact, to sue for peace ; and that such


language of the last parliament, and such was tliteua,iiltlinci
conduct vaswas neither dignified nor political. Such was the


contentsion made on the advice which I t en gave.
myself with repeating what I then said, that " to propose
negociation is not to sue for peace." It is at every moment




b •dignified and proper to strive to restore the blessings of peace,
and it is certainly one thing to propose a negociation in which
terms arc to be fairly and manfully discussed, and another to
sue to your enemy for peace. He who objects to this dis•
tinction is not animated by that feeling which ought ever to
be uppermost in the mind of a statesman — an anxious desire
of shortening the calamity of war, and paving the way, by
every practicable means to that desirable end. He ought,
therefore, to make it manifest by his conduct, that no career
of conquest and no reverse of fortune, can divert him from
that single object — a negociation for peace in preference
to any other object. I repeat, therefore, that I most per-
fectly and entirely approve of the present measure, and will
not now mix my assent to that part of the address, with any
observation on the tardy and protracted manner in which it
has at length been resolved upon.


And thus approving of the principal feature of the address,
I am extremely unwilling to oppose any other part of it, and
wish that it had been so worded as to have entitled it to the
perfect unanimity of the whole house. There are some ex-
pressions, however, of which I must take notice, and I 01
do so rather with the intention of explaining the vote which
I shall give, than of moving any thing upon them. And
first, in the beginning of the speech there is an express
sion that his majesty has " omitted no endeavours" to open eine
gociation ; now, unless by the words " omitted no endeavours,
it is meant to say that every endeavour has been used since
the close of the last parliament, we ought not to agree to the
expression ; for undoubtedly ministers cannot expect that
gentlemen, who like myself; objected so frequently to !het/
refusal to exert any effort at all, should now acquiesce 10
assertion that they had used every endeavour to bring about
a negociation. Unless, therefore, it is meant to allude to the
endeavours which his majesty has made since the close °'


t


ADDRESS ON TILE KING'S SPEECH.
2,13.11796'1 RES


the last parliament, endeavours which I am willing to take
upon trust, I desire that it may be clearly understood that I
ain not to be precluded by my vote this night from animal-


upon his majesty's ministers for their former want of
'erte]rtlt'eilgavours to bring about a negociation for peace.


There is much, Sir, that deserves praise in the construc-
tion of the present speech. Ministers have omitted the words
to which they have been so bigotted heretofore, of the war-
having been undertaken for " the cause of religion, humanity,
and social order," words calculated only to inflame and to
exasperate the two nations against each other, and to set the
probability of peace at a greater distance ; neither have
they asserted their constant and unfounded phrase, that "the
war was just and necessary." They have acted wisely in thus
abstaining from intemperate language; for surely at a time
when they are about to negociate for a peace, it would have
been peculiarly ill-judged and unseasonable, to have made use
of language repulsive and bitter to the people with whom you.
had to treat; nor would it have been wise to introduce
words calculated to prevent unanimity in this House, upon
the course which his majesty has been slowly advised to
pursue; since with respect to the necessity of the war, and
all the jargon of epithets that have been applied to it, there
must always continue to be a fundamental difference of
opinion.


There are other parts of the speech, which, perhaps, de-
mand a little explanation, and which if we pass over for the
time, it is to be understood that we are left at full liberty to
enquire and to question the assertions hereafter; such is thedeclaration of the flourishing state of our manufactures, trade,
and commerce. I must take this upon trust. I cannot object
to the assertion of a fact, the proofs of which I have not
before me. We shalt soon have the means of knowing, upon
better authority than mere assertion, the state of the country ;
and I trust it will turn out to be prosperous and flourishing.
VIII' agreeing to the assertion in the mean time, must not be
construed to preclude us from enquiry, much less to involve


111
giving


it:igs:ut. When I hear it said, that by the flourishing state
of our manufactures, .trade, and commerce, our resources aretehqu pllboat rthe crisis in which we are involved, I must hesitate


credit to an assertion which is so little supported by
lc appearance of things. I must think, when I look


at the price of the general funds of the country, the state of
th e transferable securities of government, the monstrousdiscounts upon the enormous quantity of paper which theyhay •


e issued, together with the daily conferences of which weh
ear for schemes to relieve the pecuniary embarrassments of


P 3




214
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Oct.


trade, I must think, I say, that our resources are in a less
favourable state than his majesty's ministers have chosen to
make us believe they are; and when the question comes
hereafter fairly before us, then, and not now, will be the
proper moment for ascertaining the truth of this important
fact, and of making the proper declaration thereon.


There is one other part of the address, I believe it is nearly,
if not the concluding sentence, upon which I cannot forbear
to make some observations; it is that part of it in which we
are made to rejoice in the general tranquillity of the country;
a sentiment in which I heartily concur, for tranquillity at all
times is a most desirable thing; but when we proceed farther
and hear this tranquillity ascribed to the wisdom and energy
of' the laws, insinuating that the laws which were passed in
the last session of the last parliament have secured to us this
tranquillity, and triumphed over anarchy and confusion, I
must enter my solemn protest against the whole of this asser-
tion, and against all such assertions. I have never been
convinced that there were any such persons in this country,
or at least that there were any number of persons in this
country desirous of anarchy and confusion, worthy of the
attention of' his majesty, or of this House ; I therefore must
solemnly protest against the insinuation, that it is to the
energy of those laws that we are indebted for the general
tranquillity that is said to have reigned. General tranquillity
arising out of the obedience which a rational people cheer-
fully pay to good Jaws, must always be a subject of real re-joicing; but, if it is meant to be said, that general tranquillityleas sprung out of the two laws of the last session of the last
parliament —laws which ought to be the object of our terror
and abhorrence, and which are calculated to excite these
feelings I cannot rejoice in any such tranquillity. Should I
be asked, have these laws produced tranquillity ? I answer,
No : it is not in the nature of such laws to produce tran-
quillity. Such laws may produce a forced quiet, which I
consider as a real alarm. Do we rejoice in such a tranquillity
where discussion is to be stifled, and men are to brood Iii
secret over the grievances which they feel ? No : such a tran-
quillity alarms me more than tumult. It is a tranquillity
which every man who loves freedom ought to see with pain


every man who loves order ought to see with tarron
Sir, to the constitution no man can feel a stronger attac h


-merit than myself; but I will not sport with the word con-
stitution; I will not use the word without explaining h : InY
attachment is to the constitution under which I was born--
under which I was bred --not to that of the last parliament'
which did more to maim and disfigure the ancient constitution


these
not join


1796.3 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
215


of England than any former parliament that
. ever sat withinl walls. Let me then, Sir, be clearly understood, that I


do
l in this insinuation of praise upon these abomin-


able


nor ascribe to them effects which I believe inap-
i Much as I wish for a general approbation of the


measure of endeavouring to procure peace to this country,
yet,r I should think it was purchased at too dear a rate, if
coupled with the approbation of these abhorrent laws; and
I have thought it my duty to say so much, that my vote may
net be misinterpreted into an acquiescence of this part of the


adIdia'ers.ns one, Sir, who thinks that the whole system of our
foreign politics, on which this war was undertaken, has been
faulty : I think also, that springing from the same source,
our whole system of domestic policy has been equally Entity;
They


have run on together in a parallel progress, and have
produced all the varied calamities which the people have
been doomed to suffer. I think, therefore, that whatever
may be the result of the negotiation which his majesty has
been at length advised to open, still it will be the duty of this
House seriously to re-consider the system which has produced
these evils, and to devise the means of preventing similar evils
in future. Peace, I own to be our great object, the first,
the chief thing to be pursued, and if possible, to be obtained :
but whether peace itself; without such a review and such a
change of system as may protect us in future from such
calamities, can restore us to our former condition, may be a
matter of doubt. Peace would certainly be beneficial, even
accompanied by the .bad system that has lately been intro-
duced. Peace might enable the people a little longer to
endure the evils with which that system is fraught ; it might
render it a little less pernicious on account of the advantages
which would flow from the revival of industry and trade ;
and therefore, at all events, let us have peace ; but let it be
thoroughly understood, that in the one case it will only be a
palliative, in the other a remedy. Peace certainly is the
chief object : it is preferable to any single object of policy ; but
whether peace will be effectual, if there be no change in
our domestic politics, may be a matter of doubt. Peace, there-
fore, shall have my cordial support, and every measure, like
the present, that leads to the desirable event, or that makes
an opening towards it, ought to be received with unanimity
by all descriptions of men.


The noble lord who moved the address with so much credit,
as to justify the House in entertaining the most promising
expectations of him, (and the noble lord well knows that it
must at all times afford me peculiar pleasure to see him diS-


P 4




216 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 6, 096.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 217
!F


•tinguish himself as he has done this evening,) — the noble
lord, I say, went a little farther than the speech from. the
throne, and in speaking of the proper period for negociation,
said, that " the present government of France, possessing sta.
biiity, possessing security, was a proper government to
gociate with." If you treat with a power, you ought to speak
with respect of that power. It is therefore that I approve of
the noble lord's sentiment; for it must have struck him, as
it must strike every sensible person, that if you mean to
negociate with the French government, you ought to speak
with respect and civility of the executive directory. I wish
that something more of this kind had been introduced into
the speech and the address. I do not mean to say that it was
necessary to state the stability and security of the present go.
vernment of France; but after all the jealousies and per-
sonalities that have been entertained, I should have expected
that his majesty would have told us to whom he was sending
a person; and if not to what government, at least to what
country. I should have expected, that if in our differences
with Holland, his majesty had sent a person on a mission to
the Hague, he would have made mention of the States
General. I did expect, therefore, that he would, in this
case, have told us, that he meant to send a person to the
executive directory of the French republic. I perceive gen-
tlemen on the other side of the House laugh at this expres-
sion. Are the members of the executive directory so obscure,
that if they had not been named, we should not have known
to whom we had been sending a person ? It is on this ac-
count that I thought the sentiment expressed by the noble
lord, respecting the present government of France, a proof
of his good sense. I know it may be said, that-men are apt
to be tenacious of their own opinions; that I have carried
the opinions I expressed during the American war into this
war, and that, as in the former instance, I supported the
recognition of American independence, I have in the latter
supported the recognition of the French republic. This may
be the case ; but I must contend, that it. is agreeable to
common sense, that when you enter into a negociation, there
may be points which are not of a nature to be insisted upon
by the power negotiated with, but which are calculated to
conciliate esteem, or if you will, to gratify the pride of such
a power ; that the executive directory are in such a situation
as to have their pride hurt by the omission of such points,: I
do not believe; but if I were negotiating with any gentleman,
I should certainly take care not to do any thing that might
seem to be a purposed omission, or a calling in question of
any of the titles and dignities by which ,such gentleman was


th


distinguished. If these things were omitted in the speech
from mere inadvertency, I shall be extremely glad to find that


ere is no other cause. But they are material in another


P0
of view. That the negociation may be successful, I


'sincerely hope; but if unfortunately it should not, much would
have been gained by an attention to these things; they would
have served to have convinced the people that the nature of
the contest was changed,. and that all ideas of restoring the




old government of France, or of interfering in the internal
affairs of that country, had been abandoned. I am sure that
this would have produced the greatest advantages, on the
supposition that the war was to be prolonged; upon this sub-
ject, however, I do not mean to press any alteration in the
address, because, if omitted by accident, I will not thwart
the prosecution of the main object by my remark; they might
refuse my amendment, though convinced of their own error,
from an unwillingness to be so corrected; and this is not the
moment in which I shall endeavour to throw any thing that
may be construed into a check upon their conduct. It is my
wish to leave them full powers; and therefore I mention the
circumstance without meaning to move any amendment in
consequence of .it.


On the subject of the situation of this country with respect
to Spain I shall say nothing, because his majesty has in-
thrmed us that he is not yet enabled to acquaint us with the
issue of the discussions that have been entered into with that
power. Ministers say that their conduct has been forbearing:
I hope it will be proved so. I hope, too, that the country
will learn by the severe lesson which the American.war, and
the present


- war, have afforded them, that moderation and
forbearance are the characteristics most fitting a great nation,
and


• the most consistent with true magnanimity. I own I
was sanguine enough to suppose that the American war had
taught them .


experience— I was mistaken ; a second lesson
of adversity was necessary ; a second lesson they have had,
and I trust it will prove effectual. On the differences with
tSbilini, I


wisdom.


shall, as I have before stated, say nothing; it is not


affbrds a proof of the short-sightedness of human w.


now the period to look back, a retrospect must come, but
not at present; yet the very apprehension of a war with Spain
is1:111 ei. f time when we entered into the war, Spain and Prussia
were our firmest allies. Now, however, we are to expect,


the war be 'continued, we are to have an enemy in
Of Prussia I hear nothing, but I may at least sup-


fp,roosie that we have no reason to expect any great assistance
- ,


n iatpower. It has been saki that experience may be
bought too dear; as we have paid so dear a price for it, let




21 8 ADDRESS ON THE RING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 6.


us at least have the benefits of it, and let us go to negotiation
with moderation and forbearance. Of the terms of peace I
purposely avoid saying any thing. I know the resources of
the country to be still great, and sure I am, that if the people
arc convinced that the ambition of France renders it Metes.
sary to employ force and to continue the war, those resources
will be afforded with the utmost readiness. What are likely
to be the terms of peace, I will not even conjecture. What
hitherto has been done can only be considered as an overture
towards that desirable object; but I have no difficulty in say.
ing, that we ought to negotiate in the spirit of great moder-
ation. By the spirit of great moderation, I do not mean that we
ought to accept degrading terms, but I 'will not hesitate to
say, that I should be inclined to find less fault with terms that
may be faulty on the side of moderation, than faulty from a
contrary principle.


With regard to the Austrian victories which make a topic
of animated exultation in his majesty's speech, it may cer-
tainly be right to rejoice in the gallantry they have displayed,
and the laurels they have recently acquired. No man ad-
mires their great military exertions more than I do; but let
it be recollected, that we arc called upon to rejoice on their
having recovered only a part of what was lost in this cam-
paign, and that it is not because they have reaped successes,
calculated to obtain what ministers themselves originally stated
the object of the war to be, but because they have saved the
house of Austria from the utter destruction with which it
was threatened ; while we rejoice, I presume we can hardly
flatter ourselves that the Austrians are likely to recover all
that they have lost in the present campaign, much less what
they have lost in all the campaigns that are past; and even
this, Sir, must furnish a new subject for reflection, which the
achievements of our navy still farther serve to corroborate:
the achievements of that navy have been brilliant and glorious;
at no former period have they displayed greater gallantry/
and never perhaps equal skill. No eulogiums can be too,
high for their merits. Yet after all this, the character of
the peace which we are desirous to obtain, and the utmost
we can expect, is, that it shall be solid and of permanent
duration : this, I believe, is as high a character as the peace
is likely to deserve. Then what must be the sort of conflict;
in which we are engaged, in which, — after a four yeas
successful exertion of all the skill and all the valour of 011;
navy, in which they have invariably conquered, and carrier
the flag of England triumphant to every quarter of the
world — all our efforts cannot produce to, us a peace either,
brilliant or glorious, but we must content ourselves Wit'


1796'3


INVASION. 219


/loping for a peace that may he solid and permanent ? Must
we not own that there is something in the cause in which we
lire engaged radically defective, that palsies our efforts, and
disappoints our strength ? that there is something which de-
wands from the common sense and from the prudence of
Englishmen, a strict and a rigorous investigation, that we
may discover what this something is, not merely to retrieve
the present calamity, but to guard our offspring against the
error in future ? A day will come for such a question ; and
I give my assent to the present address, without moving any
amendment upon the points of which I do not cordially
approve, because when the day of such a discussion does
come, I shall have an opportunity to state the sentiments
that I think it important for the House to entertain upon
those points. 'With this reserve for a future day of discus-.
sion, I shall not oppose the present address.


The address was carried nein. con.


INVASION — AUGMENTATION OF THE MILITIA.


October 18.
-rHE House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole
I House, to consider of the paragraph of his majesty's speech


to both Houses on the 6th instant, which relates to the enemy's
having manifested an intention of attempting a descent on these
kingdoms, Mr. Pitt opened his plan for repelling the designed, as
well as future attempts. For this purpose, he formed a plan for
levying Ig,000 men from the different parishes for the sea service,
and another for recruiting the regular regiments. In the pro-
jected levies for the land service, he considered two objects; first,
the means of calling together a land force sufficient of itself to
repel an invasion, even independently of our naval armaments ;
and, secondly, to adopt such measures in the levies as should not
materially interfere with the agriculture, commerce, and general
Industry of this kingdom. The primary object was to raise, and
gradually train, such a force as might in a short time be fit for
rervice. For this purpose he proposed a supplementary levy of
Militia, to be grafted on the old establisment, of the number of
60,000 men ; not to be immediately called out, but to be enrolled,
officered, and completely trained, so as to be fit for service at a
moment of daager. He also proposed to provide a considerableforce of irregular cavalry, to be levied in the following milliner:
every person who kept ten horses, should be obliged to provide
one horse, and one horseman, to serve in a corps of militia; and ,




220 INVASION —
[Oct. 1796.] AUGMENTATION OF THE MILITIA. 221


those who kept more than ten, should provide in the same propo
tion ; and that those that kept fewer than ten, were to form the
selves into classes, in which it should be decided by ballot, who,
at the common expense, should provide the horse and the horse-
man : these troops were to be furnished with unifiirm and accou.
trements, arranged into corps, and put under proper officers. The
whole number of cavalry proposed to be raised by this mode was
2o,000: the other supplemental troops amounted to 75,000 men._
Mr. Sheridan said, he did. not mean to oppose the resolutions ; he
wished only to have some farther explanation, -and to be informed,
whether the real object of all our military preparations was not the
extension of our colonial possessions in the 'West Indies? — After
Mr. Dundas had spoken in defence of Mr. Pitt's proposition,


Mr. Fox rose and spoke to the following effect: In this
stage of the business it does not appear to me to be the duty
of any man to make an opposition to the measure now pro-
posed. But even in this stage of it I have no difficulty
saying, that from the sense I have of the general plan, there
are many parts of it, to the adoption of which no eloquence
is likely to reconcile me. The right honourable secretary.
who spoke last had been pleased to say in answer to the
observations of my honourable friend, that although the
French in case of an invasion may land no cavalry, yet it is
proper that we should be provided with cavalry to oppose
them. My honourable friend's observation did not call for
this sort of answer. The right honourable gentleman ob-
serves, that at all events this country : ought to make great
preparations at home, and that he is • satisfied, that if we
should be under the necessity of going on with the war, these
preparations may be very beneficial to us in many respects.
I object to the generality of this mode of speaking, because
it conveys to us no specific information, and is likely, from
being just in the abstract, to entrap some into an approbation
of measures which may lead to consequences of which persons
so approving are not .aware. That if we are compelled ti
go on with war, great preparations will be necessary, is a
truth which nobody disputes; but it is a truth which con-
veys to us no information. It is applicable to this war, was
applicable to the last, and will be applicable to every war.
The right honourable gentleman should have applied his
reasoning a little more closely; he should have come to the
proposition which is now before the House. The question
is this: — is the proposition before us fit to be adopted under
our present circumstances? If it be, then I say, that, for any
evidence that appears before us, it was fit in 756, was fit ill
1778, fit in 1794, and has always been fit in every period in
which this country has been engaged in ware. But, for •the


whole necessity of the measure, we have only the authority of
the kings ministers, on which I do not choose to rely. I
should have been unwilling to rely, in the last war, on the
authority of much better ministers than the present, and to
make that authority a foundation for such propositions as the
present. It is not by the authority of ministers, but by the-
striking exigency of a particular moment, that parliament
arc justified in adopting particular and extraordinary mea-
sures. I beg the committee will attend to this, and reflect on
all that has been said upon it by the right honourable the
chancellor of the exchequer ; they will then see that he has
dealt in nothing but generality; which, if considered as proof,
proves a great deal too much for the purpose of the right
honourable gentleman, for it proves that this species of defence
is applicable to this country in every war, since he has not
distinguished the exigency of the present moment, from that
of any other in which this country has had the misfortune to
be engaged in war. This is one in addition to the very many
instances which his majesty's ministers have given of their
great eloquence in urging general arguments without any
specific applicability, in which they are eminently skilful,
when it is their object to take money from the people, and
to increase the power of the crown. The right honourable
secretary has thought fit to pronounce a panegyric on the last
parliament, and to recommend its conduct for the imitation
of this. My opinion of the last parliament is, that it has
done more mischief to the real welfare of this country than
any other that ever sat since a parliament was ever known
or recognized in England; at least, since parliaments had any
credit for




r'
attendinu to the interests of the people. To hold


it up, therefore, as an object of imitation, is enough to con-
ofound any man who feels for the principles of freedom; —a


parliament which has clone more to destroy every thing that
is dear to us, than in better days would have entered into the
mind of any Englishman to attempt, or even to conceive.
Slim me a parliament, in consequence of whose proceedings
the people have been drained so much, and from which they


y
have had so little benefit ! Shew me a parliament since the
ear 1688, the wra of our Revolution, that has diminished the


rights, the best, the dearest rights of the people, so shamelessly,
so wickedly, as the last parliament have done ! Shew me apa


rliament since that period that has so uniformly, so stu-
diously sacrificed the liberty of the subject to increase the
influence of government, as the last parliament have done !
,To make it the subject of panegyric — to state its proceed-
tugs to be such as to be worthy of imitation, is beyond en-durance. Sir, I consider the last parliament as a curse to




2'22 INVASION — [Oct. 1 8


this country. The leading principle on which they acted
was that which leads directly to complete despotism —un_
limited confidence in the ministers of the crown. Shew
a parliament since the Revolution, that has given such a con-
fidence, and look at the effect of such practice. This is the
only war that has ever been conducted on the part of this
country, in which there never has been one inquiry on the
part of parliament. You see to what state that has led you
already. Should this parliament be like the last (God in his
mercy avert it I) this country will soon be in a condition, in
which it will be of little importance, whether they have a
parliament or not. But for the conduct of the last parlia-
ment we should not have heard of the measure which is 110\V
proposed to us.


I know I may be told that I often speak intemperately, and
that I do so now, but I speak as I feel, and I think it is im-
possible for any man to feel more strongly than I do at the
present situation of this country. Ministers tell us, that the
measure which they • now propose is necessary to our safety.
If it be so, it is their own conduct and the conduct of a con-
fiding parliament, which has brought us into that situation.
And what is tile measure which they now propose ? Why,
it is, in its nature, a requisition; an imitation , of the system
of the French, against which so many vehement declamations
have been pronounced : against the principle, applying it to a
settled state, justly; but as against the French, in their condition,
in my opinion, improperly, or at least in too unqualified a man-
ner. Ministers now tell us, however, that our situation is
such as to call for this measure. Granting it to be so for the
sake of the argument only, I would then ask, what has brought
us into that situation ? To this I answer, without the least
difficulty, the confidence, the criminal confidence, of the last
parliament. One inevitable effect of that confidence of par-
liament in the minister has been the want of the confidence
of tile people in the integrity of parliament. The right ho-
nourable secretary says, 64 it is good to be prepared." Cer-
tainly it is so ; but when he comes to us, and makes this re-
quisition, it is incumbent on him to shew us the reason why
we should be thus prepared. He should lay before us the
ground on which he calls for that requisition. How stood the
case in former periods of this war ? In 1794 there was
much. reason for such a measure as there is now ; there was
then as much of a rumour of an invasion as there is now ; and
so the ministers told us at that time. The House, -upon the
faith of the ministers' assertions, agreed to measures of the
most unconstitutional nature, to avert, as it was supposed,
the impending danger. Such measures, although uneonstiar




1796.] AUGMENTATION OF THE MILITIA. 223


we'l -0 then thought to be necessary; and they were thoughttioua,
else to be sufficient to keep the French from attempting the des-
perate measure of an invasion. Are the French now more likely
to make that despera te attempt than they were then ? Or are
we not now in a better situation than we were then ? I con-
ceive that ministers themselves would answer these questions
in a manner very consolatory to the people of this country.
Such was our state in 1794. What is it now, and what the
difference between the two situations? Ministers now tell us
that an intention has been manifested on the part of the enemy
to invade these kingdoms. I am too much accustomed to the
artifice of ministers to receive any very deep impression from
what they say. Did they not say formerly what they say
now, that the enemy had some intention of invading this
country ? Certainly they did, and they were entrusted with
force sufficient to prevent that calamity.


But, says tile right honourable gentleman who spoke last,
I am of opinion, that, as it may be necessary for this coun-


try to carry on an offensive war, this measure may be of great
advantage, inasmuch as we may thereby be the better able to
avail ourselves of our forces." To this, as a general propo-
sition, I do not object. It is true. But then I say to minis-
ters, 46 Bring before us the facts on which you say this mea-
sure is necessary. What I object to is your duplicity. If you
really want this force, and to the extent you say you do, shew
me the reason for it, and I will grant it cheerfully. All I
want is, that you state to me the reasons. You did so when
you called for the augmentation of the navy, and you had it ;
but do not ask any thing to carry on the war abroad under
the mask of defending us at home ; for in that case you are
asking under a false title what, under a real one, the people
of this country would not grant to you ; for, I know, they


to you, to prevent an invasion at home, what they
Would refuse with indignation, if asked to carry on the war


But, Sir, it seems we are to have the responsibility of mi-
nisters for the due application of the grant which they now
call for. Look at the extent to which the principle of votine-
such extraordinary measures as tlrse, upon the idea of respon-
sibility, may lead you. By it you will introduce a practice
that must deprive the people of all their rights and all their pro-
tPheartYa. l. this


should turn out (not an extravagant hypothesis),
els story about an invasion is a mere pretence togain the consent of the people to the measure now proposed,


and that the real object is extremely different, what then will
I.- eccnie of the boasted responsibility of ministers? How are




224 INvAsroN — [Oct,
we to make them responsible? We may say, and say truly,
that " the event has proved there was no danger of an in•a..
sion when this measure was adopted." To which the minis-
ters may answer, and be assured they will, " True, there w4-
no invasion, but then it was owing to the very measures which
we proposed, and you adopted, that the invasion was pre-
vented." How, then, arc We to make ministers responsible
for what they do under such- a measure as this? The idea of
responsibility in such a case is perfectly ridiculous. Why, Sir,
at this rate you may go on and do every thing that the minister
may ask you, until you have totally destroyed the constitution;
the principles have already been too much invaded by the
measures of the present ministers. There are some inconve-
.niences that necessarily arise out of a free constitution. I
know that many authors of great eminence have pointed out
those inconveniencies. I do not deny it, although I have
never seen them in so strong a light as the authors I allude to
say they did ; but the advantages resulting from a free consti-
tution arc so great, so numerous, and to me so clear, that I
cannot patiently argue upon them, when they are put in the
scale against the supposed advantages of a contrary form. Be
that as it may in the opinion of others, I say, you cannot
argue that subject in this House; for the people of this coun-
try have made their election : they have chosen a free govern-
ment, and it is your duty to preserve it with all its inconve-
niences, if there be any that are worth mentioning. If,
therefore, when ministers pretend an alarm, you are to give
them whatever power they may ask for, when it is impossible
you can attach any responsibility to them, as I have proved


. already in this case you cannot, why then you desert the point
on which the people of the country have already made their
election ; and, instead of the blessings which your ancestors
intended for you, you take what may appear to you, but what
never appeared to me, the advantages of despotism. This
would be a fraud upon the people of this country.


I know the eloquence that has often been employed to shew,
or in attempting to show, by a flourishing antithesis, that we
possess all the advantages of a free government and those of a
despotic monarchy, by possessing the wisdom which arises
from a free discussion of the representatives of the people and
the promptitude and dispatch of an unlimited monarchy.
Such an antithesis may answer the purpose of an ingenions
orator, and aid him in the course of a florid declamation;
but it can avail but little to any man who wishes for the safety
of our constitution. I am of opinion, that our constitution,
in its true spirit, cannot mix with any thing despotic. Have
recourse to experience, the only unerring guide; read the


796. AUGMENTATION or THE MILITIA. 225
historY of this country, and then shew me out of what page it
is that you have discovered how and when it was, that the
max-ims of a free government have been united with the prin-
ciples of despotism. I know it cannot be done. I know also,
that if you attend to history, and take it as a lesson, you will
return to your ancient distrust and jealousy of ministers, who-
ever they may be, and that you will examine minutely into
their conduct. Reflect on the consequences of the contrary
practice. You see now before you the effect of it. Confi-
dence, in the first instance, renders confidence necessary in
the second. Confidence in ministers induces them to take
measures which they cannot continue without farther confi-
dence; they are obliged to call for it in their own defence;
in that career you may proceed until you have confided away
the whole spirit of our constitution. I am afraid you have
advanced in that career much too far already. In my opinion,
the spirit of the constitution has been almost entirely set at
rest for a time, by the measures of the last parliament. Let
it be the practice, for it is the duty, of the present to revive it.
There was an expression in the speech of the right honour-
able gentleman to which I cannot help alluding. He said,
" if the present negociation should be unsuccessful, then the
.present measure will be advantageous to this country." No
man wishes more heartily than I do that it may be successful.
I wish it from every motive that can actuate a man; but I am
not sure that the same feelings are entertained by his majesty's
ministers. I hope they are. I say this by way of caution,
lest the world should suppose I am such a devotee to the pre-
sent administration as to suppose that any negociation in
Which they may fail may render peace to this country totally
unattainable. Notwithstanding there arc many new members


, iu this House, they know, I believe, enough of me and of
my opinion of this war to be well satisfied that I abhorred its
commencement. That feeling remains completely unchanged;
and whatever'opinion the people may have upon the propriety
of the measure which is now proposed for the defence of this
island from an invasion, I trust this country will never relin-
quish the opinion, that the war was in its principle and com-
men


cement unjust, unnecessary and diabolical. If it shall
unhappily become our lot to defend ourselves against an inva-
Sian, ourselves we must defend ; but whether the proposed
measure is more or less than we ought to agree to, or one
that we ought to try, are questions of detail, and therefore to
that detail shall I defer them. I cannot, however, permit the
particular parts of the measures to pass without taking notice


gaZof some of them. That part of the plan which refers to theeLzkv.eeipers appears to me to be a measure of violent injustice




226 INVASION [Oct.


to a class of persons who, as far as the tax which they bear
goes, already contribute pretty handsomely to the support
the state.


There is another part of the plan which I cannot pass by
in silence. The navy of this country is so much and so
justl y, the favourite service of it, that no man is willing to
find fault with it. I am the last man in the kingdom who
would wish to do so, or to say any thing against any service
that contributes so much to the greatness of this nation, as I
know the navy does. I feel, and I know I only feel in com-
mon with all my countrymen, gratitude to the navy; but the
circumstance of impressing men, even into that service, great
and valuable as it is, would not be a part which a judicious
friend to it would select for the subject of his panegyric. I
am not now arguing the policy of the practice, for great as
the grievance may be to the individuals who are the objects
of it, the discussion will be unseasonable until we shall find a
better mode for providing for that service, and therefore upon
that subject I shall say nothing. But upon the subject of
forcing men into the land service the case is widely different;
so much so, that I have never yet heard it defended in this
country; and yet this measure seems to me to have that ten-
dency, for out of the force which is proposed to be raised,
there is to be a certain proportion for the navy and a cer-
tain proportion for the land service. I cannot, for one,
conceive any danger to which this country, under all its cir-
cumstances, can be exposed, that would make me ready to
assent to a measure that had for its object the impressing the
subjects of this country into the land service. I cannot
assent to any measure that has for its object the increase of
the military force of the kingdom in that manner. This
is entering into the very spirit of the French requisitions,
:which we decry so much. The chancellor of the exchequer
says, that only one-sixth part of them shall be exercised ata
time, that is, only i o,000, and that they will not be called
to the service but in case of actual exigency. Now, are rot
these words (abating the difference between a speech and the
authority of the legislature) the very words of the act of par'
'Lament with . regard to the militia, which says, " unless ill
case of invasion or imminent danger thereof?' The collo
(pence will bethat the military force thus raised will be sub'
ject to military. law. I wish to know whether it was tlIC
opinion of those who passed the act respecting the militia
that they should beesubject to regulations, to which they 1DS:
submit ? Certainly it was not ; and as it has been found .e7s.;
pedient to call upon them to conform to the rules now etlopte'
in that service, it would have been more fnanly parliaillel'


1796.3


AUGMENTATION OP THE MILITIA.
227


to alter the law in that particular. We are here told, that
the military force which is now proposed to be raised, is only
to act


in case of emergency. What is that to be ? Until the
French shall land upon -our coast? No such thing ; I know
that such a restriction cannot, and ought not to be imposed
upon executive goverment; because you should repel the dan-
ear when you are threatened by it. Why, then, it will
amount to this, that whenever ministers shall think fit to
allege there is danger, the whole of this military power to
be entrusted to them for the internal defence of this country
in case of invasion, will be entirely at their disposal. What
security have we that no abuse will take place, respecting the
application of this enormous force? What security. have we
that we are not now voting for a force, said to be intended
for one purpose, but which is really to be applied for a dif-
ferent object? What security have we for trusting that this
vreat military force is not intended to supply the place of .e
other troops, who are intended to be sent abroad? The right
honourable gentleman alluded to the safety of these king-
doms. I do not chose to follow him in that course, for I only
speak of the safety of Great Britain, when I canvass the mea-
sure which is now before us. It is to that object, and to that
only, that I intend it to be applied.


I do not know what information ministers may have respect-
ing the intention of the French to attempt an invasion of this
Country. I have none, except what I derive from newspa-
pers. I believe that the idea of an invasion is as visionary as
that of succeeding in it. I believe the French have no such
intention ; for they have a government which is likely to be
much better informed of the disposition of the people and the
situation of the country, than to be led to any hopes of success
in such an attempt, therefore do I believe they will not be
guilty of the rashness to attempt it. But


zesupposio they had„


hopesis upon




e,
desperate intentions; supposino


.
they should attempt to


carry them into execution, I have no doubt of the issue. My
pon that subject are as sanguine as those of any other


man in this country. But what should we do in the meantime? What is the duty of this House at this moment? Tocherish the spirit of freedom in the people of this country,
restore to them that for which their anstors have bled.


1,
ce


Take the ministers really responsible. Let their parliament
not be confiding ' in the servants of the crown, but watchful
9.1e
and jealous of the exercise of their power. Restore to them


right of popular discussion. Allow them to state freely
the grievances they feel. Repeal those laws which have for-
bidden the exercise of their most invaluable rights. In one
''o d, instead of amusing with panegyrics upon the form,z,


2 2




228 INVASION [Oct.
allow them to possess the spirit of the old constitution of
England : then will you indeed see the energy. of the people
of England, and then you will have no occasion for adding
to your internal military force, for then even an invasion
would never be formidable. These are your real resources:
the rest are all imaginary. I shall give no opposition to the
plan that is now before the committee in its present stage;
but I think it lair to say, that some of the parts of it are such
as, in the detail, I shall think it my duty to oppose.


Mr. Pitt obtained leave to bring in three bills : viz. r. A bill
for raising a certain number of men in the several counties of Eng.
land, and in the several counties, stewartries, royal burghs and towns
in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, for the service of his
majesty's army and navy : 2. A bill for providing an augmentation
to the militia, to be trained and exercised in the manner therein di.
rected, and for enabling his majesty to cause the same to be embo-
died in case of necessity, for the defence of these kingdoms : A
bill for enabling his majesty to raise a provisional force of cavalry,
and to require the military service of persons therein described, to he
embodied in case of necessity, for the defence of these kingdoms.


October 31.


On the order of the day for taking into consideration the report
of the committee on the militia augmentation bill, the measure
was strongly opposed by Mr. Curwen, and defended by Mr. Pitt.
After which,


Mr. Fox said : —I rise, Sir, to offer a few obseryatiom
upon the doctrines that have fallen from the right honourable
gentleman who has just set down ; doctrines, which if they be
true, we had better do that in words, which the present ad-
ministration have been constantly doing in actions; we bad
better declare that the constitution of the country is only good
for praise and for oratorical flourish, but that it is not proper
for a state of warfare; we had better say that when ministers
have brought the country into peril, that peril is a sufficient
ground for confidence in them, and that when they have in'
volved us in difficulty and danger, it is the business of the
people to surrender all their vigilance, to repose complete
faith in them, or in other words, to suspend the constitution,
and to make the government of the country an armed mo-
narchy. We are told that it is enough for the king to acquaint
us that danger exists, and for us to declare that if it exists,
we will put the country in a situation to resist it; we are told,
I say, that it is enough for us to pledge ourselves at once t .
such bills as these; bills which impose upon the people greater


/796.1 AUGMENTATION OF THE MILITIA. 2 29


niary burdens than any that were ever imposed for anyDeo
pu


rpose of government ; this, however, we are informed we
must do, or forfeit our pledge to the king.


Sir, the speech of the king I shall always consider, and
it is usual so to consider it, as the speech of the ministers.
They tell us there is danger of an invasion. I may be
willing for a time to suspend any inquiry into the causes that
have involved us in this difficulty and disgrace. I may be
milling to suspend for a time an inquiry into the conduct of
those who have brought us into this danger; but must I not
know what it is ? Must the mere bringing us into danger be
of itself a sufficient claim to confidence? For one, I am of
opinion, that from external causes there is no particular ap-
prehension of an invasion ; but still more am I of opinion,
that if; under the pretence of strengthening the country, mi-
nisters are only doing as they have formerly done, strengthen-
ing themselves and their principles; if they are expressing
their apprehensions of danger only to produce this effect, why
then I should hesitate whether I would apply any remedy at
all; but even should the danger really exist, I should hesitate
much before I applied such a remedy as this. We are not,
Sir, so young in the House as to imagine that, because we
approve of the speech from the throne, we pledge ourselves
to all the measures which the minister may think proper to
adopt, or that the vote we came to upon the first day of the
session, bound us to pass such bills as these. With respect
to the bills, I sec some parts of them more objectionable in
their principle and provisions than others. Sir, the calling
upon so many men in the country, the putting them under
martial law, and under officers of the crown, without those
safeguards which are contained in the old militia acts, and at
a time when the erection of barracks all over the country
evinces the system of separating the soldiery from the people,
and according to the ingenious reasoning of some gentlemen,
making the soldiers deaf if the people cannot be made dumb ;
Sir, the doing these things is a grievous hardship and op-
pression. It is no light thing to make the people imbibe mili-
tary notions and military prejudices under officers of the crown,
without any of those checks and guards, which, I repeat it, are
contained in the former regulations relative to the militia. It
has lately been too much the fashion to forget old prejudices and
old principles. Sir, I have no difficulty, much as the term has
been ridiculed, in confessing myself an alarmist. I am alarm-
ed at the situation of the country. I believe that there is a
faction in it, whose wish and endeavour are to- increase the
Power of the crown, at the expellee of the liberties of the
People. I believed it. in common, once, with those who are


3




230 INVASION [Oct. 31,
now converts from that belief; who think now that ministers,
whose measures they formerly so much reprobated, are so al..
tinted with power, so glutted with patronage and emoluments,
as to have lost all those marks and features that rendered them
the objects of their former dread and detestation. I am not
one of these; I am not one who think that the lesser evil is
—and, good God ! what is this lesser evil ?—the fear of the
liberties and rights of the people being lost in the power of
the crown ! With these feelings about me, can I be brought
to think that raising such a force, as that proposed ley the
bill, is not a most alarming circumstance, to which nothing
short of the necessity of risking every thing, could possibly
reconcile me ?


And now, Sir, a word or two on the bills themselves ; and
first, with respect to the present bill, by which men are to be
raised in the diffbrent parishes. Without entering into the
policy of the bill, I must contend that the general burden will
be very considerable. Do I mean to contend by this that bur-
dens ought not to be imposed in times of difficulty and peril?
By no means ; but if we are now to provide against an exist-
ing danger, we are not to provide against a general danger, but
against a specific danger of an invasion of Great Britain by
the enemy. Such is my opinion. Why then, I say, it does
give me no good idea of the present ministers, when I see
them always bringing forward false pretences. When I see
them, under these bills, providing that the different parishes
shall raise men, not for the specific purpose of resisting an
invasion, but for general military purposes ; when I see this,
I must think that the real motive of the measure is not for
domestic service, but for the purpose of carrying on offen-
sive war abroad ; and in this opinion I am a good deal in•
flueneed by what fell from a right honourable gentleman high
in office (Mr. Dundas). I do not like to quote the words
of any person in his absence, but, Sir, words that drop from
ministers are not in the nature of expressions from com-
mon Men ; they come with authority and in an official shape.
I cannot forget that right honourable gentleman's speech on a
former night, when he said that the present plan was highly
eligible, inasmuch as it would enable his majesty's ministers
to prosecute the war abroad. If this be the fact, I would ad-
vise gentlemen not to be so active in their approbation of the
measure. Do not be so impatient, as the right honourable,
gentleman has recommended you to be in your testimonies 01
support. You will have opportunities enough of voting hun-
dreds, thousands, and millions, I have no doubt, for carrying
on offensive war abroad. This, therefore, is what I complain
of;- and I cannot help thinking the present alarm with respect


1795.7 AUGMENTATION or THE MILITIA. 23 1


to invasion, to be one of those pretences which ministers do
pot believe, but which they bring forward in order to get
strength for purposes which they do not chuse to state. The
bill for the raising a force of cavalry is objectionable in all its
shapes. If an invasion were certain, I should object to it as
impracticable and tyrannical, and as tending to lay such enor-
mous taxes upon the people as would be almost intolerable.
And at what period are we called upon for such taxes ? Be-
fore the minister has opened what is usually called his budget.
When, Sir, I consider the conversation that passed in the
former part of this day, and the excess that has occurred in our
expenditure, have I not ample reason to suppose that we
shall in the ensuing budget be called upon to bear burdens
equally heavy at least, with any that have been laid upon us
in the former years of the war ? When to those burdens, the
burden that will be imposed upon the country by this bill for
the raising an additional force of cavalry is added, I feel that
I cannot consent to it without trying if any other measure can
be adopted less oppressive in its operation, and equally effec-
tual in its consequences.


The right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer, in
recurring to what fell from my honourable friend, (Mr. Curwen,)
has alluded to what he stated respecting his disbelief of the pre-
sent alarm, because all former alarms propagated by ministers
have been proved to be false. The right honourable gentle-
man contends, that that disbelief' is against evidence, and con-
trary to the opinion of nine-tenths of the people. Sir, I re-
member when an inquiry into the existence or non-existence
of any cause for alarm was demanded. That demand was
refused. Should that inquiry ever be entered into, I maintain,.
that not only will it be found, that no reason existed for any
alarm, but that ministers, when they called out the militia and
summoned the parliament in 17 92, disbelieved the alarm them-
selves. Sir, .that measure of calling out the militia and sum-
moning the parliament, will be a measure to be deplored to the
latest posterity. It occasioned more rivers of blood to be
shed and more treasure to be expended, than ever were shed
or expended during the reign of that despot Louis XIV. On
the subject of alarms, a ingenuity, deal of inenuity, and I think
Misapplied ingenuity, has-been exerted on different occasions.
Some gentleman were alarmed about. the operation of French
Principles, and the consequences that. would result in this
Country from the French victories. That being mere matter
of reasoning, I have candour enough to believe, that though
the danger appeared to me to be very trifling, if any existed
at all, yet that persons who entertained those apprehensions


4




232 INVASION — [Oct. 31,


were sincere; but that is not the alarm we are speaking of. I
am speaking of the calling regiments to the capital, and the
fortifying of the Tower, as if an immediate insurrection were
apprehended. Since that period, many innocent men have
been arraigned by his majesty's government for high treason.
However certain persons may be inclined to blame the want
of diligence in the lawyers, I think no complaint will be urged
against them for not bringing a quantum of evidence, and that
too of a date considerably remote. Yet, though these lawyers
had access to all the sources of government, though they ran-
sacked and rummaged all the records possessed by adminis-
tration, yet they-never produced a single proof— I do not say
to satisfy themselves — yet they never produced a single proof
to satisfy the jury, that, when the Tower was fortified, any of
those desperate traitors entertained such projects of insurrection
as those that have been alluded to. I did not think that I
should have been under the necessity of entering into these
particulars this day; but when the right honourable gentle-
man says, that our belief is contrary to the belief of nine-tenths
of the people, it becomes incumbent upon me to maintain,
that no solid ground of alarm existed at the time when these
extraordinary precautions were taken. I wish gentlemen to
refer to the trials for high treason. I wish gentlemen to read
them, and tell me if they find the slightest trace of that insur-
rection, affected to be so much dreaded in December 1792.
Upon these trials some have expressed an opinion that they
are the disgrace of the country; others have said that they
contribute to its honour. Strange as it may seem, I agree in
both those opinions. I think that they were disgraceful.
[llir. Yorke here said, that he was obliged to call the right
honourable gentleman to order, as he conceived he had wan-
dered from the question, and if such latitude of discussion were
indulged, the present question would not be decided that night.
The Speakersaid, that he conceived Mr Fox to be perfectly in
order. He opposed the re-commitment of the present bill,
upon the ground that the alarm of an invasion had been raised
upon false pretences; a proposition which lie illustrated by
recurring to the history of former alarms. He admitted, how-
ever, that he was rather too particular upon some of these
points; but he did not consider himself as called upon to in-
terrupt him.] Mr. Fox in continuation—I am not quite
satisfied, Sir, with the mode in which I was called to order.
We have not yet imbibed such a detestation of equality, as
not to have some regard for impartiality, and we have not yet
established the custom of deciding by a hammer or a bell at_
ivhat particular hour the debate shall be closed, however it


5796.] AUGMENTATION OF THE MILITIA. 233
roy sometimes he finished by a clamour for the question. I
should not have alluded to the trials, had not an allusion been
rendered necessary by what fell front


the-right honourable the
chancellor of the exchequer. Our belief of the alarms is said
to be contrary to the opinion of nine-tenths of the people.
I do not think so; but if it were contrary to the belief not
only of nine-tenths, but of nine hundred and ninety-nine out
of a thousand, I should still be equally inclined to declare my
opinion; but I should augur very ill indeed of' the people, if
I thought that they could resist such evidence as was adduced
upon the trials. Perhaps I flatter myself that I am not in
such a minority as the right honourable gentleman sup-
poses. What I am in this House, I know not. What I
am in the country, I am equally ignorant of ; but I do




know, that if I speak of that part of the country which
Lam best acquainted with, I have the good fortune to agree
in opinion with a decided majority. When I was called to
order, I was observing, that there was no ground for the ori-
ginal alarm in the year 1792. I was going to remark upon
those trials, that the prosecution of innocent men was dis-
graceful to the country, and their acquittal honourable. How
comes it that so many were acquitted ? Because so many
were prosecuted who ought not to have been prosecuted.
Sorry I am, that I shall frequently have Occasion, to offend
the honourable gentleman who called me to order, if recur-
ring to past actions, in order to form my opinion of the fu-
ture, be against the established rules of the House. The
country, I allow, is in a situation of great difficulty, in a
situation of danger, cruel danger, but not so much from
any apprehension of an invasion on the part of the enemy ;
it is in a state of peril from which there is no way to
extricate it, but by a retrospective view of the measures
of ministers, and a judicial examinination of their conduct.


I have stated that the three bills are doubtful measures,
even supposing extraordinary measures to be necessary. In
1 794, after the great arming of the country, we were told that
the force then embodied was sufficient to resist any invasion
that might be attempted. What is the situation of the country
now ? An honourable friend of mine states that it is in a
state of great internal quiet. In this opinion, as in most
others, I perfectly agree with him, if he means that there is
in the country a general love for the constitution. I have no
doubt of it; the people are universally well affected to the con-
st itution, I believe; but that they are more attached to the con-
stitution as it is now, than as it was at the commencement of the
war, I cannot allow. I cannot believe that I am one of those


F'




2-34 INVASION— [Oct. 31


‘, eighty thousand incorrigible jacobins'"" whom nothing can re..
concile to the monarchy of this country. So far from thinking
their number to be so formidable, I believe that it will be difficult
to find one of that description. But if those be incorrigible
jacobins who detest the measures of his majesty's ministers,
who are of opinion that their conduct has tarnished the glory
of the country, and that they have conducted pusillanimously a
contest which they rashly and unjustly commenced —who think
that not only an inquiry into their conduct is indispensable
but that a reform is absolutely necessary, in order to prevent
the country from being cursed with such ministers as the pre-
sent, if any such can ever curse the country — if these are the
incorrigible jacobins, I am glad to hear that they amount to,
eighty thousand. I wish they amounted to eight millions.


The right honourable gentleman, who states that there is so
much necessity for going into the committee, does not disdain,
however, to give us some . information. He says, that his ap-
prehensions of the danger of an invasion are increased lately;
and he said this in so emphatic a way, that I, for one, do not
wish to press an opposition to the measure. If the minister
really thinks that there is any danger of an invasion, I will
not object to some increase of the militia force; but even in
that case, I will only suspend. my inquiry into the causes that
have brought us into this danger. The right honourable gen-
tleman, however, must be aware, that if an invasion is. likely
to be attempted in England, One system of measures will be
necessary, which will not apply, if the invasion is likely to be
attempted in another part. Let the minister state this, in
order that the means may be adapted to the exigence. • Sup-
pose, for example, that Jamaica was in danger of being invaded,
you would hardly think it necessary to adopt any precaution
in Great Britain ; the same observation will apply to parts
nearer home. If any other part of the British territories
is in danger, the measures calculated to repel that danger
ought to be applied to that part, which is conceived to be par-
ticularly menaced. In observing upon the speech of my ho-
nourable friend, the right honourable gentleman said, with a


* " In England and Scotland, I compute that those of adult age, not
declining in life, of tolerable leisure for such discussions, and of some means
of information, more or less, and who are above menial dependance, mg,
amount to about four hundred thousand. Of these four hundred thousallu
political citizens, I look upon one-fifth, or about eighty thousand, to be pure.
jacobins ; utterly incapable of amendment; objects of eternal vigilance'
and when they break out, of legal constraint." Barke's Letters on a Rel.
cide Peace.


1796.j
AUGMENTATION OF THE MILITIA.


2 3
kind of triumphant air, that he admitted the general support


to the government. I heard distinctly what the
honourable


le friend said, and I conceived him to express
10',.jfiys not that there was a general support of the mea-
sures of his majesty's ministers throughout the country, but a
T
general indifference; whether this is the same thing, I leave
e the right honourable gentleman to decide. He must know
that his only chance of support is from the indiarence and
lethargy of -the country, and from their natural consequence,
ignorance. Such kind of support, however, as this, can
hardl y, I should think, be as cordial and satisfactory to his
feelings, as that which is the result of-judgment and the effect
of deliberation. When I consider the basis upon which the
constitution stands, I confess that I consider this indifference •
as an alarming symptom. I hope it does not exist to any
great extent; for sure I am, that the best security against an
invasion will consist, not in the indifference of the country, but
in its zeal, its firmness, and its unanimity. I understand the
right honourable gentleman to say that there is a real danger :
a miserable assertion this, by the way, for the House to pro-
ceed upon without more substantial evidence; but, however,
the danger we are told is real. That such is the case, is mat-
ter of serious concern. Of the ultimate issue of any attempt
at an invasion, I am as sanguine as his majesty's speech ex-
presses ; but I shall be more sanguine, in proportion as I see
the people less indifferent to the constitution, as the minister
found it, not as lie has made it.


With respect to the bill in question, in consequence of the
declaration of the right honourable gentleman, I shall not
object to the recommitment of it; but unless it be, materially
altered in the committee, I cannot consent to the passing of
it, because I do not think that it contains remedies adequate
to the evil. The measure, as far as I have been able to learn,


them.


oes inuch alarm. I think it liable to objections, and If
eel that I should not do my duty if I did not state those ob-jec


tions. The other bills appear to be defective in principle,
and cannot see any amendments that can reconcile me to


ne word more. The right honourable gentleman
says, that a great danger threatens us. I agree with him in
calling upon the people to resist an invasion on the part oftr


ance. Resist it, I say, with all your might. Be unanimousi
n your exertions : be vigorous in your efforts : draw yourpurses freely


: contribute your personal labours cheerfully.


!ilay
but when I call upon the people to repel any attempt that


be made by France, I also call upon them not to be
al


armed at the danger as not to adopt such measures after-
'''9-rds as may make the struggle beneficial to themselves. Let




236 AUGMENTATION OF THE MILITIA. [Oct. 31,


them not struggle against France, only to yield to the artifices
of the present ministers. My advice to them is, Be vigilant
against the French; be vigilant also against the minister,o1 this
country, who has brought you into this situation et' danger.
Beware, that while you take measures to prevent your be-
coming a prey to the French, you do not become a prey to
the minister. I say be vigilant against domestic as well
as foreign enemies ; but learn to distinguish who your do-
mestic enemies are: you have been in prosperity, you now
feel adversity. Judge not by the assertions of those who have
robbed you of your rights; judge not by their comments;
judge not upon presumptive evidence ; but judge by your own
good sense. Reflect upon your condition; consider how you
were brought into it. The situation of your finances must
show you that it is paradoxical indeed, if you could have been
brought into it without considerable errors (to use the softest
word) on the part of ministers, for I wish to speak tenderly
even of them in the present conjuncture. I hope you will
judge, not from the assertion of those who brought you into
the calamities you now feel; but that you will attend a little
to the sentiments of those who opposed them in their mad
career. I hope you have not quite forgotten the calamities
which the American war brought upon you, and which you
would not have suffered to any thing like the extent you did,
had you not given to ministers confidence which they did not
deserve. But, it seems, we who oppose ministers are not a
tenth of the nation. Be it so; then ministers cannot com-
plain that we have been any material impediment to them.
This is their artifice, and I think I understand it pretty clearly.
It has been always the trick of governments whose proceedings
are unjust and foolish, to say, " Our measures were wise, but
they were thwarted in much of their efficacy by opposition."
I hope the public will not be the dupes of that artifice any
longer. I hope they will discriminate between their domestic
enemies and their domestic friends, and that they will not suf-
fer their affairs to remain in that paradoxical situation which
was some time ago stated, that ministers by their misconduct
may have brought the country into such a state of danger, al
to require that the people should continue to give them confi-
dence, in order to prevent public ruin. Some may think, by
a strange perversion of reason, that the same causes which con-
ducted us to the brink of ruin, may ultimately lead us to
safety ; that folly and wickedness will in time have the same
effect as wisdom and virtue; as it has been said that sonic ani-
mals can counteract their venom, by the repetition of .their
own bite. We must look for some such fabulous remedy ill
our misfortunes, if we give ministers any further confidence;


1796.] BUDGET TERMS OF THE LOAN 237
for it is too much to expect a relief from maxims of truth, if
quell is to continue to be our system.


BUDGET FOR 1797. — TERMS or THE LOAN ADVANCES
TO THE EMPEROR WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF PARLIA-•
NEXT.


December 7.


TINS day Mr. Pitt produced his annual estimate of the public
revenue and expenditure, with a demand of supplies, usually .


called the Budget. The sum total of the supply' required for the
year 1797, digested under the heads of army, navy, miscellaneous
services, diminution of the national debt, ordnance, and deficiency
of taxes, amounted to 27,647,0001. The ways and means, pro-
posed by the chancellor of the excequer, for raising this supply,
amounted to 27,945,0001. New taxes were to be laid for raising
the interest of former debts to be liquidated, and sums now bor-
rowed or anticipated to the amount of 2,t 10,0001. The interest
on the loan was calculated at 61. 158. per cent.


The new taxes for raising the interest on public expences, con-
tracted or to be contracted, being stated, Mr. Pitt said, that these
were diffused over so many articles, that they would operate with
equality, and yet not bear hard on the poor. By the production
of the taxes it might be inferred, that the war had not materially
:loved the sources of our prosperity, Having explained the
grounds of his estimates, as nearly as he could, both of the requi-
site supplies and the means of receiving them, he took notice of
an expence of a particular nature that had occurred in the interval
01 parliament : an aid granted to the emperor. A sum of about
1 , 2c0,cool., he believed, had been allotted to that prince. To have
withheld this assistance would have been to sacrifice the best hope
of this country of bringing the present contest to a fortunate issue. It
Was his intention, if this conduct should meet their approbation, to
claim and solicit their confidence, in continuing the same system.
He could not, for obvious reasons, propose any specific sum to begranted to his imperial majesty. But if they should think proper
to repose the same confidence in ministers, in granting such occa-
sional aid as ,they might see to be necessary, it should, on their(part,.


tins


i bec exercised with the same caution. He therefore proposed
a vote of three millions, chiefly with a view of enabling ministers to
make advances to our allies, if we should be compelled to persevere
In the war. After. Mr. Grey had impugned the chancellor of the
echequoeirLstrstatements as erroneous and false, and his demands
as unsuitable to the situation, and unnecessary to the true interests




238 BUDGET — TERMS Or THE LOAN Me


Mr. Fox rose: —Notwithstanding (he said) the abundance of
evidence which has been brought forward by my honourable
friend, to prove the erroneous manner in which the chancellor
of the exchequer has thought proper to treat the subject of
this evening's consideration ; notwithstanding also the oppor


-


tunities which will be given of future discussion, I should not
be satisfied that I had performed my duty as a member of par-
liament, were I to pass over this day without expressing some
of those feelings which have been excited by hearing one of
the falsest statements of finance that ever was brought for,-
ward; calculated merely to delude the people of this country,
and accompanied with some political observations which are
a libel upon the constitution—observations that I would sooner
die than avow ; for if the principles conveyed by them are
true, the end to which they lead must be the downfall of this
House and all its privileges, and the establishment of a dicta.
tor upon its ruins. I shall first, however, make some obser-
vations on what has fallen from the right honourable gentle.
Juan, relative to-the subject of finance. It has ever been his
boast, that in opening his budget, he has always come forward
with plain and candid statements of the full extent of the
charges to be made for the current service of the year. Upon
more occasions than one, I allow this to be the case, and I
have not hesitated to bestow my praises upon such conduct;
but as to the business of this day, after the discussion that has
taken place between him and my honourable friend, is there
in the whole country so miserable a dupe, a being so corrupted
and so entirely devoted to every measure of ministers, as to
say that a fair statement has this evening been laid before us?
It is unnecessary for me to enter into minute details. ' I wish
to call the attention of the committee to principles. By the
consolidation act (27 G. III. c. 13. s. 72.) it is provided, that
a paper shall be laid upon the table of this House, with an
account of the annual charges of the public debt, together
with an account of the produce of the duties imposed, or of
any addition that shall be made to the revenue for the purpose
of defraying the increased charges. Now it appears, that, in
fact, since the commencement of the war, the increased
charges amount to upwards of four millions, and that taking
the amount of taxes, after making allowance fox the Spanish
armament, the stoppage of the distilleries, and other necesserY
admissions, there is a deficiency in the provision made for
these charges, to the amount of 8o,000l., but this does not ap-
pear in the paper officially laid before the House. But We
are told, that were it worth while (let this expression be 013;
served, " were it worth while,") all this could be explained
in a most satisfactory manner. What does the right honour'


1796.] ADVANCES TO THE EMPEROR, &C. 239


able gentleman mean ? Will he dare to lay claim to the cha-
racter of a fair and candid minister by barely telling us " what
signifies what is the actual produce, my calculations are per-
fectly accurate, and that is sufficient." It may, and, indeed,
i t has been said, that, in stating this deficiency, many of the
toles have been taken only for part of the year, and some of
them have hot commenced. This, however, is not the case.
I take them from the 5th of July 179s, to the 5 th of July
179 6 ; but let them, if you please, be taken from the loth of
October, and the conclusion will be found to be the same.
But the right honourable gentleman farther says, that a defi-
ciency may actually take place during the years of war, but
that on the return of peace, and by the assistance of additional
regulations, ample compensation may be made. If this be
the mode of reasoning to be adopted, what is the use of this.
boasted paper of accounts ? It is a mere form, a shadow.
Let the deficiency be what it will, 8o,000l. or one million, let
the usual accounts be made up to satisfy the words of the sta-
tute, and let us leave the real deficiency to be afterwards
provided for the best way we can, or by some peace regula-
tions. What is this, Sir, but flying from duty, and turning
the business of finance into insult and mockery ? Such con-
duct, too, comes with a peculiarly ill grace from that right
honourable gentleman. His inconsistencies upon the present
occasion it is impossible to enumerate. I remember well,
upon the subject of spirits, he was formerly of opinion, that
the duty would be too great ; but now it is impossible 'to raise
it sufficiently high ; and with the most astonishing facility of
argument, both war and peace are to tend equally to render
it productive.


It was ably contended by my honourable friend, that the
navy debt was not dejiwto provided for; and what is the sort
of answer we receive to this? " There is, or there may be,
till:eel:ill:I:like a deficiency, but look to my calculations, - I
can make it all right in point of figures, and, as to three, four,
or eight millions of deficiency, I can provide for that some
way or other." To make such excuses and observations as


indeed, cost little ; but are they satisfactory, are
they to be endured ? Is this to be called a candid statement?
-f,,kre we to look for truth in the investigation of the state of our
finances, and to be merely entertained with the right honour-
able gentleman's conjectures, and imaginations ? My ho-
nourable friend, in stating actual deficiency of taxes tothe am


• ‘.amount or upwards ofb8o,000t. has taken the produce of
the taxes up to July 17 9 6; and he has fairly and properly de-
manded, that before the laying on of fresh burdens, this defi-
ciency should be acknowledged and provided for, or at least




240 BUDGET— TERMS OF THE LOAN [Dec.


that in the mean time the House should not be insulted With
the production of a paper which, contrary to fact, supposes
this to be provided for already. To understand what I now
urge, I only wish gentlemen to read that paper and judge for
themselves. To come to a fair decision, I do not conceive it
necessary to go back step by step, but to look merely at the
sums total. But here, indeed, the right honourable -gentle
man might be inclined to interrupt me, and tell me as he has
already told the House in his speech, that for the real pro-
duce of taxes we are not to look to a time of war ; and yet
with the same breath we are informed, that this has been so
glorious and so fortunate a war, that our commerce, in point of
exports and imports, exceeds any former period of peace, and
that the old taxes are more productive than ever. If this be true,
it is strange indeed, that while the war has not affected the old
taxes, it should diminish the amount of those which are newly
imposed. As to the exports and imports, my honourable
friend has mentioned one curious particular, that one-fifth of
the increased exports consists of the article of coffee, and in
order to show the committee the fallacy of any 'dependence
upon such sort of statements, I remember that formerly the
coffee exported in the custom-house hooks exceeded that which
was imported ; now; as no one could be such a fool as to be-
lieve that more of that luxury was sent out of the country than
was brought into it, upon examining the cause of this apparent
inconsistency, the mystery was explained by finding that the
coffee exported was estimated at a considerably increased
value. The right honourable gentleman, however, imme-
diately informs us, that he reasons only comparatively from
the present state of exports and imports. I observed nothing
of that comparative reasoning in his first speech. The right
honourable gentleman told us, in something of a commanding
manner, that the exports of the present year would amount to
30 millions. The country, Sir, indeed stands in need of
some comfort, and I should be sorry to diminish any of its sub,
stantial comforts; but if this increase of exports and imports be a
source of consolation, as far as it goes, it has not been wanting
at any period, except during some part of the American war.
During the war under the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole,
and also during the seven years' war, this increase was equally.
-observable. I am not a person inclined to erect theories, but
rather to oppose them if not confirmed by some sort of expe-
rience ; but I have no doubt there are many persons who can
give satisfactory reasons why exports and imports should in-
crease in the time of war, generally speaking, and why the
American war proved to be an exception. It may likewise be
added, that such a proof of the flourishing state of the ye-


796.] ADVANCES TO THE EMPEROR, &C: .24t


Sources of the country was never brought forward by Mr. Peh.
ham, Lord Chatham, and other ministers, when placed in a
Similar situation in the wars to which I have alluded. I /1111:4
nor beg leave to make a comparative statement of what must
be the peace establishment at the end of this war. To do
this, I take the average of the additional charges for the five
last years, and add about 500,000/. more, which, altogether,
will amount to about four millions. This day we are called
upon to vote about 2,200,0001., yet enormous as this sum is, if
the House will attend to the real statement of facts brought
forward by my honourable friend, they will find that above
one million more is still actually necessary.. If this be true,
as it certainly is, what shall we say of the CG fair statement"
of the right honourable gentleman ?


Mr. Fox entered next into an examination of the terms of


the loan. After which he came to the vote of credit, on
which he said, the minister had spoken out plainly and can-
didly. He had said he had given to the emperor, without
the consent of parliament, twelve hundred thousand pounds,
and that he is to continue to do it if he shall think it neces-
sary. He had not seen the date of this advance; but those
who were members of the last parliament could not have
forgotten, that for the last three months of that parliament, riot
a week elapsed in which some question was not put to the
minister, in which he was called upon to declare, whether he
intended to grant any pecuniary assistance to the emperor.
Did the minister mean to say he intended to give it to him,
but that he thought his own authority for that purpose was
sufficient; that it was superfluous to submit such a subject to
Parliament; that he could issue the money of his own authority ?
Perhaps he did. He might borrow an example from his own
conduct to keep the measure in countenance. It was of a piece
with his advice to his majesty to continue him as his minister
agains t


the declared opinion of the House of Commons in the


t


3.1. 1,e x
ali,10784. But now he had gone one step farther than to ad-


vise the king to continue him as minister, in opposition to the ex-
Press opinion of the House of Commons ; for lie had sliewh to


people of Great Britain that he was a better judge than theparliament
of Great Britain, to whom their money, and how


m uch of it, should be given to any foreign prince. If (said
tr'r3orx; ) iithtehsee ntliiliare the sentiments to be acted upon in this


minister is to be permitted to carry them into
effect, I declare for myself, that the constitution of this ccun-
t9' is not worth fighting for. I wish to know on what prin-
elple it is that thefighting takes this power upon himself, ra-the• than refer it to the Commons of Great Britain, to whom,and


to whom only, it constitutionally belongs. If he directs_
vole vt.




242 BUDGET— TERMS OP THE LOAN-- [Dec, 7,


the application of the money of the people thus, upon foreign
affairs, without the consent of parliament, I see no reasoe
why he should not claim the same power (as I dare say he
will if he succeeds in this) over the whole of our domestic con-
cerns. I am sure the reason he gives for the one, will just as
well apply to the other. He says that parliament could net
calculate so well as he could upon the necessity, and upon the
amount. That may be said as correctly of our domestic as of
foreign affairs. Until this instance occurred, the minister
thought it decent to apply to parliament, and to give you an
estimate of what, you arc to provide for ; but now he tells you
that he did not think it necessary to consult you, because you
are not judges of the extent of it. Did he consult you on the
principle of it? ITe certainly did not. He suffered the.last
parliament to be dissolved, he suffered you all to meet your
constituents with an assurance, (I do not say his positive and
declared assurance, but by his silence he gave you an implied
assurance,) that no money was to be advanced to the emperor
in the interval of the dissolution. On the 27th of September
you met. Did he give you any intimation of his having ad-
vanced this money before you were called together? Did he
.give you any intimation of it before this very night, when he
comes before you with his fresh burdens on the people? Not
a word ! For this conduct, I say, he ought to be impeached.
He has had it in his power to consult you upon this subject
long ago, as it was his duty. He has neglected to do so, by
which he has manifested a determination to dispose of the mo-
ney of the people of this country, without consulting their
representatives. This is aggravated by his not calling parlia=
ment together sooner. If he had advanced the money before
you met, why did he not tell you so ? 'What reason can be
assigned for this? In the name of God, what can be said
but that the minister thinks his judgment better than the
judgment of the representatives of the people of Great Britain,
He has said much upon the time at which this money was-
advanced. If he had any intention of advancing this money
before the dissolution, why did he not state that intention to
the last parliament? Or, if he found out the necessity of iD
since the dissolution, might he not have said so to the present
parliament long ago? But he has done it for the purpose of
establishing the principle, that ministers are better judges of
the manner in which the public money is to be applied, than
the representatives of the people. The minister says, that We
should feel the utmost confidence in lending our money to the
emperor, because we have seen in the emperor those heroic
qualities which usually accompany good faith. Now, sup-
posing heroism to be a good criterion of good filial : in peOuj


1796.]


ADVANCES TO THE EMPEROR, C.C. 24$
concerns,yar I should like to try the effect of this mode of,ni


reasoning. Suppose, fur a moment, that we were in a state
e • neutrality with regard to the French republic, and it was
proposed that we should lend money to the French, would
the minister say we should lend them money ? Certainly he
would not : and, yet, if good faith in pecuniary engagements
is to be measured by heroic qualities, there are none to whom
we should be more ready to lend our money; for of their va-
lour they have given abundant proofs.


Mr. Fox then proceeded to state the situation of the em-
peror and the French at this moment, in which he maintained
that with all the successes of the Austrians in the latter part
of the present campaign, another could not be opened under
circumstances of more advantaeei to the emperor, than those .
in which he had been placed at the commencement of the last.
He here took notice of the recent successes of the French in
Italy, and by way of answering the praises that were be-
stowed on the good qualities of the house of Austria, he in-
stanced the cruelties that had been exercised on the unfortu-
nate M. de la Fayette, which he said excited horror all over
Europe.


Mr. Fox then proceeded to observe, that the minister had
that night omitted the brilliant comparison which he had often
made between the English and the French finances. The
French had been stated week after week, and month after
month, to be not on the verge but in the gulph of bankruptcy.
He had omitted also to state that the French had, by be-
coming the allies of the Dutch, partaken of the sluggishness
of the Hollanders. He did not know, he said, whether the
French had passed the gulph of bankruptcy. He hoped they
had, for while they were in it, they were most dreadful ene-
mies to this country. But to return to the minister's calcu-
lation of events. He had, year after year, calculated upon
the events of the war, and year after year the public had been
misled by his calculations. At one time he was sure the navy
debt would only be a million and a half; after that he calcu-
lated the same debt at four millions, then at six or seven
m illions, and new it was stated to be above eight millions.
What security had the House and the public that the minister
1`,.° Illd not miscalculate in future, as he had already clone, in
the course of the present war ? By his miscalculations he had
added to the debt of this country one hundred and fifty
lien s. By his miscalculations rivers of human blood had been


P


spade to flow all over the world. The minister now talked of
eace. He hoped in God we should soon enjoy that blessing;


but as the minister was so fond of his own calculations, he
wished he would some day or night sit down in his closet and:


A 2




244 BUDGET—TERMS OF THE LOAN [Dee. 7


calculate what. a sum of human happiness he had destrove(l
by his false calculations already; what a waste of human life
he had occasioned, because he could not sooner discover that
the French were " capable of maintaining the accustomed re_
rations of peace and amity with other powers." He did not
wish to distress the minister with any unseasonable appli-
cations, but he believed he should puzzle him a good deal
were he to ask, at what. period the French became more ca-
pable of maintaining the accustomed relations of peace and
amity with other powers than they were at the moment when
we entered into this contest.


Here Mr. Fox took notice of the great difference between
the ministers of tare Elector of Hanover and those of the King
of Great Britain, with respect to the prudence of all powers
making peace with the French republic. lie had. heard it
often said, that the spirit of the people of this country was
very great. lie believed it to be . so. He gloried in that
spirit. But if the system on which this war was carried on
was to be continued much longer, he had his doubts of the
continuance of that spirit. A great people who saw hundreds
of thousands of their fellow subjects fall, their national debt,
increased above one hundred and fifty millions, their credit
sinking, the necessaries of life becoming, by their price, almost
entirely out of the reach of the labouring class, and all this
merely because one man, or a few men in the country made
false calculations, were not likely to preserve their old spirit.
Such were the evils which the minister had already occasioned




by his false calculations 1 To these charges he hoped the right
honourable gentleman would have an opportunity of anewer-
ing at the bar of the public. He knew that every man who
reasoned fairly would be deeply affected by these things.
Every man who thought deliberately upon the subject would
mourn over the hundreds of thousands of human beings who
had lost their lives in this contest, because the minister of this
country had miscalculated the power of the French; nd
what, in comparison with the loss of so many human lives,
was trifling, but which, in other respects, was mightily im-
portant, was the accumulation of our burdens. The na-
tional debt of this country was now above four hundred mil-
lions. He had not calculated exactly what portion of it
was owing to this war altogether; still less was he able to,
guess what part of it was accumulated at particular periods
of the war; but he was now ready to declare, what he had
often declared, and still oftener felt, that he thought this
war unjust in its commencement, and impolitic in its prog•essr
and he believed there was not one man of sense in this
eountry, who had any wishes for its welfare, who did 11()t


/ 796.] ADVANCES TO THE EMPEROR, &C. 245
Cron his heart wish it was at an end. This he was sure


general wish of the people of this country. It waswas - (r
the wish even of that House, else he was strangely deceived.
This brought to his mind what had been xecently published
by a gentleman whose talents he always admired, and for
whom, notwithstanding every thing that had happened, he
had still great esteem, he meant Mr. Burke; that gentleman
bad lately published it as his opinion, that the minority in
parliament speak the sentiments of the people of England at
this hour, and that they have done so for some time past. On
the subject of the war, Mr. Fox said, be had no doubt,
that the minority spoke the sentiments of the people. On the
subject of the war, at least, he would maintain that to be the
case; he believed it to have been so ever since the time of
Robespierre; but he would defy any man to show that this
was not the wish of this country onl y, but also that it was
not the general wish of all Europe at this hour. He would
go farther, and say, that in the opinion of' Europe


.
at large


nothing had impeded the arrival of general tranquillity for a
long time, but the opinion of the ministers of this country.
All this arose from the miscalculation of the right honourable
gentleman. However, that very minister now talked of
peace; but let him consider on what terms we are likely
to obtain it, and compare such terms with those which we
might have obtained a great while ago, and then let him
endeavour to sum up the mischief which his false calculations
have brought, not upon this country merely, but also on all
Europe. Perhaps lie might think the Cape of Good Hope
an equivalent for all we had suffered. If he did, neither his
humanity nor his judgment were to be envied. He was afraid,
he said, that there was no point to be stated in the resolutions
of that night that brought in question the propriety of lend-
ing money to the emperor, without the consent of parlia-
ment, and therefore he could not manifest by his vote his
opinion upon that subject. However, when it should come
before the House, he should certainly meet it with his direct
negative, for it was a violent mid daring attack on the British
constitution. It was essential for the House to come to a
vote upon the question, Whether the minister was to be per-
mitted to apply
for foreign alliances without the eon- money o


sent of parliament or not ? and that we should know whether
we were in a free -country, or were mocked only with the
name of freedom. He should say no more now' upon this
si!bject; but would take a future opportunity of deliveringh ssentiments with respect to the particular taxes.
• The resolutions for raising the supplies were then put and carried.


It 3




246 BUDGET TERMS OF THE LOAN


[Dec. 8.


December 8.


The resolutions of the committee of ways and means were this
day reported to the House. On the motion " That the said re.
solutions be now read a second time,"


Mr. Fox rose and said: — It is not my intention, ou
this evening, to enter into any detailed argument upon the re.
solutions.' Future opportunities will occur of discussing the
particulars of which they consist; and it is my earnest wish
that every member of the House may pay the most serious
attention to the subject to which they belong, under a strong
conviction, that the greatest exertions will be necessary to put
the finances of the country in a proper situation. But this
is not the point to which I propose, on the present evening,
particularly to call the attention of the House. I wish them
now to attend to the degraded situation in which the Com-
mons of Great Britain stand, in relation to the executive
government of the country. It will be easily perceived that
here I allude to the 1,2oo,000/. which has been granted to
the emperor by ministers without the consent of parliament—
a grant which I contend to be directly contrary to positive
law, and a flagrant violation of the constitution of parlia-
ment. I certainly should have expected, since the right
honourable gentleman did not think it worth his while to
apply to the House of Commons before lie advanced such a
sum to a foreign power, that when he informed them of the
circumstance, he would have accompanied it with some ex-
planation. But from the mode in which the money was given,
as well as from the speech of the minister on opening
the budget, I evidently perceive that the whole affair has
been conducted, not for the convenience of ministers, or the
advantage which they might imagine would result from it,
(though, God knows, this would have been bad enough !) hut
that it has been done for the purpose of setting a precedent
in the annals of the constitution, from which the public
money is to be understood as lying at the disposal, not of the
representatives of the people, but of the ministers of the
crown. When I went home last night and reflected upon the
various subjects which had passed under discussion, mustI
confess that I felt hurt at the idea of having appeared to Wile
my assent to, at least at not having positively dissented *on!,
resolutions which struck me as being so extremely unconsue
tutional. I considered myself as having been guilty 49!..;1
neglect of duty, and as called upon lw the relations in whica


r796] ADVANCES TO THE EMPEROR, SAC. 247
I stand to my constituents and to the country, to come for-
ward this clay and enter my solemn protest against a measure
which I regard as an infringement of the rights of the people,
and of the privileges of this House : for I should look upon
myself as a traitor to the public were I to vote one shilling,
or one Man, for the service of the crown, without the con-
sent of parliament. We have been in the practice of hearing
for some time past, very warm and elaborate eulogiums upon
the constitution of the country, notwithstanding all the
wounds which it has lately received; and I always thought,
that whatever differences of opinion might subsist upon some
points, there were others on which we were all agreed.
Though we might differ in sentiment respecting the pre-
ponderance of power in one branch of the constitution over
another, and in affixing precise limits to each, I thought and
believed that there was no man who would maintain that it
was right and proper for the executive to usurp the legis-
lative power ; or, that it was just and lawful for the crown
to supersede the office of parliament.


But, let us consider the nature of the transaction before us.
Had ministers, \when parliament was not sitting, found them-
selves called upon by an imperious sense of duty, dictated by
a combination of urgent and unforeseen circumstances, to
grant a certain pecuniary aid to the emperor; and had they
taken the earliest opportunity upon the meeting of parliament,
to submit the whole of the business to its consideration, then
would have been the time for the House to pass a-decision
upon their conduct, after a candid and impartial review of
the situation in which they were placed, and the motives by
which it was fair to suppose them to have been actuated.
But the present case is wholly different. In the course of the
last three months of the last parliament repeated applications
were made to them respecting their intentions of granting or
withholding pecuniary assistance to the emperor; and, from
the silence which they persevered in preserving on the occa-.Sion, it was natural to infer that they would not grant such
assistance without the previous concurrence of parliament.
lei fact, however, we find that a great part of the money
given to his imperial majesty has been granted without that
concurrence, not during the parliamentary recess, but whenparliament was actually sitting. If parliament had not been


and ministers had thought it prudent to grant peen-
mar.,y assistance to the emperor, I say it ought to have been
assembled for the purpose of deliberating upon it; but when
Parliament


was sitting, in God's name, why was not proper
4Pplication made to the House ? Was it because ministers
were afraid that the House wanted confidence in them?


R 4




48 BUDGET TERMS OF THE LOAN — [Dec. g.
The whole course of their experience taught them the con_
Crary. No: it was because the right honourable gentleman
thought himself better qualified to judge of the propriety of
the time, and the extent of such assistance, than the House
of Commons. I shall not dispute with him at present,
whether he was or not. The constitution says, he was not,
and under this authority he was bound to act. The consti.
tution says, that the public money is at the disposal, not of
the crown, but of parliament, and therefore he had no
right to dispose of such a sum without the consent of pa•_
liament. I do not argue the point of his superior knowledge,
or his superior wisdom. I think it !hirer to stand upon audio.
city; and when the constitution speaks precisely, as it does
upon this point, neither he, nor any other man, has a right
to resist its will.


The question now is, not whether the constitution be good
or bad, whether this be a wise or unwise arrangement; it
has its advantages, and it, no doubt, may have its incon-
veniences; but it was his duty, as the minister of a free con-
stitution, to adhere to the principles which it has laid clown,
and to the rules which it has prescribed ; the first and most
important of which is, that the disposal of the public money
is vested, not in the king, but in the people. When he
violated this fundamental principle, and infringed this sacred
law, what else can I infer than a desire to establish a pre-
cedent against the constitution? The circumstances which
have accompanied the transaction justify the inference which
I draw. I find from the accounts upon the table, that a
considerable part of the sum was issued in November last.
How, then, does the matter stand ? Ministers finding them-
selves . called upon to lend pecuniary aid to the emperor during
the recess, the measure, instead of being laid before the parlia-
ment immediately upon its meeting, was studiously concealed
for the purpose of holding out, as a precedent in the history
of the country to be made known to Great Britain and to the
world, that the disposal of the public money is no longer ill
the hands of the House of Commons, but that it is in the
hands of the crown. We beard something like an apology
yesterday from the right honourable gentleman, which, w
me, appeared as unsatisfactory as the conduct which it Ice',
brought forward to justify is unconstitutional. It consisted 0/
two parts : in the first place, that parliament was not 5°


agood a judge of the amount of the assistance to be granted
to the emperor as the right honourable gentleman; and,
candly, that from the discussions to which the publicity 0'
;,.he transaction would lead, considerable mischief might Irate
taken place. With respect to the first; 'it takes the point


ADVANCES TO THE EMPEROR, &C.
2491796.]


issue for ;ranted, by supposing that an absolute is preferable
to a limited monarchy; and that our free constitution would
be much better were it transformed into a despotism. . As to
the danger to be apprehended from the publicity of the trans-
action, the pretence may be used upon other occasions as well
as upon this, till at last we come to the old exploded argu-
ment, that the money of the pople ought to be vested with
the king's ministers, and not with their own representatives.
In short, the right honourable gentleman tells you, he did
not think it worth while to acknowledge you at all in the
matter, because you were neither fit judges of the propriety
of the quantum, nor of the period for granting the money.
He takes care, however, that you shall finally be informed of
it. But when? When it Comes to be paid.


Let us see, also, from what fund this loan has been raised.
One part of it has been raised upon a vote of credit, and
another part has been taken from the money voted for paying
the extraordinaries of the year, and of course certain services
of which parliament approved, and for which it made pro-
vision, remain unpaid. In what situation, then, is the House
of Commons placed? If they refuse to make good the debt,
which I hope and trust they will, a part of the public service
will remain in arrears. They are reduced, therefore, to this
dilemma, either to discharge a debt, in contracting which
they were not acknowledged, and for which they are not re-
sponsible, or by refusing to discharge it, to leave services
which were sanctioned by their approbation unpaid. When
we look back, Sir, one cannot help observing a peculiar train
of proceeding. For the first time the budget was opened this
season before the extraordinaries of the army were voted. I
know the reason that is given for it is, that the budget was
opened uncommonly early in the season. I would remind
the House, however, that it was opened last year on the 7th
of December as well as this year, (with this difference, that


year parliament had not been so long convened ;) and
yet the extraordinaries of the army were voted previous to
the opening of the budget. This season the account was not
so much as produced till the day of the opening of the budget,
the more strongly to mark the precedent, and that it may be
said in future times, that in 1796 the minister of the country,
after having, of his own accord, granted a loan to the
9Mperor without the consent of parliament, did not deign
,even to inform them of it upon their meeting; nay, that he
Kept back the account of the extraordinarres of the year,lest the House of Cormnons, by sanctioning or conniving at
Ole measure, might in the least have weakened the precedent.


11.7hile I am upon this subject, I cannot refrain from re-




250 BUDOET TERMS OF THE LOAN •T"' [Dec. 8,
marking also, that last night for the first time, we heard that
the country was at war with Spain. Every gentleman who
is in the habit of reading the papers, must


gentlema
seen that


it is now some months since it was openly declared, that
letters of marque had been issued, and that it had been an.,
nounced by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; in short, it is
only in their capacity as members of parliament that they did
not know it till last night. I am aware that this may be de-
fended upon the score of right, and that the prerogative of
declaring war is vested in the crown. But how far it is gra.,
cious not to announce the exercise of that right to the House
of Commons, is another question, especially when it is re.
recollected, that the ministers of the crown are so little
scrupulous about entrenching upon the rights of the people,
To return, however, to the subject of discussion. 'Were I
to put the question to any man at all acquainted with the con-
stitution of the country, When expences are to be incurred,
who are the best judges of the propriety of incurring them?
he would answer, the Commons of Great Britain. And
were I to add, When the propriety of incurring certain ex,
ponces is decided, who are the best judges of the extent to
which they ought to be incurred? he would not hesitate
also to reply, the Commons of Great Britain. When we
give up these two strong holds, the constitution is lost. What,
then, are we to think of the minister who wrests them out of
our possession • Or what will be said by future historians of
that parliament which tamely gave them up without one
syllable of remonstrance, or one threat of defiance? It is
true, that the House have so far relaxed from the rigorous
exercise of their privilege as to give a vote of credit to the
minister that he may be enabled to meet unforeseen emer-
gencies. This, however, has always been to a limited extent;
but, in the present instance, the right honourable gentleman
thought that we were as little qualified to judge of the extent
of the assistance to be given to the emperor as of the pro-
priety of giving it. He cannot surely pretend, .that by
twisting any vote of the last parliament he was at liberty, to
send pecuniary succours to the emperor. Notwithstanding
the obsequiousness of that parliament, notwithstanding all the
wounds which it gave the constitution, and notwithstanding all
the evils which it has entailed upon the country, I much
doubt whether it would have sanctioned a proposal for giving
another loan to the emperor. But with regard to this par-
liament, I hope that it will vindicate its own, dignity and nil".
portance at the outset, and chew the ministers of the countrY,
that if they arc advisers of the measures of the crown, th°
House of Commons are the guardians of the public put•


1 7961


ADVANCES TO THE EMPEROR, &C. 25 E


on the other hand, they patiently acquiesce in the most
daring encroachments upon their rights, what figure will they
make in history, or how will they answer to their country for
those liberties which they have wantonly sacrificed at


• the
shrine of unprincipled ambition ?


The right honourable gentleman last night expressed a
hope that parliament would continue their confidence; but
I trust he did not mean by this, that they will allow him to
go on disposing of the property- of the country without their
consent ; or if he does, I hope that in this, at least, they will
disappoint his expectations. On the present evening I shall
think it my duty to take the sense of the House upon every
question, whether of supply or of ways and means; and if
I succeed, I shall move on an early day, that his majesty's
ministers, in granting a loan to the emperor without the con-
sent


of parliament, have been guilty of a high crime and.
misdemeanor. If, however, the House shall not think proper
to agree with me on this evening, I shall defer that motion,
conceiving that it would not be attended with success. I
hope, however, that in this case the subject will be taken up
out of doors; that the people will, in every part of time coun-
try, express their abhorrence of the doctrince last night de-
livered by the right honourable gentleman, and that the House
of Commons will be obliged (I do not mean by force, but by
the voice of the country,) to assert those rights which they
have tamely and pusillanimously surrendered. For my own.
part, Sir, I consider this as a more serious attack upon the
constitution of the country, than any that has been conveyed
through the writings of Paine, or of any man whatever. The
nature of a libel is explained by its tendency, to bring into
hatred and contempt the constitution. Were I, said Mr. Fox,
upon a jury, deciding upon any composition containing the
speech of the right honourable gentleman last night, I would
not hesitate a moment to pronounce it a libel upon the con-
stitution : for if the doctrines laid down in it are constitutional,
ours is a most vile and detestable constitution. Even after
all the attacks which have been made upon it, and all the
wounds which it has received, we would still have shed ourblood in its defence; but, if this new defalcation is to be added
to what we were formerly robbed of, I would wish to know
What there is left to interest our feelings, or to stimulate our
exertions. This will, indeed, be an incalculable addition to
all the woes and calamities which the war has produced ; and
if, after what we have lost in money, in reputation, and in
,blood, we are also to submit to this Oppression, the House of
ucmmons is no longer to be considered as a branch of- the
distinguish ; and there will be little in our government to
wstinguish it from that of an absolute monarchy.




252 MR. FOX'S MOTION OT [Dec. 14, CENSURE ON MINISTERS. 253


MR. FOX'S MOTION OF CENSURE ON MINIsTEns
ADVANCING MONEY TO THE EMPEROR, WITHOUT nit
CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT.


December I4.


IN pursuance of the notice he had given,Mr Fox rose and said : — Notwithstanding, Sir, the ita..
portance of the subject of this evening's discussion ; the ap.
parent sense which the House entertains of its magnitude,
from the general attendance which is given; the conversation
which it has excited out of doors; and the decision which
has been this day passed by a respectable public body '" upon
the measure to which it refers; notwithstanding, I say, all
these considerations, I shall deliver the observations which
I mean to make, by way of preface to the Motion that I shall
have the honour to propose, without trespassing for any length
of time upon the patience of the House. And the reason is
shortly this, that much of the argument has been anticipated
in the two debates to which the subject has already given
rise. Besides, upon the fundamental point, or the principle
which the question involves, I shall think it much more be-
coming in me as a British subject, and as a member of par-
liament, to assert rather than to argue, studious not to weaken
the constitution, by stating as doubtful what it has recog-
nized as one of its leading features. The grand principle to
which I refer, Sir, is, that this is a limited arid not an absolute
monarchy, and that it is the peculiar privilege of the House of
Commons, not only, to levy taxes and impose burdens upon
the people, but to judge of the whole expellees of the state;
as well of the mode in which they ought to be applied, as of
the manner in which they ought to be raised. I trust that
this general principle is so universally acknowledged, that
I shall not be called upon to come forward in its defence.
I trust that in these times, and in this House, I shall not
hear a doctrine, which was received at an earlier period, and
which I have since seen revived in writings lately published4
that I shall not, I say, hear it contended, that the disposal of
the public money is a secret which ought not to be entrusted
to a public assembly, but that one or a few individuals are.


The Common Hall of the City of London.


loch more competent to manage and direct the pecuniary
much of the British nation than a British House of Com-
Icons., That an absolute government may be attended with
coy advantages which the government of a free state may
not possess, I am ready to allow. But were I called upon
to argue the question, (which I think is entirely foreign to
the subject of this night's discussion,) laying aside all &e
blessings' of liberty, and laying aside all the energy of cha-
racter which it is so eminently calculated to produce, I think
I should have no difficulty hi proving, that, merely for the
sake of external relations and for the purpose of carrying on
wars, even upon this narrow ground, setting out of view all
the collateral advantages of freedom, there is enough, ccete•is
pa•ibu.c, to turn the scale in favour of a free constitution.
This, however, is a question which I hope I am as little
called upon by the sentiments of the House as by the subject
now before us to discuss. I hope and trust that the prin-
ciple of freedom is recognized as a principle of the con-
stitution, and that, as a constitutional principle, it is received
as just, politic, and wise. I presume, however, it will be
contended, that though the principle be established, it is
Not invariable; that though it generally obtains in the ma-
nagement of the affairs of government, still it is liable to some
exceptions. I certainly inn not disposed to deny that it has
been the practice of the House and of the constitution sonic


-


times to deviate from the precise line of conduct which this
principle prescribes.


It may be argued, and I do not contravene the fact, that,
from the nature of our continental connections, and at a
period when our arms are employed in foreign service, it is


the


impossible precisely to state by estimate the amount of the
e
xpellee. of any separate measure, or of any particular line of


operation. And hence it may be truly inferred, that ex-tra
orclinaries have become necessary to be voted, to cover


expences exceeding the estimates which parliament has
voted; and that even these being found insufficient to provide
for incidental emergencies, it has been usual to pass a vote
of credit to the ITiinister, to be applied according to hisdisc


retion, to such unforeseen conjunctures as may arise.in either of the cases, however, it cannot be said, that the
rn,Pney is either levied or applied wholly without the consent
of since, in the one case it voted the service and
°lily mistook the estimate, and in the other, it voted the
money, confiding in ministers for the wisdom of the applica-(ma A




,,on tut i t must be remembered, that these are exceptions
" the princHe not the act of the con stitution that theyfl're t


- cessary evils which can never be extended beyond the




254
MR, PDX'S MOTION Or [Dee.


necessity in which they originate, without some degree ei
criminality in the persons who multiply them. It is not ver y
pleasant to quote a passage from the writings of an author
even in his absence, but much less when he Is present, par-
ticularly when he has not an opportunity of explaining his
own sentiments. My respect for the author, in the present
instance, however, is such, and the sentiments- which he has
expressed in the work to which I refer, seem to me to be
so forcible and just, that I feel I should be doing injustice
to my argument were I to refrain from quoting them. Most
gentlemen, I believe, will have gone before me in supposing
that I refer to a work, intitled, " Precedents of the House
of Commons:" by a very respectable gentleman, Mr. Hat-
sell, one of the clerks of this House. The following is the
passage to which I wish to call the attention of the House:


" Notwithstanding every precaution which can be taken
to confine the expellees of the different services within those
sums, which, after consideration of the estimate laid before
them; appear to the House of Commons to be fully sufficient,
we learn from fatal experience, that this has been found to
be impossible. In all the different services, the navy, the
army, and the ordnance, there has always been an exceeding,
or debt contracted upon each, which has been brought before
parliament ie a subsequent session, under the title of navy
debt, or of extraordinaries incurred and not provided for.
Formerly these exceedings were confined within some limits,
as appears from the accounts entered in the journals during
the war of the succession, and even in the war which ter-.
minated in I 748. In what is commonly called the German
war, in 1758, these sums first became very large: but in the
late war carried on in America, they exceeded all bounds.
There was a


b
deo-ree of' negligence, or extravagance, or both,


in those who had the conduct of this department, which
rendered all the votes of the House of Commons, or bills for
appropriating the supplies, ridiculous and nugatory. The
sums demanded upon the head of extraordinaries of' the
army, incurred, and not provided for during this period,
Egli not very much short of the whole sums voted by parlia-
ment, upon estimate, for that service."


Sir, Mr. Hatsell afterwards proceeds to speak of the trans-
actions of the year 1734: " The general and unlimited power
which was given by the resolution of time 3d of April, 1734i
to the ministers to apply, out of the aids of the year, such:
sums as the exigency of public affairs


b
miffht require, was it,


measure entirely subversive of those rules and restrictive
forms of parliament, which the House of , Commons Itave
imposed upon themselves in the mode of granting supplies,


1796.] CENSURE ON MINISTERS. ISS
and was contrary to the practice, which had been wisely
established since the Revolution, of' appropriating the sup-
plies- to the services for which they had been voted. We see,
therefore, that this proceeding did not pass without much
difficulty and debate, and that soon after, another, and so far
,rs it is limited, a better mode was adopted, which, though it
gave the ministers credit for the manner of disposing of the
oney voted, confined that credit to a precise and special


This deviation, in times of war, from the usual form
of parliament, can only be justified from the impossibility
of stating, in an estimate, those demands which the unforeseen
exigencies of extensive and uncertain operations may require;
it Is therefore incumbent on the House of Commons, not
only to make this supply of credit as small as possible, but
in a subsequent session to inquire into the particular ex-
penditure of the sum granted, and to be assured that it is
strictly applied to those purposes for which it was intended,
and not squandered loosely, improvidently, wantonly, or,
perhaps, corruptly."




I am happy to observe, also, that since this passage was
quoted last year in another House (by the Marquis of Lens-
down) the book has undergone a new edition, and that the
author, in revising and republishing his valuable work, has
seen no reason to alter his opinion upon the constitutional
danger of granting large votes of credit, and of voting great
sums under the head of extraordinaries, which might have
been previously provided for by parliament.


Having laid down this principle, then, and admitted the
exception, I hope I shall not be accused of pursuing an ar-
gument which would operate as arm objection to all extraor-
dinaries. All I contend is this; that they are an evil, but
an evil which may sometimes be unavoidable, or in other
Words, that they are a mischievous exception to the principle
of the constitution. The measure now before time Housei
uvolves two questions : in the first place, Whether it was
an ex-pence fit to be incurred ? and, secondly, Ought it tohave been incurred in the mode in which it actually has beenincurred, or to have been previously submitted to the decision
of parliament? On the first question, I shall not enter into
ally discussion. And, after I have guarded the House against


that
Considering it as my opinion, I shall suppose on this day,


it was an expellee proper to be incurred. With thisica havtea:, then, let it be taken for granted, for the sake of ar-
u
ment, that it was a wise arid prudent measure to remit


ezoo,000t. to the emperor ; yet we have still this important9h
estion to decide — Ought the sum to have been issue.


manner in which it was issued ? In the first place,-




256 MR. FOX'S MOTION OF
[Dec.


it was not an expence respecting the extent of which we COQ
have been uncertain. Had the remittances been numerouq,
and the services for which they were destined been of a very
complicated nature, it might have been difficult to ascertain
with precision the amoun t of the sum to be granted, but there
could be no difficulty in determining the sum which it was
proper for this country to grant either to the emperor or the
Prince of Conde. I would beg to be informed why, after
the country had been in the practice, year after year, of
maintaining emigrant corps, when it was in meditation to
send supplies to the army of the Prince of Conde, the in,
tention was not communicated to parliament? Or why a
precise estimate, which might have been very easily formed
of that head of expence, was not submitted to the House
along with the other estimates for the year? In the present
case, to rank the expence in the class of extraordinaries,
was in good truth to go the length of rendering extraor-
dinaries absurd and ridiculous, and all the laws of appropria-
tion nugatory and void. To apply the vote of credit to
defraying this expence, was as strange and unconstitutional.
When gentlemen are informed, that so early as December
1795, two hundred thousand pounds were issued to supply
the army of the Prince of Conde, upon what vote of credit
will they naturally suppose the money to have been raised?
It must be considered as an unforeseen expellee, else it ought
not to have been placed to the account of the vote of credit.
From what vote of credit, then, is it natural to suppose that
an unforeseen expence occurring in December 1795, should
be defrayed? One would certainly suppose from the vote of
credit for 17 95. No such thing. It was defrayed from the
vote of credit for 1796. 'What, then, was the conduct of the
right honourable gentleman? In February 1796, he came
down to the House, and said, " After all the taxes which I
hare levied, and all the burdens which I have imposed upon
the country, and grievously the people will, no doubt, feel
them, they arc not sufficient to answer all the exigencies Of
the state, and I must have credit for two millions and a half
more to meet the occurrences of unforeseen services ;" not,
you will observe, to supply the deficiencies of former esti-
mates, but to be applied expressly for the purpose of answere-


ing unexpected, but possible demands. But what does the
right honourable gentleman do? The first use lie snakes
the vote of credit is to pay a remittance of 200,0001. to thcie
Prince of Conde's army in December 1796, and of whi
parliament knew nothing. By way of illustration, I shall
suppose that a gentleman was leaving his house in town t°0
go to the country, or his house in the country to come


1796.3 CENSURE ON MINISTERS. 257
,Ilints,0leho, ei.sr, etirliie,.


,Y


ctattillill iel that lie called his steward, and gave him a sum of
for the purpose of paying the servants their wages


they became due, and of paying the taxes when they
The steward, we shall suppose, might say,


dthfins very proper, but on, an establishment so
extensive as yours, many expenses in repairs, charities, &c.
may occur for which I am not provided." Well, in con-
sequence of this representation the gentleman gives him 2001.
pr 3 001. more. But what would he think of his steward, if,
instead of keeping this 2001. or 3001. in reserve for unforseen
exigencies, he applied the sum to the payment of debts which
he had formerly contracted, and of which he kept his master
ignorant? Not to use any coarser language, he would cer-
tainly consider him as a steward who was no longer worthy
to be trusted. The analogy holds good in the conduct of
the right honourable gentleman in applying the vote of credit
for defraying expences formerly incurred, and which he kept
secret from parliament.


This, Sir, is something, but it is not all. There were some
suspicious circumstances in the time and manner in which the
vote of credit was applied for. My honourable friend, (Mr.
Grey,) who apprehended something incorrect, I remember
well, was accused of being extremely suspicious, though his
suspicions were certainly very fist from coining near to the
reality, if that could be called suspicion, which formerly, in
parliamentary language, would have been termed a watchful
Jealousy of the conduct of administration. It was matter of
surprise to my honourable friend, as well as to myself; that
application should be made for a vote of credit at so early a
period of the year; and admitting that it could be applied re-
trospectively, it was certainly not too much to expect that in
the disposition paper which was produced in April, some ac-
coun ]caye been given of the application of a sum which
had actually been employed to cover an expellee incurred in
the preceding year. No such account, however, was given
ni that paper. Now, Sir, I ask, what was this but a directfi.
aud upon the public ? Supposing, for argument's sake, that


there wits a difference between the money sent to the army of
Prince of Conde and the sums sent to the emperor; though


there certainly was no material difference, for it signified little
whether we supplied an army which the House of AustriaM ust otherwise have paid and supported, or whether we sent
/nalley to the House of Austria to enable it to pay and sup-1,1ort that army. I wish gentlemen to attend a little to thedebates of the fast session, and to the subjects of public clis-
ussion• They will recollect that there were several circum-
`ances


connected with the loan which attracted attention,
vox- vx.




z 5 8 M. rox's MOTION OF [Dec. „


There is one circumstance which it is material to recollect:
the terms upon which it was raised gave occasion to a good
deal of discussion, and they were justified upon several grounds,
one of which was, that we were not to consider it merely as a
loan ; that a quantity of navy debt was to be funded, and that
there might be wanted a loan of three millions for the emperor.
Frcm this I certainly inferred, -that if a loan was to be given
to his imperial majesty, the House of Commons would be
consulted, both respecting its propriety and extent ; that
nisters never would have taken it upon them to grant peen.
Mary succours to any foreign power without the consent of
parliament; that those who were averse to the measure would
have an opportunity of publicly opposing it; and if it was
carried, that at least it would not be adopted till it had as-
sumed a legal and constitutional shape. I heard it also ru-
moured, upon what I considered to be very good authority at
the time, that there were sonic people connected with the bank
who had stated the danger of sending so much specie out of
the kingdom ; and that there were many gentlemen who were
acquainted with the financial state of the country who would
have opposed such a step, not upon political grounds, but
upon their knowledge of the state of public credit. In the
course of the session questions were put to the right honour-
able gentleman several times upon the subject. The answers
were not very decisive, but they led me to conclude, that if
the measure was in contemplation, the House of Commons
would certainly be consulted upon it, before it was finally
adopted. Parliament was not consulted, and the period ar-
rives when we find that money actually was sent to Germany.


And here, Sir, for the sake of argument, I shall also admit
that it was expedient, that it was wise, that it was necessary
to send money to the emperor, that it was necessary fore*
salvation of Germany, and that the salvation of Germanai0
necessary to that of Great Britain. This necessity, then,
arose during the recess, and if they considered it as so impe-
riously urgent as not to admit of the delay of calling parlia-
ment before the money was sent, why did they not assemble
parliament to inform the public of that had been done,
arid to petition for a bill of indemnity Perhaps flleY,
will say, that that might be done as well at the usual period el
the meeting of parliament ; that after the money was granted,
it was unnecessary to assemble them for the purpose of in'.
forming therm of a measure already adopted; that when
sent the first remittance they had no idea of sending a s,
and that when the second was sent, they did not conceiv e t;r3t,:
a third would be necessary; and so on. Well: the
September arrived, when the king bad summonedparliamea


2 7th 01


j96.j CENSURE ON I'dINISTERS. 259


to meet. One would have thought, that now their own time
was come, that they would have condescended so far as to
communicate the secret. But no 'such communication is made !
Now, Sir, I ask how ministers, when parliament was sitting,
could presume, clandestinely, to send money to the emperor
without either informing-or consulting the House of Commons
upon the subject ? I ask, if there be any possibility of answer-
ing the question to the satisfaction of the House of Commons
of Great Britain, if they are not resolved tamely and pusillani-
mously to surrender the most sacred and important privilege
that has been conferred upon them by the constitution ? I
trust that I shall not hear the argument which was employed
in a former debate restated on this evening ; that secrecy was
observed for the purpose of restoring the credit of the country.
This is too flimsy an argument to impose upon even the most
superficial thinker. To what motive, then, is the conduct of
ministers to be ascribed ? I can account for it upon only one
of two grounds. The first and most natural, I confess, appears
to be, that it was their intention to take advantage of the uni-
versal satisfaction which was occasioned throughout the coun-
try by the successes of the imperial arms, to establish a pre-
cedent against the constitution, by disposing of a sum of money
in an unconstitutional mode upon a favourite object, and thus
to set an example to future ministers to employ the public
money as their judgments may direct, or their caprices dictate,
without consulting the wisdom or acknowledging the authority
of parliament. The only other ground on which they can at-•
tempt to justify their conduct is, that the ministers of the king
are better judges than the House of Commons of the propriety,
the extent, and the period for executing any public measure.
The right honourable gentleman knew for certain whether it
was proper or improper to grant pecuniary succours to the
emperor ; he knew the specific sum which it was proper to
send, and the precise period for remitt i no• it • but, had theremitting




House of Commons been consulted, they would not have been
Proper judges ; they would have been for sending either too
much or too little ; -for sending either too hastily or too tardily.
Such a defence, Sir, instead of extenuating, is an aggravation of
the offence. I ask, if a British House of Commons will bear to
be told by a minister, not only that he is a better judge than they
are of the prerogatives of the crown, which he did with so
much arroaance‘, in 1784, but that he is the best judge also
0f the privileges of the people ? If the case was difficult, why
aid


he not come to the House of Commons for instruction?
If the case was delicate, why did he not depend upon the wis-
d" I of the House of Commons for direction? If Germany
was to be saved by the money of the people of Great Britain,


s2




260 ant. FOX'S :MOTION OF
[Dec. 54.


why were not the House of Commons the saviours? I ask
him, whether he believes that the Ilouse of Commons would
have sanctioned a loan to the emperor, or that they would not?
If he thought that they would, why did he not apply to them?
If he conceived that they would not, why did he dare, not
only to usurp their authority, but to trample upon their privi.
leges ; to dispose of the money of the nation, not only without
the consent, but in direct contradiction to the will of parlia.
ment ? It is pretty well known that I have no great opinion of
the public spirit of the last parliament ; and I do believe, that
after what they did to extend the influence of the crown, and
to infringe upon the liberties of the people ; after their perse-
vering support of a war, as disastrous in its consequences as it
was unjust in its origin ; after their blind and obstinate con-
fidence in ministers, by whom they were deceived and misled,
and after the grievous and intolerable burdens which they im-
posed upon the people; I do believe, I say, that the influence
of the crown would have carried even this question. I am
persuaded, however, it would have been attended with more
than ordinary difficulty, and that parliament would at least
have hesitated before they gave their assent.


But, will the right honourable gentleman pretend to say,
that he was not aware during last parliament, that there would
be any necessity for the measure? I ask him, when he con-
siders the debt as having been contracted, whether, when the
bills were drawn, or when the money was issued ? If he con-
siders the debt as contracted when the money was issued, the
emperor might have received it all, excepting about 77,0001.
as soon, had parliament been consulted, as he did when the
money was sent without their concurrence. But, upon the
other supposition, which is the more favourable of the two for
the right honourable gentleman, that the debt was contracted
when the bills were drawn, and that it was necessary that the
bills should be drawn during the recess ; was I, says the right
honourable gentleman, to take the sense of parliament upon
the payment of a bill after permitting it to be drawn ?
answer, that he must still take the sense of parliament, when
the question comes to be put upon the payment of the extrao r


-dinaries of the army ; and that it is then in the power of the
House of Commons, if not to stop the payment of that speci-
fic sum to the Emperor of Germany, to refuse to cover th..e
deficiency which it has occasioned •in the estimated service.
One of the bills I find to have been dated on the 20th of MaYi
and, if I recollect right, the House was prorogued on the 19th'
Now, I ask, Did he not know, on the 59th, that this bill vies
to be drawn on the 2ctli ? And if he did, which it was im-
possible but he must have done, I ask, when it was his in-


1796.] CENSURE ON :MINISTERS. 265


tendon to send money to the emperor, why he concealed it?
When he found that it would be necessary to call upon the
country .for pecuniary aid to the House of Austria, why did
be not inform the public of the additional burden which they
would be called upon to sustain ? When lie was compelled
to have recourse to the House of Commons for support, why
did he not ask that support in a constitutional manner ? Sup-
posing even for a moment, that the urgency of the crisis was
such as to render it necessary to draw the; bills during the re-
cess, why did he not submit the matter to the House of Com-
MOUS as soon as they were assembled ?


Without entering at all into the question of the propriety
of granting these succours, a discussion which I wish on this
evening entirely to avoid, I cannot help making an observa-
tion upon the relation in which we stand to the House of




Austria in pecuniary matters. In 179 5. , this country guaran-
teed a loan to the emperor of four millions and a half. There
were many who doubted at the time the policy of the mea-
sure; and I recollect well that a noble lord urged in behalf
of the good faith of his imperial majesty, that he had made
good his first payment of the interest due upon the loan. I
did not consider it as a very powerful argument at the time-,
because I knew that the money for the first payment of the
interest was deducted from the capital ; and I shall be still
less surprized now to hear of Ins imperial majesty's punctuality
in paying the interest upon that loan after we have remitted
him 1,200,0001. which is three or four times more than any
Suns of interest which he has to pay to this country. I do not
state this as a reason why parliament should withhold


suc-


cours from the emperor, but I state it as an additional reason
why ministers should be cautious of granting these succours
without the sanction of parliament.


I have been often accused, Sir, of representing the consti-
tution as in danger. Of these alarms I am willing to take all
the shame, and to the crime, if it be any, I readily plead
guilty. The oftener I think upon the subject, and the
more experience I have of the conduct of ministers, the more
I am convinced that my alarms are just, and my apprehen;.
sions well founded. Upon some measures which I have con-
ceived to be dangerous to the constitution, I allow that there
was room for difference of opinion. The question now before
the House, however, is not, whether the attack is greater
or less than those which have been formerly directed against
the constitution. It is so bold and so daring, and so entirelySubversive of the letter of the constitution, that if it meet the
sa


nction of parliament, the question will be, not how far the
constitution is injured, but whether or not we have any consti-


s 3




162 MR. FOX'S MOTION, &C. [Dec. 14
tution at all? It is upon these grounds that I am induced to
bring forward the motion which I am about to propose.
When it has been thought necessary to add new and extra.
ordinary powers to the crown, to accumulate new descrip.
tions of treason, to inflict cruel, barbarous, and unheard-of
punishments; in fact, to institute something approaching to a
military government, whether these innovations have been
necessary or not, I think they are of such a magnitude as to
have justified some degree of alarm. But if, in addition to all
these new and extraordinary circumstances, there is to be
added a direct attack upon the privileges of this House, and
the Sum of 1,2oo,oco/. is to be disposed of by the minister,
not only in augmentation of expellees approved of by parlia,
meat, but without obtaining the consent of, or so much as
acknowledging, parliament, I should be glad to know where
there is the smallest safeguard of the constitution left, or what
seciirity we can have against the future encroachments, either.
of a minister, or of a prince, who may be disposed to make
them ? I am sure the right honourable gentleman cannot twist
any provision in the vote of credit bill, so as to afford him
the smallest pretence for making the application of it which
he has clone, and the expence can with less propriety be MUG-
duced among the extraordinaries of the army, since it might
have been previously voted upon estimate. In both cases,
whether the money has been paid from the vote of credit, or
under .the head of army extraordinaries, the right honourable
gentleman has been equally culpable: in the one case, be has
been guilty of a breach of trust, and in both he has acted di-
rectly contrary to the principles of the constitution. I move,
Sir, that the act founded on the vote of credit may be read.
[The act being read, Mr. Fox continued.] Some persons
think, that in order to repair the breach of the constitution, a
bill of indemnity ought to be passed : for my own part, I am
not of such an opinion. I think there is no alleviating circum-
stance in any part of the conduct of ministers, to entitle them
to such indulgence. When the subject was under discussion
on a former evening, the right honourable gentleman, instead
of soliciting pardon, came forward with a vindication of his
conduct, and challenged the House if they dared to find fault
with it. I think, therefore, that an act of indemnity would be
improper, because the circumstances have been even a greater
outrage upon the constitution (if a greater be possible) than,
the principle itself. I cannot conceive any more proper mode
of acting, than for the House to express a plain intelligible
opinion upon the measure. I know hot what is their opinion/
nor do I know the opinion of the public upon it; but this I do
know, that he must be sanguine indeed who can hope that the


17961
RUPTURE OF THE NEGOCIATION, &C.


263


constitution can long survive such en attack, if the authors of
it are suffered to pass without any mark of reprehension.
gr. Fox concluded with moving, " That his majesty's mi-
nisters, having authorized and directed, at different times,
without the consent, and during the sitting of parliament, the
issue of various sums of money for the service of his imperial
majesty, and also for the service of the army under the Prince
of Conde, have acted contrary to their duty, and to the trust
reposed in them, and have thereby violated the constitutional
privileges of -this House."


Mr. Fox's motion was seconded by Mr. Alderman Combe, and
supported by Mr. Sheridan, Sir William Pulteney, and Mr. Wil-
liam Smith. Mr. Pitt, in a speech of great length, endeavoured
to slim, from parliamentary history, that the measure was not un-.
precedented nor unconstitutional. Mr. Bragge defended the con-
duct of ministers, and moved as an amendment, " The measure
of advancing the several sums of money, which appear, from the
accounts presented to the House in this session of parliament, to
have been issued for the service of the emperor, though not to be
drawn into precedent, but upon occasions of special necessity, was,
under the peculiar circumstances of the case, a justifiable and pro-
per exercise of the discretion vested in his majesty's ministers by
the vote of credit, and calculated to produce consequences which
have proved highly advantageous to the common cause, and to
the general interests of Europe." After a long debate, the House
divided on Mr. Fox's motion :


Tellers. Tellers.
YEAS Mr. Aid. Combo Lord Carrington} 0Mr. Wm. Smith


NORS M




r. Steele 205.
Mr. Fox's motion was thus negatived ; after which, Mr. Bragge's


amendment was put and carried.


KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING THE RUPTURE OF THE NE-
GOCIATION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE.


December 3o.


ON the 26th of December, Mr. Secretary Dundas presented amessage from his majesty, acquainting the House with the
rupture of the negociation for peace with France. On the follow-
ing day, Mr. Pitt, -after entering into an elaborate defence of the
c911d.


act of his majesty's ministers during the progress of the nego-
Ciotti:in, moved, " That an humble address be presented to his ma-
3"tY, to return his majesty the thanks' of this House for his most
gracious message; and for having been pleased to lay before the


S 4




264
RUPTURE OF THE NEGOCIATION [DOC; 30


House the papers which have been exchanged in the course of the
'late discussion, and the account transmitted to his majesty of its
final result : to assure his majesty, that we cannot but deeply
participate in the concern which his majesty (from his constant
regard to the interests of his subjects) naturally feels in the dis.
appointment of his earnest endeavours to effect the restoration of
peace, and in the abrupt determination, on the part of the French
government, of the negociation in which his majesty was engaged,
but that it affords us the greatest consolation, and the utmost in.
citement to our zeal and perseverance, to observe the abundant
proofs that his majesty's conduct has been guided by a sincere de.
sire to effect the restoration of general peace, and to provide for
the permanent interests of his kingdoms, and for the general secu-
rity of Europe ;• while his enemies have advanced pretensions, at
once inconsistent with those objects, unsupported even on the
grounds on which they were professed to rest, and repugnant both
to the system established by repeated treaties, and to the principles
and practice which have hitherto regulated the intercourse of in-
dependant nations : — that, in this situation, persuaded that the
present continuance of the calamities of war can he imputed only
to the unjust and exorbitant views of his majesty's enemies, and
looking forward, with anxiety, to the moment when they may be
disposed to act on different principles, we feel it incumbent on us
to afford his majesty the most firm and zealous support in such
measures as may be most likely to bring this great contest to a safe
and honourable issue ; and we place the fullest reliance, under the
-protection of Providence, on his majesty's vigilant concern for the
interests of his subjects, on the tried valour of his forces by sea and
land, and on the zeal, public spirit, and resources of these king-
doms, which can never be called forth under circumstances more
important to their permanent welfare, and to the general security
and interests of Europe."— Mr. Erskine commenced a most elo-
quent reply to the chancellor of the exchequer, but was suddenly
obliged to sit down, in consequence of indispositon. Upon this


Mr. Fox rose and said :— Sorry, indeed, am I on account
of my honourable and learned friend, whose indisposition has
suddenly compelled him to sit down ; sorry for the sake of the
I-louse, whose information, from the train of argument which
he had adopted, has been thus unpleasantly interrupted; and
sorry for the cause of peace and Great Britain, which mini-
sters, by their imprudent counsels and infatuated policy, seem
determined to push to the last verge of ruin, that I am thus
unexpectedly called upon to address the House on the present
occasion. I feel it, however, incumbent upon me to step for'
ward, knowing that my opinion on the subject entirely coin-
cides with that of my honourable and learned friend who hagjust sat down, but lamenting, that in consequence of his indis'position, the argument on this momentous question must cons
siderably stiffer from the want of that ability with which it


796.3 FOR. PEACE WITH FRANCE. 265


would have been enforced by superior powers. I need not
state, that the business before us is of the utmost importance,
that the occasion is such, as, though we may not think it neces-
sary to contemplate it with despair, we cannot survey but with
the most serious considerations, and with feelings of the deepest
regret.• After a war of four years, which is stated to have
been attended with many occurrences highly honourable and
advantageous to the British arms, and to have been
l


aceom-
p lied with no disgrace, after the immense expenditure in-
cuffed in the prosecution &hostilities, an expenditure, which
undoubtedly has been greatly aggravated by the extravagance
of those concerned in superintending the plan of operations,
after an addition of no less than two hundred millions to the
national debt, and of nine millions to the permanent taxes of
the country ; after an enormous effusion of human blood ; af-
ter




an incalculable addition to the sum of human wretched-
ness, so far are we from having gained any point or any
object for which we set out in the war, so fin- are we from
having achieved any advantage, that the minister has this
night come forward in a most elaborate speech, and has en-
deavoured to prove, that the only effect has been, that the
enemy have become more unreasonable than ever in their pre-
tensions, and that all hopes of peace are removed to a still
greater distance. 'We are now not allowed to hope for the
restoration of peace, unless some change is wrought by the
events of war. And at what period is this prospect brought
forward ? After a war of four years, which so far from having
produced any favourable change in the disposition of the
enemy, if we may trust to the representations of the right ho-.
pourable gentleman, has only served to increase the insolence,
of their style, and the exhorbitance of their pretensions.
The same necessity is still stated to exist for the continuance
of the war.


It would, Sir, have been some consolation, if after the rightho
nourable gentleman had stated at such length, and with


such an elaborate display of eloquence, the exorbitant preten-
sions of the enemy, he had suggested some means of reducing
them. But, good God, how striking is the contrast ! In this
speech of three hours, I find only one solitary sentence which
is at all calculated to afford any hope of a satisfactory issue to
the present unfortunate contest. And of what materials does
"le remainder of the speech consist? It is merely a revival of
°Pinions by which we have been led on from year to year,
,an,r


_d by which we have found ourselves constantly deluded.
W e are left in the same hopeless state with respect to the at-
ainment of the object of the contest. The right honourablegentleman says, that he formerly gave a representation of the




266 RUPTURE OT THE NEGOCIATION [Dec. 3.0. 1796.] FOR PEACE WITH FRANC& 267


deplorable state of the French finances from uncertain doen,
ments, but that he is now enabled to confirm the same repre-
sentation from the most indubitable authority — the statement
of the directory. I am apt to believe that the documents of
the right honourable gentleman in .both instances are equally
authoritative. Formerly he proceeded on the speeches of
leading members of the convention, and on official reports.
He now grounded his statement on a publication of the
directory. If his authority has failed him in former in.
stances, what force can he now attach to conclusions drawn
from similar premises. It has been found from experience,
that in proportion as the finances of the French have been ac-
knowledged, even by themselves, to be reduced to the lowest
ebb, in the same proportion have their exertions been won_
derful and unparalleled. Now the right honourable gentle-
man builds his conclusion of the certain ruin of the French
finances on an immediate statement from the directory. I
wonder that he does not go farther, and quote the very in-
genious letter of Lord Malmesbury, in which he reports the
conversation that took place between him and M. Delacroix,
in this conversation the French minister is represented as
having paid the highest compliments to the extensive means
possessed by this country, as having described it from its in-
ternal sources of wealth, and from its colonies in the Indies,
to be mistress of almost boundless resources. Thus, while
the directory admit that Great Britain is distinguished by her
wealth, and full of resources, they have no hesitation to ac-
knowledge their own poverty and embarrassments. They
acknowledge to all Europe, that from the want of money, the
army is considerably in arrears, and every branch of the in-
ternal administration under circumstances of the greatest em-
barrassment and distress. They at the same time allow to this
country all the advantages of an augmented commerce, and
of increasing opulence and prosperity. In this House we
have heard France represented as sometimes in the gulph,
and sometimes on the verge of bankruptcy; and it is rather
curious, that at different periods we should have heard it al
ternately described at one time as in the very gulph, and at
another as on the verge of bankruptcy. But, while they admit
the ruined state of their own finances, what a striking con-
trast do their exertions in their present contest, and the suc-
cess which has followed from their operations, afford to the
conduct and fate of those who have been entrusted with the
management of the war on the part of this country ! Whilst
we, in every quarter, which it was deemed most important to
defend, have been losing city after city; whilst we have been
equally driven from the possessions which we Conceived to be


necessary to the security of our commerce, or to the balance
of power, France, resourceless and dispirited, all, the while -
avowing her own distressed situation with respect to finance,
and talking in the most respectful terms of our wealth and
resources, has been constantly adding to her acquisitions, and
aggrandising her empire. France appears, in the present
moment, as the conqueror of most extensive and important
territories. Belgium is annexed to her empire, great part of
Italy has yielded to the force of her arms, and Holland is now
united to the fate of the republic by ties of the strictest alliance.
If; indeed, these acquisitions could be regained to the cause
of Great Britain and her allies by a lofty tone of argument, if
the tide of victory could be turned by the dexterity of debate,
and the efficacy of our exertions bore any proportion to the
insolence of our boasting, we need not yet be afraid to claim
a decided superiority. -'We are not at all deficient on the
score of confident assertion or presumptuous menace.


But, Sir, it is by other means, and by another criterion
that this question is to be decided. Weak and inconsidera-
ble as I am in this House, I did my utmost previous to the
commencement of this unfortunate contest, to persuade the
government to send an ambassador to Paris, when undoubt-
edly he would have met with the treatment which an am-
bassador of Great Britain is now alleged to have experienced.
But when ministers tell us, that this ambassador was dismissed
in a way unexampled in the history of civilized nations, they
surely must have forgot the manner in which M. Chauvelin
was sent from this country. At a subsequent period, when
the whole of Belgium was regained, when the French were
not possessed of one foot of ground in that territory, did 1
then neglect my duty to the country ? No ! I then renewed
my motion for peace. This was at the period before the
powers combined against France had gained the fortress of
Valenciennes ; but when it was certain that it must fall, I
contended that then was the period to make peace. And
now ask, if an attempt had been then made to negociate,
whether we might not have expected to have obtained peace
Oil terms as honourable and as advantageous as any which we
can now possibly lay claim to ? Again and again have
Pressed upon the House the necessity and policy of




r)
adoptinu


Imeasures for the restoration of peace, and again and againleave
my motions for that purpose been rejected. In order to


`as


snow how greatly ministers miscalculated the nature of the
cniitest, at that former period when I argued for peace, it


said , " What, make peace before you have achieved a
'ionic contest, and when you are just beginning to make ad-
vances in the country of the enemy !" Such, at that time,




p
a68 RUPTURE OF THE NEGOCIATXON [Dec. 3e,


was the style of reasoning brought forward in opposition to
the arguments which I urged in favour of peace. So widely
were ministers then deceived with respect to the nature of the
contest, so falsely did they calculate as to the turn of subse,
quent events ! Unhappy calculation ! Unhappy mistake
The object did not respect a particular branch of trade, or
a limited extent of territory : the most important interests of
the country were at stake. The ministers, by their calcula-
tions, were not pledging Jamaica, or any island of the West
Indies ; they were pledging Great Britain herself, the fate of
which may in some degree be considered as depending on the
issue of this night's debate. The right honourable gentle-
man, formerly, in talking of the nature of the contest, made
use of a memorable expression, which cannot easily be for-lgotten. He intimated that the nature of the contest was such,at our exertions ought to be bounded only by our resources,
and that our efforts must he extended to the utmost pitch,
before we could hope for an honourable termination of the
struggle. He expressly declared that we ought not to cease
from the contest, till we should be able to say,


Potuit quw plurima virtus
Esse, fuit ; toto certatum est corpore regal.


The right honourable gentleman has stated the difficulties
attendant upon the negociation, as arising from two circum-
stances; first, the difficulty in all eases of proposing overtures,
without being able to ascertain what reception they are likely
to experience; secondly, the particular obstacles from the re-
lative situation of the. two countries. The right honourable
gentleman has, however, omitted to state a difficulty more
weighty and insuperable than either of those I have now men-
tioned. In every negociation the difficulty of coming to any
definitive arrangement must be infinitely increased, in propor-
tion to the degree of distrust entertained by the parties with
respect to their mutual intentions. If the right honourable
gentleman had some reason to suspect the sincerity of the
French directory, had not they at least equal ground to en-
tertain the same doubts with respect to his views iii the tier
elation ? After every epithet of reproach had been exhausted
by ministers to vilify their characters, was it to be ex dpecte
that they would readily listen to terms of peace dictated by those
ministers, except they were brought into that state of neces-
sity and submission, which precluded them from any alterna-
tive, and compelled them to an unconditional complianee
with any pacific proposition that might be presented to their
acceptance? When Lord Malmesbury, in addressing the


FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE.
2691 796.1


French minister, so often brings forward his profession of
hi,rh consideration, I cannot but smile, when I recollect that
Lord Auckland was made a peer (for I know of no other .


reason
for his advancement to that dignity), merely because he de-
clared that the men who are now addressed in such respectful
terms " ought to be put under the sword of the law," and be-
cause he denounced them as miscreants and traitors to all


His lordship, by this declaration, brought for-Europe *-
ward in a public capacity, shelved that he, acting on the part.
of Great Britain, was not slow to be their executioner and
their j udge.


Sir, there is one part of the address, which the right honour-


can by no means subscribe — that his majesty has neglected no
able gentleman has entirely omitted to notice, and to which I


proper opportunity to conclude this war. A few years ago,
when I earnestly pressed the propriety of negociation, the
right honourable gentleman contended, that the French were
not capable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity.
He neither, however, at that time, nor at any subsequent
period, shoved any reason why they were not capable of
maintaining those relations. I ask, in what respect they are
now become more capable of maintaining those relations than
when I formerly proposed to treat ? Will the right honour-
able gentleman say, that then there was only a provisional
government, and that there now exists a permanent constitu-
tion? I am sure that he will not venture to press that argu-
ment, as he must be aware of the extent to which it will lead
him. And if such be the case, I have no hesitation to state,
that the assertion in the address, that no proper opportunity
has been omitted to conclude peace, is entirely false, and as
such, must meet my decided negative. At last, however, the
right honourable gentleman declares, that he felt it his duty to
attempt


negociation. I did not think it my duty to come for-
ward to animadvert either on the motives of his conduct, or
for the probable


The r
result of the. measure, till the event had spoken


ie result has proved to be such as, however
. anxiously we may be disposed to deprecate it, it was not diffi-


their


the country, indeed
a theyright honourable gentleman to be a blessing, must take


cult to foresee from the mode in which it has been conducted.
If th


• consider the administration of the
y s


between the continuance of that blessin• andthe


See Vol. S .,
p. 84.


restoration of peace. It is evident, that those individuals
who have conducted the war with such notorious incapacity,
and entailed so many mischiefs on the country, must of all




270


RUPTURE OF THE NEGOCIATION


others be the most unfit to repair the errors of their own ix,
licy, and secure to Great Britain_ the enjoyment of permanent
tranquillity. But not only have they evinced this glaring
capacity in the management of the present war, their conduct
in former negotiations with respect to Spain and Russia has
been such, as on the one hand to excite considerable distrust,
and'on the other to inspire a well-grounded hope of bringing
them down from the loftiest pretensions to the most burnt,
hating concessions. But what can be thought of their since,
rity in the present instance, when they have repeatedly de,
dared that any peace, under the particular circumstances,
could only afford a breathing space from hostility, and ulti,
mately must tend to redouble all the mischiefs to be dreaded
from a continuance of the war? But even if ministers had
conducted the 'war with ability as distinguished as their inca.
,pacity has been notorious, if they had displayed in debate as
much temper and prudence as they have discovered impoli-
tic and indecent violence, if they had shewn themselves as
much friends to the French as on every occasion they have
endeavoured to prove themselves the reverse; still I should
have no hopes of peace on any permanent basis, except the
present system of policy was entirely changed, and the prin-
ciples upon which the war was undertaken totally disavowed.
If the administration were to be transferred into the hands of
persons whose abilities I admire, and whose integrity I respect,
as much as I contemn and reprobate the talents and character
of those who are now placed at the-helm of affairs, still I should
consider this change of system, and disavowal of principles, to
be a necessary preliminary of peace. It is necessary, Sir, for
the solidity of any peace that may he concluded, that maxims
of sound sense and of impartial equity be recognised in the
outset of the negociation. The present has been a war of pas-
sion and of prejudice, and not of policy and self-defence.
The right honourable gentleman, whatever may have been
his sincerity in the transaction, is no stranger to the advan-
tages that may be derived from the idea of a pending De'
gociation. That lie now feels those advantages nobody will
dispute. I know that some weeks ago a very confident,
report was circulated with respect to the probability, a
peace. It would be curious to know how far Lord Malmes


-bury at that period was influenced by any such belief: It
does AO; appear from the papers on the table, that at the
momatt he could reasonably hope for a successful issue to his,
negociation. It seems doubtful, indeed, from the inspectioniat
those papers, whether Lord Malmesbury was not sent 01'C'.
merely to chew his diplomatic dexterity ; to fence and pall
with M. Delacroix, in order to evince his superior skill anu


3" 5


1196.) FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 271


adroitness in the management of argument, and the arts of
political finesse; to confound the shallow capacity, and super-
ficial of the French minister and to make the
cause of this country appear to be the better cause. 'While
Load Malmesbury was employed thus honourably in the dis-
play of his talents at Paris, the minister had an object of
policy to answer at home. It was' found convenient for the
purpose of financial arrangements to hold out the hopes of
peace,ae till such time as it was found that the appearance of
negociation might be renounced without any unfavourable
effect, as to the supplies of the year.


But, in order more completely to ascertain the sincerity
which has been shewn by ministers in the desire which they
have expressed for'peace, and the fairness of the means which.
they have employed for the attainment of that object, it may .
be necessary to enter a little more minutely into the history of
the negociation, and to follow the right honourable gentle-
man through the long detail which he has brought forward
on the subject, and which was sufficiently laboured to prove
that he was aware of all the difficulties with which he had to
contend in vindicating the character of the British govern-
ment, and of the necessity of putting the most favourable
gloss uPon their conduct. The first step taken fbr the pur-
pose of negociation was, the communication at Basle, in
which Mr. Wickham had been engaged as the agent of the
British government. As he was not authorized to take any
definitive step, or to ma14.e any declaration binding on the
government, but little stress could be laid on that circum-
stance. Those, however, who attended to the details of that
transaction, would not be disposed, even in that early stage
of the business, to draw any inference very favourable to the
sincerity of ministers. The mission of Lord Malrnesbury is
unquestionably- what ministers wish to be considered as the
grand effort for peace, -and as affording an unequivocal proof
of thesincerity of their wishes for its attainment. Of the
details of that negociation we are enabled to judge from the
Papers which have been laid upon the table of this House.


la


Until the publication of his majesty's manifesto on the subject,
acquainted with the circumstances of that trans-


il:it', I;l ltiolsitIl (fTol the statement of the public prints. I was not a
e surprized when the manifesto reached me in the country,
from the perusal of its contents was induced to suspect.


that30Iiiii sbelutist leave been completely misled in my previous in-
on. On the inspection, however, of the papers laid


I was still more surprized when I found that
the public prints were much more accurate in their represent-
ation of facts than his majesty's declaration. Never, indeed,




272 RUPTURE OE THE NEGOCIATION


[Dee, 30.


was there any paper brought forward with the stamp of of:
ficial authority so little connected with the documents ups'
which it is professed to be founded ; so little warranted in the
conclusions drawn from its premises. It entirely conceals the
most important facts of the negotiation, and states the others
so loosely as not to exhibit them in any precise and distinct
shape. The right honourable gentleman has stated, th at a
degree of disrespect was in the first instance shewn to a foreign
court by the French _directory, in their refusal to grant a
passport for a British ambassador, upon the application ej
the minister from the court of Denmark. But how does this
fact stand ? The court of Denmark did not at all interfere
in the. business. The Danish minister in the letter in which
he applied for a passport, expressly stated, that he acted
merely in a private capacity, and not in consequence of any
instruction which he had received from his court. So much,
then, for the alleged disrespect shewn by the French to a
foreign court, and the inference which is thence drawn of a
disposition thus manifested to throw contempt on all esta-
blished usages, and to dispense with the ordinary forms of
accommodation, and the understood civilities of political
intercourse.


I understand, that as an apology for bringing forward the
manifesto previous to the publication of the papers, much has
been said of the mechanical labour of preparing those papers
for the inspection of the House. I have formerly been in
office, and I believe that those who are now engaged in the
service of the department are fully as capable and diligent as
the persons by whom I was then assisted. And I confidently
declare that I see nothing in the mechanical labour of those
papers that, if they had arrived on Saturday morning,
ought to hale prevented them from being in a state of readi-
ness to be produced on Saturday evening. But I rather
suspect, that with regard to the publication of the manifesto,
it was thought expedient to attempt to give a bias to the sen-
timents of the House, before it was deemed advisable to
submit the facts contained in the papers to their cool and
sober investigation. As to the delay which has been imputed
on the score of mechanical labour, I am rather disposed to
believe that it was purposely interposed, in order to afford 10
ministers an opportunity of revising the papers, and of


de-


ciding what part ,of their contents it might be prudeet
suppress, and what might be safely submitted to the publliln


eye. It is curious to attend to the nature of the powers Wi'
which Lord Malmesbury was furnished, and to their conn,_:
tion with the object of his mission. He was sent in 0017
to negotiate for peace, and furnished with full pow er50


/796.] FOR PEACE WITH- FRANCE. 27 3


onchide ; but though lie was thus authorized to conclude, he
allowed no latitude to treat. He had no instructions with


respect to the terms he should propose, and no discretion
uf )011 which to act with respect to the propositions he might
re


ceive. When he was asked, if he came to treat for the
King of Great Britain separately ? he said, No : but that he
came jointly to treat for the King of Great Britain and his
allies. When lie was asked, if lie was furnished with any
powers from those allies? he again replied, No. 'When he
leas asked, what terms he had to propose ? he said lie would
send for instructions. Thus it appeared, that he was em-
powered to conclude for the King of Great Britain, but not
qualified to treat; and that for the allies for whom lie came
to treat, lie had no power to conclude. Could there possibly
be a more ridiculous farce — a more palpable mockery of the
forms of negociation ?


We next come to the basis; and this, indeed, carries us
but a little way in the progress of negotiation. In this in-
stance, the basis was laid so wide, as to comprehend no dis-
tinct object, and to be reducible 1;0 no precise meaning. It
was that sort of general principle which no one could possibly
dispute, but which could at the same time be attended with
no practical benefit. The French accordingly stated, that
they had agreed to your principle, and that they only disputed
its application. The right honourable gentleman has asserted
that a basis is always desirable ; but then, it ought to be a
basis,


which meant something, and not, as in the present in-
stance, which meant nothing. The principle of mutual com-


substantially recognized in every negotiation,


it


and b


e


is r


equire to be specified. The general objects of
dispute in fixin,,,la a basis of negotiation have been, whether


regulated by the status quo ante helium, or the
Sri possidetis?


r te
right honourable gentleman stated, as a


proof of reluctance to negotiate on the part of the French,
that they for some time hesitated to admit our proposed basis ;b m fact, they virtually recognized the principle when
they entered into the discussion of terms. He who asks,
w hat you will give, or states what lie is willing to receive, at
°nee admits the basis of mutual compensation. But - as a
Proof of the consistenc y of ministers, a fortnight afterwards,
\dice the French formally recognized the principle, and.
asked Lord Malmesburv, what terms he was prepared to
t"Pnse; lie Was unprovided with any answer, and obliged


it
° send to this country for instructions. What inference is


be drawn from this conduct on the part of ministers.? Is
not most probable, that by thus bringing forward a futile,


' Ilus°r37, and unmeaning 'basis, they expected to disgust the




2 7 4 RUPTURE OF THE NEGOCIAT1ON [Dec. 30.
French in the first instance, and at once to get rid of the
negociation ? And if the French, who must have felt then,
selves mocked by this treatment, and who must have beet
more and more assured of the insincerity of our ministers,
had thought proper to stop all farther proceedings, would
they not have been fully justified? On what principle wet,
they bound to countenance a transaction which was conducted
with no good faith, and could promise no satisfactory issuer
Undoubtedly ministers expected that the French would resent
the insult, and break off the negociation in its outset. They
thus hoped to obtain an easy credit for their pacific intentions,
and to throw upon the enemy the odium of determined
hostility, and an unreasonable rejection of the preliminar;
basis of negociation. Unfortunately, however, for t6
project, the basis was recognized. The disappointment of
ministers was evident. Lord Malmesbury was unprepared
how to act, and obliged to send home for farther instructions.
The question with ministers .then became, 46 Since the French
have so ungraciously and unexpectedly accepted the basis
which we intended to be rejected, what can we find that they
must be indispensably called upon to refuse ? What terms of
insult and humiliation can we find that may rouse their pride,
and inevitably provoke rejection ?" Lord Malmesbury, who
before had no terms to propose, was now instructed to bring
forward terms for the purpose of being rejected; and care
was taken that they should be of such a nature as could
not undergo much discussion, or readily to fail of their
purpose.


1 come now, Sir, to consider what was said by the right
honourable gentleman with respect to the particular terms.
In commencing this part of his speech, he thought sow
apology necessary for the sort of terms which had been pro-
posed by Lord Malmesbury on the part of this country. 11(
stated that it was always usual to be somewhat high in out
demands in the first instance; that propositions at the OM-
mencement of -a negociation were never considered as decisive,
and that, in the progress of treating, we might relax fi•o
our original demands as circumstances should render expe-
dient. But, was the right honourable gentleman so unfit for
the situation which he held, so ill qualified to judge of the
conduct which was proper for those times, as seriously t°
maintain this argument? Did lie not recollect, that, fro°
what he had himself stated, negociation itself might be coo:
sidered as made upon a hostile principle? He had described
it as a negociation, the unsuccessful result of which must te nd
to divide France and to unite Great Britain, which


rtagive indubitable confirmation to the justice'of our cause, a
0


79 6.71 FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 275


add double energy to our future efforts. In this situation,
.od with this particular view, what wise man would have
looked to the last precedent of negociation in order to regulate
his conduct, and have conceived it necessary to proceed with
all the tediousness of forms and dexterity of diplomatic
artifice, which might have been employed in any former in-
stance? Instead of carrying your pretensions higher than
you might be disposed to accept, you should have gone to
the other extreme; you should have stated them at the lowest
point of what you deemed to be fair and equitable, and, if
nay thing, have been rather below the mark of what you
might fairly claim, than exorbitant and unreasonable in your
demands. You would thus have secured the end which the
minister professed to have in view— to render apparent to
all Europe the equity and moderation of your own sentiments,
and the injustice and ambition of the enemy. Had the
French, from a suspicion of your sincerity, been inclined to
break off the negociation in the first stage, they might have
said, "As no basis has been agreed upon, we see that the
negociation can come to no good, and therefore we will stop
all farther proceedings." But when they acceded to your
basis, and invited you to propose particular terms, it became
you to be doubly careful, by the fairness and moderation with
which you acted, to demonstrate the equity of your character,
and vindicate your sincerity in the eyes of Europe.


I shall now advert, Sir, to the two confidential memorials.
I confess that I never was more struck with the impossibility,
even for talents the most splendid, and eloquence the most
powerful, to cover the weakness of a cause, and supply the
deficiency of real argument, than in the instance of what the
right honourable gentleman said with respect to Holland.
Even if Holland should be restored to its former situation, if
the Stacltholder should be reinstated in the government, and
the alliance renewed with this country, the right honourable
gentleman does not go the length of saying, that even then
he would restore to Holland all her former possessions. No :


taken


bl 'eer night then, perhaps, only be disposed to relax in their
favour a considerable part of the conditions on which thepresent


state of thinas obli gess him to insist. A rightt ho-
nourable gentleman(Mr. Dundas) some time since made a


v


the
cimprudent declaration in this H ouse — that as we had
Cape of Good Hope and Ceylon, we meant to keep


them
for ever. VII c feel ourselves, it seems, too nearly in-


terested in those acquisitions to be disposed to relinquish them.
.ibis is reasoning very much i la Francaise. We say that it
's better even for the Dutch themselves, that Ceylon and the
'Pe of Good Hope should be in our hands than in theirs.


T




276 RUPTURE or THE NEGOCIATION [DCC. 30.


The French may, with equal justice, allege the same pretence
fbr their refusal to part with Belgium. They may say that it is
more fbr the interest of Belgium that it should remain
their hands, than that it should be restored to Austria. 13et
if Holland be not, in every respect, reinstated in her former
situation, then, says the right honourable gentleman, we
have nothing to propose. It is curious to remark, in the
very moment that he is at such pains to represent the demands
of the French as in the highest degree exorbitant and unjust,
how much he countenances those demands by the style of his
own pretensions. He says, " We have taken a great deal from
Holland, they have taken nothing from us, therefore we are
not bound in justice and equity to make them any restitution;
Inn, if Maestricht, or some place, be ceded to the emperor
for the security of the Austrian Netherlands, we may perhaps
be induced to'rnake them some restitution, but on no account
can we consent that Ceylon or the Cape of Good Hope shall
be restored." On the same grounds might the French
say, " We have taken a great deal from the emperor, he has
taken nothing from us, we therefore are . not bound in jus-
tice and equity to make him any restitution : we demand
that the uti possi delis shall be the basis of the negotiation,."
What are the specific proposals which you make to the
French ? You propose to them to give up all their conquests
to the emperor, and to evacuate Italy. The right honour-
able gentleman has said, that it is a strained geographical
supposition, that by this demand with respect to Italy, it
should be understood that they are also required to evacuate
Savoy and Nice. I know not upon what geographical au-
thority he proceeds, when he affirms that this would be a
strained supposition. I always thought that these places had
been in no other country but Italy ; perhaps I may have been
mistaken. You propose to the French to evacuate Italy, to
give up the Milanese, Belgium and Luxemburgh ; you de-
mand of them to negoeiate the arrangement of peace with
Germany, with his imperial majesty as constitutional head of
the empire. And though the French are already at peace
with the most considerable Germanic powers, with the King
of Prussia, with the Electors of Saxony, Hanover, &c.
thus would place them in a situation in which they would
have to begin all these treaties anew. You hint, indeed, that
in consequence of this arrangement, which supposes on then
part so great a sacrifice, it is not impossible that soo.e
cession may be made to them on the Germanic side of 0'6'1.
frontiers. And in return for all the sacrifices you require fro?
the French, you offer to restore to them Martinique, St. 1.4108:


r;96.]


13t1).1faoi aity
.tttootif really






FOR PEACE WITH PRANCE.
277


Tobago;
reserving, however, one of them as an equivalent,


if they are to retain St. Domingo.
i'The restoration of Belgium is stated as a s te qua non ; it has


been represented to be of the utmost importance, that it should
not be suffered to remain in the hands of the French. I
should, indeed, regret to see Belgium attached to the territo-
ries


sh
of


f for
the


peace,
republic; but if you are really sincere in your


wishes you consider Belgium as an object of so
much value, do not offer brass for gold. Let us put the case,


Belgium was still in the hands of' the emperor, how would
treat the offer of two or three West India islands, on the


the French, in order that it might be given up to them?,
wished France to give up Belgium, you should


have offered to give up the Cape of Good Hope, which a de-
termination has been so indiscreetly expressed to retain. I




have no hesitation in saying, that it ought only to be con-
sidered as an instrument to procure the restoration of peace
on lilvourable terms, and that if you could get a proper equi-
valent, you ought not to keep it. What you now offer is
trifling indeed, and if France should comply with your de-
mands, what would be her relative situation with respect to
the other powers of Europe? She would, in that case, have
given up Belginm, Luxemburgh and Italy, and farther it is
required, that something should be ceded to the emperor, in
order, as is stated, to render him secure on the side of the
Austrian Netherlands.


• The three great powers of Europe
will all of them be left with considerable acquisitions. The
King of Prussia has gained a third part of Poland. Russia
has obtained a considerable extent of territory from that un-
fortunate country ; and, in addition to his share in the division,
it is also proposed that the Emperor of Germany shall be put
in possession of Maestricht, or of some other place. France
is only to be left with Savoy, Nice and Avignon. Is the state
of the war such as to justify this proposition ? Is it fair and
equitable that all the other powers should gain more than
France? When Great Britain made a proposition so un-
reasonable, France naturally took a step calculated to give
Confidence to the people in those countries she had annexed
to the republic, by declaring that on no account could she
Consent to give them up. In the ingenious conference which
took place between the British ambassador and the French
'Y' i" ister, Lord Malmesbury declared that the King of Great
ii,rttain would not recede from his demand with respect to theNetherlands. Must not the French, in consequence of thisdecl


aration, have been induced to assume an equally resolute
104e with respect to their intention of keeping that territory,
' hen, from the nature of the terms proposed, they perceived


T 3




278 RUPTURE OF THE NEGOCIATION [Dec. 34.


no likelihood that peace could be had ? As to the French
minister having asked Lord Malmesbury to give in his 114,
matum, it evidently meant no more than that he should make
a formal declaration of what he had said with respect to Bei,
gium ; a demand which surely cannot be considered asili,
reasonable. After having heard this day so much statttLey
the value of Belgium, and such importance attached tr. 11,e
demand that it should be restored to the emperor, I
but recollect that it is not very long since the peop le of
that country were in a state of rebellion, and that it was sur.
mised at the time, that we were by no means averse to support
them in their endeavours to shake off the Austrian yoke. But
however great the value of Belgium may be, is it an object of
such immense consequence as to justify the continuance of a
long, a hazardous, and destructive war ? Is it worth
contended for at the expence of such blood and treasure?
And even if the objects be deemed so valuable as to justify all
these sacrifices, there is another question to be considered.
If, in addition to that expellee and carnage with which the
war has already been attended, it be proper to sacrifice a
hundred millions more, and a hundred thousand men for its
attainment, it ought also to be shewn that it is attainable by
those means. From the experience of the past, who will pre-
tend to say that a continuance of war and all its calamities
will tend ultimately to bring you nearer to your object?
ought, beside, to be recollected that the emperor, who is your
friend to-day, may be your enemy to-morrow. I remember
that it is not eight months since the emperor was not so much
a favourite with ministers; perhaps, indeed, they were cautious
in expressing their partiality, lest it should be suspected that
money was then going to the court of Vienna. At that time,
the King of Sardinia was extolled as a pattern of fidelity to
all princes: the emperor seemed to make no figure in the
comparison. I do not mean to impute to the Sardinian
monarch any breach of faith ; circumstances of necessity com-
pelled him to conclude a treaty with the French republic,
and we have not heard in what situation he is now to be con-
sidered with respect to this country. Ministers have alteadY
sent large sums to his imperial majesty : we are are about to
make still farther advances, and it cannot be calculated that,
the alliance can be maintained at an expence to the country 01
less than two millions annually. I mean no reflection on the
character of the emperor; but if we should not be able to
grant him the same assistance, he may be reduced to the man!e
necessity as the King of Sardinia, and compelled to conclude
a peace. When all these circumstances are considered/ t()-A
,e her with the sacrifices which must necessarily be incurreu


1,196.] FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 279
in the attempt to wrest Belgium from the French, and the
uncertainty of obtaining the object, the minister, who on that


und only shall refuse to make peace, has undoubtedly muchar0
to answer for on the score both of policy and humanity.


And here, Sir, comes the question of the treaty concluded
with the emperor i,n 1793, by which we engaged not to lay
down our arms without his consent. I greatly lamented the


such treaty at the time, and then beought
that it was the duty of the House not toforwar


dconclusion a
motion,


of any


approve of any engagements that might tend to create obsta-
cles in the way of peace. If we urge the stipulations of a
treaty, as a reason why we cannot conclude peace but on cer-
tain terms, we directly sanction the sort of argument which is
represented as so unjustifiable on the part of the French. I
certainly am no friend to setting up the constitution of France
against the droit publique of Europe. But, are the French
in their arrangements to consider the engagements of our
treaties, as of greater weight and consequence than we affect
to consider theirs? The right honourable gentleman has put
the case, that supposing the French constitution decreed that
the city of Westminster formed an integral part of the repub-
lic, were we bound to respect such a determination ? The•
case may be retorted, that if we by our treaty with the emperor
had stipulated to put him in possession of Paris, with what
colour could so ridiculous a stipulation be urged as an obstacle
to peace ? We had no more right to talk of our treaties, than
they of the regulations laid down with respect to their bound-
mines. If an absurd or impracticable condition is introduced
into a treaty, is there not reason to suspect, that it has been
foisted in merely for the purpose of throwing difficulties in the
Ivay of peace ?


The right honourable gentleman has gone at length into the
Subject of the French constitution. He laid great stress on a




r
emark of M. Delacroix, that it would be impossible to revoke


the regulations of the constitution with respect to the bound-
a
ries of the republic without convening the primary assemblies.
Ns, which he treated as an exaggeration of time proposition


0f the French minister, that it was impossible to give up any .
part of the territory annexed to the republic, I, on' the


aY'


con-


nay
oc


ub


ini sidher in the light of an explanation, and as doing
all the offensive part of the principle. For instance, if


e Prince of Hesse Darmstadt had applied to me, as a mi-It.n,
,',! ster of this country, to conclude with him a subsidiary treaty,
:irth the


measure advisable, I would have signified mytlead iness to acquiesce in his application; but at the same time
*
p have told him, that I must first consult the House of
• ""ons, and that without their approbation the constitution


T 4




280 RUPTURE or THE NEGOCIATION [Dee. 30.


declared that it was impossible to dispose of any part of the
public money. The same conduct I should have pursued to.
wards the emperor, in making advances to whom,
during the present session, have thought themselves entitled to
-dispense with the- most valuable privilege of the House of
Commons. And when, in this instance, I cited the constitution
of this country, it could not be considered as a direct nega.
tive on the application, but only as throwing a difficulty in the
way of the measure. We are not bound to respect the French
constitution ; but they, undoubtedly, in the course of nego.
ciation, may fairly urge any ground of difficulty which its re-
gulations present to a compliance with our demands.


The right honourable gentleman has imputed to the French,
all the odium and blame of breaking off the negociation. He
says, that we arc not bound by any thing as a sine qua" non,
for that, in the nature of a negociation, is impossible until
it is concluded. That, Sir, is easily stated in the course of a
debate. But whatever the right honourable gentleman may
say upon the subject, the world at large, in judging dispassion-
ately upon it, will regard the memorial of Lord Malmesbury
as the sine qua non of the court of Great Britain respecting
Belgium. You say it may be recovered by force of arms.
Good God! what is the probability of that event? 'What
arc we to do ? What can we do ? What security have we
that we shall not sink in our prospects upon that event, and
that they will not rise in proportion as we sink ? Remember
the time when Belgium was in possession of the allies, and it
was proposed that we should enter upon a negociation for
peace then, and at which time the French would have gladly
attended to terms of peace of which they will not now hear.
What, in. the prosecution of this unhappy contest, are you to
look for the farther you proceed, but terms still worse than
those which you might 'obtain even now, if you gave proof of
sincerity in the negociation ? Consider what your disgrace
will be if you fail to recover Belgium, which you have told
the world is a sine qua non. Are you prepared for all the ha-
zards that may attend it? If you are, say so at once boldly,
and act like men ; but do not amuse the people of this hcountry
by a delusive pretence, as you did by an amendment, wich
you adopted, to get rid of the motion of an honourable
of mine, and in which you stated to Europe that you wool",
negotiate with Fiance when her government was capable 0 .
maintaining the relations of peace and amity with other
powers*. I know that these little tricks and artifices


Sec Vol. V. p. 367.


1796 FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE..]


bad their ends. They have often, much too often, been
oy


em-


pl
g


.ed to cover the dexterity of a debate; and in some situ-
tionS theyt may almost appear harmless; but these little quib- '


Ming distinctions are not adapted to the important affairs of
which we are now to consider. The minister, in ordinary
cases, shall be welcome on my part to his little triumph in such
little artifices : but these are not times to indulge him in them.
He is not made for these times of great difficulty. When the
fate of a question, comparatively indifferent, is before us, his ta-
lents are well adapted to obtain success, which, for my own part,
.1 do not envy him ; but when the fate of empires depend upon
our proceedings, we should not give way to his vanity. These
arc times that require openness and candour, and a determi-
nation to look at the posture of our affairs in a bold and un-
daunted manlier. Prevarication, subterfuge, and evasion, will
not now do. The plain question now is, peace or war ? How-
ever the right honourable gentleman may contrive to persuade
the majority of this House, that his inclinations bend towards
peace, I have no doubt, but the papers in the interest of mi-
nisters will hold forth to the public, that the vigorous prose-
cution of the war is the only measure which the country has
left for its security. Members of this House, when they go
into the country, will perhaps hold a different language, and
tell their constituents that they do not hold themselves pledged
to a continuance of the war. But it will not be believed. The
sine quit non with regard to Belgium, will overbalance the as-
sertions of members of parliament. Parliament has not that
credit which it once had—parliament does not deserve to
have that credit.


There is, Sir, a generally prevailing idea, that the House
cannot get rid of the decision of this day. The question is
plainly, peace or war ? The proposition of a negociation was
said to be for peace : the present address is evidently for war.
it will not be got rid of by any ambiguous shuffling, by way
of amendment, as former motions in this House have been.
An honourable friend of mine near me (Mr. Grey) some time
agc, moved a fact. The minister thought proper to decline
It, but he did not dare to do it by a direct negative ; heth


erefore got rid of it by a shuffling amendment. In con-
sequence of the cavils of that day, one hundred millions
st
erling have been added to the national debt, and half am illion of souls have been swept from the face of the earth.


If the House shall be of opinion, that Belgium is really en-
titled to be regarded as a sine qua non, that it is an objectfo r which this country ought to continue at war, till it has
'lair another hundred millions, and shed the blood of
'W rit million more of our fellow creatures; if the House is


4


281




282 RUPTURE OF THE NEGOCIATION [Dee:.
of this opinion, it ought openly to declare it. If, on th
contrary, the House should think with me, that this count
ought riot to expend such immense treasures of money and':
blood to obtain Belgium, in order to restore it to the em;
peror, who may, perhaps, in a short time, be no longer our
ally ; then let them act like men, and by some fair and nu.
equivocal amendment, convince the country, that they -will
no longer be parties to such a dreadful waste of blood and
treasure.


I now come, Sir, to what is said with regard to the break-
ing off the negociation, by making Belgium a sine qiui 12011.
If it be true that Lord Malmesbury did this, I ask upon what
ground it was done ? 'Was the emperor a party to the ne-
gociation? Here, then, is a sine qua non made in a matter
intended solely for the benefit of the emperor, to which,
nevertheless, he is not a party, and which we do not know
whether he himself would absolutely insist on or not. Surely
this might have been known before the negociation was
entered upon. When we were so often sending such immense
sums to the emperor, millions after millions, surely some
person or other employed in those offices might have asked
the question. Has any one done so? No. I ask any
partial man, then, if this is not a mere mockery? But, says
the right honourable gentleman with great emphasis, why
did not the directory present a contre projet ? To whom
should they present it? Was the emperor a party? No.
They had, then, no one to present it to, for every thing
contained in our prqjet was for the emperor's benefit alone.
I agree with the right honourable gentleman as to the prin-
ciple, that a people, who come into the power of another
people by the chance of war, cannot, by the law of nations,
be disposed of, lawfully, till the definitive treaty of peace
is concluded ; but this is very different from a people who
are left at liberty to chase a government for themselves,
and who, after such liberty, voluntarily adopt the step of
uniting themselves with their neighbours, and those who,
perhaps, at one time might have claimed over them the right
of conquest.


Sir, there is one thing very remarkable, that in all this
negociation, where almost every possession of all the parties
is taken notice of, one place should never once have heel
mentioned. The name of the valuable and important island
of Corsica never appears in a single instance. Did ministers
say when they took Corsica, You may form a government Of
your own, and be a free people? Did they offer to leave then/
to themselves? No; they sent a viceroy. Sir Gilbert Elliot
went as a representative of his majesty, cooked them


1796A
FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE.


283
constitu tion, half French, half English, and endeavoured to
detach them entirely from any predilections they might be


se sed with in flavour of French principles. The French
were, and always had been, represented by ministers, and
those they employed, as a hoard of assassins. Suppose the
Corsicans had said, they chose the King of Great Britain as
their king, and had desired, in the strongest terms, to be
attached to the British empire as a part of it, and entreated.
that they might not be given up to this hoard of assassins;
would you have said in a negociation for peace, that Corsica
was an object of restoration ? I fancy not. May not the
French, then, use the same argument with respect to Bel-


? On,former occasions, when I said that the conquests
in the West Indies would be a means of negociation, the .
right honourable gentlemen started at the idea. He then
ridiculed the notion of a status quo ante Odium ; he par-
ticularly alluded to Martinico, which he said was not to be
considered like a conquest in former wars; that this island
was taken at the particular request of the inhabitants of it,
who all desired to be taken into the protection and allegiance,
and to become subjects of his Britannic majesty. Martinico
was, however, mentioned in this negociation, and the right
honourable gentleman had gone off from his high language.


The right honourable gentleman has mentioned the break-
ing off the negociation as " a matter of disappointment, but
not of despondency or despair." I certainly am not one of
those who despair of the country. I very well know that
we are not yet at the end of our resources; but I am certain
that we are every day approaching nearer to it. If we had
peace at this moment, I have very little doubt but, with
economy in every department, a due regard to the finances,
and to the encouragement of the commerce and manufactures
of the country, we might still retrieve ourselves from ourp
resent difficulties; but if the war is to continue any length


of time, God only knows what may be the dreadful conse-
quences ! Certain, however, it is, that peace cannot be ob-
tained! by a perseverance in the present system. It must be
Changed. I am not one of those who wish to alter the con-sti


tution: I wish only to reform it; to restore the voice ofthe people to that rank in it which it is entitled to hold;t
° inake the opinion of the minister nothing; to see that ofthe people every thing. I am told, You wish for a removal


try, the present ministers. I for one certainly do. The coun-
' 1Y, in my opinion, cannot be saved without it. The people


chase. ET there are those who love the constitution
under which ey were born, and not the defacings of it by
ministers, it is


- me for them to stand forward, to skew them-




284 RUPTURE OF THE INEGOCIATION [D1


selves, and by constitutional means renovate that constitu.
tion, which alone can save them and their posterity from
inevitable ruin.


It has been said, Sir, that the breaking off the negociat',
was all owing to the unreasonableness of the enemy. I
not think so. They have taken advantage of the situatic:,
in which their great success has placed them. If they shoy
be able to continue their successes; if they should in cc;
sequence rise in their demands; there must be great alter..
ation in the conduct of ministers, or our situation will
deplorable indeed. I cannot here help reflecting on
period of the American war. Able men used then to
" It is not our fault; we are not to blame; 'tis all owing t9,
the unreasonableness of the enemy that we do not obtaili
peace." Infatuated and self-abused men ! They were aft&
wards, fatally for the interests of this country, convinced 'off
the folly of such arguments, and obliged to accept of terr
far less favourable than they might have obtained, had
gociations been entered upon long before they were. But,
good God, Sir ! what were the calamities then, compared to
those with which we have now to struggle? What the pros-
pect of extricating ourselves then, compared with the present?
The contemplation of the difference is shocking. To Ante-
rica we had little to give but her independence, and the
trouble of conciliating her lost affection; to France, Spain,
&c. mutual restitutions. In the present case, we have no
prospect but the continuance of the war; and the con*
quences of that are too dreadful to anticipate, farther than
I have already done. There is one other part of the right
honourable gentleman's political conduct, which strikes upon
my mind at this moment, and which I cannot forbear to
mention; I mean his entrance into parliament. This was
towards the close of the American war. He began his par-
liamentary career by opposing it most vehemently, and soon
after the majority which had carried on the war was put an
end to, the right honourable gentleman complimented the
Rockingham administration, and said, " You have destroyed
the majority which carried on the American war ; but you
cannot be sure of having gained your end, if you do not
strike at the root of the evil: there must be a radical reform,
otherwise ministers may, on future occasions, arise, who will
again plunge the country into more bloody and expensive
wars than even that we have got rid of." The predictions
of the right honourable gentleman have been now fatally
accomplished. He himself has lived to become that very
minister, whose anticipated misconduct he had so feelin,gy
deplored, and no sooner did he become possessed of minis-


1796.j FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 285


terial influence, than he used it more liberally than his pre-
] essors had ever done, not only to prevent reform, but to•tiec
stab the constitution in every vein, and to plunge us into
armaments and wars far more prodigal, both in blood and
treasu re, than had ever been known before in the annals of
our history. Sir, I shall not trouble the House any farther
at


present. I have already taken up too much of their time.
Before I sit down, however, I intreat the House to give the
subject the most mature examination. If they are not for the
continuance of the war, I hope they will, like men, withdraw
their confidence from that quarter, where it has been, in my
opinion, so long misplaced, and vote for the amendment
which I shall have the honour to submit to the House.
Mr. Fox then moved an amendment, by leaving out from
the word " result," at the end of the first paragraph, to the
end of the question, in order to insert these words,


" Your majesty's faithful Commons have learnt with inexpressi-
ble concern, that the negociation lately commenced for the re-
storation of peace has been unhappily frustrated :


" In so awful and momentous a crisis, we feel it our duty to
speak to your majesty with that freedom and earnestness which
becomes men, anxious to preserve the honour of your majesty's
crown, and to secure the interests of your people : in doing this,
we sincerely deplore the necessity we feel, of declaring that, as
well from the manner in which the late negociation has been con-
ducted, as from the substance of the memorial, which appears to
have produced the abrupt termination of it, we have reason to
think 'your majesty's ministers were not sincere in their endea-
vours to procure the blessings of peace, so necessary for this
distressed country :


" The prospect of national tranquillity, so anxiously looked for
by all descriptions of your majesty's subjects, is at once removed
from our view ; on the one hand, your majesty's ministers insist
upon the restoration of the Netherlands to the emperor, as a sine


• qua non, from which they have pledged your majesty not to recede ;
while on the other, the executive directory of the French repub-
II?, with equal pertinacity, claim the preservation of that part
ot their conquest as a condition from which they cannot depart :


" Under these circumstances, we cannot help lamenting to
your majesty the rashness and injustice of your majesty's ministers,
whose long continued misconduct has produced this embarrassing
sit


uation, by advising your majesty, before the blessings of peacehail been unfortunately interrupted, to refuse all negociation for
the adjustment of the then subsisting differences, although theNetherlands, now the main obstacle to the return of tranquillity,Were not then considered by the French republic as a part of
their territory, but the annexation of them solemnly renounced,
and the peace of Europe offered into your majesty's hands, upon
the basis of that renunciation, and upon the security and inde-




2 86 STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. [Feb.1; .!
pet dence of Holland, whilst she preserved her neutrality towar
France : ,


" Your majesty's faithful -Commons have further deeply to
lament, that soon after the commencement of the war, when the
republic of Holland had been rescued from invasion, and the
Netherlands had been recovered by the emperor, at a time too
when most of the princes of Europe, with resources yet unex_
hausted, continued firm in their alliance with Great Britain, your
majesty's ministers did not avail themselves of this high and com-
manding position, for the negociation of an honourable peace, and
the establishment of the political balance of Europe, but on the
contrary, without any example in the principles and practice of
this or other nations, refused to set on foot any negociation what-
soever with the French republic ; not upon a real or even alleged
refusal on her part to listen to the propositions now rejected by
her, nor to any specific proposal of indemnity or political security,
but upon the arrogant and insulting pretence, that her govern-
ment was incapable of maintaining the accustomed relations of
peace and amity amongst nations ; and upon that unfounded and
merely speculative assumption, advised your majesty to continue
the war,to a period, when the difficulties in the way of peace have
been so much increased by the defection of most of the powers
engaged in the confederacy, and by the conquests and consequent
pretensions of the French republic : 1,,••,


" Your majesty's faithful Commons having thus humbly su*,
mitted to your majesty the reflections which your majesty's gil0
cious communication . immediately suggest, will proceed with
unremitting diligence to investigate the causes which have pro-
duced our present calamities, and to offer such advice, as the
critical and alarming circumstances of the nation may require."


Mr. Secretary Dundas answered Mr. Fox, and was replied to by
Mr. Grey ; after which the House divided on the motion, " That
the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."


Tellers. Tellers.


YSAS
{Lord Hawkesbury I


Mr. Canning 1z. —NOES '


.


Tar
1. Mr. Jekyll




C Gen leton 1_ 37'


STOPPAGE OF CASH. PAYMENTS AT THE BANK.


February 27. I 797.


QO early as the month of January 1795, the directors of the bank
Li of England informed Mr. Pitt, that it was their wish, " that
he would arrange his finances for the year, in such a manner
not to depend on any farther assistance from them." These re-
monstrances were renewed in the months of April and July, in tile


179 7' 1 STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. 2 87


same year ; and on the 8th of October following, they sent a writ-tea paper to the minister, which concluded by stating, " the
absolute necessity, which they conceived to exist, for diminishing
the sum of their present advances to government ; the last having
been granted with great reluctance on their part, on his pressing
solicitations." In an interview, which took place on the 23d of
the same month, on the loans to the emperor being mentioned,
the governor assured Mr. Pitt, " that another loan of that sort
Would go nigh to ruin the country." And on the eth of February,
497 , the directors ordered the governor to inform the minister,
c, that, under the present state of the bank's advances to govern-
ment here, to agree with his request of making a farther advance
of 1 ,500,0001. as a loan to Ireland, would threaten ruin to the bank,
and most probably bring 'the directors to shut up their doors."
yith this cause, another springing also out of the war, powerfully
'co-operated. This was the dread of an invasion, which had




induced the farmers and others, resident in the parts distant from
the metropolis, to withdraw their money from the hands of those
bankers with whom it was deposited. The run, therefore, com-
menced upon the country banks, and the demand for specie soon
reached the metropolis. In this alarming state, the ministry
thought themselves compelled to interfere, and an order


. .of the
privy council, was issued on the 26th of February, prohibiting
the directors of the bank from " issuing any cash in payment till
the sense of parliament could be taken on that subject, and the
proper measures adopted thereupon for maintaining the means
of circulation, and supporting the public and commercial credit
of the kingdom at this important conjuncture."


On the 27th of February, Mr. Pitt presented the following mes-
sage to the Commons from his majesty :


.


" GEORGE
R.


" His majesty thinks it proper to communicate .to the House
of Commons, without delay, the measure adopted to obviate the
effects which might be occasioned by the unusual demand of
specie lately made from different parts of tile country in the me-
tropolis.—The peculiar nature and exigency of the case appeared
to require, in the first instance, the measure contained in the
order of council which his majesty has directed to be laid before
the House. In recommending this important subject to theimmediate and serious attention of the House of Commons, his
majesty relies with the utmost confidence on the experienced
Wisdom and firmness of his parliament for taking such measures
as may be best calculated to meet any temporary pressure, and
to call forth, in the most effectual manner, the extensive resources
of his kingdoms in support of their public and commercial credit;
and in defence of their dearest interests."


,?Tr. Pitt having moved, " That the message be taken into con-tde
ration to-morrow," took that opportunity of givinc, notice, that11e
should at the same time move for a committee to enquire intothe outstanding engagements of the bank, and likewise of their


fund, for discharging the same. Upon this,




288 STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. [Is'eb.27.


Mr. -Fox said, that although what had been just delivered
by -the right honourable gentleman could be considered
strictly as a notice only of what he intended to bring forward
to-morrow, yet at this eventful crisis he did not wish to allow a
moment to pass without saying a few words. As to what might
or might not be advisable to be done, he should now give
no opinion. But with respect to the obligation on every
member of that House, and every man in the country, to
turn in his mind the subject, to employ the whole activity
of his intellect upon it, and to form as good an opinion 'as
he was able upon it, and that without the delay of a single
hour, he thought that to give that sort of warning was his
duty. The right honourable gentleman had said, he should
move for a committee of inquiry into the circumstances of
the bank. To a motion for such an inquiry, he should have
no objection ; it might be useful as far as it went. But he
owned he saw the propriety of that House making an inquiry
to a much greater extent. They should inquire, not only
into the circumstances of the bank, but also into the circum-
stances which led to the present embarrassment. The right
honourable gentleman had stated some things relative to the
prosperous state of the bank, which he would dare to say
were warranted, and which he hoped would be made ma-
nifest in the result of the inquiry. They should not, how-
ever, stop here; they should inquire into all the causes of this
necessity ; they should be possessed of all the measures that
led to this most extraordinary and wholly unprecedented
scheme to aid our finance — a scheme which no man could
think of without shuddering.


With regard to what the right honourable gentleman had
stated of the propriety of aiding the security of' the bank
notes, by pledging the faith of government to them, there
appeared to him nothing objectionable in such a proposition..
But there -were in the minister's speech some general words
which -might be differently understood by different persons.
If he thought that bank notes should be made legal tenders
for public purposes, there might be but little, if any, difficulty
in assenting to his proposition. But these were very general
words, capable of being differently understood by different
persons. If the minister meant to make bank notes legal
payment from individuals to the public, that was a point liable
of course to discussion, but against which he did not see the
same objection as if he took the question in another -viewl
for it would be only matter of policy to a limited expelice'
But if he meant to make bank notes legal payment from till
public to the individual, if' such a measure, he said, la
become necessary, it was a measure -which 'the House cou


" STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK.
2891797*J


/lot think of without seeing that it must shake the very .
foundation of public credit.


What led him to .
this observation was part of the right


honourable gentleman's speech that night, and something
which he saw in papers which were now before the House.
ja the minister's statement of the matter, he had set forth the
difficulties of the bank to answer, by payments in cash, for
their outstanding engagements. The means of answering
these engagements in that way formed the difficulty of the
bank. He had no hesitation in assenting to what the minister
bad stated upon the subject, as fin.


as payment was to be made
to government : but when he came to reflect upon an order
in council, and on the obedience which he saw the bank dis-
posed to pay to that order, the subject became alarming.
He did not say that the conduct of the bank brought on the .
necessity, but the thing itself appeared to him to be alarming,
for the bank said they would pay government in bank notes,
and that warrants on dividends should be paid in like manner.
The warrants on dividends were the interest of the national
debt. He was not now going to anticipate the measure
which parliament should adopt upon the. occasion, nor to
discuss it at length ; but parliament having passed an act
binding the bank to pay the warrants on dividends, not in
bank notes but in money, this was a very alarming proposition,
and worthy of the serious attention of the House.


The king's message, together with the order in council, were
ordered to be taken into consideration to-morrow.


Felnntaly 28.


111r. Pitt moved, " That a committee be appointed to examine
and state the total amount of outstanding demands on the bank
of England, and likewise of the funds for discharging the same,
and to report the result thereof to the House, together with their
°Pinion on the necessity of providing for the confirmation andcontinuance of measures taken in pursuance of the minute of
e°11461 ; on the 26th instant." The motion being read,


, Mr. Pox rose and said: — Sir, when I consider the won-
(2erful event which has this night been announced to the
.-louse for a second time; when I take into review. the causes
Which have led to this extraordinary situation of affairs, and
tie effects likely to result from it; I confess that after thePause Which has been afforded me for deliberation, I do nottait. all feel More sanguinely or more agreeably than I did on


'e first mention of the subject. The right honourable gen-
yr.




290 STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. Reb.2g.


tleman has moved for the appointment of a committee for the
purpose of inquiry, to which, if it was vested with spower,
sufficiently ample, I certainly should not object. But it
might have been expected, and I for one did expect, that
the minister, who had conducted affairs in such a manlier a,
to call for the measure that has now been proposed, wouiti
not have been contented to pass so slightly over the nature
of the crisis; but would have thought it incumbent on him
to have given, at least, some general statement of those cit.-
cumstances which have led to that situation of unprecedented
embarrassment, in which we are now placed. Let us con-
sidcr a little how he has proceeded, even in the first stage
of the business. Every man who read the order of council
must have been struck with the reflection that this was
the first time a measure had been adopted by the executive
government of this country to prevent the bank from an-
swering the demands of its lawful creditors. The effect
of the measure I will not describe by saying that it has
impaired — for that is but a weak word on such an occa-
sion — I contend that it has destroyed the credit of the
bank. There is no gentleman so ignorant of the principles
of paper credit, as not to know, that the whole source of the
validity of this species of currency is derived from the circum-
stance of its being convertible into gold and silver. But when
we learn, that ministers have not merely recommended to the
bank to suspend all payments in specie, but have positively
required them to adopt this measure, we must consider our•
selves as placed in a very different situation with respect to
the fixture state of our paper credit. If the thing itself was
necessary from the circumstances of the times, still I do not
approve of the mode in which it has been carried into exe-
cution. If the measure was indispensably requisite from the
pressing exigency of the country, an act of parliament was
surely the only proper mode of effecting the purpose. If
plea of urgency be brought forward, that was a consideration
on which the House were competent to decide, and
must have impelled them, as in other cases, to lose no time ID
carrying a bill through the different stages. This House. ivg-
that particular branch of the legislature, which it was of


which


most essential importance to consult on such an occasion;
The neglect that has taken place in this instance is of thein°t
mischievous example, and may be attended with the rot
fatal consequences at a future period. All those who ho'


oturned their attention to the paper credit of this conatr.C;
must view with alarm, that the king or executive governme,,
have by the present measure claimed a power to annihilate pit
one breath all the property of the creditors of the bank.


.i STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK.1797* 29 1


„tit), be said, that such a power would be equally dangerous
in any branch of the legislature. But surely the danger is
greater from the quarter in which it has now been exercised.


has been found that wherever a power of this nature has
been confided to a senate, or to a large body of men, it has
resented fewer instances of abuse, than in those situations
where the reverse has been the case. This conclusion is sup-
ported by the recorded facts of history, and the uniform tes-
timony of experience. It has been proved that the stability
of credit has always been better maintained in republics, than
in those governments where it merely depended on an indivi-
dual, or on a small body of men. Of all modes, then, by
which the object could have been effected, the measure that
has actually been adopted is the most pernicious in its prin-
ciple and the most dangerous in its consequences. It will riot




be easily erased from the memories of men, or from the annals
of the country, that whatever may be the vaunted theory of
our constitution, whatever the nominal value of our rights,
whatever the pretended security of our laws, one word from
the king may have the effect to destroy one half of the pro-
perty of the country. The order of council merely forbids
the issuing of money; the paper, however, subsequently pub-
lished from the bank, removes all doubts with respect to the
nature and extent of the measure, and thanks arc due to the
directors for the explicitness they have manifested on the oc-
casion. After expressing their intention to comply with the
order of council, they proceed to point out the objects which
the measure has in view. They declare that they will con-
tinue their discounts to the merchants in paper, and that they
Will also pay in paper the dividend warrants. Gentlemen
may ascribe it to affectation, when I declare that I feel ner-
vous in stating the probable effect of this proceeding; and
the more so, as I observed that the right honourable gentle-
man,
fearful i


wh?
has


i
s certainly more cause than myself to take af


u theres in the issue of this transaction, seemed to ex-p
erience a similar feeling to so great a degree, that he was


Unable to use his splendid abilities to afford to the House any
satisfactory explanation of its objects and effects.


What, I ask, is the meaning of this measure ? Though it


to
has been declared by repeated laws, that faith is most solemnly


lie kept with the public creditors, though you honourablyde
clare that you will impose no tax on the interest they holdi


n the stocks ; you now so strongly feel the exigency of your
Situation, that you are compelled to overlook the covenants


and thei .obligations of honour, and to apply for a re-.so . to u
g reat depot of national wealth. But it may be
"id that
1-• •a the dividends are still to be paid in paper. Is there,


zl
2




292 STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. [Febt:,
however, any gentleman so ignorant as to conceive that there
is any difference between refusing to pay the dividends in
specie, and refusing to pay them altogether? Are not tht,
terms of the contract, that they shall be paid in the current
coin of the kingdom? With what pretence can you affinn
that you do not tax the income of the stock-holder, if van
break the terms of the contract, and compel him to take foe
his interest a compensation of less value than that which ho
been stipulated by solemn, engagement? Does any mana
lieve that he would receive at the present moment in the 04,
a thousand pounds in cash for a thousand pounds in notes?
You admit, then, that you are arrived at such a state of de-
speration, that it becomes necessary to violate all contracts,
Suppose the dividends were confided to ministers to pay the
expellees of the army or navy, and that they gave to the
holders certain paper on government security, would they be
placed in the same situation as before with respect to the sta-
bility of public credit? So far as regarded the principle, mi-
nisters might as well at once confiscate their property for*
use of the state. But it has been said, that emergencies will
arise, which render it necessary to break through all ordinary
restraint. Unquestionably, necessity furnishes that strong ar-
gument, to which no reason can be opposed; but it oughtto
be proved, that the emergency was of the most pressing na-
ture, and capable of being clearly demonstrated. The mini-
ster who comes down and endeavours to prove to the House,
that necessity has compelled him to this fatal and irremediable
act of bankruptcy, ought at least to he prepared to skew that
the necessity was occasioned by no fault of his own. Nothing
of this sort has been attempted; we have only the assertion of
the right honourable gentleman of the strong conviction be
felt of the necessity of the measure; and it is incumbent on
the House to determine whether they ought to be satisfied 031
the authority of his bare assertion that the danger has been
fully proved, and that it could by no precaution have possibly
been prevented. If we arc to be satisfied on such authority,
if we are to conceive an assertion a sufficient ground of con-
fidence, what account shall we be able to give to our consti:
stuents of this new disaster that has befallen the country
Amidst the calamities and disgraces of former periods, we had
still one ground of consolation in the sanctity of national ere'
dit: Every minister might say to parliament, and every
member to his constituents, even at the most afflicting wrasle
" the public faith has been preserved." The inviolability of
the principle sanctioned its future observance. But now we
are even deprived of this last source of public consolation,
this last prop of national honour.


],;, STOPPAGE OF CASII PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. 2093
With the feelings naturally impressed upon me by these re-


flections, I yesterday came down to the House. I must own
that I did not then like some words that fell from the right
honourable gentleman with respect to the order of council.
A motion for inquiry is brought forward. The order evi-
dently threw some slur on the bank, and as a proof that they
felt so, the directors immediately published a paper which
contained an assurance of the prosperous state of their affairs.
Under these circumstances, it was natural and laudable that
they should feel an anxiety fir that inquiry, which was neces-
sary to vindicate their own credit. Another reason assigned
for the inquiry is, that the public are to be called upon to
guarantee the security of the bank notes. On the first sug-
gestion, I did not see any thing objectionable in granting this
guarantee. As I have since, however, altered my opinion, it
may be proper for me to say a few words on the subject.
Every sanction given by the public to the credit of individuals,
though for a time it may be attended with some advantage,
will ultimately be found to be injurious and destructive. If
the credit of the bank rests on that footing of solidity which
has been asserted, it is better that it should still remain on
the same fbundation. The right honourable gentleman, how-
ever, thinks that even with the favourable opinion which is
now entertained by the public of the credit of the bank, there
would still be some advantage derived from the guarantee of
the government. It is curious to bear from the right honour-
able gentleman this theory with respect to the advantages of
guarantee. Happy would it have been for the country -if he
had not in former instances extended this system of guarantee
to foreign powers. Without paying any compliment to the
bank orEngland, I think its credit fully as good as that of
itihaevebalonk of Vienna. Without instituting any particular in-
quiry, I think we might as safely guarantee its security, as the
tslelcetyiraitiy,e o


liable,


f some


or


princes, with respect to whom we
means to ascertain either the obligations to which


i the funds which they possess to discharge
them, and of whose good faith we are entirely ignorant.


If I thought that the committee would be empowered to goInto all the causes which have led to this disastrous state of
. frairs, I certainly should not desire that the inquiry should
be placed on a more extensive scale. The right honourablegentleman has, however, intimated that it is not his intentionthat


•the inquiry should be conducted in this manner. He
has stated that there are some points of peculiar delicacy con-
nected with an investigation of the state of the bank, and thedis


closure of which would create great embarrassment. There
Is one distinction, however, to which it is material to attend,


IT 3




294 STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. [Feb. 2?,
While the credit of a corporation is entire, the public have
no right to pry into their secrets; nor is it fitting that they
should be matte matter of investigation ; but when once a
failure has taken place, or a slur has been thrown upon its
character, the best remedy for this unpleasant situation of its
affairs, is to bring them into a state of the utmost publicity,
When we hear, in the present instance, of some points of
great delicacy, we must view them in comparison with those
points of still greater delicacy which attach to this subject:
and in this light what exposure of the affitirs of the bank call
possibly involve considerations pf greater delicacy than
measure which goes to the extent of violating the national
faith, and invading the property of the public creditors?
The House arc called to decide upon the merits of the whole
transaction. To assist them in forming their judgment, it is
necessary that all the concerns of the bank should be investi-
gated. They ought to be enabled to pronounce how far the
measure has *been dictated by motives of imperious necessity:
every circumstance which has been made known to the chan-
cellor of the exchequer respecting the situation of the bank,
ought also to be made known to the committee : all the
grounds on which he has been induced to publish the order
of council, ought to be laid before them : it is only from such
full infbrmation that they. can be enabled correctly to judge of
the conduct pursued on the occasion. The nature of the case
is such as immediately to demand the most particular inves-
tigation. For though there were eight members of the cabi-
net present at the council from which the order was issued,
it is to be remarked that the responsibility chiefly attaches to
one individual—the chancellor of the exchequer. Upon the
representation of the chancellor of the exchequer of the un-
usual demand for specie, and the danger of a scarcity of that
article for the purposes of the public service, was the measure
adopted. Let me beg of you not to imitate the blind confi-
dence of the lords of the council, and bestow your appr o


-bation on the mere representation of the necessity of the mea-
sure, but to have before you all the facts and arguments con-
nected with the transaction, and to draw your conclusion
from a full and impartial investigation.


The minister tells us, that he would not have taken the
measure without feeling the strongest conviction of its neoes;
sity. He insinuates that the same conviction was experience°
by the bank directors. Of the excellent conduct of the bank
of England, I have not the least doubt ; that many circuniT
stances in that conduct are highly meritorious, I do not deny'
still less should I think of denying that to the excellent conduct
of administration, from time to time, since the'revolution,q°11


I0


STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. 295


the subject of preserving faith with the public creditor, much
of the prosperity of this country is owing. But am I, therefore,
because they chuse to ask for it, to accede to measures that
arc wholly without a precedent, and that without under-
standing that there is to be a full inquiry into all the con-
duct of those who, in my opinion, have brought our af-
Ors into their present condition ? therefore, say, that if
the house of Commons should allow this committee to be
appointed, they will most scandalously abandon their duty, if
they confine their inquiry to what the chancellor of the ex-
chequer has this night stated. If the committee shall in-
quire into the state of the outstanding engagements of the
bank, and what are their funds for providing for them, and
shall stop there, I say they will shamefully abandon their duty.
They must not be content with any measure, merely because
in the opinion of the minister it is right; no, nor even upon
finding that, in the opinion of the directors of the bank, that
it is right. It is your duty to examine the grounds upon
which these opinions are formed, and finally to form an opi-
nion of your own. If ever there was a question in which
confidence in ministers should be placed out of view alto-
gether, it is this very case. Let us look at the case, and see
what sort of a thing it is. Is it a case of treaty upon peace or
war? Is it a case of negotiation ? No ; it is a case of finance,
and finance merely— a subject which at all times has be-
longed, and belonged almost exclusively to this House —
subject which, from its nature, is best considered in a public
assembly. MTill the minister himself' get up this night and say,
that administration are, on the face of things, exculpated for
every thing that has lately happened to the financial concerns
of this country ? MTill he say, that they have been punctual in
the discharge of their duty upon that subject, and that it is
not owing to them that we are in our present deplorable con-
dition ? Is it not notorious that the prizes of the last lottery
were delayed in payment for• a considerable time? Has not
the public creditor thereby suffered? Has not the public credit
of the nation been thereby diminished ? I-have not bills on
government been protested ; have not the holders been
ic li itil:toldthat they must wait for a considerable time; and


they not been obliged so to wait? Most unquestionably
they have. And the reason assigned for all this delay in pay-
meat, has been fashionably called, the want of a sufficient cir-


, medium, but which, in truth, only proved our insol-
ve,noy, and the inability of the minister to fulfil the promises
\Mich he so readily held forth. All his new schemes of
has
fin


ance have only contributed to bring on the evil which he
froze: time to time pretended to remove. Is it not noto-


It 4




296 STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. [Feb. 2g.


rious that he has rejected all the advice that has been gieeli
to him from time to time? He pretended to do away all the
evils that arose from the increase of our• unfunded debt, evils
which we all felt, and for which certainly a remedy was tie.
cessary. But what was the effect of his pretended remedy,




and what has been the result of his conduct since he pretended
to provide against the mischief? Why, that he has so mis..
calculated the wants of government, or from time to time se
mistated them, that he has been obliged to provide for the
sum of twelve millions, after assuring us that no farther
money would be wanted for the funding of the navy debt;
and after all these assurances from time to time, that he was
making ample provision, the navy bills at this very time are
at a higher discount than they were at any former period.


Sir, I come now to another point. The directors of the
bank often told the right honourable gentleman what the ef-
fect-would be of his sending such vast sums of money abroad.
They remonstrated against such conduct. I will not enter
upon the detail of the advice that was given to him at these
times ; but we all know, and now feel the effect of, his con-
duct ; for he sent money abroad, not only in defiance of the
remonstrance of the bank, bet against the spirit and letter of
the constitution. Such has been the conduct of the chan-
cellor of the exchequer; and I do say, we are now called
upon, by the duty we owe the public, to give no farther credit
to him for his statements in any public affair of finance; more
especially upon the subject which is now before us. It
is a subject on which this House ought not to place confi-
dence in any minister, because it is a subject which we ought
most scrupulously to examine for ourselves. If the best me--
nister that ever managed the affairs of this country were to ask
for confidence in such a case as this, it would be the duty of
this House to withhold it. If the right honourable gentle-
man's father, in the course of the seven years' war, 'when his
measures led to the most brilliant victories, had come to this
House to demand such confidence as the minister seems to
ask by the speech which introduced the motion which is now
before you, I believe, that notwithstanding all the esteem
which that illustrious statesman deservedly enjoyed, the p ar


-liament would then have had virtue enough to refuse it to
him ; but he' had too much regard for the constitutional pri-
vileges of this House, to ask ter such a confidence. - hat,
however, would have been denied to the virtue, the wisdom,
the eloquence, the glory of that minister, had he asked it, Is
now, I fear, to be given to a minister who has disgraced hinr
self, and ruined his co re,untry. The House, if,it means to ha
any credit with the people, must not confide in an y man, bill


1;97,71 STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. 297


examine the real state of public affairs, control the executive
power, and institute minute inquiry, into all the circumstances
that have led to the calamitous condition in which we are
new placed. We must take care that the man who has brought
us into this deplorable state shall not be permitted totally to
ruin us. If we do not do so, the most candid manner in which
we can act towards the public is, to declare at once that we
are persuaded the care of this country is grown above-the.
cognizance of the House of Commons, and that we chuse to
give it up entirely to the direction of the king's Ministers; in
-
which case we shall plead guilty to all the charges that have
been exhibited out of doors against us; that we are not the
representatives of the people of England, but the servants of
the minister of the crown; that it is true, indeed, the theory
of the constitution of England is beautiful, but that its prac-
tical utility is at an end, as far as regards the thnctions of the
House of Commons, for that now they implicitly commit to
the minister of the crown all control over subjects of finance.
Let me ask, if this must not be the inevitable conclusion of
the people of this country, if you do not enter upon a full in-
quiry into this subject ? Let me ask, if this be not a case for
inquiry, what case can possibly be called so? Let me ask, what
case can be more violent, and less warrantable by law than the
present? Let me ask, if ever since the Revolution there was pro-
posed a measure more fraught with danger to the credit of this
country ? Let me ask, if any minister ever existed who had
less claim to confidence, and whose conduct called more for
the jealousy of this House than the present minister? If,
after you have turned these questions in your minds, and have
agreed what answer ought to be given to them all, you still
confide in the present minister, I will then say you will de-
serve every thing that has been said against you, for you will,ifnundeceticobnsbteo theIaI-ouse of -Commons that has surrendered .


all its
will of the minister of the crown.


There has been a custom, I confess a very laudable one, to
speak well of the navy. It certainly is a service to which the
People of this country are prodigiously indebted, and we


may




catt


t


-


ail


not have too much tenderness for the character of our naval
°Ricers, and yet we find it to be the uniform practice of this
co


untry tocall to a court martial every officer who has been
:fnsucciessful to a certain extent, however meritorious his con-


have been. Now let me ask, if this be the case with
regard


•te rcl
tt
to our favourite service, what should be the conduct


s ouse when the minister of the crown has been guilty
mismanagement M. an alarming degree ? What should be


the conduct of this House when a minister issues a in oclam-
4611 in the name of the privy council to destroy the public




298 STOPPAGE or CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. [Feb.2$.
credit of this country? Let me ask what should be the con,
duct of a House of Commons towards him who is at least
prima facie a culprit before them and the public, — who is
certainly in the situation of an accused person ? I think it is
not difficult to answer these questions. If there are any who
hear me who think that I say this from personal rivalship,
they are welcome to charge me with it; they do not know ray
nature; those who do, will bring no such charge against me.
If, however, to charge a criminal minister, in order that an in,
quiry may be made into his conduct, be a crime, then I am
content to be called a great criminal. Let me ask, w
is the credit of this nation, if a proclamation, dictated by a
minister, is to set aside the provisions of solemn acts of par-
liament ? Long, long experience has taught us, or should have
taught us, that punctuality and good faith are the foundations
of credit ; that credit can have no existence independent of
good faith. It has been said, more that once, that we are to
trust to Providence in our affairs. It would be a miracle
which I have never yet heard that Providence has performed
towards man to give credit to those who have no fah. On
the 27th of February r 797, for the first time since the Revo-
lution, an act was done in the king's name which has struck
at the foundation of the public credit of the country, by'
seizing the money belonging to individuals, deposited in the
public treasury of the public creditor; and afterwards with-
holding and refusing payment of that money. What can now
restore that public credit? Will any man say he knows the
remedy for this ? If it shall appear that ministers have acted
prudently, according to the pressure of the case; that they
acted wisely ; that they have acted economically; that they
looked forward to all the consequences, as far as human pru-
dence could foresee—then I am willing to allow there is Be
man can blame them, however calamitous our condition may
be. If they can shew, contrary to the prime.; facie evidence
of the case, that they have not been to blame, they must be
absolved ; but that is no reason why we should not have a
full inquiry into the matter: on the contrary, it is a very
strong reason for su,:h inquiry ; and they themselves are
deeply interested in having it instituted. But, if it should
appear that this crisis has not been brought on without Olt
on their part, it must be absolutely for the credit of the public
that the truth of the matter should be made manifest to the
world. If you shun this inquiry, what will be the. conse-
quence ? I will suppose, for the sake of argument, that the,
whole of this measure is the result of inevitable necessity„'
wish, then, to know what the public creditor is to think. Pe
will deliberate thus Although in the year 17 97 the mitOq


1
STOPPAGE OF CASH PAYMENTS AT THE BANK. 299


119.]


struck unavoidably at the public credit, yet what happened in
the House of Commons ? That in pursuance of a full inquiry
it was found to be an act of inevitable necessity, and could not
have happened under any other plea? No ; it passed upon
the assertion of the minister that it was an act of necessity, and
there was no inquiry; therefore some future minister may be
wicked, although the present one is virtuous, and may take
this as a precedent, and call that inevitable necessity, which,
m truth, will be only an act of convenience to hint, and un-
der that pretext appropriate the property of the public cre-
ditor to the use of government ; so that without a full inquiry
into this matter, you can never restore confidence to the public
creditor. On the other hand, if this is the result of the mis-
conduct of the minister, you should declare it to be so, and
by the punishment of the delinquent shew the public you take
care of their affairs. These are the only two ways in which
you can restore the confidence of the public creditor.


Let us now see what has been the conduct of the present
minister in the course of this war, upon the subject of finance.
Have any three months passed in which he has not produced
some new expedient? And have they not every one of them,
without a single exception, proved erroneous ? Good God !
Sir, let us look at the situation of this country ! Year after
year the minister has been amusing us with his ideas of the
finances of France — now on the -verge, now in the gulph of
bankruptcy! What computations upon their assignats and
their niandats ! They could not possibly continue. All per-
fectly true. But the misfortune is, that while he was thus
amusing us, he has led us to the very same verge, aye,; into
the very same gulph. While he thus declaimed against thefinances of France, and predicted truly as to the issue of those
expedients, lie fell miserably short of his conclusion, that these
considerations would put an end to the energy of the French.
Their rash expedients have not put an end to their energy ;
and, perhaps, these rash expedients will not make us a prey to
a foreign invader. But, arc we to follow their expedients on
that account ? By no means. We are not in the same rela-
tive situation with regard to the rest of the world. We de-
dead more upon our commercial credit than they do. The
minister has conducted the war upon the hope, that we should
be able to defeat the French by a contest of finance; and you
,fiat


see the expedients to which we are driven. I am aware
oat I may be answered, that I propose my panacea, — an in-


quiry- I plead guilty to that charge ; but my panacea has
Meyer been tried ;the minister's opposition to it has been triedil;epe


atedly; namely, confidence in him. The public have seenItle effect of that opposition. All I ask is, that my remedy




300 MR. HARRISON'S MOTION FOR THE [March I


may be tried ; it can never be worse than his. 'We have for
a long time had a confiding House of Commons. I want now
an inquiring House of Commons. I say, that with a diligent,
inquiring House of Commons, even although it should be an
indifferent one with regard to talents, and with a minister of
very ordinary capacity, we shall be able to do more for tile
service of the people of this country, than with a House of
Commons composed of the best talents that ever adorned any
senate, and a minister of the first abilities would be able to, if
that House should implicitly confide in that minister. If;
therefore, I have, in an uniform tone, called for inquiry, and
the House has been as persevering, as certainly it hitherto
has in confiding, it is not wonderful that we are in our present
condition. I say, that without inquiry into the cause of our
calamities, the public neither will nor ought to be satisfied. I
say farther, that the House ought, for the sake of its credit with
the public, to enter into a full inquiry upon this matter, for
the authority of an inquiring is much greater than that of a
confiding House of Commons.


Mr. Sheridan moved an amendment to Mr. Pitt's motion, by in.
sertin ,, after the word " House," the words, " and also to inquireinto the causes which have produced the order of council, of the
26th instant." The question being put, that these words be there
inserted, the House divided :


Tellers. Tellers.
S Mr. Grey I Mr. DouglasYEAS






86.--;—Nozs Roset Mr, Whitbread


MR. Hmta,xsoises MOTION FOR THE REDUCTION Or USE-
LESS PLACES, SINECURE OFFICES, &c.


March 13.


77-1HIS day Mr. Harrison moved, " That the extent of the supplies
voted to government since the commencement of the present.


war, having caused so heavy an increase of taxes, it is the duty of
this House to inquire, whether some relief to the burdens of the
people, or provision for farther expence, may not be obtained by
the reduction of useless places, sinecure offices, exorbitant fee:
and other modes of retrenchment in the expenditure of the public
money." The motion was supported by Lord William Russell,
Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Pollen, Mr. Bastard, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Tie r


-ney ; and opposed by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Windham] Mr. Rose, 3111:,1
Serjeant Adair, and Dr, Laurence.


1797:21 REDUCTION Or USELESS PLACES, &c, 301


MY. Fox said, that having been personally alluded to in the
course of the debate, and challenged to vindicate his con-
sistency in supporting the present motion, with his conduct in
,/7 8 2 , he found himself called upon to make a few observa-
tions in his own defence. There were also a few general
positions which the right honourable gentleman opposite to
him (Mr. Windham) had laid down, on which he wished to
make some yemarks. The right honourable gentleman repro-
bated, in strong terms, the expedient of having recourse to
the property of private individuals in time of public calamity.
Ele admitted the principle in its full extent, and agreed with
him, that any encroachment upon the rights of private pro-
perty under pretence of public necessity, led to nothing short
of a system of universal plunder and depredation. But, iii
the name of God, how .vas this general principle applicable to
the present ease ? He had almost imagined that the right ho-
nourable gentleman was answering a speech containing some
proposition to rob the Duke of Bedford of the property
which his ancestors - had received from Henry VIII., or to
despoil the Duke of Grafton or the Duke of Richmond of
the possessions which their forefathers had received from
Charles II. The right honourable gentleman contended,
that he had as good, or a better title to his salary as secretary
at war, than lie had to the rents of his paternal estates. This,
Mr. Fox said, he would not admit ; for if a motion was
made in that House to address his majesty to remove the
right honourable gentleman from his counsels — a motion for
which he would certainly vote —it could not be argued, that
he was guilty of the same injustice as if he addressed his
majesty to deprive him of his landed property. And if the
principle did not apply to his removal from office, it could
not be applicable to a diminution of the income belonging to
that office. There was no connection, then, between the ge-
neral principle, and the instance to which it was attempted to
he applied. The question was, whether, in the present calami-
tous state of the country, the emoluments of offices of every de-
scription ought not to be retrenched as much as possible for the
good of the public ? Upon this statement of the question,
there was but little difficulty. Butit was said, that he could
not accede to the present proposition, because in 1782 he was
as much pledged not to go farther than the limits of Mr.
Burke's bill, as he was pledged to go that length. He asked
the right honourable gentleman, whether he recollected the
contents of Mr. Burke's bill ? Was there not something in
It about exchequer offices and crown lands ? But it was wellknown, that it never had its full effect, and that the plan, on


- 4ccount of the -.ehort duration of what was commonly called




[M,tot MR. HARRISON'S MOTION FOR THE arch 1 3
the coalition administration, was only partially executed. B Lit
supposing, for a moment, that it had been executed up to die
full intention of its authors, was no allowance to be made for
a change of times and circumstances? Had not a greater
portion of influence been since created than was then de_
stroyed ? And if it was urged, that new offices were occa.
sioned by the necessities of the times, why were not offices
that were less necessary abolished in proportion to the new
ones that were created ? The right honourable gentleman
asserted, that, as a pecuniary resource, all the saving which
would arise from any retrenchment that could be made would
be extremely trifling. The saving arising from Mr. Burke's
bill also was trifling in amount. But the advantage was not
to be calculated by merely a sum of nood. or too,coa,
which might be directly saved. It ought to be recollected,
that it might be the means of saving ninny millions to the
public, and of preserving not only the independence of the
House of Commons, but the independence of the coun-
try. The right honourable gentleman did not dispute the
calamitous state of the country, but he looked at only one
side of the calamity ; he only looked at the extension of the
French territory, forgetting altogether the situation of its
internal credit. He forgot that it was the means of influence
which were in the hands of ministers that had contributed to
the enormous territorial aggrandizement of France ; that had
it not been for this influence, the Republic of France would
not have had Brabant, would not have had Italy, and
that the right honourable gentleman would not now have had
reason to lament the extent of her dominions. To prove
that ministerial influence obtained in the House of Commons,
Mr. Fox appealed to the authority of Mr. Burke, in that pas-
sage of his Thoughts on a Regicide Peace where he intimates
a suspicion, that the minority in the House of Commons,
express the sense of the majority of the country. And to
what was this to be ascribed ? Was it not to the places, pew,
sions, commissions, and all the various kinds of patronag e 01
which ministers were in possession ? It had been asked, 'wile'
then he supposed that there were no other principles of public
conduct but those that were founded upon corruption? Ile
admitted that there were gentlemen who acted upon t o


-tally different principles ; but he contended, that this was
a very general and very powerful spring of action. This 09
a topic nearly connected with the exchequer offices, which, 111




his opinion, at the death of the present incumbents, ough t t°
be entirely abolished. If he was asked, how he had come ra
change his opinion upon this subject since , 1782, he wo°'


-At
answer, that it was one of those topics on which a man rillv


REDUCTION OF USELESS PLACES, &C.
3031797•]


alter his sentiments without deserting any general princi-
ple. Indeed, there were arrangements which ought to be


Mated so much by the circumstances of the times, that heregu


should have no objection that an inquiry of the nature now


l
proposed should take place every ten or twelve years. When
ie heard of the splendour necessary to a court, and of the
dignity which it was proper to support in high situations, he
was ready to acknowledge, that in certain circumstances that
splendour and that dignity might be proper and becoming
bu t


in times such as these, when public credit was fallen,
when commerce was fast decaying, and when the nation were
groaning under a load of taxes which they were scarcely able
t ai then they became insults upon the people ; and insupport, t


authority, instead of affecting gaiety and
e


s(sject,111:the rulers of the nation ought to manifest the same
symptoms of mortification and distress which pervaded the
community. The right honourable gentleman contended,
that the idea of retrenchment was a vulgar error, and that
pensions were bestowed as the reward of merit. If it was a
vulgar error, the vulgar ought to be undeceived; and with
respect to pensions being given as the reward of merit, he
would appeal for the refutation of the doctrine to the history
of modern times, where the right honourable gentleman would
find that they had been bestowed upon men merely on ac-
count of their subserviency to a faction, of which the right
honourable gentleman once held the same opinion that he
(Mr. Fox) still entertained of them. Mr. Fox here adverted
to the sinecures of Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville, with which
they had provided themselves when they were loading the
people with an accumulated weight of burdens ; and also to
the arrangement in the secretary of state's office, by which
Mr. Aust was removed from the situation he there held, though
he was eminently qualified for holding it, and at a time of
life when he was as fit for business as ever he had been, merely
:11: i o.provide for Mr. Canning,


who could not do the business
of the office till he was instructed in it by Mr. Aust.


Air. Fox then proceeded to a topic a little more difficult
and nice. The rioht honourable gentleman had appealed to


tether he believed that his conduct was influenced by
corrupt motives? He certainly believed that his conduct, as
S
well as the conduct of those with whom he had been ac-cu


stomed to act, was influenced by motives very different
from those of venality, but he confessed that it had been such


stmagly to induce suspicion of their motives, and that the
nonHonesty


would not, perhaps, give ,
them so much credit for


esty as he did. He here referred to a sentiment in one of
'Ir. Burke's publications, in which he states, that when men




3 04 min HARRISON'S MOTION FOR THE [March /3.


swerve from those principles upon which they used to act, and
leave those parties to which they were formerly attached, they
often deceive themselves respecting their motives, and when
they fall into a state of the lowest insignificance, they some,
times flatter themselves that they never stood on so high
ground. Were he flow to state his opinion of his noble friem
(Lord William Russell) who bad been referred to in the
course of the debate, of his clear consistency of character, of
his high and nice sense of honour, and above all, of his stea,
diners of character, and even were he to be asked, whether
he had not at one time as high an opinion of others from
Whom he now differed, he would answer, certainly he had:
nor would be be more surprized at any change in the semi--
meats of his noble friend than he had been at the difference of
sentiments between the author of the work, entitled " The
Causes of the present Discontents" and of those who signed
the resolutions of 3784, and the opinions which they at pre-
sent professed to hold. A distrust of public men was one
among others of the lamentable effects of the present war., ,


The right honourable gentleman had said, that the labourer
was worthy of his hire, and that the servants of the public
were not overpaid. He had no objection to the servants of
the public being handsomely rewarded ; nay, he for one
would go so far as to say, that wherever a man had a legal
right to a place, however that right was acquired, he should
not be for disturbing him in the possession of it. But if the
labourer was to be paid, why did not Mr. Cowper, who did
the duty, receive the salary of clerk to the House of Lords?
Why did an honourable gentleman opposite to him (Mr. Rose,)
receive the salary, and as if that were not enough, secure the
reversion to his son ? It was most scandalous and enormous!
When he said this, however, if he had got a legal grant of it,
he would not deprive him of it. All he wanted was, that the
reversions should be saved to the public. Mr. Fox said, he
did not approve of the mode of assigning the inquiry to 3
committee already balloted for. But even supposing that it
was to be referred to this committee, was that any reason
why the 'House should not agree to the proposition of his he,
nourable friend ? They would then be pledged to dip coun-
try to make retrenchments wherever they could, consistently
with the public interest and the public honour. But, in plain
language, the chancellor of the exchequer wished that it
should rather be done by him than by the House of Commons,
in the same way that he had insisted, that when advances
were to be made to the bank, it should be done at his 01
instance, and not upon a resolution of that House. C4°°"


MOTION ON THE STATE OF IRELAND.
I797 .3 305
God ! had not the House even yet had enough of his mea-
c. ures? If they were not yet tired of them, they might
'wake trial of a few more. The right honourable gentleman
was afraid that the present proposition would delude the pub-
lic. But he would put it to the House, whether the public
were more likely to be &hided by an open discussion of the
subject, or by a committee which was appointed by him who
bad spent his whole life in delusion. To delude them into an
expense of seven or eight millions was nothing, but to lead
them to hope for a little saving in the public expenditure
would be an incurable evil ! Mr. Fox warned the House
against the influence of such argument, and against'' v-
ioer the inquiry to the committee which had been balloted;
for he did not know the members who composed the
committee, he knew, that if it was formed by the minister, it
was formed for the purposes of delusion.


Mr. Pitt having moved the previous question, the House divided
thereon :


Tellers. Tellers.
IX> AS 77.-Mr. St. John NOES {Mr. Canning}




Mr. Tierney
Mr. Sargent


Harrison's motion was consequently lost.


1:4•10.11=0n11=•1971•1•1Pal•••••1111IFNI


Ma. Fox's MOTION ON THE STATE OF IRELAND.


March 23,


IN pursuance of the notice lie had given,


Mr. Fox rose and addressed the House in substance as
follows : — The business, Sir, which I am about to bring be-
fore the House, is one not only of great importance in its na-
ture, but of great urgency in point of time. It is not my
Wish to go at length into all the causes that have produced
the uneasiness that exists in Ireland, and which has created
a similar uneasiness here; but I do think it necessary to recur
to a period somewhat distant from the present, in order to
?N.-Able the House to form an accurate opinion upon the sub-ject, and to induce them to accede to the motion which it is
1'V intention to submit to them. Sir, in the year 1782, very
P'eat discontents existed in Ireland, and it appeared to me to
''e indispensably necessary, that every thing should be done,lion. Yr.




3 06 MR. FOX'S MOTION ON [March 21
,97.]


THE STATE OF IRELAND. 307
on the part of the government, to appease and allay them,
With this view I proposed the recognition of the , complete
independence of Ireland It is not now of importance io
consider whether that recognition was a boon or a right. it
not necessary for me to discuss whether it was a right de
manded by justice, or a boon required by policy. But having
been the person who proposed that act, I consider myself
bound to follow up the principle of it, which was to make Ire.
land a free and independent country; and, above all, to adopt
such measures as are calculated to admit her to the enjoyment
of all the advantages of that independence, and to restore that
cordial affection between the two countries, so eminently*
quisitc to the preservation and prosperity of both. To those
who consider the recognition as a right, and still more to
those who view it as a boon, it may seem not a little extraor-
•inary, after a conduct so just and liberal on the part of this
country, that, from the period of 1782, there have been
growing scenes of dissatisfaction and discontent in that couu•
try, and that at this moment Ireland is in a condition at
which no man can look without the deepest alarm. In my
opinion, therefore, the parliament of Great Britain is natu-
rally called upon to inquire, how it has happened that those
concessions have not produced all the salutary consequences
that might have been expected from them, and it is on that
account that I think it the duty of this House, and my own
duty in particular, to direct the attention of the British legis-
:attire to the present state of the sister kingdom.


Sir, without entering into particulars, no man will deny
that the situation of Ireland, at the present moment, is one
of great peril ; it appears by late accounts that we are
commencing a system of rigour, occasioned by what some
consider as discontents, and others the disaffection that at
present subsist among the people — to that situation it be-
comes us to advert, and by wise counsels to provide such
remedies as the circumstances of the case may require. la
such an important situation we ought to approach the throne
with that advice which may be calculated to avert the -danger
which threaten, and to remedy the distractions which prevail.
It is sufficient for this purpose to shew that Ireland is 11.1
state of disturbance and discontent, and it is material to In'
quire how this situation of things has been occasioned. Al"
though a variety of circumstances have combined to produce,
this state, there are two or three leading points to which.'
propose chiefly to direct the attention of the House. 1 he'e


* See Vol. ii. p.49.


how far, in consequence of the concessions which havere,
on made to Ireland, she has, in fact and in substance, en-


oyed the advantages of an independent legislature; whether,
n that form of a free cdnstitution which they obtained, the
people possess that political weight to which they are entitled
i nd whether their just voice and influence have been pro-
noted by the alteration which was effected ? Other points


perhaps, nearly as important; but these cer-
creobjects of most essential consideration. In viewing


the inhabitants of Ireland, we find that a very great pro-
portion, about five-sixths, as it has generally been calculated,
are Roman catholics. It is true that considerable concessions
have been made in their favour, and several of the grievances


athere may b


under which they laboured have apparently been removed.
The question, however, is, whether in point of fact, these
concessions have tended to remove dissatisfaction, and to
conciliate attachment? If upon inquiry it shall appear, that
the mode in which these concessions were made, and the acts
of the executive power with which they were accompanied,
have produced the severest persecutions of a political nature,
those who do not mistake paper regulations and theoretical
privileges for practical government, will be convinced that
the
grounds of discontent of the Roman catholics have not
been redressed, and that they have been kept in a situation
worse than that in which they previously stood. These are
the principal points which the inquiry must embrace : but
there are others unconnected with the state of the catholics.
The inhabitants of the northern part of Ireland are by some
considered in a less favourable light, and their grounds of
complaint are heard with a less favourable ear. The dis-


such


of no class of men whatever ought to be viewed with
t at repugnance which precludes an impartial examination ;
and I cannot much admire the wisdom of those by whom


prejudices are adopted as rules of conduct. ihe dis-
co


ntents of the inhabitants of the northern parts of Ireland
‘coarinsteef


s; and the


causes : one of them is the temporary pressure
of a war, in which they were involved without interest in the


d t e distresses which the calamities with which it
has been attended have entailed upon their trade and corn-
nieree ; the other has been the abuses which they conceived to
e
xist M the constitution by which they are governed. The


constitution of Ireland, they complain, does not resemble
that cif Great Britain ; they have not a legislature by which
the people are even virtually represented ; and as to political,hel ty, they enjoy as small a portion of it as those who liveuncle ,
„ monarchies, in which the principles of freedom have
'lever been introduced.


X 2




308 MR. Fox's MOTION ON [March 23.
As to the first point, the efficacy of the recognition in


7 82, an opinion prevails in Ireland, that whatever may have
been the intention with which that measure was adopted, it
has not, produced a free and independent legislature, but that
'the advantages which the form of a free constitution seemed
to promise, have been counteracted by the influence of the
executive government and of the British cabinet. It would
be fortunate if this were merely the language of discontent.;
it would be fortunate if this were an opinion not supported
'by that unequivocal confirmation it has derived from the
measures of government; it would be fortunate if the system
which has been uniformly acted upon, did not give to the
complaint so much countenance and validity. 'Without going
into particular details, it is impossible not to mention a few
of the most striking events which establish its truth. At the
time of the unfortunate event of his majesty's indisposition,
the legislature of Ireland took a very decided part; the
parliament of Ireland censured the lord lieutenant for the
conduct lie had pursued, and expressed a decided opinion on
the state of public affairs at that period. Immediately after
this, however, and during the administration of the same
lord lieutenant, a great accession of influence was gained by
the crown, and the parliament was prevailed upon to unsay
all they had said, and to retract every opinion they had given..
It is even matter ,pf notoriety, too, that a regular system was
then devised for enslaving Ireland. A person of high con-
sideration was known to say, that half a million of money
had been expended to quell an opposition in Ireland, and
that as much more must be expended to bring the legislature
of that country to a proper temper. This systematic plan of
corruption was followed up by a suitable system of measures.
It was asserted, and offered to be proved in the Irish par-
liament, by men of the first character and the highest talents/
and when I mention the name of Grattan, I need add no-
thing more, that it had been the system of government by
the sale of peerages, to raise a purse to purchase the repre-,
sentation, or rather the misrepresentation of the people of
Ireland. The charge was brought by men of as great
Mies, of as unimpeached honour, of as high public character
..and private virtue, as ever appeared either in that country o .
in this, by men too, who feel a sincere attachment to Ore*
Britain, who cherish the connection which subsists between the
two kingdoms, and who would be as much alarmed as arty
men whatever, at any circumstances which might threat en tv,
involve a separation. It was offered to be proved, that 003
half, or even a majority of the House of Commons, 'were
creatures of the crown. The manner in which these evesno


3 THE STATE OF IRELAND. 3o9;91•
were considered at that time in Ireland was this: " You have


us," said the people, "an independent legislature,
.ranted


irdaenpendent certainly of your parliament, but dependent
our executive crovernment." The concession, there-upOn your


fore, they viewed not as a blessing, but as a mockery and an
insult.


Another proof of this substantial dependence upon the
executive government, was evinced in the manner in which
the demands of the catholics had at different times been
treated. Their first petition merely prayed for a remedy to
some of the most oppressive grievances under which they
laboured, and in the humblest style solicited indulgence and
concession. An immense majority of the House of Com-
mons were not content with refusing the desire of the petition,
but they resolved to fix upon it a mark of particular insult,
by voting its rejection. In this haughty and insulting vote
every member under the influenoe of government concurred.
The very next session, however, when the war was begun,
and when a more conciliatory conduct was deemed prudent,
a petition, comprehending claims much more extensive, ob-
tained a reception very different from their former modest
pretensions. The crown recommended the claim, and. the
same ministers who had caused it to be indignantly rejected,
now carried the vote by which pretensions far more import-
ant were sanctioned. Of this opposite conduct which the
executive government thus displayed, I most certainly approve
the latter part; but it is not as deserving approbation that I
now insist upon it, but I mention it to chew that it is not the
representation of a factious declaimer, that it is not mere cant
and nonsense, to assert that the independence of the Irishlegislature is a delusion, and that their freedom vanishes be-
fore the breath of the minister. How, in fact, can the people
of Ireland entertain a different opinion, when they see theindecent manner in which government have


• exhibited theparliament as their creatures? When Earl Pitzwilliam went
0 Ireland in the capacity of lord lieutenant, it was under-


stood that he left London with the approbation of ministers,
n favour of the complete emancipation of the catholics; and


though no such vote ever passed
.
the legislature, no doubt


vas entertained that the measure was to take effect, and that


parli
t would have experienced the most complete support from


ament. However I may differ with my noble friend uponhis system of politics, it cannot be denied that he was the
most popular,


lord lieutenant with all ranks of men, that had
been sent to govern Ireland; but after the hopes which1a01 been raised, after the known preparation of parliament


° vote complete emancipation to the catholics, he is slid-
x3




310 MR. FOX'S MOTION ON [March 23


chilly dismissed, the whole system is reversed, and the question
which a few weeks before would have been carried with luta,.
nitnith is rejected by a vast majority. What was this but
the most insulting display of the dependence of the Irish
legislature? Was it not a proof beyond a thousand demon-
strations, that the measure of 1782 had been rendered cora,
pletely inefficacious ? 'that, in fact, Ireland had gained no,
thing, but was placed in a; state of degradation beyond any
former period ? The effects of this persevering and avowed
system of duplicity might, indeed, be different, according to
the character and situation of those on whom it operated.
The lower classes of the Roman catholics, unfortunately not
more enlightened, not better informed, nor, perhaps, so well
as the peasantry in other countries, though unable to specu-
late upon political circumstances and to reason upon events,
might yet feel its effects. The inhabitants of the northern
parts, as well informed, as intelligent, as enlightened as the
middling classes in Great Britain, or any other country, would
view the system with a more discriminating glance; they
would be able to combine the disposition which they saw ma-
nifested with the constitutional grievances under which they
laboured, and it would at once heighten their sense of abuses,
and their desire of reform ; but even the concessions which
were extended to the catholics, were conducted upon a plan
-which seemed studiously intended by government to damp
the joy of their success.


Before I proceed, I must here beg leave pointedly to express
my abhorrence of the maxim divide et impera, and espc,
cially that by such a truly diabolical maxim, the government
of Ireland should be regulated; on the contrary, I am con-
vinced, that in order to render Ireland happyin herself, and
useful in her connection with this country, every idea of
ruling by division ought to be relinquished, and that the ob-
ject of government shculd be to effect a complete union of
all ranks of men. Disapproving, as I do most heartily, the
maxim I have mentioned, I cannot help being surprised that,
a government so little disposed to act upon the principles of
justice or of liberty, should have acted as if it had heel'
their aim to undo every part. So little was it the object l°
inspire the catholics with gratitude for what had been 0331,:
ceded, that opinions were given without concealment, whic::
left little room for exultation in what had been obtained. of
was usual for men of consideration in Ireland, to talk 'as
what had been done was an act of necessity, which, on
occasion, would be recalled : 'hostile suspicions were
sinuated, not merely against the lower orders of •eatbol'ad
whom it seemed to be the policy of government wtakly




] THE STATE OF IRELAND. 31797•
wickedly to divide from the higher rank, but against men of
considerable property, unimpeached character, and undoubted


it Numbers were taken up under charges of higloyalty
treason ; and when acquitted, it appeared that no ground of
suspicion could ever have been entertained against them.
What could be the object of such proceedings, but to con-
vince the catholics that the concessions in their favour were
extorted, that the hostile mind still existed, and that they-
Were marked out as the victims of the most cruel proscription*,
and oppression ? Private animosities, too, arose, and pro-
duced those different classes of disturbers of the public peace
about which so much has been said. The remedies applied
tended to foment the evil. The authority of the laws was
superseded. Those against whom it was thought convictions
could be procured, were taken up ; and those whom it would
have been impossible to convict, were' transported in great
numbers, without the ceremony of a trial. To enable the
government to pursue these violent measures, the Insurrection
act was passed. Those who delight in violent measures, re-
joiced in the effect of their application. Other laws, nearly
as objectionable as the Insurrection act, ,mere also adopted ;
and to one of these I must particularly call the attention of
the House, in order to show the inefficacy of violent remedies.
It was thought a point of the first necessity to prevent the
people, who were the objects of jealousy, from procuring
arms. Considering the strength which the government of
Ireland possessed, it might have


• been supposed that none
could have obtained arms but those who were armed by the
licence of the executive power. Such, however, has been
considered the extent of the danger, that a rigour beyond
any former measure has been employed in disarming the
people. The .exercise of one inordinate authority has pro-
duced the demand for increased powers, while every remedy
that has been applied, has served only to augment the danger.


And now, Sir, a few words upon the grievances of theCatholics and the dissenters. I know an opinion has gone
forth, that the catholics have now no substantial grievances
to complain of, that the presbyterians have still less. It is
said that the catholics have had ceded to them all the privi-
leges of the most importance; that they can vote for members
of parliament, and that they are not distinguished from the
Protestants, but by being excluded from the high offices of
state, and from being members of parliament. If this wereI should still say, that they have a right to all the pri-
vileges possessed by the protestants. On what principle
01.ight they to be excluded ? On what ground of justice ?Sir, upon no ground of justice: the only reason therefore,


X4




MR.FOX'S MOTION* ON [March 2
Must be i reason of policy, which is a sufficient proof of
hostile mind against them.


-


But let us consider it in another point of view. Is it no,
thing to have no share in the government, and to be excluded
from the higher offices of the state ? But it is invidiously
objected to the catholics, that it is not civil liberty which they
wish, but power and emolument. To this I would answ"
for the catholics, Yes; nor is it any discredit that they should
be actuated by such desire. I would say, that civil liberty
can have no security without political power. To ask for
civil liberty without political power, would be to act
like weak men, and to ask for the possession of a right for
the enjoyment of which they can have no security. I know
that distinctions have been made between civil and political
liberty, and I admit, that it is possible for whole classes,




whole casts and descriptions of men, to enjoy the one without
possessing the other. Still, however, I assert, that it can be
only by sufferance. I admit, that civil liberty is of a higher
kind; but this I contend, that political power is the only
:security for the enjoyment of the other. - The catholics may
justly say, therefore, It is not this or that concession that will
satisfy us, but give us that which alone Can give us security
for its continuance. It is objected also, that the catholics
are not merely ambitious of power, but actuated by views of
private emolument. But if this were true, is it improper
that the catholics, contributing so largely to the support of
government, should be desirous to share the emoluments
which it bestows, as a compensation for what they sacrifice?
The compensation, indeed, is trifling ; but still, should they, '
in, point of right, be excluded from their•proportion ? Yet,
how strongly will their claim be felt, when it is considered
who are the disputants ? Are the catholics to be told by a few
monopolising politicians, who engross all places, all rever-
sions, all emoluments, all patronages, " Oh ! you base calla-
tics, you think of nothing but your private emolument ! You
perverse generation, who have already been permitted to
vote for members of parliament, are you so base as to urge
the disgraceful demand of a share in personal emoluments?"
Sir, the . catholics are met:, and are to be governed. The
expence of maintaining all governments must be considerable,
and that of Ireland is certainly not a model of economy. In
the emoluments arising out of the establishments of govern'
ment, the catholics have a just right to participate; a forland f
a small and interested minority to imagine that they c0
monopolize all these advantages to themselves, is a pretension,
which cannot be admitted. Mankind are not to be treatill
in this mannet.. It is not now-a-days that such claims


79 THE STATE OF 'HEXANE. 6121


C


bass current in the world. The loyalty and activity of the
atholics upon the late attempted invasion, are now the theme


of the highest panegyric; but it is empty, unavailing praise:
Laudatzcr et alget is the situation of catholic loyalty. The
qualities


which are so much extolled, ought to be rewarded
ay conferring on their possessors those just claims Which are
YetB(elefonriedI tphie•enCe. ed to consider the situation of the protestants,
them is one point relative to the catholics which I ought to
explain. It has been said, that the catholics are entitled to
vote for members of parliament; and the fallacy of this
boasted privilege ought to be exposed. Except in the counties,
the representation of Ireland remains in what is hem known
by the name of close corporations. The animosities which
formerly subsisted are anxiously kept up by the executive go-
vernment, who favour the determination to exclude the catho-
lies from the corporations, so that their privilege is almost
entirely evaded. They thus confer in theory a power, which
they are careful to defeat in practice. Those who esteem this
privilege, then, must be fond of theories upon paper, and
unconcerned about their practical effect. Yet the preSby7
terians consider their grievances to consist in the abuses of
the government, which they have not means to remedy. They
wish for the substantial blessings of the English constitution.
They wish for the political principles on which that consti-
tution is founded. Whoever imagines that a practical re-
semblance exists between the government of Ireland and the
English constitution, will find that the Irish government is
a mirror in which the abuses of this constitution are strongly
reflected. I will not speak of the abuses of which we have
been used to complain, but if I were desirous to reconcile
any one to the abuses of the British constitution, it would
be by a comparison with those of Ireland. Whatever may
have been thought of the plans of parliamentary reform
which have been agitated here, still it was always admittedthat


the House of Commons should be at least a virtual re-pre
sentation of the people. It certainly was stating the point


of virtual representation very high, when it was asserted in
this House, that though all the representatives of England
were chosen by the county of Middlesex, it would be notrhaealaltsoat;efo: reform, so long,- as such a parliament dischargedits


-
•duty as a parliament. But, are the people of Ireland un-


reas
onable when they complain that they have not the ad-


even of virtual representation? When they complain
le jobbing system of influence and patronage for pur-


poses of personal advantage, is an abuse that totally destroysthe • •Tint of their form of government, and a practical nui,




R March[314 M. Fox's MOTION ON 23,
sance which cannot be endured ? To suppose that a large,
industrious, active, and intelligent body of men can be f;,),
verned against the principles they have imbibed, and the
prejudices by which they are guided, is an idea which history
and human nature prove to be absurd. What is the situation
of affairs with respect to Ireland ? You have raised enormous
burdens both in England and in Ireland. You have produced
great discontents, and you are reduced to such a point that you
must take a decided part. In fact, we now arc precisely at the
point in which we stood in x 774 with America, and the question
is, Whether we are to attempt to retain Ireland by force, instead
of endeavouring to gain her by concessions, and to conciliate her
by conferring on her the substantial blessings of a free consti-
tution? Whenever I see a government desirous to decide byforce
against the will of the majority, in these circumstances I be-
ald the danger of civil war. There is this difference now in
our situation, that the state of our finances may deter us from
encountering such hazardous enterprises. In the Other case
we were wealthy and prosperous. Stultitiam patiuntur apes
might then be said of our situation : but now the critical state
of our affairs, and the embarrassed condition of our finances,
forbid similar experiments. I hope and trust that . the dis-
contents which threaten the separation of Ireland, will be
dissipated without the necessity of a war. But now the ex-
tremity of rigour has been tried, the .severity of despotism
has been let loose, and the government is driven to that state
when the laws are not to be put in execution, but to be super-
seded. Ireland is precisely in that state which a person well
acquainted with the subject defined to be despotism : " Where
the executive power is every thing, and the rights of the people
nothing." At the beginning of the American contest, the
province of Massachusets bay was disarmed; but I do not
think that if this province .had been left armed, the separation
of the American colonies would have been accelerated. The
people of Ireland are now in that state-when, if they should
chuse to resist, a contest must ensue, the issue of which must
be doubtful. In the commencement of the American warn
had made such an observation of the disposition of the rem
lar governments of Europe, that I was convinced that France
:would aid America. In the present there can be no room
,doubt that the French would make it a chief point of their
policy to give assistance to the insurgents. But suppose yof
were to succeed in disarming the whole of the north01.1
.Ireland, you must keep them in subjection by force. rto
do not allay their discontents, there is no way but forocle
keep them in obedience. Can you convince them by tP
musauet that their pri


n
ciples are false? Can you pro/e°


THE STATE Or IRELAND. 3 15
15I797']


by the bayonet that their pretensions are unjust? Canthem
you demonstrate to them by martial law that they enjoy the
blessings of a free constitution ? No, it is said, but they
may lie deterred fi• om the prosecution of the objects which
you have determined to refuse. But on what is this founded?
On the history ofIreland itself? No ; for the history of
Ireland proves that, though repeatedly subdued, it could not
be kept in awe by force; and the late examples wilt prove the
eirect which severity may be expected to produce. The cha-
racter of the people of the north of Ireland has been severely
stigmatized. For my own part, it is not my habit to admit a
fixed dislike against any bodies of men, nor do I see any thing
in these to justify such dislike. But it is said these men are
of the old leaven. They are indeed of the old leaven, that
rescued the country from the tyranny of Charles I., and
James II.; they are of that leaven which asserted and defen-
ded the principles of liberty; they are of that leaven which
fermented, kneaded the British constitution. If these princi-
ples have been carried to excess-, it is an excess to which
I am more partial than to the opposite extreme. The oppo-
sition they have suffered is some apology. I arri told, that the.
mode now adopted is this — to declare a country out of the
king's peace, it is necessary that there should be a certificate
from the magistrates; many of the magistrates are not na-
tives of Ireland, or resident there, but Englishmen and officers
of the fencible corps. Are the people to be told that these
magistrates are acting only in a civil capacity ? But have they,
not been provoked to violence? Have not several of .the
principal people of Belfast been taken up ? The law is in
that state, that men may be kept in prison without trial. Is
that an inference of their guilt? I have seen the wanton pro-SectitiOns


of government in this country which juries happilych
ecked. I have.seen too much of these prosecutions to make


ine draw an inference of guilt from the circumstance of a man's
being -taken up. I have heard in Ireland of men being igno-
miniously arrested and carried to Dublin, who on their trials
were found to be perfectly innocent, and ought not to havebeen s


uspected. The people of the north, attached to these
men, were determined that they should not suffer in their
Prop.erty, The people Worked for


.nothing ; they reapedtheir harvests, on purpose to shew.either their good will tothe
p


arties, or their detestation, possibly, of the•conduct of
offengovernment. This, however, was construed to-he a heinous


s,ece; -the people were dispersed by The ;military; and whenwere killed, the attending their bodies to the grave was
nied criminal, and the persons assisting were, dispersed, asIf they were,


doing an act against the ,state. That these things


I




8 16 MR. FOX'S MOTION ON [Marc*


will goad who can doubt? Is it not possible that they who
prefer monarchy may find the exercise of it so bad, as almost
to doubt the excellence of a monarchical government? B
should the people even be totally subdued, can you do other-
wise than keep up a large military force? But suppose the
people submit— I put the , in that way can you trust
to such a situation ? Wil their submission to laws which
they detest, last longer than your power lasts, and their ire.
potency? Will you continue to keep up your force? Du-
ring the war, I believe you will. But can Ireland afford to
maintain it during peace? Is it the way to persuade the
catholics to assist you,you. to refuse acceding to their demands?
I have heard that a direct application has been made, not
from the catholic peasantry, but from the catholic nobility;
a strong and urgent application to the government to grant
the remainder of their demands. I have been told, what cer.
tainly it was unnecessary to tell me, that these applications
have been unsuccessful. To refuse all these demands, to de-
termine' to govern Ireland by military force, to risk a civil
war ; which of these evils is the worst I know not.


But it may be said, what is to be done? My general prin-
ciple is to restore peace on principles of peace, and to make
concessions on principles of concession. I wish members to
read that celebrated speech of Mr. Burke on the subject of
such concessions. Let them read that beautiful display of elo-
quence, and at the same time of sound reasoning, and they will
find in it all those principles which it is my wish to have
adopted. There is another expression of that gentleman's, I
believe, in his letter to the people of Bristol. In that letter
he says, that " that is a free government which the people
who live under it conceive to be so." Apply this to Ireland;
make it such a government as the people shall conceive to be
a free one. But it is said, it is not possible to satisfy all per-
sons. It may be so. But is there one concession that could
be made to the catholics which the people in the north of
Ireland could object to ? Is there one grievance which could
be remedied in the north, to which the catholics would object?
They have no inconsistent pretensions, no clashing interests
The concessions to be made to the different parties are not
inconsistent; the one party will not repine at the satisfactien
which the other obtains. Who, then, would be dissatisfied
by such concessions ? Not the aristrocracy, for I will not
call it by so respectable a name. And is that miserable mono'
polising minority to be put in the balance with the prefer?
oration of the empire and the happiness of a whole peoPI,e'
The Irish wish to have a reform, upon an extended scale;
they desire an extension


o
f popular rights, But may


there


14;


:203
THE STATE OF IRELAND. 317


t be a conciliation and compromise ? In the: declaration
of the people of Belfast, I see that they do most distinctly
state, that they conceive all the benefits of freedom may be
enjoyed under a government of king, lords, and commons.
What, then, is it that the people wish for ? They wish the
House of Commons to be differently constituted. I think
them right. They desire a diminution of patronage, and they
may go the extraordinary length of saying, that it is not right
to have a church in all its splendour, which is applicable only
to a small part of the inhabitants. But do not these things
admit of temperate discussion and satisfactory compromise ?
What, they ask, is a constitution such as Great Britain has, ac-
cording to some, and such as she ought to have, according to
others — a government which shall virtually express the will
of the people ; and if in treating with them you should fail,
you will then have to resort to violent measures ; you will then
have to divide the people, as Mr. Burke said — not to divide
the people of Massachussets from the people of Virginia—
not to divide Boston from Carolina — not, I say, to divide
Ulster from 'Connaught, and Leinster from Munster, but you
will divide the people who wish for the constitution from
those who wish to destroy it. These are the divisions which
I wish for. But conciliation, it may be said, will not do. If
it will not, then only may we have recourse to arms. Is there
a worse period for the country in point of credit and re-
sources? I know not; but sure I am, that we cannot do worse,
than at the end of one war, to adopt measures to bring on
another. I would therefore concede; and if I found I had
not conceded enough, I would concede more. I know of no
way of governing mankind but by conciliating them; and
according to the forcible way which the Irish have of express-
ing their meanina " I know of no mode of governing themeaning,
the people, but by letting them have their own way." And.
what shall we lose by it? If Ireland is governed by conced-
ing to all her' ways and wishes, will she be less useful to GreatBritain? What is she now? Little


• more than a diversion
for the enemy. If you keep Ireland by force now, what must
You do in all future wars ? You must in the first place secure
her from insurrection. I will therefore adopt the Irish ex-pr


ession, and say, that you can only govern Ireland by lettingher have her own way. The consequences of a war with
Ireland are dreadful to contemplate ; public horrors would beso increased by the laceration of private feelings,' as to spread
uni


versal misery through both countries; the connection is so
interwoven between the individuals of the two countries that
4,o rupture can happen without wounding the most tender
'llendshis and the most sacred ties. Rigour has already




318 MR. Fox's MOTION, &C. [March 1197')


mR. POLLEN'S MOTION, Sze,


been attempted ; let concession and conciliation then-be tried
before the last appeal is hazarded. My wish is, that die
whole people of Ireland should have the same principles, the
same system, the same operation of government, and, thotwh
it may be a subordinate consideration, that all classes should
have an equal chance of emolument : in other words, I wood
have the whole Irish government regulated by Irish notions
and Irish prejudices; and I firmly believe, according to another
Irish expression, the more she is under the Irish government


• the more will she be bound to English interests.
' One word or two on the subject of Lord Fitzwillime;s
administration. He went to Ireland, and after a short resi-
dence, was recalled. I wish to ask those who know that
country best, whether the day of his departure was not a day
of the greatest sorrow ? That his lordship has many qua-
lities to render him popular, I know ; but his popularity in
Ireland was derived from this circumstance, that he went
upon the principle of concession. What happened after his
departure ? Those who look only superficially at events
boasted that the effects which bait been predicted in conse-
quence of his lordship's recal, did not happen. The catholic
petition was rejected. I said that these appearances were
deceitful, that the effects might not be immediate, but would
be certain. See what has happened, and say, whether you
cannot conceive that great part of the present distracted state
of the country has been produced by the hopes of the people
having been disappointed," and by the cup of enjoyment having
been dashed from their lips. You may be now in a situation
somewhat similar. The measures you have adopted may pro-
duce apparent quiet, but I warn you against premature exul-
tation. That the present state of Ireland can afford no satis-
faction, all must admit. That there is so great a part of the
king's subjects as the county of Down contains, 'out of the
king's peace and the pale of the constitution, is a circumstance
which w2 must all lament; and should it lead to civil dissention,
there is no man, I am sure, but will feel the horrible situation
in which individuals would be involved, and the calamities that
would be entailed upon the public Sir, I say, therefore)
try conciliation, but do not have recourse to arms, which,
if once attempted to a considerable degree, cannot be rem°.
died or recalled. In case of civil dissention, whom can you
rely upon ? Not upon that small party of monopolists, maRY
of whom could not bring so many men into the field, as they
bring members into parliament. I can scarcely conceive titat,
any objection can be urged against the present motion in Poi'
of form. The interests of this country and of Ireland
same ; its afhirs arc conducted by ministers and the 1.')


cabinet, and it is the privilege of this House to 'advise his
It I were to justify the measure by precedent, Imajesty.


tai m i t quote the case of an impeachment of the Earl of Lau-
derdale by the English parliament, before the Union, for his
conduct of the government of Scotland. But why should I
peak of forms when the consequence of the discontents in
Ireland may be . contest to be supported by Englishmen and•
English money? I therefore move, Sir, " That an humble
address be presented to his majesty, that his majesty will be


ously pleased to take into his royal consideration the
bed state of his kingdom of Ireland, and to adopt such


irsatcuir


healing and lenient measures as may appear to his majesty's
wisdom best calculated to restore tranquillity, and to conciliate
the affections of all descriptions of his majesty's subjects in
that kingdom to his majesty's person and government."


This motion was seconded in an animated speech by Sir Francis
Burdett, and supported by Mr. William Smith, Lord Wycombe,
Mr. Curwen, Mr. Courtenay, and Mr. Hobhouse ; and was opposed
by Mr. Pitt, Lord Hawkesbury, and Lord Frederick Campbell.
On a division, the numbers were,


Tellers.
Tellers.


y s f Mr. Curwen 7 0


Ld. Hawkesburyi 2
Mr. WM. Smith S Mr. John Smythf


So it passed in the negative.
4 . — NOBS


MR. POLLENS MOTION" FOR. PEACE Willi FRANCE.


April a 0.


THIS day Mt. Pollen moved, " That an humble address beI
to his majesty, to represent to him, that it appearsto this 'House, on a mature consideration of the circumstances,


and the result of the late negotiation, that his majesty's gracious
benign intentions for restoring general peace, have been eitherMisconceived by the government of France, or ill explained by


them to the people of that country i that we therefore humbly be-




seech his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased, without


ons


de




intenti


-


,


lay, to adopt such measures as may appear to him, in his royal
wisdom


,MoSt efBeatious for removing every misconception which
may have been entertained by the directory of France, by thei bl'ench nation, and by all Europe, relative to the sincerity of they which the government of this country was actuated


making of peace to the directory of France."—Mr. Pitt
opposed the motion. He said it would appear, on inquiry, that
ministers had not only performed the whole of what the motion




32e MR. POLLEN'S MOTION
[proposed, but had even gone beyond the direct terms of it.


had no hesitation in declaring that in consequence of dispatches
received from his imperial majesty, who had refused to negociate
for peace, but in conjunction with Great Britain, a confidential
person was to be sent from this country to Vienna,


with inStrIte,
tions to enable the emperor to conduct farther negotiations,
concert with his allies. He, therefore, hoped that Mr. Pollen
would withdraw his motion, rather than persevere in a measure
which would tend to defeat the end which it proposed.--`After
the other orders of the day had been moved by Mr. Hiley M.
iling;ton,


sistently with my duty, to give a silent vote upon the question
now before the House upon this extraordinary day. After
all that this country has suffered, after all the calamities that
have been brought upon us, and after contemplating those
that are impending, we have to consider whether we will ad-
dress the throne for the purpose of facilitating peace, which I
think, which trust this House, which I know this country
thinks, is the only means of repairing our misfortune, and
averting our ruin. What is it that is now stated to the


minister himself, who has had so large a share in producing
your present calamities, and who therefore ought to feel for


you should persist in continuing that confidence in him which


House by those who oppose this motion? What does the


them, propose to you this night? What, but a desire that


has brought you to that calamity ; that you should continue


you should still trust to those councils which have been so
fatal. He is for ever the same character, although he comes


that forbearance which is the source of your misfortune; that


before you in different shapes. When he is called upon by
those who are the most willing to trust him, to take some step
that may lead to peace, he comes forward with, a promise that
he will do so, nay, that he is actually doing it. Promises
you. have had from him in abundance, but not one of theta


that the city of London was informed in the morning, that
has he fulfilled. 'We are told this day, as I understand,


gentleman in a confidential character is going to Vienna, the


objec
t of whose mission would be explained this evening to,


the House of Commons. How far that has been explaine d' ',
leave gentlemen to say. But, it seems, Mr. Hammond, 01
whose abilities I have no doubt, is going to Vienna, and 1110
this the minister expects you to stop at once in the perforn'rf


with the unanimous wishes of the people of this country . 1311-
to be sincere in desiring to forward that event, he would et


ante of your public duty. He is going upon the sub ect 0
peace, and under that general head, supposing his emploYell


M. Fox rose, and said : It would be difficult for me; Ct.
r


1 797'3
FOR PEACE 'WITH FRANCE. 321


n that sincerity I have great doubts. What is the reason,yr-
th en


'


of this embassy ? I am afraid it is too much like that
which took place last summer. 'When the French arms were
victorious; when the situation of the emperor was critical, as
admitted by all; desperate, as thought by many ; then you


a step similar to that which is now about to be taken,
that was afterwards followed by your sending a negociator


Paris. I know that some persons chuse to forget the elates
circumstances of these events; seeing that when Lord


'.1.1oliti:o:( Pli


too


lamesbury was sent to Paris, the French had met with some
defeats. That we were in a state more prosperous when that
noble lord went to Paris than we had been some time before
is true; but when the measure was taken that led to that em-
bassy, we were in a. situation the most disastrous. I will not
question, because I have no means of proving, how iiir the
minister was sincere when he adopted that measure; I am
heartily inclined to think he was sincere in his endeavours to
make peace when it was impossible for him to make a good
one; for I do know that there is a natural connection between
haughtiness and meanness ; and under the terms he was sent,
it was as impossible to obtain a good peace, as if he had not
been sent to Paris at all. But there is another point to
be considered with regard to that embassy : it took place
when there was a loan to be obtained, and he continued at
Paris until that loan was concluded ; we are now at a period
in which the French have been victorious, and the emperor's
situation desperate ; we are now also to negociate a loan; and
we are now, as we were then, called upon to confide in the pro-
feosIsv tions of the minister. This is the way in which the mini-
ster chuses to gloss. over the duplicity of his conduct: we are
n


the o negociate in conjunction with the emperor, and Buona-
parte is to be the negociator for peace for us both. The
minister tells us, 44 Do not put me under difficulties by your
u
ntimely interference. It is a principle, that the House ofCommons should confide in the executive government when
yate endeavouring to negociate for peace." To that, as a


general principle, I have no difficulty in assenting, although,
Perhaps, I should not agree with the minister as to the extent10 whichthat principle may be carried. The question is not!. 1 e, whether any minister, !,under any circumstances, should
'lave the confidence of this House apendin a negociation ?
bat,


whether the present minister, under the' present circum-stances
, ought to have that confidence? And here it is not


Toper to recur to what happened in this House two yearsa 0 • a motion was made by an honourable gentleman, not ata h
ostile to the present minister in his general line of po-


tor.. VI




322 MR. POLLEN'S MOTION [April
litics (Mr. Wilberforce). What. was then the lancelage?
The very same that we have heard this day : " Do not \,0te
for this proposition, but trust to me." Then comes the ewe.
mon-place argument, that every minister must be interested
in obtaining peace. I see no reason why that desire should
be peculiar to a minister. Was not Lord North in the sane
situation during the last war? Has not every minister been ie
the same situation ? What is there peculiar in the character
or situation of the present minister that should lead us to sup-
pose that he is more sincere in his professions of peace than
any other minister? Upon the occasion to which I have al-
luded, the present minister said he should be ready to nego.
ciate whenever the enemy should appear to be in a state
capable of maintaining the accustomed relations of peace and
amity with other powers. What happened then ? The mini-
ster prevailed upon the House to do then what he asks you
to do now to confide in his professions of sincerity. The
House did not interfere with its authority, which it ought to
have done, but did that which it ought not to have done; it
confided under an idea that a negociation would soon take
place : no negociation, however, was attempted. After this, a
considerable time elapsed, and then there came from the
throne a declaration which stated, that from circumstances
which had taken place in France, a negociation might be
attempted. I thought, and I believe the people of this coun-
try thought, that the period was much too long before that
negociation was attempted. It was, however, at last attempted,
through the medium of Mr. Wickham, and afterwards Carried
on by the embassy of Lord Malmesbury ; and the whole con-
duct of it is so marked, and the public opinion upon it so
well made up, that I need not add any opinion of mine upon
the subject. It came to be discussed in this House ; and we
were told, after every means had been made use of to evade
all measures that could lead to any serious negociation, that
there was not a heart in England so profligate as to wish, nor
a hand so dastardly as to sign, nor was there to be founds
man so degenerate as to be the courier of a commission to be
sent to France to stipulate for peace. The courier will, and
must be found, and, I trust, the hand will be seen that
sign a peace with France.. I say we have tried our executive
government enough to be confident that we can do no good re
our country by trying such means any longer. Let es now
try means which we have not tried. My opinion is, that, l et


Iiwho will be the negociators for peace, certainly still more


f' See Vol. v. p.467.


1797.] FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 323
the present ministers are to be the negociators, the chance of
obtaining it will be infinitely increased if parliament should
give that negociation the sanction of its vote. If it should
07ppear, to be the • dictate of parliament, it will give to those


kith ave t had; and I think I need not add, that the
French doubt the sincerity of our present executive govern-


.Nivnomnyou are to negate a pledge of sincerity whichI


e of the war, and dwelt a good deal on the declare-
The honourable gentleman who spoke last has gone over


tion of the French, to slim their hostility to this country. I
admit that their declaration proves their hostility to us. But,
f we say that there is a reigning faction in France, that is not
ikely to be favourable to a peace—has not that faction a
right to say, while you confide in the minister's professions in
ledance of his acts, that there is a reigning faction in Great
Britain, that is riot sincerely desirous for peace ? The expres-
ions of the directory, as against us, I admit are very strong,


and are inconsistent with what England ought to expect; but,
compared to the language of the leading faction in the Eng-
lish House of Commons, they are terms of civility, and even
politeness ; and all that has been said in France, with all the
powers of oratory which the leaders there possess, has not
reduced among the people of that country a greater abhor-
ence of our executive government, than what has been said
y the leading faction in this country. The honourable gen-
email said, that if the propositions which were made by me
i the time of Robespierre had been adopted, they would have


been reversed by the succeeding faction. There is no autho-
rity for coming to that conclusion ; on the contrary, every
measure that was agreed to with respect to external arrange-


during the time of Robespierre, has been confirmed
and carried into effect by the succeeding faction. " But they
Lave made peace with other powers, and have never seriously
thought of doing so with Great Britain." That they should
endeavour to make peace with many of the great powers com-
bined against them does not appear wonderful to me, nor
Wonderful that they have


e


succeeded in such endeavours.
"But they did not endeavour to make a separate peace with
ti.ii',:afieliectierin


against


I grant it. But their endeavours against him




°1113', t


do not appear to me to be any proof of their extraordinary


t ley have contended against the emperor in the


y be h


ave,


inst us, nor does it prove the contrary. It proves


y I e, because they have the means of annoying thee .eVecor more than they have the means of annoying us.
But to return to the question immediately before us. I would


lc) Ls there any man in this House, or in this country, whoas •
Y 2




3 2 4 MR. POLLEN'S MOTION, [April
thinks that our chance of obtaining peace will be as good bv
confiding in the promise of ministers, as if this House cane
to a declaration upon that subject? Does any man in his
conscience believe, that the executive government can be
trusted so well in a negociation for peace without, as with
the injunction of this House? What are we to think of those
who talked of marching to Paris, if they do not receive the
check of this House in their phrenzy ? Does any man believe
that, with all our advantages and the profit we have had by
the easy means we have discovered, as w were told by the
gentleman who spoke last, of quieting the people of this
country, that we shall the more easily obtain peace by trusting
to ministers than by interposing the authority of this FIenseb
to obtain peace? Of these means I trust the people of this
country have a proper feeling. We have found out the
means of quieting the people of this country by repealing
some of the best provisions of the bill of rights. Are we
really to say to Europe, that this war was carried on to
procure these advantages of quieting the people of this coun-
try, and that we could only pass these measures when we had
a large standing army, which was ostensibly raised against a
foreign foe, but which, in reality, was intended to enable our
executive government to carry into effect these easy means of
quieting the people? I own I do not think it necessary to
congratulate the people on these easy means of quieting them,
I have heard it said, it was wise to sacrifice a part of our
liberty to save the remainder; but the part which we have
sacrificed appears to be the most material of our constitution.


But let us consider the time in which we arc debating this
measure. We arc not now about to grant millions to the


• emperor, to enable him to march to Paris, but to prevent the
French, as we are told, from marching to London. This is
what I do not believe: but this is the state of the argument
as urged •by those who oppose this motion. It has been said
that we have had an opportunity of chewing the character 0
the British nation in the present war. I hope that character
will always be supported ; but I own I think it has heel
unnecessarily tried. I know of no obligation that we were
called upon to shew our good faith in this war, at the com-
mencement, even according to the arguments of the minister
himself; except with regard to Holland; and there our nos:
Lance was not asked for; on the contrary, we were told that
our friendship would be more dangerous than our neutrallt).
I wish for no breach of faith on the part of this cow'
because I know its honour is highly valuable to its interest'ii
I wish a peace may be obtained by us conjointly withl'
emperor : but, between two evils, I have no difficulty n u


makingiu;laioa,krneoi p c


FOR PEACE WITH PRANCE.
3 2 ji797'1


daring, that a separate peace between the emperor and France,
or between Great Britain . and France, would be a less evil to
os than a continuance of the war upon the present system.
13 , after all that can be said of the credit of this country,
with all the advantages of the sinking fund, it must not be
dissembled that you are lower in that respect than at any
former period of your history. All your conquests in St.
Domingo will.never bring back to you the millions that ,,,o1.1
have squandered, nor restore to you the lives devoted to that
part of your service. This may be called declamation upon
the general subject of the war, but it is not so. I am not


a general declamation upon the evils of war, but upon
evils which you have specifically sustained.. -We entered


this war on the general idea, that all the powers of
would enter into an alliance with us. The result


otif:that policy we have seen. France has gained the alliance
of Spain, all the power of Italy, and the Netherlands. She
has obtained the neutrality at least, I think the friendship,
of the King of Prussia. These are the allies which France
has gained, to say nothing of Holland. But in addition to
these alliances, she has gained an ally which is more for-
midable to us than all of them together. I mean the national
debt of Great Britain. This is an ally that has been increas-
ing from day to clay, and will aid the French much more than
all the rest united; and be it remembered, that we were told
in the outset that this was to be a contest of finance between
Great Britain and France. Our confidence in the minister
will increase the power of this last and great ally of the
French, for the continuance of the war will most rapidly
increase our debt.


But, it seems, " the French will be encouraged if this House
should interfere and dictate to the executive government."
Will they really think worse of your energy, if they find that
you are determined to take your own affairs into your own
hands instead of confiding to the present minister? 'Will they
real ly expect to make better terms of peace with the people
of England, speaking to them through the medium of their
representatives, than with the present executive government?
00 they expect more real care of the interest of the people
cif England from a reigning faction, than from the people
themselves,s peaking through the medium of their represen-
tatives? I apprehend the contrary; and that, as we should


1


expect more justice from the French people themselves than
e do from any faction among them, so would they from GreatBritain; and in that view 1 should hope, that neither the


republic of France would be hostile to Great Britain, nor the
limited monarchy of this country be hostile to the just claims


Y3




A26 IR. POLLEN'S NOTION"' [April I. 1797'1


FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 327
and true interests of the republic of France. I wish to know
what better pledge you could give of sincerity to France
your desire for peace, than to tell them by a vote


-
of the


House of Commons, that you arc willing to negotiate; and
what is more likely to lead to a restoration of tranquillity upon
a solid and permament foundation? I do not wish to go now
into the question of the terms of peace. I know, as well as
the minister does, that they cannot now be discussed here;
but I believe I may say without danger, that although Bea
glum was once considered as the cause of breaking off the
negociation for peace, there would not be much difficulty now
between the parties upon that subject. I am afraid it is as
little necessary now to say much about Holland. I am afraid,
too, that disputes will be superfluous as to what part of Italy
the emperor shall possess. I am afraid that the good sense,
or, if you please, the crying voice of the people of Great
Britain, will not disturb you much in consequence of am
concession you may make to France upon these points that
were once so much an object of your contention. But, then,
are you to sue for peace? I hope you will never be compelled
to do any thing that shall have the appearance of meanness.
But surely you should look at your situation ; no man thinks
that this war is to continue for ever. I will not state any
thing that appears to be extravagant, or that is likely to shock
you; but I should suppose that I allowed you a tolerable
length of time if I allowed you ten years to carry on the war.
Now I would ask if there be a man among us who thinks,
that in the course of ten years you will be likely to stand
upon better ground for negociation than you do now? Sup-
posing, then, France to lose all that she has gained in the
present contest, to lose the friendship of Prussia, to lose the
alliance of Spain, to lose the Netherlands, to lose Holland,
to lose the power she now possesses in Italy, and that all
these powers were to turn, as if by magic, into alliance with
you, do you believe that even in such an event, extravagant
and insane though it be to expect it, do you believe, I say,
that this new ally of the French, the national debt of Great
Britain, would not be equal to them all ? One campaign more
will add at least forty millions to your debt: do you believe
then, I say, that you will have better terms of peace than you
may have at this moment? I have put the case as if You
could command victory at all points, just in proportion as
you have lost it upon the continent, almost without exception,
since your disaster at Dunkirk. I say nothing against the
valour of the


nAustria arms; but I ask, if I am stating
thing unreasonable in4 the rational prospect of your affair!'
But it is said that the people of England should not despona


and that there is a gloom at this moment over our affairs,
which is not warranted by the real state of them. I believe
the people of England to be a grave, sober, and sensible peo-


not easily driven to despondency. But, when they see
miaisters clay after day, week after week, month after month,
and year after year, plunging them into an abyss of ruin ;
when they see that ministers at one time talk triumphantly,
and call .for confidence and money to march to Paris, and
then again call for more confidence and more money to pre-
vent the French from marching to London, I cannot much
wonder even at their beginning to doubt the propriety of
the career of those who thus load them. Let the people of
England be fairly described. Let them be called gloomy, if
you please; desponding, if you please; but above all things
let them not be called impatient. What have they not been
told that is false? -What have they not suffered? and yet
without any symptom of impatience. Do not, therefore, let
us mock or insult them. I hope it will be shown this night,
that we are determined to represent the sense they have of
their own affairs, and that we will no longer confide in the
minister who has so often and so shamefully deceived them ;
but that, like representatives, we will take their affairs
into our own hands, and speak their general wish for the
restoration of peace in the only manner in which it is likely
to be effectual. I know that the people of this country have
long wished for peace. Every man, therefore, in this House,
who is of that opinion, should declare it this night by his
vote. If you trust to the professions of the minister, you will
he deceived, as you have been. Declare your opinion to be
in favour of peace, and the people of this country will not
fail to keep you in countenance. They have spirit enough
left, notwithstanding the attempts that have been made to
deprive them of it, to enforce such a declaration, whatever
the minister may think of it. Should ,this House come to
the declaration which is now before you, does any man, who
is the representative of a county ; does any man, who is the
representative of a manufacturing city or town; does any
flan, who is the representative of any populous place in this
kingdom, fear that his constituents will disapprove of his con-
duct? Do you not, on the contrary, all know, that they will
thank you ? Would any man in this House be ashamed or
afraid to meet his constituents to-morrow, after having voted
fer'this motion? Does any such man think that an explana..
ti
_on of his conduct to his constituents will be necessary ?
But what will they do who vote against this motion ? Why,
they will say that, indeed, they are friends to peace; but that
they did the best they could to obtain it, by leaving thu


Y 4




328 MOTION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. [April


subject in the hands of the executive government. There is,
nothing which they will not say in order to convince the
public that they are favourable to peace; and they will be
believed in their assertions, pretty much in the same manner
as those are who profess to be advocates for the abolition of
the slave trade, while they vote for its continuance. Do not
let us imagine that we can deceive the public by our pro.
fessions. They are too much enlightened, and they feel too
much to be imposed upon by us. Let us not perpetually talk
of wishes for peace; let us do something towards obtaining
peace; let us vote for peace. Let us not content ourselves
with saying we are friends to peace; let us not trust to
ministers; that we have clone much too long ; now let us act
for ourselves !


With regard to the particular words of this motion, per,
haps had I penned it, I might have chosen other words, be-
cause I am of opinion it does not go quite far enough; but
upon that score I do not see any dung material to object. I
am sure, that if you adopt it more witll be done than you can
hope to do by confiding in the minister. It desires the king
to explain the reason why negociation has not been renewed.
I am •sure that is necessary in the opinion of all Europe, for
the reasons hitherto assigned have been much too equivocal.
The minister says, that the French have misrepresented the
conduct of our executive ,government in the late negociation.
I do not know that they have not ; but an explanation will do
us no harm. I believe that Lord Malmesbury was instructed
to insist on the French giving up Belgium as a sine guano.
I believe, too, that such is the general opinion of Europe.
The minister is always explicit in this House no doubt, since
he convinces the majority of it; but with all his command of
words, it must be confessed, that, out of this House, no man
is more unfortunate in his explanations. The French directory
misunderstand him, the contractors for the loan misunderstand
him, the bankers misunderstand him, the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland misunderstands him, and even the directors of the Bank
of England, who takes notes of his conversation, for the ex-
press purpose of being accurate, misunderstand him ! I wish,
therefore, in future, that in all public affairs he would conde-
scend to employ some other person whose knowledge of words
is more upon a level with the rest of mankind than his own,
in order that men of ordinary capacities may stand a chance
of comprehending his meaning. I shall only add, that, above
all, the consideration you should have in your minds this ilight,
is the hitherto admirable, if not astonishing patience of the
people of England, under all the calamities which the minis-
ter has heaped upon them, and the duty which you owe to
them, to speak their wishes for peace.


MOTION FOR THE REPEAL, &c. 329


17971
The House divided on the question, " That the other orders of


the day be now read,
Tellers. Tellers.


4r. Fox's MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE TREASON
AND SEDITION BILLS.


May 23.


T
HIS day, in pursuance of the notice he had given,


Mr. Fox rose and said: — I shall not have occasion, Sir,
to detain the House for any considerable length of time in
stating the reasons that induce me to call their attention to
the memorable acts of the last parliament, a motion for the
repeal of which I intimated before the holidays; nor will it be
necessary for me to say much in answer to the misrepresenta-
tions that have been made on account of my having delayed
the motion so long. The circumstances that have recently
occurred, particularly the measure of the stoppage of cash
payments at the bank, so totally engrossed the public atten-
tion, and engaged the time of the House, that I did not
think it right to bring forward this discussion, and instead of
deferring it by adjournments from week to week, I directly
and openly announced it for the present period. I have never,
Sir, had but one opinion of the two obnoxious bills, which, at
the time they were passed, I conceived to be most portentous to
the country, Every reflection that I have made upon the
subject, and all the experience that we have had since they
livieols


'ee:ayso laws served to corroborate my original feeling,
and therefore it is, that I now rise to move for the repeal of


With respect to one of the two bills, that which came to
us from the Lords, under the title of " a bill for the better
i „reservation of his majesty's person and government againsttreasonabl e practices," I shall make but one or two observa-
dotes, though every part of it continues to excite my heartfelt


1°"thee. The first great objection to that act is, that it
etendsth unnecessarily the statutes of treason, and carries
,_ eirt to a length by no means consistent with sound polic y as


avowed object, the king's safety, nor consistent with


{Mr. Neville
YEAS Mr. J. Smyth 291.—NOES {Mr. Jekyll '5'


Mr. Pollen 1


Mr. Pollen's motion was consequently lost.




33° MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OE


[M ay 23,


the tranquillity and constitution of the realm. The rnemora.
ble statute of Edward III. was found to be sufficient to pre..
vent the crime of treason ; and experience has taught us, that
all the forced constructions that have been put on that statute
have served rather to lower than to heighten its force. Its


sufficientlyoperation has proved that the life of the king is suffici
guarded, and every extension of it beyond that great and na-
tional object has only served to take away the reverence which
its simplicity excited in the hearts of the people. That simpli-
city impressed upon the mind a sanction which it was impossi-
ble to derive from intricate and nice constructions. The people
saw, in its noble and generous frame, security for themselves;
by the reverence in which ,it held the sacred person of their
king, they saw that, for the security of his person, even the
imagination of his death was provided against ; and the law
was so clearly defined, so short, and so simple, that no dan-
ger to the well-meaning could be created by its operation.
In the reign of Queen Elizabeth laws were enacted for the
preservation of her person and government, for which the
turbulence of the times was the apology, but which no person
could contemplate without indignation. In the period of
King Charles II., similar suspicions were entertained of num-
bers of persons being disaffected to the government, and some
severe and scandalous laws were enacted for the preservation
of the king's person. What is the impression that these laws
have made upon every person who has attentively considered
the history of the times ? That they were enacted upon a
consciousness that the conduct of the government was such as
to provoke disaffection in the minds of the people; and this
must always be the effect of rigorous and severe laws. Itwas
made highly penal to say, that Charles II. was a papist
Why ? Because, in truth, he was so. No law would, in the
present day, be thought necessary for the preservation of the
character of George the Third, against the charge of his be-
ing a Roman catholic, because any such charge would be


too


contemptible for notice. His majesty's well-known character
is the best protection against such an imputation, and the very
enacting of such a law would betray a consciousness that there
was ground for the imputation. The laws of Charles IL 1!
made in this spirit; they were received by the peopl e, am:,
have been received by posterity in this spirit ; and such
can never have any other effect than to excite .similar sost',10
cions, and to weaken the government which they profess
support. The only other part of the bill to which I


w
sba,11e


allude, and which, in my mind, is very importan t, is Ion
provision with respect to political libels. It enacts, that3 114,
a second conviction, judges may be enabled' to inflict P11111`


1797.] THE TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 331
meats -


of a kind so barbarous and • inhuman as to shock
the heart of man. When you look -back to the judgments
that have been past in former periods of our history,
wilco you reflect on the prejudices and passions to which
our frail nature is subject, when you think on the pos-
sibility that judges may be as servile, as corrupt, or as
cruel in future times as they have been in past, you will,


be able to form a just estimate of the character of a
li:iellvlitaliPsat'


enables them to inflict a punishment of so dreadful a
kind for an offence so indefinite and doubtful as a political
libel. You will think with me, that the punishment of fine
and imprisonment is fully sufficient to the crime—if crime it
be -- of publishing the most extravagant political opinion as to
the form of governing a community. If this bill had passed a
century ago, how many men, whose estimable characters have
made them dear to mankind, might have been banished to
Botany Bay, and condemned by the barbarous sentence of an
inhuman judge to the society of a set of beings whom vice had
degraded, and crimes of every nature had expelled from all
rational intercourse with man ! Would not the writings of
Locke, writings that have so -greatly enlightened and bene-
fited the country, have probably condemned their author to
this horrible exile ? But, without going back to a period so
distant, can we deny that, in a period much nearer our own
eines, the violence of factious spirit might have hurried even
judges of our own day to the infliction of this detestable punish-
meat if this law had then had existence ? In the beginning of
the present reign complaints were made of the atrocious cha-
racter of the public libels then published, and in the heat and
fury of zeal, prosecutions were carried on with a bitterness, upon
which no person of moderation can reflect without shame and
regret. Personal considerations mixed with the motives of
public decorum; and though I !a,ope they did not influence
either the prosecutors or the judges, yet I submit to theI 1 1()orit-tiisc fe, whether the temper of the times was not such as to
inake it highly probable that Mr. Alderman Wilkes, upon
Ns second conviction, might have been doomed to this


fate. I am not sure that our nature is- so likely tobe purified by public situations of trust and power, as to be
superior to all base and malignant passions; and I am not
,


n.


sure but that, in the spirit of those times,
n.
Mr. Wilkes might


Honour
been the victim of a persecuting rage.


have not the
!atir
'10nour of that gentleman's acquaintance, nor have I, in the


se of our political lives, frequently agreed with him in
; but now that the intemperance of the time is past, IIssu_ brifit to the House what must be the feeling of every liberal


"art
at the idea of condemning a person of such high




332
MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF .)




[Mae


attainments, so dear to the society in which he lives, so excelsglary as a magistrate, and who has shewn himself to be so
zealous a defender of the prerogatives of the crown, to a po.,
nishment so degrading and so abhorrent. And yet, if the law
had existed, would it not have been executed? If it had
existed but a few years ago, would it not have been exe-
cuted in many other instances; if juries could have been found
to second the wishes of government? Of the willingness of
government to go to the full extent of this inhuman law, Scot-
land has given us an indubitable proof. Scotland was said to
have had this barbarous law, though it had never been acted
upon. It was asserted, that there a law existed of so barba-
rous a tendency, as to enable the judges to banish a man from
all civilized society, and condemn him to live at the extremity,
of the earth with the most degraded of his species. I am con-
vinced, not merely on the authority of the most learned per-
sons of that country, but on the information that I have been
able to acquire for myself, that no such law did exist in
Scotland, and that those who acted upon it will one day
be brought to a severe retribution for their conduct. But
the apprehension of the existence of such a law has dis-
played to us the character of our government, and proved
that we have a ministry capable of condemning their fel-
low creatures to this monstrous punishment, for the mere
exposition of tenets on government different from their own.
They made it their boast, that by means of this law they had
.gained the triumph of political opinion, and the sacrifice of a
number of human beings, of enlightened minds and of moral
character, for the mere offence of carrying doctrines to excess
for I admit, that in some instances they carried their doctrines
to excess. The publication of political opinion ; that was
the crime. What was the punishment ? Death, of the most
aggravated, of the most procrastinated, of the most cruel na-
ture. They were sent, not into banishment merely, but sunk
and degraded to an association with villany and ignorance
and crime ; sent to a country where, possibly, their health
might be affected by the climate ; but that was little in consi-
deration of the despondency of their own feelings. I spea k


of


one in particular of Mr. Gerald, whose elegant and useful
attainments made hith dear to the circles of literature and
ta ; bred t o enjoyments in whic,hi hs accomplishments fittedstehim to participate, and endowed with talents that rendered
him valuable to his country, he, among others, was the object
of this persecuting spirit; the punishment to such a man 05
certain death, and accordingly be sunk under the sentence,
the victim of virtuous, wounded sensibility. There maY be
times of alarm when men, under the influence of terror b


THE TREASON AND SEDITION DILLS. 333
come insensible to the dictates of justice and humanity. It
has been truly said, that no passion is so calculated to harden
the heart, and to make it sanguinary, as great fear ; and ac-
cordingly we find that the most inhuman tyranny has always
had its foundation in the hearts of those whose actions con-
demned them to incessant terror. In a moment of alarm,
real or artificial, it is not to be wondered that nations, as well
as individuals, should be lost to the dictates of reason and hu-
manity. Ministers succeeded in spreading an alarm over this
country, under the influence of which they made Englishmen
forget and forego their natural feelings of justice and humanity;
but now that this time is happily past, I trust that we shall
also recover our genuine feelings, and that we shall not suffer
an* act to exist upon the statute book, so disgraceful to our
criminal code, and by which, in some future moment of pas-
sion,




new acts of horror, under the name of judicial punish-
ment, may be perpetrated.


These are the two principal features of that act that merit
your attention. With respect to the other act, for the pre-
vention of seditious meetings and assemblies, without inquir-
ina whether the rights taken away by that act were proper
subjects of legislation, I may, at least, doubt the propriety of
their being made so. The statute clearly affects rights which,
in their very nature and essence, must have been antecedent
to the power of legislation, and it is not merely a question of
morality, but of the highest political prudence, whether rights
that are principles, rights which make the foundation of the
legislature itself, and without which no t,leeislation can be legi-
timate, ought to be made the provisions of a statute. It is a
manifest axiom in a popular government, 'that man has the
fundamental right to state his opinion; this right must be
recognized, since it was on the exercise of this right that the
government itself was formed. Need I illustrate the doctrine?
It is recognized in the bill of rights. No man will deny that
the right of petition to parliament is as inherent to the people
of England as the right of petition to the crown. Why,
then , -did not the bill of rights state the one as well as the
other ? Why ? but because the one had been attacked andquestioned, not the other : and it has been truly said of the
bill of rights, that it only asserted the privileges which had
been outraged; it did not enumerate all the rights which had
not come into dispute. But it is said, that this is not the first
?t'
inst


ance in which difficulties have been.thrown in the way
petition


• and reference is made to the act of Charles IL
in which distinction is made between assemblies convoked
1)31


the sheriff, persons entitled to the elective franchise,
411d other persons. No argument, in my mind, can be so




[May334 MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF zj,


dangerous as that which raises distinctions as to the right of
petition. To say that those only enjoy the right of petition
who possess the elective franchise, is to bring it into danger;
good sense would make the argument go the other way ; for
surely if any description, of persons more than another ought
to enjoy the right of petition, it is those persons who, ha,;iin,
no vote at elections, have no representatives in this House
whom they can directly apply, and who may be made the or-
gan of their sentiments. But I deprecate and deplore these
distinctions, since every class of the community ought to have
this right secured to them, and be made as free to this privi-
lege as to the air they breathe. This act is outrageous, be-
cause it throws difficulties in the way of the exercise of the
right, and enables sheriffs to prevent meetings; and it has
been proved, that since the passing of this act more refusals
have , been given by magistrates than in any former period.
This has been particularly the case since recent calamities have
disposed the country to assemble so generally to petition for
the dismission of ministers. Very extraordinary reasons have
been assigned by some of them for refusing to convoke meet-
ings. The sheriff of Suffolk refused, because the subject had
been debated in parliament, and because he was going to
London. Another magistrate refused, though called upon
by a numerous body of persons, because he would not disturb
the unanimity of the county. The power of dispersing meet-
ings was as obnoxious as the refusal to convoke them. In the
county in which I live, the sheriff; after putting the question,
said, there was a visible majority of votes, but because he did
not know whether they were all freeholders that were present,
he refused to sign the proceedings, and give validity to the re-
cord. Another person on this capricious objection could not
take the chair, because the sheriff had the power to disperse
the meeting; and thus an attempt was made to defeat the
petition in the county of Surrey, even under the colour o .


complying with the statute. In many other cases difficulties
have been found that make it vexatious, and almost impossible,
to exercise this right under the. provisions of this act. It re-
quires so much trouble to comply with all the provisions of the
act, where the meeting is not called by the regular magistrate,
that it is next to an impossibility to carry the exercise of the,
right generally into effect. In some instances, where Zeal
and perseverance had conquered every obstacle, inconveni-
ences were suffered that would deter men on ordinary occasions
from assembling. In 'Westminster, for instance, wher e tiler
meeting was called in strict conformity to the act, the day of
meeting was most unfavourable in point of weather, Is•a
found inconvenient to adjourn, because they r3




THE TREASON AND SEDITION' DILLS.
33 517973


Hewed all the formalities required by the statute. And what
s the benefit expected to be derived from all this ? Are pro-
visions


like these likely to alter the minds of men ? Are they
calculated to prevent communication, and stifle the opinions
antI discontents of a people ? Hit were a new and an abstract


iestion, there might, perhaps, be a difference of opinion upon
the subject; but, unfortunately, a book is laid open to us, in
which we may read, in most legible characters, the true cha-
racter and consequences of such a measure — that book is the
kingdom of Ireland. In the year 17 94


a convention bill was
passed in Ireland to prevent meetings of the people. 'What
was the consequence? Ministers boasted of the success of


measure : they flattered themselves they had succeeded
in
the
preventing meetings; but I have now the authority of


the parliament of Ireland for saying that what they had•
prevented publicly had been done in private; and that ever
since the year 1791 meetings of the people had been held,
which, up to the year 179 5, were small and insignificant----
small, because up to that time they still bad the power of meet-
ine in public, and discussing their grievances openly, and
without reserve. Up to the year 1794, then, they were small
and harmless — but then comes the convention bill, that forces
them into clandestine and secret meetings by midnight; then
comes correspondence with the foreign enemy, and all the
terrifying and alarming plots which the report of the House
of Lords of Ireland has ascribed to the people of that dis-
tracted country. 'What deplorable ignorance of the human
heart to think that, by a mere convention bill to prevent the
meetings without redressing grievances, they could make men
forget by making them silent ! What criminal ignorance to
conceive that, by damming,


up a torrent, it would not forceits way in another direction ! But it seems that, as. our act
has not yet produced the same effects in England, we must not
go for instruction to the sister kingdom. I see no sense inally such argument : human nature is the same in all countries;


you prevent a man who feels himself aggrieved from declar-
mg his


sentiments, you force him to other expedients for re-
dress• Do you think that you gain a proselyte where youSilence


a declaimer ? No ; you have only by preventing thedecla
ration of grievances in a constitutional way, forced ment° iriore pernicious modes of coming at relief. In pro-


Ion as opinions arc open, they are innocent and harmless./1pinions become dangerous to a state only when perse-
ietution makes it necessary for the people to communicate their
enat


", eas under the bond of' secrecy. Do you believe it possible
the calamity which now rages in Ireland would have


Ille to its present height, if the people had been allowed to




336 MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF Ditty 23,


meet and divulge their grievances? Publicity makes it jol.
possible for artifice to succeed, and designs of a hostile nature
lose their danger by the certainty of exposure. But it is
said that these bills will expire in a few years; that, they win
expire when we shall have peace and tranquillity restored to
to us. What a sentiment to inculcate ! You tell the people
that when every thing goes well, when they are happy onj
comfortable, then they may meet freely, to recognize their
happiness, and pass culogiums on their government; but
that in a moment of war and calamity, of distrust and mis-
conduct, it is not permitted them to meet together, because
then, instead of eulogizing, they might think proper to con-
demn ministers. What a mockery is this ! What an insult
to say that this is preserving to the people the right of pe_
tition ! To tell them that they shall have a tight to applaud,
a right to rejoice, a right to meet when they arc happy, but
not a right to condemn, not a right to deplore their mis-
fortunes, not a right to suggest a remedy ! I hate these
insidious modes of undermining and libelling the constitution
of the country. If you mean to say, that the mixed and
balanced government of England is good only for holidays
and sunshine, but that it is inapplicable to a day of distress
and difficulty, say so. If you mean that freedom is not as
conducive to order and strength as it is to happiness, say so;
and I will enter the lists with you, and contend, that among
all the other advantages arising from liberty, are the ad-
vantages of order and strength in a supereminent degree, and
that too, in the moment when they arc most wanted. Liberty
is order. Liberty is strength. Good God, Sir, am I, on this
day, to be called upon to illustrate the glorious and soothing
doctrine? Look round the world and admire, as you must,
the instructive spectacle ! You will see that liberty not only


nant and invincible; that it derides all other sources of
predonn-is power and order, but that it is power and order


strength; that the heart of man has no impulse, and ca.n.
have none that dares to stand in competition with it; and lit
as Englishmen, we know how to respect its value, surely the
present is the moment of all others, when we ought to secure
its invigorating alliance. Whether we look at our relatio
situation with regard to foreign powers, with regard tope
situation of the sister kingdom, and with regard to ouryl
internal affairs, there never was a moment when nations
strength was so much demanded, and when it was so inct;
bent upon us to call forth and embody all the vigour of
nation, by rousing, animating, and embodying all the love °I
liberty that used to characterize the country, and whie;Nli
trust, is not.yet totally extinct. Is this a moment to (11011'


- 16


1197'3 TIIE TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS. 337
our strength, by indisposing all that part of the nation whose
hearts glow with ardour for their original rights, but who
feel with indignation that they are trampled upon and over-
thrown? Is not this a moment when, in addition to every
other emotion, freedom should be roused as an ally, a sup-


f
lementa •y force, and a substitute for all the other weak and
nefiicient levies that have been suggested in its stead ? Have


we not been nearly reduced to a situation, when it was too
perilous, perhaps, to take the right course ? May we not be
again called upon for exertions that will demand the union of
every hand and every heart in the kingdom ? What might
Pot this House do, if this House had the opinion of the
country with it ? Do not let us say, then, that we are to
increase the force of the country by stifling opinion. It is
only by promoting it, by giving facility to its expression, by
meeting it with open hearts, by incorporating ourselves with
the sense of the nation, that we can again revive that firm
and compact power of British strength, that sprung out of
British liberty.


Sir, I will not trouble you with more on the subject. In
proportion as you throw difficulties in the Way of petition,
you deprive yourselves of strength; you alienate every heart
whose voice you stifle; you drive men to correspondence with
foreign nations, when you debar them from corresponding
with you ; and this, if we may believe the report of the Irish
parliament, was the case with Ireland. When she petitioned,
addressed, and remonstrated, she had no power, but from
small beginnings, that is small, until a convention bill had
passed, until a powder bill had passed, and all the other
acts of insanity and rigour, she rose from small meetings of
mere petition, to a concerted, armed, and embodied union
of one hundred thousand persons. Good God ! shall we not,


possessing the same language, pos the same character,ts,ostrusghgallitbrileng
forthe same constitution, take warning from the


example that is set, and conciliate the people of England ?
with our eyes open, run upon our destiny, as


antient fables
.
tell of men devoted running into the jaws ofittlhiesi)teir:ition to which they were doomed ? Sir,. the present


my
truth has been more strikingly illustrated than another,


strati shall
shall fail to work upon us, we are undone; and if


times hold out examples too legible for mistake.. If demon-


that you shall not touch the liberty of the lower
s asses of the people without making the higher orders pay ase


retribution. You shall not take away one privilege,
shail not diminish one right, without suffering ten-fold,


chtY-fold,an hundred-fold yourselves. You shall not commit
anges upon the people without changing your own power
von. `upon




. 3 3 8 NOTION FOR THE REPEAL, &C. [May 23,
into weakness, your economy into profusion. These are the
doctrines applicable to these times. As men become en_
lightened, they advance in liberty ; in that career seldom are
any found retrograde; and in proportion to their advances
you must concede to them. It has been said, as an argue eat


uaainst the emancipation of slaves, that the negroes are not
sufficiently enlightened for freedom. The French Mulat.
toes, it is owned, are more capable of enjoying it; and
passing from them to the most enslaved nations of Europe;
we see that the approach of light makes it necessary for tile
governor to acknowledge at length that they are human. Bar,
shall the preposterous imagination be fostered, that English,
men, bred in liberty, the first of human kind who asserted
the glorious distinction of forming for themselves their social
compact, can be condemned to silence upon their rights? is
it to be conceived that men who have enjoyed, for such a
length of days, the light and happiness of freedom, can be
restrained and shut up again in the gloom of ignorance and
degradation ? As well, Sir, might you try, by a miserable
dam, to shut up the flowing of a rapid river ; the rolling and
impetuous tide would burst through every impediment that
man might throw in its way, and the only consequence of the
impotent attempt would be, that having collected new force
by its temporary suspension, enforcing itself through new
channels, it would spread devastation and ruin on every side.
The progress of liberty is like the progress of the stream; it
may be kept within its banks ; it is'sure to fertilize the country
through which it runs ; but no power can arrest it in its
passage; and short-sighted, as well as wicked, must be the
heart of the projector that would strive to divert its course.—
Mr. Fox concluded by moving to bring in a bill for the repeal
of the said acts.


After the motion had been opposed by Mr. Serjeant Adair,
Mr. Elford, Sir Richard Glynn, Colonel Fullarton, Mr. Ellison:
and others, the House divided :


Tellers. Tellers:
yEA Mr.Whitbreadl f INIr. Neville 160,


1. Mr. St. John } 52.




NOB S
/Mr. Pierre ont


So it passed in the negative.


797
1 MOTION FOR A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.


'.'


,Ia . GREY'S MOTION FOR A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.


May 26.


,T.R. Grey, in pursuance of previous notice, moved this day,
That leave be given to bring in a bill to amend and regu-


late the election of members to serve in the Commons House of
parliament." He pi.oposed that the county representation should
remain nearly on the same footing ; only, that instead of 92


members, there should be 113.
3. For instance, instead of twocountyfor the county of York, that there should be two for each riding ;


and so in other counties where the present representation was not
proport ionate to the extent of population. In order to put an
end to compromises, each county or riding should be divided into
grand divisions, each of which should return one representative.
With regard to the qualifications of electors, instead of confining
the right of election to freeholders, it should be extended to copy
and lease-holders, who were bound to pay a certain annual rent,
a certain number of years. But the reform which he had to pro-
pose, in the other branch of representation, was of a much more
extensive nature. It was, that the remaining goo members should
be returned by one description of persons, which were house-
holders. If it were possible, one person should not be permitted
to vote for more than one member of parliament. In order to
prevent expence, the pole ought, hesaid, to be taken through
the whole kingdom at one time. This was the outline of his plan ;
to state that it could be obtained at first With exactness, nor was
not liable to difficulties, would be presumptuous and absurd. But
he flattered himself there would be found no insuperable objections
to it. The land-owner would find his property suitably repre-
sented; the merchant support in the householders ; and men of
respectability and talents in the different professions would find a
lair door open for admission into parliament. The only persons
whom he wished to exclude from that House, were men who
'were neither possessed of landed property, nor engaged in com-
me•cial enterprize, nor professors of any particular science, an
who, without property,. without industry, and without tal


d.
ents,


obtained seats in the House of Commons by the influence of
great men b
people, but of promoting their own interests. The motion was_e


Mr.


for


Sh


the .p.


d


ur


an,


pose


M,r.


not


Bar


of


ham,


consulting


Mr. William


the good of the
Seconded in an elaborate and eloquent speech by Mr. Erskine,


,


a4(.1 supp
ec, i :I
orted. by


eri
Sir Francis Burdett, ,Sir Richard


Sm
H


.ith
ill, MMrr.


upon
pre1,,"":


anden , Sir William Dolben. .Mr. Pitt opposed the motionc


Z 2


339


y the same grounds on which his own propositions on
the same subject had been formerly contested. It was also op-posed by Mr. Robert Thornton, Sir William Geary, Lord Hawkes-




340. MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR


bury, Sir William Young, and Sir Gregory Page Turner. At the
close of the debate,


Mr. Fox i;ose, and spoke as follows: Much and often,
Sir, as this question has been discussed, and late as the
hour is, I feel it my duty to deliver my opinion on a inea.,
sure of high importance at all times, but which, at the pre.
sent period, is become infinitely more interesting than ever,
1 fear, however, that my conviction on this subject is Dot
common to the House : I fear that we are not likely to be
agreed as to the importance of the measure, nor as to thezz,
necessity; since by the manner in which ittas been discussed
this night, I foresee that, so far from being unanimous on the
proposition, we shall not be agreed as to the situation and
circumstances of the country itself; much less as to the nature
of the measures which, in my mind, that situation and those
circumstances imperiously demand. I cannot suppress mr
astonishment at the tone and manner of gentlemen this day.
The arguments that have been used would lead the mind to
believe that we are in a state of peace and tranquillity, and
that we have no provocation to any steps for improving the
benefits we enjoy, or retrieving any misfortune that we have
incurred. To persons who feel this to be our situation, every
proposition tending to meliorate the condition of the country
must be subject of jealousy and alarm : and if we really differ
so widely in sentiment as to the state of the country, I see no
probability of an agreement in any measure that is proposed.
All that part of the argument against reform which relates to
the danger of innovation, is strangely misplaced by those
who think with me, that, so far from procuring the mere
chance of practical benefits by a reform, it is only by a re-
form that we can have a chance of rescuing ourselves from a
state of extreme peril and distress. Such is my view of our
situation. I think it so perilous, so imminent, that; though
I do not feel conscious of despair; an emotion which the
heart ought not to admit, yet it comes near to that state of
hazard, when the sentiment of despair, rather than of hope,
may be supposed to take possession of the mind. I feel myself
to be the member of a community, in which the boldest mans
without any imputation of cowardice, may dread that we arc:
not merely approaching to a state of extreme peril, but of
absolute dissolution; and with this conviction impressed upon
my mind, gentlemen will not believe that I disregard all the
general arguments that have been used against the motion 03
the score of the danger a innovation, from any disrespect to
the honourable members who have urged them, or to the_
ingenuity with which they have been pressed; but because


A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 34 11797-1


1111
firmly persuaded that they are totally inapplicable to the


circumstances under which we come to the discussion. With
the ideas that I entertain, I cannot listen for a moment to
,ogestions that are applicable only to other situations, and
to other times; for unless we are resolved pusillanimously to
4ait the approach of our doom, to lie down and die, we
oust take bold and decisive measures for our deliverance.
We must not be deterred by meaner apprehensions. We
must combine all our strength, fbrtifv one another by the
connnunion of our courage ; and by a seasonable exertion of
national wisdom, patriotism, and vigour, take measures for
the chance of salvation, and encounter with unappalled hearts,
all the enemies, foreign and internal, all the dangers and
calamities of every kind which press so heavily upon us.
Such is my view of our present emergency ; and under this
impression, I cannot for a moment listen to the argument of
danger arising from innovation, since our ruin is inevitable
if we pursue the course which has brought us to the brink of
the precipice.


But before I enter on the subject of 'the proposition that
has been made to us, I must take notice of an insinuation that
has again and again been flung out by gentlemen on the other
side of the House, on party feelings, in which they affect to
deplore the existence of a spirit injurious to the welfare of
the public. I suspect, by the frequent repetition of this insi-
nuation, that they are desirous of =king it be believed, or
that they understand themselves by the word party feelings,
an unprincipled combination of men for the pursuit of office
and its emoluments, the eagerness after which leads them to
act upon feelings of personal enmity, ill-will, and opposition.
to his majesty's ministers. If such be their interpretation of
Party feelings, I must say, that I am utterly unconscious of
any such feeling, and I am sure that I can speak with confi-,dence for my friends, that they arc actuated by no motives of
s0 debasing a nature. But if they understand by party feel-
IV, that men of honour, who entertain similar principles,
conceive that those principles may be more beneficially and
successfully pursued by the force of mutual support, harmony,
and


confidential connexion, then I adopt the interpretation,
and have no scruple in saying, that it is an advantage tot


country; an advantage to the cause of truth and the con-
. `"tion ; an advantage to freedom and humanity ; advan-
'Pe to whatever honourable object they may be engaged in,


say,
pursue it with the united force of party feeling that is


sa'Y, pursue it with the confidence zeal, and spirit, whichifue communion of just confidence is
,


likely to inspire. And
the honourable gentlemen apply this description of party


z3




3 4z


MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR
[May 26.


feeling to the pursuit in which we are engaged, I aniretiotitla0.11;vt
ready to say, that the disastrous condition of the empire
to animate and invigorate the union of all those who feel i't'to
be their duty to check and arrest a career that threatens us
with such inevitable ruin. For, surely, those who think that
party is a good thing for ordinary occasions, must admit that
it is peculiarly so on emergencies like the present; it is peuu•
liarly incumbent upon men who feel the value of united eX_
ertion to combine all their strength to extricate the vessel
when in danger of being stranded.


But gentlemen seem to insinuate, that this union of action
is directed more against persons than measures, and that allu-
sions ought not to be made to the conduct of particular men.
It is not easy to analyse this sort of imputation, for it is not
easy to disjoin the measure from its author, nor to examine the
origin and progress of any evil without also inquiring into and
scrutinising the motives and the conduct of the persons who
gave rise to it. How, for instance, is it possible for us to en-
ter into the discussion of the particular question now before
the House, without a certain mixture of personal allusion?
We complain that the representation of the people in parlia-
ment is defective. How does this complaint ori , rinate ? From
the conduct of the majorities in parliament. c'Does not this
naturally lead us to inquire whether there is not something
fundamentally erroneous in election, or something incidentally
vicious in the treatment of those majorities ? We surely must
be permitted to inquire whether the fault and calamit y of
which we complain is inherent in the institution, in which
nothing personal is to be ascribed to ministers, as it will ope-
rate in a more or less degree in all the circumstances in which
we may find ourselves; or whether it is not an occasional abuse
of the original institution, applicable only to these times and to
these men, in which they are peculiarly guilty, but from
which system representation itself ought to stand absolved.


I put the question in this way, in order to chew that a cer-
tain degree of personality is inseparable from the discussion,
and that gentlemen cannot with justice ascribe to the bitterness
of party feelings, what flows out of the principle of free in-
quiry. Indeed, this is a pregnant example of there being


sub


, nothing peculiarly hostile to persons in this subject;


notit is
a thing now taken up for the first time, meditated and con-
ceived in particular hostility to the right honourable the ch8°,i


again
of the exchequer. Be it remembered, that he biirise,!.


has aaahr and ain introduced and patronized the same L
ject, and that all the occasions on which he has brim,'
it forward it has invariably received my approbation and sur


A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 343i797']
When he brought it forward first in the year. '" 1782,


pOr •
tiI


a time of war, and of severe public calamity, I gave to the
111•oposition my feeble support. Again, when be brought it
forward in 1783 t, at a time when I was in an office high in
his majesty's service, I gave it my support. Again, in 1785,
when the right honourable gentleman himself was in place,


renewed 1115rd proposition, had my countenance and sup-
port


a
± I have invariably declared myself a friend to




mentary reform by whomsoever proposed; and though in all
the discussions that have taken place, I have had occasion to
express my doubt as to the efficacy of the particular mode, I
have never hesitated to say, that the principle itself was bene-
ficial; and that though not called for with the urgency which
some persons, and, among others, the right honourable gen-
tleman, declared to exist, I constantly was of opinion that it
ought not to be discouraged. Now, however, that all doubt
upon the subject is removed by the pressure of our calamities,
and the dreadful alternative seems to be, whether we shall
sink into the most abject thraldom, or continue in the same
course until we are driven into the. horrors of anarchy, I can
have no hesitation in saying, that the plan of recurring to the
principle of melioration which the constitution points out, is
become a desideratum to the people of Great Britain. Be-
tween the alternatives of base and degraded slavery on the
one side, or of tumultuous, though, probably, short-lived anar-
chy on the other, though no man would hesitate to make his
choice, yet, if there be a course obvious and practicable, which,
without either violence or innovation, may lead us back to
the vigour we have lost, to the energy that has been stifled,
to the independence that has been undermined, and yet pre-
serve every thing in its place, a moment ought not to be lost
hi embracing the chance which this fortunate provision of the
British system has made for British safety.


This is my opinion, and it is not an opinion merely founded
!Ton theory, but upon actual observation of what is passing
In the world. I conceive, that if we are not resolved to shut
Our eyes to the instructive lessons of the times, we must be
nothing of the propriety of seasonable concession. I seel
othing in what is called the lamentable example of Franceto p1.ove to me that timely acquiescence with the desires of the


Peoeiet is more danaerons than obstinate resistance to their
demands; , ,


—"us; out the situations of Great Britain and France are
s° essentially different, there is so little in common between
the character of England at this day, and the character of


4 See Vol. ii. p. 67. I- Ibid. p. 171. vol. p. 14$•
4




344
MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR




[May 26,


France at the commencement of the Revolution, that it is ntl,
possible to reason upon them from parity of circumstances or
of character. It is not necessary for me, I am sure, to enter
into any analysis of the essential difference between the ch a-
racter of a people that had been kept for ages in the barba,
rism of servitude, and a people who have enjoyed for so loon
a time the light of freedom. But we have no occasion to 60.60
to France for example ; another country nearer to our hearts,
with which we are better acquainted, opens to us a book so-
legible and clear, that he must be blind indeed who is not
able to draw from it warning and instruction ; it holds forth
a lesson which is intelligible to dulness itself. Let us look to
Ireland, and see how remarkably the arguments and reason-
ing of this day tally with the arguments and reasoning that
unfortunately prevailed in the sister kingdom, and by which
the king's ministers were fatally able to overpower the voice of
reason and patriotism, and stifle all attention to the prayers
and applications of the people. It is impossible for any coin-
cidence to be more perfect. 'We are told, that there are in
England, as it is said there were in Ireland, a small num-
ber of persons desirous of throwing , the country into con-
fusion, and of alienating the affections of the people from the
established government.


Permit me, Mr. Speaker, in passing to observe, that the
right honourable the chancellor of the Exchequer did not re-
present my learned friend (Mr. Erskine) quite correctly, when
he stated that my learned friend admitted the existence of such
men. On the contrary, the argument of my learned friend
was hypothetical; he said, if it be true, as it is so industriously
asserted, that such and such men do exist in the country,
then surely in wisdom you ought to prevent their number
from increasing by timely conciliation of the body of moderate
men, who desire only reform. In this opinion I perfectly
acquiesce with my learned friend. I believe that the number
of persons who arc discontented with the government of the
country, and who desire to overthrow it, is very few, indeed.
But the right honourable gentleman says, that the friends of
moderate refOrm are few, and that no advantage is to be gain"
ed by conceding to this very small body. what will not satisfy
the violent, which he contends is more numerous; and he ye'
hemcntly demands to know whom he is to divide, whom
separate, and what benefit he is to obtain from this surrender!
To this I answer, that if there be two bodies, it is wisdom, it
is policy, to prevent the one from falling into the other, thby


egranting to the moderate what is just and reasonable, If
argument of the right honourable gentleman be correct, the
necessity for concession is more imperious; it is only by these


A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.
345179 7'3


means that you can check the spirit of proselytism, and pre-
vent a conversion that by and by will be too formidable for
von to resist. Mark this, and see how it applies to the pre-
'admit of Ireland. In the report that has been made by the
parliament of that kingdom on the present disorders, it is said,
that so long ago as the year 17 9 1, there existed some societies
in that country, who harboured the desire of separation from
England, and who wished to set up a republican form of go-
vernment . The report does not state what was the precise
number of those societies in 1791 ; it declares, however, that
the number was small and insignificant. From small begin-
nings, however, they have increased to the alarming number
of 100,000 men in the province of Ulster only. By what
means have they so increased, and who are the proselytes that
swell their numbers to so gigantic a size? Obviously the
men who had no such design originally ; obviously the per-
sons who had no other object in view in all the petitions
which they presented, than catholic emancipation and reform
of parliament. This is also admitted by the report. The
spirit of reform spread over the country ; they made humble,
earnest, and repeated applications to the Castle for redress;
but there they found a fixed determination to resist every
claim, and a rooted aversion to every thing that bore even
the colour of reform. They made their applications to all
the considerable characters in the country, who had on former
occasions distinguished themselves by exertions in the popular
cause; and of these justly eminent men I desire to speak as I
feel, with the utmost respect for their talents and virtues.
But, unfortunately, they were so alarmed by the French Re-
volution, and by the cry which had been so artfully set up by
ministers of the danger of infection, that they could not listen
to the complaint. 'What was the consequence? These bodies
of men, who found it vain to expect it from the govern-
ment at the castle, or from the parliament, and having no
Where else to recur for redress, joined the societies, whom
the


charge,


accuses of' cherishing the desire of separation from
England ; and became converts to all those notions of extra-
va
hgant and frantic ambition, which the report lays to theirc
, be, and which threatens consequences so dreadful and


aim:mier, that no man can contemplate them without horrorills,dismay.
What, then, is the lesson to be derived from this example,butthat the comparatively small societies of 17 9 1 became


str°flg and formidable by the accession of the many who had
nothing in common with them in the outset? I wish it were
Pcissible for us to draw the line more accurately between the
small number that the report describes to have had mischie-•




346 MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR [May
vous objects originally in view, and the numerous bodies who
were made converts by the neglect of their petition for con
stitutional rights. Is it improbable that the original few leer:
not more than ten or twenty thousand in number? What,
then, do I learn from this? That the impolitic and unjust
refusal of government, to attend to the applications of the
moderate, made 8o or 90,000 proselytes from moderation to
violence. This is the lesson which the book of Ireland ee,
hibits ! Can you refuse your assent to the moral? Will any
man argue, that if reform had been conceded to the So or
90,000 moderate petitioners, you would have this day to de.
plore the union of ioo,000 men, bent on objects so exten.
sive, so alarming, so calamitous? I wish to warn you by this
example. Every argument that you have heard used this day
was used at Dublin. In the short-sighted pride and obstinac y


.


of the government, they turned a deaf ear to the supplicant;
they have now, perhaps, in the open field to brave the assentor.
Unwarned, untutored by example, are you still to go on with
the same contemptuous and stubborn pride? I by no means
think that Great Britain is at this moment in the same situ-
ation as Ireland. I by no means think that the discontents
of this country have risen to such a height as to make us fear
for the general peace of the country; but I deprecate the
course which has been pursued in Ireland. What England
is now, Ireland was in 17 9 1. What was said . of the few,
they have now applied to the many ; and as there are discon-
tents in this country, which we can neither dissemble nor con-
ceal, let us not, by an unwise and criminal disdain, irritate
and fret them into violence and disorder. The discontents
may happily subside; but a man must be sanguine indeed in
his temper, or dull in his intellect, if he would leave to the
operation of chance what he might more certainly obtain by
the exercise of reason. Every thing that is dear and urgent
to the minds of Englishmen presses upon us ; in the critical
moment at which I now address you, a day, an hour, ought
not to elapse, without giving to ourselves the chance of this
recovery. When government is daily presenting itself in the
shape of weakness that borders on -dissolution—unequal to ail
the functions of meinl strength, and formidable only in per


-nicious corruption—weak in power, and strong only in In-
fluence—am I to be told that such a state of things can go
on with safety to any branch of the constitution ? If men
think that, under the impression of such a system, we can go
on without a recurrence to first principles, they argue in di


-rect opposition to all theory and all practice. These discon-
tents cannot, in their nature, subside under detected weal"
ness and exposed incapacity. In their progress and increaser
(and increase they must,) who shall say that direction can be


A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 3471797.
(even to the torrent, or that, having broken its bounds, it can
Fie kept from overwhelming the country ? Sir, it is not thepart of statesmen, it is not the part of rational beings, to


ts:e, ourselves with such fallacious dreams; we must not sitam
down and lament over our hapless situation ; we must not de-
liver ourselves up to an imbecile despondency that would ani-
mate the approach of danger; but by a seasonable and vigo-
rous measure of wisdom, meet it with a sufficient and a sea-
sonable remedy. We may be disappointed. We may fail
iii the application, for no man can be certain of his footing on
around that is unexplored ; but we shall at least have a chance
for success—we shall at least do what belong to legislators, and
to rational beings on the occasion, and I have confidence that
Our efforts would not be in vain. I say that we should give
ourselves a chance, and, I may add, the best chance, for de-
liverance ; since it would exhibit to the country a proof that
we lied conquered the first great difficulty that stood in the
way of bettering our condition — that we had conquered our-
selves. 'We had given a generous triumph to reason over pre-
judice; we had given a death-blow to those miserable dis-
tinctions of whip and tor y, under which the warfare had been
maintained between pride and privilege ; and through the
contention of our rival jealousies, the genuine rights of the


, .


many had been gradually undermined, and frittered away. I
say, that this would be giving us the best chance ; because, see-
ing every thing go on from bad to worse—seeing the progress
of the most scandalous waste countenanced by the most cri-
minal confidence, and that the effrontery of corruption no
longer requires the mask of concealment—seeing liberty dailyee-infringed, and the vital springs of the nation insufficient for
the extravagance of a dissipated government, I must believe,
that, unless the people are mad or stupid, they will suspect
that there is something fundamentally vicious in our system,
and which no reform would be equal to correct. Then, to
Prevent all this, and to try if we can effect a reform without
touching the main pillars of the constitution, without chang-
ing its forms, or disturbing the harmony of its parts, with-
out putting any thing out of its place, or affecting the secu-
rities which we justly hold to be so sacred, is, I say, the only
chance which we have for retrieving our misfortunes by the
road of quiet and tranquillity, and by which national strength
nnlybideu recovered without disturbing the property of a single


It has been said, that the House possesses the confidence of
the country as much as ever. This, in truth, is as much as
to say, that his majesty's ministers possess the confidence of
the country in the same degree as ever, since the majority of




348 MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR { -May26.


the House support and applaud the measures of the goveit,
ment, and give their countenance to all the evils which w
are doomed to endure. I was very much surprized to Ilea:
any proposition so unaccountable advanced by any person
connected with ministers, particularly as the noble lord
(Hawkesbury) had, but a sentence or two before, genno•s
"edged that there had been, to be sure, a number of petitions


formajestyhistod the dismission of his ministers,presente a
The one assertion is utterly incompatible with the other, Inn-
less he means to assert, that the petitions which have been
presented to the throne are of no importance. The noble
lord can hardly, I think, speak in this contemptuous manner
'of the petitions of. London, 'Westminster, Surrey,
Hampshire, York, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and many other
places, unless he means to insinuate that they arc proofs only
of our very great industry, and that they arc not the genuine
sense of the districts from which they come. If the noble
lord ascribes them to our industry, he gives us credit for
much more merit of that kind than we are entitled to. It
certainly is not the peculiar characteristic of the present oppo-
sition, that they are very industrious in agitating the public
mind. But, grant to the noble lord his position— be it to
our industry that all these petitions are to be ascribed. If
industry could procure them, was it our moderation, our good
will and forbearance, that have made us for fourteen years
relax from this industry, and never bring forward these pe,
titions until now ? No, Sir, it is not to our industry that they
are to be ascribed now, nor to our forbearance that they did
not come before. The noble lord will not give us credit for
this forbearance; and the consequence is, that he must own,
upon his imputation of industry, that the present is the first
time when we were sure of the people, and that these pe-
titions are a proof that at length the confidence of the people
in ministers is shaken. That it is so, it is in vain for the
noble lord to deny. They who in former times were eager t0
shew their confidence by addresses, have now been as eager
to express their disapprobation in petitions for their removal.
How, then, can we say that the confidence of the people is
not shaken? Is confidence to be always against the people,
and never for them? It is a notable argument, that because
we do not find, at the general election, very material changes
in the representation, the sentiments of the people continue
the same, in favour of the war, and in favour of his majesty s
ministers. The very ground of the present discussion gives
the answer to this argument. Why do we agitate the ques-
tion of parliamentary reform? 'Why, but because air-
neral election does not afford to the people the means of ex"


3 A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 3 49.1797'
anny their vo ; becauss House is not a sufficiDres,


sentative ot
ice
the people?


e
G


thi
entlemen are fond of arauin


ent
o'r,j:IcIP:ilcis circle. When we contend that ministers have not the


cl oadence of the people, they tell us that parliament is the
Othful representative of the sense of the country. 'When we
assert that the representation is defective, and shew, from the
petitions to the thr, one, that the House docs not , speak the
,,oice of the peoplele they turn to the general election and say,
that at this period they had an opportunity of choosing faith-
fulorgans of their opinion ; and because very little or no
change has taken place in the representation, the sense of the
people must be the same. Sir, it is in vain for gentlemen to
shelter themselves by this mode of reasoning. We assert, that
under the present form and practice of elections, we cannot
expect to see any remarkable change produced by a general
election. 'We must argue from experience. Let us look back
to the period of the American war. It will not be denied by
the right honourable gentleman, that towards the end of that
war, it became extremely unpopular, and that the king's mi-
nisters lost the confidence of the nation. In the year 1780
a dissolution took place, and then it was naturally imagined
by superficial observers, who did not examine the real state of
representation, that the people would have returned a par-
liament that would have unequivocally spoken their sentiments
on the occasion. What was the case? I am able to speak
with considerable precision. At that time I was much more
than I am at present in the way of knowing personally the
individuals returned, and of making an accurate estimate of
the accession gained to the popular side by that election. I
can take upon Inc to say, that the change was very small in-
that, : not more than three or four persons were added to the
n umber of' those who had from the beginning opposed thedisastrous career of the ministers in that war. I remember


ha


upon that occasion, Lord North made use of precisely
the same argument as is now brought forward: " 'What 1"
said he, " can you contend the war is unpopular, after the de-
cl
aration in its favour that the people have made by their


choice of representatives ? The general election is the proof
,that the war continues to be the war of the people of Eng_
land." Such was the argument of Lord North, and yet itr,l''as notoriously otherwise; so notoriously otherwise, that the
right honourable gentleman, the present chancellor of the


sa


!he
exch


equer, made a just and striking use of it, to demonstrate
necessity of a parliamentary reform. He referred to this


"'eat as to a demonstration of this doctrine. " You see,"o
,
" that so defective, so inadequate,


• is the presentPra
ctice, at least of the elective franchise, that no impression




356 MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR
[May 26.


of national calamity, no conviction of ministerial error,
-abhorrence of disastrous war, is sufficient to stand against that


corrupt influence which has mixed itself with election, and
which drowns and stifles the popular voice." Upon this state.
anent, and upon this unanswerable argument, the right hoe:
Pourable gentleman acted in the year 1782. When he pre_posed a parliamentary reform, he did it expressly n
ground of the experience of 1780, and he made an explicit
declaration, that we bad no other security by which to guard
ourselves against the return of the same evils. He repeated
this warning in 1783 and in 1785. It was the leading prin.
ciple of his conduct. " Without a reform," said he, " thential:
tion cannot be safe; this war may be put an end to, but
what will protect you against another ? as certainly as
spirit which engendered the present war actuates the secret
councils of the crown, will you, under the influence of a
defective representation, be involved again in new wars, and
in similar calamities." This was his argument in 1782, this
was his prophecy, and the right honourable gentleman was a
true prophet. Precisely as he pronounced it, the event hap-
pened ; another war took place, and I am sure it will not be
considered as an aggravation of its character, that it is at least
equal in disaster to the war of which the right honourable gen-
tleman complained. " The defect of representation," he said,
" is the national disease; and unless you apply a remedy directly
to that disease, -you must inevitably take the consequences
with which it is pregnant." With such an authority, can any*
man deny that I reason right ? Did not the right honourable
gentleman demonstrate his case ? Good God ! what a fate 1E
that of the right honourable gentleman, and in what a state
of whimsical contradiction does he stand ! During the whole
course of his administration, and particularly during the course
of the present war, every prediction that he has made, .even`
hope that he has held out, every prophecy that he has ha


-zarded, has failed ; he has disappointed the expectations thta
he has raised ; and every promise that he has given, ha'
proved to be fallacious. Yet, for these very declarations, an d
notwithstanding these failures, we have called him a wise m i


-nister. 'We have given him our confidence on account of hi'
predictions, and have continued it upon their failure . The
only instance in which he really predicted what has collie t°
pass, we treated with stubborn incredulity. In 1785, Pc°'
flounced the awful prophecy, " Without a parliamentary lc:


.


form the nation will be plunged into new wars ; without'


parliamentary reform you cannot be safe against bad ministe.t:,
,


(rnor can even good ministers be of use to you." Such -was theprediction ; and it has come upon us. It would seem as if
14


mina. If I were clisposed to consider him as a realhis wa b
enthusiast, and a bigot in divination, we might be apt to think
that he had himself taken measures for the verification of his


fPeirevio)liliercoYf. suFecoerss, " You see the consequence of not listening
he might now exclaim to us, with the proud


oracle. I told you what would happen ; it is true that
;o hemi


t
rdestr uction is complete; I have plunged you into a new


war; I have exhausted you as a people; I have brought you
to the brink of ruin, but I told you before hand what would
happen; I told you, that without a reform in the representa-
tion of the people, no minister, however wise, could save you;
von denied me my means, and you take the consequence !"


But a reform in the representation, say gentlemen on the op-
posite side of the House, is not called for by the country ; and
though meetings have been held in various parts of the king-.
dom, and petit ions have come up for the dismissal of ministers,
they have not expressed a wish for reform. In answer to this
argument it is only necessary to observe, that the restrictions
which have been recently laid on meetings of the people and
on popular discussion, may serve to account for the ques-
tion of reform not being mixed with that which was the sub-
ject of their immediate consideration. The purpose of the
meeting is necessarily specified in the requisition to the sheriff;
and if any other business were attempted to be brought for-
ward, the. sheriff would have the power of dispersing the
meeting. Their silence, therefore, upon the -subject is no
proof either way. But granting even the fact, that the coun-
try does not now call for this reform — a fact


.which, however,
I deny — is the country in such a situation as to make it im-
probable that the universal demand of a parliamentary re-
;oral, which has burst from the people of Ireland, will not be
speedily communicated by sympathy to the people of Eng-l
and? When I see that the treatment which the people of Ire-
land have received upon this subject, has exasperated their
'Hin ds to such a degree as to throw the whole of that king-dom i


-


nto confusion, and that we have daily to dread the


prev
Clanger of actual insurrection, shall I not take measures to


ent the rise of a passion that may swell into equal tumult?
the


nearness of the two countries, the sympathetic interest,
1 similarity of language, of constitution, and almost of suffer-


1118, make it probable that the one nation will catch the dis-
se of


, the other, unless we interpose a seasonable cure. Is


113,e
Isisdom, is it not prudence, to erect a standard around


iLlai ll the patriotism and moderation of the kingdom
rally, and the government be strengthened against the


1797 '3 51A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.


whole life of the right honourable gentleman, from that pee
• d had been destined by Providence for the illustration ofeo




352 MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR
[May 26.


violence of the few by the countenance and support of the
many ?The right honourable gentleman speaks, Sir, of the strength
of government. But what symptom of strength does it eat'
hibit? Is it the cordiality of all the branches of the national
force? Is it the harmony that happily reigns in all the depart,
meats of the executive power? Is it the reciprocal affection
that subsists between the government and the people ? is i t in
the energy with which the people are eager to carry into exe.
cution the measures of the administration, from the heartfelt
conviction that they are founded in wisdom, favourable to their
own freedom, and calculated for national happiness? h it
because our resources are flourishing and untouched, because
our vigour is undiminished, because our spirit is animated by
success, and our courage by our glory ? Is it because'govern-
meat have in a perilous situation, when they have been
obliged to call upon the country for sacrifices, shewn a con-
ciliating tenderness and regard for the rights of the people,
as well as a marked disinterestedness and forbearance on their
own parts, by which they have, in an exemplary manner,
made their own economy to keep pace with the increased de-
mands for the public service? Are these the sources of the
strength of government? I forbear, Sir, to push the in.
quiry. I forbear to allude more particularly to symptoms
which no man can contemplate at this moment without grief
and dismay. It is not the declarations of right honourable
gentlemen that constitute the strengthof a government. That
government is alone strong that possesses the hearts of the
people ; and will any man contend that we should not he
more likely to add strength to the state, if we were to extend
the basis of' the popular representation ? Would not a House
of Commons, freely elected, be more likely to conciliate the
support of the people? If this be true in the abstract, it is
certainly our peculiar duty to look for this support in the
hour of difficulty. • What man who foresees a hurricane
not desirous of strengthening his house ? Shall nations alone
be blind to the dictates of reason ? Let us not, Sir, be 4e'
terred from this act of prudence by the false representations
that are made to us. France is the phantom that is eon-
stantly Lela out to terrify us from our purpose. Look s`
France ; it will not be denied but that she stands oci e


we.


broad basis of free representation. Whatever other
the government of France may exhibit, and which may afibt
just alarm to other nations, it cannot be denied that he


r re,:


presentative system has proved itself capable of vigorous e'•
ertion.


.j.•] A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 3 5 3
sow, Sir, though I do not wish you to imitate France, and


3/ I am persuaded you have no necessity for any terrorthoug
of such imitation being forced upon you, yet I say that you


alit to be as ready to adopt the virtues, as you are steady
°11'' –rtina.


from the country, the vices of France. If it isaN
demonstrated, that genuine representation alone can


give lie:erYslolid power, and that in order to make government strong,
the people must make the government; you ought to act on
this grand maxim of political wisdom thus demonstrated, and
call in the people, according to the original principles of your
system, to the strength of your government. Iii doing this
you will not innovate, you will not imitate. In making the


e of England a constituent part of the government ofpeopl
England, you do no more than restore the genuine edifice de-
signed and framed by our ancestors. An honourable baronet
spoke of the instability of democracies, and says, that history
does not give us the example of one that has lasted eighty
years. Sir, I am not speaking of pure democracies, and there-
fore his allusion does not apply to my argument. Eighty
years, however, of peace and repose would be pretty well for
any People to enjoy, and would be no bad recommendation of
a pure democracy. I am ready, however, to agree with the ho-
nourable baronet, that, according to the experience of history,
the antient democracies of the world were vicious and objec-
tionable on many accounts; their instability, their injustice,
and many other vices, cannot be overlooked ; but, surely, when
we turn to the antient democracies of Greece, when we see
them in all the splendour of arts and of arms, when we see to
what an elevation they carried the powers of man, it cannot
be denied that, however vicious on the scoref ingratitude


le oro tit •
of injustice, they were, at least, the pregnant source of national
strength, and that in particular they brought forth this strength
in a peculiar manner in the moment of difficulty and distress.
When we look at the democracies of the antient world, we
are Compelled to acknowledge their oppressions to their de-pendencies, their horrible acts of injustice and of ingratitude
to their own citizens ; but they compel us also to admirationby their vigour, their constancy, their spirit, and their ex-
ertions in every great emergency in which they are called upon
to act. We are compelled to own, that it gives a power, of
which no other form of government is capable. Why ? Be-e
car--se • incorporates every man with the state, because it
arouses every thing that belongs to the soul, as well as to the
body of man: because it makes every individual feel that he
Is fighting for himself, and not for another ; that it is his own


his own safety, his own concern, his own dignity on
the


face of the earth, and his ,oi. NNA'n interest on the identical
vox,. VI.




354
MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR




[May 26,


soil which he has to maintain, and accordingly
that


awhatever may be objected to them on account of the turh
lency of the passions which they engender, their short
ration, and their disgusting vices, they have exacted from tii';
common suffrage of mankind the palm of strength and vigour.
Who that reads the history of the Persian war — what-ho;
whose heart is warmed by the grand and sublime actions which
the democratic spirit produced, does not find in this principle
the key to all the wonders which were achieved at Thermo,
pyl and elsewhere, and of which the recent and marvellous
acts of the French people are pregnant examples? He sees
that the principle of liberty only could create the sublime and
irresistible emotion ; and it is in vain to deny, from the striking
illustration that our own times have given, that the principlers
eternal, and that it belongs to the heart of man. Shall we,
then, refuse to take the benefit of this invigorating principle?
Shall we refuse to take the benefit which the wisdom of our
ancestors resolved that it should confer on the British consti-
tution ? With the knowledge that it can be reinfbsed into
our system without violence, without disturbing any one of its
parts, are we become so inert, so terrified, or so stupid, as to
hesitate for one hour to restore ourselves to the health which
it would be sure to give? When we see the giant power that
it confers upon others, we ought not to withhold it from Great
Britain. How long is it since we were told in this House,
that France was a blank in the map of Europe, and that she
lay an easy prey to any power that, might be disposed to di,
vide and plunder her? Yet we see that, by the mere force and
spirit of this principle, France has brought all Europe at her
feet. Without disguising the vices of France, without over-
looking the horrors that ikave been committed, and that have
tarnished the glory of the Revolution, it cannot be denied
that they have exemplified the doctrine, that if you wish for
power you must look to liberty. If' ever there was a moment
when this maxim ought to be dear to us, it is the present.
We have tried all other means ; we have bad recourse to every
stratagem that artifice, that influence, that cunning could sug-,
gest; we have addressed ourselves to all the base passions of
the nation ; we have addressed ourselves to pride, to avarice,
to fear; we have awakened all the interested emotions; we
have employed every thing that flattery, every thing that
address, every thing that privilege could effect ; we have we .
to terrify them into exertion, and all has been unequal to out
emergency. Let us try them by the only means which el,-
perience demonstrates to be inViucible ; let us address ow:
selves to their love ; let us indentify them with ourselves : le`
us make it their own cause as well xis ours ! Ta induce them to


IS


1 797 'J
A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 355


came forward in support of the state, let us make them a part of
the state; and this they become the very instant you give them
a House of Commons that is the faithful organ of their will.
Then, Sir, when you have made them believe and feel that
there can be but one interest in the country, you will never
all upon them in vain fir exertion. Can this be the case as
the House of Commons is now constituted ? Can they think
so if they review the administration of the right honourable
gentleman, every part of which must convince them, that the
present representation is a mockery and a shadow?


I shall not, Sir, go over the whole of that series of disastrous
measures which has forced upon the country the impres-
sion that the House of Commons has lost its efficacy in
the system of government. But let us look back to the
very singular circumstances under which the right ho-
nourable gentleman came into power : from this we shall
sec in what estimation the House of Commons is held, even
by government itself, when it does not suit their purpose to
extol it as the representative of the people. The right ho-
nourable gentleman came into power against the sense of the
majority of the then House of Commons ; and, armed with
all the corrupt power of the crown, he stood, and successfully re-
sisted the power of the House of Commons. lie declared, that
it was not the representative of the people, that it did not speak
the sense of the nation, and he derided its weakness and in-
efficiency. What is the doctrine that this conduct in 1784
promulgated ? That the House of Commons, so long as it
obeys the will of the minister, so long as it grants every thin!T
which he demands, so long as it supports every measure which
he brings forward, is the genuine representative of the coun-
t:T.:so long it is powerful and onitipotent : but, the moment


and completed


a House of Commons presumes to be the censor of govern-.
ment, the moment that it assumes the character of defiance


opposition, from that instant it ceases to have power or
authority in the kingdom — it then becomes a straw which
the minister can puff away with a breath. This he did in 1784,


pleted his triumph. Since that time, who will say
that the corrupt influence of the crown has not made enor-
mous strides in destroying the power of election ? Since that
time, four-fifths of the elective franchises of Scotland, and
uarnwall particularly, have passed into the hands of govern-
ment; and the prediction which Mr. Burke then made upon
the occasion has been literally fulfilled — no House of Com-
Inons has been since found strong enough to oppose the mi-
nisters of the crown. It has been said, that that period was
MA proper to be taken as a test of the public spirit on the
41bieet of representation ; that it was a moment of national.


AA 2




356 • MIL GREY'S MOTION FOR [May 26.
prosperity, and that nothing can be decided for or agains t re,
presentation by that precedent. It was, however, in that ntc,
ment that the seeds of rottenness and dissolution were sown
I thought I saw them at the time, and I have been confirmed
in my observation by every thing that has occured since. I
pass over all the period between that time up to the present
war, not because it is not fruitful of examples, but because I
do not wish to trespass upon your time. The present war,
say ministers, was popular in its commencement ; the same
was said of the commencement of the American war. I will
not stop to inquire into the truth of the assertion, though it is
at least doubtful. I will not deny that, through the artinIlin:aati
chinations of government, a clamour was excited of the inter-
ested, which ministers called the voice of the nation. N
ever may have been the case, however, in the outset of the
two wars, the progress in the public opinion has been the
same in both ; arid I aver, that as in the American war the
public opinion had changed, though no change was produced
by the general deletion of I78o, so now, for the last two years,
the present war has been universally unpopular in England,
though it has not made its voice to be heard in the choice
of representatives. Though the general election has not pro-
duced a change of men, yet he must be a dull observer of the
public mind who says that the general election did not afford
a striking proof of a change in the sentiments of the people.
For what was the conduct of the candidates in populous
places on the two sides? We boasted of having opposed the
war ; we made it our claim and our appeal to the confidence
of the people, that we had resisted every one of the measures
by which the government has brought us into our present
condition. What was the conduct of the candidates on the
other side? It consisted of apologies for their past offence of
supporting the war; it consisted of whining and canting
explanations, in descriptions of alarms, and not unfrequent4
in misrepresentations of facts. Such was the feeling conveyed
by the general election. It served to convince every observ-
ing man, that if the representative system had been perfect,
or the practice pure, the new parliament would have decided•
voted against the continuance of the war. Seeing, then,•the
conduct they have pursued, can the people have confidence
in this House? Can they have confidence in a House that
has given their countenance to misrepresentation throug h thiee
whole course of the war? Suppose the people were to 10:
for the history of the events that have happened in this0:
and for the condition of the country, to the king's speech'f
from the throne, and to the addresses of the two Mote
parliament ; they would see that almost in every Instain'


1797•]


A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 357
yr- has declared from the throne, and the House of Com-nurtions has replied in humble addresses, that our prospects were


and that the country was flourishing and pros-
Perpor ousvd,.e Look at all the king's speeches and addresses since
the year 1793, and you will find that this is their General tone
and language. And yet, this is the House of Commons in
which the people of England are to have confidence ! Amidst
all the failures and sufferings which they have had to deplore,
arid in their present condition of dreadlid and unparralleled
calamity, they arc called upon to trust to a House of Com-
mons, that assures them their prospects and situation have
been gradually improving since the year 1 793 !


There has been, at different times, a great deal of dispute
about virtual representation. Sir, I am no great advocate for
these nice subtleties and special pleadings on the constitution :
much depends upon appearance as well as reality. I know
well that a popular body of 558 gentlemen, if truly indepen-
dent of the crown, would be a strong barrier to the people;
but the House of Commons should not only be, but appear
to be, the representatives of the people; the system should
satisfy the prejudices and the pride, as well as the reason of
the people; and you never can expect to give the just im-
pression which a House of Commons ought to make on the
people, until you derive it unequivocally from them. It is
asked, why gentlemen who were against a parliamentary
reform on former occasions should vote for it now? Ten years
ago men might reasonably object to any reform of the system,
who ought now, in my opinion, to be governed by motives
that are irresistible in its favour. They might look back with
something like satisfaction and triumph to firmer parliaments,
and console themselves with the reflection, that though in
moments of an ordinary kind, in the common course of human
events, parliament might abate from its vigilance, and give a
greater degree of confidence than was strictly conformable
With representative duty —yet there was a point beyond which
no artifice of power, no influence of corruption, could carry
them; that there were barriers in the British constitution
Over which the House of Commons never would leap, and
that the moment of chan ger and alarm would be the signal for
the return of parliament to its post. Such might have been
tnhoC urieasonine.


of gentlemen on the experience of former par-g
lialllents; and with this rooted trust in the latent efficacy ofparliament, they might have objected to any attempt that


cherish hopes of a change in the system itself: But
what will the same gentlemen say after the experience of the
last and the present parliament ? What reliance can they havefor.


one vestige of the constitution that is yet left to us?
A A 3




MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR [May 26,
7973
A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 359


Or rather, what privilege, what right, what security, h as not
been already violated? " quid intactum ncfasti liquipms?,
And, seeing that in no one instance have they hesitated to ,0
the full length of every outrage that was conceived by the
minister —that they have been touched by no scruples,
deterred by no sense of duty — corrected by no experience
of calamity —checked by no admonition or remonstrance,
that they have never made out a single case of inquiry —that
they have never interposed a single restraint upon abuse, may
not 0- ntlemen consistently feel that the reform which theyPepreviously thought unnecessary is now indispensable?


We have heard to-day, Sir, all the old arguments about
honour on the one side being as likely as honour on the
other; that there are good men on both sides of the House; -
that a man may be a member for a close borough upon the
one side of the House as well as upon the other ; and that he
may be a good man, sit where he may. All this, Sir, is very
idle language: it is not the question at issue. No man dis-
putes the existence of private and individual integrity; hut,
Sir, this is not representation: if a man comes here as the
proprietor of a burgage tenure, he does not come here as the
representative of the people. The whole of' this system, as
it is now carried on, is as outrageous to morality, as it is
pernicious to just government; it gives a scandal to our cha-
racter, which not merely degrades the House of Commons
in the eyes of the people; it does more, it undermines the
very principles of integrity in their hearts, and gives a fashion
to dishonesty and imposture. They hear of a person giving
or receiving four or five thousand pounds as the purchase
money of a scat for a close borough ; and they hear the very
man, who received and put into his pocket the money, make
a vehement speech in this House against bribery; and they
see him move for the commitment to prison of a poor, un-
fortunate wretch at your bar, who has been convicted in
taking a single guinea for his vote in the very borough, per-
haps, where he had publicly and unblushingly sold his in-
fluence, though that miserable guinea was necessary to save
a family from starving, under the horrors of a war which he
had contributed to bring upon the country. Sir, these are
the things that paralyse you to the heart ; these are the things
that vitiate the whole system, that spread degeneracy, h y


-pocrisy, and sordid fraud, over the country, and take front
us the energies of virtue, and sap the foundations of patriotisal,
and spirit. The system that encourages so much vice ougb
to be put an end to; and it is no argument that, because It


b


lasted a long time without mischief, it ought now to be 0117
tinned, when it is found to be pernicious; it has arisen to a


heittht that defeats the very end of government; it must sink
ii'acier its own weakness. And this, Sir, is not a case peculiar
Ito itself, but inseparable from all human institutions. All
the writers of eminence upon forms of government have said,
that in order to preserve them, frequent recurrence must be
had


to their original principle. This is the Opinion of Mon-
tesquieu, as well as of Maehiavel. Gentlemen will not he
inclined to dispute the authority of the latter on this point
at least; and he says, that without this recurrence they grow
out of shape, and deviate from their general form. It is only
by recurring to former principles that any government can be
kept pure and unabuscd. But, say gentlemen, if any abuses
have crept into our system, have we not a corrective, whose
efficacy has been proved, and of which every body approves ?
Have we not Mr. Grenville's bill as an amendment to the
constitution? An amendment it is; an amendment which
acknowledges the deficiency. It is an avowal of a defective
practice. It is a strong argument for a reform, because it
would not be necessary if' the plan of representation were
sufficient. But, Sir, there is a lumping consideration, if I
may be allowed the phrase, which now more than ever ought
to make every man a convert to parliamentary reform ; there
is an annual revenue of twenty-three millions sterling col-
lected by the executive government from the people. Here,
Sir, is the despot of election; here is the new power that has


d
grown up to a magnitude, that bears down before it every
efensive barrier established by our ancestors for the protec-


tion of the people. They had no such tyrant to controul ;
they had no such enemy to oppose. Against every tiling that
was known, against every thing that was seen, they did pro-
vide; but it did not enter into the contemplation of those
ho established the checks and barriers of our system, that
hey would ever have to stand against a revenue of twenty


(tPi -ee millions a year. The whole landed rental of the king-Joni snot estimated at more than twenty-five millions a year,
"ho
a!!d this rental is divided and dispersed over a large body,


cannot be supposed to act in concert, or to give to theirl)hoaut-etti lotulicrei
force


i
of combination




i
tion and unity. But it is said,




though the governmenti s n the receipt of a revenue ofN'en 41 •nee millions a year, it has not the expenditure of
that tYrasurn, and that its influence ought not to be calculated
t'owca what it receives, but what it has to pay away. I submit,


gen tlemen
to the good sense and to the personal experience


who hear me, if it be not a manifest truth that
'' lltience depends almost as much upon what they have to


erecive, as upon what they have to pay? And -if this be true,i
influence


nflu which individuals derive from the rentals of
A A 4




360
MR. GREY'S MOTION roit [May 2,6.


their estates, and from the•expenditure
• of that rental, how


much more so is it true of government, who, both in the
receipt and expenditure of this enormous revenue, are at,
tuated by one invariable principle, that of extending or with.
holding fitvour in exact proportion to the submission or re.
sistance to their measures which the individuals make? (am,
pare this revenue, then, with that against which our ancetnis
were so anxious to protect us, and compare this revenue with
all the, bulwarks of our constitution in preceding times, and
you must acknowledge, that though those bulwarks were
sufficient to protect us in the days of King William and
Queen Anne, they are not equal to the enemy we have now
to resist.


But it is said, what will this reform do for us? Will its
a talisman sufficient to retrieve all the misfortunes which we
have incurred ? I am free to say, that it would not be sufficient:
unless it led to reforms of substantial expence, and of all the
abuses that have crept into our government. But at the same
time I think it would do this, I think it would give us the
chance, as I said before, of recovery. It would give us, in
the first place, a parliament vigilant and scrupulous, and that
would insure to us a government active and economical. It
would prepare the way for every rational improvement, of
which, without disturbing the parts, our constitution is sus-
ceptible. It would do more; it would open the way for
exertions infinitely more extensive than all that we have
hitherto made. The right honourable gentleman says, that
we have made exertions. True. But what are they in com-
parison to our necessity ? The right honourable gentleman
says, that when we consider our situation compared with that
of countries which have taken another line of conduct 00
ought to rejoice. I confess, Sir, that I am at a loss to,
ceive what country the right honourable gentleman ha5' in
view in this comparison. Does he mean to assert, that th .
nations who preferred the line of neutrality to that of War
have fallen into a severer calamity than ourselves? Does be
mean to say, that Sweden, or that Denmark, has suffered
more by observing ass imprudent neutrality, than England or
Austria by wisely plunging themselves into a war ? Or does
he mean to insinuate that Prussia has


. been the victim of it;
impolicy, in getting out of the conflict on the first occasion?
If this be the interpretation of the right honourable gentle'
man's argument, I do not believe that he will get many P er


-sons to subscribe to the justice of his comparison. But pro-.
bably he alludes to the fate of Holland: if this be the object
to which he wishes to turn our eyes, he does it unjustly
Holland acted under the despotic mandate of that right


A REFORINI IN PARLIAMENT. 361
1797'3
honourable gentleman ; and Holland, whatever she has suf-
fered, whatever may be her present situation, lays her cala-
inities to the charge of England. I cannot, then, admit of


argument, that our situation is comparatively better than
thtiieat of the nations who altogether kept out of the war, or,
being drawn into it in the first instance, corrected , their error,
and restored to themselves the blessings of peace.


l come now to consider the specific proposition of my
honourable friend, and the arguments that have been brought
against it. Let me premise, that however averse gentlemen
may be to any specific proposition of reform, if they are
friendly to the principle, they ought to vote for the present
question, because it is merely a motion for leave to bring in
a bill. An , opposition to such a motion comes with a very
ill grace from the right honourable gentleman, and con-
tradicts








the policy for which he strenuously argued. In 1785
he moved for leave to bring in a bill on a specific plan, and
he fairly called for the support of all those who approved of
the principle of reform, whatever might be the latitude of
their ideas on the subject; whether they wished for more or
less than his proposition, he thought that they should agree
to the introduction of the bill, that it might he freely -dis-
cussed in the committee, in hopes that the united wisdom of
the House might shape out something that would be generally
acceptable. Upon this candid argument I, for one, acted.
I did not approve of his specific proposition, and yet I voted
with him for leave to bring in the bill. And this, Sir, has
generally happened to me on all the former occasions, when
propositions have been made. Though I have constantly
been a friend to the principle, I have never before seen a
specific plan that had_ my cordial approbation. That which
Caine nearest, and of which I the least disapproved, was the
plan of an honourable gentleman who is now no more (Mr.
Flood): he was the first person who suggested the idea of
extending what might be proper to add to representation, to
house-keepers, as to a description of persons the best cal-
culated to give efficacy to the representative system. My
honourable friend's plan, built upon this idea, is an improve-
ment of it, since it is not an attempt even to vary the form
and outline, much less to new-model the representation of the
People; it keeps every thing in its place; it neither varies
the number, nor changes the name, nor diverts the course
of any part of our system; it corrects without change; it
extends without destruction of any established right; it re-
stores simply what has been injured by abuse, and reinstates
what time•has mouldered away; no maw can have a right to
Complain of genuine property assailed ; no habit even, no




A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 363361 MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR C May 26.


mode of thinking, no prejudice, will be wounded; it trace,
back the path of the constitution from which we leave wan-
dered, but it runs out into no new direction.


A noble lord says, that the county representation mus t be


l
good, that it must be approved of; be it so : this proposes to
eave the county representation where it is; I wish so to leave


it. I think that representation ought to be of a compound
nature. The counties may be considered a,․)mtleitalii;tobritaltl,
presentation, as contradistinguished from p
order to embrace all that I think necessary, I certainly Would
not approve of any farther extension of this branch of the
representation. It has been asked, whether the rights of
corporations ought not to be maintained? That is a matter
for farther discussion. I have no hesitation in saying, that
my opinion leads the other way; but if it should be thought
so, it may be so modified in the bill. There is no reason-.
able objection to its introduction on account of our not now
agreeing with all its parts. My honourable friend, with all
Cis abilities and all the industry with which he has digested
his proposition, does not presume to offer it as a perfect plan.
He does not call upon you to adopt all his notions, nor does
he think that every part of his plan will be found to quadrate
with the abstract principles of representation. -He looks to
what is practicable in the condition in which we are placed,
not to what a new people might be tempted to hazard. My
opinion, however unimportant it may be, goes with my
honourable friend. I think there is enough of enterprize and
vigour in the plan to restore us to health, and not enough to
run us into disorder. I agree with him, because I am firmly
of opinion with all the philosophical writers on the subject,
that when a country is sunk into a situation of apathy and
abuse, it can only be recovered by recurring to first principles.


Now, Sir, I think, that acting on this footing, to extend
the right of election to house-keepers, is the best and most
advisable plan of reform. I think also, that it is the most
perfect recurrence to first principles; I do not mean to the
first principles of society, nor the abstract principles of
representation, but to the first known and recorded principles
of our constitution. According to the early history of Eng-
land, and the highest authorities on our parliamentary con-
stitution, I find this to be the case. It is the opinion of the
celebrated Glanville, that in all cases where no particular
right intervenes, the common-law right of paying scot and
lot was the right of election in the land. This, Sir, was the
opinion of Serjeant Glanville, and of one of the most cele-
brated committees of which our parliamentary history has to
boast; and this, in my opinion, is the safest line of conduct


1797'3
o an adopt. But it is said, that extending the right of


c house-keepers may, in some respects,'be comparedvoting, to
"versal suffrage. I have always deprecated universal


to um not so much on account of the confusion to whichgarage,


10
't wou ld lead, as because I think that we should in reality


,e the very object which we desire to obtain ; because I
think it would in its nature embarrass, and prevent the de-
liberative voice of the country from being heard. I do not
th ink that you augment the deliberative body of the people by
counting all the heads, but that in truth you confer on in-
dividuals, by this means, the power of drawing forth numbers,


without deliberation, would implicitly act upon their
will. My opinion is, that the best plan of representation is
tha t which shall bring into activity the greatest number of
independent voters, and that that is defective which would
bring forth those whose situation and condition take from
them the power of deliberation. I can have no conception
of that being a good plan of election which should enable
individuals to bring regiments to the poll. I hope gentlemen
will not smile if I endeavour to illustrate my position by
referring to the example of the other sex. In all the theories
and projects of the most absurd speculation, it has never
been suggested that it would be advisable to extend the elec-
tive suffrage to the female sex ; and yet, justly respecting, as
we must do, the mental powers, the acquirements, the dis-
crimination, and the talents of the women of England, in
the present improved state of society — knowing the oppor-
tunities which they have for acquiring knowledge — that they
have interests as dear and as important as our own, it must
be the genuine feeling of every gentleman who hears me,
that all the superior classes of the female sex of England
must be more capable of exercising the elective suffrage with
deliberation and propriety, than the uninformed individuals of
Ityhoemloenw:st class of men to whom the advocates of universal


imagined that the right of election should be extended to
suffrage would extend it. And yet, why has it never been


Why ! but because by the law of nations, and per-
liaps also by the law of nature, that sex is dependent on


!
°urs; and because, therefore, their voices would be governed
)y the relation in which they stand in society. Therefore it


Sir, that with the exceptions of companies, in which the
m ight of voting merely affects property, it has never been
m the contemplation of the most absurd theorists to extend


elective franchise to the other sex. The desideratum to
ee obtained, is independent voters, and that, I say, would be
a defective system that should bring regiments of soldiers, of


v ant s, and of persons whose low condition necessarily




04 MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR [May 26,
curbed the independence of their minds. That, then, /
to be the most perfect system which shall include the greate
number of independent electors, and exclude the great'l
number of those who are necessarily by their condition der
pendent. I think that the plan of my honourable friend
draws this line as discreetly as it can be drawn, and it by no
means approaches to universal suffrage. It would neither
admit, except in particular instances, soldiers nor servants,
Universal suffrage,,would extend the right to three millions
of men, but there are not more than 700,000 houses that
would come within the plan of my honourable friend; and
when it is considered, that out of these some are the property
of minors, and that some persons have two or more houses,
it would fix the number of voters for Great Britain at about
boo,000 ; and I call upon gentlemen to say, whether this
would not be sufficiently extensive for deliberation on the one
hand, and yet sufficiently limited for order on the other.
This has no similarity with universal suffrage; and yet, taking
the number of representatives as they now stand, it would
give to every member about _coo constituents.


But it is said, would even this plan of reform protect us
against the consequences of bribery and corruption? I
do not affect to say that it would ; I do not believe
that in the present state of society we can be Altogether
free from this evil; no laws will be found sufficient to
eradicate an evil, which example has so banefully establish-
ed. We have for a course of years habituated the people to
the sordid vice, and we certainly cannot wonder that a poor
man should not scruple to take five guineas for his vote, when
he knows that the noble lord in his neighbourhood took four
or five thousand. But, it is to be hoped, that when this
baneful encouragement is removed, the areulations that would
be introduced -ivould tend to diminish, if notaltogether re-
move the evil. Among those regulations, that of shortening
the duration of parliaments would be one strong corrective;
and this, I think, might -be done with great convenience and
facility by the plan upon which the elections would be made


It has often been a question, both within and without these.
walls, how far representatives ought to . be bound by the !a-
structions of their constituents. It is a question upon winch
my mind is not altogether made up, though I own I lean
the opinion, that having to legislate for the empire, they


-


ought not to be altogether guided by instructions that inaY
ndictated by local interests. I cannot, however, approv e .


the very ungracious manner in which I sometimes heares.
pressions of contempt for the opinion of constituents. 1-,14
arc Made with ayery bad grace in the first session of a 5-eP,
tennial parliament, particularly if they should come froin


A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 36;
1797'3
dividuals, who in the 0concludina session of a former par-,
lianient did not scruple to court the favour of the very. same
constituents, by declaring that they voted against their con-


in compliance with their desire, as was the case of an


elk
s alderman of the city of Lndon. But, Sir, there


lass of constituents whose instructions it is considered
implicit duty of members to obey. When gentlemen


ce nt populous towns and cities, then it is a disputed
ib:pSeS:i


the
e
c. whether they ought to obey their voice, or follow the


dictates of their own conscience; but, if' they represent a
raePehrseicelortil, lor a noble duke, then it becomes no longer a
question _of doubt ; and he is not considered as a man of
honour who does not implicitly obey the orders of his single
constituent. He is to have no conscience, no liberty, no
discretion of his own , he is sent here by my lord this, or the •
duke of that, and if he does not obey the instructions he
receives,.he is not to be considered as a man of honour .and
a gentleman. Such is the mode of reasoning that prevails in
this House. Is this fair? Is there any reciprocity in this
conduct ? Is a gentlemen to be permitted, without dishonour,
to actin opposition to the sentiments of the city of London,
of the city of Westminster, or of Bristol; but if he dares to
disagree with the duke, or lord, or baronet, whose re fire-
,eitative he is, that he must be considered as, unfit for the
society of men of honour?


This, Sir, is the chicane and tyranny of corruption ; and
this, at the same time, is called representation. In a very
great degree the county members are held in the sanie sort of
thraldrom. A number of peers possess an overweening in-
terest in the county, mid a gentleman is no longer permitted
to hold his situation than as he acts, agreeably to the dictates
of those powerful families. Let us see how the wholebf this
stream of corruption has been diverted from the side. of the
people to that of the crown; with what constant, persever-
ing art, every man who is possessed of influence in counties,
Corporations, or boroughs, that will yield to the solicitations
of the court, - is drawn over to. that phalanx which is opposed
to the small remnant of popular election. I.bave looked, Sir,
to the machinations of the present minister in this way, and


find that, including the number of additional titles, the
rightb honourable gentleman has made no fewer than III
Peet:as l i iit the course of his administration ; that is to say, he
has bestowed no fewer than s titles, including new creations
and elevations from one rank to another. How many of
'these are to be ascribed to national services, and how many
t° parliamentary interest, .1 leave the House to inquire. The
c4)antrY is not blind to these arts of influence, and it is in-




1


366 MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR.


[May 26.


possible that we can expect them to continue to endure
them.


A noble lord has quoted a most able hook on the subjec t of
the French Revolution, the work of Mr. Mackintosh, an d /
rejoice to see that gentlemen begin to acknowledge the mar.
of that eminent writer, and that the impression that it matt
upon me at the time is now felt and acknowledged even b
those who disputed its authority. The noble lord has quoted
Mr. Mackintosh's book on account of the observation which
he made on the article which relates to the French elections:
he thought that their plan would lead to the evil of universal
suffrage. I have not forgotten the sarcasms that were '''flan,
out on my approbation of this celebrated work; that I was
told of my " new library stuffed with the jargon of the Rights
of Man ;" it now appears, however, that I did not greatly
over-rate this performance, and that those persons now quote
Mr. Mackintosh as an authority, who before treated him with
splenetic scorn. Now, Sir, with all my sincere admiration
of this book, I think the weakest and most objectionable
passage in it, is that which the noble lord has quoted; I
think it is that which the learned author would himself be
the most desirous to correct. Without descending to minute
and equivocal theories, and without inquiring farther into the
Rights of Man than what is necessary to our purpose, there
is one position in which we shall all agree — that man has
the right to be well governed. Now, it is obvious, that no
people can be satisfied with a government from the con-
stituent parts of which they are excluded. When we look to
the kingdom of Scotland, we see a state of representation so
monstrous and absurd, so ridiculous and revolting, that it is
good for nothing, except, perhaps, to be placed by the side of
the English, in order to set off our defective system, by the
comparison of one still more defective. In Scotland there is
no shadow even of representation ; there' is neither a repre-
sentation of property for the counties, nor of population for
the towns. It is not what we understand in England by
freeholders, who elect in the counties ; the right is vested inthat
what are called the superiorities; and it might so happen
all the members for the counties of Scotland might come
here without having the vote of a single person who had.a
foot of property in the land. This is an extreme case, but !t
is within the limits of their system. In the boroughs their
magistrates are self-elected, and therefore the members have
nothing to do with the population of the towns.


Now, Sir, having shewn this to be the state of our re'
presentation, I ask what remedy there can be other
reform ? What can we expect, as the necessary result 01


1797•] 367A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.


System so defective and vicious in all its parts, but increasing
cq1atilities, until we shall be driven to a convulsion that would
overthrow every thing ? If we do not apply this remedy in
time, our fate is inevitable. Our most illustrious patriots,
the men whose memories are the dearest to Englishmen, have
long ago pointed out to us parliamentary reform as the only
means of redressing national grievance. I need not infirm
you, that Sir George Savile was its most strenuous advocate;


need not tell you that the venerable and illustrious Camden
was through life a steady adviser of seasonable reform ; nay,
Sir, to a certain degree we have the authority of Mr. Burke
himself for the propriety of correcting the abuses of our sys-
tem; Ihr gentlemen will remember the memorable answer
which he gave to the argument that was used for our right of
taxing America, on the score of their being virtually repre-
sented, and that they were in the same situation as Manches-
ter, Birmingham, and Sheffield. — " What !" said Mr. Burke,


when the people of America look up to you- with the eyes of
filial love and affection, will you turn to them the shameful
parts of the constitution ?" With the concurring testimony
of so many authorities for correcting our abuses, why do we
hesitate? Can we do any harm by experiment? Can we pos-
sibly put ourselves into a worse condition than we are ? What
advantages we shall gain I know not. I think we shall rain




many. I think we shall gain at least the chance of warding
off the evil of confusion, growing out of accumulated discon-
tent. I think we shall save ourselves from the evil that
has EAllen upon Ireland. I think we shall satisfy the mo-
derate, and take even from the violent, it any such there be,
the power of increasing their numbers, and of snaking converts
to their schemes. This, Sir, is my solemn opinion, and upon
this ground it is that I recommend with earnestness and soli-
cit ude the proposition of my honourable friend.


And now, Sir, before I' sit' down, allow me to make a
single observation with respect to the character and conduct
of those who have, in conjunction with myself, felt it their duty


°PPese the progress of this disastrous war. I hear it said,
You do nothing but mischief when you are here; and yet


should be sorry to see you away." I do not not know how
thise shall be able to satisfy the gentlemen who feel towards us in
nor,way- If we can neither do our duty without mischief,
b Please them with doing nothing, I know but of one way


we can give them content, and that is, by putting an
I' la to our existence. With respect to myself, and I believe
duty also speak for others, I do not feel it consistent with my
tel7 totally to secede from this House. I have no such in-


; but, Sir, I have no hesitation in saying, that after




3 68 MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR [May
seeing the conduct of this House, after seeing them giv e to
ministers their confidence and support, upon convicted failure,
imposition, and incapacity ; after seeing them deaf,and blind
to the consequences of a career that penetrates the hearts of
all other men with alarm, and that neither reason, experience,
nor duty, are sufficiently powerful to influence them to oppose
the.cenduct of government, I certainly do think that I may
devote more of my time to my private pursuits, and to tie
retirement which I love, than I have hitherto done; I cer.
thinly think I need not devote much of it to fruitless exertions,
and to idle talk, in this House. Whenever it shall appear
that my efforts may contribute in any degree to restore us to
the situation from which the confidence of this House in a
desperate system and an incapable administration, has so
suddenly reduced us, I shall be found ready to discharge my


+t,my.
Sir, .1 have done. I have given my advice. I propose the


remedy, and fatal will it be for England if pride and preju-
- dice much longer continue to oppose it. The remedy which
is proposed is simple, easy, and practicable; it does not touch
the vitals of the constitution ; and I sincerely believe it will
restore us to peace and harmony. 1)o you not think that
you must come to parliamentary reform soon ; and is it not
better to come to it now when you have the power of-deliber-
ation, than when, perhaps, it may be extorted from you by
convulsion ? There is as yet time to frame it with freedom
and discussion ; it will even yet go to the people with the grace
.and favour of a spontaneous act. What will it be when it is
extorted from you -with indignation and violence ? God for-
bid that this should be the case ! but now is the moment to
prevent it ; and now, I say, wisdom and policy recommend it
to you, when you may enter into all the considerations to
which it leads, rather than to postpone it to a time when you
will have nothing to consider but the number and the force
of those who demand it. ft is asked, whether liberty has not
gained much of late years, and whether the popular branch
ought not, therefore, to be content ? To this I answer, that
if liberty has gained much, power has gained more. Foyer
has been indefatigable and unwearied in its encroachments,
Every thing has run in that direction through the whole
course of the present reign. This was the opinion of
George Savile, of the Marquis of Rockhigham, and
the virtuous men who, in their public life, proved tbeioselvei
to be advocates 'for the rights of the people. They saw PC'
.deplored the tendency of the court ; they saw that there
a determined spirit in the secret advisers of the crown. t°
•vance its power, and to encourage no administration to


REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.
369


not bend itself to that pursuit. Accordingly, through
reign, no administration which cherished notions of a


different kind has been permitted to last, and nothing, there-
fore, or next to nothing, has been gained to the side of the
people, but .every thing to


tthe
h crown in the course of tbe


reign, Dung,' the whole of is period we have had no more
than three administrations, one for twelve months, one for nine,
tool one for three months; that acted upon the popular princi-


Pl


les of the early part of this century : nothing, therefore, I
say, has been gained to the people, while the constant current
has run towards the crown ; and God knows what is to be the
consequence, both to the crown and country ! I believe that
lye are come to the last moment of possible remedy. I be-
lieve that at this moment the enemies of both are few ; but I
firmly 'believe, that what has been seen in Ireland will be
experienced also here ; and that if we are to go on in the same
career with convention bills and acts of exasperation of all
kinds, the few will soon become the many, and that we shall
have to pay a severe retribution for our present pride. What
a noble lord said some time ago of France, may be ap-
plicable to this very subject — " What !" said he, " neao-e, -date with France? With men whose hands arc reeking with
the blood of their sovereign ? What, shall we degrade our-
selves by going to Paris, and there asking in humble, diplo-
matic language, to be on a good understanding with them ?"
Gentlemen will remember these lofty words; and yet we have
come to this humiliation ; we have negotiated with France ;
and I should not be surprised to see the noble lord himself
(Hawkesbury) going to Paris, not at the head of his regi-
ment, but on a diplomatic mission to those very regicides, to
pray to be upon a good understanding with them. Shall we,
then, be blind to the lessons which the events of the world
exhibit to our view ? Pride, obstinacy, and insult, must end
in concessions, and those concessions must be humble in pro-portion to our unbecoming pride. Now is the moment topreven t


all these degradations; the monarchy, the aristocracy,
the people themselves, may now be saved; it is only necessary,


this moment, to conquer our own passions. Let those mi-
ni


sters, whose evil genius has brought us to our present con-dition, retire from the post to which they are unequal. I havelitthesitation in saying, that the present administration neither(an. nor ought to remain in place ; let them retire from his
nlaJesty's councils, and then let us, with an earnest desire ofr e


c"ering the country, pursue this moderate scheme of reform,
ender the auspices of men who are likely to conciliate the
, PirlI on of the people. I do not speak this, Sir, from per-.
431a1 ambition. A new administration ought to be formed,


VOL, VI. B B




1
3 7 0 ASSESSED TAXES BILL.


Epee'
I have no desire, no wish, to make a part of any such admi,
nistration ; and I am sure that such an arrangement is feasi_
ble, and that it is capable of being done without me. Ati,
first and chief desire is to see this great end accomplished,
have no wish to be the person, or to be one of the persons, to
do it; but though my inclination is for retirement, I shall al.
ways be ready to give my free and firm support to any admi-
nistration that shall restore to the country its outraged rights,
and re-establish its strength upon the basis of free representa•
tion ; •and therefore, Sir, I shall certainly give my vote for the
proposition of my honourable friend.


The House divided:
Tellers.
Tellers.


yEAs Air. Sheridan 9r. - NoEs {Lord Hawkesbury
Z Mr. W. Smith iVir. Douglas 1256


ASSESSED TAXES BILL.


December 14.


-nURING the former part of this session, Mr. Fox, together
with Mr. Grey, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Whitbread, and several


other members of opposition, seeing no prospect of awakening the
nation to a just sense of its real condition, and conceiving their at-
tendance totally unavailing, had absented themselves from parlia-
ment. This day, however, on the second reading of the Assessed
Taxes Bill, Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan again made their appear-
ance. When Mr. Fox passed through the lobby of the House,
which was full of strangers, there was a great burst of applause
and clapping of hands. Mr. Dundas having, in the course of /11
speech, alluded to the secession of opposition,


Mr. Fox rose and spoke in substance as follows : I
do not conceive that the attendance or non-attendance of all
particular member of this House can be a fit subject of oho'
ration. I agree in that respect with the right honourable
gentleman who spoke last. I have nothing to say upon thatitopic, farther than that the same motives which have n;
duced me to absent myself for some time,•are now as preolere
As ever. My opinion is now what it has long been, that tD,
present administration have by the unfortunate blinduess.
this House, and the too easy temper of the people, s°111


ASSESSED TAXES BILL. 3 7


ired its finances, so increased its embarrassments, but above
I/5;;, so disfigured its constitution, that no services which any
ipdividual can render by his attendance will counterbalance
the Inischiefs which must arise from giving countenance to an
opinion, that the decisions of this House are always the result
ef full discussion. In that opinion I am as firm as at any
iiine of my life. It is not the establishment of this or that re-
mlation in a particular instance, of this or that modifi-
,;tion of a particular measure, that can essentially serve
the people. Nothing short of a total reform of our late
itstein, nothing short of our reverting to the true prin-


c pies of our constitution, to the popular maxims of our
ancestors, can save us from utter ruin. Seeing that by my
attendance I was unable to pmvail on the House to adopt
these principles, I. omitted to attend. But I attend this night
in consequence of 'what is to me at least an important senti-
ment— the propriety of yielding to the request of my consti-
tuents. This is not a moment to enlarge upon the duties of a
member of this House, but it appears to me that to comply
with the general desire of his constituents, especially in such
a case as that which is now before us, is one of those duties.


I have been told this night that I have been much imposed
upon in the representations of many important public events ;
that I have formed erroneous conclusions from them; that I
in my retirement have had leisure to re-consider my former '
opinions; and that I, like others, may have had much to learn.
Those who think- they_ have arrived at that degree of know-


beyond w o.edge e y- - I hich they have nothing to learn, are in a state
which, when they affect it, show they have learnt but little.
But I should hold myself much indebted to the right honour-
able gentleman who made this observation, if he would tell me,
to what book of antient or modern history —in what school
of philosophy —in what system of any admired politician,


!h


since the creation of the world to the present hour, I am to
id, that perseverance in a system which has led you to the


1) ,1:ink of ruin is the way to extricate you. from your difficulty,
had indeed, is one of the lessons which I have yet to learn,


', nad no hopes of gaining for the public any advantage by my
a,ttenclance


• but my constituents desired me to attend, and(ierti;aeetlsnt,i nte
to hold


tcl o lcotuttmply. I know it is popular, in this House,
is least, member of parliament is not particu-


bound to obey his constituents, whose opinions may be,u);
'e),0 4'ed by local prejudices and partial interests ; that he is to


ovinsider himself as the representative of the people at large ;
rii,,rthat


lie is to act as appears to him most favourable to that
ged view of the interests of his country. I trust that I


'liould be no more ready than others to obey the wish of 0.
B13 2


So it passed in the negative.




3 7 2 ASSESSED TAXES BILL.


prejudice


[Dec,
4


particular class of men who happen to be my consti tuents, if
by so doing I was convinced I obeyed them to the lee of
the whole community. But in this particular instance, 1 have
the comfort to feel that my sentiments and those of' m y


eon.
stituents perfectly coincide. My constituents nave desired
me to attend this bill, and if I thought my own opinion more
important than theirs I should have endeavoured to have rea,
soiled with them upon the futility of that attendance ; but their
desire controuls my conduct. I am bound to state their case
in this House. They think, and so do I, that by this bill all
the principles of our ancestors are abandoned, and that a pro_
fligate contempt of property (the protection of which was one
of their favourite objects) is now manifest from the tenor of
the bill before you.


The right honourable gentleman who spoke last, states two
grounds upon which this subject may be considered. He ad-
mits, first, that every man who opposes all means of supply,
except such as arise from the funding system, may fairly
oppose the principle of this bill: certainly he may. Secondly,
he states that those who think that taxes should not be laid
upon income, but generally upon property, may also vote for
the second reading of this bill, with a view of modifying it in
such a manner as to answer the object which the principle of
thnbill is supposed to have in view, namely, a tax upon pro-
perty, so as to raise a considerable part of the supplies within
the year; that is to say, that any man who objects to the in-
crease of assessed taxes, may yet vote for the second reading
of this bill, as a measure, the foundation of which is to call
for the contribution of property for the service of the state. I
confess that argument was perfectly new to me. Where
am I to look for the principle of this bill ? I should think,
to the resolutions on which it is founded; but I do not see
ope line in them that relates to the principle of the measure,
which does not state the assessed taxes as their basis as well
as their criterion. And yet I am told, that any man who. thinks
that these assessments are the worst of all possible criteria may
vote for this bill, because it is that which has for its object a
general taxation upon property. This I consider as the mere
general language to which gentlemen are driven to support
the infamous system on which they endeavour to load the
people of this country. The right honourable gentlema n say'
he knows of no discontent which has been expressed against
the principle of this bill, as a tax upon property ; that all the
objection arises from the assessed taxes being taken as a stir'
rion whereby that property is to be guessed at. The objeC:.
tions which have hitherto been made by those best capable °I


„judging, at least most sincere in examining, namely, thos e wil°.
I 5


ASSESSED TAXES DILL.
3731797'3


,re to be called upon to pay, have been made to the bill which
'is now before you, and it would be strange indeed if they did
not object to a bill which tends to the immediate destruction of
their trade, the annihilation of their fortunes, and possibly the
loss of the liberty of their persons. I consider their objections
as pointed against the fundamental principles of the bill.
Another honourable gentleman seems to think that the unpo-
pularity of the measure is no argument against it. He seems
rather to think it an argument in its favour; for he says, he
believes that the people would not cry out against it unless
they thought it a measure effectual for the purpose of raising
a large sum of money. That honourable gentleman seems to
think the objections of the public unreasonable in this particu-
lar. I understand he is connected with commerce, and I
therefore appeal to him, whether lie would not himself claim
the privilege of complaining, at least, if a demand were made
upon him for money which he felt he could not pay ; and
which by the theory of our constitution, he was not bound to
pay without his own consent ? Such is the case of the inha-
bitants of the city of Westminster ;


and so have they instructed
me to state it.


It is asked, What objection can be stated to the raising part
of our supplies within the year ? To that I must give; shortly,
a conditional answer. If any man could s pew me (the possi-
bility of which I doubt) any means of raising a large supply
within the year, without a disadvantage which would over-
balance it, I should be glad to comply. But here I must
pause a while, and consider the progress of the present war.
We are now called upon by this measure not to burden our
posterity, but to stand the brunt in our own persons. This,
under certain circumstances, might be prudent; generous it
certainly would be; but I &ilk it comes with a very ill grace
from those who have contributed so much already to the bur-
dens to be transferred to such posterity. It comes from those
who have pursued a plan which tends to burden our posterity
so much, that they are afraid of pursuing it any longer; and
now, most generously, when they are absolutely under the
necessity of stopping, they turn round and call upon us to
ibear an intolerable burden in order to support their measures.plan proceeds from absolute necessity, not from any
tenderness felt for those who are to come after us; and I can-
not help thinking that its public spirit will not be much re-
spected in the world. If there was any period, (and I am now
argument,)


tibegging the question, merely for the sake of proceeding in the
:
,s this could


ibut if there was any period in which such a measure
lave been well timed, it was at the commence-


the war. The chancellor of the exchequer proceeded
B 3




174 ASSESSED TAXES DILL. [Dec* 14.
upon something like it, as far as it can be considered as a pial
to diminish future burdens,immediately after the Spanish art
liniment. Why not produce this plan at the commencement
of the war? 'Why ! because it was necessary to delude this
House; because it was necessary to delude the people of this
country ; because it was necessary for the purposes which the
minister had then in view to. treat us all like children. This
was the reason why this plan was not at first adopted. If it
had, the delusion would have been over, and the people would
have seen the abyss into which the minister was disposed to lead
them. No ! that would not suit his purpose. The people
would have revolted at a system so developed. So well aware
was he of this, that in an early stage of this contest, he advised
his majesty to tell his parliament it was a great consolation to
him, that in the prosecution of this just and necessary war,
there need not be imposed upon his people very heavy and
oppressive burdens. Why did he not then come forward with
the patriotic principle which he now assumes? Why ! be-
cause be thought it necessary to delude you, to gain your as-
sent to enter into the contest, by telling you the burden would
be light ; and now that you are involved in all its difficulties,
and when he tells you you cannot retire with honour, he
comes with this impost, which would have been too abomina-
ble at the onset, but which he now means to pass in the despe-
ration of your affairs.


Although no great friend to novel systems of finance, I am
ready to say, that any thing which is new ought to be adopted,
provided it appears to be wise; but I am ready to confess also,
that I have never heard of a better system for raising money
in times of great difficulty than that of the funding system. I
conceive this to be intended as a tax on the income of each
individual, as well as it can be ascertained. It must, there-
fore, be the wish of the, minister to learn the amount of the in-
come of each individual in the nation ; this he proposes to do
by examining the present assessment. If it be not a tax on
income, I should be glad to know what it is. Indeed, the
right honourable gentleman who spoke last considers it not as
a tax upon income, but a tax upon property ; and calls upon
all those who approve of that principle to support it, saying',
that the opposition to it proceeds from a misapprehensio n 0,1
its nature. Taking it, then, in the general view, as a to


• .1
upon property, I am led to examine its nature. I certainly
do think, that in that view it is a tax of a very dangel


-ous description. A tax upon property must either arise from
land, from money in the funds, or from commercial gams'
What would be the fair way of viewing either of these three
species of property? I consider all those pursuits in life laid'


1197'1


ASSESSED TAXES BILL. 375
are very justly denominated professions, under the head of


mercial gains. These being the different denominationsean
of property, let us examine the principle of this bill as it ap-
lies to each.Would you tax the land-proprietor by a direct
p ? No, it


W
is not attempted. Would you tax the pro-


perty of the fund-holder ? No, no minister has vet been either
blind or abandoned enough to attempt it. The annuities
on the funds have been secured from year to year, and
parliament stands pledged not to touch that property with


awlthedstanSo But this bill will tax indirectlytaxation. o s .
that which no minister has yet dared to tax in a direct man-
lier. It has been said, that our funding system has contri-
buted to preserve the effects of our Revolution, to preserve the
interests, and keep up the spirit of this country, to enable us
to thwart the ambitious views of the house of Bourbon. See
whether this plan does or does not tend to the diminution of the
value of that security. I am sure it is understood by my consti-
tuents, as not only likely to affect such security, but also all
their commercial interests. Let us suppose, for instance, two
gentlemen of equal fortune setting out in life, the one of them
with his to,coo/. laying it out upon mortgage, and living upon
the interest of his money, which would be soot. per annum. ;
you would tax him, according to the principle of this bill, for
that. income, and no more ; suppose the second applies his
Io,000l. in commerce, and it produces to him rood. per an-
num, you will tax him at the rate of i000l. a year. What is
the reason of this difference ? They are both equal in point
of real property. But as you make income the basis of your
taxation,.you impose upon diligence, upon activity, and upon
industry, double the weight which you lay upon him who
chuses to repose supinely upon the produce of his capital. It
is thus you propose to preserve in men that spirit by which
this country has been distinguished from other nations. Idle-
ness is favoured, diligence discouraged. A principle so de-
testable, that I could not have conceived it possible to enter
into the mind of any man acquainted with the springs of hu-
Ilian


You call this, in another -view, a tax upon luxury. Is a house
a luxury ? In the case of a multitude of my constituents, it
neither is nor can be so considered. You say that where a
rnan contributes largely to the payment of assessed taxes, he
Fives evidence of wealth. What you consider as evidences of


m'eattn are nothing more than the implements of the trade
QY which he exists. There are many, especially among my
constituents, whose constant custom it is to let lodgings.
„hey are objects of the present bill. I know you may say, IAare


say you will, that they shall be relieved by provisions,
13 13 4




3 76 ASSESSED TAXES BILL. [tee. 14.


which are to be adopted in the committee. Let us suppose
a tradesman who pays a great rent for his house, such


aswould induce you, by the present plan, to consider him as
man . of loco/. a year income ; his next door neighbour ma
be a private gentleman, whose real income is 20001. a \Tea;
but who, by choice or accident, inhabits a house of much infe,
rior value; he will, by this sax, have a lighter impost than die
tradesman. That is only one of the subjects of complaint
against this bill. With respect to those who have ready fur.
Wished houses, I understand they will be liable to the full ex.
tent of this tax, and that whether they be tradesmen or gentle.
men, the one living upon a certain, the other upon an uncertain
income, will make no difference; whereas it is most clear that
the one lives upon a fortune, the amount of which he knows,
and the other embarks the little capital he is able to collect in
order to furnish a house, and to take the chance of subsisting
upon the fruits of it. I should like to be made acquainted
with the equity of a bill which confounds the distinction be-
tween these cases.


But to try the merits of this bill by another test. If you
think horses, or dogs, or male servants, fair tests of opulence,
in God's name how can any housekeeper in any considerable
town, be fairly assessed ? Is it posssible to take any such
criterion as the test of wealth in a populous place ? I am
quite .surprised that the chancellor of the exchequer should
have taken advice so gross as that which led him to blunder
upon the present bill. He says, " here are horses, they are to
be considered as articles of luxury." They are so, generally
speaking, to members of this House, to which, however, there
are some exceptions. They are by no means to be considered
as articles of luxury to merchants, or to traders whose busi-
nesses are extensive, for many of them necessarily employ riders
in the course of their commercial dealings. There are many
others to whom horses are absolutely necessary. :Medical
men, who are compelled to go from place to place in the
course of their profession, have occasion for horses; as Wen
as many others whose cases it is not necessary for me to men-
tion. I say, therefore, that this bill proceeds upon a principle
which, in every view of it, is vicious, as far as I hale,
hitherto considered it. But this is not all : you are called
upon to regulate your future exactions, not by the future pru-
dence of men, which would be a fair rule of impost in coitaln
cases; but by the most iniquitous rule that can be possibly
adopted — that of the past expenditure of men. A man 11
have lived improvidently, and may find it wise to contract lies
expences. By this bill you allow him no chance of retrievingerbi;his fortune by that prudence which is the effect of his exp
once. You do not allow a man the benefit which ought to


I ntends to make, it may not possibly be a great objectstay
:i


t him what his expences are. He wishes to show his wife
t ,Il daughters the gaieties of the town; he conducts them to
laces of public amusement, and determines to retire into the


again to enjoy his rural amusement. This he might
have clone. at any time previous to this bill, without any other
expellee than such as he expected. But if he take such an
excursion in the year 1797, woe be to him, and to all those
Who are most dear to him ! for he is not only to pay the ex-
pellees of that excursion, but the expellees of that excursion
are to be estimated according to the assessment which is
made upon him in that clay of his levity, and is to be called
the test by which his ability to serve the state is to be esti-
mated.


It is said, I know, that this is only to be a temporary mea-
sure, and that it would be extravagant to consider it as an
impost for life. Upon that a word or two by and by. I say
he is settled by this with a heavy and an unjust impost. This
mode of calling upon men for future exertions in the service
of the state, is too iniquitous to bear the test of one moment's.
reflection. This principle of injustice reminds me of the
illustration which Sterne gives of the violent extortion of
the ancient government of France. The case is exactly in
point. When at Lyons, Yorick resolved to change his mode
of travelling, and sail down the Rhone, instead of going post.
The postmaster, however, applied to him for six livres six
sous, as the price of the next post. " But I do not intend to
travel post," said Yorick. "You may, if you please," replied
the postmaster. " But I do not please," said Yorick : — " I
mean to ao by water." "That is no matter," said the post-
master " you must pay for the next post, whether you have
licpialignedipyiev


oirnlind or not." And, said Mr. Fox, here the word
" spirit" was used, as they are always used, to


,anctify injustice; for, says the postmaster — " The spirit of
rie, fl-tpost is, that the grand monarq uc shall not suffer by yourfickl


eness." , Charged he was, and obliged to pay. So it isf
rith the present tax; for all the people who .have paid assess-
yssRiTits in this country are called upon for great and additionalrnents, which they must pay, or which must rather be
'Ned from them by distraining upon their goods, not upon


tiTnputation of their future ability, nor in prospect of their
views but in consequence of their former expenditure,Aethe


•1 wisely or imprudently occasioned. By this plan it is
c,re„




: va
rices .


a
,ansta


that
man's prudence is called in to regulate MS-


ASSESSED TAXES BILL.1197'3 77
result of a lo • and prudent life. Let us suppose,


ld
for in-r/P°


the re.ee,s a man residing frugally in the country shou wish tostanc
come to London for a season with his family : from the short




378 ASSESSED TAXES BILL. [Dm 14,
Let us consider this as applicable to persons in trade,


guished from those who possess permanent and specific
ti'comes. A man in trade may say, that the last year was


good one, and therefore he kept his one-horse chaise, bu
t3 ut


whether he should continue it, must depend upon circum_
stances ; that he governed his expenditure, prudently, by th
fluctuation of his circumstances, and therefore if his trade
was worse this year than it was the last, he would set aside
his one-horse chaise and many other conveniencies. But, by
thb principle of this bill,. you do not allow him to do so, ana
you add insult to injury, by telling him that you will call upon
him to support the exigencies of the state according to his
establishment, as it appears by a former assessment, and that he
shall pay hereafter triple what he formerly did ; and this you
intend as a compliment to his growing wealth as a tradesman.
But, it seems, there is to be some relief in this bill to those
who are over-rated. They are to have abatements in pro-
portion as they prove they are assessed beyond their income.
But how is this abatement to take place? By the disclosure
of all the private affairs of a man in trade. A mode of relief
which, if it deserves the name, is as intolerable as the grie-
vance. Take any tradesman, a watch-maker for instance, he
would tell you that his income, prior to the last impost upon
watches, was much superior to what it is now. That must be
the case with every other man in trade, especially as he does
not know how he may be taxed hereafter. I mu the more
supported in this part of my argument, when I refer to the
future prospects of the minister, for he tells us that a very con-
siderable part of the ways and means are yet to come. How,
therefore, is it possible for a tradesman, without knowing what
the future subjects of taxation are to be, to guess at his future
income? Under such considerations, the idea of calling upon
a tradesman to guess at his future income is the most hor-
ribly unjust proceeding that ever could be devised by any mi.
nister of state.


It is stated, that this tax will necessarily fall heavy upon the
middling class, because, generally speaking, , they constur!
articles which partake of the double quality of luxuries of hie
and necessaries. To which I must answer, that it is a gent
grievance to any class of men, particularly so to those wiles'
incomes are limited to a certain amount, not to have the be-
nefit which generally arises from a prudent diminution ,
expences. It is allowing them no advantage from any e.rf
nomy they might be disposed to adopt, and it is exposw,.,
them, notwithstanding all disposition to economy, to utter OP;
It is not what the tradesman will have to pay to the aSSC"
-merit in direct contribution, but what he will have to suffer


is


ASSESSED TAXES BILL.1797. -1 379
diminished trade; for, by the attack on all classes of gen-
tlemen,, you drive them to privations which arc ruinous to
trade. They may economise ; they may drink less wine;
they may indulge less in the comforts that are habitual to
them; but this evil, great as it is, is little in comparison of
the mischief it will do to trade. It will, however, introduce
aew manners and habits among us; and I will fairly say,
that I am not for confounding the ranks of society. This
is one of the evils with which this measure is pregnant. No
act of the French directory ever did so much to confound the
ranks of mankind as this measure will do. It will, out of the


gentlemen, create two orders, princes and beggars.


eritttioioifes'n. It is announced for two years and a quarter, butexer


rice,
body of middle gentlemen will be reduced to beggary,.
in vain to say that it is to be considered as a solitary


who will say that it is to close there? A tenth of the income
is the nominal amount of the assessment. But in this, the
assessment is proportioned in name, not in substance, and
there is no equality in its burden on the people. The ).•en-
tleman of x000 /. a-year, for instance, who has to pay 1°01,
a-year, is much more severely taxed than


.
the man of io,00d.


a-year, who has to pay r000/. But whatever may be the
hardships which it may bring on gentlemen, they are nothing
in comparison of its effects on the commercial part of the
community. To gentlemen it may operate to retrenchment
and to the privation of indulgencies, but to the trader it is
ruin. The ostentation of the best race ofriflemen maygentlemen
subside, and the young men may be taught more prudent ha-
bits ; but this very retrenchment will be fatal to trade, and
fatal also to the existina.


revenue. Commercial people have no
refuge. They cannot retrench, for they do not now indulge.
I find that men of all descriptions unite in abhorrence of the
principle and tendency of this bill. They all object to theprinciple, because the assessed taxes are not only not a just
criterion of wealth, but the worst and most fallacious that.
could be devised; for in every part of this metropolis, so fatal
has been the disastrous war in which we are involved, that the
assessed taxes are now with the greatest difficulty collected.
They are either in arrears, or postponed, or the goods of the
unhappy persons are distrained; and they all unite in decla-ri
ng, not merely against the inexpediency, but against the total


impracticability of forcing the receipt. This is not the opi-


universal


exa,„


singular thincr, if the House should oppose themselves to the


opinion of every part of the people who have had time to
,aine the provisions of the bill ; and really it will be a


:strict, or done party only, but it is the generalone district


of the kingdom.




oa ASSESSED TAXES MU Epee'
Gentlemen seem to forget that we affect at least to call oim


selves the representatives of the people. I know that we are
no such thing; but we affect to call ourselves so. Yet in
House, only fifteen gentlemen could be found to vote aaaitlst
a measure upon which, out of this House, there is not merel y y
a majority, but an unanimity of dissent. Ministers, in this
instance, cannot plead their usual subterfuge, that it is the mere
cry of a party. It is no such thing. Unanimous disapproba_
tion has come from the most extraordinary places. Even the
common council have been unanimous. There are but two
sorts of representation, actual and virtual. You cannot pre-
tend to call yourselves the actual representatives of the people;
but you say you are the virtual. Prove yourselves so, then,
by obeying their united voice. I hope and trust that you will
show yourselves, in some degree, entitled to the name of vir-
tual representatives. I will fairly tell you, that even if you
were to do so, I should not consider it as a sufficient proof that
you arc the virtual representatives of the people, unless I see
you also sympathizing with the people. You must make.com-
mon cause with them. You must invite them to sacrifices by
your own example. You must lead the way. Mr. Burke
once illustrated this principle by a story very much in 'point.
A French regiment, in speaking of an old colonel whom they
had lost, and of a new one that had succeeded him, ex-
tolled the first to the skies— " What particular reason have
you for your ardent affection for the old colonel, rather than
the new?" said a person to them. 46 We have no other
reason, said they, than this—the old colonel always said,
" Allons, mes enfans !" The new colonel says, " ales
enfims !" This was, indeed, a striking contrast ; and just in
this manner we ought to act towards the people. We ouglit
not to say to them, 44 Go, make sacrifices !" — but, 44 Let


us


make sacrifices." To rouse the energy of the people, let us
hear of the sacrifices of the crown. It is from the highest
place that the example ought to be given. It will animate and
cheer the heart of the kingdom :


" Solamen miseris socios habuisse doloris."
When men are called on to give up their pleasures, whatever
they may be, whether of horses or gardens, it is but reasonable
that they should see the crown participating in the sacrifice:.
But when, instead of this, we See only that new patronage I'
to be obtained out of the levying of 14 millions in thiswoY,"
7we must feel that these are bad symptoms, and that therero
no common cause in the exertions we are called uPon. „
make; and we are made to believe that there is sometille
in this war, which makes it unfit for all such exampl es 0
given.


3179/ • - 38.1
A right honourable gentleman says, that expenditure will


lot be d iminished on account of this tax—it will only changelharids — great sums will be wanted, he says, to clothe and to
maintain the army. I wish the House to remark the expres-
sion — I certainly believe him — great sums will go to the
army, But is that any consolation to me ? If zoo/. is to be-
taken out of my pocket, what care Ito whom it is to be paid?
Bat this very argument is, and ought to be, an object of just
and serious alarm to the nation; for while these enormous
slims arc to be paid into the hands of government, it becomes
almost the sole consumer. Let us examine the fact. One-
tenth of the expendi ture of the whole kingdom is estimated at
7 millions. That makes the total expenditure 7 0 millions;
but, viaiseirohna,pst„he


total expenditure may be ioo,000,000 Z. On
as this is not the just test, and there may


this ground, it appears that the public expenditure has been
between 3 o and 40,000,0001. a year during this war. If then
it be true, that the expenses of the war are so essential to re-
venue, what a prospect for us when this source of revenue shall
be cut off ! The right honourable gentleman, in speaking of a
pledge, is extremely desirous of overlooking and explaining
away his own. He is not willing to remember the emphatieel
pledge that he gave,tilever to make peace with the jacobin
government of France. 'What can we expect from men who
have, through the whole of the war; shrank from every pledge
they have ever given ?" It is only by their removal that the na-
tion can be saved from its present perilous situation. They
are either fools or hypocrites who attempt to separate ministers
from their measures, or affect to think that our affairs can be
retrieved in their hands. The country must take its fate, if
they tahreeyscoan bdull of:intellect, or so inflituated, as to conceive
that be rescued from their present situation by thei
mbecility that brought them into it. We are. eallett upon to
make this dreadful sacrifice in order to terrify France ! We
Oairleietrogh:e
7t,000,


,000 l. in one year, in addition to all our


exaction which will not be paid — which will convulse the


which has supported us through so many difficulties, because


P oet calls l'embarras de richesses. Terrify France ! What,


w
e dare no longer persist in it? Terrify France—by an


by spewing that we are forced to abandon the funded system,


burdens, to spew to France, that we have, what their


ot the day,


In the argument which I have -taken the liberty to trouble


lade to pay
us 3t1';:iflip


•olmes


on


their feet !


I have not wandered from the particular measure


it, would paralyze all our future operations, and
end to the other •--or which, if it were pos-


because it is inseDarable from the causes that have


- 1 ASSESSED TAXES BILL.




382 ASSESSED TAXES BILL. [Dec. 14.


given rise to it. Sir, this is no common tax. Do , not let us de.
lude ourselves with the idea that there is no danger. h is ire.
minent. No human being can calculate the horrors to which
this measure may give rise. I deprecate rashness. I know
that men are fond of talking of the theoretical blessings of our
Constitution ; but unless you make the people feel its practical
blessings you do nothing. Talk of the jacobin principles of
the French directory ! No man has made so many jaeohins
as the right honourable gentleman ; and if this measure is to
be persevered in, there is no saying to what we shall be driven.
The tax may be put under the management of the
Suppose it cannot be collected—what comes next? They
may distrain; and when they have seized on our beds and chair;,
they may last of all take our persons — Contra opes primal?,
et post in corpora sxviri. Is such a measure to be hurried
through this House ? I am guilty of no exaggeration. I am
sure that if time be given, you will have from all the great
towns, from Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and
elsewhere, remonstrances as strong as those you have seen from
the city of London, from my constituents, and from the bo-
rough of Southwark. I shudder at the consequences if you
persist. They may be dreadful. It is only by a quick return
to the genuine principles of our ancestors, that we can be safe.
The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Dundas) has said, that
4 ‘ if there were men who could give peace to the country,
without throwing things into confusion, the present ministers
would be the basest of mankind if they did not yield and
make way for them." IF there arc any men who feel them-
selves capable of restoring peace to these kingdoms, without
a change of system, or restoring the constitution to its vigour,
I can only , say they are more sanguine than I am. I can
speak without any personal motive on the subject ; for I pub-
licly declare, that I never will have a seat, high or low, in
any administration, until public opinion shall have decided
for a thorough reform of abuses, and a direct return to the
genuine principles of the British constitution. If there are
men sanguine enough to think that they can not only pro-
cure peace, but tranquilize the country without this, let
them try it. I will make no part in any such administration.


The House divided on the
bill,


Tellers.
YEAS S Lord Hawkesburyi


Mr. C. Yorke


OVERTURES OF PEACE, &C. 383


To 1,7G's MESSAGE RESPECTING OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM
THE CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.


February 3. r 800.


ON the 25th of December 1799 Bonaparte addressed thefollowing letter "To the King of Great Britain and Ireland:"
"Called by the wishes of the French nation, to occupy the first


magistracy of the republic, I think it proper, on entering into
office, to make a direct communication of it to your majesty.


The war, which for eight years has ravaged the four quarters
of the world, Must it be eternal ? Are there no means of coming
to an understanding ?


ct How can the two most enlightened nations of Europe, power-
ful and strong beyond what their safety and independence require,
sacrifice to ideas of' vain greatness, the benefits of commerce,
internal prosperity, and the happiness of families ? How is it that
they do not feel that peace is of the first necessity, as well as of
the first glory ?


"These sentiments cannot be foreign to the heart of your ma-
jesty, who reigns over a free nation, and with the sole view of
making it happy.


" Your majesty will only see in this overture my sincere desire
to contribute efficaciously, for the second time, to a general paci-
fication, by a step, speedy, entirely of confidence, and disengaged
from those forms which, necessary perhaps to disguise the de-
pendence of weak states, prove only in those which are strong,
the mutual desire of deceiving one another.


"France and England, by the abuse of their strength, may
still, for a long time, for the misfortune of all nations, retard the
period of their being exhausted. But I will venture to say it, the
fate of ail civilized nations is attached to the termination of a
War which involves the whole world."


On the tad of January i 8co, the Overture received from France,together with the answers of the British government rejecting the
said


overtures, were laid, by his majesty's command, before both
Houses ; and on the 3 d of February Mr. Secretary Dundas moved,
"That an !tumble address be presented to his majesty, to returnhis majesty the thanks of this House, for his most gracious mes-
s
os:gtei,: occasion


for having been graciously pleased to direct, that there
"Quid be laid before this House, copies of the communications


recen tly
received from the enemy, and. of the answers which havebeen returned thereto by his majesty's command : To assure his


o,Jeq, that we consider the conduct which his majesty has held
ccasion to be such as was dictated by his regard to the


bem
14.2st important interests of his dominions, and that, while we


with his majesty in looking eagerly to the period when it may
eotue practicable to re-establish the general tranquillity of


motion for the second reading of the


Tellers.
Mr. Tierney cO.


175.—NOES I Mr. Ald. Combo}




3$4 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE [Feb
Europe on a sure and solid foundation, and at the same time ,r


°vide effectually for the security and permanent prosperity oe - his-
people, we shall feel it in the interval our indispensable duty to
continue to his majesty, on behalf of those whom we represent-
our firm and decided support in such measures as may best tend
to confirm the signal advantages which have been obtained to the
common cause in the course of the last campaign, and to conduct
the great contest in which his majesty is engaged to a safe and
honourable conclusion ; and that, impressed with these sentiments,
we shall not fail to make such provision as, under the present
circumstances, may appear to be necessary for the several branches
of the public service, and for the vigorous prosecution of the war:,
The address was supported by Mr. Canning and Mr. Pitt, and
powerfully opposed by Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Erskine, and Mr. Fox,
As soon as Mr. Pitt concluded his speech,


Mr. Fox rose and spoke as follows: Mr. Speaker, at so
late an hour of the night, I am sure you will do me the jus-
tice to believe that 1 do not mean to go at length into the
discussion of this great question. Exhausted as the attention
of the House must be, and unaccustomed as I have been of
late to attend in my place, nothing but a deep sense of my
duty could have induced me to trouble you at all, and par-
ticularly to request your indulgence at such an hour.


Sir, my honourable and learned friend (Mr. Erskine) has
truly said, that the present is a new sera in the war. The
right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer feels the
justice of the remark ; for by travelling back to the com-
mencement of the war, and referring to all the topics and
arguments which he has so often and so successfully urged to
the House, and by which he has drawn them on to the sup-
port of his measures, he is forced to acknowledge, that, at
the end of a seven years' conflict, we are come but to a new
era in the war, at which he thinks it necessary only to press
all his former arguments to induce us to persevere. All the
topics which have so (Am misled us — all the reasoning which
has so invariably failed all the lofty predictions which have
so constantly been falsified by events — all the hopes which
have amused the sanguine, and all the assurances of the
distress and weakness of the enemy which have satisfied the
unthinking, arc again enumerated and advanced as arguments
for our continuing the war. What ! at the end of seven
years of the most burdensome and the most calamitous
struggle that. this country was ever engaged in, are we again
to be amused with notions of finance and calculations of the
exhausted resources of the enemy, as a ground of confidence
and of hope? Gracious God ! Were we not told, five ye5r!
ago, that France was not only on the brink,' but that she so'


1 THE CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.
385Iliee'-'


actuall y in the gulph of bankruptcy ? 'Were we not told,
unanswerable argument against treating, that she couldla


not hold out another campaign — that nothing but peace
could save her — that she wanted only time to recruit her
e.xhausted finances — that to grant her repose, was to grant
her the means of again molesting this country, and that we
had nothing to do but persevere for a short time, in order to
cave ourselves for ever from the consequences of her ambition
Bud her jacobinism ? 'What ! after having gone on from year
to year upon assurances like these, and after having seen the
repeated refutations of every prediction, are we again to be
serious ly told, that we have the Same prospect of success on
the same identical grounds ? And without any other argu-
ment or security, are we invited, at this new mra of the war,
to carry it on upon principles which, if adopted, may make
it eternal ? If' the right honourable gentleman shall succeed
in prevailing on parliament and the country to adopt the
principles which he has advanced this night, I see no possible
termination to the contest. No man can see an end to it ;
and upon the assurances and predictions which have so uni-
formly failed, are we called upon, not merely to refuse all
negociation, but to countenance principles and views as distant
from wisdom and justice, as they are in their nature wild and
impracticable.


I must lament, Sir, in common with every friend of peace,
the harsh and unconciliating language which ministers have
held towards the French, and which they have even made
use of in their answer to a respectful offer of negociation.
Such language has ever been considered as extremely unwise,
mainedmbhears with been reprobated by diplomatic men. I re-


at
in the year


pleasure the terms in which Lord Malmesbury
t Paris, 1796, replied to expressions of this sort,


used by M. de la Croix. He justly said, " that offensive and
Injurious insinuations were only calculated to throw new ob-
st
acles in the way of accommodation, and that it was not by


revolting reproaches, nor by reciprocal invective, that a sin-
cee wish to accomplish th e


great work of pacification could
b_ evinced."


<


1othi


b 1 L
;= weed." Nothing could be more proper nor more wisethan this language; and such ought ever to be the tone and


conduct of
Zn b 5 n


:L. or men entrusted with the very important task of
treating


a:en


Pea
)


with an hostile nation. Being a sincere friend to
ce, I must say with Lord Malmesbury, that it is not by


c10.aches and by invective that we can hope for a recoil-
on ; and I am convinced in my own mind, that I speak


t _ sense of this House, and of a majority of the people of
this when I lament that any unnecessary recrimin-cos
' - should be flung out, by which obstacles are put in thel'oL. vl• c c




386 - OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE [rel)
3


way of pacification. I believe that it is the prevailing semi
meat of the people, that we ought to abstain from


g


'


yot)


and insulting language ; and in common with them I nun
lament, that both in the papers of Lord Grenville, and


tithe speeches of this night, such licence has been given to in
vective and reproach. For the same reason I must lame':
that the right honourable gentleman has thought proper to
at such length, and with such severity of minute investigatioi
into all the early circumstancesof the war, which, whatever
they were, are nothing to the present purpose, and ought_ _et
to influence the present feelings of the House.


I certainly shall not follow him into all the minute detail,
though I do not agree with him in many of his assertions,
do not know what impression his narrative may make on
other gentlemen ; but I will tell him, fairly and candidly, he
has not convinced me. I continue to think, and until I see
better grounds .for changing my opinion than any that the
right honourable gentleman has this night produced, I shall
continue to think and to say, plainly and explicitly, that this
Country was the aggressor V in the war. But with regard to
Austria and Prussia — is there a man who, for one moment,
can dispute that they were the aggressors ? It will be vain
for the right honourable gentlemen to enter into long and
plausible reasoning against the evidence of documents so clear,
so decisive — so frequently, so thoroughly investigated. The
unfortunate Louis XVI. himself, as well as those who were
in his confidence, have borne decisive testimony to the fact,
that between him and the emperor, there was an intimate
correspondence, and a perfect understanding. Do I mean
by this that a positive treaty was entered into for the dis-
memberment of France ? Certainly not, but no man can
read the declarations which were made at Mantua, as well
at Pilnitz, as they are given by M. Bertrand de Moleville,
without acknowledging that there was not merely an intention,
but a declaration of an intention, on the part of thefite2
powers of Germany, to interfere in the internal affinrs..3
France, for the purpose of regulating the government aro!t
the opinion of the people. This, though not a plan for
partition of France, was, in the eye of reason and own%
sense, an aggression against France. The right honourable
gentleman denies that there was such a thing as a treaty
Pilnitz. Granted. But was there not a declaration Nat'


,


l:
amounted to an act of hostile aggression ? The two powiel
the Emperor of Germany and the King of Prussia, niafeir


l
public declaration, that they were determined to erriplox w of
forces, in conjunction with those of the other soverogr,
Europe, " to put the King of France in a situation to e"`'


isoo-]


CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.
387


Misr, in perfect liberty, the foundations of
. a monarchical go-


vernment, equally agreeable to the rights of sovereigns, and
the welfare of the French." Whenever the other princes
should agree to co-operate with them, "then, and in that
case, their majesties were determined to act promptly, and
by mutual consent, with the .


forces necessary to obtain the
end proposed by all of them. In the mean time they declared,
that they would give orders for their troops to be ready for
actual service." Now, I would ask gentlemen to lay their
hands upon their hearts, and say, what the fair construction
of this declaration was — whether it was not a menace and
an insult to France, since, in direct terms, it declared, that
whenever the other powers should concur, they would attack
France, then at peace with them, and then employed only in
domestic and internal regulations ? Let us suppose the case to
be that of Great Britain. Will any gentleman say, if two
of the great powers should make a public declaration, that
they were determined to make an attack on this kingdom as
soon as circumstances should favour their intention ; that they
only waited for this occasion; and that iii the mean time they
would keep their forces ready for the purpose ; that it would
not be considered by the parliament and people of this country
as an hostile aggression ? And is there an Englishman in
existence, who is such a friend to peace as to say, that the
nation could retain its honour and dignity if it should sit
down under such a menace? I know too well what is due to
the national character of England, to believe that there would
be two opinions on the case, if thus put home to our own
feelings and understanding. We must, then, respect in
others the indignation which such an act would excite in our-
selves ; and when we see it established on the most indisput-
able testimony, that both at Pilnitz and at Mantua declaration
were made to this effect, it iz idle to say, that as far as the
emperor and the King of Prussia were concerned, they were
tot the aggressors in the war.
" Oh ! but the decree of the 1 9th of November 1792 !


hat, at least," the right honourable gentleman says, " you.
dust allow to be an act of aggression, not only against
Eno!b aria, but against all the sovereigns of Europe." I am
not One of those,. Sir, who attach much interest to the ae-


,


t1,7a,l andreisnodiscriminaL provocations thrown outat random,like this resolution of the1 9th of November 1792. I do not


at?aP
to1'14 it necessary to the dignity of any people to notice and


ness.
ev


Ply to themselves menaces flung out without particular
rasion, which are always unwise in the power which Uses


But,
which it is still more unwise to treat with serious-


b t, if any such idle and general provocation to
Cc 2




3 138 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE [Feb
nations is given, either in insolence or in folly, by any o.
vernment, it is a clear first principle, that an explanation is
the thing, which a magnanimous nation, feeling itself
grieved, ought to demand ; and if an explanation be gietbsti
which is not satisfactory, it ought clearly and distinctly to„
say so. There ought to be no ambiguity, no reserve, on the
occasion. Now, we all know from documents on our table
that M. Chauvelin did give an explanation of this silly decree'
He declared in the name of his government, " that it was
never meant that the French government should favourinsiir.
rections ; that the decree was applicable only to those people,
who, after having acquired their liberty by conquest, should
demand the assistance of the republic ; but that France would
respect, not only the independence of England, but also that
of her allies with whom she was not at war." This was the
explanation given of the offensive decree. " But this ex-
planation was not satisfactory !" Did you say so to M.
Chauvelin? Did you tell him that you were not content
with this explanation ? And when you dismissed him after-
wards, on the death of the king, did you say that this ex-
planation was unsatisfactory ? No; you did no such thing:
and I contend, that unless you demanded farther explanations,
and they were refused, you have no right to urge the decree
of the r 9th of November as an act of aggression. In all
your conferences and correspondence with M. Chauvelin, did
you hold out to him what terms would satisfy you? Did you
give the French the power or the means of settling the mis-
understanding which that decree, or an y other of the points
at issue, had created ? I contend, that when a nation refuses
to state to another the thing which would satisfy her, she
spews that she is not actuated by a desire to preserve peace
between them : and I aver, that this was the case here. The
Scheldt, for instance. You now say, that the navigation of
the Scheldt was one of your causes of complaint. Did you
explain yourself on that subject? • Did you make it one of
the grounds for the dismissal of M. Chauvelin. Sir, I repeat
it, a nation, to justify itself in appealing to the last solemn
resort, ought to prove that it had taken every possible mew's)
consistent with dignity, to demand the reparation which
would be satisfactory, and if she refused to explain what
would be satisfactory, she did not do her duty, nor exonerate
herself from the charge of being the aggressor.


The right honourable gentleman has this night, for the first
time, produced a most important paper— the instructions
which were given to his majesty's minister at the cour t 0
St. Petersburgh, about the end of the year 7e2, to intert1
her imperial majesty to join her efforts with those of


CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF PRANCE.
389130°'3


/3ritannic majesty, to prevent, by their joint mediation, the
evils of a general war. Of this paper, and of the existence
of any such document, I for one was entirely -ignorant; but
I have no hesitation in saying, that I completely approve of
the instructions which appear to have been given ; and I
ant sorry to see the right honourable gentleman disposed
rather to take blame to himself than credit for having written


Ue thinks that he shall be subject to the imputation of
having been rather too slow to apprehend the dangers with
which the French Revolution was fraught, than that he was
forward and hasty —44 (bud solum excusat, hoc solum miror


ilk." I do not agree with him on the idea of censure.
I by no means think that he was blameable for too much
confidence in the good intentions of the French. I think
the tenor and composition of this paper was excellent — the
instructions conveyed in it wise; and that it wanted but one
essential thing to have entitled it to general approbation —
namely, to be acted upon. The clear nature and intent of
that paper, I take to be, that our ministers were to solicit the
court of Petersburgh to join with them in a declaration to
the French government, stating explicitly what course of
conduct, with respect to their foreign relations, they thought
necessary to the general peace and security of Europe, and
what, if complied with, would have induced them to mediate
for that purpose — a proper, wise, and legitimate course of
proceeding. Now, I ask, Sir, whether, if this paper had been
communicated to Paris at the end of the year 17 92, instead
of Petersburgh, it would not have been productive of most
seasonable benefits to mankind; and, by informing the French
in time of the means by which they might have secured the
mediation of Great Britain, have not only avoided the rup-
ture with this country, but have also restored general peace
to the continent? The paper, Sir, was excellent in its in-
tentions; but its merit was all in the composition. It was
a fine theory, which ministers did not think proper to carry
into practice. Nay, on the contrary, at the very time they
Were drawing up this paper, they were insulting M. Chauvelin,
in every way, until about the 2 3 d or 24th of January 1793,
When :hi:. finally dismissed him, without stating any one
ground upon which they were willing to preserve terms with
the r


" But France," it seems, " then declared war against us ;ilanotdhslsliedwesra. s the aggressor, because the declaration came from
both Let us look ,at the circumstances of this transaction on
out Undoubtedly
,


the declaration was made by her ;
Is a declaration the only thing that constitutes the com-


inencement of a war? Do gentlemen recollect, that, in con-
a c 3


• 3.




390 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE [Feb


sequence of a dispute about the commencement of w
respecting the capture of a number of ships, an article


:as
'


inserted in our treaty with France, by which it was positively
stipulated, that in future, to prevent all disputes, the act ofthe dismissal of a minister from either of the two courts
should be held and considered as tantamount to a declaration
of war? I mention this, Sir, because, when we are idly em-
ployed in this retrospect of the origin of a war which


_


lasted so many years, instead of fixing our eyes only to the
contemplation of the means of putting an end to it, we seem
disposed to. overlook every thing on our own parts, and to
search only for grounds of imputation on the enemy. I
almost think it an insult on the House to detain them with
this sort of examination. If, Sir, France was the aggressor,
as the right honourable gentleman says she was throughout,
why did not Prussia call upon us for the stipulated number
of troops, according to the article of the defensive treaty of
alliance subsisting between us, by which, in case either
of the contracting parties was attacked, they had a right to
demand the stipulated aid ? And the same thing, again, may
be asked when we were attacked. The right honourable
gentleman might here accuse himself, indeed, of reserve;
but it unfortunately happened, that, at the time, the point
was too clear on which side the aggression lay. Prussia was
too sensible that the war could not entitle her to make the
demand, and that it was not a case within the scope of the
defensive treaty. This is evidence worth a volume of sub-
sequent reasoning; for if, at the time when all the facts were
present to their minds, they could not take advantage of
existing treaties, and that, too, when the courts were on the
most friendly terms with one another, it will be manifest to
every thinking man that they were sensible they were not
authorized to make the demand.


I really, Sir, cannot think it necessary to follow the right
honourable gentleman into all the minute details which he
has thought proper to give us respecting the first aggression;
but, that Austria and Prussia were the aggressors, not a man
in any country, who has ever given himself the trouble W
thi:ik at all on the subject, can doubt. Nothing could be
more hostile than their whole proceedings. Did they Ot
declare to France, that it was their internal concern s, no


t


their external proceedings, which provoked them to con-
federate against her ? Look back to the proclamations \Ili°
which they set out. Read the declarations which they.rol
themselves, to justify their appeal to arms. They (11(11.1°,
pretend to fear their ambition, their conquests, their troubl!liv.
their neighbours; but they accused them of new-modellili..g
their own government. They said nothing of their figgle


s


CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE,.
391/800,3


abroad; they spoke only of their clubs and societies
sions
.


t Fris.
sir, in all this, I am not justifying the French —I am not


striving to absolve them from blame, either in their internal
external policy. I think, on the contrary, that their sue-or


ce,sive rulers have been as bad and as execrable, in various
ins tances, as any of the most despotic and unprincipled


rmnents that the world ever saw. I think it impossible,imve
Sir, that it should have been otherwise. It was not to be
expected that the French, when once engaged in foreign
wars, should not endeavour to spread destruction around
them, and to form plans of aggrandizement. and plunder on
every side. Men bred in the school of the house of Bourbon
could not be expected to act otherwise. They could not
have lived so long under their antient masters, without im-
bibing the restless ambition, the perfidy, and the' insatiable
spirit of the race. They have imitated the practice of their
great prototype, and, through their whole career of mischief
and of crimes, have done no more than servilely trace the
steps of their own Louis XIV. If they have over-run coun-
tries and ravaged them, they have done it upon Bourbon_
principles. If they have ruined and dethroned sovereigns,
it is entirely after the Bourbon manner. If they have even
fraternized with the people' of foreign countries, and pre-
tended to make their cause their own, they have only faith-
fully followed the Bourbon example. They have constantly
had Louis, the grand monarque, in their eye. But it may
be said, that this example was long ago, and that we ought
not to refer to a period so distant. True, it is a distant
period as applied to the man, but not so to the principle. The
principle was never extinct; nor has its operation been sus-
pended in France, except, perhaps, for a short interval,
during the administration of Cardinal Fleury; and my com-
Plaint against the republic of France is, not that she has
generated new crimes, not that she has promulgated new
mischief, but that she has adopted and acted upon the prin-
ciples which have been so fatal to Europe, under the practice
of the house of Bourbon. It is said, that wherever the French
have gone, they have introduced revolution; that they have
sought for the means of disturbing neighbouring states, and
b .ay. e not been content with mere conquest. What is this


adopting the ingenious scheme of Louis XIV.? He was
not content with merely over-running a state ; — wheneverF
his


into a new territory, he established what he called
i" " chamber of claims; a most convenient device, by which he
4quired , I th


any
w er the conquered country or province had .


dormant or disputed claims, any cause of complaint, any
CC 4




392 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE


[Feb, 3,
unsettled demand upon any other state or province
which he might wage war upon such state, thereby discove2
again ground u for new devastation, and gratify his ambitionn by new acquisitions. What have the republicans done tuer
atrocious, more jacobinical, than this? Louis went to -


° war
with Holland. His pretext was, that Holland had not treated
him with sufficient respect; —a very just and proper cause
for war indeed ! This, Sir, leads me to an example which
I think seasonable, and worthy the attention of his majesty's
ministers. When our Charles II. as a short exception to the
policy of his reign, made the triple alliance for the protection
of Europe, and particularly of Holland, against the ambition
of Louis XIV. what was the conduct of that great, virtuous,
and most able statesman, M. de Witt, when the confederates
came to deliberate on the terms upon which they should
treat with the French monarch ? When it was said, that he
had made unprincipled conquests, and that he ought to be
forced to surrender them all, what was the language of that
great and wise man? " No," said he; 46 I think we ought
not to look back to the origin of the war, so much as the
means of putting an end to it. If you had united in time
to prevent these conquests, well; but, now that he has made
them, he stands upon the ground of conquest, and we must
agree to treat with him, not with reference to the origin of
the conquest, but with regard to his present posture. He
has those places, and some of them we must be content to
give up as the means of peace; for conquest will always
successfully set up its claims to indemnification." Such was
the language of this minister, who was the ornament of his
time; and such, in my mind, ought to be the language of
statesmen, with regard to the French, at this day. The same
ought to have been said at the formation of the confederacy.
It was true that the French had over-run Savoy; but they
had over-run it upon Bourbon principles; and having gained
this and other conquests before the confederacy was formed,
they ought to have treated with her rather for future security,
than for past correction. States in possession, whether MO'
narchical or republican, will claim indemnity in proportion
to their success; and it will never be so much inquired, hY
what right they gained possession, as by what means they
can be prevented from enlarging their depredations. Snen,,
is the safe practice of the world; and such ought to have been
the conduct of the powers when the reduction of Savoy Intal
them coalesce.


The right honourable gentleman may know more of thetl an
secret particulars of their over-running Savoy than I do;
certainly, as they have come to my knowledge, it was . a, 111°-


/It


000.] CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE. 393


Bourbon-like act. A great and justly celebrated historian,
will not call a foreigner — I mean Mr. Hume (aaam


writer, certainly estimable in many particulars, but who was a
childish lover of princes) — talks of Louis XIV. in very


aincent terms; but he says of him, that, though hemag, b
managed his enterprizes with skill and bravery, he was un-
fortunate in this, that he never got a good and fair pretence
for war. This he reckons among his misfortunes ! Can we
say more of the republican French ? In seizing on Savoy, I
think they made use of the words, " convenances morales et
Priq s '• • es." These were their reasons. A most Bourbon-like phrase ! And I therefore contend, that as we never
scrupled to treat with the princes of the house of Bourbon
on account of their rapacity, their thirst of conquest, their
violation of treaties, their perfidy, and their restless spirit,
so we ought not to refuse to treat with their republican
imitators. Ministers could not pretend ignorance of the
unprincipled manner in which the French had seized on
Savoy. The Sardinian minister complained of the aggression,
and yet no stir was made about it. The courts of Europe
stood by, and saw the outrage; and our ministers saw it.
The right honourable gentleman will in vain, therefore, exert
his powers to persuade me of the interest he takes in the
preservation of the rights of nations, since, at the moment
when an interference might have been made with effect, no
step was taken, no remonstrance made, no mediation ne-
gociated, to stop the career of conquest. All the pretended
and hypocritical sensibility for the 44 rights of nations, and
for social order," with which we have since been stunned,
cannot impose upon those who will take the trouble to look
back to the period when this sensibility ought to have roused
tii iittlitleou s,easonable exertion. At that time, however, the right
honourable gentleman makes it his boast, that he was pre_
vented, by a sense of neutrality, from taking any measures
of precaution on the subject. I do not give the right ho-
limitable gentleman much credit for his spirit of neutrality
on the occasion. It flowed from the sense of the country at


the great majority of which was clearly and de-
cidedly against all interruptions being given to the French
in their desire of regulating their own internal government.


But this neutrality, which respected only the internal
rights of the French, and from which the people of England
avou la never have departed but for the impolitic and hypo-
critical cant which was set up to rouse their jealousy and
alarm their fears, was very different from the great principleof political prudence which ought to have actuated the
eNocils of the nation, on seeing the first steps of France.




1111.
[Feb:3,


towards a career of external conquest. My opinion is, that
when the unfortunate King of France offered to us, in the
letter delivered by M. Chauvelin and M. Talleyrand, and
even intreated us to mediate between him and the at,
lied powers of Austria and Prussia, they ought to have
accepted the offer, and exerted their influence to save
Europe from the consequence of a system which was then
beginning to manifest itself,- It was, • at least, a question
of prudence ; and as we had- never refused to treat and
to mediate with the old princes on account of their ambition
or their perfidy, we ought to have been equally ready now,
when the same principles were acted upon by other men.
I must doubt the sensibility which could be so cold and
so indifferent at the proper moment for its activity. I fear
that there were at that moment the germs of ambition
rising in the mind of the right honourable gentleman, and6
that he was beginning, like others, to entertain hopes that
something might be obtained out of the coming confusion.
What but such a sentiment could have prevented him from
overlooking the fair occasion that was offered for preventing
the calamities with which Europe was threatened? What but
some such interested principle could have made him forego
the truly honourable task, by which his administration would
have displayed its magnanimity and its power ? But for some
such feeling, would not this country, both in wisdom and in
dignity, have interfered, and in conjunction with the other
powers, have said to France, 4 6 You ask for a mediation; we
will mediate with candour and sincerity, but we will at the
same time declare to you our apprehensions. We do not
trust to your assertion of a determination to avoid all foreign
conquest, and that you are desirous only of settling your open
constitution, because your language is contradicted by expe-
rience and the evidence of facts. You are Frenchmen, and
you cannot so soon have thrown off the Bourbon principles in
which you were educated. You have already imitated the
bad practice of your princes ; you have seized on Savoy, with-
out a colour of right. But here we take our stand. Thus far
you have gone, and we cannot help it ; but you must go no
farther. We will tell you distinctly what we shall consider as
an attack on the balance and the security of Europe ; and, as
the condition of our interference, we will tell you also the s e


-curities that we think essential to the general repose." 'This
ought to have been the language of his majesty's ministersto
when their mediation was solicited: and something of this
kind they evidently thought of when they sent the instruction!
to Petersburgh which they have mentioned this night, but
upon which they never acted. Having not, done so, I sq'


6


000.] CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE. 3%


they have no claim to talk now about the violated riodits of Eli-o
rope, about the aggression of the French, and about the origin
of the war, in which this country was so suddenly afterwards


it, o ,Ted. Instead of this, what did they do ? They hung
lulu they avoided explanation ; they gave the French no
oleos of satisfying them; and I repeat my proposition —
when there is a question of peace and war between two na-
tions, that government feels itself in the wrong which refuses
to state with clearness and precision what she would consider
as a satisfaction and a pledge of peace.


Sir, if I understand the true precepts of the christian


'


reli-
oion, as set forth in the New Testament, I must be permitted
to say, that there is no such thing as a rule or doctrine by
which we _are directed, or can be J ustified, in waging a war
for religion. The idea is subversive of the very foundations
upon which it stands, which are those of peace and good-will
among men. Religion never was, and never can be, a justi-
fiable cause of war; but it has been too often grossly used as
the pretext and the apology for the most unprincipled wars.


I have already said, and I repeat it, that the conduct of
the French to foreign nations cannot be justified. They
have given great cause of offence, but certainly not to all
countries alike. The right honourable gentlemen opposite to
me have made an indiscriminate catalogue of all the countries
which the French have offended, and, in their eagerness to
throw odium on the nation, have taken no pains to investi-
gate the sources of their several quarrels. I will not detain
the House, by entering into the- long detail which has been
given of their aggressions and their violences; but let me
mention Sardinia as one instance which has been strongly in-
sisted upon. Did the French attack Sardinia when at peace
with them ? No such thing. The King of Sardinia had
accepted of a subsidy from Great Britain; and Sardinia was,
to all intents and purposes, a belligerent power. Several
other instances might be mentioned ; but though, perhaps, in
the majority of instances, the French may be unjustifiable,
Is this the moment for us to dwell upon these enormities — to
waste our time, and inflame our passions, by recriminating
uPou each other ? There is no end to such a war. I have
somewhere read, I think in Sir Walter Raleigh's History of
the World, of a most bloody and fatal battle which was
fought by two opposite armies, in which almost all the comba-
,nts on both sides were killed, " because," says the historian,


though they had offensive weapons on both sides, they had
none for defence." So, in this war of words, if we are to use
otinr of. •rensw c weapons, if we are to indulge only in invective
and abuse, the contest must be eternal. If this war of re-


394 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE




396 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE [Feb, e
reproach and invective is to be countenanced, may not the
French with equal reason complain of the outrages and the
horrors committed by the powers opposed to them ? If we
must not treat with the French on account of the iniquity of
their former transactions, ought we not to be as scrupulous of
connecting ourselves with other powers equally criminal?
Surely, Sir, if we must be thus rigid in scrutinizing the eeti:
duct of an enemy, we ought to be equally careful in not cone
mining our honour and our safety with an ally who has
manifested the same want of respect for the rights of other
nations. Surely, if it is material to know the character of a
power with whom you are only about to treat for peace, it is
more material to know the character of allies, with whom von
are about to enter into the closest connection of friendship,
and for whose exertions you are about to pay.


Now, Sir, what was the conduct of your own allies to
Poland ? Is there a single atrocity of the French, in Italy, in
Switzerland, in Egypt, if you please, more unprincipled and
inhuman, than that of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, in Poland?
What has there been in the conduct of the French to foreign
powers; what in the violation of solemn treaties ; what in the
plunder, devastation, and dismemberment of unoffending coun-
tries; what in the horrors and murders perpetrated upon the
subdued victims of their rage in any district which they have
over-run, worse than the conduct of those three great powers,
in the miserable, devoted, and trampled-on kingdom of Po-
land, and who have been, or are, our allies in this war for
religion, social order, and the rights of nations ? 46 Oh
but we regretted the partition of Poland !" Yes, regretted!
you regretted the violence, and that is all you did. You
united yourselves with the actors ; you, in fact, by your ac-
quiescence, confirmed the atrocity. But they are your allies;
and though they over-ran and divided Poland, there Was
nothing, perhaps, in the manner of doing it, which stamped
it with peculiar infamy and disgrace. The hero of Poland,
perhaps, was merciful and mild ! He was " as much supe-
rior to Bonaparte in bravery, and in the discipline which he
maintained, as he was superior in virtue and humanity !
was animated by the purest principles of Christianity-, and
was restrained in his career by the benevolent precepts wlace
it inculcates !" Was he ? Let unfortunate Warsaw, and the
miserable inhabitants of the suburb of Praga in particular,
tell ! What do we understand to have been the conduct ?f.
this magnanimous hero, with whom, it seems, Bonaparte
not to be compared ? He entered the suburb of Pragee.tbe,
most populous suburb of Warsaw; and there he let his solain
loose on the miserable, unarmed and unresisting peoP'e


00.] CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE. 3971
idea, women, and children, nay, infants at the breast, were
(loomed to one indiscriminate massacre ! Thousands of them
wore inhumanly, wantonly, butchered ! And for what? Be-
cause they had dared to join in a wish to meliorate their own
condition as a people, and to improve their constitution,
which had been confessed by their own sovereign to be in
want of amendment. And such is the hero upon whom the
cause of " religion and social order" is to repose ! And such
is the man whom we praise for his discipline and his virtue,
and whom we hold out as our boast and our dependence,
„dle the conduct of Bonaparte unfits him to be even treated
with as an enemy !


But the behaviour of the French towards Switzerland raises
all the indignation of the right honourable gentleman and in-
flames his eloquence. I admire the indignation which he
expresses (and I think he felt it) in speaking of this country,
so dear and so congenial to every man who loves the sacred
name of liberty. He who loves liberty, says the right ho-
nourable gentleman, thought himself at home on the favoured
and happy mountains of Switzerland, where she seemed to
have taken up her abode under a sort of implied compact,
among all other states, that she should not be disturbed in
this her chosen asylum. I admire the eloquence bf the right
honourable gentleman in speaking of this country of liberty
and peace, to which every man would desire, once in his life
at least, to make a pilgrimage. But who, let me ask him,
first proposed to the Swiss people to depart from the neutrality
which was their chief protection, and to join the confederacy
against the French ? I aver, that a noble relation of mine,
Lord Robert Fitzgerald,) then the minister of England to


the Swiss Cantons, was instructed, in direct terms, to pro-
pose to the Swiss, by an official note, to break from the safe
flee they had laid down for themselves, and to tell them, in
lord a contest neutrality was criminal." I know that noble
lord too well, though I have not been in habits of intercourse
with him of late, from the employments in which he has been
engaged, to suspect that he would have presented such a pa,
Pee without the express instructions of his court, or that he
would have gone beyond those instructions.


But, was it only to Switzerland that this sort of languagebwas held ? What
at was our language also to Tuscany and toGe


noa? An honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning) has deniedl'",ee e, utheriticity of a pretended letter which has been eircu-


:'


'C
,4_,' l , and ascribed to Lord Harvey. He says, it is all a


ale and a forgery. Be it so; but is it also a fable that Lord
`i%r(1:ey did speak in terms to the Grand Duke, which he consi-


as offensive and insulting ? I cannot tell, for I was notereseet•
But was it not, and is it not believed? Is it a fable that




'498 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE
[Feb


Lord Harvey went into the closet of the Grand Duke, laid his
sWatch upon the table, and demanded, in a peremptory man,


ner, that he should, within a certain number or minutes, /
think 1 have heard within a quarter of an hour, determine
aye or no, to dismiss the French minister, and order him 014
of his dominions ; with the menace, that if he did not, tile
English fleet should bombard Leghorn ? Will the honourable
gentleman deny this also ? I certainly do not know it from
my own knowledge ; but I know, that persons of the first
credit, then at Florence, have stated these facts, and that they
have never been contradicted. It is true, that upon the Grand
Duke's complaint of this indignity, Lord Harvey was recalled;
but was the .principle recalled ? Was the mission recalled)
Did not ministers persist in the demand which Lord Harvey
had made, perhaps ungraciously ? Was not the Grand Duke
forced, in consequence, to dismiss the French minister ? and did
they not drive him to enter into an unwilling war with the re-
public ? It is true that he afterwards made his peace; and that,
having done so, he was treated severely and unjustly by the
French. But what do I conclude from all this, but that we
have no right to be scrupulous, we who have violated the re-
spect due to peaceable powers ourselves, in this war, which,
more than any other that ever afflicted human nature, has
been distinguished by the greatest number of disgusting and
outrageous insults to the smaller powers by die great. And
I infer from this also, that the instances not being confined to
the French, but having been perpetrated by every one of the
allies, and by England as much as by the others, we have no
right to refuse to treat with the French on this ground. Need
I speak of your conduct to Genoa also ? Perhaps the tote
delivered by Mr. Drake was also a forgery. Perhaps the
blockade of the port never took place. It is impossible to
deny the facts, which were so glaring at the time. It i s a
painful thing to me, Sir, to be obliged to go back to these
unfortunate periods of the history of this war, and of the con-
duct of this country ; but I am forced.to the task by the use
which has been made of the atrocities of the French as an ar7
crument against negociation. I think I have said enough to
prove, that if the French have been guilty, we have no t:been
innocent. Nothing but determined incredulity can make ulds
deaf and blind to our own acts, when we are so ready to Yie
an assent to all the reproaches which are thrown out 00 th
enemy, and upon which reproaches we arc gravely told to


continue the war.
" But the French," it . seems, " have behaved ill 01:


where. They seized on Venice, which had preserved t"i".
most exact neutrality, or rather," as it is hinted,, had le
tested symptoms of friendship to them." I agree With


1800.3


CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.
399


riobt honourable gentleman, it was an abominable act. I am
not the apologist of, much less the advocate for their iniqui-
ties: neither will I countenance them in their pretences for
she injustice. I do not think that much regard is to be paid
to the charges which a triumphant soldiery bring on the con-
duct of a people whom they have over-run. Pretences for
outrage will never be wanting to the strong, when they wish
to trample on the weak ; but when we accuse the French of
having seized on Venice, after stipulating for its neutrality
And guaranteeing its independence, we should also remember
the excuse that they made for the violence; namely, that
their troops had been attacked and murdered. I say I am
always incredulous about such excuses ; but I think it fair to
hear whatever can be ,afieged on the other side. We can-
not take one side of a story only. Candour demands that we
should examine the whole before we make up our minds on
the guilt. I cannot think it quite fair to state the view of the
subject of one party as indisputable fact, without even men-


. tioning what the other party has to say for itself. But, Sir,
is this all? Though the perfidy of the French to the Vene-
tians be clear and palpable, was it worse in morals, in prin-
ciple, and in example, than the conduct of Austria ? My
honourable friend (Mr. Whitbread) properly asked, " Is not
the receiver as bad as the thief ?" If the French seized on the
territory of Venice -, did not the Austrians agree to receive it?
" But this," ittseems, " is not the same thing." It is quite
in the nature, and within the rule of diplomatic morality, for
Austria to receive the country which was thus seized upon un-
justly. " The emperor took it as a compensation ; it was his
by barter ; he was not answerable for the guilt by which it
was obtained." What is this, Sir, but the false and abomi-
nable reasoning with which we have been so often disgusted on


I
htluie,basubl iject of ''the slave trade?' Just in the same manner have


heard a notorious wholesale dealer in this inhuman trafficj
ustify his abominable trade. " I am not guilty of the hor-


rible crime of tearing that mother from her infants; that
from his wife ; of depopulating that village ; of de-


Priving that family of their sons, the support of their agedParent ! : thank Heaven ! I am not guilty of this horror ;
°nly bought them in the fair way of trade. They wereb
rought to the market; they had been guilty of crimes, or


He


;l
th, .elfiad been made prisoners in war ; they were accused of
e cheraft, of obi, or of some other sort of sorcery; and theyl e brought to me for sale; I gave .


a valuable considerationf`
•Ithern; but God forbid that I should have stained my soul
sl,the guilt of dragging them from their friends and farni-


Such has been the precious defence of the slave
.trade ;




400 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE [Feb.
3 .


and such is the argument set up for Austria, in this instance
of Venice. I did not commit the crime of trampling tounatthede
independence of Venice. I did not seize on the city;


g v
• I e


a quid pro quo. It was a matter of barter and indemnity; /
gave half a million of human beings to be put under the yok
of France in another district, and I had these people ri
over to me in return !" This, Sir, is the defence of Austria;
and under such detestable sophistry as this, is the infernal
traffic in human flesh, whether in white or black, to be eon.
tinned, and even justified ! At no time has that diabolical
traffic been carried to a greater length than during the pre.
sent war; and that by England herself, as well as Austria
and Russia.


" But France," it seems, "has roused all the nations of
Europe against her ;" and the long catalogue has been read to
you, to prove that she must have been atrocious to provoke
them all. Is it true, Sir, that she has roused them all? It
does not say much for the address of his majesty's ministers,
if this be the case. 'What, Sir ! have all your negotiations,
all your declamation, all your money, been squandered in vain?
Have you not succeeded in stirring the indignation, and en-
gaging the assistance, of a single power? But you do your-
selves injustice. I dare say the truth lies between you. Be-
tween their crimes and your money the rage has been excited;
and full as much is due to your seductions, as to her atrocities.
My honourable and learned friend (Mr. irskine) was correct,
therefore, in his argument; for you cannot take both sides of
the case: you cannot accuse them of having provoked all
Europe, and at the same time claim the merit of having roused
them to join you.


You talk of your allies. Sir, I wish to know who your al-
lies are? Russia is one of them, I suppose. Did France at-
tack Russia? Has the magnanimous Paul taken the field for_
social order and religion, on account of personal aggression!
The Emperor of Russia has declared himself Grand Master of
Malta, though his religion is as opposite to that of the knights
as ours is ; and he is as much considered an heretic by the
church of Rome as we are. The King of Great Britain,.
might, with as much propriety, declare himself the head 01
the order of the Chartreuse monks. Not content with
to himself the commandery of this institution of Malta, 138,'"e
has even created a married num a knight, contrary to all.,t'is
most sacred rules and regulations of the order. And yet
ally of ours is fighting for religion ! — So much for hi s r.T
gion: Let us see his regard to social order ! How (.1')e'
chew his abhorrence of the principles of the French, in the e.
violation of the rights of other nations? What has bee°




cONSUI.AR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.
40113001


,toot W Denmark ? He says to Denmark — " You have
colkgditious clubs at Copenhagen — No Danish vessel shall enter
se 1,, of Russia !" He holds a still more despotic language
the


ports
tir,gh. He threatens to lay an embar • on their


tleTlalbnd he forces them to surrender up men who are
go


teTii thed by the French as their citizens —whether truly or not,
I do not i nquire. He threatens them with his own vengeance


and subjects them to that of the French if they


c°1:19i'relojinlitindliliPse)1:aYalisliy;tuA:iasttl'sci::zell This
S


i s one
of our


allies;
and lie


leas
declared




what has been his conduct to Spain ? He first


'Ag'.reat insult, that his minister was dismissed
Spanish minister from Petersburgh, and then.


that the object for which he has taken up arms, is to replace
the autient race of the house of Bourbon on the throne of
France, and that he does this for the cause of religion and
social order ! Such is the respect for religion and social order
which he himself displays ; and such are the examples of it
with which we coalesce !


No man regrets, Sir, more than I do, the enormities that
France has committed ; but how do they bear upon the ques-
tion as it now stands ? Are we fin' ever to deprive ourselves
of the benefits of peace, because France has perpetrated acts
of injustice ? Sir, we cannot acquit ourselves upon such
ground. We have negotiated. With the knowledge of these
acts of injustice and disorder, we have treated with them twice;
yet, the right honourable o•entleman cannot enter into nego-n


he


gives
with them now ; and it is worth while to attend to the


reasons that he ,i for refusing their offer. The Revolution
itself is no more an objection now, than it was in 17 96, when
was


; for the government of I ranee at that time
t


., .surely as unstable as it is now. The crimes of the French,
hace„,0111,1esit, aml:i elit; y of,


their government, did not then


b


prevent him ;
a (1 by are they to prevent bun now ? He negotiated with.


`lt


the


i'lletlar:_


,,,


ot scruple to open another at Lisle in 1797. We have
heard a very curious account of these neo•ociations this day,


1..t .ai s timstable, and, baffledeil in that negociation, he


I
a_,


an
a ,, . tig .tt ionourable gentleman has emphatically told


i


ns


4 01 honest'' account of them. He says he has no scruple


dini
iF" eased at its failure. He was sincere in his endeavoursto


)


his


uaivi 0 el: s'bi u ttlh atw


own off


,root l
ets to


h.
procur Ear


land and that he was
success


not


he as not disappointed when they failed. I wish10




,e apprended 'chi: (Y from the oflne


echn... . and the right honourable gentleman correctly. His
ince 1.0n on the subject, then, I take to be this --that though.


41) ,)r.
lf


: , In his endeavours to procure peace in 1 797 , yet he
th.111 `i,1.' 0(- l itled greater danger from accomplishing his object,


l• 111 the continuance of war ; and that he felt this ap-Qt. vt. D D





402 OVERTURES OP PEACE FROM THE Deb, 3,
prehension from the comparative views of the
of peace and war at that time. I have no hesitation in altonc,
ing the fact, that a state of peace, immediately after a
such violence, must, in some respects, be a state of inseetait:
but does this not belong, in a certain degree, to
And are we never to have peace, because that peace may he
insecure? But there was something, it seems, so peculiar hl
this war, and in the character and principles of the
that the right honourable gentleman thought a peace in 1-!j7
would be comparatively more dangerous than war. Nviby
then, did he treat? I beg the atter 'aon of the House to this
He treated, " because the unequivocal sense of the people of
England was declared to be in favour of a negociation." The




right honourable gentleman confesses the truth, then, that in
1797 the people were for peace. I thought so at the time;
but you all recollect, that when I stated it in my place, it was.
denied. " True," they said, " you have procured petitions;
but we have petitions too : we all know in what strange ways
petitions may be procured, and how little they deserve to be
considered as the sense of the people." This was their lan-
guage at the time ; but, now we find these petitions did speak
the sense of the people, and that it was on this side of the
House only, that the sense of the people was spoken. The
majority spoke a contrary language. It is acknowledged,
then, that the -unequivocal sense of the people of England may
be spoken by the minority of this House, and that it is nut
always by the test of numbers that an honest decision is to
be ascertained. This House decided against what the right
honourable gentleman knew to be the sense of the country:.
but he himself acted upon that sense against the vote
parliament.


The negotiation in 1796 went off, as my honourable and'
learned friend (Mr. Erskine) has said, upon the question of Bei-.
glum ; or, as the right honourable gentleman asserts, upon 3
question of principle. He negotiated to please the people, but
it went off " on account of a monstrous principle advanc ed bj;
Frauice, incompatible with all negotiation-" This is now sag!.
Did the right honourable gentleman say so at the time ? n'd
he fairly and candidly inform the people of England, thattll,eY3"
broke off the negotiation because the French had urne%
basis that it was totally impossible for England at any t1010
grant? No such thing. On the contrary, when the aegoet".
ation broke off, they published a manifesto, "renewing, i1=ti-le
face of Europe, the solemn declaration, that -whenever trt,
enemy should be disposed to enter on the work of a g en, c:r_


,.
;


pacification, in a spirit of conciliation and equity, notia,nr
should be wanting on their part to contribitite to the ace°a


1300.3 CONSULAR GOVERNMENT, OF PRANCE. 0.3


iishinent of •that great object." And, accordingly, in 1.797,
withstanding this incompatible principle, .and with all the


the French on their heads, they opened a new.
tilePiji,t.rc)arinitciatileos fi 3at Lisle. They do not wait for any retractation of
dig incompatible principle ; they do not wait even till Over-
tures shall be made to them ; but they solicit and renew a ne-
Tociation themselves. I do not blame them fbr this, Sir ;
salt' only that it is an argument against the assertion of an
incompatible principle. It is a proof; that they did not then
think as the right honourable gentleman now says they thought;
but that they yielded to the Sentiments of the nation, who were.
aenerally inclined to peace, against their own judgment ; and,
bona a motive which 1 shall come to by and by, they had no lie'


,
shation, account of the first rupture, to renew the ne,a.m-
eiation — it was renewed at Lisle; and this the French broke
off; after the revolution at Paris on the 4th of September.
What was the conduct of ministers upon this occasion ?
would have thought, that, with the fresh insult at Lisle in
their minds, with the recollection of their failure the year
before at Paris, if it had been true that they found an incom-
patible principle, they would have talked a warlike language,
and would have announced to their country and to all Europe,
that peace was not to be obtained; that they must throw away
the scabbard, and think only of the means of continuing the.
.contest. No such thing. They


put forth a declaration, in
which they said, that they should look with anxious expec-
tation for the moment when the government of France should.
show a disposition and spirit corresponding with their own ;
and renewing before all Europe the solemn declaration, that


mightt have
the very


when the brilliant victory of Lord Duncanl
justified them in demanding more extravagant


terms, they were willing, if the calamities of war could be
dosed, to conclude peace on the same moderate and equitable
principles and terms which they had before proposed. Such
Was their declaration upon that occasion; and in the discus-
sions which we had upon it in this House, ministers were ex-
plicit. They said, that by that negotiation, there had been
given to the world what might be regarded as an unequivocal
test of the sincerity and disposition of government towards
Peace. or against it ; for those who refuse discussion, show
that they are disinclined to pacification; and it • is therefore,the-


•dy sa id , always to be considered as a test, that the party who
refuses to negociate is the party who is disinclined to peace.


theytbily eit:tteisietn;selves setup as the test. Try them now, Sir,
at test. An offer is made them. They rashly, and I


think rudely, refuse it. Have they, or have they not, broken


DD 2,




404 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE [Peb
.3•


But, they say, " we have not refused all discussion." The
have put a case. They have expressed a wish for the resto13:
ation of the house of Bourbon, and have declared that to be
au event which would immediately remove every obstacle to
negociation. Sir, as to the restoration of the house of Bout,
bon, if it shall be the wish of the people of France, I for one
shall be perfectly content to acquiesce. I think the people


ofFrance, as well as every other people, ought to have the go,
vernment which they like best themselves ; and the form of that
government, or the persons who hold it in their hands, should
never be an obstacle with MO to treat with the nation for
peace, or to live with them in amity — but as an Englishman,
and actuated by English feelings, I surely cannot wish for the
restoration of the house of Bourbon to the throne of France.
.1 hope that I am not a man to bear heavily upon any unfortu-
nate tinnily. I feel for their situation — I respect their dis.
tresses — but as a friend of England, 1 cannot wish for their re-
storation to the power which they abused. I cannot forget that
the whole history of the century is little more than an account
of the wars and the calamities arising from the restless am-
bition, tile intrigues, and the perfidy of the House of Bourbon.


I cannot discover, in any part of the laboured defence which
has been set up for not accepting the offer now made by
France, any argument to satisfy my mind that ministers have
not forfeited the test which they held out as infallible in 1797.
An honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning) thinks, that parlia-
ment should be eager only to approach the throne with de-
clarations of their readiness to support his majesty in the ti •


-they
prosecution of the war without inquiry; and he is quite


delighted with an address, which he has found upon the jour-
nals, to King William, in which they pledged themselves to
support him in his efforts to resist the ambition of Louis XIS.
He thinks it quite astonishing how much it is in point, and
bow perfectly it applies to the present occasion. One would
have thought, Sir, that in order to prove the application, lie
would have shewn that an offer had been respectfully made by,
the grand monarque to King William, to treat, which he had
peremptorily, and in very irritating terms, refused ; and that,
upon this, the House of Commons had come forward, and,


with their lives and fortunes, in prosecuting the just and ac-
by him,with one voice, declared their determination to stand


cessary war. Not a word of all this; and yet the honourable
gentleman finds it quite a parallel case, and


. an exact modee
for the House, on this day, to pursue. I really think,
might as well have taken any other address upon the journals,
upon any other topic, us this address to King William. lit
Would have been equally in point, and would have equally


CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE. 40;


d to shew the honourable gentleman's talents for Tea-


Sir, I
serve


here overlook another instance of this ho-
nouvlble gentleman's candid stile of debating, and of his re-
spect for parliament. He has found out, it seems, that in


periods of our history, and even in periods which haveformer
been denominated good times, intercepted letters have been
published ; and he reads, from the Gazette, instances of such
publication. Really, Sir, if the honourable gentleman had
pursued the profession to which he turned his thoughts when
younger; he would have learnt that it was necessary to find
cases a little more in point. And yet, full of his triumph on
this notable discovery, he has chosen to indulge himself in
speaking of a most respectable and a most honourable person
as any that this country knows, and who is possessed of as
sound an tindersanding as any man that I have the good for-
tune to be acquainted with, in terms the Most offensive and.
disgusting, on account of words which he may be supposed to
have said in another place, [alluding to the Duke of Bed-
ford's speech in the House of Lords]. He has spoken of that
noble person and of his intellect, in terms which, were I dis-
posed to retort, I might say, shew the honourable gentleman
to be possessed of an intellect which would justify me in pass-
ing over in silence any thing that comes from such a man.
Sir, that noble person (lid not speak of the mere act of pub-
lishing the intercepted correspondence; and the honourable
gentleman's reference to the Gazettes of former periods is,
therefore, not in point. The noble duke complained of the
manner in which these intercepted letters had been published,
not of the fact itself of their publication ; for, in the intro-
duction and notes to those letters, the ribaldry is such, that
they are not screened from the execration of every honourable
mind even by their extreme stupidity. The honourable gen-
tleman says, that he must treat with indifference the intellect
of a man who can ascribe the present scarcity of corn to the
war. Sir, 1 think there is nothing either absurd or unjust in
Such an opinion. Does not the war, necessarily, by its ma-
gazines, and still more by its expeditions, increase consump-
tion? But, when we learn that corn is, at this very moment,
sold hi. France for less than half the price which it bears here,
is it not a fair thing to suppose, that, but for the war and its
'Prohibitions, a part of that grain would be brought to this
culuitry, on account of the high price which it would sell for,
and that, consequently, our scarcity would be relieved from
their abundance? I speak only upon report, of course; but I
oseneetilitaaltf; than theprice quotedprices in the French markets is less, by


in England. There was nothing,
D D 3




406' OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE [Feb.
therefore, very absurd in what fell from my noble friend ; and
I would really advise the honourable gentleman, when be
speaks of persons distinguished. fi;r every virtue, to be a little
more guarded in his language. I see no reason why he • t, and
his friends should not leave to persons in another place, held
ing the same opinions as themselves, the task of answering
u-bat may be thrown out there. Is not the phalanx sufficient?
It is no great compliment to their talents, considering their
number, that they cannot be left to the task of answering the
few to whom they are opposed ; but, perhaps, the honourable
gentleman has too little to do in this House, and is to bo e
sent there himSelf. In truth, I see no reason why even he
might not be sent, as well as some others who have been sent
there,•


To return to the subject of the negociation in 1797. It is,
in my mind, extremely material to attend to the account'
which the right honourable gentleman gives of his memorable
negociation of 1797, and of his motives for entering into it.
In all questions of peace and , war, he says, many circum
stances must necessarily enter into the consideration; and that
they are not to be decided upon the extremes : the determi-
nation must be made upon a balance and comparison of the
evils or the advantages upon the one side and the other, and
that one of the greatest considerations is that. of finance. In
1797, the right honourable gentleman confesses he found him-
self peculiarly embarrassed as to the resources for the war, if
they were to be found in the old and usual way of the fund-
ing system. Now, though he thought, upon his balance and
comparison of considerations, that the evils of war would be
fewer than those of peace, yet they would only be so provided
that he could establish a 64 new and solid system of finance'
in the place of the Old and exhausted funding system : and to
accomplish this, it was necessary to have the unanimous ap-
probation of the people. To procure this unanimity, he pre-
tended to be a friend to negociation, though he did not wish
for the success of that negociation, but hoped, only, that
through that means he should bring the people to agree to
his new and solid system of finance. With these views, then,
what does he do ? Knowing that, contrary to his declarations
in this House, the opinion of the people of England was ge


-nerally. for peace, he enters into a negociation, in which, as
the world believed at the- time, and even until this day, be
completely failed — No such thing, Sir, —he completely sue'
ceeded — for his object was not to gain peace ; it was to gain
over the people of this country to a " new and a solid system
of finance"— that is, to the raising a great part of the sup',
plies within the year, to the triple assessment, and to the tab.


/SOO.] CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE. 407


apon income ! And how did he gain them over? By pretend-
ing to be a friend of peace, which he was not ; and by open-
or a negociation which he secretly wished might not succeed.


•b e right honourable gentleman says, that in all this he was
honest and sincere : he negociated fairly, and would have ob-
tained the peace, if the French had shewn a disposition cor-
respondent to his own ; but he rejoiced that their conduct
was such as to convince the people of England of the neces-
sity of concurring with him in the views which. he had, and
in granting him the supply which he thought essential to their
posture at the time. Sir, I will not say, that in all this he
was not honest to his own purpose, and that he has not been
honest in his declarations and confessions this night; but I
cannot agree that he was honest to this House, or honest to
the people of this country. To this House it was not honest •
to make them counteract the sense of the people, as he knew
it to be expressed in the petitions upon the table ; nor was it
honest to the country, to act in a disguise, and to pursue a
secret purpose, unknown to them, while affecting to take the
road which they pointed out. I know not whether this may
not be honesty in the political ethics of the right honourable
hgentleman, but I know that it would be called by a very dif-s'
ferent name in the common transactions of society, and in
the rules of morality . established in private life. I know Of
nothing, in the history of this country, that it resembles, ex-
cept, perhaps, one of the most profligate periods — the reign
of Charles II., when the sale of Dunkirk might probably have
been justified by the same pretence. Charles also declared war
against France, and did it to cover a negociation by which,
in his difficulties, he was to gain a "solid system of finance."


But, Sir, I meet the right honourable gentleman on his
own ground. I say that you ought to treat on the same prin-
ciple on which you treated in 1 79 7, in order to gain the cor-
dial co-operation of the people. 44 "We want experience, and
the evidence of facts." Can there be any evidence of facts
equal to that of a frank, open, and candid negociation ? Let
tuisiulsee whether Bonaparte will display the same temper as his
Predecessors. If lie shall do so, then you will confirm the
people of England in their opinion of the necessity of con-


the war, and you will revive all the vigour which you
roused in 17 9 7. Or will you. not do this until you have a
reverse of fortune? "Will you never treat, but when you are
i)n osae sonnuatthicoipi eoofpil leis?tress, and when you have occasion to im-


" But," you say, " we have not refused to treat." You
have stated a case in which you will be ready immediately to
enter into a negociation, viz. the restoration of the house of


D D 4




"Mg


408 OVERTURES OF PEACE PROM Tyr, [Feb, 3.
Bourbon ; but you deny that this is a sine qu a non ; an ind
your nonsensical language, which I do not understand , 1,0-„-
talk of " limited possibilities," which may induce you to treat
without the restoration of the house of Bourbon. Bu t Jo
you state what they are? Now, Sir, I say, that if you Put
one case, upon which you declare that you are willing to treat
immediately, and say that there are other possible eases
which may induce you to treat hereafter, without mentionina
what these possible cases are, you do state a sine quit nOh et
immediate treaty. Suppose I have an estate to sell, and
I say my demand is ' coo/. for it— I will sell the estate
mediately for that sum. To be sure, there may be other
terms upon which I may be willing to part with it ; but I say
nothing of them. The 000l. is the only condition that I
state now. Will any gentleman say, that I do not make the
l000/. the sine qua non of the immediate sale? Thus, you
say, the restoration of the princes is not the only possible
ground; but you give no other. This is your prqjet. Do
von demand a centre prqjet ? Do you follow your own rule?
Do you not do the thing of which you complained in the
enemy ? You seemed to be afraid of receiving another pro-
position ;' and by confining yourselves to this one point, you
make it in fact, though not in terms, your sine qua non.


But the right honourable gentleman, in his speech, does
what the official note avoids — He finds there the convenient
words, " experience and the evidence of facts ;"— upon these


"
he goes into detail : and, in order to convince the House that
new evidence is required, he goes back to all the earliest acts
and crimes of the Revolution— to all the atrocities of all
the governments that have passed away ; and he contends
-that he must have experience that these foul crimes are re-
pented of; and that a purer and a better system is adopted in
France, by which lie may be sure that they shall be capable
of maintaining the relations of peace and amity. Sir, these
are not conciliatory words ; nor is this a practicable ground
to gain experience. Does he think it possible, that evidence
of a peaceable demeanour can be obtained in war ?


liN11does he mean to say to the French Consul ? " Until you shall111
in war behave yourself in a peaceable manner, I will not
treat with you." — Is there not something extremely ridiculous
in this ? In duels, indeed, we have often heard of this kind
of language. Two gentlemen go out, and fight ; when, aftf:
discharging their pistols at one another, it is not an unusual
thing for one of them to say to the other — " Now f
satisfied — I sec thatyou are a man of honour, and we ar_
friends again." There is something, by the bye, ridiculous
even in this ; but between nations, it is more than run


48001


CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.
409


colons — it is criminal. It is a ground which no principle
justify, and which is as impracticable as it is impious.can


That two nations should be set on to beat one another into
friendship, is too abominable even for the fiction of romance;
but for a statesman, seriously and gravely to lay it down as
.a system upon which he means to act, is monstrous. What


n we say of such a test as be means to put the French go-
tali to, but that it is hopeless? It is in the nature of
war to inflame animosity — to exasperate, not to soothe —
to widen, not to approximate. And so long as this is to be
acted upon, it is vain to hope that we can have the evidence


whIeTi lhile w'r'eigliietTiire.honourable gentleman, however, thinks other-
wise; and he points out four distinct possible cases, besides
the re-establishment of the Bourbon family, in which he
would agree to treat with the French.


" If Bonaparte shall conduct himself so as to convince
him that he has abandoned the principles which were ob-
jectionable in his predecessors, and that he shall be actuated
by a more moderate system." I ask you, Sir, if this is likely
to be ascertained in war ? It is the nature of war not to
allay but to inflame the passions; and it is not by the in-
vective and abuse which have been thrown upon him and his
government, nor by the continued irritations which war is
sure to give, that the virtues of moderation and forbearance
are to be nourished.


2. " If, contrary to the expectations of ministers, the
people of France shall shew a disposition to acquiesce in the
government of Bonaparte." Does the right honourable gen-
tleman mean to say, that because it is an usurpation on the
part of the present chief, therefore the people arc not likely to
acquiesce in it ? I have not time, Sir, to discuss the question
of this usurpation, or whether it is likely to be permanent ; but
I certainlybee..asei have not so good an opinion of the French, or of


d


any people, as
believe that it will be short-lived, merely


that, 0, was an usurpation, and because it is a system of
military espotism.i . Cromwell was a usurper; and in many
points there may be found a resemblance between him and
the present Chief Consul of France. There is no doubt but


a several occasions of his life, Cromwell's sincerity
may be questioned, particularly in his self-denying ordinance


in Ins affected piety, and other things ; but would it not
have been insanity in France and Spain to refuse to treat with
him, because he was a usurper ? No, Sir, these are not,


hot


imnqa21: by which governments are actuated. They do


been
much into the means by which power may have


ell acquired, as into the fact of where the power resides,




410 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE [Feb. 3.
The people did acquiesce in the government of Cromwell,:
but it may be said, that the splendour of his talents, •be
vigour of his administration, the high tone with which he
spoke to foreign nations, the success of his arms, and the
character which he gave to the English name, induced the
nation to acquiesce in his usurpation ; and that . we must not
try Bonaparte by this .aetinple. Will it be said that Bona.
parte is not a man of great abilities ? Will it besztideNtletialttliilee
has not, by his victories, thrown a splendour over
violence of the Revolution; and that he does not conciliate
the French people by the high and lofty tone in which he
speaks to foreigns nations? Are not the French, • then, as
likely, as the English in the case of Cromwell, to acquiesce in
his government? If they should do so, the right honourable
gentleman may find that this possible predicament may fail
him. He may find, that though one power may make war,
it requires two to make peace. He may find that Bonaparte
was -as insincere as himself, in the proposition which he made;
and in his turn he may come forward and say — " I have
no occasion now for concealment. It is true, that in the
beginning of the year 5 800, I offered to treat, not because I
wished for peace, but because the people of France wished
for it; and besides, my old resources being exhauited, and
there being no means of carrying on the war without a new
and solid system of finance,' I pretended to treat, because I
wished to procure the unanimous assent of the French people
to this new and solid system. Did you think I was in earnest?
You were deceived. I now throw off the mask : I have
gained my point ; and I reject your offers with scorn." Is it
not a very possible case that he may use this language ? Is it
not within the right honourable gentleman's " knowledge of
human nature?" But even ii this should not be the case,
will not the very test which you require — the acquiescence
of the people of France in his government — give him art
advantage-ground in the negociation which he does not pose
sess now ? Is it quite sure, that when he finds himself safe
in his seat, he will treat on the same terms as now, and that
you will get a better peace some time hence, than you plight
reasonably hope to obtain at this moment ? Will he not have
one interest less than at present? And do you not overlaa'
a favourable occasion, for a chance which is extremely doubt-
ful ? These are the considerations which I would urge - t0ro
his majesty's ministers, against the dangerous experiment 1
waiting for the acquiescence of the people of France.


" If the allies of this country shall be less successful than
.3 •they have every reason to expect they will be, in stirring


000.]


CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.
45


the people of France against Bonaparte, and in the farther
onion of the war." And,
" the pressure of the war should be heavier upon us,


than it would be convenient for us to continue to bear."
These are the other two possible emergencies in which the
•ioht honourable gentlemen would treat even with Bonaparte.
Sir, I have often blamed the right honourable gentlemen for
being disingenuous and insincere. On the present occasion
j certainly cannot charge him with any such thing. He has
made to-night a most honest confession. He is open and
candid. He tells Bonaparte fairly what lie has to expect.


I mean," says he, "to do every thing in my rower to raise
up the people of France against you. I have engaged a
number of allies, and our combined efforts shall be used to
excite insurrection and civil war in France. I will strive to
murder you, or to get you sent away. If I succeed, well ;
but if I fail, then I will treat with you. My resources being
exhausted ; even my solid system of finance having failed•to
supply me with the means of keeping together my allies,
and of feeding the discontents I have excited in -France, then
you may expect to see me renounce my high tone, my at-
tachment to the house of Bourbon, my abhorrence of your
crimes, my alarm at your principles ; for then I shall be
ready .


to own, that, on the balance and comparison of cir-
cumstances, there will be less danger in concluding a peace,
than in the continuance of war !" Is this a language for one
state to hold to another? And what sort of peace does the
right honourable gentleman expect to receive in that case ?
Does he think that Bonaparte would grant, to baffled
s. olence, to humiliated. pride, to disappointment and to im-
becility.. the same terms which he would be ready to give
nwohlavt?i:e saidThe righthonourable gentleman cannot have foreotten


on another occasion,
" Potuit quay


plu•ima virtus
" Esse, 'fuit : toto certatum est corpore regui."


ani e-
laepl ication --He would have to say — all our efforts are
no would


l then.
have to repeat his words, but with a different


'llPractiel7blhave exhausted our strength — our designs area e — and we must sue to you for peace.
t_ Sir, what is the question this night? We are called upon


.. of


refusingu support ministers in e a frank, candid, and respectful
der ot neeociation, and to countenance them in continuinge


War. ,,, b
''''Pl)081e. ministers had


put the question in another way.
been inclined to adopt the line of(4dtlet which 1)_,,,,,,


t ley pursued .
n 5 796 and 5 797,


and thatl t, instead of a question on a war-address, it had been




for
the


412 OVERTURES OF PEACE rnom Tilt




P' 3leban address to his majesty, to thank him for accepting
overture, and for opening a negcciation to treat Tor Porte,
I ask the gentlemen opposite — I appeal to the whole
representatives of the people — to lay their hands upon their
hearts, and to say, whether they would not have cordia4
voted for such an address? Would they, or would they not*?
Yes, Sir, if the address had breathed a spirit of peace, your
benches would have resounded with rejoicings, -and with
praises of a measure that was likely to bring back the blessings
of tranquillity. On the present occasion, then, I ask for
vote of none, but of those who, in the secret confession of
their conscience, admit, at this instant, while they hear me,
that they would have cheerfully and heartily voted with the
minister for an address directly the reverse of. this. If every
such gentleman were to vote with me, I should be this night
in the greatest majority that ever I had the honour to vote
with in this House.


Sir, we have heard to-night a great many most acrimonious
invectives against Bonaparte, against the whole course of his




conduct, and against the unprincipled manner in which he
seized upon the reins of government. I will not make his
defence— I think all this sort of invective, which is used
only to inflame the passions of this House and of the country,
exceedingly and very impolitic —but I say I will
not make his defence. I am not sufficiently in possession of
materials upon which to form an opinion on the character
and conduct of this extraordinary man. Upon his arrival
in France, he found the government in a very unsettled state,
and the whole affairs of the republic deranged, crippled, and
involved. He thought it necessary to reform the govern•.
anent; and he did reform it, just in the way in which
military man may be expected to carry on a reform —lie
seized on the whole authority to himself. It will not be
expected from me, that I should either approve or apologia
for such an act. I am certainly not for reforming govern-
ments by such expedients; but how this House can be so
violently indignant at the idea of military despotism, is, 1
own, a little singular, when I see the composure with which
they can observe it nearer home; nay, when I see them
regard it as a frame of government most peculiarly suited to
the exercise of free opinion, on a subject the most important
of any that . can engage the attention of a people. Was:
not the system that was so happily and so advantageonslY
established, of late, all over Ireland; and which, even 11°':'e
the government may, at its pleasure, proclaim over the Ndille
of that kingdom ? Are not the persons and property o f Ye
people left, in many districts, at this moment, to the ontir


CONSULAR GOvERNMENT OF FRANCE.
4 13i8°C).3


„ill ,M ilitary commanders ? And is not this held out as
.. ettlicirty proper and advantageous, at a time when the


10


;ople of Ireland arc freely, anti with unbiassed judgments,
discuss the most interesting question of a legislative union?


votwithstanding the existence of martial law, so far do we
thin k Ireland from being enslaved, that we think it precisely
the period and the circumstances under which she may best
declare her free opinion ! Now, really, Sir, I cannot think
drat gentlemen, who talk in this way about Ireland, can,
with a good grace, rail at military despotism in France.


nut, it seems, " Bonaparte has broken his oaths. He has
violated his oath of fidelity to the constitution of the year 3."


am not one of those who think that any such oaths
oSii11;:litI ever to be exacted. They are seldom or ever of,
any.


effect; and I am not fbr sporting with a thing so sacred
as an oath. I think it would be good to lay aside all such
oaths. Who ever heard, that, in revolutions, the oath of
fidelity to the former government was ever regarded; or,
even when violated, that it was imputed to the persons as a
crime? In times of revolution, men who take up arms are
called rebels — If they fail, they are adjudged to he traitors.
But who ever heard before, of their being perjured ? On the
restoration of Charles those who had taken up arms for
the commonwealth, were stigmatized as rebels and traitors,
but not as men foresworn. Was the Earl of Devonshire
charged with being perjured, on account of the allegiance
he had sworn to the house of Stuart, and the part he took
in those struggles which preceded and brought about the
Revolution ? The violation of oaths of allegiance was never
imputed to the people of England, and will never be imputed
to any people. But who brings up the question of oaths?
He who strives to make twenty-four millions of persons
violate the oaths they have taken to their present constitution,
and who desires' to re-establish the house of Bourbon by
such violation of their vows. I put it so, Sir ; because, if
the question of oaths be of the least consequence, it is equal
on both sides. He who desires the whole people of France
to perjure themselves, and who hopes for success in his
Project only upon their doing so, surely cannot make it a
charge against Bonaparte that he has done the same.


" AO but Bonaparte has declared it as his opinion, that
the two governments of Great Britain and of France cannot
ex!st together. After the treaty of Campo Formio, lie sent
two confidential persons, Berthier and Monge, to the direc-
tory, to say so in his name." Well, and what is there in this
Absurd and puerile assertion, if' it was ever made? Has not
'He right honourable gentleman, in this House, said the same




414 OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE
[Feb


thing? In this, at least; they resemble one another. The,
have both made use of this assertion; and I believe, that
these two illustrious persons are the only two on earth who'
think it. But let us turn the tables. We ought to put
ourselves at times in the place of the enemy, if we are desirous
of really examining with candour and .thirnes.c th e disputesPute
between us. How may they not interpret the speeches of
ministers and their friends, in both Houses of the British
parliament? If we are to be told of the idle speech of Ber-
thier and Monge, may they not also bring up speeches, hi
which it has not been merely hinted, but broadly asserted,
that " the two constitutions of England and France could
not exist together ?" May not these offences and charges be
reciprocated without. cud ? Are we ever to go on in this
miserable squabble about Words? Are we still, as we happen
to be successful on the one side or other, to bring up these
impotent accusations, insults, and provocations, against each
other; and only when we are beaten and unfortunate to
think of treating? Oh ! pity the condition of man, gracious
God ! and save us from such a system of malevolence, in
which all our old and venerated prejudices are to be done
away, and by which we are to be taught to consider war as
the natural state of man, and peace but as a dangerous and
difficult extremity !


Sir, this temper must be corrected. It is a diabolical
spirit, and would lead to interminable war. Our history is
full of instances, that where we have overlooked a proffered
occasion to treat, we have uniformly suffered by delay. At
what time did we ever profit by obstinately persevering iu
war? We accepted at Ryswick the terms we had refused
'five years before, and the same peace which was concluded at
Utrecht might have been obtained at. Gertruydenberg. And
as to security from the future machinations or ambition of
the French, I ask you, what security you ever had, or could
have? Did the different treaties made with Louis XIV• serve
to tie up his hands, to restrain his ambition, or to stifle his
restless spirit ? At what period could you safely repose ill
the honour, forbearance, and moderation of the French g o-
vernment? \Vas there ever an idea of refusing to treat/
because the peace might be afterwards insecure? The peace
of 1 7 63 was not accompanied with securities; and it


was no


sooner made, than the French court began, as usuab its
intrigues. And what security did the right hOnourable
•tleman exact at the peace of [78 3 , in which he was onpg("{",,
Were we rendered secure by that peace ? The ri.fL
nourable gentleman knows well, that soon after that•-
the French formed a plan, in conjunction 'with the Out"'


18°0.3 CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF ERANCE, 415
of attacki ng our India possessions, of raising up the native
flowers against us, and of driving us out of India; as the
'French are desirous 'of doing now — only with this dif-
ference, that the cabinet of France entered into this project
is a moment of profound peace, and when they conceived us
to be lulled into perfect security. After making the peace of
178 3 , the right honourable gentleman and his friends went
out, and I, among others, came into office. Suppose, Sir,
that we had taken up the jealousy upon which the right
honourable gentleman now acts, and had refused to ratify
the peace which he had made. Suppose that we had said —
No ; France is acting a perfidious part we see no security
for England in this treaty they want only a respite, in
order to attack us again in an important part of our domi-
nions; and we ought not to confirm the treaty. I ask, would
the right honourable gentleman have supported us in this
refusal? I say, that upon his present reasoning lie ought; but
I put it fairly to him, would he have supported us in refusing
to ratify the treaty upon such a pretence ? He certainly ought
not, and I am sure he would not; but the course of reasoning
Which he now assumes would have justified his taking such
a ground. On the contrary, I am persuaded that lie would
have said—" This is a refinement upon jealousy. Security !
You have security, the only security that you can ever expect
to get. It is the present interest of France to make peace_
She will keep it if it be her interest : she will break it if it
be her interest : such is the state of nations; and you have
nothing but your own vigilance for your security."


" It is not the interest of Bonaparte," it seems, " sincerely
to enter into a negotiation, or, if he should even make peace,.
sincerely to keep it." But how are we to decide upon his


11 1'history


sincerity ? By refusing to treat with him ? Surely, if we mean
to discover his sincerity,. we ought to hear the propositions
which he desires to make. " But peace would be unfriendly
to his system of military despotism." Sir, I hear a great deal
about nature of military despotism. I wish
the° of the world would bear gentlemen out in this
descriptio




by of military despotism. Was not the government
Augustus Casar a military despotism ? And yet


It endured lbr six or seven hundred years. Military despo-
tism, unfortunately, is too likely in its nature to `be permanent,
and it


.
is not trite that it depends on the life of the first


usurper. Though half the Roman emperors were murdered,
yet the military despotism went on; and so it would be, I
'ear,in France. If Bonaparte should disappear from the
`Celle. , to make room, perhaps, for a Berthier, or any other
Vriera




I, what difference would that make hi the quality 'of
II


'3.




416 OVEItTLIREs OF PLACE BROW'. Tut [Feb, 3,
French despotism, or in our relation to the country? we
may as safely treat with a Bonaparte, or with any of his
successors, be they who they may,as we could with a
Louis XVI., a Louis XVII., or a Louis XVIII. There i s no
difference but in the name. Where the power essentially
resides, thither we ought to go for peace.


But, Sir, if we are to reason on the fact, I should think
that it is the interest of Bonaparte to make peace. A lover
of military glory, as that general must necessarily be, may
he not think that his measure of glory is full — that it may
be tarnished by a reverse of fortune, and can illitt,ricellsynbiaetioni;
creased by any new laurels? He must feel, that, ;
to wineh he is now raised, lie can no longer depend on his
own fortune, his own genius, and his own talents, for a con-
tinuance of his success; he must be under the necessity of
employing other generals, whose misconduct or incapacity
might endanger his power, or whose triumphs even might
affect the interest which he holds in the opinion of the
French. Peace, then, would secure to him what he has
achieved, and fix the inconstancy of fortune. But this will
not be his only motive. He must see that France also re-
quires a respite — a breathing interval, to recruit her wasted
strength. To procure her this respite, would be, perhaps,
the attainment of more solid glor y, as well as the means of
acquiring more solid power, than any thing which he CM
hope to gain from arms, and from the proudest triumphs.
sMay he not then be zealous to gain this finne, the only species
of fame, perhaps, that is worth acquiring? Nay, granting
that his soul may still burn with the thirst of military exploits,
is it not likely that he is disposed to yield to the feelings of
the French people, and to consolidate his power by coa-
suiting their interests ? I have a right to argue in this ivay,
when suppositions of his insincerity are reasoned upon on
the other side. Sir, these aspersions are in truth always idle,
and even mischievous. I have been too long accustomed
hear imputations and calumnies thrown out upon great mid
honourable characters, to be much influenced by them. Y.
honourable and learned friend (Mr. Erskine) has paid this
night a most just, deserved, and honourable tribute of elr
plause, to the memory of that great and unparalleled charaet,e1
who has been so recently lost to the world. I must, 111c
him, beg leave to dwell a moment on the venerable George
Washington, though I know that it is impossible for me le
bestow any thing like adequate praise on a character
gave us, more than any other human being, the example
n`
a perfect man; yet, good, great, and unexampled as Genero't,
-


Washington was, I can remember the time when he w as '1


/8001 CON'SVLAR GOvERNMENT OP PII.4.NcE.
41 7


better spoken of in this House than Bonaparte is now. The
iiri llaait lsi)onourable gentleman who opened this debate (Mr.
pandas) may remember in what terms of disdain, of viru-
lence, and even of contempt, General Washington was spoken
of by gentlemen on that side of the House. Does lie not
recollect with what marks of indignation any member was
Stigmatized as an enemy to his country, who mentioned with
common respect the name of General Washington ? If a
wrociation had then been proposed to be opened with that


T
great man, what would have been said ? " Would you treat


i t ii
a rebel, a traitor ! What an example would you not


give by , such an act !" I do not know whether the right
Honourable gentleman may not yet possess some of his old
prejudices on the subject. I hope not. I hope by this time
we are all convinced that a republican government, like that
of America, may exist without danger or injury to social
order, or to established monarchies. They have happily
shewn that they can maintain the relations of peace and
amity with other states: they have shewn, too, that they are
alive to the feelings of honour; but they do not lose sight
of plain good sense and discretion. They have not refused
to negociate with the French, and they have accordingly the
hopes of a speedy termination of every difference. We cry
up their conduct, but we do not imitate it. At the beginning
of the struggle, we were told, that the French were setting
up a set of wild and .


impracticable theories, and that we ought
not to be misled by them — we could not grapple with
theories. Now we are told that we must not treat, because,
out of the lottery, Bonaparte has drawn such a prize as
militaryita, ry despotism. Is military despotism a theory? One
would think that that is one of the practical things which
ministers might understand, and to which they would have
no particular objection. But what is- our present conductfounded on but a theory, and that a most wild and ridiculous


? What are we fighting for? Not for a principle;
not for security; not for conquest even; but merely fortl'Acilwetxapkeexperimento beand.


a speculation, to discover whether agentleman at Paris may not turn out a better man than we
I, My honourable friend (Mr. Whitbread) has been censured
Change


opinion which he gave, and I think justiy, that the
of property in France since the Revolution must form1 almost insurmountable barrier to the return of the antient1)1.


°Prletors. " No such thing," says the right honourableent'7nall
• " nothing can be more easy. Property is depre-


ted such a degree; that the purchasers would easily be
l'qAt to restore the estates." I very much differ with hiftr





I


lr


r,


4 1 t OVERTURES OF PEACE FROM THE


in this idea. It is the character of every such convulsion „
that which has ravaged France, that an infinite and indeserib:
able load of misery is inflicted upon private families.
heart sickens at the recital of the sorrows which it engender„
No revolution implied, though it may have occasioned, a toti"
change of property. The restoration of the Bourbons doe'
imply it ; and there is the difference. There is no doubt but


i
that if the noble families had foreseen the duration and the
extent of the evils which were to fall upon their heads, they
would have taken a very different line of conduct. But they
unfortunately flew from their country. The king and ad
visers sought foreign aid. A confederacy was formed to restore
them by military force ; and as a means of resisting this corn:
bination, the estates of the fugitives were confiscated and sold.
However compassion may deplore the case, it cannot be said
that the thing is unprecedented. The people have always re-
sorted to such means of defence. Now the question is, how
this property is to be got out of their hands? If it be true, as
I have heard, that the purchasers of national and forfeited
estates amount to t,soo,octo persons, I see no hopes of their
being forced to deliver up their property ; nor do I even know
that they ought. I question the policy, even if the thing were
practicable ; but I assert, that such a body of new proprietors
forms an insurmountable barrier to the restoration of the
antient order of things. Never was a revolution consolidated
by a pledge so strong.


But, as if this were not of itself sufficient, Louis XVIII.
from his retirement at Mittau puts forth a manifesto, in
which he assures the friends of his house, that he is about to
come back with all the powers that formerly belonged to Ills
family. He does not promise to the people a constitution
which may tend to conciliate; but, stating that he is to come
with all the ancien .17g-ime, they would naturally attach to
it its proper appendages of bastiles, lettres de cachet, gabelle,
&c. And the noblesse, for whom this proclamation was p e


-culiarly conceived, would also naturally feel, that
monarch was to be restored to all his privileges, they surely
were to be reinstated in their estates without a compensation
to the purchasers. Is this likely to make the people wish it."
the restoration of royalty ? have no doubt but there may,
a number of Chonans in France, though I am persuad ed tea`


if the


little dependence is to be placed on their efforts. There TaY
be a number of people dispersed over France, and partiT,
larly in certain provinces, who may retain a degree of at.tato
ment to royalty : and how the government


.t
will contive


compromise with that spirit, I know not. I snspec-, how


QYer,. that Bonaparte will try ; effol-ts . have been, turne
d




341860 CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.


object ; and, if we may believe report, he has succeededthntto a considerable degree. He will naturally call to his recol-
lection the precedent which the history of France itself will
furn i sh. The once formidable insurrection of the Hugonots
os completely stifled, and the party conciliated, by the policy
0f. Henry IV., who gave them such privileges and raised
them, so high in the government, as to make some persons
apprehen d danger therefrom to the unity of the empire. . Nor
gill the French be likely to forget the revocation of the edict
_one of the memorable acts of the house of Bourbon — art
get which was never surpassed in atrocity, injustice, and
olicy,


im-
p licv, by any thing that has disgraced jacobinism. If Bo-
naparte shall attempt some similar arrangement to that of
Henry IV. with the Chouans, who will say that he is likely to


He will meet with no great obstacle to success from the
influence which our ministers have established with the chiefs,
or in the attachment and dependence which they have on our
protection; for what has the right honourable gentleman told


F ile, in stating the contingencies in which he will treat with
Bonaparte ? He will excite a rebellion in France — he will


b
dive support to the Chouans, if they can stand their ground
ut he will not make common cause with them : for unless


they can depose Bonaparte, send him into banishment, or
execute him, he will abandon the Chouans, and treat with this
very man, whom, at the same time, he describes as holding
the reins anti wielding the powers of France for purposes of
unexampled barbarity.


Sir, I wish the atrocities of which we hear so much, and
which I abhor as much as any man, were, indeed, unex-
mpled. I fear that theo not belong exclusively to the
Tench. When the right honourable gentleman speaks of the
xtraordinary successes of the last campaign, he does not mention
e horrors by which some of those successes were accompanied.Maples, for instance, has been, among others, what is_ called
del ivered;" and yet, ill am rightly informed, it has been stained
d polluted by murders so ferocious, and by cruelties of every


ad so abhorrent, that the heart shudders at the recital. lc


n


tl


as been said, not only that the miserable victims of time


PI °ach, if the rumours which are circulated be true. I will


e cane
c ntsof


social order ! N


geh and brutality of the fanatics were savagely murdered,


by t
t that, in m


ibaan
ls, y i wnsthoances,


thare thea
ir
d


fle
voshates


was
and


l


the
an


i
d
n dstru


evoure
m ed


ay, England
m, is not totally excempt from


itdse a fact, to give ministers the opportunity, if it be
111,Wnts?r Wiping away the stain that it must otherwise fix on the


ta
ish name. It is said, that a party of the republican inha-


01 Naples took shelter in the fortress of the Castel de
E 2


41




42©


Oyu:runts or PEACE FROM TIM Ereb, 3.
Um. They were besieged by a detachment from the
army, to whom they refused to surrender; but demattaal
that a British officer should be brought forward, and to Beni
theyt e capitulated. They made terms with him under fie
sanction of the British name. It was agreed, that their le) mr per.
sons and property should be safe, and that they should b


econveyed to Toulon. They were accordingly put on board l
vessel ; but before they sailed, their property was confisca ted,
numbers of them taken out, thrown into dungeons, and soul
of them, I understand, notwithstanding the British guarantee,
actually executed..


Where then, Sir, is this war, which on every side is preg.
nant with such horrors, to be carried? Where is it to stop?
Not till you establish the house of Bourbon ! And this you
cherish the hope of doing, because you have had a successful
campaign. Why, Sir, before this you have had a successful
campaign. The situation of the allies, with all they have
gained, is surely not to be compared now to what it was when
you had taken Valenciennes-, Quesnoy, Conde, &c. which
induced some gentlemen in this House to prepare themselves
for a march to Paris. 'With all that you have gained, you
surely will not say that the prospect is brighter now than it
was then. What have you gained but the recovery of a part
of what you before lost ? One campaign is successful to you


another to them ; and in this way, animated by the vin-
dictive passions of revenge, hatred, and rancour, which are
infinitely more flagitious, even, than those of ambition and
the thirst of power, you may go on for ever ; as, with such
black incentives, I see no end to human misery. And all thii
without an intelligible motive—all this because you may gain
a better peace a year or two hence ! So that we arc called
upon to go on merely as a speculation — We must keep Bo-
amparte for some time longer at war, as a state of probation.
Gracious God, Sir ! is war a state of probation ? Is peace 3
rash system ? Is it dangerous for nations to live in amitY
with each other? Is your vigilance, your policy, your com-
mon powers of observation, to be extinguished by putting
end to the horrors of war ? Cannot this state of probation he
as well undergone without adding to the catalogue of human
sufferings? " But we must pause What ! must the bowel'
of Great Britain be torn out—her best blood be spilt
treasure wasted—that you may make an experiment ?
yourselves—oh ! thatyou would put yourselves—in the fiel


d


of battle, and learn to judge of the sort of horrors that ye!
excite. In former wars a man might, at least, have soir`
feeling, some interest, that served to balance in his mind
impressions which a scene of carnage and of death must 11i-
flict. If a mall had been present at the battle of Blenlic`


CONSULAR GOVERNMENT OF PRANCE.
42T15°1


4.,r instance, and had inquired the motive of the battle, there
'-cn- s not a soldier engaged who could not have satisfied his


and even, perhaps, allayed his feelings — they were
iii,/111,t°isiii,gtV' to repress the uncontrouled ambition of the grand
monarque. But, if a man were present now at a field of
,laughter, and were to inquire for what they were fighting


righting I" would be the answer; " they are not tightly,
46 Why is that man expiring ? Why is


tii11 ,adrie r :rIsiti'Fir.; with agony? What means this implacable
fury ?" The answer must be, " You are quite wrong, Sir,
you deceive yourself They arc not fighting — Do not dis-
turb them — they are merely pausing ! — this man is not ex-
piring with agony — that man is not dead —he is only paus-
ing I Lord help you, Sir ! they are not angry with one
wither; they have now no cause of quarrel — but their
country thinks that there should be a pause. All that you
see, Sir, is nothing like fighting — there is no harm, nor
cruelty, nor bloodshed in it whatever—it is nothing mare
than a political pause ! — it is merely to try an experiment—
to see whether Bonaparte will not behave himself better than
heretofore ; and in the mean time we have agreed to a pause,
in pure friendship !" And is this the way, Sir, that you are
to shew yourselves the advocates of order? You take up a
system calculated to uncivilize the world, to detroy order, to
trample on religion, to stifle in the heart, not merely the ge.
nerosity of noble sentiment, but the affections of social nature ;
and in the prosecution of this system, you spread terror and
devastation all around you.


Sir, I have done. I have told you my opinion. I think
you ought to have given a civil, clear, and explicit answer to
the overture which was fairly and handsomely made you. If
you were desirous that the negotiation should have included


before,




b
all


allies, as the means of bringing about a general peace,
you should have told Bonaparte so; but I believe you were
,afraid of his agreeing to the proposal. You took that method


"Aye, but," you say, " the people were anxious for
Peace in 797." I say they are friends to peace now; and I am
confident that you will one day own it. Believe me, they aref
riends to peace; although, by the laws which you have made,


re
straining the expression of the sense of the people, public


opinion cannot now be heard loudly unequivocally
uivocall asheretofore. But I will not go into the internal stateof ythis


411ch
‘1,,


3


,


. It is too afflicting to the heart to see the strides
have been made, by means of, and under the miserablepretext
of this war, against liberty of every kind, both of


the and ppof writing; and to observe in another kingdom
' r pid aroaches to that military despotism vrilich we Ail'


EE 3




422


MR. GREY'S MOTION ON [March 23
feet to make an argument against peace. I know, Sir, that
public opinion, if it could be collected, would be for Peace, as
much now as in 17 97 , and I know that it is only by public
opinion—not by a sense of their duty —not by the inclinatio n or
their minds — that ministers will be brought, if ever, to give us
peace. I conclude, Sir, with repeating what I said before:
I ask for no gentleman's vote who would have reprobated the
compliance of ministers with the proposition of the French-
government; I ask for no gentleman's supporthat(ofig
who would have voted against ministers, if they to-night
down and proposed to enter into a negotiation with theFrenchi
but I have a right to ask — I know, that in honour, in con.
sistency, in conscience, I have a right to expect, the vote of
every gentleman who would have voted with ministers in an
address to his majesty, diametrically opposite to the motion
of this night.


The House divided on the address
Tellers. Tellers.


Ld. llawkesbury} Mr. Whitbreadl,YEAS zo5.—NOES v4,{Mr. Canning Mr. Sheridan


...nn•••n•••11


MR. GREY'S MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.


March 25. aor.'


THIS day Mr. Grey moved, " That the House will resolve itselfinto a committee to take into consideration the state of the
nation." The motion was seconded by Mr. Whitbread, and sup-
ported by Earl Temple, Sir William Young, and Mr. Fox. It
was opposed by Mr. May, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Addington, the new chan-
cellor of the exchequer, and Mr. Dundas, As soon as Mr. Pitt
had concluded his speech,


On the 1 4 th of March r8or, Mr. Pitt resigned the offices of first lord
of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer; upon which a complet e
change of administration took place. The New Administration consisted
of,


t on,First Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer—Righ li


President
Henry Addington,


of the Council — Duke of Portland.
Lord Chancellor Lord Eldon.
Lord Privy Seal — Earl of Westmoreland.
First Lord of the Admiralty—Earl St. Vincent.
Master-General of the Ordnance —Earl of Chatham.
Secretary of State for the Home Department — Lord Pelham,


i'so 1.3 THE STATE OF THE NATION. 423


Air. Fox rose and spoke as follows : — Sir, late as the hour
shall beg leave, even under the designation of " a new


;ember," by which the right honourable gentleman (Mr Pitt)has complimented me, to avail myself of the indulgence
which the House usually shews to a person of that description ;
a nd, unwilling as I am to trespass long upon your attention,
it will be difficult to dismiss very shortly the whole of the ar-
(foments that apply to the question befbre the House ; espe-
ciall y after the confused state in which the right honourable
gentleman's speech has left the real matters at issue, and that
laboriou s complication which renders it not an easy task to
methodize a reply, or put one's argument into plain and
distinct order. First, I shall take the liberty of adverting to
that part of the right honourable gentleman's speech (cer-
tainly not the most solid or splendid part of it) which relates
personally to myself; and of which the introduction, upon
the present occasion, is a decisive proof how bereft of real
defence the right honourable gentleman must feel himself,
when he is driven to the expedient of reviving a circumstance
which has but little analogy to the point before you ; and
which, when explained and understood, will lend not the
least sanction or support to the system of his majesty's late
ministers, respecting the question between this country and
the northern powers.


I certainly did, in my capacity of secretary of state, offer,
by his majesty's command, to the Empress of Russia, in the
year 1782, the recognition of the principle in question, for
the purpose of inducing that princess to enter into a closer
alliance with this country. In rejecting the insinuation, of


Secretary of State for Foreign Affitirs— Lord Hawkesbury.
Ditto for the Department of War and the Colonies — Lord Hobart.President of the Board of Controul for the Affairs of India — Lord Vis-


count Lewisham.Secretary at 'War — Right Hon. Charles Yorke.Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—Earl of Liverpool.Tr
easurer of the Navy Right Hon. Dudley Ryder (afterwards Lord


Harrowhy).Joint Paymaster of his Majesty's Forces — Right Hon. Thomas Steele,
Lord Glenhery ie.d_oint Postmaster-General — Lord Auckland, Lord Charles Spencer.


ecretaries of the Treasury — John Hiley Addington Esq. Nicholas Van-
,. sittar


h
t, Esq.


'1aster of t e Rolls— Sir William Grant.


Chief


eo'le
5torn,.) ..
, v General — Sir Edward Law (afterwards Lord Ellenborough).itor


-General — Hon. Spencer Perceval.rd Lieutenant— Earl of Hard.(1 Chancellor — Earl of Clare.wi cke
•Secretary —Lord Castlereagh.aneellor of Exchequer— Right Hon. Isaac Corry.


B E 4


of Ireland:
3




424 MR. GREY'S MOTION ON [March 2 5•
this proposal being my sole act, let me not be understood t
shrink from that measure as " rash and inconsiderate:" on the
contrary, I affirm that it was most wise, timely, and judicious.
but, for the sake of truth, let it be remembered, that
measure which it fell officially to my lot to propose to the
court of Russia, at the time alluded to, was of course the mea.
sure of the king's whole council ; which council consisted
of some of the greatest names in the country, such as the
Marquis of Rockingham, Lord John Cavendish, the Duke of
Richmond, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Keppel, &c.
It was, in a word, the act of an administration which has been
the least censured, and the most praised, of any that have
existed during the king's reign.


The right honourable gentleman challenges any person to
discuss the question with the neutral powers, as " a statesman
or a lawyer." Now, though I can venture to touch the matter
only in the first of these characters, I can assure the House
that the concession, whatever it was, of the ministry, which I
offered as our joint act to the Empress of Russia in the year
1782, had the concurrence of as great lawyers as ever distin-
guished this country at any one period : for whatever may
have been the other defects of that short administration, in it
there certainly was no want of eminent lawyers. No less than
three of the luminaries of that profession, namely, Lords Ash-


. burton, Camden, and Thurlow, were members of that cabinet;
and far enough from thinking that the offer then made to the
Russian court, "laid at the feet of that government all the
sources of the naval greatness of this country," to repeat the
rant of the right honourable gentleman, these learned and
noble persons, together with the whole body of that adminis-
tration, were profoundly convinced, not that what we offered
was slight and trifling, but that, important as it was, it would
have been highly to the advantage of this country that our
proposal had been adopted by the government of Russia.


In making this offer, I was so far from being.mysterious,—
so little apprehension did we feel that our proposition to Russia
would involve our country in any of the perils from other-
powers which the fatuity of the right honourable gentlemany
ministry has brought upon it, that, instead of sending througli
the more usual channel of our ambassador at that court, wil,°5
if I mistake not, was Lord Malmesbury, I applied here ta,
reedy to M. Simolin, the Russian minister at this court, e,1a_
with him endeavoured to accomplish the negotiation.
him I offered a quid pro quo ; and meant to give nothing
out getting a full equivalent. I wished to separate Rusgarto
tirely from any connections injurious to Great Britain, an
attach that power solidly and permanently to this


II


1801•


THE STATE or THE NATION.


42$


Mlle right honourable gentleman has dwelt with some satis-1.
faction


upon the expressions ofmy letter to M. Simolin. He
has the advantage over me, of having lately read that let-
ter in the office, and seems, strangely enough, to think
that he derives some pretext for his own policy, in my
description of the magnitude of our proposed concessions
in 17 82. Why, what would the right honourable gentleman,
or any other man, think of me, if I wrote otherwise than he
states me to have written upon that occasion ? If he were ne-
aociating with France about the surrender of Belgium, the
retention of which he had so lately made a sine qud non, would
he begin by understating the extent, fertility, and population
of those provinces ? I, of course, did not begin by depreci-
ating to the government of Russia the very boon I was ten-
dering as an inducement to a great and beneficial alliance.


The right honourable gentleman rejoices in the failure of
that negotiation, in as much as its success would have enabled
Russia to protect the commerce of France, and been the means
of preventing this country from annihilating it, in the present
war. What ! Russia assist the commerce of France? Russia!
the loudest in thundering its maledictions against the French
Revolution — the first to profess its zeal in the crusade? —the
very power who formally waved this neutral principle, declar-
ing that all general principles should yield to the superior ob-
ject of overthrowing " regicide republicanism," and every
thing else with which the royal coalition had stigmatised the
French in this war? As to the destruction of the French trade,
is it certain that all the efforts of all the combined powers, or
any possible effect arising from the most successful assertion
of what the government of En gland is now contending fly,
have hurt the commerce of France so much as its own disor-go:tienil


lziitiotr


honourable


of all kinds upon that subject since the period of
the Revolution ? I believe not. Besides, do you set down for
nothing the captures made by your own fleets? In a word,


„ ge tleman will find nothing in the mea-
'are, to which he has alluded with so ludicrous a triumph, to
CoLULtellailCC the system he has pursued towards the northern
Powers to the consideration of which I shall now proceed,
ablehaving said this much in relation to what the right honour-gentleman has directed so personally at myself.
b The question with the northern powers has been divided
y


the right honourable gentleman into five parts. These five
I shall reduce into three ; namely, Free bottoms making free
g°°(4—


The contraband of war The rightof search underdrivo3• These three heads (comprehending the collateral and
e ePel?dent questions of blockade, and the carrying of the


a..
sting .and colonial trade of belligerents, by abuse of the


urst
and third poposition,) form the essence of the present




426 MR. GREY'S MOTION ON March 2g
.


dispute with the northern powers, and which, in common /lc_
ceptation, is called " the neutral principle."


Whether this neutral principle be jacobinical or not, its
origin iscertainly of more antiquity than the French Revolo,
mil, being as old as the middle of the last century, and Flavin,.
for its patron and propounder no less a republican tha°
Frederick the Great. That prince was undoubtedly a phi.
losopher, and by some deemed not quite orthodox in his
theology. This neutral principle might therefore with as much
reason be called deistical as jacobinical; and if the right ho.
mumble gentleman had now been in as high favour with the
church as in past times, possibly he might get this point, for
Which the powers of the north are contending, branded with
some such epithet by ecclesiastical authority ; in the same
manner as, towards the end of the seventeenth century, the
university of Oxford declared, that the principles which led to
the assertion and conservation of the British constitution, and
which seated the present royal family upon the throne of
England, were " doctrines tendingand atheism." The one
imputation is as just as the other; and jacobinism applies with
exactly as much truth to the neutral question, as atheism to
the principles of the English Revolution. In reality, Sir, the
right honourable gentleman's indiscriminate cry of Jacobin !
J
acobin ! to every thing and person that he dislikes, has


brought utter contempt upon his continual cant. He has worn
it out: and all the terrors he would conjure up from it are
become an absolute bugbear. With far more grace and like-
lihood might this term " jacobin" be retorted upon himself,
and several indeed of his own measures, — of which one of
the most recent might, perhaps, in the judgment of many,
(though I am not disposed so to describe it,) be considered as
strictly such : I mean the right honourable gentleman's late,
communication to the catholics of Ireland, upon the event of
his resignation.


The next - assertor of this neutral question was that impla-
cable zealot in jacobinical faith, that virulent propagator of
revolutionary doctrines, the late Empress of Russia ; who, in
the year 178o and 1781, entered, with all the other northern
powers, into a confederacy, differing, I apprehend, in nothing
from that which the right honourable gentleman has stigma'
tised so copiously this night; except, as I understand,T bY.
some additional precautions in the recent league. 1-\°v"
would any body believe that this right honourable gentleman.
in his capacity of cabinet-minister, should, in less than too
years after that confederacy was formed, avail himself of


e


Iii
mediation of those very powers between Ns country


and t


enemies and that preliminaries of peace (negotiated by
a"


1801.3


THE STATE OF THE NATION.
427


administration of which he himself was a part) should be
actually signed under the auspices of that very Empress or
Russia, the grand authoress of what he now calls " jacobini-
cal revolutionary principles, violative of treaties, subversive of
the law of nations, starting a code of new and monstrous max-
ims," and all the other strong abuse which, in the prodigality
of his invectives, he has passed upon this new alliance — a
mere fac-simile of the old? and, after all, what does this prove,
but that the right honourable gentleman's obloquies now are of
just as much value as his encomiums last year upon the "mag-
nanimity" of some of these very powers, — both the one and
the other being mere noise, and signifying nothing ? How-
ever, Sir, regarding the first formation of this confederacy in
the year 178o and 1781, the right honourable gentleman
says, that this court, though too weak to resist it by force,
never admitted the principle of that confederacy; and that
Lord Stormont protested against it.
• Here let me remark, that the opposition of that day, like
this of the present, had their cant reproaches vented by the
supporters of the one administration as well as the other.
Flow could we be always right, they said, who always opposed
the right and the wrong?— or if we concurred, then it was
" a fit of candour." The truth, Sir, is, that neither did we
then, nor do we now complain, but from a full conviction that
we had just cause. Even the right honourable gentleman has
had our votes when we conscientiously felt that we could
agree with him ; and, notwithstanding all the heat of party
at the period of the American war alluded to, not a breath of
blame did we throw upon the ministers of those days for their
discreet and measured conduct respecting the confederacy at
that period formed by the neutral powers. In that " fit of
ca


ndour," if such it was, the right honourable gentleman him-
self was with us ; but he is now quite sure that what he thenthought good sense and good management was owing to weak-
ness. In nothing were the right honourable gentleman and
myself more of one mind, than in general censure of that ad-
mini


stration : against their conduct, in this case, however, weMur
mured not one word ; for, without conceding any neces-


arY point, we thought their discretion, in that instance, saved
c
ountry from a war with the northern powers; and our


naval history since that period, vouches that their caution didnot s
acrifice the sources of our maritime greatness. That


overmnen t
did not revolt the feelings of Europe by sending


fleets to a feeble power, to carry by force what it aright
'a_ln by.


-argument
• nor did it follow the example of capriciousdiPo


nsin, in laying embargoes upon Danish and Swedish
14°Perty in British ports. These improvements in diplomacy,




423 Mt. GREY'S MoT EMarchION


these encouragements to commerce, were reserved for the right
honourable gentleman.


Now, with regard to the first of the three branches into
which I have divided the heads of my argument, I have no
hesitation in saying, that, as a general proposition, 44 free bat.
toms do not make free goods ;" and that, as an axiom, it is
supported neither by the law of nations nor of common sense.
The law of nations is but a body of regulations founded upon
equal justice, and applying equally to all nations, for the coin.
anon interest of all. If a state of war did not involve its own
inconveniencies, the temptations to war would be endless, and
might keep nations in perpetual misery. It is, therefore, for
the general advantage, that belligerents should feel the inju-
ries of abridged and restricted trade, because it is an induce-
ment to peace ; and if, on the other hand, the commerce of a
power at war, as well as the materials of offence, could be
legally carried on by a neutral, the benefit of maritime pre-
ponderance would be wholly lost — a thing as much at vari-
ance with common sense, as it would be repugnant to reason,
that mere naval superiority should despise every rule of rela-
tive justice, and by bare-faced power, make its own will the
law of the ocean.


The only difficulty would be, which to condemn as most
monstrous, a neutral, pretending to the right of supplying
one belligerent with all the means of mischief to another ; or
a belligerent, insisting upon a universal right of search in all
cases, and making innocEnt commerce the sport of its whim,
in express contempt of specific regulation. It is between these
extremes that the general interest of the commonwealth of
nations finds the true medium ; as the numberless treaties be-
tween the different states of Europe sufficiently demonstrate.
From these treaties the most general inference is for the ge-
neral freedom of commerce ; but every one of them contains
exceptions to, and qualifications of, this principle ;
though general, is not universal. So much with regard to
free bottoms making free goods : which, however, is not the
question at issue between this court and the neutral powers;
because, if it were, it would exclude all consideration of the
two other heads of this discussion ; namely, 44 the contra-
band of war," (a point not disputed, as I understand, by til
northern powers,) and 44 the right of search," which, and ei
Certain limitations, is expressly recognized.


The contraband of war is the mere creature of conven,"
Lion ; the very articles which are declared contraband ;175


one power being innocent commerce with another.
point, thus varying and contradictory, the right honouraebilee,
gentleman would reduce into something wonderful ly ig',


jot.) THE STATE OF THE NATION, 429
instead of resting it upon the specific text of a treaty, he would
snake it depend solely upon the will of the strongest. He knows
fir better than they who negociated them what the treaties meant.
Thus, if naval materials were defined as lawful commerce, in
wine treaties, the right honourable gentleman says they were
iiot prohibited as contraband, only because the contracting na-
tion at that time did not trade in such articles. So, too, if in
the treaty with Holland of 167 4 66 hemp, flax, and pitch ;
ropes, sails, and anchors; masts, planks, boards, beams, of
what sort of wood soever, and all other materials for building
or repairing ships," are, in the very words of the treaty, do-
dared to be " wholly free goods, wares, and commodities," as
expressly contradistinguished from contraband, the right ho-
nourable gentleman gives you two unanswerable reasons why
you should hold these treaties as nothing in this discussion:
first, says he, because it was not then foreseen that such things
could be implements of war: secondly, or if it had been fore-
seen, the exclusion of such articles from contraband, in fa-
vour of the Dutch, does not affect the general principle, in as
much as the Dutch were likely to be always allies of this
country, or at least friendly. And the first of these power-
ful arguments he strengthens by a very fine hypothesis:
"suppose," adds the right honourable gentleman, "gunpowder
had been invented subsequent to any treaty in which it was
not declared to be contraband, what sort of a minister would he
be who would admit a neutral power to assist his enemy with
gunpowder, merely because it happened not to have been'dis-
covered when the contraband of war had been settled with
such neutral?" Excellent illustration ! Why, Sir, in such a
case we should have all said the same thing; but how con-
temptible is it to imply the present to be such a case ! What
an honour to the close of the eighteenth century to have found
out, not exactly the invention of gunpowder, but that hemp,
pitch, ropes, sails, anchors, and masts, are become implements
of war, which they were not in in 1654


and 1674
! What aluiraculous talent of expounding treaties must not that righthonourable gentleman be gifted with, who would make those


articles contraband to the rest of the world which were de-
ell6a7r4ed,


that the
o the Dutch, because it was considered certain, in


Dutch must be always allies or friends of


!Ills
land ! even the Dutch, who, within only twenty years before


treaty, waged three of the bloodiest wars with this coun-9, that it ever before sustained with any naval enemy ! Are1.11,e
names of De Ruyter and Van Tromp so forgotten, in


Ce'll
Ha/ that is to say, two years after the cessation of war with4,


and, that the hostility of their country to this may not
as l ikely as its friendship ? Axid might not the glories of




430 MR. GREY'S MOTION OW [March 2.5.


these celebrated men afford some distant guess, that ier
tch, ropes, sails, anchors, and masts," were in their life-time 13


implements of war?— Why, Sir, can there be a clearer proof
what the right honourable gentleman thinks of this Hous e,
than his offerino. such an argument as this, in palliation f -5c
new war, which his wantonness and want of the corn 'monest
discretion has brought upon the country ?


From the words which I have quoted, you see that these
concessions were made to Holland in the treaty of 16 74. Ne,
body can be ignorant how that country availed itself. of all its
privileges, either of natural right or of treaty, during the
seven years' war, as well as during that which was terminated
at Aix-la-Chapelle. Throughout these wars, Ilolland carried
every neutral right to its utmost extent of exertion. Did all
this exertion disable this country from crippling the marine
of France during these contests ? And if this concession, to
so industrious a race as the Dutch, the general carriers of
Europe, produced neither facilities to France nor injury to us,
let me ask, if there be a prudent man on earth who would have
provoked extremities with Russia, a power that has scarcely
any carrying trade whatever, about a point which, in the
hands of the Dutch, was absolutely nugatory as to all those
dangers which the propensity to this war has discovered and
magnified?


But the right honourable gentleman flatters himself that he
has found out something auspicious to his cause, in recollect-
ing that I condemned, at the time of the French commercial
treaty in 1787, your granting this very point to France.
What a cause of triumph for the honourable gentleman!
That I censured, as most undoubtedly I did, the cession of a
principle to a country which the experience of ages proved to
be a kind of natural enemy in all your wars, which you denied
to one that scarcely ever was against you, and which every
maxim of honest English policy should prompt you to culti-
vate as a sort of natural friend. I dreaded not so much the
direct as the indirect use that France might make of such a
distinction in her favour ; and I objected to, and reprobated
your yielding that to Louis XVI. which you peremptorily
refused to Catharine II. If I understand what it is to be right
and consistent, I was so in my discrimination upon this point',
in that discussion ; and I am ignorant of the meaning 0,'
words, if the honourable gentleman's animadversion th!s
night be not as weak, trifling, and fitllacious, as were his orl'"
oinal arguments at the time he made this surrender.


So much, then, as to the two first branches of this question
with the neutral powers. With respect to the third point,
the right of•search—that, under sound and discreet limiterO*


*OA THE STATE OP THE NATION. 431
is certainly a right of belligerents; but, pushed to extremity,
ft
becomes, like many other rights, a gross wrong. The


riabt of search, as on the one hand it does not rest merely on
unwritten law, so neither on the other is it a matter to be
arbitrari ly exercised. The thing, as well as the manner, is
defined by strict stipulation.


--)As to the claim of convoy,
beyond all doubt, if the privilege of convoy were abused in
protecting the trade of our enemy, that would be a very fit
subject of representation. As far as we are acquainted with
the precautions intended by the northern powers, they seem
to have been fully aware of such a possible fraud; anil there
is nothing of this sort which, in my opinion, remonstrance
and reason were not capable of settling. Even the presence of
convoy would not prevent search, and justifiably too, in what
the treaties call "cases of lawful suspicion." But after all,
your final satisfaction may as well depend upon the convoy as
the ship's documents. A sound discretion will be influenced
by the nature of the case. It is not "search upon lawful or
urgent suspicion," so well provided for in different treaties,
that makes any part of the question; it is the unqualified
assumption of a universal right to search in all possible cases;
or, in other words, subjecting the commerce of the world to
vexatious and insulting interruptions and inquiries, without
stint or distinction. TTiis is the grievance; and, to judge oft,
its justice, I ask, would you endure such treatment yourselves
from any state upon earth ? There is no principle by which you
can so well attain the knowledge of relative justice, as by putting
yourself in tile place of another, and deciding upon another
by yourself. The extent of what you contend for would, iffraesu
all the free


troalitt, te.fd, lay at the discretion of any petty power, not only
the


course of yogi trade, but also the proud spirit and


cone:


feeling which so naturally belong to your naval as-
lIdaricy.


.Suppose the King of Spain at war with Algiers.
A


e case can be imagined more likely than another to re-
you to this humiliation, -it would be, I suppose, in


and
0 a christian King of Spain, contending with pirates


r
obbers and infidel barbarians. A British fleet of mer-


FUantmen, in the lawful pursuits of trade to your ownIsla
nds, for instance, of Minorca or Malta, or destined to anyother
the Mediterranean ports, though convoyed by a


a of English men of war, would, according to theser
oments be liable to be stopped, ransacked, teased, and in-sulted b


tile meanest cutter in the Spanish navy. Such
'yo


uld be .the fate to which your own maxims would expose
".°t1)


unless you frankly acknowledge that you have one\lielasllre for y.'ourselves,frankly another fOr the rest of the world.
l'tever the shifting gale of luck and fortune may suggest




h 2s.432 GREY'S' MOTION ON [Marc
to feeble minds, be assured that justice is the best _policy , and
the soundest principle. •


Notwithstanding all the phlegm with which the righ t ho
pourable gentleman has stigmatised the three maritime states
in this northern confederacy, not one word has he uttered
as my honourable friend (Mr. Grey) has well observed, against
the King of Prussia, one of the most strenuous parties in this
league. If the genius of the right honourable gentleman.;
government were yet to be truly characterised, his conduct •C
respect to this prince puts it in the most glaring colours. Not
only all the wrong that may, in the opinion of many people,
clog the question, but that which is the very pith and marrow
of the whole dispute, the right honourable gentleman has, br
the restoration of the capture in the Texel, given up to the
King of Prussia. Why ? Because, safe from the attacks of
the British navy, the King of Prussia has the means of injury
in his turn. What does all this demonstrate, but that the
right honourable gentleman is ready to give up every thing to
force, and nothing to reason. Instead of sparing the feeble,
and pulling down the proud, he bows down to the mighty,
and tramples upon the weak. With Denmark, vulnerable
at all points, the right honourable gentleman will not even
confer without a British fleet, but every thing is made a peace.
offering to the King of Prussia.


My honourable friend (Mr. Grey) has truly and wisely said,
that he was not called upon to discuss the question in dispute as
a general principle. Certainly not; — the bringing it to the
present issue is the very perfection of impolicy. ," What!"
answers the right honourable gentleman, " were we to give
that up which Lord Stormont protested against in the year
1780.?" Who wanted him to give it up ? Where lay the
necessity of either admitting or rejecting it? A cautious line
of conduct had saved the question from public discussion,
and Europe from this new war. The greatest naval success
cannot obtain more real advantage for you than you might
have derived from prudence whilst failure, if you fail,
would make your disgrace tenfold. Granting you all that you
look to from arms, are you a bit nearer your object? Suppose
you separate Denmark from this confederacy — humbled to
the earth, admitting that she apologise for her conduct,
the pretension, therefore, at rest for ever? Do what you
will, the claim will not be extinguished by the submission, b,13
will revive with the means of' enforcing it.


Upon the whole of this business, what is the obviou s in:
ference, but that ose fancy sonic strane te


this dreadful trade.
th
of war


w

ho seeing jaeobinism,g and


interest
all their


THE STATE OF THE NATION.
433001'3


tiler wpretexts for its duration, gro n stale and disgusting —
;:ave manceuvred to associate with the national enthusiasm in


pet


lit
%your of its navy, a point in which its real interests are buttle involved; have endeavoured to draw from the public
predilection for that service, so natural and so well deserved,


.haps the means of advancing some new plan or speculation
w aYnoni connected, as upon former occasions, with the pro-


fessed object. Foes or neutrals, what is so probable or so
plausible to be urged, by jacobins and others, as that these
honourab l e gentlemen, who have no character for pacification,
,,„d have yet just as much as their conduct merits, have fallen,
as it were, upon this lucky question in good time to rouse
the expiring energies of the country into new offers of lives
mid fortunes, for an object that may seem nearer and dearer
to them than the further prolongation of the war with France
—the great success of which its late conductor has, this night,
so minutely detailed to' you.


Now, Sir, let us proceed to consider this success. The
right honourable gentleman (Mr. Dundas) resists the motion,
this night, in a way which, though not wholly new from the
nine quarter, brings with every repetition of the same argu-
ment some fresh cause for astonishment. The assertion,
that this war has been successful, is not made now by that
right honourable gentleman for the first time, it is true ;
but then his recurrence to former, frequently urged, and as


. n ,
frequently refuted, reasonings, is compensated by something
quite untouched in past discussions. It now seems, that this
war was un dertaken for the purpose of" conquering tae colonies
and destroying the commerce of France." The restoration


i


discovering


i ij es cpier,:Ns'o


of monarchy — the overthrow of jacobin principles — the
abasement of France and confining her to her ancient limits


settlements.a—1a s h e


religion


• s,


balance of power — the case of law, order, and our
holy bion — all these are gone by; and the splendid
re


veries, that were soothed by such contemplations, are fallen,
andsunIk down to the capture of ships and of tropical.


In this view of things the right honourablegentleman ventures to co,
mpare the success of the present with


..that of the seven years' war, and finds great consolation in


o. 1


that even in that glorious contention there had


be


reverses — alludint, particularly to Minorca and toRochefrt. With some portion of triumph he refers to these
misfortunes, and applies his discovery, in rather a singular


some alluding


as an argument to the present question; for he gives
1' ,4 this piece - of history as a reason against going into any'4°


kitury regarding the failures of the present war.
v,..140st unluckily for the right honourable gentleman, the
'1'37 misfortunes to which lie has adverted were instantly


.voL. yr,
at F




434 MR. GREY'S MOTION ON [March


followed by inquiries in this House. It has been reserved fn
the present war, though the most disgraceful in its external,
and the most wretched in its domestic consequences, of an'
that this country ever waged, to be the only war in which
this House never saw any grounds for retrospect or revision
All the collected calamities of all their predecessors, for acres:
do not equal, either in kind or number, the exploits, (la.;
the present war, of the administration just retired from offieel".
yet they are the only men ever possessed of the powers of
government in this country, who never even in a single in,
stance yielded to any inquiry, upon any part of the innumer-
able disgraces that have marked the last nine years. &
unlucky is the right honourable gentleman in the case of
Minorca, that every thing respecting that business makes
directly against him. To whatever cause the loss of that
island may be attributable, this House immediately inquired
into the cause. A person 'for whose memory certainly I have
the deepest gratitude and love, [Lord Holland was secretary
of state in 1 755 ,] then one of the king's ministers, far from
resisting, as the right honourable gentleman resists, vas the
most eager in insisting upon inquiry. Unlike the present
times, the House of Commons then had not been tutored
into that confidence in ministers which distinguishes later
periods ; and the parliamentary inquiries that followed the
failures to which the right honourable gentleman alluded, so
far from embarrassing the operations of government, or
unnerving the martial energies of the country, (those stale
objections to the approved and happy practice of our an-
cestors,) were succeeded by a series of unexampled successes:•
Such is the honourable gentleman's luck in his historica l re-


ferences !
Not one word that I have ever uttered, or that ever came


out of the lips of any friend of mine on this side of the House,
has tended, even in the most distant degree, to slur or under-
rate the achievements of our fleets; and I will leave the House
to judge whether any persons in it, or out of it, have dwelt
with more rapture upon the triumphs of that branch °f
service than we have done. From this, however, the ri,la,
honourable gentleman strives to draw a defence of a nature
truly singular. He endeavours to intermingle with the glo;Oa


the


ries of the navy the absurdities of his own expeditions,
asks, " How the military plans can be all folly, the n:2,, The
all wisdom, both being advised by the same heads. .
question answers itself. It is in the nature of nava l tacti;
that a great deal depends upon the officers and men, 11P ..,t
wind and weather; in land operations a good plan is alai"'
every thing. Yet the merit of the admiralty is indisptable'


THE STATE OF THE 'CATION.!sox.]
435


it is true, there are parts of the administration of Earl Spencer


l(for whom my personal respect is considerable,) not free fromome, particularly what related to the invasion of Ireland ;
but where the general system has been judicious and pros-.
perous, it would be invidious to dwell upon a few errors.
the right honourable gentleman would incorporate these two
services, and is ready to take his share in the blame of the
admiralty, generously commuting the glories of his own de-
partment for their miscarriages. Sir, every presumption is
in favour of the admiralty — every proof against him. No-.
body asks about the merit of the admiralty. It speaks for
itself: And equally obvious is the true character of the right
honourable gentleman's department. If all his expeditions
have been marked by discomfiture and disgrace ; if the failure
of some is aggravated by circumstances too painful to touch
upon; if such armies, with the courage they are known to
possess, have produced only such effects — the inference is
blaring. It is but to name the enterprizes — and the inform-.
ation, the -skill, the vigour, and the ability of those who
planned them, are as plain as demonstration can make them.
No man will ever inquire about the wisdom that projected the
expeditions to Quiberon, to Flanders, to St. Domino() too ingo,
Holland, to Ferrol, to Cadiz. These things are past all
curiosity.


The right honourable gentleman has another way of re-
conciling this House to his disasters. With a precision that
is quite 'ludicrous, and a gravity of face which, unless he were
certain of his audience, would excite a suspicion that he was
mocking the House, he gives us the dates, to an hour, of the
days on which his expeditions sailed, when they landed, re-t
reated, or capitulated : sometimes it is the wind, sometimes
the rain, and sometimes the frost, the snow, the cold, the
heat; now it is too early, and then it is too late ; —and to
this notable narrative the House listens, without once saying
"Tell us of a single military enterprize in which you have
suc


ceeded ; and if you cannot, give us some better reason than
nur own words to believe that you are blameless. Let us
inquire into the facts, and judge for ourselves." The righthonourable gentleman, with this mass of defeats before -.his
€,Yes, has the hardihood to talk of the success of this war; and4111.!ienks,the enumeration of islands and settlements, and a sche-


con found
captured ships and frigates, will so blind the eyes and


the
the understandings of men, as to divert them fromhe oo


of


only proper consideration, the only rational test of corn-
croaLat.irve s. uccess, namely, the relative situation of the two


'`L41 les an point of power.uf t
he word " diversion," the right honourable gentlemax


F E 2




436 Mt. GREY'S MOTION ON [March
gives us, indeed, a very curious illustration. Up to this n,
silent, I believe no man ever understood any thirns
military diversion, but the drawing off; by means


thi g


larger number of your enemy, who might hurt you


"' aMore
another quarter. The expedition to Holland, he tells r1
had three objects in view—the capture of the fleet gi,an


.-7,
the Dutch an opportunity of shaking off the yoke of France b
and making a diversion for our allies in Italy and on the
Rhine. He asks, - " Is it nothing to have ten ships of the line
added to our own navy, which otherwise would at this in:
anent be a means of annoying us in the hands of our navymy
Sir, in this, as in every other instance, the English d id
the duty assigned to it nobly ; and if the capture of the Dutch
fleet was a primary object of that memorable expedition, that
object was accomplished without any necessity of hazarding
any land experiments under the right honourable gentleman's
auspices • for, in point of fact, the fleet revolted and Surren-
dered before the landing on the Helder-Point. With respect
to the second object, namely, giving the Dutch an opportu-
nity of shaking off the yoke of France, with what horror
they received your proffered release from their bondage, and
the execration with which they load your name, it is un-
necessary to state. But in the third and grand point, that
of a diversion in favour of cur allies, there we did wonders.
If Europe were searched, not a place could be found so well
calculated for enabling a smaller to combat a larger army as
this selected spot. To this fatal neck of land did that right
honourable gentleman devote 3 o,000 British soldiers, and so
signal was the benefit to our allies of this precious diversion,
that, about the very time that the English army was making
that respectable retreat, the grand armies of our allies, under
Hotze and Suwarrow, were beaten, dispersed, and routed,
never more to rally or unite. Such was the honourable gen-
tleman's " diversion" in Holland !


But his unconquered mind was not vet subdued enough
from military expeditions. He proposed new sources of re-
nown for those armies whose happy destiny it was to be at his,
disposal. Because he failed in the north, he was certain 0'
success in the south; and, sure enough, he dispatches a for;•
midable force under Sir Ralph Abercrombie, to co-operat,,
with the Austrians in Italy. This armament, delaye d until
any man of common sense must have seen its total •


..


towards its professed object, arrives at Genoa, just in itn4lu't;1"..ittvo
for what ? to assist General Melas? No.—but just in tin'e.te
have the earliest intelligence of his total ruin. It sails intoIndi,
road of Genoa, to sail out again, and escapes into the
terranean at the very time the Austrian garrison in that ceitl'


pl THE STATE OF TIIE NATION. 437/.]


Po


as es out to meet their defeated countrymen in the northern-
st parts of Italy ! But was this co-operation desired by


die Austrians? No such wish was expressed or felt. The right
honourable gentleman plainly enough lets us understand the
direct contrary. And was it thus that British armies were
ieeustomed to be treated in former wars ? Was it in this way
that Prince Eugene acted to the ,


Duke of Marlborough ?
What, then, is the fact? but that the hitherto untarnished
reputation of our arms has so suffered under the baneful mis-
management of hisanajesty's late ministers, that the co-ope-
ration of 20,000 • Englishmen is so slighted by our allies, that
they deprecated their aid, and resolved to touch nothing be-
longing to us—but our guineas.
Now Sir, as to the delay of this expedition to Italy, let


me implore the attention of the House to the right honour-
able gentleman's defence. With the same admirable minute-
ness, as to days and dates, he tells you that this grand scheme
was determined upon on the 22d of February. On the 23d, he
told it to the king. On the 24th he told it to the duke. On
the 28th the duke told him something. The right honour-
able gentleman then reads two letters, the one from Sir Charles
Stuart, the other from the Duke of York, in support of this
part of his defence. I have been called a new member this
night; and new end raw, indeed, must I be, and wholly ig-
norant of the practice of this House, if I could hear, without
reprobation, that which would have been scouted and spurned
in the good times of the English constitution, when a spirit of
just jealousy of its rights, and a proper sense of its indepen-
dence, prevailed in this House, instead of a blind confidence
in the executive government. In such times, no minister
would have dared to have read to the House of Commons of
England the garbled extracts, just as suited his own purpose,
of letters from general officers, as an excuse for miscarriages,
affecting in the nearest and dearest sense the honour and in-
terests of the country. It is true that I have not been, for
'onie time, in habits of intercourse with the illustrious person
Oho is at the head of the army; but greatly indeed must he be
thanged from what I knew him, if he would not mark withWs abhorrence this style of palliation. For what is it, and
what does it prove ?—that, if there were nothing morn thanIl e have heard, his royal highness ought to be instantly im-
peached. The national defence of England — its militia, is


nl) by the roots; the general body ,of its officers is disgusted
Y th e laws passed in i-/-99, which transferred to the line so


:aw


large a proportion of its best disciplined men. These men,_;
ing the militia a mere skeleton, are incorporated with re-


°Jar regiments, and embarked for Holland ; and, seven
Fr i




43 $ MR. .GItEY'S MOTION ON [ March
months after their first embarkation to, and five months after
their return from, that disastrous enterprize, their commander-
in-chief informs the executive government, if we are to


believe the right honourable gentleman, cc that it will take fui
two months to discipline them into fitness for actual service 1,
"Was there ever such a defence as this hazarded before an as..
semby of rational men !


" But, had the right honourable gentleman's expedition
been able to sail sooner :" — " If the battle of Marengo
not been lost:" --" f,"—Why, Sir, I do not
know what degree of fortune there may be in this battle or in
that; but I believe the right honourable gentleman never was
more mistaken than he-would find himself even in the event of
Bonaparte's defeat at Marengo. Such were the precautions of
that fruitful mind ; so well did he arrange his measures; so
little did he, in truth, trust to mere fortune, that if, against
all probability, Marengo had been lost, that mighty genius
had so disposed his resources, that many a bloody battle must
have been gained by his enemies before they could have made
much impression upon the incomparable system of his opera-
tions in Italy last summer. I defy imbecility itself to string
together a more motley pack of excuses than the right honour-
able gentleman has laid before the House this night. " Am-
sterdam had been taken, if Sir Ralph Abercrombie had landed
on the 16th instead of the 2 7 th of August — Sir Charles
Stuart's dislike to the Russians protracted Sir Ralph's de-
parture for the Mediterranean — Ten thousand Irish militia
were to come to England, and ten thousand English to go to
Ireland — Some of the troops wanted their new coats, some
their arms — One expedition sailed on the 8th of April, took
shelter on the 13th, and resailcd on the 2 4th — It was de-
signed to assist the Austrians, but the Austrians would not be
assisted — There was no plan or concert between the two
courts — An account-current with the seven years' war; took
more ships than Lord Chatham, and more islands — St. Do-
mingo was unhealthy, and rather expensive ; but it was a
good market — This war has opened worlds of new markets
— Returns, even to a man, of the new-raised corps at Gib-
raltar, Minorca, Malta, Portugal ; and the total of your
force, now and in 179 7, with a most comfortable exactness
— The history of England from 17JS to 1762 — from Sevel.11"
ciroog to the Havannah." — In a word, such a series of 111-
suiting puerilities as no House of Parliament was ever before
entertained with


of thet un


de


success


r the name


this


of a . defence ! So much, for._


another
the present, of the late secretary ; and now to proceed w


f801*7 THE STATE OF TIIE NATION. 439


The late chancellor of the exchequer tells us, that he for-
bears going over the military exploits, only because his right
pourable friend has put those things in the clearest light.
He is equally positive as to the success of the war ; but not to
usurp upon his truly fortunate colleague, he has his own pe-
culia • instances to detail, of prosperity, of comfort, and of


— all flowing in upon the country from
Nivi!liticriciloireari)rpninnie dsiate department. Quite scandalised at my


iiiIs'iltiot urable friend's statement of the magnitude of the national
debt in consequence of this war, the right honourable gentle-
man pares down its amount since 1793 to the trifle of 160
millions ; and how ? —by a mode surprisingly curious indeed.
First, he cuts out the 5 6 millions, for which the income-tax
is mortgaged ; and next, he desires you to forget all that the
sale of the land-tax has already purchased, or may yet redeem.
Alas, Sir ! there is not a gentleman in this House who would
rejoice more than myself; if the income-tax could be set
down for nothing; and I cannot help admiring that insensi-
bility under which the right honourable gentleman passes over
a grinding impost that has ripped open the private concerns,
and reduced the necessary comforts, of every man in Eng-
land. The extinction of debt from the sale of the land-tax
carries its own evil in its tail ; and we might as well rejoice at
our prosperity from that measure, as a private man would
from paying his debts by bringing his estate to the hammer.
The debts in so far may be paid ; but the estate is gone for
ever. The right honourable gentleman must think his au-
dience are children, when he attempts to cajole them by such
a play upon words.


In reality, what is the state of the country upon this point?
From such a population as that of Great Britain, near forty
millions sterling are annually wrung : to this add ten millions
more for the poor-rates. The right honourable gentleman has
estimated the landed rental of England at 25 millions. Thus,
then, we pay, yearly, double the produce of the whole rental.
Of the country, in rates and taxes ; a sum approaching very
nearly the whole income of the country. Was any nation
ever before in such circumstances ? If nothinv else were stated


z7,but
this undisputed fact, is it not, of itself, a crying reason for


Inquiry? As to the sinking-fund, let it be always remembered
that its effects, highly beneficial as they are, must depend upon
the revenue keeping its level. If the revenue fails, the charm
)f the sinking-fund vanishes into nothing. This, Sir, is the
Tie picture of our financial condition as a state; and the con-il,ti°n of the people is strictly answerable to it. One-sixth ofa
il the souls in England are supported by charity; and the


plight of a great proportion of those who contribute to their
r 4


2s,




440 MR. GREY'S MOTION ON
- s,[Mare], 2 .


maintenance is but little better than that of the paupers Whom
they succour. How the right honourable gentleman ha


snerves to sustain him in venturing to talk of the h appiness of
this country, would be incomprehensible, if our long expe-
rience of him had not convinced us of the fondness with which
he can survey every act of his own. The repetition of his de..
lusions deludes even himself. He has indulged so much in
these fatal reveries, that he appears to have become his own
bubble, and almost to mistake for realities the phantasms of
his bewildered wits. Let him ask any of the members from
Yorkshire and Lancashire, what the state is of the manufac-
turers in those countries ; even those (looking at Mr. Wilber-
force) of whom I may not think the best, will not venture to
deny the starving, distracted condition of those great and
populous districts.


These, Sir, are some of the internal effects of this war,
which both the right honourable gentlemen venture to com-
pare with former contentions against France. We have taken
more, they tell us, than even in the seven years' war ; and
therefore this surpasses that in success. Good God ! Sir,
what an effect does a confidence in the votes of this House
produce upon the understandings of men of abilities ! To
talk of this war, and that of the seven years! " -We have
destroyed the commerce of France — we have taken their
islands," say ypu — but these, I say, were not the objects of
the war. If you have destroyed the commerce of France, you
have destroyed it at the expence of near 30o millions of debt.
If you have taken the French islands, you have made a
bootless capture; for you are ready enough to restore them as
the price of peace. You have taken islands — but you have, at
the same time, laid the house of Austria prostrate at the feet of
triumphant France. Have you restored monarchy ?—Its very
hopes arc entombed for ever. Have you destroyed jacobinism,
as you call it ?— Your resistance has made it stronger than ever.
Have you reduced the power of France?—France is aggran-
dized beyond the wildest dreams of former ambition. Have you
driven her within her ancient frontiers? — She has enlarged
herself to the Rhine and to the Alps, arid added five millons
to her population in the centre of Europe. You had all the
great states of Europe for your allies against France — What
is become of them? — all that you have not ruined, aree,
your determined enemies. Where arc the neutral pow,:—.
Every one of them leagued with this very France for you'
destruction. Could all this be chance? No, Sir; it is the
true succession of effect to cause. It is the legitimate issu e ?'e
your own system. You began in foolishness, and you end
mischief. Tell me one single object of the war that you ha"


/801


pa STATE OF THE NATION. 441
obtained ? Tell me one evil that you have not brought upon
your country ? Yet this House will not inquire. The right
honourable gentleman (Mr. Dundas) says, " We have had
more difficulties to encounter than any former government;
for we had constantly thwarting us the implacable monsterjacobin ism." Sir, jacobinism has in it no property so sure asthe right honourable gentleman's system to propagate and
confirm it. That system has given to jacobinism life and
nutriment, strength. and maturity, which it could not have
derived from any other course. Bent upon crushing every
idea of any reform, they resolved to stifle the once free genius
of the English mind, and suspend some of the most valuable
parts of the English constitution, rather than yield one jot.


- Hence their administration is marked, in this country, by a
succession of infringements upon the dearest . rights of the
people — by invasions and rebellions in another country. The
parent source of all these disorders is that baneful impolicy, in
which both the right honourable gentlemen endeavour to
plicate the House. " All that we have done," says the right
honourable gentleman, (Mr. Dundas,) who, to be sure, is more
a man of things than words, " has been approved by all, ex-
cept a small remnant of this House," (an expression which he
uses, I presume, to show, that though an act of parliament
may incorporate legislatures, it cannot unite languages,) and
the other gentleman is so anxious to establish the popularity
of his system, that he almost reproaches the House with cold-
ness in their support of him. He complains that only " seven-
eighths" of the members of this House were for his measures,
when he had nine-tenths of the people.


If, Sir, this were true of the people, they would almost de-
serve their present fate. But the drift of all this is obvious
enough. This identification of himself with the House—
this laborious shifting, as it were, of the right honourable gen-
tleman's own responsibility upon their votes, is very intel-
ligible; and he falls into that classical correctness which I
have before noticed in his right honourable friend, in his great
zeal to make that point clear. Though he has had three par-
liaments, chosen, one would have thought, pretty well to his
taste, he asserts that even the majorities of this House could not
come up to the tone of the public, in favour of his measures,
which, he says, had the sanction of all but a few " exploded
opinions" in this House. " Exploded opinions," then, he de-
fines to be opinions which this House negatives by its majo-
rities. The right honourable gentleman must allow me to
inform him, that his great and justly revered father spent the
greater part of his Mb in the enforcement of such exploded
opinions. I must remind him, that he himself was for some




442 • MR. GREY'S MOTION ON [March 25,
time tainted with such exploded opinions. " Exploded opi-
nions" have distinguished many of the wisest and the best men
this nation ever produced ; and though I lament the suffer:
ings of my country from the neglect of those opinions,I tahse.
sure the right honourable gentleman and this House, that
there is nothing on which 1 should so steadily rely for
regard of good men, living, or of posterity, when in ym
grave, as those very opinions which the votes of this House
have enabled the right honourable gentleman to stigmatize as
" exploded." In point of fact, however, the right honourable
gentleman, still surveying himself in the flattery of his own
mirror, is wholly mistaken about these exploded opinions. It
was to these exploded opinions that the negociations of Paris
and Lisle are attributable. We gave strong reasons in this
House for peace. The public thought with us; and we have
his own words, that he entered upon that treaty only in
compliance with what he now calls 44 exploded opinions."


But the right honourable gentleman has a keen anxiety
lest this House should not continue to think these opinions
quite so exploded; for he asks, " Will this House, by going
into the proposed inquiry, disgrace its former votes?" To
which I answer, Yes, certainly;• if this House will save the
country. In the very House of Commons, to which I before
alluded, the early scene of the right honourable gentleman's
" exploded opinions"— this very stimulus to pride was urged,
though without effect. That House, as well as this House,
was questioned, "Will you, the uniform supporters of this war
against America, disgrace your former votes?" But, Sir, they
did disgrace their former votes ; and, by so doing, they did
honour to themselves, and saved their country. That parlia-
ment was a retracting and a recanting parliament. Bitter
as it was, the draught was swallowed; and I have no hesi-
tation in saying, that this House, to rescue this country, if that,
indeed, be possible, from the perils in which the right ho-
nourable gentleman has involved it, must tread in the foot-
steps of its predecessor in 5782 ; and, by renouncing the right
honourable gentleman and his system together, preserve this
country from its impending dangers.


Now, Sir, I come to the consideration of the late change of
administration. Before I touch upon the others, allow 111e
to say, that, with respect to one of them, I do not think it
would be easy, if possible, to find a man in the whole co m


-munity better suited to, or more capable of, the high office he
fills, than the distinguished person at the head of the adrit
ratty : I mean the Earl of' St. Vincent ; but beyond 1)/1111,1
own, I do not feel myself able to say one word that can De
very agreeable -to any individual of the remainder. As t°


j801.]
THE STATE OF THE NATION. '


443
the mere change, it is true, that no change can be for the
worse; for I defy the evil genius of the country to pick out an
equal number of men from any part of England, whose mea-
sures could, in the same space of time, reduce the country to
' more deplorable state than that in which the retired mini-
sters have left it. But was there no alternative for the country
between them and their exact successors ? I feel this to be a
very unpleasant part of this night's unavoidable discussion :
in matters ofimportance, however, delicacy must give place toduty. The late chancellor of the exchequer, not perhaps quitefreely from redundency, has blended with his panegyric of the
honourable gentleman over against me, (Mr. Addington,)
gaudy picture of the importance of the chair which you, Sir,
occupy. I agree that the office of Speaker is a high and honour-
able station. It is certainly the first dignity in this House;
and, I suppose it was merely for the public good, that both yourpredecessors descended horn that altitude to


zVerior places,
but happening to be at the same time situations of infinitely
more emolument and power. . A man, however, may be an
excellent chairman of this House, as the late Speaker undoubt-
edly was, without being exactly qualified for the office of chan-
cellor of the exchequer. At the present moment this is all
that I think it necessary to say with regard to the respectable
gentleman whom you, Sir, have succeeded.


The next in point of importance, both of office and charac-
ter, is the noble lord upon the opposite bench, Lord I-lawkes-
bury,) who has richly shared those florid praises which the
right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt) has poured so fluently
upon the whole body of his successors. I assure the noble
lord, that I have as much respect the him as I can have for
any person of whom I personally know so little. He has
been, it is true, a member of this House for many years, and,
I doubt not, a very diligent member; but, if you had polled
toe country, not an individual could be found in it less hap-pily


selected for the peculiar department he occupies than the
noble lord; — the noble lord who, in whatever else he may
s
urpass them, does not yield to any one of those whom he


officially succeeds, in the virulence of his obloquies upon thePretich Revolution; who has spent as many hours in thisd
ouse as any member of the late or present ministry, insh
owing the irredeemable infamy of treating with that " re-


Public of regicides and assassins." Never, surely, was there a
worse


calculated proposer of peace to Paris than the very
noble lord who was for cutting the matter quite short, and
try off=hand to that capital. What, then, is this coun-crY


to expect? A change of system ? No: for all that thePublic
have learnt upon this subject is this, that the new




[March444 MR. GREY'S MOTION ON 25.
ministers arc come in distinctly and expressly to support the
system of the former ; with this single exception, (which
makes any hope of establishing the tranquillity of the country
recently united to us wholly desperate,) that they are hostile
to the only measure of their predecessors which has any pre-
tension to wisdom and good policy.


Before I proceed to the conclusion of this part of my sub.
ject, I must beg leave to say something upon this much-talked-
of subject of catholic emancipation. As to the mere word
'‘ emancipation," I agree with the righehonourable gentleman
(Mr. Pitt), that the expression is not the best adapted to the
case. It is not emancipation, in the ordinary meaning of the
term, that the catholic wants, or that the government can


.ant; it is the removal of the civil disabilities that remain,
0'and that remain for no end either of security, of policy, or
of prudence—insult ing and vexatious distinctions, beneficial
to no interest whatever —but the fruitful source of jealousy,
discord, and national weakness. The right honourable gen-
tleman talks of the king's reign having been a series of con-
cessions to the catholics. Sir, the king's reign is marked by
no concessions which the blameless conduct of the catholics
was not calculated to exact from the most unwilling govern-
ment in the world. He talks of what has been given to the
catholics. Sir, you give them nothing while you deprive
them of a right to sit in this House. I know of no political
rights which ought not to be common to all the king's sub-6


unjus
jects, and I am sure that a system of proscription, on accountof theological differences, will for ever be found not more


t and absurd than pernicious. If this principle needed
illustration, Ireland affords it beyond the power of contro-
versy. Divided by the government, it presents a constant
temptation to your enemy. Rebellion is the fruit of bad
policy, and invasion is encouraged by disunion.


In mentioning the name of Earl Fitzwilliam, (so strangely
quoted by an honourable gentleman, as having contributed
to the misfortunes of Ireland by his proposal regarding
catholics,) though I am eager to avow my partialities for that
noble person, it is not from private friendship or personal
regard, that I call upon any really candid man to deny, if


the


he be able, upon his honour and conscience, that the system
introduced by that noble lord would not, if then adopted,
have prevented those dreadful scenes of havoc, murder, and
devastation, which have since desolated that wretched coun-
try. Let it be for ever remembered, that, with all the in-
dustry which has been employed in making up the report:
of the Irish Lords and Commons upon these subjects, not
vestige of evidence appears, but the direct contrary, that any


1801.] THE STATE OF THE NATION.
445


approach was made to seek assistance from France, or that
even the most distant idea of separation from, or setting up
for independence of this country, was entertained in Ireland,
until every petition for peaceful redress of grievances was
spurned and rejected.


But, Sir, this concession, to which a few years since (when,
in my full belief; it would have prevented all the calamities
that have since happened,) the right honourable gentleman
was so determined an enemy, and of which he is now, it
seems, a martyr, was to have been, in his hands, accompanied
with God knows what guards and qualifications. The appre-
hensions, I think all such wholly chimerical — but no matter.
Whatever apprehensions to church or state the fearful or
the zealous might entertain, from the grant of this catholic
claim, were all to be composed and done away, by the heal-
ing, wholesome, tranquillizing plan of the right honourable
gentleman: and, after raising our expectation to the highest
pitch in &your of this choice scheme — this choice scheme,
he tells us, must be locked up in his own breast. Now, that
the right honourable gentleman should not impart his pro-
ject to us on this side, whose dislike to it he anticipates, is
nothing; but, that he should resolve to keep this House and
the public in total ignorance of this most wise and perfect
system, is utterly unaccountable. The right honourable
gentleman's steady determination to hide from the world
this piece of excellence, reminds me of a saying of Mr. Burke,
who, in his fine strain of ridicule, observed, that if torture
could ever be justified, it would be when a man refused to reveal
what he asserted would be a mighty benefit to mankind.
Torture had of late been liberally applied to extort the con-
fession of evil; and if one could give the right honourable
gentleman credit for the just grounds of his egotism, it would
almost tempt a wish that he were compelled to disclose this
blessed secret. So obdurate is he upon this point, that he
not only seals his lips against such a happy disclosure, 'andproclaims his determination not t.t


.> introduce, in his ownperson, any question upon this subject,. but he absolutelyf
orbids the House from discussing it, by declaring, that suchdis


cussion will not be useless merely, but mischievous. It is
not, however, to this part of the business alone that the righthonourable gentleman's mysteries are confined; every thingConnected with it is to be shrowded in silence and conceal-
m


ent. After avowing very fairly, so far, though not the
direct Composition, the sense and spirit of the paper diffusedth


rough Ireland in his name ; and after owning that hisinability to propose his catholic regulations, as a minister,
''v4 alone the cause of his resigning his office, the right ho-b


• 2




4 46 MR. GREY'S MOTION ON [March 25•
nourable gentleman protests against further explanation
" No further avowal or denial shall be drawn from him either
now or hereafter." This, sure, is the most extraordinary
declaration that ever fell from the lips of a public man. The
right honourable gentleman resigns his office, because he
cannot propose his measure. To Ireland he sends his sen-
timents, as they are conveyed by a friend of his, in the paper
alluded to. He describes his plan to this House as the
perfection of all wisdom; and upon all these points he defies
interrogatory, and deprecates comment.


The right honourable gentleman asks, 44 Is it wonderful
that the sovereign should have an opinion ?" No, certainly
and if the right honourable gentleman did not make himself
acquainted with his sovereign's opinion upon this point, long
before the proposed introduction of his meditated system, he
was guilty of a breach of duty. In what possible way can
the right honourable gentleman be exculpated from the
charge of gross irreverence to the king, or of abusing so
many millions of his people? He denies that any positive
pledge was given to the catholics at the union; but admits
that it was natural for them to cherish expectation from it.
Natural ! Why, unless they reasoned very deeply, indeed,
upon the right honourable gentleman's mind, such an ex-
pectation was inevitable. In the nature of things they must
have looked upon it as a certainty.


I shall say nothing of the other means employed to ac-
complish the Union ; but in respect to the operation of the
catholic question upon that measure, I can easily conceive,
that if any friend of the catholics, my relation the Duke
of Leinster, for instance, or any other person well affected to
their cause, or any of the leading catholics themselves, should
have been consulted by the right honourable gentleman, what
can be so likely as that the right honourable gentleman
should hint in private, what he has so distinctly stated in
public, namely, that the shortest, surest course to the attain-
ment of their objects would be, their support of that measure,
from the adoption of which alone those concessions could
flow which were so often refused by provincial prejudice,
ignorance, and injustice. Upon the other hand, cannotI
conceive any thing more probable than that the reluctance
of those early enemies to the Union, who are, at the same
time, such infuriated terrorists in favour of protestan t as-
cendancy, had been subdued by assurances that an imperial
parliament alone could raise a barrier sufficiently powerfui
to beat back the claims of the catholics, so often, and so
to be often preferred in the parliament of that country . 1
appears to me that nothing could be at once, more likel y'


/S01.3


THE STATE OF THE NATION.
447


Hurl more like a pledge, than all this, when those public
declarations of the right honourable gentleman are remem-
bered, which left no reserve upon this — that for either giving
or rejecting the catholic claim, the justice to feel it, the li-
berality to grant


it, and the strength to secure it to the one
sect, without mischief to the other, could be expected in a
general parliament of the empire—and in that alone.


That both parties in Ireland are discontented and dis-
gusted, cannot be otherwise than too true. To the protestant,
zealot there is no security, or satisfaction to the catholic
claimant. Such is the right honourable gentleman's infelicity
upon this great question, that the measure which was to be
the remedy becomes the source of all distempers. Instead
of quieting, he has agitated every heart in that country. The
epoch from which was to begin the reign of comfort and
confidence, of peace and equity and justice, is marked, even.
on its outset, by the establishment of that which rests every
civil blessing upon the caprice of power. Ill-starred race !
to whom this vaunted union was to be the harbinger of all
happiness; and of which the first fruit is martial-law, — or,
in other words, the extinguishment of all law whatsoever !


The situation of the king, and of this House, upon the
subject, is quite unexampled. His majesty's prerogative is
clear and undoubted to change his servants, to give or to
refuse his assent to every law ; but it is a gross breach of the
privileges of this House, and a deep violation of the con-
stitution, to use the king's name for the purpose of influenc-
ing its deliberations. Here is not only an introduction of
the king's name, but a declared incapacity to propose a
salutary system, on account of objections which the constitu-
tion of the country, and the undoubted rights of this House,
will not allow to be even mentioned or hinted at. Sir, I
respect the monarchical part of this government; but the
m


onarch has nothing to do with the sentiments of a member
of parliament : and for the wonders of these times was re-
served a public declaration within these walls, coming from
high authority, that a plan • of acknowledged benefit cannot
be proposed here, unless it comes recommended from the
crown, of which, by the constitution of the country, it
s
hould be the peculiar genius of this House to be whollyindependent.
This surely is a strange state of things; and every thingbcon
nected with it is of the same character. As a right, the


right h
onourable gentleman denies the claim of the catholics,


he Would give them nothing as a right but he thinks the
concession expedient. This, Sir, is not my sense of the
catholic claim. I would grant it, not merely because it is




448 MR. GREY'S MOTION ON [March


expedient, but because it is just. Those who press the d
trine of virtual representation to tile utmost length, Ilene


to the privation of the catholic body. Catholics, in nel"v
ventured to carry it so fir as even to pretend that egxrtoeuntnl:


but forming the very base and foundation of our civil systeni-!
and the government which does not 'acknowledge these rieht:
the rights of man in the strictest sense of tile word,


rights conjointly ; not resting upon light or
opinion, have rights as well as proteitant i


They have htotait


withstanding the constant clamour against, and abuse
phrase,) not as theories and speculations, but as active and living
principles, is not, and cannot be a legitimate government.


The inferences to be drawn from tile style of argument
which has been used in defence of the duration of these dread-
ful laws in Ireland, furnish a sentence of condemnation against
the government of that country, much stronger than any that
was ever used by those who, so unavailingly, raised their voices
against a system of terror, of free quarters, of conflagration,
and torture. If it be true, as they allege, that treason has
tainted that people to tile bone — if the poison of jacobinism,
as they call it, pervade the whole mind of the multitude—if
disloyalty be so rooted and so universal that military despotism
can alone make the country habitable — it would be against
the experience of the world that such a wide and deadly dis-
affection could, or ever did, exist in any nation on the globe
except from the faults of its governors.


To this country, too to England, what a contradiction is
the conduct of these honourable gentlemen to their professions!
This nation was to reap marvellous blessings from the Union;
but of what benefit is the junction of four or five millions of
traitors ? Such, the laws proposed by .these honourable gm,
tleman tell you, the Irish are ;— but such I tell you they are
not. A grosser outrage upon truth, a greater libel upon
generous people, never before was uttered or insinuated. They,
who can find reason for all this, in any supposed depravity 01
the Irish, totally misunderstand their character. Sir, I love
the Irish nation. I know a good deal of that people. I
know much of Ireland from having seen it; I know 'nor:
from private friendship with individuals. The Irish may
their faults, like others. They may have aequick feeling


sensibIlla


thainjury, and not be very patient under it; but I do affirm,
of all their characteristics, there is not one feature more pre"
dominant


lowest, orinder,
every


than classgratitu
of thet


for
country from anthed highest10


t
to kindness. Change your system towards that country, nn.
you will find them another sort of men. Let impartiality, j(1:(1
tire, and clemency, take place of prejudice, oppressio,


1 801 'J 449


eleeance,
o


and
ly
itou will


cu
no


titon
want the aid of martial law, or


Tor ar,
the


y
utac'ving said thus much upon the affairs of Ireland, let me


what I before urged regarding this new ministry. Itfor to
is not that the change is for the worse upon the whole, for no
change, can be so ; — but, let me ask, what is it that the pub-
i enn expect from men, whose fundamental principle is ad-
herence to that system of their predecessors which has brought
ties empire into its present cirumstances ; and whose only
novelty, or deviation from that s


c
ystem, consists in their repug-


nance to the only measure, of those whom they have succeeded,
pretension to good policy? " Not so," they will


aithasitvieiras; a'll3tit ie system was most wise." Well, be it so ; this
“wise system" has reduced this country to the state in which
it is at this moment involved. Tell me how you intend to
get us out of the danger ? By the very means that got us in,
is the inevitable inference. Do you try no change of sys-
tem? No; by no means; we go the beaten course. Is there
nothing new in your plan ? Yes; our predecessors designed
to restore four millions of our fellow-subjects to the rights of
the constitution. This we refuse. In all things else we fol-
low their example. Such is this new ministry — and such
the obvious hope from their appointment !


Upon the question with the northern powers, the noble
lord, (Hawkesbury,) if rumour err not, has been as Mele-es -
toned and intractable in his official communications. as even
whlist human predecessor. As far as respects France, the whole


distrust. If any thing could justify the sporting
country could not afford a selection of men so calculated to
excite


in the possession


lifejtorting the insulting folly made to Bonaparte's most conciliat-
8


!lot answer, 64 With you I cannot treat — you are but newly
proposals of last year. With how good a grace might he


never, surely, was occasion more apt of re-


si of a doubtful power — I must have experi-


!
e
nce and the evidence of facts You have called me a child
n


and
d champion, and sometimes a puppet—You are the children


sham ions of those whom I have covered with indelible
visoanpoen


:Iy treaty
,Hotw do know that I can place the least reliance
l made with men who, indeed, may be mere


ers moved by wires, in the hands of others ?" Thu
mtaht


_a
s usPL/PP


Bonaparte cast back upon this government the absurd
Pediments that were raised against any negociation with


and too'181


believe him to be much too
the sensible of that which constitutes his truest glory,


rune objections,
of giving a durable peace to the world, to resort to,40


ee-annJecti s, ordescend,
escend, upon so important a subject, to


repeat their words, whose example he has scorned in so many
G G


25, THE STATE Ok' THE NATION.




450 MR. GREY'S MOTION ON [Match
other instances. What a contrast does his conduct afe


°I'd tothat of the gentlemen over against me !
To the reiterated importunities of this side of the House,


favour of negociation, they have replied alternate ly
style. When beaten, " What !" said they, you treat
now and dispirit the country? Is the moment of defeat the
time for negociation ?" Not so Bonaparte. Even in the state
to which the directory reduced France, even before he drew
the sword from the scabbard, he humbled himself; (if the noble
wish of stopping the effusion of human blood can indeed be
humility,) to reconcile those honourable gentlemen to the re-
storation of the world's tranquillity ; and it till be matter of
curious reflection for after ages ., to observe such a man as
Bonaparte almost upon his knees, supplicating such conduc-
tors of war as those over against me, for peace. In the crisis
of success, when we implored them to take advantage of the
victories of our fleets, they have replied, " What ! treat now,
when we arc so near the object of the war ? Will you sully
the glories of your navy?" But Bonaparte, who gained not a
victory without making a proposal of peace, did not think that
the glories of Marengo or Hohenlinden were in danger of
fading, from the Constant proffers of a pacification made by
him who never won a laurel without she•ing the olive at the
same time. We on this side of the House have been taunted
with unnerving the people and undervaluing their resources,
at the several epochs when, truly describing the country, we
urged the other side to peace. I am no advocate for despon-
dency, and should be the last person in the world to counte-
nance a sentiment of despair in either man or nation ; but I
am sure that the true road to ruin, for either, would be to
shut their eyes to the reality of their danger. How stands
that point with the rival government?


Did Bonaparte blink the difficulties of France ? It is Pos
-sible that, with a view to enhance his own renown, he ma}'


have magnified, but it is quite certain that he did not under:
state its distresses of any sort. Far from it. He exhibited
to his country a strong picture of national misery; and, to
rouse the energies of France to those extraordinary achieve'
ments which immortalise the short campaigns of the last year'
his proclamation was — what ? — the answer of the gentleman
over against me to his entreaties


ctua
for peace. Not all his coilf


armies,
ies
stimulus


that
revolutionary


n appea
ardour,


dto the good od
to the proud


France'
that


3
recruited the Frenc_aquests, not all his fame, so effectually


of national independence, the ever notable reply o f Lord
r


Grenville to M. Talleyrand. Marengo and HohenhllLien
grew out of that famous paper. To a frank but resPectilli


ISO.] THE STATE OF THE NATION. 451


leeter addressed to the King of England, they say, " Restorethe Bourbons I" — or, in other words, " Go hang yourself!
If you would give a speedy peace to France, re-instate
that family, whose first act in all probability would be, to
bring you to the scaffold." Bonaparte was so perverse and
strange a man, that he rejected this good advice, and would
not consent to his own destruction and dishonour, by greplacin
France under that tyranny from which the Revolution freed
her, and which nine years of unheard-of sufferings, and of
martial prowess without example in history, had been conse-
crated to annihilate.


The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt) seemed to kindle
at the supposed charge of making the restoration of monarchy
a sine q21(1 non of peace. Had that charge been really urged,
I leave any man to judge whether the means of supporting it
are not abundantly supplied by Lord Grenville's memorable
dispatch ; but though he tells us that we are callous to the
refutation, the right honourable gentleman, in fhct, is com-
bating a shadow, for that is not the charge. A total failure
of all the declared objects of the war, of which the restoration
of monarchy was one of the foremost, is the charge we make ;
a charge which he has not answered, and cannot answer; and
if the right honourable gentleman cannot distinguish between
a motive to war, and a sine qua non of peace, he must have
left his understanding behind him in his office.


All the right honourable gentleman's dexterity is employed
to chew- this House that it will be giving itself; as it were, a
slap on time face, if it adopt this motion ; and he makes to his
friends a most pathetic appeal upon grounds purely personal.
Conscious that inquiry will ruin him, he urges the pride, the
consistency, the feeling of the House to reject my honourable
friend's motion ; and he warns his noble relation (Earl Temple)
to spare his compliments, if he withholds his vote. Inquiring
into his conduct, he avows, is the worst service his friends
can render him. Sir, undoubtedly this is so far the truth,
that a fair and honest inquisition would be his overthrow;


sa


and his conduct this night is a perfect comment upon his life.
But is it thus with men who dread not investigation ? The
name of Lord Fitzwilliam has been mentioned. When a
great question of state, affecting the peace of a whole nation,
was at issue between that noble lord and the right honourable
gentleman's government, how did .Lord Fitzwilliam act?
Lid he skulk under the supposed sympathies of' parliament ?
Did he say, bury me under compliments, if you vote
for inquiry? No, Sir, that noble lord in his place in the
Other House, provoked, demanded, and challenged inquiry;
and it is in the memory of many now present, that there was


G G 2


1
2s,




452 MIT. GREY'S MOTION ON Nam
4S.


not in this House one person connected with that noble IN
by private friendship or by any other tie or intercourse, \\,h'
did not vote for going fully into that transaction. Not
the right honourable gentleman, because he is conscious s°


°1,no such cause. This House rejected that motion, the ado-
Lion of which might have prevented the miseries that hal)
since intervened. May God avert similar consequences fr otu
similar conduct this night !


If the right honourable gentleman can continue to
_ per.


suade this House against the revision of his conduct, I do
not wonder that he should have seized the opportuni ty a
resigning the government into the hands of his friends. he
right honourable gentleman near him, (Mr. Dundas,) after
telling the House art entertaining story of Charles II., sn
at us, and says he has not heard of any prayers offered up
for our succeeding to their places. Has the right honourable
gentleman heard of any prayers offered up for their return to
them ; or in any part of the kingdom has there been a regret
expressed , at their retreat? Perhaps it would be nearer the
truth to say, that no joy was more general, till that feeling
was damped by the suspicion that the change of ministry was
in reality no change at all. But the right honourable gen-
tleman (Mr. Pitt) has taken infinite pains to contradict this
notion, and laboured very assiduously to prove that it was,
in good sooth, a real change, and no juggle. " Is office," he
asks, 44 a thing that people are generally eager to lay down?"
Undoubtedly, in that respect nothing is more easy than to
ascertain the right honourable gentleman's disposition, mate-
rials for deciding it being amply afforded by his history; and
if the world reall y thinks that he has relinquished the go-
vernment merely because he found impediments to a wise and
honest measure, then the right honourable gentleman has the
full effect of his character. It, however, is indisputable, that
no minister of England up to this period has discovered less
alacrity in parting with his place.


Still more to prove that the recent change is no imposture,
he seems to lament that, being so near the end of his labours
he should be forced to yield to circumstances, benotand
himself


to
the person to terminate this glorious career —be


grieves at not being in at the death, as it were. Now, Sir, as
what single object of the war the right honourable emaentlg
has gained, or (except in his departure from office) whaL
reason he has for concluding that this contest is near its elo,s2
he leaves us in utter ignorance. Whence does he draw of.
conclusion ? Are the points for which this government eol!.e
tended more likely to be attained at present than they we'
at Paris or at Lisle ? Are you more likely to get the r


e.


001.3 THE STATE OF THE NATION. 453


-ion of the Low Countries, which you so judiciously made001
, qua non of the former negotiation, at this time than at


si"t? Or, putting that matter quite out of sight, are you
that •nearer to any other rational pursuit now than then? Are you
,rongcr? Is France weaker ? What is it, I ask, that feeds


'the right honourable gentleman's fancy into a notion that the
end of this \Val* is so near at hand ?


As to the late change of his majesty's servants, it is min-
for me to say Whether it is a juggl


ble
e or not; but, con-possible


sidering the genius of the right honoura gentleman's con-
t •ivances, I can see many things in such a scheme which
would make it not unsuitable for him to hazard such a thing
as an experiment. Blinded he would be, and under hopeless
infatuation, not to feel the total impossibility of his ever
reaching that goal at which he casts such a lingering look.
I do not exactly charge him with positive duplicity in con-
ducting the different treaties which he opened with the enemy;
but that he was grateful even to piety for the miscarriage of-
them all, is not to be denied. When, then, was he to be
successful or sincere, who never negociated without failing,
and never failed without rejoicing? Not one single step could
he take towards pacification, without stumbling upon some-
thina that must suggest to him his own humiliation, andb bb
without prompting the enemy with perpetual mistrust. Well,
therefore, may the right honourable gentleman pour forth
his panegyrics upon his successors, w to take this task (so
ignominious for him and his colleagues) off his hands, and
1.;11o, at the same time, proclaim their devotion to the prin-
ciples of his administration.


Now, Sir, having advanced all that I think necessary to
urge in support of my honourable friend's motion, I shall beg
leave to say a single word upon a topic that has been several
!Mies alluded to in this debate, namely, my personal attend-
ance in this House. It is not for me to anticipate the deter-
mination of the House this night. If I sec any reason-
able grounds for thinking that my regular appearance here
Can be really beneficial to the public, the public shall have
that benefit: but if it is demonstrable, after the seas of blood
otahriailt have been shed, and the hundreds of millions wasted —
f
after sacrifice of treasure and of reputation — after the


ure of all the professed objects of this war, and after
f . &ng immeasurable woes upon the country in consequence


c) after a series of military enterprizes that excited the
mctenternpt, and some of them the horror of Europe — after,


:e


less of all, and the ruin of many of our allies —after
eing fothe enemy aggrandised beyond all example, by the


efrts made to abase him — after having abused the
GG 3




454 MOTION ON THE STATE OE THE NATION. [MarC 2s,
matchless glories of our navy, from the true end of all ins
tillable warfare,a safe and honourable peace— after seeing
the ninth year of this direful contest advance us so little tot'
wards its close, that we see a host of new enemies eon,.
mencing a new war, pregnant with mischief whether we are
victorious or vanquished — after all the infringements that
have been made upon the English constitution, and our
bitter experience that increasing the cause is not the true
remedy for discontent — after all that we have seen in Ireland,
and all that we feel in England — if all these things go for
nothing, and the division of this night should manifest the
same determined confidence of this House in that system
which has produced all these effects, whether administered by
its first leaders, or by their followers raised from secondary
into superior offices — then, Sir, sensible of the utter inutility
of my exertions, I shall certainly feel myself justified in
exercising my own discretion as to the degree of regularity
with which I shall attend this House.


How this House feels I know not : how it will act we shall
shortly see. It is for the House to resolve how it will best
discharge its duty ; I am quite satisfied that I have discharged
mine. Those who think, that what I have stated are not
evils, arising from any defect of wisdom, of vigour, of
foresight, of prudence, or of any of the qualities that con-
stitute the essentials to an able and capable government; but
that they are only slips of conduct, mere flaws of accident,
affording no presumption against the king's ministers, whom
this House is constituted not to controul or call to account,
but to support and justify upon all occasions — such persons
will of course vote against this inquiry. On the other hand,
those who think that the misfortunes brought upon the country
by the late ministers are the necessary consequence of ori-
ginal folly in the schemes, and of imbecility in the execution;
who think that the primary duty of this House is to guard
the rights and protect the interests of the people ; who are of
opinion that the dreadful state in which the country finds
itself is not more owing to the misconduct of administration,
than to the absence of this House from that constitutional
jealousy of the influence of the crown which ought to be the
first characteristic of a House of Commons, and from its um-
form discountenance of all retrospect and revision Those
who think that the vice of the plans and principles that hare
brought the country to its present situation, has been cruelly
aggravated by that boundless confidence which this House 13'1s
uniformly, shown, and which, instead of deterring from evil 01
doubtful projects by the fear of punishment, has operated as ani
encouragement to dangerous speculation, by the assuran ce °4


PRELIMINARIES or PEACE, 8z.c./pl 45;
indemnity and safety—Those who think that this question ought
not to depend upon regard to the late or the present
stration, to predilections or antipathies for that side of the
House or this —Those who think that the reign of confidence
has had full play, that the principle has been fairly tried and
found wanting, who


impolitic,


in its sad effects that it is not more un-
constitutional than mpoliti and who firmly believe that theSurest method of redeeming the country in the present crisis,
is for this House to resort to the good old customs of our
ancestors, to resume in the worst the jealous vigilance of the
best times, and to manifest that the support of government
must be accompanied by inquiry into its conduct — Those
who think thus will vote, as I shall, for the motion of my
honourable friend.


The House divided on Mr. Grey's motion :
Tellers. Tellers.


ADDRESS ON THE PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE WITH THE
FRENCH REPUBLIC.


November 3.


THE House proceeded to take into consideration the pre-
liminary articles of peace between his majesty and the French


republic, signed at London the 1st of October 'Soh Sir Edward
Hartopp moved, " That an humble address be presented to his
majesty, to return his majesty the thanks of this House, for
having been graciously pleased to lay before them a copy of the
preliminaries of peace which have been ratified by his majesty
and the French republic




and to assure his majesty, that having
taker, them into their most serious consideration, they reflect, with.
heartfelt gratitude, on the fresh proof which has been afforded on
t iof his majesty's paternal care for the welfare and
happiness of his people, and contemplate with great satisfaction
the prospect of a definitive treaty of peace, founded on conditions
which, whilst they manifest his majesty's wisdom, moderation, and
good faith, will, they trust, be productive of consequences highly
advantageous to the substantial interests of the British empire. '
After the address had been supported by Mr. Lee, Lord Hawkes-
1 31zY, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. Pitt, and opposed.bur
y -Mr. Thomas Grenville and Earl Temple,


GG 4


YEAS
{Mr. Grey 1 'cc —NOES {Mr. YorkeMr. Whitbread Mr. Abbot


So it passed in the negative.
2 I .




ISO.] THE FRENCH REPUBLIC. 45 7
did not possess Minorca, and yet they carried on


!tee principal i part of the Levant trade. But it is not in this
jut of view that I conteMplate the question. Desiring


peace13: most ardently, and thinking and hoping it may be a


456 PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE WTTH [NOv


Mr. Fox rose and said : At no time, Sir, since I h
had the honour of being a member of this House, did re
give my vote with more heartfelt pleasure than I shall I veto on
the present occasion, in support of the preliminaries of peace
between this country and the French republic. And I owl
Sir, that I think his majesty's ministers and the mover of th'e'
address did very wisely in taking that moderate line, and in
refraining from all those topics which might have diminished
the satisfaction which gentlemen must feel in assenting to the
motion now before us. Yet, Sir, for my own part, I have
no hesitation in saying, that had even the word " honourable
been introduced into the vote, I should not have declined as-
senting to it; for I will be bold to say, that unless the peace
be honourable it ought not to come before us. Whether the
epithets safe and honourable be convertible, I will not now
inquire; but of this I am sure, that among individuals, and
much more among nations, honour is the most essential
means of safety, as it is the first, and I bad almost said the
only legitimate ground of war. With regard to another
term made use of by the noble lord, I cannot so readily agree
with him. I cannot conceive how the term glorious peace
could be applied. A glorious peace can only ensue from a
glorious war, and such an epithet I never can apply to the
late war.


Those who have argued the subject before me have very
fairly divided it into two heads: Whether this peace be.
preferable to a continuance of the war ? this is certainly
the most material point : and 2. Whether, a better peace
could have been obtained ? The last point cannot easily be
ascertained. If we could have had a better peace without
running the risk of continuing the war, his majesty's mi-
nisters would undoubtedly have been very blameable in nut
making a better. But I should like to have it proved to me,
how ministers could have made a better. Sir, I was glad to
hear the noble lord, whose speech I admired so much in all
the main points of it, lay down that liberal system of policy,
that what is gained does not of itself make peace so much
the better; nor what is not gained, make it so much the
worse. We have gained Ceylon and Trinidad ; valuable
acquisitions both. 'We have not gained the Cape, and I ant
not one of those -who regret that we have not, for, from its
destination we shall have all the benefits of that possession
without any of the expellee of it. Perhaps, Sir, I d o not
agree with the honourable gentleman, who considers any
acquisitions in the Mediterranean as secondary and sub-
ordinate points to Ceylon and Trinidad. The noble lord/
considering the subject in a commercial point of view, say's


lasting one, I still cannot put entirely out of my consider-
,tiouthe possibility of future wars between the two countries.
f Ii any such event, surely Malta would be a more important
possession , than either Ceylon or Trinidad.


From this digression I return to the question, Why are we
to sunpose that better terms of peace could have been ob-
tained ? I wish to know, Sir, what pressure could have been
made upon France that would have induced her to consent
to better terms. And here I cannot help repeating, that
though I admired much of the noble lord's speech, the part
I. most admired was that in which he applied the epithet
" unsatisfitctory ;" an epithet chosen with singular felicity to
the state of the continent, fairly confessing at the same time,
that nothing gave him any reasonable hope of much mending
it. But it has been urged, that France could not hurt this
country. Not hurt it ! That nothing can be more chimerical
than the project of invading this country, I am as firmly
convinced as any man can be. But are there not,vililnannoyt
other points which, at this late hour of the night,
discuss ? Is there any man so blindly fond of the union with
Ireland, so widely satisfied with the measures that have been
adopted with respect to that country, as to say that the danger
of a French force being in Ireland is not at least greater than
the danger of an English force landing in France? The only
question then is, whether by pressure of war we could prevail
upon France to cede to us Malta or the Cape ? Could we have
prevailed upon her by pressure upon her colonies ? No, for
that had been already.


clone. By pressure upon the European
territory of France? That idea is absurd. By pressure


j
upon her finances ? Here, Sir, I cannot but admire the
udicious conduct of his majesty's ministers. They have not


sought to delude us by the jargon of their predecessors, and
by senseless assertions of the French being on the brink, and


?I
iu the very gulph of bankruptcy. They had too much good


lse to do it. They adopted another mode of conduct.
T hey well knew, that, by insisting upon Malta or the Cape,
they must have made peace on less dignified terms, or they
must have continued the war. That we might have gone on
with the contest, I am not prepared to deny. .I am not blind
to the resources of the country. I see one resource while I
am speaking. The income-tax is only mortgaged for fifty-
eve millions of debt. It might have been mortgaged for
as much more; but these resources, says the noble lord,




45 8 PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE WITH • [Nov•
and justly, ought to be reserved for the defence of our Ito.
nour and our independence. I come, then, to this conclusion,
that there was little probability of our gaining better terms
of peace.


I proceed next to the question,. Whether we ought to have
?


-a noble earl who sits on the same side of the House with
accepted these terms, or to have continued the war


11°, Iy\lr
self, has called the peace a complete surrender, a capitula-
tion of our safety ; but yet, in the progress of that noble earl's
speech, I discovered that he begged to be understood as not
preferring another year of war to what lie calls this complete
surrender. Sir, it happens to many gentlemen, in the heat
and hurry of argument, to be guilty of a little oratorical ex-
:rgeration. The expression of the noble earl seems to me to
be of that description. I confess, Sir, I thought myself to be the
last person to contemplate another year of war. But I now
find I am absolutely warlike, compared with that noble earl.
Yet though I cannot go so far as he does, I am still of opinion
that another year of war would have been dreadful. Let
me put one or two plain questions to the House. Let me ask
every man who hears me, what has been the state of the poor
for the two last years ? What have we seen throughout the
country, in every town and parish ? We have seen the poor
depending upon alms. We have seen the mass of the peo-
ple living upon charity, all levelled by the most dangerous
equality, an equality of claims to be fed ; claims destroying
true charity Charity do I call it? Sir, one of the worst
features of the present times is, that charity loses almost its na-
ture. The claims were irresistible. The miser felt it his in-
dispensable interest to give, as well as the humane. The
industrious and the idle, the honest and the dissolute, were
all to be fed alike ; for, however you might prefer relieving
the former, you could not suffer the latter to perish. I think
I shall not at this time of day be told, that this evil was un-
connected with the war. Have not the events of the last
three months established that connection. We have had a most
abundant harvest, as well got in as it was plentiful in its pro-
duce. I know it did reduce the price of grain, and, in some
degree, the prices of other kinds of provision. But we saw
that the prices began afterwards to rise again, probably because
the fall had been more rapid than was natural. But what
was the effect as soon as peace came ? The fall from that
time was much more rapid and considerable than it had been
from the period of the harvest to the peace. Let ,,cientlemeli
contemplate this picture. Let them say whether the outlines
of it be not correct, and then let me ask , them, can any
man doubt, under such circumstances, whether it be 31°'


1801.]


THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.
459


better for the people to eat, than that we should possess the
Cape, or even Malta, could we have gained them at such a
price ? Another question I would ask as, whether gentlemen
ever remember any event that was received with so much joy


peace with France ? But I may be told, that that joy
.


as the
was much greater among the lower classes of the people. Be
it o, for the sake of argument. Why, then, I say, that this
is only an additional proof of their having connected in their
minds the idea of plenty with the prospect of peace. But it
is added, that this popular joy was indiscriminating, and that
the people never stopped to inquire about the. terms. Most
correctly true, I believe, is this assertion. But what does it
prove ? It only proves that the people were so goaded by the
war, that they preferred peace almost upon any terms.


Sir, there are many persons . who think and lament that
the peace is a glorious one for France. If the peace be glo-
rious for France, without being inglorious to England, it will
not give me any concern that it is so. Upon this point, the
feelings and opinions of men must depend in a great measure
upon their conceptions of the causes of the war. If one of the
objects of the war was the restoration of the anticnt despotism
of France, than which I defy any man to produce in the his-
tory of the world a more accursed one ; if, I say, that was
one of the objects of the war, why then, I say, it is to me an
additional recommendation of the peace, that it has been ob-
tained without the accomplishment of such an object. My
undisguised opinion is, that if the coalition for the restoration
°File Bourbons had succeeded, the consequences would have
been amongst all the kings of Europe a perpetual gua-
rantec against all people who might be oppressed by any
of them in any part of the world. All countries, therefore,
must be benefited by the Ihilure of such a project, but none
more so than Great Britain. To the people of this country
the consequences would have been fatal. Refer to the page ofhistory. Had the coalition in the reign of Charles I. esta-
blished such a auarantee, would the 'liberties of the people
have been preserved against the house of Stuart, or would.
Hampden have gained the immortal victory he did ? To
c
onic lower down: had such a guarantee existed in latertimes, would the-Revolution of r688 have been able to main-


tain itself? I say, therefore, that there could not have been
any greater misfortune to the World than the success of that
coalition for restoring the Bourbons to the crown of France.


Sir, the noble lord, to whom I have had such frequent oc-
casion to allude, does not, I am sure, expect me to agree
With him* in opinion upon the earlier periods of the war.
tjPen those periods, and upon the situation of France at that




460 PRELIMINARIES Or PEACE WITH


always CoZ, 3.time, I differ with him directly. I have
that we carried on a war against the freedom and indep\ ed
deuce of France. Sir, I know I shall be told that France
was the first to declare war ; but this I contend is no proof of
her having been the aggressor. We refused to hear an a
thorised negotiator who was sent to us ; we took no steps _ eps to
procure reparation or disavowal of the acts complained of;
and all writers that I have ever read upon the law of nation,
agree that the country which refuses to hear what another ha;
to propose, is to be considered the aggressor.inTil,tiett,i;ighhats
honourable gentleman who has just sat down, (w
urged it as a maxim, and I am not prepared to deny it, that
whenever the executive government places us at peace with
another country, we are bound to speak with decency of the
government of that country. If this be true with respect to
the conduct we ought to adopt after peace is made, is it not
equally our duty to abstain from harsh and insulting language
before war is declared? Let gentlemen recollect the language
of that right honourable gentleman in December 1792. Let
them remember what inflammatory topics he urged, wha4
invectives he made use of at the very time he was proposing
that we should abide by our system of neutrality.


Sir, the pretended grounds of the war were the navigation
of the Scheldt, the decree of the 1 9th of November, and other
acts of the French government. With respect to Holland,
it was no caves fcvderis, for she did not desire your assistance.
And here, Sir, let me remind the House, that one of the
indemnities we have obtained for that war, is from that very
ally whom we pretended we entered into the war to defend.
But, for my own part, I must confess that I always under-
stood the object of the war to be the restoration of the house
of Bourbon. Not that I mean to say that it was the sine qaa
non; but I contend that they avowed it with confidence, pro-
secuted it with perseverance, adhered to it with pertinacity,
and relinquished it with difficulty. But they now affirm, that,
not being able to obtain what they wished, they contented
themselves with securing what they could ; that they had a
second best object, a succedaneum to put up in case of neees-
sky. Yet who amongst us ever thought that that succeda:
neum, that second best object, was Ceylon and 'Trinidad?
Whoever imagined that they mix) had held forth such mighty
objects, would ever have admitted the acquisition of an island!in the east and in the west to be that 44 indemnity for the past
and security for the future," for which they had so obstinately
and loudly insisted ?


I come now, Sir, to the third division of the question
subject of guaranties. Suppose you had got, says the right


/$0.1


THE FRENCH nEPUBLIC•
462


honourable gentleman, a guaranty for Naples or for Pied-
mont, bow would you have enforced it ? I admit the justice
of his conclusion ; but surely I had no right to expect this
ti•oni the 44 Deliverer of Europe." I had no right to expect
that he, of all men living, would have argued against our
interfering in &your of Naples or of Piedmont, because we
had not the means of doing it successfully.


I have now, I hope, sufficiently convinced the House, that
in the terms and tone of the treaty I perfectly coincide with
the noble lord. I approve of the terms. I think the noble
secretary has very wisely tempered firmness of conduct with
moderation of tone. But further than this I cannot go with
him. I cannot agree with him upon the time in which the
treaty was made. It comes, in my opinion, many, many
years too late. I would put it to the House, whether, at the
period when we were most railed at and reviled for advising
pacific measures, any man supposes for a moment that peace
%void(' not have been made upon terms equally advantageous
with these ? Does any man doubt that France, upon the break-
ing out of the war, would have acceded to much better terms ?
Does any man doubt that she would then have relinquished
Holland, and perhaps abandoned even her designs upon, the
Netherlands? Would she not have given us better terms,
both in the East Indies and the West? I urge this, Sir,
with the more earnestness, in order to repel the idea of our


z,beina forced into the war. I know there were some gentle-
men who admitted that she did not wish to commence hosti-
lities with us at that time, and who told us, that she meant
Only to give us the privilege of being devoured the last. But
might we not, I repeat, at every period since, have obtained
better terms of peace than we have clone ? Could we not
have negociated with more effect after the surrender of Valen-
ciennes? At length a new government was established, and a
negociation was entered into at Paris. That aneociation
failed, from the extravagant pretensions of his majesty's mi-t>
rtisters. A second negociation was afterwards begun at Lisle.Whatever may have been said of that negociation, I would
ask, how could we hope for success -from it, when it now ap-
pears that the sentiments of the members of the cabinet were
so various and so opposite? when we find that one of those
ministers now thinks that peace to be a good one which gives
up the Cape; a possession which, another minister contended,
Vie
mould not be abandoned without committing a crime deserving
Been


severest punishment. But that negociation, we have
told, was entered into, not so much from any pacificincli


nation on the part of his majesty's ministers, as in corn-
t'llance with the sentiments of the public. We have more




462 PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE WITH [NOv
• 3.


than. once heard them rejoice in its failure, and avow that
they recurred to it for the purpose of facilitating the


-


adoption
of a solid system of finance. Such a mottive (CiiiTireiftteesoililosuwi no
longer. At length, in January 'Soo, h
France makes a direct overture of peace. What answer did
we return?? Why, that the most effectual mode of fa •mh
tating peace would be to restore the Bourbons; that, d
was not the only means, but it was left to the French
government to suggest any other. Was it the most likely
method to prove our pacific wishes to ask Bonaparte to cut
his own throat; for the first effect of the restoration of the
Bourbons would, in all probability, have been the sacrificae:
his life? But were the other means at which we hinted, the
possession of Ceylon and Trinidad ? Would not Bonaparte
at that time have given us up both these islands — aye, and
the Cape into the bargain ? We might then have had Egypt
by the convention of El-Arisch. The gallant Abercrombie
would not, indeed, have fallen covered with laurels in the lap
of victory, nor would our brave army have acquired such im-
mortal honour; but we should at least have had Egypt with-
out the loss of blood or of treasure. And what would then
have been the case in Europe? • The chief consul might not
perhaps have relinquished the Netherlands, nor the left bank
of the Rhine. But in Italy he had only the Genoese terri-
tory : we had nothing then to resist to the south-eastward of
the Alps, and the forces of our allies were victorious to the
frontiers of France. Then did the right honourable gentle-
man ransack the English language for epithets of severity and
invective against the man whom he now contends we ought to
treat with such decorum. But here I must do that right ho-
nourable gentleman the justice to acknowledge, that he con-
fessed he indulged in that invective because it pleased him,
but that it would be no obstruction in his mind to any other
negociation which circumstances might render toproperit
enter into with him. At that time the consideration of the
want of the stability of the government operated with consider-
able power. I urged then, and still urge, that the question
of the stability or instability of the government ought not to
be treated as of great consequence. I recalled to the reco -
lection of the House, that none of the convulsions or changes
of the French Revolution, none of the shocks and contentions
of the different parties, had produced any material alterationers;in the relations which France established with foreign pow
She had, at an early period, made peace with Prussia, a1"aa
with that power she sedulously preserved that peace diu.
all the stormy times that succeeded the ratification of it. r;
Sir, we were told by his majesty's ministers to pause. "


THE FRENCH REPUBLIC. 463


did pa, use from January • 800 to October i8oi, and we have
added 73 million of debt since the impertinent answer, for I


call it by no other name, returned to the overtures of thecan
In other words, Sir, we have added as much to


colu'ireif act°i1olsnilal i debt in that short period, as the whole of our debt
consisted of from the period of the Revolution to the seven
} ears' war. This pause of his majesty's ministers cost five
times as much as 'all the Duke of Marlborough's campaigns.


But it is said, that the case was altered by the defection of
oar allies; and the noble lord asks us, whether we would trust
to the chance of reviving a third coalition, and the consequent
eiipenditure of blood and treasure? Sir, I say the experience
of the first coalition would have been quite sufficient to have
deterred me from attempting any other, and the argu-
ment would. have applied with as much strength many years
ago, as it does at the present moment. The noble lord next
alludes to the principles and power of France. For my own
part, I never had much dread of French principles, though I
certainly have no slight apprehension of French power. Of
the influence of France upon the continent, I am as sensible as
any man can be; but this is an effect which I do not impute
to the peace but to the war. It is the right honourable gen-
tleman himself who has been the greatest curse of the country
by this aggrandisement of France. To France we may apply
what that gentleman applied formerly on another occasion —
we may say,


Me Tenedon, Cbrysenque, et Cyllan Apollinis urbes,
Et Scyron cepisse.


He is the great prominent cause of all this greatness of the
French republic. How did we come into this situation ? By
maintaining a war upon grounds originally unjust. It was
this that excited a spirit of proud independence on the part
of the enemy : it was this that lent him such resistless vigour : it
was this that gave them energy and spirit, that roused them
to such efforts, that inspired them with a patriotism and a zeal
which no opposition could check, and no resistance subdue.


If I am asked what my opinion is of the future, my reply
is, that, to put us in complete enjoyment of the blessings of
Peace, small establishments alone are necessary. It is by
commercial pursuits and resources that we must attempt to
compensate for the aggrandisement of our antient rival: to


T
Cope with him in large establishments, in expensive navies


.1(1 armies, will be the surest way to unnerve our efforts anddi
minish our means. Sir, I am not sanguine enough, though


I think and hope the peace will be lasting, to calculate on a




464 PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE WITH [Nov,
seventy years' peace. But still I am sanguine to a certain de-
gree in my expectations, that the new state of France win
turn the disposition of her people to a less hostile min d te_
wards this country. I do think that Bonaparte's govern_
meat is less likely to be adverse to Great Britain than the
house of Bourbon was. God forbid that I should insult a
fallen family ; but the interests of my country compel rue to


thane the
say, that the chief consul cannot have a more inveterate
spirit, and a more determined hostility towards us,
house of Bourbon had. It has been said with truth, that the
trade of France has been nearly annihilated; but I believe,
the accounts from the interior of France do not represent her
to be in a desolate state; and for Heaven's sake let us not for-
0-et that the Revolution has produced the effect of removing6 / -
many of those internal grievances under which France groaned
under the old government. It has abolished the corvees, a
most vexatious tax; the feudalitics, the odious and unjust im-
munities of the rich from the payment of taxes; it has abo-
lished the privileges of the nobility, not those privileges which
place the nobility as a barrier between the crown and the
people, but those privileges which enabled them to tyrannise
over and oppress their inferiors:— in a word, the French
have made those reforms which we did two centuries ago.


Sir, for my own part, I cannot help thinking that the
encouragement given to the arts and sciences, the increasing
patronage in France of agriculture and of commerce, will
make the minds of the people more pacific. It is a noto-
rious fact, that the joy with which the French received the
communication of the peace, was quite as great and as sin-
cere as it was in this country. The chief consul well knew,
that in making peace he fulfilled the desires of the people
whom he governs, as much as his majesty's ministers ae


c i


plished the wishes of the people of England. What, then,
remains to be considered, but this affair of commerce? Many
persons are fearful that our commerce will suffer from the
competition of France. I have no such fears. As far as our
trade can be attacked by the rivalship of France, I think
that rivalship will do us good. If, as some of you think, the
weight of our taxation will enable France to rival us, is not
that, _I would ask, an additional argument in favour of peace?


The right honourable gentleman who spoke last, alludes
to the principles and power of France. Of the former he is
no longer afraid, though he is of the latter. If this be the
case, is it not rather strange that be should think of assailing
principles by guns and pikes and cannon; but that, who?'
he is afraid of the power of France, he would make peace'


180,7 'rift FRENCH REPUBLIC. 463
Sic., principles never were, and never will be annihilated by
force. I never had so much dread as some gentlemen had
of French principles. I never conceived that they would
have much influence in this country. I never thought that
Paris, under the dominion of Robespierre, held out a very
inviting example to the British capital. Sir, the French Re-


was calculated to fix men's minds more eagerly upon
the


opposing it
question of


?
liberty.


Disgrace
But,


and d
wasefth


eat
e


m
sword


ight havea
best


tended
means


tof
weaken it in the opinion of many, but victory and glory only


tl
gave it additional currency and credit with the great mass of


e.1 1;-)eroolle'c) ed now to a subject connected with our domestic
situation ; I mean Ireland, which one noble lord seems to
think has been treated with a delicate hand. Of the union
with Ireland I will not at this late hour enter into an investi-
gation; time will best chew whether it be likely to strengthen
the connection between the two countries. But when we hear
of this mixture of delicacy and firmness, let me ask what de-
licacy there was in the burnings and massacres? The noble
lord has been incautious in the selection of his words; he has
spoken of indulgencies to be granted to the people in conse-
quence of the peace. Is the substitution of common law for
martial law, or the restoration of the habeas corpus, to be
considered as an indulgence ? Sir, there Were times in which
these were considered as sacred pillars of the constitution,
not as indulgencies. If they are restored to vigour, I shall re-
ceive them as a right. I cannot be grateful for them as a
boon.


Sir, I have nothing more to say, but to thank the House
for the attention with which they have honoured me, and to
beg pardon for having trespassed on them so long. I re-
joice at the peace — cordially, sincerely, heartily rejoice at it.
I hope it will be lasting. I believe it will ; but to the last
hour of my life I shall never cease lamenting that it was not_
made years ago, when we might perhaps have had better
terms, but when we could certainly have had as good as
those which have been submitted to us this day.


The address was agreed to without aedivision;


VOI„ vi. II 0




466 CHARACTER OF TILE DUKE OF BEDFORD. [March lc


ot.i-4.4.elojui 4 tv244'i4.,
CHARACTER OF THE DUKE OF BEDFORD.


Jo. un-14 3 March 16. 1802.14,4


ON the 2nd of March 18o2, died Francis Duke of BedfordHis great endowments, and the premature termination of
life, the latter part of which was almost entirely devoted to t6
very popular pursuit of improving the system of the rural economy
of his country, caused a very strong degree of interest to be um.
versally felt on that melancholy event. During his life, as a public
character, he was connected with Mr. Fox, to whose political prin-
ciples and conduct he was most warmly attached, and by which
he was invariably guided. On the 1 6th of the same month,
Mr. Fox, in moving a new writ for the borough of Tavistock, va-
cated by Lord John Russell, who had succeeded to his deceased
brother's titles, took occasion to make an animated eulogium on
his departed friend.


Mr. Fox spoke nearly as follows*:
If the sad event which has recently occurred were only a


private misfortune, however heavy, I should feel the impro-
priety of obtruding upon the House the feelings of private
friendship, and would have sought some other opportunity of
expressing those sentiments of gratitude and affection, which
must be ever due front me to the memory of the excellent per-
son, whose loss gives occasion to the sort of motion of course
which I am about to make to the Home. It is because I.
consider the death of the Duke of Bedford as a great public
calamity, because the public itself seems to consider it; .1)e-
cause, not in this town only, but in every part of thekingdom,
the impression made by it seems to be the strongest, and most
universal, that ever appeared upon the loss ofa- subject; it is for
these reasons that I presume to hope for the indulgence of the
House, if I deviate, in some degree, from the common course,
and introduce my motion in a manner which I must confess
to be unusual on similar occasions.


At the same time, I trust, Sir, that I shall not be suspected
of any intention to abuse the indulgence which I ask
dwelling, with the fondness Of friendship, upon the VarOlb
excellencies of the character to which I have alluded, mitcli


j


This speech was printed in the Monthly Magazine for
from 31r. Fox's own manuscript. On presenting it to the proprietor 01
that publication, Mr. Fox observed, " that he had never before attelaPte'
to make a copy of any speech which he had delivered in public."


II


go21


CHARACTER 0 I' ITIE DUKE or BEDFORD.
467


less by entering into a history of the several events of his life
which might serve to illustrate it. There was something in
that character so peculiar and striking, and the just admiration
which his virtues commanded was such, that to 'expatiate upon
them in any detail is as unnecessary as, upon this occasion, it
would be improper. That he has been much lamented and
generally, cannot be wondered at, for surely there never was
a more just occasion of public sorrow. To lose such a man
_at such a time ! — so unexpectedly ! —The particular stage
()fills life too in which we lost him, must add to every feeling
of regret, and make the disappointment more severe and
poignant to all thinking minds. had lie fallen at an earlier
period, the public, to whom he could then (comparatively
speaking at least) be but little known, would rather have con),
passionated and condoled with the feelings of his friends and
relations, than have been themselves very severely afflicted by
the loss. It would have been suggested, and even we who
were the most partial must have admitted, that the expecta
lions raised by the dawn are not always realized in the meri-
dian of life. If the fatal event had been postponed, the cala
mity might have been alleviated by the consideration, that
mankind could not have looked forward for any length of time
to the exercises of his virtues and talents. But lie was snatched
away at a moment when society might have been expected to
be long benefited by his benevolence, his energy, and his wis-
dorn;.when we had obtained a full certainty that the progress'
of his life would be more than answerable to the brightest
hopes conceived from its outset; and when it might have been
reasonably hoped, that, after having accomplished all the good
of which it was capable, he would have descended not imma-
turely into the tomb. He had, on the one hand, lived long
enough to have his character fully confirmed and established,
while, on the other, what remained of life seemed, according
to all human expectations, to afford ample space and scope
for the exercise of the virtues of which that character was
composed. The tree was old enough to enable us to ascer-
tain the quality of the fruit which it would bear, and, at the-
same time, young enough to promise many years of pro-duce.


The high rank and splendid fortune of the ()Teat man of
whom I am speaking, though not circumstances which in
themselves either can or ought to conciliate the regard and
esteem of rational minds, are yet in so far considerable as an
el


evated situation, by making him who is so placed in it morePo
werful and conspicuous, causes his virtues or vices to be


nlo•e useful or injurious to society. In this case, the rank
and wealth of the person arc to be attended to in annthcr and


II H 2




468 CHARACTER OF THE DUKE OF BEDFORD. [March t6.
a very different point of view. To appreciate his merits justly
we must consider not only the advantages, but the disadve;'
tages, connected with such circumstances. The dangers at,
tending prosperity in general, and high situations in particu-
lar, the corrupting influence of flattery, to which. men in such
situations are more peculiarly exposed, have been the theme
of moralists in all ages, and in all nations; but how are these
dangers increased with respect to him who succeeds in hisichildhood to the first rank and fortune in a kingdom, such es
this, and who, having lost his parents, is never approached
by any being who is not represented to him as in some de_
gree his inferior Unless blessed with a heart uncommonly
susceptible and disposed to virtue, how should he, who had
scarce ever seen an equal,. have a common feeling and a just
sympathy for the, rest of mankind, who seem to have been
formed rather for him, and as instruments of his gratification,
than together with him for the general purposes of nature?
justly has the Roman satirist remarked,


Rams cairn feria; sensus communis in illy
Fortuna. —


This was precisely the case of the Duke of Bedford, nor do
I know that his education was perfectly exempt from the de-
fects usually belonging to such situations; but virtue found
her own way, and on the very side where the danger was the
greatest, was her triumph most complete. From the blame
of selfishness no man was ever so eminently five. No man
put his own gratification so low, that of others so high, in his
estimation. To contribute to the welfare of his fellow citizens
was the constant pursuit of his life, by his example and his
beneficence to render them better, wiser, and happier. He.
truly loved the public; but not only the public, according to
the usual acceptation of the word; not merely the body cor-
porate, (if I may so express myself,) which bears that name,
but Man in his individual capacity ; all who came within his
notice and deserved his protection, were objects of his ge


-nerous concern. From his station, the sphere of his ac:
quaintance was larger than that of most other men ; yet in thi s
extended circle, few, very few, could be counted to whom he
had not found sonic occasion to be serviceable. To be useful,
whether to the public at large, whether to his relations and
nearer friends, or even to any individual of his species, wa s th .
ruling passion of his life.


He died, it is true, in a state of celibacy ; but if they 0.8y.
be called a man's children whose concerns are as dear to 111
as his own — to protect whom from evil is the daily ob4c
his care — to promote whose welfare he exerts every laceutl_t);
of Which he is possessed ; if such, I say, are to be esteemed pa


iSo2.]


CHARACTER OF TIIE DUKE OF BEDFORD. 469


children , no man had ever a more numerous family than the
Duke ofBedford


are not, I own, a fit topic for this House,
or any public assembly ; but it is difficult for any one who
had the honour and happiness to be his friend, not to advert
(alien speaking of such a man) to his conduct and behaviour
in that interesting character. In his friendship, not only was
he disinterested and sincere, but in him were to be found
united all the characteristic excellencies which have ever dis-
t inguished the men most renowned for that most amiable of
all virtues, Some are warm, but volatile and inconstant; he
was warm too, but steady and unchangeable. Never once
was he known to violate any of the duties of that sacred rela-
tion. 'Where his attachment was placed, there it remained,
or rather there it grew ; for it may be more truly said of this
man than of any other that ever existed, that if' he loved you
at the beginning of the year, and you did nothing to forfeit
his esteem, he would love you still more at the end of it.
Such was the uniformly progressive state of his affections, no
less than of his virtue and wisdom.


It has happened to many, and he was certainly one of the
number, to grow wiser as they advanced in years. Some have
even improved in virtue ; but it has generally been in that
class of virtues only which consists in resisting the allure-.
meats of vice; and too often have these advantages been'
counterbalanced by the loss, or at least the diminution, of
that openness of heart, that warmth of feeling, that readinessc
of sympathy, that generosity of spirit, which have been
reckoned among the characteristic attributes of youth. In
leis case But


was far otherwise; endued by nature with an un-
e
xampled firmness of character, he could bring his mind to


a more complete state of discipline than any man I ever
• ut he had, at the same time, such a comprehensive


and just view of all moral questions, that he well knew todistinguish between those inclinations which, if indulged,
must be pernicious, and the feelings which, if cultivated,


beneficial to mankind. All bad propensities,therefore, •if any such he had, he completely conquered and
` uPP


•esscd, while, on the other hand, no man ever studied the
trade by which he was to get his bread — the profession by


lie hoped to rise to wealth and honour —nor even the
higher arts of poetry or eloquence, in pursuit of a fancied


ortality, with more zeal and ardour than this excellentPerson doing the noble art of d good to his fellow-
creatures.
sore In this pursuit, above all others, diligence is


of success, and accordingly it would be difficult to findan e
e4ample of any other man to whom so many individuals


It H 3


I




470 CHARACTER OF THE DUKE OF BEDFORD. [Ma rch 16


are. indebted for happiness or comfort, or to whom the pidjli
at large owe more essential obligation.


So far was he from slackening or growing cold in thsee
generous pursuits, that the only danger was, lest, notwith_
standing his admirable good sense, and that remarkable so.
berness of character which distinguished him, his intinia_
came might, if he had lived, have engaged him in expellees.
to which even his princely fortune would have been found in_
adequate. Thus, the only circumstance like a failing jit
this great character was, that, while indulging his &ding
passion for making himself useful to others, he might be too
regardless of future consequences to himself and to his fa.


1e:4
roily. The love of utility was indeed his darling, rulin
passion. Even in his recreations, (and he was by 1
naturally averse to such as were suitable to his station in life,)
no less than in his graver hours, he so much loved to keep this
grand object in view, that lie seemed, by degrees, to grow
weary of every amusement which was not in some degree
connected with it. Agriculture he judged rightly to be the
most useful of all sciences, and, more particularly in the
present state of affitirs, he conceived it to be the department
in which his services. to his country might be most beneficial.
To agriculture, therefbre, he principally applied himself; nor
can it be doubted, but, with his great capacity, activity, and
energy, lie must have attained his object, and made himself
eminently useful in that most important branch of political
economy. Of the particular degree of his merit in this re-
spect, how much the public is already indebted to him—
how much benefit it may still expect to derive from the
effects of his unwearied diligence and splendid example,
many members of this House can form a much more accurate
judgment than I can pretend to. But of his motive to these
exertions I am competent to judge, and can affirm, without a
doubt, that it was the same which actuated him throughout--
An ardent desire to employ his faculties in the way, whatever
it might be, in which he could most contribute to the good of
his country, and the general interests of mankind.


With regard to his politics, I feel a great unwillingness to
be wholly silent on the subject ; and at the same time much
difficulty in treating it with propriety, when I consider W
whom I am addressing myself. I am sensible that those
principles upon which, in any other place, I should not hesi,
tate to pronounce an unqualified eulogium, may be thought by
some, perhaps by the majority of this House, rather to AO('
in need of apology and exculpation, than to form a Prqe,r
subject for panegyric. But, even in this view, I may. be old.
lowed to offer a few words in favour of my departed &jet' _
I believe few, if any of us, are so infatuated with the extreux




n 2 CHARACTER OF THE DUKE OF BEDFORD. 47so° •
potions of philosophy as not to feel a partial veneration for the
nriaciples, some leaning even to the prejudices of the ances-
Lt'ors, especially if they were of any note, from whom we are
respectively descended. Such biasses are always, as I suspect,
favourable to the cause of patriotism and public virtue. I era
sure, at least, that in Athens and Rome they were so con-
sidered. No man had ever less of family pride, in the bad
sense, than the Duke of Bedford; but he had a great and just
respect for his ancestors. Now if; upon the principle to which
I have alluded, it was in Rome thought excusable in one of
the Claudii to have, in conformity with the general manners
of their race, something too much of an aristocratical pride
and haughtiness, surely in this country it is not unpardonable
in a Russell to be zealously attached to the rights of the sub-
ject, and peculiarly tenacious of the popular parts of the con-
stitution. It is excusable, at least, in one who numbers
among his ancestors the great Earl of Bedfbrd, the patron of
Pym, and the friend of Hampden, to be an enthusiastic lover
of liberty ; nor is it to be wondered at if a descendant of
Lord Russell should feel more than common horror for arbi-
trary power, and a quick, perhaps even a jealous discern-
ment of any approach or tendency in the system of govern-
ment to that dreaded evil. But whatever may be our dif-
ferences in regard to principles, I trust there is no member-
of this House who is not liberal enough to do justice to up-
right conduct, even in a political adversary. Whatever,
therefore, may be thought of those principles to which I
have alluded, the political conduct of my much lamented
friend must be allowed by all to have been manly, consistent,
and sincere.


It inn which
remains for me to touch upon the last melancholy


s n ich this excellent man was to be exhibited; and
to all those who admire his character, let it be some consola-
tion that his death was in every respect conformable to his.
life. I have already noticed, that prosperity could not cor-
rupt him. He had now to undergo a trial of an opposite
nature. But in every instance he -was alike true to his cha-
racter; and in moments of extreme bodily pain and ap-
proaching dissolution, when it might be expected that a man's
every feeling would be concentrated in, his personal sufferings
--his every thought occupied by the awful event impending -
even in these moments, he put by all selfish considerations;
,kindness to his friends was the sentiment still uppermost in
hi s mind


• and he employed himself, to the last hour of his




life • k.
, in ma incr the most considerate arran gements for the


flappiness and comfort of those who were to survive- him.
Vhile in the enjoyment of prosperity, he had learned and


bI H 4




47 2 CHARACTER OF THE DUKE OF BEDFORD. UAL re fl. /6,


practised all those milder virtues which adversity alone is.
supposed capable of teaching ; and, in the hour of pain and.
approaching death, he had that calmness and serenity


wh ich
arc thought to belong exclusively to health of body, an d a
mind at ease.


If I have taken an unusual, and possibly an irregular course
upon this extraordinary occasion, I am confident the House
will pardon me. They will forgive something, no doubt, to
the warmth of private friendship—to sentiments of gratitude,
which I must feel, and whenever I have an opportunity, must
express to the latest hour of my life. But the consideration
of public utility, to which I have so much adverted as the
ruling principle in the mind of my friend, will weigh far more
with them. They will in their wisdom acknowledge, that to
celebrate and perpetuate the memory of great and meritorious
individuals, is in effect an essential service to the community.
It was not, therefore, for the purpose of performing the pious
office of friendship, by fondly strewing flowers upon his tomb,
that I have drawn your attention to the character of the Duke of
Bedford; the motive that actuates me, is one more suitable to
what were his views. It is, that this great character may be
s trongly impressed upon the minds of all who hear me—that
they may see it — that they may feel it — that they may dis-
course of it in their domestic circles — that they may speak of
it to their children, and hold it up to the imitation of poste-
rity. If he Could now be sensible to what passes here below
— sure I am, that nothing could give him so much satisfaction
as to find that we are endeavouring to make his memory an
example, as he took care his life should be—useful to man-
kind.


I will conclude, with applying to the present occasion, a beau-
tiful passage from the speech of a very young orator It may be
thought, perhaps, to savour too much of the sanguine views of
youth, to stand the test of a rigid philosophical inquiry ; but it
is at least cheering and consolatory, and that in this instance it
maybe exemplified, is, I am confident, the sincere wish of every.
man who hears me. " Crime," says he, 44 is a curse only to
the period in which it is successful; but virtue, whether for-
tunate or otherwise, blesses not only its own age, bat remotest
posterity, and is as beneficial by its example, as by its imme


-diate effects."
Mr. Fox then moved, " That Mr. Speaker do issue his war-


* Essay on the Progressive Improvements of Mankind ; an oratio n t
Iivered in the chapel of- Trinity College, Cambridge, December 57. 179°'
by the Honourable William Lamb.


iSo2.] ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST. 473
rant to the clerk of the crown, to make cut a new writ, for
die electing of a burgess to serve in this present parliament,
for the borough of Tavistock, in the county of Devon, in the
room of the Right Hon. John Russell, commonly called Lord
John Russell, now Duke of Bedford, called up to the House
of Peers."


ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST.


March 29.
1. 51/. Addington, the chancellor of the exchequer, having this
1► 1 day moved in a committee of supply, " That it is the opinion
of this committee that a suns not exceeding 990,0531. be granted
to his majesty to discharge the arrears and debts due and owing
upon the civil list on the fifth of January 18oz,"


Mr. Fox rose and said :— Sir, there is no man in this
House less disposed than I feel myself, at any time, to find
fault with such measures as may be conducive to the comfort,
the splendour, and the dignity of every branch of the royal
family; and particularly what may tend to the ease and hap-
piness of the chief magistrate of the state, as far as I can re-
concile such proceedings to the duty I owe to my own con-
stituents in particular, and the general interests of the country.
If it could be supposed that humour or temper were to


ginovNI
evrlhany part of this discussion, the present is a moment


I could have little disposition to indulge them. I
have not been more than about four hours in town ; and, since
leaving my carriage, have heard of two articles of news than
which I know of nothing of a public nature that could be
More grateful to my feelings. The first is that in which every
man, wishing well to his country, must rejoice, I mean the
conclusion of the definitive treaty of peace with France ; and
the second, that it is the intention of the minister to move for the
repeal of the income-tax, — a tax the most oppressive, per-
nicious, and vexatious, that ever was imposed in any country ;
and tending more than any other to subvert that respect in
wh ich a good government ought always to be held by thepeople, and without which there can be very little security
or its subsisting for any length of time. This, however, is
a subject which is by no means


connected with good or ill
tIrrlour, and is solely dependent on what is consistent whh


6,nr attachment to the throne, a proper view to the laws of
the land, and the sacred principles of the British constitution.




474 ARREARS OE THE CIVIL LIST. [march 29.
However I may have been instructed or entertained b., ft,
right honourable gentleman, in the history he has giN3'e'rt`11":
of the civil list dining the last century, I do not con' ce
to have been precisely in point, or to bear strongly 't






on the
present question. My ideas upon that subject differ vastly
from those which have been brought forward in this con_'
mittee; nor can I conceive how any thing


b
respectino- the


revenues of the crown, previously to the Revolution, has snore
analogy to the present civil list than what may beendraw l!


civil


:
from the remotest antiquity. The revenues of the crown
before the event alluded to, compared with the present • -
list, was as gold to silver. The king certainly possessed
immense revenues . in former times, totally independent of
parliament: but for this revenue, what had he to do? Ile"
was to raise and maintain fleets and armies in times of war,
as well as in peace. It was no private income of his own,
as an individual, but a trust from the public. It is very
true, that such revenue was not adequate to meet extraor-
dinary occasions; and though the , monarch was bound, at
his own expense, to defend the country, and maintain the
expellees of wars, as well as civil government, in cases of
necessity he applied to parliament for assistance. 'Whether
that mode was preferable to that which has been since
adopted, is a question not worth discussing at this moment;
but I am free to confess; that I ern a strong advocate in
favour of the modern system. Now, however, that the House
and the country provide for all the expenses (and God knows
they have been severe enough lately !) of our fleets and armies,
the revenues allotted to the crown must necessarily be at the
disposition, and subject to the controul of parliament. It
would be a strange and absurd doctrine indeed, to maintain
that the public should take upon itself all the expense, and
leave the revenue precisely as it was before: such a doctrine
is too monstrous to have met with any support even in
the worst of times. Fortunately for us, some of our kings
have been too improvident, by which they outran their
incomes.


In treating of this question I do not wish to, be severej
but I understand, that so inuth stress has lately been Inacl,et
on the claims which some persons suppose the crown ought


,still to have upon a part at least ()if not the whole of the '(1
hereditary revenue, that I cannot withhold expressing. bridaY
my opinion on that subject. Were we now to allow
hereditary revenue to be the same as it was in former dile'
surely no gentleman could possibly say that it should
applied to the purposes of the civil list only. I admi t fi.1
the revenue of James H. was two millions annually; but.


002•• ARREARS 01' TILE CIVIL LIST. 475
believe no one will venture to assert that it was granted only
for civil-list purposes. From. the time, however, that par-
liament exonerated the crown (fin- that is the fact) from the
espence of levying and supporting fleets and armies, from
that moment the hereditary revenues became the property
of the public. It was so understood and so expressed on the
election of William III. He could hold no hereditary re-
venue/we carom; for he was not the heir to the crown when
he succeeded James II. I am aware that a great misunder-
standing prevailed upon this subject, and perhaps continues


but
know that


prevail;
nations


choice and election of the people, and


l.




;


therefore


but we are not now infected with the super-
ti imbibed by some persons of that day. We
t III. ascended the throne, not by right,


bad no rights jure corona', nor any other rights but such as
had been covenanted. So of George III. He is not the
heir of James II., but of William III.; nor has he any right
to this hereditary revenue, unless we go back to the ancient
and absolute rights of prescription. What did the parlia-
ment of William III. do ? Instead of the hereditary revenue,
they appropriated others for the civil list, to the amount
of 700,0001. a year; and should they exceed that sum, the
surplus was to be at the disposal of parliament. From the
sum of 700,0001. they deducted 370,0001. for public services;
decreed that the crown revenues should be under their own
controul; and came to what I consider to have been a wise
and salutary resolution, of granting it to him for life. The
same practice has since been uniformly adopted at the com-
mencement of every reign. I know perfectly well that there
has been much difference of opinion on the question, whether
iL7litl


t i me to
tone.bet better to make these grants of annual revenue


This doubt so far operated in the par-




t of William,en King lam, that the provision was at first
made temporary, but it was afterwards thought expedient
that the provision should be for life. The same line of con-
d
uct Was pursued on the accession of Queen Anne, and has


n followed up in all the succeeding reigns. The right
/10


been •


'221
nourable gentleman has anticipated the answer which
,;t be-given to sonic parts of his statement. I know that


been a mistake made, not by lawyers or other well-
ilienned persons, but by courtiers, that the hereditary re-


G'3 eneral
formed only a part of the revenue of the crown. From


,. 2neral recollection also (for I have not lately had much
"eess to the Journals) I think that in the reign of Queennne


- Q• an application was made to parliament in aid of themvil list
the


, at a time when 800,000/. had been expended, though
grantwas no more than 700,0001. Great stress has been


1




476 ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST. [March 29.


laid on the expences his majesty has been put to in eon.
sequence of his family: but let it be remembered, that there
were equal incumbrances in the reign of George I.; that h;
the reign of George II. annuities to the Duke of Cumberland,
the Princess Amelia, and the Dowager Princess of Wales
were charged upon the civil list to the amount of toe,000L
which, out of the grant of 700,00o1. left only 600 ood5 . of
actual revenue. It is true, that in that reign there were
three applications to parliament for relieving the civil list;
but I believe, and think I may say with some confidence,
that the relief was effected by a two-penny tax on all pen-
sions and salaries, which was, in fitct, a mode of making the
civil list supply and make good its own defalcations, without
any additional burthens on the public. In the same reign
there was a successful application to parliament at one par-
ticular period; but, if I mistake not, it was merely to mako
up the deficiency between the actual receipts of the revenue
and 800,0001. which was about that time settled as the limit
of the civil list. The right honourable gentleman has urged,
that the civil list of his present majesty had been loaded with
annuities to the Princess Amelia, the Duke of Cumberland,
&c.; but if these were liens on the civil list in the present,
they were equally so in the reign of George II. who had also
to pay i oo,000l. a year to the then Prince of Wales. These
annuities continued from 1745 to 1760; the remainder of
the civil list of his present majesty only for five; but George II.
had paid them for the space of fifteen years. I mention. this
principally, because I do not esteem it altogether becoming
in gentlemen to appear in this House, in the shape and
manner of counsel, to depreciate the amount of the present
revenues of the crown. -


It is to be observed, that all those annuities which hung
as incumbrances on the civil list of his present majesty, ceased
in the year 1786; that to the Duke of Cumberland expired
in 1765; that to the Dowager Princess of Wales in 1763;
and that to the Princess Amelia in 1786; so that, in fact,
the whole of them ceased before the debt now brought for-
ward began to accumulate. The proposition, so much boasted
of, which was made in the beginning of the present reign,
would have been a good one, if properly followed up. BY
that proposal the king relinquished nothing, because,
stitutionally, he had nothing to give up in point of right,
there being no right in existence. All that was done inaY
more properly be considered in the way of an exchangei.
His majesty, indeed, had a right to expect that parliamens


con-


would make the same allowance to him that they did to n_t,
ancestors; but when a civil list of 800,000l. a year was gran


1802•] ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST: 477


to his grandfather, it was implied that the excess, which was
never very considerable, should be subject to the contrord
of parliament, and that he should possess no more income
from the revenues of this country than what the parliament
thought proper to allow him. The right honourable gen-
tleman, in tracing the history of the civil list through the
course of the present reign, might have called to mind, that
u was settled under an administration composed of persons
who were considered as his majesty's peculiar favourites. The
Duke of Newcastle was then prime minister, and Lord Bute
and the late Lord Chatham, secretaries of state. The right
honourable gentleman seems to think the provision was less
than it ought to be; but let me ask, is it to be believed that
such an administration would ever have thought. of proposing
an inadequate revenue? But supposing they had done so, yet
we must recollect, that the several annuities already mentioned
were then so many incumbrances on the civil list; and yet
we find that the debts it incurred in the first nine years
amounted to no more than 5 oo,000l. Though I was at
that time a member of this House, I remember little of the
discussion, and do not recollect that I was even present at the


. debate; but I recollect reading some pamphlets at that time
published on the subject : one of these was written by a gen-
tleman whose pursuits have since taken a more serious and
holy turn — I mean Dr. Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, who
treated the matter in a very facetious and good-humoured
manner. In offering an apology for the proceedings, he
said, that it was no extraordinary thing if a very young man,
just come to his estate, and consequently not so prudent and
economical as experience might in time teach him to be, and.
who had lately incurred the expences of matrimony, en-
hanced by fetes, a coronation, ,,installation, &c. — it was no
very extraordinary thing if such a man, possessed of 800,0001.
annually, should in nine years contract a debt of 500,0001.
Ilse debt first incurred was at the rate of 5 o,000l. a year
beyond the income allotted. Parliament, it is true, consented
to pay it; but, by doing so, acted, in the opinion of many
Persons, rather rashly. In the year 1777 the ministers came
again with another demand; and it appeared that the debt
had increased more within the eight years between 1769 and
1 777, than it had done in the former nine years. The de-
mand I now refer to was for the sum of 6co,ocol.; and
though ministers were successful, yet the minority, which
condemned the payment of the sum, was by no means insia-
1,1 ifleant in point of numbers, but still less so in respect btocharacter and talents, as the committee will acknowledgewitet1


enumerate among them. Sir George Savile,




478 ARREARS OP THE MIL LIST. [March
Burke, Lord Sydney, Cec. I have frequently had occasion to
be convinced, that the more parliament agrees to act (what
in the vulgar phrase, is called) handsomely by the monarch
on the throne in pecuniary affairs, the worse reeffeiCnt is sure to
flow from it; and I always feel great


I


ing the speech which the then Speaker of the House ofg,Cothrna:t
molls; Sir Fletcher Norton, made upon that occasion to hi.
majesty at the bar of the House of Lords, May 7, 32gc:
" in a time of public distress, full of difficulty and d
That intrepid and public spirited man told the kin


their constituents labouring under burdens almost too heavy
be borne; your faithful Commons have not only granted to
your majesty a large present supply, but also a very 'y t


gr. ea:


additional revenue; great beyond example; great beyond
your majesty's highest expense; all this they have done in
the well-grounded confidence that you Will apply wisely what
they have granted liberally *." But if Sir Fletcher Norton
spoke thus of the distress and burdens of the country in 1777,
what character can be given to those of the present day?


It reminds me, Sir, of the observation of Horns, who, liv-
ing at a period when the Roman empire was so infinitely
extended, reflects with surprise, that his ancestors allowed
a triumph for victories over the Volsci; and, in the same
manlier, when we look back to the year 1777, when the pub-
lic burdens were then spoken of as so grievous, and when we
view the infinite accumulation of taxes since that period,
we are tempted to compare it to the observation of Florus
on the triumphs of the Romans over the Volsci, or some
other petty tribes. The speech of Sir Fletcher Norton, not-
withstanding the clamours of courtiers, was approved. Al-
though court sycophancy has of late increased to a degree
that must disgust every generous mind, although servility has
made such rapid strides as, to every philosophic observer,
evidently tends to the utter destruction of the constitution,.
yet we cannot forget the subserviency and sycophancy of
former periods. Notwithstanding the resentment of the tour'
tiers at the manly and spirited language of the Speakers


setwas finally carried, on a motion brought forward by mysel f,
to thank Sir Fletcher for his general conduct in the cilailc
and particularly for the speech in question ±. speech
was made by a man of eminent qualities, eminent too al
having filled the chair, a situation which of itself make.s..3
man respectable; and within five years, during the adonis


Sea Vol. i. p. 85. -I- Ibid.


002,] ARREARS OE THE CIVIL LIST. 479


( ration of the Marquis of Rockingham, (a period when
peerages were more sparingly granted than in the times that
have succeeded,) Sir Fletcher Norton was one of four persons
who were honoured with that dignity. About this period, Mr.
Burke, a man of the greatest abilities, of the most eminent
services, a man for whom, notwithstanding latter differences, I
have always retained the greatest veneration, brought forward
a bill, the principle of which was, that the debts of the civil
lis t were criminal ; that when parliament bad settled what
the expenditure should be, any excess was disobedience; that
i t was the duty of the king's ministers to square the expellee
of the civil list by what parliament had fixed, not the bu-
siness of parliament to keep pace with the extravagance of
the king's ministers. Such, unquestionably, was the spirit
of Mr. Burke's bill, and that bill clearly lays down that such
a mode of payment shall be adopted that the salary of the
highest class shall not be paid till that of the class immedi-
ately below is paid. I know that in the courts below an
act must explain itself; but here we may reason upon the
spirit and intent of the legislature; and indeed I cannot
perceive that the act is so loosely worded as the right ho-
nourable gentleman argues; far less can I admit the posi-
tion, that the violation of it being never complained of in
this House constitutes an argument that none has ever taken
place. If omission or silence were to be construed into ac-
quiescence and approbation, not a principle of the constitu-
tion would remain entire, nor an abuse at one time or other
without justification. So much was Mr. Burke convinced
that his bill would produce the effect I have mentioned,
that he boasted, as one of the advantages of it, that hence-
forth no arrear in the civil list could ever take place.


But, if Mr. Burke's bill has not produced all the good
he intended, what are we to do in regard. to the arrear that
has accumulated? I adhere to the practice of our ancestors,
and to the principles on which they fixed the civil list, as
a measure essential to the existence of the monarchy. But
why, as a friend to the monarchy, do I conceive that we
ought not to acquiesce in the payment of this arrear? Itis because it is essential to the monarchy that the king should,
by a fixed revenue, be enabled to pay his civil-list expellees,
Independent of parliament. If, however, we find that four
times in this reign the debts of the civil-list have been
brought


to parliament, the king actually becomes dependent
nil parliament to that extent. What is the nature of the
e111 list? Nobody imagines that every year the expellees
Rill be exactly the same. It is sufficient that, on the whole,
the funds shall be sufficient to meet what is allowed to be




m/ini::


4SO ARREARS. OF THE CIVIL LIST.
[Match 25,


an ample establishment. Till 1793 there was no exce,s,
since that period the arrear has accrued. What are


.


to infer from this? Is it that a peace civil list will no t (1,-;
for a state of war? When the civil list of King
was fixed, was there not the prospect of wars? In three cases'
out of five the civil list since that period has been voted
time of actual war.


It is said, that it is necessary to maintain the splendour
of the monarchy; and certainly I approve of that splen-
dour, nor do I think his majesty has ever carried it to
excess ;. hut, surely, if it were for urgent reasons at any
time to be abridged, it would be reduced with most grace
when war calls upon the public in general to submit to
such galling sacrifices. I contend, therefore, that the civil
list should be voted for life, and. the quantum fixed by par-
liament ought not to be exceeded. Variations in the ex-
pences from year to year must have been foreseen, but an
exceeding ought to be compensated by a future saving. If
air arrear is incurred, ministers should restrict the expen-
diture till it is paid off: Nay, reformations and reduc-
tions, if necessary, should be adopted, to prevent an ac-
cumulation of debt, and to create a sort of sinking•fund for
its extinction. Parliament having settled what the civil list
should be, ministers arc guilty of usurping the legislative
authority in extending the actual amount beyond the sum
fixed. If it is thought improper to adopt reforms, or sus-
pend or abolish places, to prevent the increase of debt,
parliament ought to be consulted on the emergency. There
is no excuse for accumulations. Experience shews that they
ultimately must come before parliament. Why, therefore,
is the certain accumulation permitted ? With what face
can ministers come down to parliament and say, " You
fixed the annual expellee of the civil list at 900,0001. but
we have actually spent 9 50,0001.: you made one law, we
have acted on another : you must obey us; it is not for
us to obey you?" Observe, too, the tim^s. when ministers
discover that the war adds so much to the expence of the
civil list. They announce the effect when the cause has,
ceased. They were afraid to tell us formerly that the war
added so much to every expence of life, because the con
might have rendered the war unpopular, and have interfered,
with their plans.


Besides, ministers do not consider the aids the civil list has
received. Mr. Burke's bill, by abolishing places to the Cs:


fession


tent of 30,0001. a-year, actually increased it to that amoup.,
It is to be considered, too, that no small part of the or/
list consists of fixed salaries, such as the great offic ers °


1802.]


ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST.
481


,tato, which have not been increased since the days of
Charles II. The source of increase, owing to temporary
causes, must apply only to the tradesmen's bills; and if any
part were at all to be paid off; this would be the branch of
arrear I could be induced to give my consent that parliament
should discharge. We have seen the repeated interference of
parliament only produce new demands upon it. We are
tow, however, that there has been no prodigality, no cor-
ruption. But, have we all the items before us ? Do we
blow the expellee of the office of third secretary of state ?
—a measure which, pernicious in a financial view, is still
more so as a question of constitution. On the present occa-
sion, the length of the late administration has one advantage,
(an advantage, however, which, in any opinion, is far from
counter-balancing other evils,) that we know exactly to whom
the arrear is imputable. When these ministers saw the.




growing arrears of the civil list, did they make any effbrt to
relieve a fund already overloaded ? No, they established a
new office of third secretary of state. This is but one item.
Many of the occasional expences seem unjustifiable. At the
time of the Russian armament, ministers, finding it neces-
my to yield to the opposition they experienced in this House,
aided by the public voice without, were obliged to drop the
ground of quarrel with the empress. At that time, though
we had Lord Whitworth at Petersburgh, a person fully
equal to the station in which he was placed, ministers thought
proper to send Mr. Fawkener, of whom from more intimate
knowledge I can speak more confidently. Mr. Fawkener, a
man of the greatest abilities, and fit to be employed in anyb
usiness, however delicate and important, was sent to Peters-


burgh to do that which our minister there could surely haved
one; that is, intimate that we gave up to the empress every


thing she wished respecting Oczacow. Lately too, Mr. G.Grenville, a gentleman for whom I entertain the greatest
Personal respect, was sent to Berlin, though we had at thatcourt a minister, who, it is to be presumed, was adequate to
the duty of the office in which he was employed. Last year,
though we had a minister at Copenhagen, Lord Whitworth
h
ad sent to Copenhagen to do fill• another what Mr. FawkenerHad done for him at Petersburgh; and his being sent on that


'3ecasion showed that he was thought qualified for more im-
ortant business, if necessary, than that in which Mr. Faw-o er superseded him, and which was merely to make a civil


'Posi
0%1' to the empress, and announce that we had adopt all


tion to her views. All these occasional expences,
,,refore, seem to have been incurred without any sufficientreason.


E01 yr.




[March482 _ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST. 29.
Neither can I see that any addition to the establishment of


secretaries of state was necessary. Formerly all the business
of America and the "West Indies belonged to the office
of the secretary for the southern department ; and Lord
Chatham, a personage undoubtedly of the greatest talents,
but labouring under the interruptions of bad health, not
only performed all the duty of those offices, but united with
them the conduct of a war, which at least vied in g lory and
success with that conducted by Mr. Dundas. The office of
third secretary, which had been established with such fatal
effects to the empire, was abolished by Mr. Burke's bill, and
it was not till 1794 that it was revived; and though two of
the secretaries of state, holding different offices, resolved to
accept no salaries but for one of the places, it was so ar-
ranged that those personages took their emoluments out of
funds immediately affecting the public, and in such a way as
to relieve the civil list to the extent of 800d. a-year. Yet
all the inferior expences of the new secretary's office were
added to the civil list. This, I dare say, produced since
1-794 an expence not under 7 0,0001. I conceive that the
establishment of the new office was altogether unnecessary;
but, even had it been wanted, ministers should have consi-
dered their means of paying the expellees of the old establish-
ment before they increased it with new. The civil list (to
personify it) should have reasoned like an individual, " I
wish for this or the other thing, but can I pay for it ?" Thus
the civil list; " I wish to have a new secretary of state."
" But have you the means to pay for him ?" — " No; but
the House of Commons will pay cheerfully. I have good
friends there." —" But ask your friends first." — "0, no; it
is not necessary ; I can use freedom ; I know my friends very
well; they will be quite delighted with the opportunity.
They have brothers and cousins to provide for. Never
fear ; let the expellee be incurred. Say nothing about the
matter at present; the House of Commons will thepay
money, and ask no questions." Thus, without the least
necessity, and amid increasing debts, new modes of expellee are
employed without decency, and sanctioned without a murmur.


My opinion then is, that we ought to reject the motion,
and address his majesty that he would be graciously pleased
to confine the expence of the civil list within 900,0001. aud
establish such savings and reforms as will create a sinking
fund to pay off the debt contracted by the misconduct of his
ministers. And here let me, in illustration, allude to the
case of- the Prince of Wales. We have been told, that the
expences of living are increased to such a degree that the
funds of the civil list arc no longer adequate to their forwer


7


ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST. 483
objects .


But surely the expences of the Prince of Wales
nitist be still more dependent on the increase of prices, and
the charges on the mode of living? The Prince of Wales
having in the first outset of life exceeded his allowance, has
been restricted to 6o,000l. a-year. But did parliament in his
case consider the change in the value of money, and in the
price of living, by which the Prince of 'Wales must be so
much affected "? The Prince of Wales, in 1787, having de-
dared that his allowance, as then fixed, was sufficient, I con-
ceived that he ought to adhere to that declaration, and that
a reservation of his new establishment should be made for
the payment of his debts. But has not the crown, by con-
ferring marks of honour on Sir Fletcher Norton, and more
recently by the message in 1786, declared that the sum of
900,0001. was sufficient ? for the civil list ought to be no less
bound to adhere to that engagement, than a young man just
entering into life. But, if it is proper to maintain the
splendour of the monarchy, the same argument holds good
in the case of the heir apparent. Parliament, however,
thought it right for a season to abridge the splendour of the
Prince of Wales's establishment, in order to supply a fund
for the extinction of his debts ; and the same principle ought
now to be acted upon. If this be not adopted, at any rate
only the tradesmen's bills should now be paid ; but the occa-
sional payments, and other branches of debt, should be
treated agreeably to the spirit of Mr. Burke's act. I hope
that peace wilt put an end to that species of misrepresent-
ation so prevalent of late years, that every man who opposes
measures calculated to• increase the influence of the crown,
and the power of a minister, is an enemy to the monarchy
itself. The influence of the crown has increased so much,
that a temporary reform in its means of expence could be
attended with no abridgment of its authority. Formerly, the
crown had more to give with smaller burdens. Its influence
now arises from the enormous naval and military establish-
ments, which the wars of Europe and our relations with
other powers have produced. In these there is ample com-
pensation for any suspension of inferior offices connected
With the civil list. Mr. Justice Blackstone has been quoted.
Alr4nstice -Blackstone rather leaned to the principles most
in fashion anterior to the Revolution; and yet this writer


Its the good sense and candour to admit, that it may be
eeohted whether the admirable arrangement in fixing the
civil list has not compensated to the crown for many of the
kerogatives which it formerly used to exercise. I can truly


that it is my wish to contribute every exertion of
14111o; by every legitimate means, to promote the happiness


112




484 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [M ay


24.
and glory of the sovereign ; but there is a duty I owe to
constituents and the country, not inferior to the respect I
owe to the monarchy. I wish to address the throne in Ian..
guage different from the language of servility. Courtiers
may flatter kings, by telling them that parliament will pay
whatever they think proper to spend. A different language
is more seasonable and more consonant to the principles
which placed his majesty on the throne. I would recom-
mend this House to address his majesty with due respect, to.
suggest to him that he ought to reject the insidious advice
of his courtiers ; that he should distrust the ministers who
mislead him into unnecessary expence ; that it is his duty in
all matters of finance to comply with the restrictions of
parliament ; and that it will be for the dignity of his crown,
and for the prosperity of his people, to quadrate his ex-
pellees by the rules which the wisdom of parliament has
prescribed.


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE RELATIVE TO THE
"WAR WITH FRANCE.


May 24. 1803.


O
N the 16th of' May the chancellor of the exchequer presented
the following message from his majesty :
" GEORGE It.


" His majesty thinks it proper to acquaint the House of Com-
mons, that the discussions which he announced to them in his
message of the 8th of March last, as then subsisting between his
majesty and the French government, have been terminated; that
the conduct of the French government has obliged his majesty to
recall his ambassador from Paris, and that the ambassador from
the French republic has left London.


" His majesty has given directions for laying before the House
Of Commons, with as little delay as possible, copies of such papers
as will afford the fullest information to his parliament at this 0-
portant conjuncture.


" It is a consolation to his majesty to reflect, that no endea-
vours have been wanting, on his part, to preserve to his subjects
the blessings of peace ; but, under the circumstances which have.
occurred to disappoint his just expectations, his majesty relies
with confidence on the zeal and public spirit of his faithful Corn
mons, and on the exertions of his brave and loyal subjec ts, t°re-
support him in his determination to employ the power and 4
sources of the nation, in opposing the spirit df ambitio n au


18°3•]485RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.


1ncroachment which at present actuates the councils of France,
i l l upholding the dignity of his crown, and in asserting and main-
taininu the rights and interests of his people."


On the z3d of May, Lord Hawkesbury moved, "That an humble
address be presented to his majesty to return his majesty the thanks
of this House for his most gracious message, and for the communi-
cation of the several papers which have been laid before them in
obedience to his majesty's commands : To assure his majesty of the
just sense we entertain of his majesty's anxious and uniform en-
deavours to preserve to his people the blessings of peace, and of
our perfect confidence in his majesty's disposition to terminate the
calamities of war, whenever that object can be accomplished con-
sistently with the honour of his majesty's crown, and the interests
of his people : That we have observed with the strongest feelings
of indignation, that his majesty's endeavours have been frustrated
by that restless spirit of ambition and domination by which the
government of France have been led to advance pretensions the
most extravagant and injurious, and to avow designs at once in-
consistent with the obligations of good faith, and with the essential
interests of the British empire ; and that for these indignities and
provocations, his majesty has in vain demanded satisfaction and
redress : That, actuated by these sentiments, we feel that the
trust reposed in us by a brave and loyal people, requires on our
part a firm determination to co


-operate with his majesty in calling
forth the resources of the United Kingdom, for the vigorous
support of a cause in which are involved the dignity of his ma-
jests's crown, the rights and liberties of his people, and all that
is dear and valuable to us as a free and independent nation." The
address was supported by Mr. Pitt, Lord Castlereagh, Mr.Wilber-
force, and others. Mr. Grey acknowledged the necessity of
resisting the spirit of encroachment shewn by France; yet, with a
view to leave an opening for accommodation, moved as an amend-
ment, to leave out from the first paragraph to the end of the
address, in order to insert these words,—" To assure his majesty
of our firm determination to co-operate with his majesty in calling
forth the resources of the United Kingdom for the vigorous pro-
secution of the war in which we are involved ; and to express to
his majesty the satisfaction with which his faithful Commons have
received his majesty's gracious declaration, that he is willing to
afford, as far as may be consistent with his own honour, and the
interests of his people, every facility to any just arrangement by
Y, hich the blessings of peace may be restored to his loyal subjects."
The debate was adjourned to the following day, when after the
original address had been supported by Mr. Thomas Grenville,
Mr. Dallas, General Maitland, Mr. W. Elliot, Mr. Serjeant Best,
and Mr. Canning; and the amendment by Mr. Whitbread,


:e ja_ur..
Mr. Pox rose, and assured the house of his unwillingness 1-0".;


to ask for its attention, after the long and able discussion:::
wilich the important subject before them had already received,
after '',e fair and comprehensive manner in which his honour..


.


1 3




486 ADDRESS ON THE. RING'S aIESSAGE [May 24.
able friend (Mr. Grey) had brought forward his amendment
to the address, and after that full investigation which it had met
with from the several gentlemen who had spoken both on till
and the preceding day, did he not feel it his absolute dut yu to
the people of England, to endeavour at least, as well as be
was able, to prevail on that house, by the timely interposition
of its counsels, to rescue them, not only from a considerable
danger, but from the certain misery which must be their doom
in any event of war, even the most successful.


He should first endeavour to clear the subject from the
embarrassment into which it had been thrown by some of those
who had supported the address, and particularly by a right
honourable friend of his on the bench near him, (Mr. T. Gren-
ville,) for so he would call him, notwithstanding any difference
of political sentiment that might subsist between them, know-
ing that those differences produced as little alteration on that
gentleman's private feelings as they did on his own. Among
those differences he should class the opinion to which he was
about to refer, and which had also received the support of a
right honourable gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Can-
ning). To the course recommended by those gentlemen it
was impossible for him to assent. It was their object to divide
the question in debate into two parts, and to consider the jus-
tice and expediency of the war as totally separate from the
conduct of the ministers which had produced it. With regard
to.a question of war, it was, generally speaking, like any other
question, extremely difficult to be distinguished from the mea-
sures by which it had been occasioned. In the case immedi-
ately before the House, the distinction for which those gen-
tlemen contended, appeared more particularly inadmissible
than in almost any other. Might not the justice of this war,
for instance, rest entirely on the refitsal of explanation where
explanation had been demanded ? on the refusal of redress
where redress had been demanded ? or on the refusal of satis-
faction where satisfaction had been demanded ? Was it not,
therefore, in the very nature of the thing that the whole ques


-tion, as to such refusal, might, nay to a certainty must, depend'
on the terms, the time, and the circumstances under
we had asked this explanation, this redress, or this satisfaction!


Putting the case, however, of its being possible to admit
that, without such previous enquiry, it could be fairly decided
in that House whether a foreign power was right or wrong i,1!
its refusal of satisfaction, Mr. Fox called strongly on his Tv'
honourable friend on the bench near him, and on others wh°
agreed with that gentleman in opinion, to say whether, con-
sidering the manner in which the address expressed itself, the);
could with any consistency support it? In the language °'•


r803.]


RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
487


that address it was affirmed, that his majesty (which, of course,
always meant to say his ministers) had been " anxious and uni-
form in his endeavours to preserve to his people the blessings
of peace." For himself, Mr. Fox said, that voting on this
awful event, he could not conscientiously agree, that the efforts
of his majesty's advisers had been anxious and uniform to pre-
serve peace. From a due examination of the materials before
him, he could find no such anxiety or unifomity in their ef-
forts. The very reverse might, in many instances, be inferred ;
without much further inquiry, therefore, he could not assent
to any proposition which should affirm that fact. But if the
gentlemen, to whom he alluded, thought differently from him


thison uns point, (although he scarcely conceived it possible that
they should,) and if they were, indeed, ready to declare that
the ministers had been uniform in their efforts to preserve
peace, would they be equally ready to applaud them for it?
they, who had constantly condemned the object itself, and of
course all efforts to obtain it. Were they ready, too, to thank
the ministers for the manner in which they had conducted
the negociation, if ncgociation it could be called ? Con-
sistently with all their known ideas, those gentlemen certainly
could not support the proposed address.


His right honourable friend, (Mr.T. Grenville,) indeed, had
said, that although he should vote for the address, there was not
one word in the amendment in which he did not fully concur,
and which he was not ready to vote without any qualification.
But, in voting for the address, he expressly guarded himself
against any approbation of the conduct of ministers. It was for
the sake of unanimity alone that he did not oppose the original
motion. Now, when it was evident that neither his right ho-
nourable friend, nor any one of those who professed their in-
tention of voting for the address, would venture to do so
without qualifying his support of it, by stating that he did
not mean to prejudge the question of the conduct of ministers ;
when it was evident that the original address contained in it
many sentiments, with which those, with whom he (Mr. Fox)
acted, could not possibly concur; when not one sentiment or ex-
pression in the amendment called for the disapprobation of his
right honourable friend, or any other individual of that House;
and when the ministers themselves were stated by the noble
lord opposite, (Lord Ha nNkesbury,) not even to desire to ob-
tain from the house any declaration of approval for what they
had done, — it struck him, that it was in the amendment, and
riot in the address, that the true view of the subject was con-
tained, and that by voting for the amendment, unanimity,
real unanimity, would be most effectually secured. For how
good the question upon this point? One right honourable


I I 4




488 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [May 24.
gentleman under the gallery (Mr. Canning) was desirous of


,b
approving the terms of the address for one day ; but it was for
that one day only; for he had expressly given the House to
understand, that there would be an end of his unanimity on
the day following. He had already given notice of a motion
for papers. The respite to ministers, therefore, would pro-
bably not be very long. " I have lately," said Mr. Fox, "been
so much out of political life, that I am totally ignorant of the
intrigues of parties in this House; but I now see before me a
striking instance of the effect produced by the presence ofa
very eminent and powerful member, who has been unable for
a long time to give us the benefit of his attendance. I am
ready to acknowledge at all times the advantages to be derived
to this House from the assistance of great and splendid abili-
ties ; but so much a friend am Ito the freedom of debate, that
I can hardly think even his presence sufficient to compensate
for the loss which we sustain by the silence it imposes on cer-
tain honourable gentlemen, who at other times, and in his
absence, are obliging enough to communicate their sentiments
to us. But now they seem to say to each other, " in his awful
presence, let US abstain from attacking the ministers; oppor-
tunity will soon oar itself; for though he is here to-day, he
may be away to-morrow, And then —have at them !" Now,
Sir, it certainly is an advantage to the debates of this House
to learn in the course of them the sentiments of any eminent
person. It is always a rational, and sometimes a profitable
pleasure, to listen to superior eloquence ; but, when these advan-
tages produce the inconvenience of silencing others, whether
from the dread of his presence, tbefear of losing hisgood opinion,
or from any other cause, no matter what, I Own 1 have doubts
whether, on such terms and conditions, his presence or his
absence be most desirable. The effect of his presence, indeed,
is no less than an abridgment of the freedom of debate, by
silencing those gentlemen, who, on other occasions, stand suf-
ficiently forward in our discussions; and who are so desirous
of putting us in possession of all their sentiments, that when the
question has been, whether the House should or should riot ad-
journ from the Friday to the Monday, or whether any immaterial
paper should or should not be laid before us, have never with-
held their opinions, although now — such. are the effects of a
great man's presence — they are absolutely mute.


Mr. Fox then entered upon the consideration of the justice
of the war. The address, he observed, pledged the House
of Commons to its justice and necessit y, for want of due satin"
factionfrom the first consul of France; without its having
been shown in what points satisfaction had been demanded,;
and refused. To make out the want of satisfaction/ it 'N'a


1803'3 RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH ERANCE. 489
necessary to consider how, and when, and under what cir-
cumstances, satisfaction had been demanded, and, above all,
whether it had been actually refused. If all this was admitted to
be necessary, it was not to be denied that a review of the con-
duct of ministers became so too ; consequently, that to separate
the two questions of the justice of the ,


war, and the conduct of
ministers, was impossible. Many points had been urged in the
course of the debate, which could not be made out from the do-
cuments on the table ; many points had been partially stated:
others had been omitted, though material to the fair examina-
tion of the question ; and in some instances conclusions had
been assumed, which did not logically follow from their pre-
mises : these circumstances had given impressions to his mind,
different from those of most of the gentlemen who had spoken
before him. In all his reading on this subject, he had always
found it admitted, that in disputes between states, a clear
distinction was established between insults and injuries. He
had uniformly understood that insult, by itself; was no ground
whatever for hostility. It was not the insult that was the
just ground of war, but the refusal of satisfaction for insult,
after representation duly made, and satisfaction demanded.
This was, indeed, a true and just ground for war. It fol-
lowed, therefore, that every insult was to be considered with
reference to a demand and a refusal, and this only to a formal
demand and a refusal. With regard to an inj ury actually
sustained, the case was not exactly the same. The just and
laudable course to follow, in the case of an injury sustained,
was certainly first to demand redress ; but it sometimes hap-
pened, that the injury was of such a nature as to be almost
incapable of the redress immediately applicable to it; of such
a nature, that while a country was demanding reparation, it
was losing the opportunity of obtaining it ; in which case, and
particularly if the redress happened to be in our own hands, it
became fit to use the means which nature and fortune had
placed within our reach.


What he should first consider, therefore, was the conduct
which France had held towards other states, so fair as such
conduct was to be presumed evidence of hos t ile designs against
this' country. Every act of injustice of this nature, which
Prance had been guilty of since the peace of Amiens, could
llot be fairly adduced, with reference to its effect upon our-


as constituting a just ground for war. 46 I hope," said
Mr. Fox, " that I shall not be


0thoweht to take unnecessa-


by
lily nice distinctions, when I say, that some acts may be done


One country against another, which, although in the ab-
stract highly unjust and injurious, are not nevertheless acts so
directly tending to the injury of a third power, as to amount




490 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE ' [May24.


to a proof of hostile views against that third power, and there.
fore to call for its interference; neither is it necessary, on th
other hand, that you should be bound by specific treaty, e


toguarantee any particular state against the aggrandizement of
its neighbour, in order to be entitled to interfere for i ts de.
fence. Undoubtedly- you may interfere to oppose such ag
grandizement, upon the general principles of policy, whichr
include prudence; and upon the first principle which governs
states as well as individuals, the principle of self-defence. I
go further, and say, that you are authorized by the rank you
hold, and I trust you will continue to hold, in the scale of
nations, to interfere and to prevent injustice and oppression
by a great towards a smaller state, whenever it is offered.
This I take to be a 0.round of just interference with foreign:7)
powers, regulated always by the prospect of success, and by
that prudence which would abstain from any interference at
all, when it could only injure the party it was intended to
serve : but these premises do not bring us to the conclusion
which it seemed the object of the noble lord (Hawkesbury) to
enforce in his speech yesterday, namely, " that whenever any
neighbouring power has attempted aggrandizement, and has
accomplished her object, either by the operation of war, or
by other means, such aggrandizement is necessarily to be
taken as an act of malevolence towards ourselves ; and that
although we will not interfere•to prevent the aggrandizement
while it is going on, it may be fit to reserve the right of in-
terfering until some other time, and then to bring forward a
question upon it on the ground of its being a direct injury to
ourselves." Such a doctrine has never yet been insisted upon
in any of the transactions which have taken place among the
European powers. Among the various instances of the ag-
gression of great states, in modern times, we have the two
divisions of Poland, which, even in comparison with any thing
we have since seen, still retain a certain pre-eminence in pro'
fligacy. Can any man deny that, on the first division of
Poland, France and England might have united to prevent
that most atrocious act of inj ustice ? Will any man say that
such an union, for such a purpose, would not have
laudable ? or rather was it not the duty of these independent
nations to unite upon the common principles of justice agaillst
the other three dividing and spoliating powers, and tell their!
46 You are doing an act, dreadful in itself, most dan;ci'ocis


in
dits consequences, most pernicious in its precedent ; an


though neither of us has any treaty or connection with Polaila.:
we will prevent the division you are about to make of Oa!
kingdom." No man will deny the justice of such an intero
ference. Put, on the other hand, if we had afterwards, uP


1803.] RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 491
one other point which had no connection with this subject,
,one to war with Russia or Austria, or Prussia, would it not
Dave been extravagant for us to have said, " We never re-
rnonstrated against the partition of Poland, while the thing
was doing, because, at that time, you had given us no direct
cause of offence ; but now thaf we have a quarrel with you,
we shall insist on that act as evidence of your original malice
against us."It was under this view, therefore, that Mr. Fox now pro-
posed to consider the general conduct of France towards other
states since the treaty of Amiens. First, however, he should
consider that treaty not in its detail, but in its principle.
The principle on which he had supported that treaty, and on
which many other members of parliament had supported it,
was not that the state of Europe, as arranged by its stipula-
tions, was satisfactory —not that he had, at the time of mak-
ing it, much reliance on the good faith, still less on the mo-
deration of France, but upon a feeling that, under all the
circumstances, it was better to take the opportunity which
then offered of putting an end to the calamities of war. It was
true that we did accept an imperfect security on concluding
the treaty of Amiens. This was a truth which all men felt;
but it was a truth by no means peculiar to that treaty — it had
happened in many treaties before, and would happen again.
Imperfect security was common to all engagements in almost
every condition of society ; and nothing short of a state of ab-
solute perfection in all things, which none but a lunatic was
extravagant enough to expect, would justify the hope of per-
fect security in a treaty. All that could rationally be looked
forward to was probable security ; that is to say, the security
which arises from its being the interest of the other contract-
ing party not to break their engagements. It was absurd to
calculate upon more. If all nations were to be apprehensive
that, unless they were perfectly secure, they enjoyed no secu-
rity whatever, and fancying themselves, therefore, in danger,
Were to cro to war in search of absolute security, he was afraid
there would be but little peace in the world. If Great Britain
had pursued this policy, the few intervals of peace she had
had would never have taken place, and the last century
Wouldhave presented one uninterrupted state of war; but we


ad from time to time, and, as he'thought, prudently, been
content to take probable security for the continuance of peace.


his he took to have been the principle of the treaty in ques-tion Did
we therefore relinquish our right to interfere in
affairs of Holland? Certainly not : for, independentlyof


general principles, there are express provisions to the Con-
ti'41‘,Y the treaty. Did we relinquish our right to interfere




492 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S :MESSAGE .[A/aY24*
in the 'affairs of Switzerland? Certainly not — Or in ti
affairs of Naples ? or of Turkey ? or in those of any other
part of the globe ? Certainly not. That treaty precluded its
in no instance from acting upon the system which became
great and generous nation, or from taking any reasonable on
portunity that oared for succouring the distresses of other's:
and protecting the smaller states.


To apply, therefore, this general conduct of France since
the treaty of Amiens, to the question of English grievances
—Among the alleged aggressions of France much stressb
been laid upon her conduct relative to the German indent
p ities. Mr. Fox professed himself not to feel On that subject
any greater degree of indignation towards the government of
France than he felt towards all the other governments who
were principals in that transaction. Every one of them had
carried through that system in a manner which had most pro-
perly called forth the animadversions of the noble lord
(Hawkesbury). He had himself always reprobated the system
of indemnity and compensation. It was, and could be no
other than, a system of common rapine. To take indemni-
ties from the territories of other states by any authority than
that of the rightful possessors, was, in one word, robbery,
On this point his opinion had been uniform. With regard,
however, to this principle of compensation, it was to be re-
collected, that it had originated with the treaty of Lune-
ville ; it had then been agreed upon by the two ,belligerent
powers, neither of whom would grant any compensation to
the other out of its own territory or possessions. The burthen,
therefore, was to fall upon the German states. The principle
had been adopted with a view to a long continuance of the set-
tlement under it; and France, surely, was not more to blame
than other powers in agreeing to those terms, for the sake of
putting an end to further litigation. Into the question of right
he would not enter ; but to complain that Austria was
by it, was saying very little. It was impossible it could have
been otherwise. Austria must necessaril y have been a loser,
from the circumstances attending the treaty of Campo a loser
and the subsequent renewal of the war. It was uselesIs‘°tornd'ii°s:
cuss who was to blame for that renewal; but no man who r.e-e
collected the unsuccessful campaigns of Austria, and,' on the
other hand, the successful campaigns of Bonaparte,
doubt that she must be the loser. To say that she w as s',.!
therefore, was saying no more than that an unsuccessful pan?weei,
in a contest will be a loser by that contest. It was, /10
a material part of this case of the indemnities, that 11,11' reve,t


coal


was joined with France to carry them through. What
blame, therefore, belonged to the transaction, must be "P


nrev


equally between them.


RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
4931803.]


With respect to Piedmont, at the time of the treaty of
Amiens it was, to all intents and purposes, a part of France :
i t constituted the 2 7 th military Arrondissement. It belonged
to France as effectually as Gibraltar belongs to us. At the
time of the civil annexation, which is all that has taken place
since the treaty, and which is the present subject of complaint,
the name only was changed. The different rulers of France,
since the revolution, have had the folly to change the names
of every thing, and instead of the 27th military Arrondisse-
ment, Piedmont is now called the department of the Po. It
was but giving two names to the same thing. Whether
piedmont ought to belong to France — whether it ought not
to be restored to the King of Sardinia— were not questions
for us to enter into at the present time. To all controversies
of this sort there must be some given period : that period na-
turally would be the treaty. What passed on this subject
between the two contracting parties at the preliminary treaty
was to be compared with what had been assented to afterwards.
Whatever had been stipulated for on the signature of the
preliminaries, we had a right to insist upon, and whatever
had been done contrary to those stipulations, it was our busi-
ness to object to before the signature of the definitive treaty;
but, after its signature, we had no right to complain of what
had been done in the interim between the two. It was noto-
rious, that at the conclusion of the treaty, Piedmont, although
not called by the name of the department of the Po, was to
all intdifts and purposes a province of France.


The next question was the transaction respecting Switzer-
land; a transaction of a very different nature. The French
government was bound by treaty, as well as by every princi-
ple of justice, to withdraw their troops from Switzerland, to
leave that country to itself, even with the miserable govern-
ment which they had established in it, and to respect its inde-pendence. During their dominion in that country they had
formed a constitution there utterly repugnant to the princi-
Pies, and odious to the feelings, of the people. The moment
their troops were withdrawn, the people of Switzerland, by
an insurrection founded on the truest principles of justice, rose


!t


inter
and overturned that constitution. The French government


posed to restore it, and, bad as the system was, the man-
ic' • of their interfering to restore it, was, if possible, worse.


has terminated, however, and so fill: the insurrection hasibeen fortunate, n the establishment of a system rather moreconge
nial


with,wn the popular sentiments, and appearing, at
'east) to possess some portion of freedom ; since, in the de-
h0 cantons, where the opposition t France first began,People had ver aenerally elected to ot


teir highest of&ces




494 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [May 24.
those who had been the most active in promoting
who had most helped to produce the subversion of the
government which had been imposed upon them.
violent act of injustice on the part of France no roan
contemplated with more indignation than Mr. Fox. But
was it, after all, an act particularly and peculiarly directed
against Great Britain ? He hardly knew whether he dared
to speak upon this subject, since there were so many
persons, both in and out of that House, who, whenever


at
the name of the first consul was mentioned, thought that
nothing too violent could be said against him, and that
nothing he did, or ever could do, was fit to be endured.
Was there, however, in this act of aggrandizement on the
part of Bonaparte, any ingredient which made it appear, that
it was meant by him to operate against Great Britain? Will
any man believe that his sending troops into Switzerland was
only with the view of testifying his aversion to this country?
It may be said, indeed, that it was so meant, because it was
an act of aggrandizement on the part of France, and every
such act must be done with a view of hurting Great Britain :
this, however, was pushing; the construction upon human
action to an outrageous gree; to a degree in which it
could be supported upon no sound principle. It might with
equal justice be argued, that every improvement in the in-
ternal condition of France, whether in her agriculture, her
manufactures, her commerce, or her revenues, is contributory
to her aggrandizement, and therefore intentionally injurious
to us. It might equally be said, that the improvements of
Brest, of Boulogne, or any other of her ports or harbours,
are carried on, not merely for the interest of France, but with
an immediate view to the prejudice of Great Britain. If this
principle were true, we should be under the necessity of
making war on France, and not only on France, but on
every other power that attempted to better its condition by
any means. -What is worse, we could never make peace.
France must be exterminated, were the principle true, that
every thing she does for the increase of her own strength,
is intended hostilely towards Great Britain. Upon the sub-
ject of Switzerland, however, what was there to have beendone ? Was it right to go to war about it ? His answer would
be, prima facie, No ! He would not say that circumstances


amight not have happened to justify our going to war; indeed,
he thought the acts of France against Switzerland would hav .
been a sufficient justification for it, if policy had permitted
all he was then contending for was, that the conduct of
France in this instance, oppressive and tyrannical as, it W,ase,
could not be taken as an act of hostility against us. ti


RELATIVE TO THE WAR wiTh FRANCE.
;1$03 . -1 493
owned that for himself he had,always been most anxious that
this country should avoid a war on account of Switzerland.
Under the then peculiarly unfavourable circumstances of
Europe, he had a thorough conviction that we could not
make such a war with any effect. Even if those circumstances
bad been less unfavourable, he should have deprecated the
war, although professedly for the purpose of assisting the
straggles of that gallant people for their liberties. tven if
we could have got .Austria to join us, was it sure that that,
power, was it quite sure that we ourselves, would have had
no other object in view than the restoration of Switzerland to
her independence ? Could such professions, on the part of
Austria, be any thing but rank hypocrisy ? However good the
cause, when that cause was to be only the pretence for war,
and was put forward to conceal other purposes, he should be
very little disposed to join in it. He could not, for this reason,
attend much to the high language which was held about Swit-
zerland ; or to other topics which appeared to be introduced
into the discussions, only to swell the catalogue of the crimes
of France, and give a colour of popularity to the war. That
Switzerland could not be one of the objects of the war, was
proved by the very negociation which had just been so unfortu-
nately concluded. It appeared clearly from the correspond-
ence, that if Lord Whitworth's last ultimatum had been ac-
ceded to, poor Switzerland would have been forgotten, and
left to her fate !


Mr. Fox then proceeded to what he called a still more
serious case; he meant the intolerable injustice, with which
Prance had treated the republic of Holland. Their conduct
in this respect was of a nature that called !for the expression
of his warmest reprobation. It was one of those acts to which,
the stronger the words in which it should be described, the
more applicable would they be to its guilt. It was an act to
be equalled by nothing but those which prevailed in countries
"here a difference of colour seemed to have shut up the
hearts of men, and extinguished every sentiment of com-
Passion. " Were I a master of the use of colours," said


!c
,r. lox, "and could!paint with skill, I would take the darkest
' delineate the conduct of France towards Holland. It cer-


tainly has been worse treated by her than any other country
l
'hatever. Holland has not only suffered all the evils of war


are unavoidable; but when peace came, to turn that
cow,
, try, in defiance of a positive treaty with her, into a


Pot for French troops, for the mere purpose, I sincerely.
believe,


of making the Dutch pay the expence of maintain-
1g then1, was an act no less despicable for its meanness, than
6`eil for its atrocit." Now, Hoand had been spoken of
' 411


ti h
onourable gentleman as if it


ll
were to be considered as






498 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [Alay 24
centia. It did not appear by any thing known to the Public
whether or not those territories were allotted to France,


then,




jab;e,,
any treaty which existed previous to the treaty with us, 1.?
believed that the reversion of them to France was insured be
a. treaty with Spain, entered into during the life of the I
duke. It was his opinion, however, under Idle taldiev


c:urn


stances of the rest of the continent, that this was


..s now be-
come a matter of very inferior importance. He adverted toit rather as a subject of regret, than as constituting a ground
of war. Most of the others he had mentioned were of the
same description: all were subjects of regret, many of.
of reproach; although, in his judgment, nothing was of


- any
comparative weight when placed against the transactions in
regard to Holland.b


Mr. Fox. next proceeded to those subjects which constituted
the second class of Complaints against France, those, namely,
which were to he considered under the head of insults, con-
tradistinguished from actual injuries. This question included
one of a very wide and general nature, namely, how far the
language which the two countries had held towards each
other was to be considered as forming a just ground of re-
ciprocal hostility. No one who knew any thing of the con-
stitution of England, or the spirit and temper of its people,
could expect that we should condescend even to discuss a
proposition with France, which had for its object any dimi-
nution of the liberty of the press. This great privilege, lie,
of all men; was not likely to be suspected of a disposition to
surrender. If he would not surrender it -to please the go-
vernment of his , own country, much less would he consent to
do so for the sake of pleasing the government of any other.
This point he would not condescend to argue — it was en-


' tirely out of all question. The proposition of France, how-
ever, on this head; . whatever it may have been, was rejected
by us, and in that rejection France acquiesced. Grossly
absurd, therefore, as • such a proposition was, and founded in
complete ignorance of' the nature of our constitution, it
could not now be considered any farther as an insult, or as the
evidence of a hostile mind actually existing. It was ti°,
that out of the liberty, or rather out of the abuse of me,
liberty of the Tress, many partial evils, forming just grot
of mutual complaint between the two countries,'
They had arisen in the present case. Certain publicat io n


might arr. ;


had produced, what it was natural for them to rodu ce
,'


!,i
the. minds of nine people out of ten, namely, disgust u'
irritation. This feeling .0. had been strongly excited on lint:n .
sides, and, 'as it appeared, with mutual and very succos5t
industry. It was, indeed, a feeling of bitterness and v


1803.] 499RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.


inosity, which tended in a great measure to undo the good
effects of peace, and prepare the minds of the people in both
countries for the renewal of the war. Great and serious,
however, as was this mischief; still he could not consent to
so the freedom of the press abridged; but if abuse was to
0o on, it was his earnest wish that hostilities at least between
the two countries should be confined to the newspapers. This
species of warfare, if not the most glorious, was undoubtedly
the safest. In the first of poems by the first of poets, it had
been recommended to two combatants just preparing to en-
'h
cage in battle; and that poet, who was no less a man than


omer, put his advice into the mouth of the goddess of
wisdom herself— " Put up your swords," she says, " and
then abuse each other as long as you please." 64 Such was
the advice," said Mr. Fox, " I gave in this House to both
countries long ago. Would to God it had been followed !
for weak, foolish, and contemptible as abuse may be, it most
certainly is a lesser calamity than war." Such a species of
warfare, was one in which neither party was likely to expe-
rience any failure of ammunition. This seemed to have been
regularly imported, and in sufficient quantities, from both
countries. The chief consul complains that, during a certain
period, every packet-boat that passed from Dover to Calais,
brought over a cargo of libels. Now, this might appear a
curious manner of freighting vessels, but it was singular
enough that the glorious poet, quoted before, should have
imagined the very same thing; for, in another part of the
Iliad, upon a similar occasion, he says, " as to abuse, you
maw have a ship-load of it if you please !" We may con-
clude, therefore, that the exportation of libels from one
country to another was of very ancient practice, and that
Homer spoke literally and not figuratively, unless we can
suppose him to have had the gift of prescience as to the con-
tents of the packet-boats which crossed during the last summer
rum Dover to Calais.
Returning to the serious part of this subject, Mr. Fox


aid, that although no ground for war, this violent abuse was
ht matter of complaint on both sides. it was true, that the
ministers of this country might state a wide difference in the
case of libels between the two countries, and might allege
that the ministers of France had the means of restraining
them, while no such power existed in Great Britain. Lite-
rally speaking, this certainly was true ; and God forbid thatit


should


this sort were always managed even here ? Was there any
'ews


-writer really so unacquainted with proceedings of this
K K 2


. be otherwise ! but was there any man who heard
him who could not give some guess at least how matters of




) ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE rLMaY 24.X00
nature, as not to know that there were certain modes of abuse,
which, according to their direction against particular persons
were more or less agreeable to the king's ministers ? were'
there really no means for them to come to any understandin


lieve there were many persons who heard him o


so gno1a


i bj
f such


cli a 1.)r!:t
mitive simplicity as not to be in the least aware of what he


ib


with those m nisters on such a su ject? He could not


was adverting to ; nor could the French be quite
as to believe, where they see newspapers teeming
sant abuse of a foreign power for months together, that it is:
or that it can be, the serious wish of ministers to wit


h


ineeits.
or t1Mt, if they fail, it is for want of the means of accomplish-
ing such an object. They will scarcely be prevailed upon to
believe that the only influence, possessed by a minister of
state over the newspapers, is derived from a preference shewn
by them to one editor over another in the sending advertise-
ments, or communicating articles of public information.
Even this, however, is considerable, when the value of such
information to the public, and consequently to the editor, is
taken into the account. A French minister, too, on his part,
might probably reply , to a remonstrance from us in a similar
manner. He might lament the necessity they were under in
France of restraining the liberty of the press. He might
profess the highest admiration of that liberty, and the greatest
reluctance to fetter it by any restrictions, assuring us, that
their only motive was the protection of their own internal
government from the effects of libels, but that they had too
high a respect for the press to think of interfering with its
privileges any further. He might then call on us to exercise
the power we possess by the alien-act to .stop at least the
source of some of those libels; and to our answer that the
powers of that act are applicable only to foreigners who
should attempt disturbances against the government at home,.
and not to such as should attempt any thing against those of
foreign states, he might retort upon us — ,, This, too, is the


the libelling system as much as you do. We wish it Were
only powerr., we can exercise over our own press. We detestd
all infringements of its liberties as well as you. We detest


abrogated altogether, but we have not the means. All tilt,
power we exercise over the press is limited to the secant)
of our own domestic tranquillity." Such might be the arm s,
rents on both sides, and much, indeed, was it to be lamentea.
that the facts in this case were such as not only to have a t11,
dency to create, but actually to have created, in Fraoce a'


which, in his opinion, had had so large a share in acceleratio n
soreness and irritation'well as in England, that degree of rritati.


the present crisis.


1803.7 RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
sot


This led him to the consideration of another alleged insult,
parnely, the complaint advanced by the French govern-
ment on the subject of the protection aflordecl by us to
certain French refugees. The demand to send them away


Fox reprobated in the strongest terms. It was his
sen-timent, he said, that let a 'man, be he a native of France, of


England, or of any other country, observe but the duties
of good neighbourhood and submission to the laws, he ought
never to be molested for his opinions, in what corner of the
world soever he should retire for refuge. Crimes alone
could bring him under the judicial cognizance of any just
government. To deny any man, be his condition or rank
°what it might, or coming from .whatever part of the
globe, the rights of hospitality for his political principles,
Would be cruel, cowardly, and totally unworthy


of theBritish character. " The demand," said Mr. Fox, " that
we should send out of this country persons obnoxious to the
government of France, is made upon a most false and most
dangerous principle. If it could be so established between
the two states, that we should send away from England
every person whom it might please the French government
to call a rebel; and that reciprocally to please us,- France
should send away every person obnoxious to the ministers of
this country; and if it were possible to conceive the still
further extension of this principle among the other govern-
ments of Europe, every unfortunate man, who might either
from sentiment, connection, or accident, -have been led or
driven into some act of resistance, would be exposed to the
same dangers, and incur the same penalties, as if he had
been taken in actual arms against his country. The union
of the two governments of England and France would
effectually preclude him from any asylum any where, and
would hunt him from the face of the globe. To give


upMen of this description, therefore, would be the worst and
basest act I am capable of conceiving. No man, I believe,is more a lover of peace than I am. No one, perhaps,




and I hope not to be suspected at this time of bearing hard
upon an unfortunate and fallen family, when I say it — no
one, perhaps, politically speaking, has less respect than I havef
or the house of Bourbon ; yet I am ready to declare, thatfor that family, nay, for the worst prince of that family, if


among them there should be a bad one, I should be ready to
draw my sword and to go to war, rather than comply with ademand to withdraw from him the hospitality to which helead trusted. I say this with regard to persons against whom110 crime is alleged; there certainly, however, does prevail


K 3




502 ADDRESS ON THE RING'S MESSAGE CM ay


24.
at Paris, how justly I know not, a belief, or a strong susni
cion, that several persons concerned in the plot against g.
first -- consul's life, have not only found protection in Ei


lland, but are carrying on further intrigues against the pee
of the two countries. Whether this opinion be well or ill
founded, I am ignorant, and indeed should be very slow to
believe it, (for God knows I am not remarkably credulous
in favour of assertions unaccompanied by evidence) but
there exists undoubtedly such an opinion, and that certain
individuals, to the number of three, now actually in England,
or very lately so, were concerned in an attempt on the life
of Bonaparte. Am I to judge these men guilty of this
crime because they are accused of it? God forbid ! But
when charges of such a nature are brought against indivi-
duals by name, and those individuals are within our reach,
I think it but due to all parties, to those who are the objects
of the charge as well as those who prefer it, that some in-
quiry should take place into the fact, and that the result,
whatever it may be, should be fairly represented and made
known. This is a duty which we owe not only to France,
but to ourselves; for the hostility of a great and generous
nation gives no countenance to crimes, even against its
worst enemies."


Mr. Fox then proceeded to advert to other topics of com-
plaint under the head of insults, particularly a declaration
of the first consul in his speech to the Swiss deputies. It
is stated, that in that speech the Swiss were directed by him
to beware of forming any connection with England. Although
this declaration made no part of the official charges against
France, at which he greatly wondered, Mr. Fox founds,
as one of the strongest and most important (grounds of


complaint, of any which had been adduced. Where the
first magistrate of a powerful nation tells another country,
that it must have nothing to do with a third, it is an offence
which ought to be made the subject of a grave and serious
remonstrance. As it was only in the newspapers that he
had read this fact, it might possibly not be true; but if It;
were true, if the first consul had really told the people of
Switzerland that they must have no connection or comm


um-


cation with Great Britain, he had no difficulty in saying/
that it ought to have been distinctly complained of,


edan
planation demanded of the French government. One otake
two things would have followed had this course been s..
if the words had not been used, they would have be en .';
avowed, and so we should have received complete satisfaction


.


if they had been used, they might have been , atoned for


RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.180 3 .3 503
apology, and we should thus have derived the benefit ofan


teaching the first consul the propriety of abstaining in future
from such offensive language.


Two other points, applicable. to this branch of the subject,
remained to be considered; the one regarded an expression
in the E2pose of the chief consul to the legislative body of
the state of the republic : it is there said, that " England alone
is not able to contend against France." All expressions of this
suit were highly to be condemned. Offensive comparisons
serve only to create or inflame a spirit of mutual jealousy and
national hatred. In his opinion, it would be much wiser to
treat them with contempt. Of this, however, he was per-
fectly sure, that if they were to be noticed at all, they ought
to be made the ground of an immediate demand for satisfac-
tion; it was utterly wrong to suffer them to lie rankling in
the minds of the people, and afterwards to bring them for-
ward for purposes of mere irritation. The other point was
the passage alluded to in the official papers on Sebastiani's
report. With respect to certain expressions in that report,
undoubtedly they contained very insulting matter, even if
there were no other objection to it. Both the matter itself
and the manner


-of expressing it, were highly injurious and
unmanly. In one part of this report, a charge is brought
forward against General Stewart for incapacity : such charges
are indecent enough, when individuals only are the authors
of them; but when governments adopt them with a view
to wound the feelings of those who have no adequate means
of resenting it, their conduct is to the highest degree un-
pardonable. And what can be more galling to the feelings
of a man, especially of a military man, than to hold him out
as incapable of his duty ? Fortunately, in the present in-
stance, this accusation of incapacity fell upon a worthy and
distinguished officer, whose character stood too high in the
service to be affected by such an imputation. But there was
a
nother and a more serious charge, a charge of giving en-


couragement to assassination, which assuredly demanded from
the king's ministers the most p rompt and vigorous remon-strance to the French government.


Such were briefly, Mr. Fox said, the complaints, and suchhad been the manner in which the king's ministers had
treated


those complaints, on the two heads on which he had
argued, namely, the conduct of France towards foreign states,
and the instances of insult, as distinguished from injuries, ".
offered to us by the use of offensive lan guage.n


The next subject of difference was that of their seizing our
ships and detaining our property, and the refusal to grant
all adequate redress. In judging of these offences, it is fit


K K 4




504 ADDRESS ON TIIE KING'S MESSAGE [May 24


first to ascertain how far they have arisen out of the opera_
tion of hostile laws, and how far out of the partiality of their
application. Most of the French laws on this subject Mr.
Fox understood to have been passed during the heats of the
Revolution, and to be still retained : in this case the Come
plaint was properly against the existence of such laws; laws,
to the last degree, unwise and impolitic. It was, indeed, high ly
absurd in France, with the desire to become a commercial
nation, to make or to continue laws so inimical to the growth
of commerce; but at the same time he must assert the right,
not of France alone, but of every independent state in the
world, and most emphatically of Great Britain, who stood
more in need of indulgence on this subject than perhaps any
other nation — the absolute and uncontroulable right, where
no treaties exist to the contrary, to establish such exclusive,
laws for the protection of their commerce as they may think
fit, and to put every prohibition they please upon the mer-
chandize and shipping of other states. This was a right,
which, whether well or ill understood, judiciously or in-
discreetly made use of, it never could be disputed was inhe-
rent in every independent nation. Great Britain had al-
ways acted on these principles. Could it be pretended that
any other power had carried them farther? Great Britain,
it would be confessed, had an equal, if not a superior degree
of interest in the general success of commerce, to any other
nation in Europe, and yet we had passed many laws with
regard to our own, the object of which was the total exclusion
of all other states from a participation of its benefits. This
was eminently the case in the act of navigation, which se-
cured to us the monopoly of the West India trade: that act,
which had been passed under the protectorate of Cromwell,
was found to agree so well with all the principles of our com-
mercial policy, that it was afterwards persevered in by the
family who were restored to the throne; and to a steady
perseverance in it, a great part of our commercial and


naval


ascendancy was owing.
Of the general principle, therefore, of protection by exclu-


sive regulations, we had no right to complain. If
-the in


juries offered to individuals had arisen from the nature of' the
laws of France, they were out of the present consideratione:
but if those individuals had suffered injuries contrary to th
laws of France, or inconsistent with the provisions of antY0
subsisting treaty, it was the business of governm ent .ch
procure redress. Of all the around:, of remonstra nce 011,
could exist, an insult or injury offered to a British subre'le
was that, in which, above all others, they would be illy
of support: this matter, therefore, ()light to have been svil°


803
.]5°5RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.


left out of the ki ng's declaration, for it was owing to the ladies
of the king's ministers if redress were not obtained ; and if
redress were obtained, the complaint ought not to have
been mentioned.


Next came the subject of the commercial commissioners;
and here Mr. Fox had no difficulty in saying, that as it ap-
peared to him by the papers, that the persons who were sent
hither under colour and pretence of being commercial com-
missioners, were military men, and in effect no better than
spies, it was a shameful attempt to impose upon us for a most
mischievous purpose; and therefore there was but one course
to be pursued, namely, that of sending them out of this country
immediately, and immediately also (for this was not a matter
for delay) applying to France for explanation and satisfiiction,
for having sent them here under such false colours, and for
such disguised objects. It might be asked why he, who ap-
peared so strenuous upon this matter, and who had of late


• been so regular in his attendance in parliament, had never
mentioned this circumstance before. His reason was, simply,
that he did not know it before; and it appeared to him that
ministers, by never naming it in parliament when all the facts
were in their possession, (lid not think it a matter worthy of
parliamentary investigation. He therefore could have no
duty to perform upon the subject, because he knew nothing
of the transaction; but it' ministers knew of such an act of
aggression, it was their duty instantly, not only to represent
the matter, but to remonstrate upon it, and to demand satis-
faction of France.


With regard to the manifesto which appeared in one of
the Harnburgh journals, Mr. Fox conceived that there was
the less necessity for mentioning it as a cause for war, since
there had been a ,promise'to disavow it on the part of the
French government. The negotiation had unfortunately
broken off before that promise could be carried into effect; but
time paper itself had been disavowed by Talleyrand distinctly; an
assurance was given to our ambassador that the French go-
vernment had not authorised the publication by their minister
at Hamburgh ; that his conduct should be strictly inquired
into, and that full reparation should be given us. With re-gard to the contents of that paper, undoubtedly they were
highly offensive. But what he objected to chiefly was them
anner of its publication. If it were true (as it had been


st
ated) that the French minister did actually insist on havingit n


serted by an order from the senate, it was impossible to


tende
conceive a more gross violation of the freedom of an inde-


nt state. We complain of this, and very properly.
lerance says she will disavow it. In consequence of the rup-




506 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [May 24,
tire of the negotiation, that promise certainly was left tub
performed; but from all that had passed on the subject be_
fore, there was no reason to think that it would not have
been kept.


The language of the first consul in his interviews with
our ambassador had been also the subject of much discussion.
It seemed by many gentlemen to be considered as carrying
with it such decisive proofs of a general spirit of hostility, as
to completely justify the renewal of actual hostilities on our
part. One public conversation at the Thuilleries, in parti.
cular, was triumphantly held up in support of that opinion,
This conversation had been variously related, and certainly
the acounts of several persons, present at the time when it
took place, represent the language used very differently from
the manner in which it is stated in the papers on the table.
He thought it, indeed, a great misfortune that Lord Whit-
worth should have laid so much stress on the unfavourable
nature of any verbal communication. He spoke this with
reference to Lord Whitworth's private interview with the
first consul. For that noble lord, personally, Mr. Fox pro-
fessed great esteem, and a high opinion both of his judgment
and his probity ; but all men knew how difficult it was to
retain in the memory every minute particular of a conver-
sation of two hours, when no part of it was reduced into writ-
ing at the time. But whatever might have been the turn
of it, it was worth considering, whether the offence given
by the terms of such a conversation might not be over-
balanced.by the advantage of discovering the intentions of an
enemy from his own intemperate language.


Having thus gone through the various charges advanced
against the government of France by his majesty's ministers,
o


as motives to war under the head of insult, be would ob-
serve, that whatever expressions were used by the chief con-
sul, whether they were more or less favourable to pacifi-
cation, it must, always be remembered that words are very
fleeting, very liable to misconception, and to be imperfectly
reported; that, in short, they are of little or no value, except
when they are accompanied by acts; but whatever interp re


-tation these words of the first consul might really bear, (r.--
tainly those of the right honourable opposite, opPos'
(Mr. Addington,) on opening the budget, gave to this coun-
try fair hopes that we were in a state of profound peace'
The members of that House could not have


le,
he


forgotten la


h
he used, when, at the close of the last year, aitt


before them a flattering picture of the commercial prosPe;
rity of the country. From no part of his language on tba
occasion was it possible to draw any other inference, that'


RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.80.3 .11 507
tha he wished .


the House to believe that there "was not the
least room to apprehend any interruption of the peace." So the
right honourable gentleman's, expressions had been generally
understood by those who heard them. So they had been un-
derstood by the public. This opinion had been confirmed
by facts infinitely stronger than the recollection of any mem-
ber of that House; for, in addition to their speeches, minis-
ters sent orders to give up the Cape of Good Hope a second
time. They also manifested their disposition to surrender
Malta according to the treaty. This was not only speaking
but acting as if we were in a state of profound peace, for he
would not suppose that ministers could be weak enough to
give those orders when they had any real apprehension that
the peace could not be maintained.


-Why did he insist so
much upon this point ? It was to anticipate an answer, and to
ward against a species of reasoning, which he allowed to be
lair in general, but which he denied to be applicable to the
present subject, considered under the circumstances which
had led to his majesty's message on the 8th of March. It
had been argued, and hn many cases it might be argued
fairly, that a variety of subjects of complaint might exist be-
tween two nations, not one of which standing by itself would
constitute a sufficient cause for




war; but that these subjects
of complaint, when accumulated together, might very justly
become so. It was inferred from hence, that each article
being, of itself, just ground of complaint, although not so great
as to justify us in proceeding to extremities, might be borne
separately, but that the accumulation of them was intolera-
ble. He had not forgotten the


.
old proverb, that " It is


eal*
the last ounce which breaks the horse's back ;" — and cer-


a scale may be so nicely balanced that a feather more
or less would turn it. " But. if ministers were so enor-
mously loaded with the injuries of their country, that another
ounce would have broken their backs, and if at Christmas
their difficulties were so nicely balanced that a feather would
turn the scale, I tell them," said Mr. Fox, " that they ought
riot to have declared that they saw no ground for apprehend-
lug war;' for by saying so, they deluded their country. If
the French had accumulated together such a mass of insults
and outrages as to make ministers see that the period wasc
oining at which they could no longer be endured, they are


,) criminal in having flattered the nation so continually
with the hopes of peace; and are guilty of the ruin and mi-
sery which has ensued from it to so many unfortunate indivi-duals."


Mr. Fox came. next to the great article on which the war
rested, namely, Malta. , Before, however, he considered any




soS ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE
[May 24,


of the arguments which respected the immediate state of the
question relative to Malta, he thought it necessary to advert
to, and to express his dissent from, some general opinions on
this subject which had been advanced during the discussion.
He could manifest his own no better, perhaps, than by col-
lowing the course and order of the expressions which had
been used by an honourable and learned gentleman (Mr.
Dallas) who bad spoken for the first time on that day, and an
the acquisition of whose talents he congratulated the House;
talents, the display of which was not unexpected to him, who
had had an opportunity of admiring them on a great occa-
sion in another place. In giving his vote for the present
address, the learned gentleman had vindicated the expedi-
ency of the war, as it was for Malta; as it was not for Malta
alone, but for Egypt ; as it was not for Egypt alone, but for
India; as it was not for India alone, but for the vital inter-
ests of Great Britain. Every one of these four propositions
Mr. Fox denied; he denied that Malta was worth a -war by
itself ; he denied that Malta was worth it as essential to the
security of Egypt; he denied that Egypt was essential to the
security of India; he denied that our Indian possessions, with
all their vast importance, which he knew and .acknowledgedas much as any man, were essential to the vital interests of
Great Britain. All these points had been thoroughly discussed
in the debates on the plreiminary and definitive treaties. Nothaving himself much geographical knowledge applicable to
the question of the importance of Malta to this country, be
would rest his opinion upon authorities infinitely greater than
his own on all such subjects, and most emphatically so on the
present. He would not examine at that time the opinion
given in great detail by an honourable general, a friend of
his, (General Maitand,) during that debate; nor wherein it
differed from that which he had formerly delivered; but he
remembered well that on the discussion of the definitive
treaty, authoties no less than those of,Lord St. Vincent and
Lord Nelson were produced to prove that Malta was not a
convenient station for the protection either of Egypt or the
Levant, nor worth the continuance of war for the sake of ob-
taining a commanding influence in the Mediterranean; he
also recollected one of the most able defenders of the peace
of Amiens, (Mr. Pitt,) while he was arguing upon the neces-
sity of making some cessions with a view to obtain peace,
stating, that if it were put to him whether those cessions
should bein the East Indies, in the West Indies,
Mediterranean, he would answer —" in the 'Mediterranean.


or the


Mr. Hastings's Trial before the House of Lords.


gO3.]
RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.


09


gr. Fox confessed himself to have been of a different opi-
nion, and that he should have preferred Malta, but still more
Minorca, which he considered of infinitely more value than
Malta, to Trinidada; but the opinions to which he had re-
ferred were sufficient to prove, that until the present mo-
ment no eminent man had attached that degree of import-
ance to the possession of Malta, which it seemed to be now
so much the fashion to attribute to it.


'With regard to Egypt, Mr. Pox could not be persuaded
that it was by any means the key to our East Indian ter-
ritories ; he could not help thinking, that from national
sentiments of a most laudable kind, a degree of consequence
had been attached to Egypt, which it did not in reality pos-
sess. The invasion of Egypt he had always considered at the
most romantic and idle undertaking that ever was entered
upon by Prance. Whether it was wise in us to undertake
the recovery of it was another question. Great stress, how-
ever, had always been laid upon that expedition. The pos-
session of Egypt had been the cause of continuing the war;
its conquest from France had been the means of facilitating
the peace. Egypt, likewise, was the theatre on which British
valour became the most triumphant and British glory had
been most signalized both by land and sea. The memory of
our exploits in Egypt had impressed the minds of men in
general with ideas of romance— with a sort of superstition
which had given to that country an importance which had
never before been discovered to belong to it; but surely it
would not be gravely contended, that, because a British
army had gained a splendid victory over the veteran troops
of France, we ought ever after to insist on the possession of
the spot on which that victory was obtained, in order to
secure it from all harm, 'and protect it against any future in-
vasion. What would have been thought of us if we had
insisted on the plain of Blenheim after the battle, if we had
regarded it as consecrated ground, never to be abandoned
after that glorious event --- an event not to be less highly
valued than the achievements of a Nelson at Aboukir, or of
an Abercrombie and a Hutchinson in Egypt? What seas
should we ever quit, or what territories should we ever sur-
render, if we were to retain all that had ever witnessed thetriumphs of the British name?


" With regard to the East Indies," said Mr. Pox, " I
co


nceive it to be a very exaggerated statement of their value
to call our possessions there the vital strength of the British
el).)pire. Surely the learned gentleman '(Mr. Dallas) will
,.' 101; venture to describe our dominion in the East, or the


ma which has attended our acquisition of it, in quite such




j I0 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE May 24.


enthusiastic language as that in which he has dwelt upon thets
classic glories of Egypt. That part of the world, undoubt
edly, has contributed most of any w the vast increase don:
dominion"; it has not contributed in an equal degree to th


e


'


honour of . the British name ; — it is not there that our dil
meter stands the most unblemished. And here I cannot
help considering, while we are calling other nations to ac-
count, while we are crying out against the aggrandizement
of France since the signature of the treaty of Amiens, whether
others might not ask, which of the two nations has aggran.
dized itself the most, France in Europe, or Great Britain in
India? Have you not added vast territories to your empire
in India, just as France has done to hers in Europe, some
by the effect of war, and some by direct annexation ? I
rather think, if you go back a little, and look at certain
transactions, few countries would suffer more in character on
the score of aggrandizement than Great Britain. We lay
stress on aggrandizement in Europe, and they may do so
on aggrandizement in India; nor, do I know what defence
we can set up against the accusation, unless we adopt a hu-


, mourous one, which is said to have been made by a lady, who,
on her return to Europe after a long residence in that
part of the world, was charged with some irregularities of
conduct, and who, having been questioned as to several
specific instances, exclaimed, " No, never ! never, upon my
honour, on this side of the Cape q I' Good Hope !" But on the
subject of Egypt — I wish to know whether I am to under-
stand what has been advanced as an hyperbole of eloquence,
or a grave determination. Are we to go to war the instant
the French only think of Egypt ? Is this the first time they
have thought of it? Did not M. de Vergennes in 1786 en-
tertain such a plan, and employ an agent to go to Egypt for
a purpose similar to that which appears in the report of Se-
bastiani? The right honourable gentleman opposite to me
(Mr. Pitt) was then minister. How did lie act ? Did lie
make war on France? Did he remonstrate? Did he ever
offer a representation -upon the subject? No, Sir ; he en-
tered into no dispute with M. de Vergennes, but he entered
into a treaty of commerce with him."


Mr. Fox then entered more at late into the discussion of
the article concerning Malta, which formed, as he contended,
the substance of our whole immediate dispute with France.
It was clear and indisputable that we had bound ourselves tc:
give up the possession of Malta when it should be in a certain
state. The loth article of the treaty was said to have bee
entirely and solely drawn up by the ministers of this country.
That he desired to be read. [It bound read acco.rns
ing yl.] J..3


article
37 this it appears, that ministers bound theraselve


1803•)


RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.


to surrender the island to the order of St. John, within a given
period, when the three contingencies following should have
happened :
When a grand master should have been ap-


pointed ; When a garrison of Neapolitans should have
arrived to take possession of the place; and, 3 . When cer-
tain powers should have been invited to guarantee its inde-
pendence. These conditions have been fulfilled. The grand
master has been chosen ; the Neapolitans have arrived; and
Russsia, Prussia, Spain, and Austria, have been invited ac-
cording to the stipulation to become the guarantees. Mini-
sters knew very well,— they could not pretend to assert the
contrary, — that the completion of this last stipulation was not
deemed essential to the two former, or a sine qua non of the
evacuation of the island. It is stated, however, that there
were other important articles to be executed before ministers
could be peremptorily called on to fulfil this part of the
treaty. Certain revenues were to be appropriated to the
maintenance of the order ; and these revenues having been
confiscated, and the priories abolished in Spain and Bavaria,
ministers gave us to understand that these acts were done by
the contrivance of the French government, in order the more
easily to obtain repossession of the island ; conseqUently, that
we ought to continue the occupation of it ourselves. The
reasoning of ministers on this point he was at a loss to
comprehend. According to their argument, France, it


.
seems,


always wished to throw difficulties in the way of our executing
that part of the treaty. What ! to throw difficulties in the
way of our giving up Malta ? No — but difficulties in the
way of our being enabled to do so with safety to ourselves,
which amounted to the same thing. This would be a sin-
gular policy enough, considering the earnest representations
rustle to us to evacuate the place, and the eagerness alleged
to be shewn by the first consul to get into it. But, of what
nature were those difficulties? Certain priories had been
abolished. Of what advantage could their abolition be to
Prance ? What ! was it from the knights


-of Spain that the
first consul apprehended such an opposition to his schemes,that he determined upon reducing


.
them to beggary, by se-qu


estrating the funds appropriated to their support ? Was it
horn the sturdy knights of Bavaria that he feared such a re-
solute resistance, if they should once get a footing in theisland, that he should never after be able to prevail over theindep


endence of the order ? What, he would ask, couldPrance expect to gain by such a proceeding ? 'What other


hl


effect could it have, except that of giving us a pretence for
delaying the execution of the treaty, on the ground of the ina-
''lity of the order to maintain itself; 'and to garrison the




512 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [May 24.


island ? But even this case is provided for : If the knights
should not be strong enough to take charge 'of the Place at


The


the period fixed for its evacuation, the Neapolitan troops
were to stay so much the longer. If 2000 Neapolitans should
not be found sufficient to hold it until the definitive arrange,.
meats, provislon is made for the sending of more.
tive Maltese shall have half then arrison, anO if the order
should not be strong enough to supply the other half, they
may recruit for the remainder from the natives of those coun-
tries, and it is limited to those countries only, that shall con-
tinue to possess leagues, while the general independence of
the island is provided for under the guarantee of Great Bri-
tain, France, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Prussia. All these
powers, except Russia, had formally undertaken the guar-
antee; the only remaining difficulty, therefore, was to pro-
cure her accession to it. Ministers seemed to be very angsy
that the French were not so much in earnest as themselves
for Russia to become a guarantee of the arrangement. It
would have been better, to be sure, if they had been equally
so ; it surely was natural, however, considering all things, that
we should testify rather more anxiety than the French for the


object in question. A requisition had been made by us, inwhich France afterwards joined, to the Emperor of Russia to
become a party to this article of the treaty, and we received
in answer a proposal from Russia, accompanied by a note,
which Mr. Fox was astonished had not been laid on the table
of the House. In the note with which this proposal was ac-
companied, a most extraordinary circumstance first comes to
light. It appears that the Emperor of Russia had previously
made known to us, that he could not consent to become a
guarantee, unless that part of the article, which provided for
the establishment of a Maltese league, should be abrogated.
It appears too, that at the very time we were pretending so
much earnestness about this guarantee, and soliciting the
emperor to accede to it, we knew it could not be with;


d come
plied with; we knew why it could not be complied
we knew that a compliance with it would be 4,


inconsistent
with what had been agreed upon anterior to the treaty
of Amiens between his imperial majesty and ourselve s, Oh
respect to the order of Malta, and the independence and no-or the
trality of the island." It appears, nevertheless, that for an,
sake of obliging respectively Great Britain and France,d
this not for Russian purposes, but for the most laudable of all
purposes, namely, the preservation of the peace of Europe,
imperial majesty is ready to become a guarantee on any


lzncondition whatever, which could be thought of as necessaT
or best calculated to secure the independent of the
This proposal is refused. Why ? of what possible eollse''


other


1803'3 RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 513


‘,0enae is it to us whether a Maltese lanaue should exist or
And what other steps do the ministers take to provide


not •for the re-establishment of the order ? They immediately pro-
rose to France that she should consent to our keepino. Malta
for ten years ! Here, therefore, is the tenderness of ministers
for the rights of the order of Malta ! Let us but have the
taw. for ten years, and the knights may go back to Rome if


place please, and shift for themselves as they can ! Ministers
require what they call additional security and indemnity, and
dais the British flail is violated, and a solemn treaty remains
unfulfilled. 'As to any compensation, or any security to the
:1faltese themselves, against either France or England, there
could have been no difficulty in procuring it, when so im-
portant an object as that of preserving the British character
clear and unblemished, and of carrying into effect the spirit
of the article of the treaty, was in view.


After all these difficulties, however, respecting the langues
and the sale of the priories, and so forth, had been got over ;
— after the question of the guarantee itself had been so settled
as to induce government to take measures towards evacuating
the island according to the treaty, appears the report of Se-
bastiani, and instantly the whole system of ministers is changed
That report contained the proof' that an accredited , military
agent had been sent by the first consul to take a survey of the
different parts of the Turkish empire, particularly Egypt, and
also perhaps to hold out to the people of that country some
ideas of a future connection with France. That the mission
of Sebastiani made a disclosure of the wishes and ulterior
views of the first consul, Mr. Fox was ready to acknowledge;
but was it any new discovery? Bonaparte had a desire (and
here he adverted to the distinction drawn by Mr. T. Gren-
ville, between a desire and a design,) of recovering Egypt. It
is said that, having that desire, the moment he sent a military
Person thither, he gave a proof of his design to attempt the re-
conquest of it. This seemed to Mr. Fox an unwarrantable
conclusion. What was published with regard to Genera
Stewart, indeed, was grossly insolent ; but the other part of.


Which regarded Egypt, was, in any view to its re-occupa-
41), perfectly absurd. To find out that it was absurd was
no


hY
great discovery, and required not the testimony afforded
the internal evidence of the paper itself; and as to the


they
refinements of French policy and prudence, surelyt


3r would have found out a better mode of insuring the sue-c"
cs.s of an expedition to Egypt (if an expedition had been


disclosed their intention,) than by publishing the letter which
:Flascd it. " If, however, the desire to obtain Egypt, such


t is proved by that letter, be a sufficient ground for war,".
voL, L L




1


14 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [May


said Mr. Fox, " again I repeat it, you never can be at peacn
and you never could have been at peace, while the house of
Bourbon was on the throne of France. Name the year titic7:
the peace of Utrecht in which you could have been. at




'—a Peaceif such a proceeding as this would have induced you to go
t.war? I am not now speaking of any of the revolutio%ai-


governments, or of the anarchy of France, but of the a
vernment of France under the regular rule of the house of
Bourbon. Look at the several treaties of peace of 1749, of
1763, and of 1783. After the conclusion of peace on each
of these occasions, one year did not elapse before France
sheaved some signs of hostility to this country, against the
true spirit of those treaties. And what is there of novelty in
the present proceeding ? I wish to know of those in any de-
gree conversant with modern history, whether they have never
heard of the military embassies of the French governments?
of the surveys taken by those to *hem the embassies were en-
trusted, and of the means adopted by them to sound the dis-
positions of- the people through whose countries they passed?
I have, Sir, in support of my assertion, a remarkable and a
powerful authority in the noble lord opposite (Hawkesbury).
That noble lord told the House in his speech upon the peace,
that scarcely a twelvemonth had elapsed after the conclusion
of the treaty of 1783, before the restless spirit of the court of
France began to chew itself in India, and to manifest views,
in that quarter of the world, inconsistent with the treaty just
concluded, and incompatible with our safety. Am I, then,
to understand that, if the noble lord had been secretary of
state at those different periods, he would have advised his
majesty to declare war against France? If I am, then I say
we should not have had peace for any one whole year from
1 749 t0 1803."


Mr. Fox next proceeded to comment on that part of the
conversation between Lord Whitworth and the first consul,
which avowed his general views relative to Egypt. 'the Plyi.
nisters had appeared greatly alarmed at their disclosure.
confessed that he could not see in that disclosure any fresh
ground of apprehension, as it taught them nothing
might not have been fully aware of before; nothing,
which they had not themselves proved that they were a
of before, by the very act of their stipulations on AI .61


th n ti;aie!crei


of M
alta. Some of the conversation had been misreprese,T.


in a manner unworthy the importance of that dente,e
Whatever might be his opinion respecting other parts 014a
chief consul's conduct, on which he had not been back


think. °in saying what he thought, — whatever he might ,
many passages in that conversation, he Nlotild oval t h at


8031 RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. S S.3


appeared to him to carry with it a certain character of frank-
which he could not find it in his mind to condemn.Mess


e tells us fairly, that, although he could have had Egypt, it
was no object for him to have had it at the risk of a \val.;
and war was not for his interest. It was not for his interest
to risk a war for Egypt, which one day or other, he tells us,
would probably fall into his hands either by negociation, or
the dissolution of the Turkish empire. Now, was not this
reasoning, the reasoning. namely of interest, the common and.
.ordina ry motive which influenced every transaction between
on and man? 'Were we, therefore, to deny it all credit
here? " Were Ito argue with the learned gentleman whose
propositions I have denied," said Mr. Fox, " I should main-
tain, affirmatively, that Bonaparte had no intention of going
to Egypt —not because he has declared lie has none—but
because he has with reason declared it not to be his interest
to do so. He says, " I could have taken Egypt." Now,
how is that expression represented? Is it to be fitirly inter-
preted by saying, " I will endeavour to take Egypt?" " Could
have taken it," is different even in the most obvious gram-
matical sense from " I will try to take it," or " I design to
take it." The meaning in the present case is fixed by the very
words of the conversation itself, which asserts the facility with
which the first consul could have taken Egypt with the
very troops he had sent to St. Domingo. It is the discovery
of his designs, however, in the event of the dissolution of the
Turkish empire, which determined the ministers to go to war
with him immediately. Why? Is this singular in Bona-
parte? Was the dissolution and partition of the Turkish
empire an event never contemplated before? Does any body
doubt that the Empress of Russia ,had


. a " desire" for Egypt,
and something more than a desire that her family should
obtain the sovereignty of Constantinople? Nay, was not the
circumstance of her christening her grandson by the name
of Constantine, very generally attributed at the time to such
3iews, and supposed to be done for the :purpose of suiting
the name to the intended station? But would it not have
been thought monstrous that you should have gone to war
with Russia on that account? But desire and design are


same thing —are they ? Apply this to your own case.
we bad a desire, as it is manifest by Mr. Moore's mission,
to interfere in the affairs of Switzerland. Did that desire
Iras
,ver ripen into a design ? No, certainly : and the attempt


never made, nor even the design formed; for the best of
reasons


-14ecause it was found to be impracticable. It hasbeen •
satd, however, although no such design appears in the


papers before us, that Bonaparte had proposed. to some
L




516 ADDRESS - ON THE KING'S MESSA:GE


[May


24.
power of Europe to divide the Turkish empire. New this
of itself proves the distinction which we ought to keep


e


n


Saintly before our eyes, in considering the question ad r.
and design. To propose a. project to another powerdesire
proof 8roof of a desire, but when you abandon it on account of
the impracticability of the execution, you cannot surefria.
then said to have any design. You may, indeed, still retain
the desire, but the monwnt you find the execution im
ticable, it would be madness to harbour the design, heeP - •beeause
rational design can never be entertained without some pb
bility of success. But it is said that this design is sufficiently
declared in the report of Sebastiani, for all the purposes of
justifying the war. Now, what if Bonaparte had heard some-
where that you had a desire to occupy and to retain the Cape.
of Good Hope, and that you openly declared that as he was
a man who kept no faith with others, no faith ought to be
kept with him ; what if he were to couple such a declaration
with another, " that the Minister ought to lose his head who
gave up the Cape of Good Hope," and afterwards were to
add to these presumptive evidences the fact of its being in
your possession —I ask, whether Bonaparte might not call
that the indication of a design on your part of retaining the
Cape, with full as much justice as you infer from his declara-
tion a design of occupying Egypt on his? But it is argued,
that the mc-re act of sending Sebastiani is sufficient ground for
war. Now this fact ministers must have known from General
Stewart, by his dispatch of the 3 oth of November. The
arrival of Sebastiani in Egypt, and his transactions there, were
circumstances which General Stewart could not have failed
communicating fully to our government. The publication
of the report, also, is adduced as evidence of the intention,
and it is asked, whether any man will publish what he does
not intend to act? The value of -Egypt, too, to Bonaparte is
stated in addition. - Now, if he really thought Egypt of that
value, and if he wanted the key to it first, which is wsaid t be
Malta, for the surrender of which he was treating.ith us,
can we suppose that he would have published his


intention


with regard to Egypt, as the means of revailing on us to
give him up Malta? No ! the proposition is absurd 0.6o


p


ridiculous on the face of it; nor would it be possib
k" t_


account for such conduct at all, unless we at once bel
ie e


Bonaparte to be a madman."
Mr. Fox next adverted to a part of the negoc


which he professed to be, to him, utterly incomprebenSlobride;
44 I am come to demand satisfaction," says Lord Wit°
to the French minister. " What satisfaction ?" u 6kis ,ott,


Talleyrand. --" Why, really, as to that I canno
t Wit)


RELATIVE TO THE WAR. WITH FRANCE.
5 7003.3


will send to England to inquire." Finding that theybat
do of obtain satisfaction, for the best of all reasons, because


themselves do not know what to ask, the ministersthey
changepoint of satisfaction into one'of security, " What
security? says the French minister. " Why that I can't
tell , ” answers Lord Whitworth, " but I will send to know."
welt ! it turns oat that the security we want is the possession
of i‘-falta in perpetuity ; next the possession of it for ten,
years, which, for all political purposes, amounts to a per-
petuity; and then a number of other demands are thrown


0-the • and the King of Sardinia, like the ghost in a
tragedy, conies in at the last scene to unravel the plot, and
bring about the catastrophe of the piece. He was dead


it is true, long before the play began ; no partand buried,
was assigned him in the drama, but brought in at the stage-
door towards the close of it, and coupled with Malta,
ministers thought he would add greatly to the grandeur of
the scene. At the conclusion of the treaty of Amiens,


1 the King of Sardinia, together with many other princes, hadbeen set aside, one by one. Ministers said that they bad
difficulties enough of their own, and that therefore they
would have nothing to do with any 'of them. But when
they came to insist on keeping Malta, and discovered that
a war for Malta alone would not be very palatable ,


to the
people of England, they produced the King of Sardinia.
They had a double purpose in this. The abrupt demand
of Malta might have been revolting to the feelings of the
first consul. By bringing forward, therefore, the King of
Sardinia in the quarrel, and abandoning him afterwards in
the negotiations, they would appear to soften their demand
of Malta ; while, on the other band, they appeared to
stand forward as protectors of a prince, in whose fate the
Emperor of Russia took a warm interest, and whom, if they
gained nothing for him, they would at least leave in no
wiarse condition than he was before. In addition to this,
they required that Switzerland should be evacuated, and, as
a condition, offered to acknowledge the King of Etruria,
arid the Cisalpine and the Ligurian republics. Now what
could ministers seriously expect from such an offer ? Did
they really suppose that the first consul would care one
!Italy whether the establishment he had made in Italy,
ruld, or should not, be recognized by this country? Did


e37 doubt that Bonaparte, in answer to their proposal,
Would beg of them to follow their own fancy on this point,
and recognise or not as they might think. convenient ? " I
n' not -sure " added Mr. Fox, 44 whether many persons
'110 hear me are acquainted with the fact, but I believe it


LL 3


4




518 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [May 24.
to be certain, that the United States of America, wh ose
independence, under that name, was acknowledged by France
in 1778, and what was much more important, by Great Bri-
tain in 1782, never was acknowledged by the Empress of
Russia to the day of her death ; yet I never heard that Ame-
rica was the worse from the want of the recognition of her in-
dependence by that imperial princess. Nor did I ever hear
that France, which had so large a share in the establishment
of that independence, .was disposed to quarrel with Russia
for declining to acknowledge it. Nor, indeed, could any
such refusal affect America. For what is recognition? n o ung
but mere matter of course, except as it may be connected with
a claim. We gave up a great deal to America, when we ac-
knowledged the independence of the United States. Why?
because we had a claim to the sovereignty of them. The
United States were not injured by the refusal of the Empress
of Russia to acknowledge them. Why ? Because Russia
had no claim upon America. The recognition of the King of
Etruria by the emperor, indeed, is very different. From him
it is a boon, and a great one too ; for by so doing he aban-
dons all his claims upon those territories. But we, in offer-
ing to acknowledge the King of Etruria, or the other changes
in Italy, grant no boon to any of them. We have no claim
on Tuscany — we have no claim on Milan — we have no
claim on the Cisalpine or Ligurian republics : whether we
acknowledge them or not, therefore, is matter of no import-
ance to them, and is only a consideration of convenience to
ourselves. The importance to France of such a boon cannot,
consequently, be contended for with any reason. What, then,
is the result of all this? Why, that you suffered the oppor-
tunity to escape you, and, instead of interposing with a ge-
nerous magnanimity for the protection of Holland ; instead of
looking to that country which stood in immediate need of
being rescued from the most grievous oppression, in whose
favour you might have roused all the indignant sympathi es of
Europe, and in whose cause you might have hoped for the
co-operation, more or less, of the different great powers of
the continent, you rest the whole quarrel with France on aand
point of sheer, naked, British interest, oil your possession
occupation of Malta; a point in which no other Etn oy
state can feel an interest, or entertain a wish in commonWit!'
yourselves. You have reduced this whole question to se
an issue, that, except possibly the Turks, the value of wh, .0°
alliance is easily appreciated, no other power can be induced
come to your aid by the sense of a common interest. Yo abt ti‘e
deprived yourselves of every advantage you ,would have
from the admiration and front the good will of mankind, ari


1803•]


RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
519


Y
-ou have sent your cause into the world, stripped of every
motive to union, derived either from their interests or their
virtues.


But can peace yet be made? I think it may. It has been
contended that the Emperor of Russia still refuses to gua-
rantee Malta. Is that quite so certain? But be the fact so,
or not, are not the communications from that excellent prince
of such a nature as to encourage the hope, that for the sake
of preserving the peace of Europe, he is ready to interpose
his mediation, in order to reconcile the present differences
with France? Has he not actually offered that mediation ?
If you accept it, will it not appear to all Europe that you ask
only for justice? And will not that be of more consequence
to you than any other consideration ? Justice, believe me, is
a very powerful weapon for you, if you choose to use it, and .
if you accept the mediation of Ressia, the justice of your ob-
ject will be palpable to the world. But I ask you to do so for
another purpose. I ask you whether it would not be better
that Malta should be in the hands of the Emperor of Russia,
than ceded to Great Britain? 'Whether, with a view to the
future peace of Europe, and of affording a fairer chance for
its continuance, it would not be better that the Emperor
of Russia should be the occupier of Malta, as between Great
Britain and France, than that it should be absolutely in the
hands of Great Britain ? I certainly should consider the
guarantee, under the terms proposed by Russia, the best of
all. Why ? because it would secure the friendship of Russia;
and because our having it even in full sovereignty cannot be
put in competition with that friendship. In this war, in the
course of any future war with France, which would you pre-
fer, Malta, or the friendship of Russia ? I can have no hesi-
tation in answering — the friendship of Russia. And that you
will secure it by accepting the proffered mediation, is a point
on which I have no difficulty of belief; for, if the accounts I
have heard of him be true, (although accounts of princes must
be received, with many allowances,) the Emperor of Russia
is a prince who places his: glory in a true love of peace, who
will naturally feel a still deeper interest in any peace which he
Might become the instrument of preserving, and whose wishes,
therefore, must incline towards that party, the views of which
should appear most congenial with his own. To obtain his
good offices for the restoration of peace, is, in my opinion,
of more real consequence to us, and to all Europe, than our
possessing Malta under any circumstances. But is there not
great probability of our being enabled, through these means,
to preserve and consolidate the peace on a much broader


!oasis than that of settling the present dispute concerning
L L 4




520 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [May 24.
Malta? Suppose that illustrious prince were not onl y t
guarantee Malta, but were to enter into guarantees °, p a
sti l l more extensive principle—to guarantee Egypt to the
Turks, for instance. Would not that be worth a thousand
Maltas? I go still further. By what I have heard of the
Emperor of Russia, from a quarter on which I think I can
rely, he is disposed also to look to the freedom of Switzerland
and of Holland. I do firmly believe, that under his media,
tion and guarantee, undertaken upon a large scale, not only
Switzerland and Holland, but perhaps even Spain,ioilt
recover their independence, and afford you thus an additional
security for peace, or assistance in any renewal of the contest.
On these large and liberal principles of polic y, other powers
might be brought to concur with you ; whereas, if you are
seen to pursue nothing but, your own sordid, separate inte-
rests, you will obtain no cordial assistance, and you will con-
clude no solid pacification.


The invariable demand of France upon observed Mr.
'Fox, to evacuate Malta, has been confined simply to its eva-
cuation according to the terms and stipulations of the treaty.
Had we felt ourselves and the rest of Europe in such a state
of insecurity as we seem to apprehend from the great power
and ambition of France, better would it have been by fir to
have abrogated the whole treaty at once, and to have declared
that, as it was incapable of execution in one of its material
articles, it was unfit for execution in any. But, if France had
done so ! France is said to have no feeling of honour. Let us
put the case fairly to ourselves, and suppose, that by an ar-
ticle in the treaty France had bound herself to give us the
Mauritius. In what terms should we not exclaim against
France, if; alleging our detention of the Cape of Good Hope
as a proof of our mains animus towards her, she had refused
to surrender that possession ? What should we think and say
of such an excuse, grounded on such a proof of our hostile
disposition ? France, however, had not made the demand of
Malta for herself: it was only to the leaving it in our hands
that the first consul had uniformly refused - his consent; he
had raised no difficulties to its occupation by other powers;
it had been directly offered to Russia. Even with regard to
its evacuation by the British troops, he had fixed no precise
time, had insisted on no immediate step towards its perform-
ance. This conduct certainly bore no appearance of imp e


-riousness or arrogance.' It is answered, however, that it Was
but an assumed moderation in the first consul, put on for
the sake of his immediate interests; and that his real design
was war and aggression, whenever the moment should be
more favourable. His merchant ships arc now at sea :


1803.7 RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
521


waits their return into the French ports; and while his country
'is exposed to danger at so many different points, the present,'
it
is argued, is not tile precise moment at which he would


begin a war with us; but for this he will choose his own time..
Be it so. Supposing the advantage to be on the side of Great
Britain now, would it not continue in nearly the same degree
during the rest of this year, or the next year, or the year
after ? And what was the nature of this advantage as appli-
cable to the question at issue? Should we not always retain
it? Must not French commerce, during the contiiuiance of
our naval superiority, always remain to the same degree a
pledge in our hands for the performance of the engagement
which constituted the subject of the present dispute ? That
engagement was the independence of Malta. If Malta, in..
deed, were occupied by France, it might be right to make
use of our immediate advantage,


•to oblige her to restore the
island to its independence ; but now what should we gain by
threatening the first consul to block up his•ports, to capture
his ships, and ruin his commerce ? Nothing but another
promise ; a promise that, during a certain time, he would not
disturb us in the occupation of Malta. And, did the expe-
rience of mankind, did the evidence of history furnish a
ground of reliance on promises of this sort? Did promises
give any real security for the performance of stipulations ?
Granting the first consul to have entered into any engage-
ment on this head that we might have required, ifany ambi-
tion be of that nature which is ascribed to him, could we be
simple enough to hope that he would really leave us in the
unmolested possession of Malta, and that he would not insist
on our evacuating


• it the very instant at which that opportu-
nity should occur for which we now suppose hint to be wait-
ing? The futility of such promises, arid the little scruple
With which they were evaded, could be no better illustrated
than by the conduct of Francis I. when a prisoner at Ma-
drid, after the battle of Pavia. This monarch, it is well
known, was obliged by Charles V. to subscribe, for the re-
c
overy of his liberty, to conditions of so harsh a nature, that


livtii‘ivlewas foreseen great objections would be made to their ratifi-
cation by the states of France. He was compelled, therefore,
to engage to return to Madrid in the event of failure,. and this


I)
engagement he conceived himself to have well and faithfully
,eriormed— by building and residing at a house in the Boisde Boulocrne, which he called Madrid. On the other hand,


we were pursuing the light and frivolous advantages
which a promise of this sort might hold forth to us, we lost


benefit of another, which, as far as It went, was much
'110re valuable and solid. It cannot be denied, that he who
Makeslake a promise puts himself to a certain degree in tile power




522 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S :MESSAGE [m


e


of


li st tlio


aY
of the party to whom he makes it. The independence of
Malta was provided for by the treaty. The ell"ag
France on this head are solemn and positive.
our evacuation of the island in consequence of that treaty,
first consul of France were to attempt any thing, against
independence, we should derive, in any quarrel we might
have to sustain with him on that account, all the benefit (a
a considerable one it would be) arising from the disadvantage
in point of general character and estimation, to which ()bur
adversary would expose himself by such a breach of promise.
But all advantages arising from this state of things, such as it.
might be, we have totally foregone, by resting the dispute
with France upon its present grounds.


The charges of arrogance, and of a superiority assumed by
the first consul in his language towards this country, are
further urged and supportei on the testimony of his conver-
sations with Lord Whitworth, to which allusions had been set
frequently made : those conversations are said to have been
not only offensive in their tone, but in their substance. Mr.
Fox could see no foundation for this species of charge in the
long conversation with Lord Whitworth, on which so much
stress had been laid, and some expressions of which had been
so triumphantly quoted. What was the report of those ex-
pressions, as given by Lord 'Whitworth himself? Does the
first consul say haughtily to him, " I will come and crush
you — Je vous ecraserai ?" Just the reverse. He tells us
plainly and directly indeed, that he shall attempt to invade
us; but he says also, that he knows the chances are a hundred
to one against his success ; that it is a hundred to one that he
and the greatest part of the expedition would go to the boa=
of the sea. He talked much, and with great earnestness, on
this subject, but never once affected to diminish the danger.
Yet this declaration of the first consul, of the almost utter
hopelessness of any enterprize he might attempt against us, is
quoted as a proof of his arrogance and presumption ! -what-
ever else there may be in it," said Mr. Fox, " there certainly
is in this conversation no tone of superiority; on the con-
trary, it is an acknowledgment of superiority on our side. To
call it arrogant or presumptuous, or to say that it is offensive.
in its tone, or in its substance, appears to be a very whimsicale,
imputation. It reminds me Of the most extravagant passsk
that is, I believtv, to be found in a great, and, with me, Ines'
favourite poet, and who, notwithstanding the frequent }of
stances of the same sort which occur in his works, 0- elle .5t
the finest in our language, I mean Dryden, who, in the
extravagant, perhaps, of his pieces, and into the raeut'ie
Almanzor, puts a sentiment which has always appeared


7


1803.3


RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 523
to outsoar every flight allowable to the wildest fictions of the
imagination. In the Conquest of Grenada, his hero, who is
burlesqued in the Rehearsal, under the character of Draw-
cansir, says, in anger to his rival —


" Thou shalt not wish her thine ; thou shalt not dare
To be so impudent as to despair !"


Sow I confess, notwithstanding what I may have thought
of the extravagance of my favourite poet, that I had over-
rated it. I had thought that no case could happen to give
common sense to those expressions, and make them appli-
cable to real life. I thought them the daring efforts of a
vivid genius, aiming at the summit of poetical hyperbole;
but now I find that Dryden gave only a tame, prosaic ac-
count of a matter of filet, a fe.w years before it happened !
He says, " You shall not wish, you shall not dare, to be so
impudent- as to despair !" Bonaparte says, he despairs of
success in his invasion of England, and for his pride and
impudence in despairing, as well as for his presumption in
telling them so, ministers think no punishment too great.
Now I profess myself to lie one of those who agree in this
respect with the first consul, and who think that in this
despair there is infinitely more good sense than arrogance.
I think it is full a hundred to one that he and the greater
part of his expedition would go to the bottom of the sea, if
he should attempt a descent on our coast. I certainly think
this, and I am very glad to find that Bonaparte is of the
same opinion.


Having closed the argument under these different heads,
Mr. Fox proceeded to the summing up of his opinions on
the whole of the question before the House. He said, that
after the ministers had suffered the continent to be reduced
to its present state, after they had submitted, without re-
monstrance, to every encroachment of French ambition, after
they had left Holland and Switzerland to their fate, and all
the smaller states of Europe under the dominion or the in-
fluence of France, he could not think the war they were now
undertaking for Malta, plain Malta, either wise or justifiable.
What, however, it might be asked of him, would he him-
self propose under the present circumstances ? It was his
opinion, that peace was not even then desperate, if proper
means were resorted to — means which presented themselves
at that very moment, and which were in every way consistent
with strict honour, and with a large and liberal policy. He
recommended to his majesty's ministers, without delay, to
avail themselves of the opportunity which then offered, and




5 24 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE EMay


24-
to co-operate with the wishes which he understood to hate
been expressed by the Emperor of Russia, for the preservation
of the peace of Europe. He recommended, and again en,
forced, the acceptance of the Russian mediation, not for the
sake of procuring the guarantee of that power for Malta
merely, but with a view, of extending it upon a grand, corn_
prehensive scheme of policy, and in concert with other great
powers, to the protection of the weaker and more defenceless
states, and thus ensuring, as far as stability could be expected
in human affairs, the solid and permanent pacification of
Europe. What, he asked, was the other side of the alter-
native? — War ! And what would be the probable effect of
resorting to it ? He had already touched on the conduct of
the first consul, and some of the reasons which had been
assigned for it. He had touched also on the state of the
inhabitants of other countries, none of whom, he feared,
would be improved in their condition by war; but he must
now come to that body of people whom he had often declared
to be more emphatically his clients — the people of England.
He would, for the moment, put out of his consideration
all questions of danger to ourselves. He would suppose
Bonaparte to feel the truth of what he himself had declared,
namely, that he despaired of success in attempting a descent
— he would suppose that all parts of our empire were at pre-
sent secure, and that even in a protracted war, there would
be no probability, no possibility (if gentlemen would take it
so) of affecting us in any quarter by invasion. Even in this
state of security, however, what was our situation ? Had we
forgotten the two last years of the last war? Had we for-
gotten the state and condition of the middle classes of society
in this island; of every country gentleman of a limited in-
come, of every tradesman, indeed of every man in it who
did not possess a very large fortune ; had we already for-
gotten how the late war had pressed upon them ? Let us
recollect these things ; let us recollect the circumstances which
occurred in the course of that war; what we all suffered by
the immense loads that were laid upon us to support it—
their grievous and most intolerable weight, and the cruel
and grinding measures of every description, under which
this country had groaned during so many years. Could m i


-nisters, with these recollections in their minds, bring them-
selves again to precipitate their country into miseries, sot
horrible in their nature, and so easily to be avoided ?
had we now to expect ? He had heard, indeed, some talk
ofan economical war. But even this economy (difficult fos
the word was at all times to understand when so applied) No
now explained to consist in the adoption of measures leadiog


RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.1 803.] S 2S
to an immense and immediate enlargement of our expences.
We were told that we must make great exertions. And
what exertions ? Exertions beyond any thing we have
ever yet known ; far beyond what were found necessary
during the glorious war of Queen Anne; far beyond those
by which we obtained that pre-eminence which has immor-
talized the memory of the late Earl of Chatham ; far beyond
even those of the late war itself: And by whom were we
told all this ? If by some gentlemen who had no expe-
rience in politics, and under whose guidance we had not
already suffered; if by some orator, as a mere figure of
speech without a meaning, and by way of a flourish in debate,
for such a purpose it might do well ; but we are told this,
not by a novice in the art of extortion, but by an artist ! "If
a man without experience or reputation," said Mr. Fox,
"examines my.case when I am ill, and tells me, You musthave a limb cut off- to save your life,' I might still hope for a
care, without having recourse to so dreadful a remedy ; but,
if the skilful practitioner, the regular doctor himself tells me-
so, after consultation, if the experienced operator, under
whose prescriptions and directions I have already suffered,
tells me so, I know what I must endure ! If he qells me,
I must pull out all your teeth ; I must cut off part of the


extremities, or you will die,' I have only to prepare for the
operation. I know the alternative is death or torture. This
great artist, this eminent doctor, (Mr. Pitt,) has told us that,
much as we had already been distinguished for exertion, what
we have hitherto done is nothing. We have hitherto been
only fighting for morality and religion, for the law of nations,
fin- the rights of civil society, and in. the cause of God.
Resources fully adequate to such minor objects, the righth
onourable gentleman assures us, we have already employed :


but now we have a contest to sustain of a higher order — a.
c
ontest which would compel us to strain every remaining


nerve, and to call for sacrifices new and extraordinary, such
as had never before been heard of in this country. We are
told, that within a month, within a fortnight perhaps, a plan
must be formed for raising many millions of money, in a modedifferent from any that has hitherto been attempted. It was
not to be a pitiful expedient for a single year; it was not tobe an expedient similar to those adopted by Lord Northd
uring the American war, or by the right honourable gentle-111011 himself for nearly the whole of the last war; but it wast
o be a plan which would last for ever, or at least until two


o
r three hundred millions should be raised by it. Severe


me
asures for general defence are also announced to us as


necessary within a fortnight; plans of which no man can as


J




S 26 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [May 24.


yet form a conception, but which ministers are to reveal to
us in due time, and when they shall have reached their fall
maturity of wisdom.


The income-tax was felt heavily by most of the members
of this House, although many of them are in the superior
ranks of fortune — heavily, indeed, by all descriptions of
persons in the country, except. the most opulent, or those
in the lowest class of labourers, who were too poor to he
made the objects of it. I believe there are now near the
projectors of that tax, many persons who felt the gripe
of it most keenly, although some of them were soTshitautat,tead
that it was not prudent . for them to complain.
did, indeed, affect every person of any condition in this
country, but affected them very differently. The possessors
of their thirty, their twenty, their ten, and even their one
thousand a-year, felt it as nothing, when compared to the
possessors of only their two, their three, their four, or
their five hundred. Ask that numerous and intelligent
class of persons how they felt the income-tax? I am speak-
ing of the poor old income-tax, not the tax now about to
be imposed I speak of that mild and gentle operation,
which seized only upon one-tenth of a man's income, and not
of a measure which may exact a fifth, mid possibly a half;
a measure, too, which must be improved in the mode of its
execution, since the greater the sum to be raised by it, the
more rigorous must be the inquisition. Let no man now
look to his holding a pound without giving possibly fifteen
shillings of it to government towards the support of the war;
let no man be too confident that an inquisitor may not be em-
powered to break open his desk, in order to search for the
other five. And all this for what? For Malta ! Malta !
plain, bare, naked Malta, unconnected with any other in-
terest ! What point of honour can the retention of Malta
be to you? Something of that nature may be felt by France,
but to you, I aver it is, as a point of honour, nothing. But
it may be prudent to keep it." Is the keeping it worth a con-
test? Does the noble lord think it so? On the contrary,
is he not of -opinion that it is not? " Oh I but :we :are
to oppose the -aggrandizement of France, the arnbitionef
Bonaparte, which will destroy us like a liquid fire." ;we.


-thaw, indeed, heard some splendid philippics on this su
.philippics which Demosthenes himself, were .:be among


bj ect
!Is!


would hear with pl
e


asure, and possibly with envy; philippic!
-,which would lead us directly to battle, without regard to' 113'1 g
,--may follow ; but then comes the question — What shah1


have to pay for them? What is the arrioun,t of the bill?
. 01.


,


,xemember an old French proverb, and 1 am not afrala


I 803 ` j RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH PRANCE.
527


being deemed too much of a Frenchman if 1 should quote it
the proverb seems almost an answer to one in English, which
says that " things are good because they are dear." The
author of the French one, however, tells us that, let things be
ever so good, yet if they are dear, he has no pleasure in eat-
ing them, " le tout en cite le gout." Now so it


is with me,when I hear the harangues of the right honourable gentleman
favour of war, I think the articles chest up are exquisite,


but that the cost spoils the relish. However, these philippics
are not new to us. I remember when Lord Rosslyn, (then
Mr. Wedderburn,) made a vehement and eloquent philippic
before the privy council against Dr. Franklin, calling him


"ahoary-headed traitor," and so forth. I remember the prodi-
gious effect produced by this splendid invective; so great


was •it, that when the privy council went away, they were almost
ready to throw up their hats for joy, as if they had obtained
a triumph. Why, Sir, we paid a pretty dear price for that
triumph afterwards ! In the beginning of time last war, we
had abilities, which we now enjoy no longer, and which no
one remembers with more regret than I do. There was no
want of imagery, no want of figures of rhetoric, no want of
the flowers of eloquence; eloquence seldom equalled, and
never surpassed by man, and alt exerted to support the war.
We know how that war ended, and the damp which was cast
upon our ardour at the sight of the bill when it came to be
paid. So now, when I hear all these fine and eloquent
philippics, I cannot help recollecting what fruits such speeches
have generally produced, and dreading the devastation and
carnage which usually attend them. The right honourable
gentleman, when he appears before us in all the gorgeous at-
tire of his eloquence, reminds me of a story which is told of
a barbarous prince of Morocco, a Muley Molock, or a MuleyI
shmael, who never put on his gayest garments, or appearedin e


xtraordinary pomp, but as a prelude to the murder of
litany of his subjects. Now, when I behold splendour much
more bright, when I perceive the labours of an elegant and
acc


omplished 'mind — when I listen to words so choice, and
contemplate all the charms of'his polished elocution, — it is
Well enough for me, sitting in this House, to enjoy the scene,
but it gives me most gloomy tidings to conveyto my constitu-Q
uts in the lobby. For these reasons, Sir, I should wish,Previously to our entering into this war, to be told what eventit is that will put an end to it. I 'would ask what are weto gain by this contest ? I know I may be told, that it is an


old and a foolish question. That it is old I know, but that
It is foolish I do not. Switzerland and Holland are, in


my
°Pinion, the two great objects to be kept in viewy as countries




52 $


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [May 24.


the liberation of which from the yoke of France would be
most desirable. But have you any hopes of accomplishin g
such an object ? Have you any chance of doing so by td
course


you are now about to take? No man thinks more
highly than I do, of the ability and gallantry of your tom.
manders; no man thinks more highly than I do, of the intre-
pidity and valour of your soldiers; no man thinks more highly
than I do of the immense power, most incomparable skill and
invincible spirit of your navy ; no man has more earnest wishes
than I have to see the power of France reduced by the efforts
of Great Britain. Much certainly, in one way, may be done
towards this object. You may seize her islands you may
take her colonies and destroy her trade ; you have done it
before, and, for aught I know, you may distress her even
more. Even then, what will you ultimately gain? On the
other hand, what may you not ultimately lose ? You
may be driven to the brink of bankruptcy yourselves. But
France, we are told, will have been destroyed first. France
may, indeed, be made a beggar, but will that make her a bet-
ter neighbour to you? Say even that a new revolution should
happen to France, as many have happened to her within these
ten years — What will you be the better for that? " France,"
you may then exclaim, 44 is now more miserable than ever
she was I" To be sure she will be so ; and you — how will
you be the better for her misery ? It is argued, however, that
if we are to go to war, it is wiser to commence it now, than to
delay it ; distinctions are drawn between internal strength
and strength for the annoyance of an enemy ; it is said that,
as to France, another year may extend her commerce, increase
her population, and thus give her additional means of annoy-
ing us ; and that all these means will be diminished by the
revolutions she may suffer in another war. .1f she should suf-
fer in the next war ten revolutions, instead of the five or six
through which she struggled in the last, putting all other
considerations out of the question, are we justified by experi


-ence in expecting that her sufferings will render her a better
neighbour to us, or less troublesome to the repose of file
world? Was she so wasted by the losses of the late war, was
she so enervated by the . calamities of her revolutions, as to he
rendered incapable of annoying others, or of defending herself!
W not ot her latest efforts, on the contrary, the most terrible
and the most successful ?"


From these grounds, which Mr. Fox recapitulated, he are!
the conclusion, that we were in a situation, in which,. ifloco
were to proceed on our present narrow ground of mere hl:.
British interest, we had nothing to gain; absolutely
We could not hope for an ally from any quarter of the wort


na


1803.]


RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 529
nut if the House should agree to the amendment moved on
the address, it would open to us another and a better course.
The amendment contained nothing, which, with the exception
a a very fow words indeed, they did not all believe to be
true. That his majesty's ministers had not done the best that
could have been done, in the whole of the negotiation, was
certainly a very general opinion. That question was by com-
mon consent (as it appeared) to be the subject of debate at a
future day ; the address he thought would prejudge that ques-
tion ; whereas the amendment kept it entirely open for dis-
cussion and decision. To attain the greater objects of the
amendment, Mr. Fox gave notice, that he should, at no very
distant period, move the House to address his majesty to
avail himself of the disposition manifested by the Emperor of
Russia to bring about a general peace. If that prince should
either be unwilling to engage in the meditation, or unable,
ihrough the fault of our enemy, to accomplish its purpose,
neither of which Mr. Fox could believe, the House would
enjoy the satisfaction of reflecting that they had clone every
thing in their power, which prudence could dictate, to avoid
the calamities of war. The alternative would then be in-
evitable, and they would adopt it without reproach. At pre-
sent nothing could be said in favour of the policy of war,
but that it may be better for us now than it would be four
months hence. This advantage would be more than coun-
terbalanced by proving to all Europe, that war was not our
choice; that we had applied to one of its first powers to pre-
vent it, and that we were ready to accept the proffered medi-
ation. Mr. Fox concluded his speech with stating the strong
sense of duty, and the deep anxiety of mind under which he
had been impelled to deliver his opinions so much at length ;
and with exhorting the House, before they entered on this
great contest, not only to pause, to deliberate, and to satisfy
themselves, but to do every thing that depended on them to
convince their constituents and all Europe that the avoiding


Was impossible.


On a division, Mr. Grey's amendment was negatived by 398;
.gainst


67. After which the original address was agreed to.


VOL, VT.
111 M




53 0
SIR. Fox's MOTION RESPECTING [May 27,


MR. Fox's MOTION RESPECTING THE MED IATION op
RUSSIA.


May 27.


IN
pursuance of the notice he had given,


Mr. Fox rose for the purpose of making his promised
motion respecting the mediation of the Emperor of Rus,i4
to adjust the existing differences between this country and
France. He observed, that although, from the time and cir-
cumstances under which he brought it forward, it might be
considered as one of the most important ever submitted to
parliament, it was one which led to no great length of dis-
cussion, nor would require him to take any very comprehensive
view of the topics naturally connected with ft. Into the ge-
neral question of the propriety of the war, he was not dis-
posed to enter. He had stated his opinions very fully on a
former day : a great majority had differed from him; and
to the judgment of that majority it was his duty to bow..
The country was then actually at war, and being so, be
should give the war the best support in his power. But al-
though we were at war, and :dthough many differences pre-
vailed as to the grounds of it, no one would deny the propriety
of bringing it as soon as possible to an honourable termi-
nation. The proposition which it was his intention to submit
to the House had this object in view. It was understood',
that an offer had recently been made by the Emperor
Russia to interpose his mediation, or good offices, for the
settlement of the differences between Great Britain and
France. He wished to induce the house of Commons to ad-
vise his majesty immediately to avail himself of those friendly
dispositions. On the advantages of mediation in genera!, it
was not necessary for him to descant ; still less on the advan-
tages which must result from the mediation of that powerful'
respected, and universally esteemed sovereign, the Emperor
of Russia. It was Mr. Fox's opinion, that even where meth-.
ation was wholly inactive, where the mediating powers lent
only their names to a negociation, the offer of it ought, u nder C.1 eir
almost any circumstances, to be accepted. Even this, whichi
was the lowest species of mediation, was useful for the sake °fI
public opinion. What was now proposed, however, he •


tg03.] THE MEDIATION OP RUSSIA,
derstood to be of the higher species, and to amount to All
offer, by the Emperor of Russia, of an effectual interposition
of his good offices ; which, among other advantages, included
this, — that if it should fail, through our enemy's advancing
unjust claims and pretensions, and if we should be compelled
by such failure to prosecute ;he war for objects which, in that
case, must be approved by the mediating sovereign, we should
secure his support, and the sanction dins great and powerful
name. And what was equally material, we should have in
our favour the public opinion of Europe and the world. This,
let gentleman be assured, was no trifling matter ; it *as a.
consideration of sufficient importance by itself, even if there
existed no other motive, to determine in favour of the pro-
priety of the step he was about to recommend.


It was not, however, merely for the sake of adjusting pre-
sent differences that he thought the acceptance of this medi-
ation so desirable. To that power to which ministers looked
as the principal and only fit guarantee for Malta, they
might naturally look for mediation on other matters ; they
might look for an extension of his guarantee to all the points
now at issue between the governments of Great Britain and
France. Thoroughly impressed with the feasibility of this
plan, Mr. Fox most anxiously conjured ministers, as they
valued the interests of their country and the permanent peace
of Europe, not to suffer the present opportunity to escape
them; not to overlook means so obvious and so practicable
for the accomplishment of all their objects, whether of security,
honour, or satisfaction.


In his hopes of benefit from this measure, Mr. Fox said,
that he carried his views very far. The power, the charac-
ter, and the rank of the Emperor of Russia, rendered him,
of all sovereigns, not only the very fittest mediator on the
points in dispute between Great Britain and France, but the
fittest protector and guarantee of the rights of independent
nations, and of the general interests of Europe. The per-
sonal character of this prince stood on the highest ground;
nor could his own praise of him, Mr. Fox said, .add any thing
to the . estimation in which he was every where held. He


not ot of his private character alone, but of his princely
qualities, of his justice to the people committed to his care,
of his love of peace, and of his ardent desire for its mainte-
nance in Europe ; and particularly of his wish to see peace
restored between Great Britain and France, although he was
not likely to be a loser by their quarrels.


The leading feature of his character, therefore, was that
which most fitted him for a mediator. There was another
part in it which peculiarly pointed him out as the mediator to


bI M 2




5 32 MR. FOX'S MOTION RESPECTING Nay27.


whom we should most choose in refer our differences. This
prince was understood to be Very sensibly affected by many
changes which had taken place in Europe since the peace of
Amiens ; and to have highly disapproved, and in many in-
stances to have been disgusted with the conduct of France
towards other powers since that period. It was impossible,
therefore, to imagine a sovereign, whose interposition could
be more consonant to what ought to be our wishes. In look-
ing for a mediator, the two points concerning which it would
most import us to be satisfied, were, his character and his
opinions. The first qualification, as he had already stated,
was a love of peace; the second, a dislike and disapprobation
of those acts which either directly or remotely constituted the
cause of the dispute on which he was to mediate. Both these
were eminently conspicuous in the illustrious sovereign of
whom he was then speaking.


With respect to the beneficial consequences which would
attend the acceptance of his mediation on a more extended
scale, Mr. Fox was very sanguine. He-would state no cer-
tainty, indeed, of its producing peace, but a strong and rea-
sonable hope. At all events, he looked forward through it to
the most advantageous connection which this country could
Corm under the present circumstances of Europe. In the
actual state of afThirs, what was more probable than that
France, taking advantage of her condition of preparation and
power, would abuse it, for the purpose of further acquisitions
at the expellee of the smaller and more defenceless states?
This was the great evil to be apprehended from the present
war; and against this evil a connection with Russia would be
the surest guard, as well as afford the best hope of settling at
last some solid system of peace for Europe. What other
Means, he would ask, had we of preventing the oppression
of the smaller states by France, if she should be disposed to
attempt it What means had we of our own ? And after
France had testified a disposition to accept the mediation,
how would it appear to Europe were we to decline the offer?


No expression implying the superiority of any other power
was fit to be used in speaking of Great Britain and its inte-
rests; but he would ask, was there ever a sovereign who,
from his situation, was so fit to prescribe peace as the Em-
peror of Russia ? What was the language which he was en-
abled to hold both to this country and to France? We bad
a. dispute with the late emperor, which, although settled,
was settled upon conditions to which the court of St. Peters-
burgh might still continue to except, as being in a great de"
crree harsh and disadvantageous. On the other hand, that
court objected to part of an article in the treaty of Amiens/


THE MEDIATION OF RUSSIA. 533


to the general conditions of which, however, she was still
ready to accede upon the removal of her objection. The point
was, to us, a mere trifle ; no more than whether a Maltese
langue should be admitted into the order. The emperor,
therefore, might say fairly to us, " There were some points
in my treaty with you, to which, however disadvantageous,
I submitted, for my love of peace. Do you, in return, act
in the same manner. You complain of an article in the•.
treaty of Amiens, so do I of the terms of the northern con-
vention. To these several treaties we each of us agreed for
the sake of peace. Imitate, therefore, on your parts, the
moderation I showed on mine, and make a sacrifice to the
peace of Amiens of any trifling objection, in the same manner
;. is I sacrificed all mine to the northern convention." But if
this sovereign could speak in such terms to us, he could speak
in much stronger terms to France. It was reported, (with
what truth Mr. Fox did not pretend to kno•,) that sonic
time since a proposition had been made from France to Rus-
sia for the dismemberment and partition of the Turkish em-
pire. This report was alluded to in his majesty's declaration,
in which paper the proposition itself was also stated to have
been rejected. The emperor, therefore, stands towards the
French government on the very best ground for enforcing
upon it the counsels of moderation. That power, which has
been so long and so justly suspected of entertaining designs
hostile to the Turkish empire ; that sovereign who would
gain most territory, although perhaps it may not be quite so
certain that lie would acquire any great addition of- solid.
strength, by the partition of its provinces, decidedly refused to
lend his countenance to so iniquitous a project. The Empe-
ror of Russia, therefore, is the sovereign who is entitled to
speak in the firmest language to any other European power
that might be supposed to entertain similar designs against its
defenceless neighbours. " You propose to me," he might say,
" the dismemberment of Turkey. If I, who had the fairest
hopes of advantage from that dismemberment, the standing
policy of whose ancestors it has been to achieve the enterprize,
and who might be supposed to be actuated by an hereditary
partiality towards that object — if I refused to accede to it
from a sense of what was due to justice and the rights of others,
I am entitled to make the same claim upon you. I preferred
peace to the gratification of my ambition. Do you the same.
.1 abstained from attacking my neighbours. Abstain you
also."


Such was the language which the Dnpero • of Russia
Could hold towards France, and which most probably he
would be induced to hold, if his offer of mediation were ac-


M M 3




S34 Fox's MOTION ItEsrepturigd.[May 2.7.
cepted upon the large scale he had ventured to recommend;
This sovereign, too, was peculiarly situated with regard to
France, so situated as both to be inclined and enabled to
succour with effect those states which might be supposed the
first and most immediate objects of French aggression. Mr.
Fox, therefore, again most earnestly advised the ministers
to attach themselves cordially to that power, from which alone
they could derive any material assistance in the prosecution
of their views; whether those views were for a solid peace,
or for a vigorous war. With that power alone for an ally,
if they could contrive to form an alliance with it, we might be
enabled to protect., and to secure from attack, all the weaker
states in the European system.


If it were objected that France only agreed to the offer of
mediation with a view to procrastinate, against her e.gainin
such an advantage, Mr. Fox said it would be the duty of
Ministers most vigilantly to guard ; but he cautioned the
House against the rejection of treaties, and against repelling
all approaches to negotiation, merely on account of our not
being perfectly satisfied as to the good faith and general dis-
positions of an adverse power. If' the government of France
had expressed a willingness to accept the mediation, and if
the people of that country in general, as every common tra-
veller could not have failed to observe, were anxious for
peace, would not our rejection of such a measure tend im-
mediately to render the war popular among them, by throw-
ing upon us all the odium of' its commencement ? Is it not
for our interest to deprive the government of France of this
advantage? Is it not for our interest to enter into a medi-
ation, which, if France should render ineffectual, will lay
her under the necessity of contending, not only with us, but
with Russia ? To submit our claims to the arbitrary decision
of that court, or of any other power on earth, no man dis-
dained more than himself; but to explain the justice of them
to a friendly state, was to be considered in a very different
light, especially when such a proceeding opened the way to
an union with that state, upon principles of common security
and defence.


Of continental connections, as they were entered into and
managed by our ancestors, Mr. Fox professed himself the
warm and constant friend. These connections were either
wise, or otherwise, according to circumstances ; and he 'COP:
sidered a connection with Russia, in the present state of of
:fairs, to be most wise and most expedient. He would Da
undervalue Our resources, but for any practicable object in
the war, except that of mere self-defence, what were our
deans ? If our views really tended towards abridging in any


15


THE MEDIATION OF RUSSIA. 535
degree the continental power of France,. what chance had we
„f bringing our resources to bear upon this object, except
through the connection to which be pointed ? a connection;
to the forming of which the opportunity now presented to us
was most happy — and might never return !


Every consideration of policy pointed this way. In look-
ing to the rest of the continent, no other power seemed in
a situation likely to afford us any assistance. On the other
hand, what would Great Britain and Russia have to fear
from a junction of either Prussia or the house of Austria
with France? That these powers should jointly assist France
against Great Britain and Russia, there never could be much
reason to apprehend ; that either of them should separately
assist her, under the present circumstances, lie saw little
reason to believe. Peace was known to be the general settled
system of the Prussian monarchy at present, and Austria,
independent of the obvious doubts respecting her cordiality
in any co-operation with France, was too much exhausted
by the pressure of the late war, not to make peace absolutely
necessary to her recovery. That peace is become her policy,
was also to be presumed from the change in her councils, and
from the elevation to power of the Archduke Charles —
prince most universally respected and beloved — a prince,
who after the immortal glories he has acquired in war —
glories not to be diminished by defeat, since in adverse cir,
cumstances he had done all that could be expected from the
greatest talents — now, happily for mankind, seems to consider
it his truest glory to discharge his debt to the people who
supported him throughout an arduous contest, by securing
to them the enjoyment, and by cultivating for their sakes
the advantages of peace. Such was the employment of the
Archduke Charles, which, with the considerations he had
mentioned before, led him to believe that a pacific spirit pre-
veiled equally in the cabinets of Vienna, of Berlin, and of
St. Petersburgh; offering to us the fairest opportunity that
Perhaps had ever occurred, of {brining the union for which
he was so earnest, upon the broad principles he had been
endeavouring to establish.


Mr. Fox then enlarged upon the satisfaction to ourselves,
and even the political advantages which would attend our
conducting ourselves in such a manner as to conciliate the
public opinion of Europe. Although Holland or Switzer-
land, or the smaller states of Italy, might not be able pos-
sibly to give us any immediate assistance, even their good
wishes were not to be despised. Under the powerful pro-
tection of ,a-Russian alliance, growing out of the mediation
such as he


- viewed it, those good wishes might, in time, bring
4




5 36 MR. FOX'S MOTION RESPECTING [May 27.
us allies. The measure was equally desirable, whether War
or peace should be the ultimate result. From the refusal of
Russia to accept the guarantee of Malta, as we had originally
proposed it, some persons might think she was ill-inclined
towards our cause, and might be actuated by partiality to


-


wards that of France; and under this persuasion might be
disposed to think that our dignity was concerned in rejecting
the present overtures for mediation. No man was further
than Mr. Fox from wishing this country to humble itself
before Russia ;- and no man would advise the rejection of her
interference sooner than himself, if he could entertain the
slightest suspicion of her partiality to France ; but so far
was he from believing in any such partiality, that he was
persuaded her sentiments ran in an opposite direction. Others
might suspect the offer to have been made in collusion with
France: if it were so, no doubt it ought to be instantly re-
jected; and here Mr. Fox desired to be distinctly understood,
as not recommending by his motion any suspension of hosti-
lities, whatever might be his opinion as to the rashness with
which they had been begun.


Upon the whole, he felt very sanguine, and possibly 'this
eagerness might warp his judgment, as to the beneficial ef-
fects, in a general view, which must result from the measure
he was about to propose to the House. He believed that
ministers would gladly have accepted this mediation, had it
been proposed at an earlier period. Why, then, should not
that proposal be eligible to terminate a war, which would
have had a welcome reception before its commencement?
Russia was the chief power on which we relied for the security
of Malta against France. Her guarantee of it was to have
consolidated the peace. An opportunity now was presented
to us, by which we might extend that guarantee to the peace
and security of Europe ; to the protection and happiness of
the smaller states; to the setting up, under wise management,
of a bulwark and a safeguard for the world ; and to the ef-
fecting a settlement, such as the events of the late war gave
but little reason ever again to hope for. He did not despair
of combining together, in some great public act, all the
powers without exception who were named in the guarantee
of the independence of Malta. The rights of all nations,
and the territories of all states, would by these means be
secured against disturbance or invasion ; the spirit of aggran;
dizement would be repressed ; the mischievous practice at


mightsecret cession would be put an end to, and the world n
at length enjoy some prospect of peace, by seeing the u0.,
ferent great powers of which it was composed, act upon.
principle of content with what they had gained, a nd °I


1893.1 TIIE MEDIATION OF RUSSIA. 53 7
acquiescence in what they had lost. At the moment at which
we seemed on the brink of eternal war, ministers had it in
their power to lay the foundation of this great work; and in
order to enable them to do it, he would move, " That an
humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that his
majesty would be graciously pleased to avail himself of the
disposition expressed by the Emperor of Russia to interpose
leis good offices for the termination of the present war between
his majesty and the French republic; an interposition which
would, probably, be attended with the best advantages in
support of the dignity of his majesty's crown, and for the
general and permanent tranquillity of Europe."


The motion was opposed by Lord Hawkesbury, who moved the
previous question thereon. Mr. Pia concurred in all the general
principles, upon which the motion was grounded, but nevertheless
hoped that Mr. Pox would not persist in it, as there appeared no
reason to doubt, but that his majesty's ministers would act in
conformity with those general principles. In reply to what fell
from Mr. Pitt,


Mr. Fox said, that his opposition to the late .
war, as far as


the question of continental alliances was concerned, rested
precisely on the same principles as those upon which he had
that day grounded his motion. It was singular, that after
the many occasions he had had to debate this subject, he
should still be misunderstood. He had opposed the late war,
among other reasons, from an opinion which he had formed,
and stated at its very commencement, of its tendency to effect
the total destruction of the influence of this country on the con-
tinent. Subsequent events had proved the correctness of that
opinion. • The right honourable gentleman himself had ac-
knowledged that he had consented to make peace, as soon as
he perceived that the prolongation of the war was not likely
to procure any better security for the continent. Mr. Fox
was against referring to any topics which might revive past
animosities ; but he begged to know in what consisted the
difference between the right honourable gentleman and him-
self; except that he had foreseen some years earlier, what the
right honourable gentleman had been obliged to admit some
years later ? It was on a similar priociple that he had
approved the peace — he had approved it, not as good in
itself, but as preferable, under all the circumstances, to
a continuance of the war. In answer to the application
which had been addressed to him to withdraw his motion,
Mr. Fox expressed his regret, that, as matters then stood,
he could not comply with it. Further explanation was ne-
cessary from the noble secretary of state. Whether Russia




538 VOLUNTEER, CONSOLIDATION [Feb. 29,
had offered her mediation in the large, or in the l imited sense
of the word, it was important to have an assurance from
ministers that they would accept it. No such assurance
had been given, and with less he could not be content. if
ministers, however, would state fairly that there existed
among them, at that moment, a disposition to avail them_
selves of the offers of Russia, whatever those offers might
be, or of a mediation when regularly proposed to them, lie
would make no difficulty of withdrawing his motion.


Lord Hawkesbury assured the House, that the British gOVern-
meat was ready to accept the mediation of Russia ; upon which,
Mr. Fox consented to withdraw his motion.


VOLUNTEER CONSOLIDATION


February 29. 1804.


• 'N. the 8th of February Mr. Secretary Yorke moved for leave
to bring in a bill, " to explain, amend, and consolidate the


provisions contained in the several acts relative to yeomanry and
volunteer corps throughout the United Kingdom." Leave was
given to bring in the bill, and on the z9th, upon the motion, thatthe bill be committed, the same was opposed by Mr. Francis and
Colonel Craufurd, and supported by General Maitland and Colonel
Eyre, after which,


Mr. Fox rose and said: I own, Sir, that I am much
surprized at the language used by my honourable friend
under the gallery, (General Maitland,) and still more sot-
prized at the very extraordinary sentiment with which the
honourable gentleman behind me (Colonel Eyre) closed his
speech. Of the latter I shall first take notice. The ho-
nourable gentleman seems highly to disapprove of any thing
in the shape of opposition to his majesty's present ministers,
and expresses an opinion that all parties should combine to
support them, in order to second their endeavours for the
national defence, in a word, that all should be 'unanimity for
that object; but although the honourable gentleman sodoes
broadly


upon


assert


the honourable




dissentio




gentleman


n prevails,


to


and


point


that


out


means


a sing


aidr


ca e
used to embarrass the operations of government, I Nv61lie


instance where any obstruction has been offered to the eas y
ertions of government to provide for our security. It Is Y


1301-] voLuNTEER CONSOLIDATION BILL,
.539


for any gentleman to use a round assertion, but I challenge
the honourable member to quote any case to justify the
charge that any party has been backward to contribute its
assistance to the government, whatever they may think of the
ministers by whom the government is administered. All,
hi fad, is, and has been, union for the public safety, from
the moment that safety has been pronounced in danger.
The people have, every where, pressed forward in the cause
of the country, and their zeal has received no damp or check
from any quarter, but from the ministers themselves; and,
without looking to the innumerable proofs Of ardent and
active exertion made by the gentlemen of that party to whom
the honourable member seemed more particularly to allude,.
I shall only cite one remarkable instance in the north of
England. Let the honourable gentleman look to a distill-,
guished friend of mine in that direction (the Duke of Nor.
thumberland). That noble duke has, to his immortal honour,
raised a body of not less than 'so °


men, whom he has
clothed, equipped, disciplined, and furnished with every
necessary, arms alone excepted. These they have had from
government. What union, then, does the honourable 0-en-
deman require? The most cordial union exists every where
in support of the country and the government, and I believe
the union is almost equally general against the ministers;
but yet I am astonished to find some gentlemen forward to
vaunt of those Ministers, and. to contend that the zeal and
union which so universally prevails are attributable to them.
Why, certainly, they have been produced- by ministers —
but how ? By their mismanagement : and if upon this they
mean to ground their triumph, they are no doubt entitled to
it. They have brought the country to the brink of destruc
tion, and have made us all unite for our own security.
Really, therefore, if ministers will claim merit for thus ex-
citing the public spirit, I confess that I cannot deny the justice
of their pretensions.


With respect to the observations made by my honourable
friend, I repeat that I heard them with surprize. I have
often had occasion to defend the freedom of debate, and I
declare I never witnessed a more extraordinary attempt
made to interrupt it, than in the instance I allude to. It
seemed to be the drift of my honourable friend's remarks,
that no officer below the rank of a lieutenant-general should
Presume to state his opinion in this House upon any military
topic connected with the defence of the country. But how
different is this from the conduct pursued by my honourable„u
viend On a former occasion ! I remember when he undertook




540 VOLUNTEER CONSOLIDATION DILL. .[Feb —
to censure, and very freely too, the proceedings of officer,
superior to himself. I will not say in abilities, but very much-
so in rank: when he was only a major, he commented, and
with some severity, upon Generals Meadows, Musgrave, and
others, and exposed himself in so doing to some severe ani-
madversions, against which I defended him. I hope,


thefore, that he will not be surprized if, acting upon th •
principle which influenced my conduct with regard to him-
self, I now take up the defence of the honourable Officer
(Colonel Craufurd) who has been this night the object of
his attack. If, indeed, the opinions advanced by my honour-
able friend were pushed to the extent which he appears to
wish, it would go to this, that no officer who is a member
of this House, however high his reputation, (and surely no
man will question the reputation and military talents of the
honourable officer alluded to,) should presume to give his
opinion upon military subjects to a superior officer. I
understand it has been said, that such subjects should not be
discussed at all in this House, but that the matter should be
entirely left to the consideration of officers of experience.
To this opinion, however, I never will subscribe; but even
if true, who, I would be glad to know, has a stronger claim
to attention on the score of experience than the honourable
officer I refer to? And yet my honourable friend would
restrain him, and why? not least his opinions should clash
with those of other officers of high rank and authority, but
because the matter ought, in my honourable friend's judg-
ment, to be left entirely to the consideration of such persons;
but yet my honourable friend does not venture to say that
the points alluded to by the honourable officer, have been,
or will be considered by the high officers, for whose monopoly,
not only of military power, but of military knowledge and
attention, he seems to be so very anxious. My honourable
friend does not know, however, that their attention extends
to all the topics alluded to by the honourable officer, and
still he would wish him to be silent upon those most im-
portant points, not because he actually differs with the high
officers, for whom my honourable friend feels such reverence,
but least he should differ from them on some things which
they may hereafter think proper to consider. This was


not


the only opposition which the honourable officer experience,"
from my honourable friend; for, after condemning tP,e,
generalprinciple of the honourable officer's entering at a"to
into the discussion, my honourable friend endeavoured.more
combat the detail of his speech —a speech containing
professional information than any speech, perhap s, that l


1.804•3


VOLUNTEER CONSOLIDATION BILL.
54


ever heard in this House, and conveyed in a manner so
perspicuous as to be more intelligible to men unacquainted.
with military tactics than military essays generally are.


The first part of my honourable friend's objections applied
to the argument so often used against the volunteer system,
on the ground of the exemptions granted to the volunteers;
but I would ask, can any man seriously contend that such
an argument is not well founded, and that those exemptions
have not materially impeded the ballots for the militia and
the army_of reserve, and also crippled the recruiting for the
regular army? The fact is too notorious to be denied. My
honourable .friend, however, took up these exemptions as a
matter justly due to the volunteers, and highly right in
ministers to propose and parliament to adopt. But, if it
was a matter of right, it was certainly right by mistake, for
there is no doubt that ministers did not intend to grant such
exemptions at the time the volunteer bill was passed last
summer. If they did, it does not appear on the face of that
bill; and sure I am, that it was not so understood in any
part of the country that I have heard of. On the contrary,
I remember that subscriptions were set on foot in various
parishes, to relieve the volunteers from the ballots for the
militia or army of reserve, by providing substitutes for such
of them as might be chosen for either of those descriptions
of force. Is it possible, then, if exemptions were in the
contemplation of the framers of the bill I have mentioned,
that it should be so universally misunderstood ? And yet, it
seems, it was; for some time after the enactment of this
bill, out came the opinion of the attorney-general, who was
not, I must suppose, at all consulted in the first instance,
or the bill would have been explicit. No ! Ministers first
frame acts of parliament to puzzle him, and then they ask
his opinion upon them. His opinions upon subjects thus
circumstanced were likely to be erroneous, and so they have
happened to be.


I am flattered that my opinion respecting the preference
of an armed peasantry to the volunteer system happens to
agree with that of the honourable officer to whom I have
already referred. But my honourable friend has said, that
the volunteers would be preferable for active service. 1
,would, however, appeal to his judgment, whether they couldbe competent to the same duties as a regular army; and
whether they can be so fit for any other description of service
as an active, hardy, armed peasantry? The honourable
gen tleman who spoke last has referred to the state of the
volunteers in a particular county; but does he mean to say,
that the state of our force would not be much improved, that




F eb. . 29.542 VOLUNTEER CONSOLIDATION BILL. [


the defences of the counties of Sussex and Kent would not
be better secured by the establishment of the principle of
an armed peasantry, than by the present amount of the
volunteer force, to be found in these or in any of the other
counties, particularly on the coast? Some stress has been'
laid on the advantages likely to arise from the colour of the
cloathing, &c. of the volunteers, as contrasted with an armed
peasantry ; but this very difference I reckon among the
defects of the volunteer system; and the quibbling remarks
on a smock-frocked army are not worthy of reply. If the
amount of the volunteers be dwelt upon; if I am told that
we have in them an army of 400,000 men, I answer, that by
resorting to an armed peasantry, we might have two million,
and more effective, requiring less drilling, more easily pre-
pared for the objects to which it is right to apply them, and
less expensive. My principal objections to the volunteers,
indeed, arise out cif their expense and their mode of instruc-
tion, and to the latter particularly. Too much time is
employed in endeavouring to teach that which is not Ile,


"cessary, and which they never can completely learn. By
such a mode of proceeding much mischief is, and much more
may be, done. To this, indeed, the words of Pope may
be applied


" A little learning is a dangerous thing ;"
and for this reason, that men are apt to draw inaccurate
deductions, and to rest upon imperfect grounds. The vo-
lunteers, by such injudicious instructions, are withdrawn from
that which they might acquire with facility and use with
much more effect, and the operation of such a system will
be to give their minds a wrong direction. If, however, it
was wished to render the volunteers perfect in this system
of discipline, how came it that the instructions should have
commenced so late that, but a few months ago, many vo,
l unteer corps were without a single musket, and even at this
hour there are several volunteers who have never fired a ball
in their lives? Men should not be obliged to travel through
the tedious course of military tactics when the danger ;s
so urgent as it is admitted to be on all hands. A force not
thus perplexed with circuitous lessons would be much more
easily collected, and more effectual; armed also with other
-weapons than muskets, they, perhaps, would be able more
completely to annoy the enemy. Some miserable expedients
have been resorted to in order to depreciate the opinions
of the honourable officer. His recommendation of pikes
was at 'first discountenanced, and yet, since then, Itis.PJP
has been acted upon to a considerable extent. Above 190,99.°


1804.]


VOLUNTEER CONSOLIDATION BILL. 543
pikes have been distributed by government, and I have no
doubt those weapons will be more useful in the hands of
peasants who shall not undergo the trouble of any rehearsal
before they come to action, than volunteers trained to the
musket. I have heard that some gentlemen are of opinion,
that the volunteers might be most advantageously employed
by attaching them in the hour of service to battalions of the
line. Of such a plan I very much disapprove, or of any
project to bring them into action, in a solid body. When
the honourable officer recommended pikes to be distributed
to the volunteers, ministers confessed there was a scarcity
of muskets, and that circumstance alone, independently of
the known efficacy of that weapon, particularly manifested
in the course of the French Revolution, was sufficient.


The honourable member behind me (Colonel Eyre) has in-
sisted upon the importance of the volunteers, for a very strange
reason indeed, which he urged with great confidence, namely,
that however they were depreciated in this country, they were
held to be so formidable by the enemy, that they operated to
prevent him from attempting an invasion, although he was
ready in June last; but, if' he had come then he would have
surprised a vast proportion of the volunteers without arms.
If, however, the enemy was completely prepared in June, and
the volunteers in their then state were really sufficient to
intimidate him, there can be no danger whatever, now that
that body is so much larger and so much better disciplined ;
nor can it be necessary to introduce this bill, or to make any
fitrther bustle of preparation. However, perhaps the enemy
has postponed the execution of his design for other rea-
sons. Possibly he waits until the volunteers shall learn
their exercise until they are properly drilled ! This would
he a magnanimous proceeding. But to be serious. I
know that there are many different opinions upon the mode
provided for disciplining the volunteers, and I have my
doubts. Upon this, however, I have no doubt; that the sys-
tem is not to be compared to that of an armed peasantry,
who could be had in every district in sufficient numbers, and
who would furnish the most powerful assistance to the regular
army. It should be recollected, that the great defence of a
country consists of an armed people. The enemy may have
a large disciplined army, and so may you to resist him ; but
that from which you would derive your great advantage, that
which always must form the powerful opponent of an in-
vading army, would be an armed peasantry. That should be
your,principal defence. It is like the weapon with which na-
ture furnishes animals for their protection. It is the greatb
ulwark of a country. You .might thus have an aid in every


village and town, more numerous and effective than your vo-




$44


VOLUNTEER CONSOLIDATION BILL. [Feb. 29.
lunteers ; and you might put the country in such a state of
defence, that the enemy, even after a victory, should he obtain
one, over your regular army in the field, would not send out
a detachment to forage, or for any other purpose, without e\..
posing them to be shot at from every hedge, from every cot-
tage, from every enclosure — by men, not dressed so as to be
easily perceivable, not wearing those coloured garments which
would put the enemy's troops


on their guard. Thus might
they be harassed and weakened, even after being victorious in
the field; and we must not be so sanguine as to suppose that
they may not sometimes have the advantage ; for, however
brave our troops may be, and no man has a higher opinion of
their valour and skill than I have, we must attend to that
calculation which has ever been regarded by the highest mili-
tary authorities, even by Julius Caesar himself, that fortune
has a great share in deciding the events of war. When such
events should happen to be against us, I would particularly
look to the assistance of the smock- •ocked force, as some
gentlemen have termed it. A noble lord, in treating this sub-
ject, has said, that he was old enough to recollect the Ame-
rican rebellion, as he called it, and, certainly, if he recollected
all the circumstances of the case he so describes, he would be
aware that the term rebellion was not applicable, and that
the use of it was long since abandoned. He would also recol-
lect, that America was victorious over her opponents, not be-
cause she had a large regular army, but because she was an
armed country, and the result of that popular armament was,
that two of our best generals, at the head of some of the best
troops, were compelled to surrender. Precisely that kind of
force which so conquered in America, which emancipated
Holland, which triumphed in Switzerland, and performed
such prodigies of valour in la Vendee and Ireland, is what I
should recommend to be resorted to in this country. The
misfortune is, with a view to this, that, as I understand, the vo-
lunteers have taken so many arms that enough are not left for
arming the peasantry ; but there are weapons in abundance to
be found to suit them, and they will not require much training.
If this plan be not attended to, many parts of the country
will, in the event of invasion, be left quite defenceless ; for
when a volunteer corps is called into service, what becomes
of the town or village to which it may belong? Their na-
tural defenders are gone where they are not likely to be so
useful as they might be, under another system, to the ultimat.€
security of the country and the overthrow of the enemy. 111
is a painful consideration; but it naturally arises out of a bu


---a system which rather perplexes the volunteers thin
contributes to improve them, which, in fact, oiTerloada them


1804.]
VOLUNTEER CONSOLIDATION DILL.


545
with a kind of instruction of no practical utility, instead of
giving them that which would fit them for the object to which
their service is applicable. This is the mischief; it is like
sending a man to a university to learn general knowledge, and
afterwards telling him that he must study to qualify for a
divine or a physician. I should think it would be better to
begin the education of the one and the other, with that which
might best fit them for their proper pursuits. It would
therefore be much wiser to teach the volunteers, not the stiff
arid intricate rimiimivres of Prussian discipline, but that only
which is essential ; not that which should assimilate them to a
regular army, which has begun to learn such discipline, but
that which should assimilate them to an armed peasantry, to
whom it is naturally extremely desirable that they should be
more alike than they are. Nothing can be a greater mistake
than to suppose, that the colour of the volunteer clothing
will be advantageous in the event of invasion, as the secretary
of state enumerated; for this reason, that an intimate connec-
tion between them and Our regular army must injure the
latter; and also, that if they should be defeated in any in-
stance, the similarity of dress will of course induce the enemy
to suppose them soldiers, and that supposition will tend to
their encouragement. My wish is, that instead of such
troops, we should have the people armed,- in order that in
every direction the enemy might be annoyed, without being
warned by alarming appearances; that he should always have
reason to fear in whatever direction he moved ; that the ap-
prehension of meeting a foe in a brown coat should haunt
him like a spectre; that he should feel that he could not pass
through a lane or along a hedge with safety. If you abandon
this plan, I am sure you will considerably diminish the fears
of an invading enemy ; for when he conceives he has none
but red coated foes to meet with, his confidence will, of course,
be greater. The evil of this goes very deep. It applies to
the principle of the volunteer system. The mischief of afford-
ing the enemy the means of ascertainino


.
the whole amount of0.Your military defence is extremely obvious. When he be-


comes acquainted that lie has only gco,000 men to contend
Enemies


iil:otbiyotfhecior
dress.


course do him a service ; he will then know his


The honourable gentleman who has just sat down has re-
mayked on the tendency of the sentiments so often urged by
1. 3: right honourable friend on the bench below me (Mr.
Windham) respecting the volunteer system, and seems to
imagine that the brioht honourable gen tleman was inconsistenti'lla,:oe:pytin.


b
0.
a command in a volunteer corps; but inconsistencydoess not at all follow from this circumstance. The right ho-.


s,


N N


I




546 NAVAL ADMINISTRA
TION [March 5 ,


pourable gentleman avails himself of the system, bad as i t is
to promote the public defence, because there is no other.
As to the whole of the remarks made upon this system, mail
of which have been misrepresented, as well as. the motives of
those who made them, I beg to observe, that without wishia,
to abolish the system altogether, it is impossible to remedy
defects, if they be remediable, without having in view the
principles of a better system. — With regard to the bill before
the House, it. in reality contains nothing in the shape of a
remedy, nor indeed any thing at all new, and the system it
professes to support cannot, in my mind, be of long duration;
it is not of a durable nature. The dread of invasion, which
produced it, will not long avail, and as soon as the danger
disappears, or may not be attended to, and which may be the
case, should it long continue to be merely talked of, the spirit
of the volunteers will, from the nature of the human mind, be
likely -to relax ; and who can pretend to say how long, for how
many years, the enemy may keep up all the appearances-of
an intention to invade us, without actually attempting it?
These considerations weigh with my mind very strongly, and
confirm my opinion of the superior character of an armed.
peasantry.


The motion for going into , a committee was carried without a
division.


NAVAL ADMINISTRATION OF EARL ST. ATINCXNT.


March I S.


-a- inquiry into the naval administration of Earl St. Viacen!.
preparatory to ail


'FIT'S day Mr. Pitt moved for certain papers


The conduct of the admiralty was defended by Mr. Tierney, S"
Charles Pole, Sir Edward Pellew, Mr. Sheridan, the chancellor ,
the exchequer, Captain Markham, and others. The motion fa
inquiry was supported by Admiral ierkeley, Mr. Wilberforce,


.


Fox, Mr. Ponsonby, and Mr. Sturges Bourne.


Mr. Fox said : — Sir, I feel myself placed in a situation
somewhat extraordinary on this occasion. ',With a great 110
of whathas been said on the merits of the first lord of t
adthiralty, I am strongly disposed to concur, but at thCO


e gulir


tune,. I cannot sew. how these arguments tenchid to the Gi


5', 7
lion at which they arrived. My honourable friend near me(Mr. Sheridan) has made, as he always does, a speech of the
utmost brilliancy and eloquence, in which, however, he seems
to me to have almost entirely omitted the reasons on which he
was to negative the motion, and lie contented himself with an-
nouncing the vote he was prepared to give.. Though ready
to give my ready assent to the distinguished worth and pre-
eminent services of Lord St. Vincent, I feel that the best way
I can testify my respect for such a character, is to give my
vote for the motion. I feel that a slur thrown on the repu-
tation of Earl St. Vincent would be a loss to the country, and
to remove every suspicion of that kind, I say, let there be
ample means of inquiry afforded, so that the triumph of Lord
St. Vincent may be the more complete, satisfitctory, and glo-
rious. It appears to me that the defenders of Lord St. Vincent
had but two courses which they could with propriety pursue,'
either to say that no case whatever had been made out, and
then refuse all the papers asked, or to produce all the papers
which could reasonably be asked for, and upon the consider-
ation of those to call for the censure or the acquittal of the
House. But the line of conduct which ministers have thought
fit to take, does neither the one or the other. By granting some
papers and refusing others, they admit enough to countenance
the suspicion of something wrong in the naval administration,
and do not go far enough to let that suspicion be wiped away.
But the course which ministers have thought fit to adopt it is
not difficult to explain. They wish to defend Lord St. \ Tin-
cen as they would have defended themselves ; they wish to put
him on a level with themselves, to obtain the precedent of his
great name to resist inquiry, so that every other inquiry may
be frustrated ; they wish to put him on a level with Lord Hard-
wicke, so that the refusal of inquiry in the instance of one who
can bear it, may be an argument for setting inquiry aside
when it might tend to produce discoveries they would sup-p
ress. The right honourable gentleman who spoke first


against the motion, (Mr. Tierney ) agrees that the papersal luded to in two of the motions shall be granted ; but he is
of opinion that the third cannot be granted. If, however, . to
ask for any papers at all be to cast some slur on the first lord
of the admiralty, why are any `granted? Or is it because those
which are refused might lead to inquiry, that-they a re withheld ?
if this be the object


-


of the defenders of Lord St. Vincent, Ia
n) confident that he must disclaim such a mode of proceed,ing• I am confident that he would countenance no shuffling


evasion to suppress inquiry ; and that he would not be con,
1




'mt if lie thought it could be suspected that he was adverse to
'are Ins administration canvassed. Thus ministers, knowing


N N 2


804•]
OF EARL ST. VINCENT.




5-4g NAVAL ADMINISTRATION [Mardi /5;
that the conduct of the first lord of the admiralty is in everi
respect a contrast to their own, wish to make common cause


offering him, in of erin a mode of defence to which, on
- a future


occasion, they themselves may resort.
Sir, towards Lord St. Vincent I feel much personal friendship


and this renders me anxious that his reputation should staal
high ; but public motives give me a still greater interest in his
Bane and honour. Of his glorious achievement on the ra/h
of February no man can think higher than I do ; but his
conflict with the abuses and corruptions of his department
appears to me, though less brilliant, not less arduous and
nieritorious. On the 1 4th of February be engaged and van-
quished the enemy ; but he has waged a war no less difficult,
with jobs, and contracts, and frauds. He has broken their
embattled line, no less arduous than to penetrate that of the
enemy. My admiration of him is increased at finding that
he possesses in so high a degree, that which is more rare
than gallantry in the field — civil courage and decision as
well as personal courage. I feel that his virtues and public
deserts in this contest with corruption have naturally led to that
obloquy by which he has been pursued. The attempt to put to
rout the hosts of corruption must have created him enemies.
Such may have been the persons from whom an honourable
gentleman opposite (Mr. Wilberlorce) obtained the informa-
tion he mentioned ; but let the miserable witnesses be brought
forward, that their testimony may be examined and disproved.
This calls to my mind, Sir, an anecdote of a ludicrous na-
ture. It so happened that when Mr. Justice \Villes, a man
who to many eminent qualities added a considerable por-
tion of humour, was one day employed in trying a cause,
I believe of murder, one of the witnesses deposed that a ghost
had said- so and so ; —" 0, very well," said the judge, " I have
no objection to the evidence of a ghost ; let him be brought in
aind sworn !" So provided the witnesses alluded to by the ho-
nourable gentleman can be brought forward, I have no objection
to receive their evidence at the bar of the House, that we
may afterwards decide upon it.


Sir, during the whole course of the debate, the only person
who has made any direct charge against the conduct of the ad-
rniraltv in general, is my honourable and gallant relation,
(Admiral Berkeley). As- to the right honourable gentleman
Who made the motions, I confess. that. he seems to me to
have made out little or no case. 'With respect to the number
of .gun-boats iii employment now and at former period s, the
comparison .fiords no conclusion, unless it can likew ise be
shewn that the exigency of the case was such, as to derna n(


/
4,


greater exertions and a greater proportion of this specie s °I


S 0,4') OP EARL ST. VINCENT. 549
Raw. Unless, too, it can be shewn, that of gun-brigs a greater
D umber ought to be employed, the late period at which the
admiralty made the contracts for such vessels proves nothing.
The right honourable gentleman likewise proposes to address
the crown ; recommending greater exertions in this way ; but
any measures for the improvement of our defence must be
left to those who are in official situations. But in viewing
oar state of defence, the great mind of the right honourable
gentleman must see that it must be judged of upon a general
system, and not upon any particular point. It is impossible,
but that, in viewing each point separately, there must appear
to be some deficiency. It is evident, however, that some in-
ferior parts must be overlooked, in order that the perfection
of the whole may be obtained ; and I am inclined to think,
that if there be any part of our defence which it was more safe
to sacrifice than another, from its being of inferior moment, it
is that of which the right honourable gentleman has insisted.


Sir, had the motion been for papers generally, I might have
been a little puzzled to know how I should vote, though I be-
lieve I still should have voted for inquiry ; but as the matter
stands now I cannot hesitate. If the papers are refused, it
must infer some slur upon the first lord of the admiralty ; if
some of these documents are withheld, it may be said by the
right honourable gentleman that he was prevented from carry-
ing the question he meant to move, because lie was denied
the papers by which his case was to be proved. But, it is said,
that if all the papers were granted, a suspicion would lie
against the first lord of the admiralty. But how long could


, • a.
such a suspicion continue? No longer, surely, than till the
inquiry took place. But if any suspicion arises from the mo-
tion, or from the papers produced, it is impossible to say how


r
!ono- suspicion may remain, since no inquiry is allowed by
which it can be removed. Ministers profess themselves friends


they
of Lord St. Vincent in the present instance; but how have


shewn themselves solicitous about the fame and the ac-
commodation of that noble lord on other occasions ? Do we
not know, that, for at least eighteen months, a difference of
the most serious kind, and to the impediment of public busi-
ness, existed between the first lord and the secretary of the
admiralty? Yet, that secretary preserved his place for a year
and a half, under those very ministers who lately contended;
that on account of a coolness between the lord lieutenant ofIr


eland and the commander in chief there it was impossible
that the latter could, consistently with the public safety, re-
main in his place a week ! I cannot help thinking, therefore,
that the defence now set up by ministers, as rather intended
to be a convenient protection to themselves for the future,


N N 3




55o NAVAL ADMINISTRATION OF EARL ST. VINCENT. [March
than as any thing which Lord St. Vincent's case would
require. If Lord St. Vincent's conduct, which would
stand inquiry, is to be opposed to any inquiry, then will
others avail themselves of the example, to contend that
they too, though they declined investigation, were equally
conscious of rectitude and merit. And is this the way to do
honour to Lord St. Vincent's character and superiority ? In-
deed, that ministers look more to the benefit of the ex ample
than to the credit of the first lord of the admiralty, appears
to me from the manner in which the motion has been opposed.
It seems as if it were said, we will grant such papers as will not
inculpate the first lord of the admiralty, and do not lead to
inquiry. 'Why, then, arc others refused ? Will it not be
said, that they would have inculpated the admiralty and led
to inquiry? And this is the way in which Lord St. Vincent's
reputation is to be defended by his colleagues. The same
right honourable gentleman, to whose defence of the admiralty
I have just alluded, says too, that there is no complaint against
the admiralty out of doors, and that the public are equally
content with the whole conduct of the present ministers.
As to the general character of ministers with the public, I
shall give no testimony ; but if the conduct of ministers were
to be the object of discussion, and decided by argument, it
would riot be difficult to shew what the public ought to think
of them. Suffer me to illustrate this by one of those good-
humoured comparisons, which on general principles often af-
ford the best illustration. In one of Moliere's plays, a grave
old gentleman marries a young wife, or does something or
other not very suitable to his character. Every body,
however, is mightily content with what he had done, never-
theless when it is mentioned every one bursts out a laugh-
ing. In the same manner, though it happens that every
body is so well content with the present ministers, yet
when their merits arc spoken of it generally produces
a laugh, or at least a smile, on every countenance. Different,
indeed., is Lord St. Vincent in this respect from all his col-
leagues .; and knowing that he is a perfect contrast to them
in merit and reputation, they wish to bring him down to
their level, or at least to shelter themselves under his great
authority. But in order to strengthen the public confidence
in Lord St. Vincent, let the administration of the admiralty
be examined into, and the services of that noble lord will ap-
pear even more important than they have yet been estimated.
In voting for the motion on these grounds, I am conscious
that I am doing that which private friendship and public duty
Rqually prescribe.


The House divided On Mr. Pitt's motion : Yeas Ig o: Noes 201•


ISO4•]


AIR. Fox's MOTION, &C.
„I


AIR. Fox's MOTION ON THE DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY.


April 23.


I
N' pursuance of the notice he had given,


Mr. Fox rose and addressed the House as follows :—Before,
Sir, I proceed to discuss, the motion of which I have given
notice, I think it necessary to make a few preliminary obser-
vations, in consequence of what has fallen from time to time
in conversation in this, House, whenever this subject of the
defence of the country has occasionally been touched upon.
And, Sir, those preliminary observations appear to me the
more necessary, on account of the construction which mem-
bers of this House, and others out of it, have been pleased to
put on the extraordinary zeal which has appeared, in every
rank and class of society in support of the war. I am, Sir,
one of those who highly approve that zeal, and have ever
been forward to give it my warmest commendation. Nothing
can, in my opinion, be more proper, nor redound more highly
to the honour of the country ; but, when I see an attempt
made to turn that zeal into the course of a fallacious channel,
and to argue on it as proceeding from an approbation in those
-who evince it of the grounds on which the war was originally
undertaken, or the manner in which it has since been con-
ducted by his majesty's ministers, I feel it necessary to enter
my protest against any such assumption, and briefly. to shew,
that such zeal is in no degree connected with those subjeets
to which it has been attributed. That such a degree of zeal
did from the commencement of the war exist is most certain ;
I am myself a very striking proof of it; that is to say, I felt
myself, from the first moment that I saw hostilities could not
be avoided, anxious and zealous in the extreme for the de-
fence of the country, which I saw menaced with an immediate
and desperate attack, beyond what had ever before been
known. But I can appeal to the recollection of the mem-
bers of this House, and to that of the country at large also,
that I by no means approved either the mode of commencing
the war, or the manner of carrying it on. I shall, therefore,
trouble the House with but very few words indeed on it.


Sir, from the first moment the war was actually com-
menced, it was immediately followed up by the continued
cry of instant invasion, and that apprehension has been kept


N 4




55 2 ME. Fox's: MOTION ON THE [April 23 .
alive with a steadiness and activity which I may say has bees;
almost incessant. Is it possible, then, under succhgeer
stances, to attribute the zeal which has so eminently displayed
itself amongst all ranks and classes of the people, a
fend themselves, their properties, and families, against the
attacks of so inveterate and formidable an enemy, as we have
now to contend with, into an approbation of the war ? I say,
No, Sir. To what is the war to be attributed ? To the fear
of the danger we should incur by strictly complying with the
terms of the peace. If this be so, it follows, that the minister
who brings us into the greatest danger, will henceforth be
entitled to have the most ample share of approbation. The
question, as stated by ministers, and conceived as such by the
whole country from the commencement of hostilities, was a
question involving life, liberty, and existence ; as such it was
understood, as such it was universally felt; and this feeling, I
say, is not attributable to the war, or to the causes which brought
it on, but to the actual view the people saw it in, and the conse-
quences which they were almost certain must result from it. It
may, perhaps, be argued by his majesty's ministers, that great
numbers had voted for the first address, from whom I had the
misfortune to differ ; but it must be recollected, that on the se-
cond agitation of the subject, there was a much greater differ-
ence of opinion, and afterwards great numbers wished they had
acted otherwise than they had done, when they called to their re-
collection how ministers had acted ; 1st, as to timeing the
war; edly, as to the cause assigned for it ; and, idly, as to the
particular manner in which it was conducted. These preli-
minary observations, I have thought the more necessary, be-
cause, when about to make a motion of this kind, and to go
into further consideration of the defence of the country, I can-
not agree at all with those statements which infer, that the ex-
traordinary zeal of the country, evinced in behalf of every
thing that is most dear to it, should be construed to imply an
approbation either of timeing the war, or of the mode ,of con-
ducting it.


Wiih respect to the motion itself, I think it necessary,
Sir, in the first place, to clear away the objections that }Div
be made to it. When gentlemen have been reproached with
feeling the panic of invasion, it may be requisite to notice
shortly, what is generally understood by the word panic. I
should suppose, Sir, that the word panic applies to those who
would run away from, and not those who. are desirous to de-
fend any thing; I am therefore anxious not to have it said,
that I, and those with whom I have the honour to act, are,
influenced by the panic of invasion ; but that, well aware of
Elie serious consequences which must inevitably' result


].SO4 DEFENCE OP THE COUNTRY.
533't


such an event taking place, we earnestly wish to put the coun-
try in the best possible state of defence. I beg, Sir that in
expressing this wish, we may not be supposed to have acted
on light or frivolous grounds, or on any inclination to raise
alarm and dread, where none before existed. For when I
see the numerous papers which have been laid on the table
on this subject ; when I take a view of the measures already
adopted by his majesty's ministers, as well as those with which
we are told they are intended to be followed up, I cannot
help saying, with Sir Christopher Hatton in the Critic,


" Oh pardon me, if ray conjecture's rash,
But I surmise — the State--
Some danger apprehends !"


I must own, Sir, that I think the language held out by some
of a wish to be invaded, is wrong, except with two provisoes ;
1st, that our fleet may immediately fall in with them, and in-
stantly convince them of the folly and madness of the attempt;
and, 2dly, that having eluded the vigilance of our fleets, our
state of defence should be such, that when landed, they should
soon be convinced that, as this was the first, so it would be
the last time they would ever dare to meet us on our own
shores. And I think, Sir, we ought not, by any means to
form any idea, that because the enemy has not hitherto put
his threats in execution, he has therefore given up his design.
Such reasoning would be fallacious in the extreme. If the
enemy have duly considered all the various dangers and dif-
ficulties attending the enterprize, it is of very little signifi-
cation at what particular period the attempt may be made;
whether it be in the third, fourth, or fifth year of the war ;
we should only consider, that the longer it is delayed, the
more formidable it may prove, and it is our first and most essen-
tial duty to be fully prepared to meet it, let it come whenever it
may. With the attention that I have been able to give to this
subject, I once thought, that a general view of the defence of the
country would be the best; but when I consider that there
are so many difficulties attending the subject, the finances of
the country, the state of Ireland, and many others of various
natures, I have been induced to prefer coming to a motion
of a narrower kind. I mean, therefore, to confine myself to
the notice I gave of a particular defence of the country;
and that I shall also endeavour to narrow as much as possi-
ble, in order to enable gentlemen to take as clear and per-
spicuous a view of it as possible. It is not, therefore, my in-
tention, to take any notice at present of the naval defence of -
the country. In the next place, Sir, as to the volunteers,
considering that dlr.; system has been so lately discussed in this




5 54 roDeS MOTION ON THE [April 2 3.•
House, it will be needless for me to touch on them, except as
an incidental subject, and by way of illustrating or strength-
ening any other.


I come, therefore, to the particular ground on which I
mean to move, leaving it open to gentlemen to turn it in their
consideration, and to form such opinions on it as to them
shall seem best. I mean, Sir,. to confine myself to the land
defence; and in doing so, I beg leave to observe, that passing
by for the moment the volunteers, there are, in my opinion,
two great objects to be kept in view, and 011 which the utmost
reliance may ultimatel y be placed. These are, the regular
army on one hand, and an army consisting of labourers, arti-
ficers, and peasantry, on the other. Now, Sir, as to the re-
gular army, I have listened with the greatest attention to the
arguments used by the right honourable gentlemen opposite,
and also to those repeatedly urged with so much zeal and
ability by an honourable Officer (Colonel Craufurd) behind
me, between which statements I find there is a difference of,
at least, one half. This being the case, I should be glad, Sir,
to know what objection his majesty's ministers can have to
acquaint us with the real state of our army ? They have fre-
quently favoured us with different statements of so much and
so much ; but I would wish to have the real state. This can-
not, Sir, give any fresh intelligence to the enemy. When we
have the number of regiments, and not the number of rank
and file, we have only a defective statement. What danger
can there possibly be in giving that? At all events, I think
such statements will be much better known from papers on
the table, than from the partial, mutilated accounts which the
House receives from the different statements of ministers, at
different periods of time, without any documents by which
we can fitirly judge of their accuracy. With respect to one
circumstance, Sir, I own I cannot but feel considerable sur
prize. I have repeatedly heard it asserted, that, with regard
to Ireland, our force there is at this moment as great as it
was on the conclusion of the last peace—an assertion. which
may possibly be true, but which I must own it is somewhat
difficult to believe. I speak now, Sir, of the regular force,
and in so doina. I must say, that with respect to the regular
army in Ireland, I do not mean to confine myself to troops of
the line only, but to include the Irish militia, and the British
fencible regiments, which, at the conclusion of the last war,
amounted in Ireland to so, or 6o,000 men. To them are to
be added the several English militia regiments, at that time in
Ireland ; and when this is done, we may perhaps come


.s
to


something like a certainty on these points, but not otherwise'
As to what relates to the artillery, it is not the nuinber of


1804.]
DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY.


555
alone, but of drivers, horses, carriages, ammunition, &c. which
should be fairly and accurately stated, in order to enable us
to form any thing like a competent judgment on the subject.
I think, also, Sir, that with respect to Great Britain, the
statement of his majesty's ministers, that our forces are greater
than at the conclusion of the war, is by no means more accu-
rate than those statements they have given us respecting
Ireland. But I have been told, Sir, that if I had had my way,
and my advice had been adopted, we should have had a still
less force than we now have. This, Sir, is stating the ques-
tion comparatively between a state of war and a state of peace,
which certainly stand on very different grounds; and I appeal
to the recollection of the House whether, on every occasion in
which I recommended a low establishment, I did not express-
ly confine it to a supposition of the continuance of peace ; and


jesty
that I never could have done so, had I conceived that his ma-


's ministers intended so soon to renew the war. My
opinion has invariably been in favour of a large regular army,
in time of war; but peculiarly so, where we had to begin with
so extreme and pushing a necessity, for the defence of the
country. No man, Sir, can have a higher or more favourable
opinion than I entertain of a militia, considered as a constitu-
tional defence. I know also that the discipline of the militia
is carried to a degree of excellence far beyond what it has
ever been in former times; but with all that can be said of
that brave and respectable body of men, no man can say that
the militia is equal to regular troops; it is impossible to con-
ceive that those who have not seen service can be equal to
those who have repeatedly been in action.


Having thus slightly touched on this subject, I will now
proceed to observe on what has been our progress in recruit-
ing. We have been told that it has gone on as well, not-
withstanding the various measures which have been adopted
by ministers, as it used to do in former periods. I must here,
Sir, beg the House to recollect, that different times affordproportionate differences in recruiting. It cannot be doubted,
that every difficulty thrown in the way of our manufactures
and commerce, must facilitate the recruiting service, so long
as such difficulties exist. Now, Sir, however strong this fa-
vourite theory of the day may influence the minds of mini-
sters, I have no hesitation in saying, that in point of practice,
at is not so easy to get a man to enlist for life for Id. as it is
to obtain one for sol. to enlist for a limited service. And I
will maintain, Sir, that it is an extravagant proposition to
Say that the recruiting service has not been injured. And
though I should be inclined to admit, by way of argument,
,hat we have actually gained in the course of this year, yet I




3 56 MR. Fox's MOTION ON THE [April 2
insist, at the same time, that we should have clone so in a
much greater degree, had it not been for the bounties which
have been given with so lavish a hand. I am not arguing
this subject now, by way of inquiry; but when ministers
declare their intention 'of suspending the army of reserve,
I cannot avoid pointing out to them that, 'for fear they
should succeed, they are taking the utmost possible pains to
meet themselves in their own market. There is, however,
one measure, which I will venture to recommend, and that is,
to leave off the monstrous custom of particularly distinguish-
ing this country from all the rest of Europe in military
economy, by enlisting men for life. What shall we say, if
we are told, that those who have the greatest military powers
on foot, that those who have the greatest demand for military
forces, and who govern countries where every thing gives
way to the army, enlist men only for a limited time? But
in this country, whose pride and boast for centuries have
been that of enjoying the greatest freedom of any nation
under the sun, your soldiers must be slaves for life. Now,
Sir, it is not from my own opinion and feelings alone that
I venture to speak so decisively on this subject ; but I
am convinced of the propriety of it from the authority
of officers of the highest character and respectability, not
in our own army only, but in those of almost every other
military power in Europe. If, however, I went on that
principle only, I would not, at such a crisis, venture to re-
commend an alteration. But this, Sir, I say, is not only
what ought to be done, but what ought particularly to be
done at this time. In support of this doctrine, I beg leave
to mention a fact, which is well known to have happened
within the last twelve months. A whole regiment of the
proposed army of reserve would have enlisted into the re-
gular army, if it had been for limited service; and as it is
at present, very few indeed have been prevailed on to do
so with all the influence that could be exerted. This is not
mere theory; it is reasoning that is almost self-evident.
Who does not know the effect produced among the lower
orders of the people when any of their own class enlists into


forthe army? They consider him as lost to the community.
ever. If a son enlists into the


t'
recrular army, his disconsolate


parents consider him as in a manner annihilated, and the
wretched father has frequently been known to distress him-
self, and the rest of his tinnily, to hoard togetherscrapeand
a sum that may be sufficient to buy him off: Now, Sir, let


t r


us take it in another point of view. Let us consider
time of life when this is generally done. By the establisne,0
law of this country, and a most wise law it is, '110 Man r


.the


1804.] DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY. 557
woman is allowed to be capable of entering into any contract
for the disposal of their property, or of their persons in
marriage, till they arrive at a certain age, and that age is in
all cases fixed, at the period of arriving at man's estate, at
2 I years. Yet, in the particular case of enlisting for a soldier,
when it is . perhaps the result of momentary passion or folly,
or the effect of intoxication, a poor, ignorant, unfortunate
lad of sixteen or seventeen, is allowed to enter into a contract
which is to bind him for life to a state in which he is liable
to be sent from his friends and country to any part of the
world. If, therefore, this evil could be alleviated, it would
undoubtedly very much contribute to increase the satisfac-
tion and happiness of the lower orders of the people; and
such persons as tradesmen and farmers, far from looking on
their sons as they now do, lost to them for ever, would, on
the contrary, part from them with a certain degree of sa-
tisfaction, in hopes of seeing them return, in the course of
a few years, improved in their manners and demeanour, and
with a superior knowledge of men and things, which might
render them more fitted for the very purposes to which it
was their original intention to bring them up. In answer
to this, it may perhaps be urged, that if the soldiers who
compose the regular army were enlisted for a certain time
only, those who had it in their power would all quit at once,
and so we might be left without an army at all. But this
I take to be an assumption by no means warranted by the
nature of the case. On the contrary, I believe it has been
pretty clearly proved by experience, that those who are really
the best soldiers become so from a decided liking to the
service, and having been so long enured to habits which they
have imbibed by degrees and grown partial to from age, are
the most likely when their time is out to re-enter. What !
it will be asked, without any additional reward? Certainly
not. They will expect and be entitled to an increase of
pay, or a new bounty, which is the first principle of recruit-
ing the army. This mode of increasing cur regular force,
when added to the other, namely, the taking away the com-
petition produced by the army of reserve, &c. cannot fail
to produce advantages which may be almost said to be in-
calculable. The next circumstance, Sir, which I wish to
advert to, as having greatly retarded our recruiting for the
regular army, is the pernicious consequence of raising men
tor rank. This being a custom which has long prevailed,
will require great steadiness and perseverance to prevent it,
now far it is even to be regulated, I will not pretend to
say ; and I beg leave to observe, that I am not now mention-
ing this as a peremptory measure, but only As a desirable




558
MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE [April 23•


one, which I heartily wish should be attended to. I w h
the House to go into a committee, in order to see what
be done towards increasing considerably our regular ant''
and to ascertain how far and in what proportion the con_:
petitions which have existed have retarded and injured the.
same.


Now, Sir, having stated this on the subject of the regular
army, I shall proceed to the other more general and exten-
sive armament, the volunteers. In doing this, it is not my
intention to go into the question of how far the first forma-
tion of the volunteers was political: how far it was right to
encourage them to so g“_at an extent; how far it was then
either right or consistent to repress their ardour, and dis-
courage their zeal; how far it was politic to give such ex=
tensive exemptions, when no exemptions at all were looked
for, and then to dispute, inch by inch, every privilege that
had been granted them. The zeal of the volunteers cer-
tainly stands on high ground; and it cannot be denied, that
having the volunteers, we have obtained a very large, and,
it may be hoped, what will in time turn out a very efficient
force. They are meant undoubtedly to act with the regulars ;
and if they are, in any great proportion employed, must
prove a most material weapon. Still, Sir, we must not neglect
the next material weapon which the nature of the country
has put into our hands; I mean an armed peasantry. I
own,


that if these were meant to fight in battalion, they
would not be so truly efficient as volunteers; but I beg leave
to be understood, that I am not technically speaking of an
army. An army, however efficient, is not the only power,
in a country like this, which ought to he looked to: there
is a general force besides, which is equally, or perhaps more
formidable to an invading enemy, which would be continually
throwing itself in their way, and harassing and distressing,them at every turn and on every occasion; sometimes when
least expected, and always with great advantage to themselves.
I have been told, that I want to substitute an armed pea-
santry in the place of the volunteers. Sir, I would have the
volunteers come to the trial; but still I would also get the
others. I should never have done, were I to state all the
advantages resulting from such a body of men, and wilt
therefore content myself with citing only a few. In the
first place, the enormous expellee of the 'volunteer corps may
tend in time greatly to diminish them. What then
become of the state, should a great proportion of the volun-
teers he disbanded or dissolved? In possessing an awned
peasantry, you have a formidable force ready on all occasions
to act in aid of a regular army. Who has not heard of the


It


ISO41.]
DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY.


559
almost innumerable advantages attendant on having persons
ready and willing and able to fight on the spot, or in the
neighbourhood of those places in which they have been used
to live, who are accurately acquainted with the topography
of the country, which must give them a power almost in-
calculable, from their being able to take advantage of every
rising ground, and its adjoining valley, to fall upon the enemy,
as circumstances may require, to his almost certain defeat
and discomfiture ? I freely confess I see more advantages
in this, as a permanent rather than a temporary system,
which war may and certainly will give birth to, but which
being once fairly raised and trained, may remain as a strong
bulwark and invincible defence of the country. I sa y, there-
fbre, arm the people, but do not put an end to the service,
which we may purchase at a trifling expence of money and
of time, both in war and peace. It would become in a very
short time an amusement instead of a toil, and each man
in a parish would pride himself in being thus considered as
the intrepid guardian of his own family and rights, as well
as those of his neighbours, so that the whole country would
soon become linked in a band of patriotic affection, which
all the foreign foes in the world would never be able to sever
or cut asunder. This, Sir, I am clear in, that the more you
place confidence in the people of this country, the better you
will find their behaviour. If we had a number of armed
persons in every part of the country, we could quell every
insurrection without the interference of the military. It is
not, however, to times of peace that I am to allude, but
rather to the time of war. Supposing an enemy to land in
this country, I must not shut my eyes to the possibility of an
English army being defeated. Will any man say, that if a
report of the English army being defeated were circulated
through the country, it would be a matter of indifference
whether we were armed or not throughout the whole king-
dom ? Even after any partial success of the enemy, it would
not be in their power to procure provisions, or any other
accommodation, without sending a detachment of their army
to force it,. and such detachments might be successfully
opposed, and even their victories, in the end, might prove
their ruin. Let us now take another view of the case, and
suppose that the British army had gained an advantage, but
had not put the enemy to a total rout, will any man say,
that if an army were forced to fly in different directions, the
rallying of that army would not be rendered exceedingly
difficult by means of an armed peasantry?


I shall now proceed to take a view of what hag actually
been done by Ministers to provide for the defence of the




560
rag's MOTION ON TILE C April23e.


country ; and, first of all, with regard to the defence act,
passed last session : I wish to make a few observations on
the unlimited assertion of his majesty's prerogative. I attach
to myself some blame in having participated in such an asser-
tion. It certainly is impossible for members to watch every
word and sentence of every bill that is brought in ; and,
therefore, the particular authors of each bill arc loicbkeelcileNtoe
as more peculiarly responsib le for glaring errors.
that ninety-nine acts out of a hundred pass without being
examined as they ought to be, by the members of the House-,
consistently with their-stric t duty. But, it is in a particular
way the duty of ministers, that no bill be suffered to assert
any false or clangorous doctrine, in the persuasion that it
may pass unobserved in the hurry of legislation. In July
1803, the alarm of invasion was so imminent, according to
ministers, that the defence bill must he passed by acclamation;
and the zeal of the country being roused to meet the invasion,
which was to take place in August, no time was to be lost
in weighing and judging of the bill. Accordingly, I find
we overlooked a most serious declaration in the preamble
of the bill, and which, certainly, if I had seen, I should have
exerted my utmost efforts to have corrected, namely, "thatthe king bas a right to command all his liege subjects to take
up arms," &c. a doctrine which, to be admitted as true, ought
to have been qualified and defined. It may be said, that his.
majesty has the right to do justice, but he is to do justice


o-accordin to law. It may undoubtedly be said of any com-
that that they possess the means of preserving themselves;


that, on the principle of the sales populi suprema 1(.7, the
power of callin o. forth the physical strength of .the community


. , imust reside in it; and that the king, as the head, represents
this community, and is the organ of its will. But this species
of reasoning the spirit of our constitution utterly reprobates.
The rights which our sovereign possesses are defined as well
as limited : and this has been most ably stated by a great


judge, who, speaking of this sort of abstract right, made use
of these words: 44 fbr I freely declare, that ancient prece-dents, unless supported by modern usage, in cases of pre-
rogative, have little weight with me." Nothing can be more
true than these words of Mr. Justice Foster ; and nothing
can be more applicable to this strange assertion in the pre-
amble of this act. No such right can be claimed by the king;
no such right, however it may have been part of the undefined


-prerogative in ancient times, can be exercised after the -wordds
of the statute in the 25111 of Edward III. A statute made 111
an ePoch which I respect,. because the statutes of that period
were marked by their wisdom, and by principles of sound


1 1804 .] DEFENCE or THE COUNTRY. 56r
legislation. In a statute of that year it is expressly declared,
that " no person shall be liable to serve but such as are bound
by their tenures." If, indeed, there were such a prerogative,
i t .


would be impracticable. The constitution has wisely
planted an inseparable check over the abuse, and, thank
God! not one of the ancient undefined prerogatives can be
exercised against the liberties of the people. To what an
extent, and to what complete overthrow of every thing for
which our ancestors have successfully contended, would this
right go ! Money has been, perhaps by a strained metaphor,
called the sinews of war. If his majesty has the right of
commanding the military service of his subjects, he must also
be supposed to have the right of maintaining them; and so
the power of the purse would be taken out of the hands of
the representatives of the people. I state this only, to chew
how improper and unjustifiable it is to introduce such an
expression into a bill, and how negligent it is to let it pass:
And it is not in the preamble of this act only that we see a
dangerous door opened to abuse.


Let us look, then, at the enactments of the general defence
act, respecting this prerogative, which is asserted to be in-
herent in his majesty. It states, that in the event of invasion,
or the appearance of the enemy in force upon the coast, it
shall be lawful for his majesty to call out the persons who are
enrolled under this act in the different counties; that it shall
be lawful to call them out in such proportion as shall seem
meet; to place them in any regiment of regulars, militia, or
fencibles; to put them under martial law, and march them to
any part of the coast, &c. This act, therefore, without any
limit or qualification of rank, age, or station, empowers the
king to compel any individual, however unfit for military ser-
vice, to serve in the ranks exactly on the footing of enlisted
soldiers, to be subject to all the severities of military duty and
of martial law. If this really be the prerogative of his ma-jesty, it is one which cannot be contemplated without anxiety.
Not to suppose the existence of great and violent abuse, it is
slOcient to know, that such power is liable to abuse; and no
man, with the sentiments of freedom, and the confidence of
independence, can feel perfectly easy, when he reflects, that to
a law so unqualified he may be subject. Is it possible to re-
flect on such a power, without seeing how it may be abused
and perverted? It may be an extreme case, indeed, to state,
that its sweeping provisions give authority to the king to take
the Prince of Wales, place him under the command of. his


I
footman, and march him in that inferior capacity against the
eneray. I know that such a case is impossible, but it illus-
trates the boundless authority which the , act confers, and


'ol. yr.'
0 0




562 rox's MOTION ON THE


, be htliririgedht


[April 23,
which, in many instances, it is quite easy ftao er,conceive


nbe exercised. Might not a tradesman or
a rm


away from his family and occupations, and placed under fl
command of a corporal or serjeant, their own servants? Persons
of every situation may be pitched upon by malice byre. n-o].
venge, and sent to perform military service, for which they are
unfit. I do net understand exactly the mode in which these
provisions are to be reduced to practice. If the quota of men
to be furnished by a parish was to be fixed by ballot, the in-
convenience might frequently be very great, even where a
sense of abuse did not aggravate the case. The ballot might,
without any distinction of rank, age, or circumstances, compel
any man to serve in person. In truth, a principle more
inconsistent with that sound and rational equality, which
all laws and all human institutions ought to aim at in the
position of' burdens, never was devised. In practice it must
be productive of extreme inequality, hardship, and grievance.
From a true equality the principles of subordination flow;
but, in the operation of such measures as this, all distinctions
are annihilated, and every thing is levelled under the discre-
tion of the crown. Indeed, ministers themselves, on some
occasions, have acknowledged enough to shew that they were
convinced that the general defence act could not be carried
into practice. It was said by one of them, that the defence
act would have 44 given way ;" and so it must, for such extra-
vagant powers could not have been exercised without an abuse
that would have proved fatal to the measure. But still mi-
nisters contended it had been of use, as it backed the volun-
teer system. What ! was it, then, thought necessary to goad
the people of this country. forward in the defence of their
houses, their property, and their liberties, by the terror of
these severe provisions? I am certain that the spirit of the
nation required no such spur. -Why such bugbears then?
-


Why thus compel the volunteers on, like a front rank by the
bayonet of that behind it ? But, in truth, what was this vebug-
bear ? Ministers admit that this act might have " gin
way !" What was the value of this threat, this stimulus of' thef the
general defence act, which had its use ? At any rate,
people wanted a spur, as they do not, would you employ a me;
nave, which, in fact, had in it nothin g that could really alarm.,
At least you ought not to threaten what you cannot enforc


e


-I remember an anecdote of one of your predecessors, SY,
who is allowed to have maintained the dignity and autho!itY
Of the chair in a manner superior to all those who went he:e
fore him, however he may have yielded to those who ha
con after him. It was a custom with the late Mr. SPeaketro
Onalow, when any member was guilty of any . irreguiaritYs


1804•]
Dr:PENCE OP THE COUNTRY.


563


say, " Take care, Sir, or I'll name you." And, on one occa-
sion, a member, not much frightened by the threat, asked
coolly, "And suppose you do name me, what will be the con-
sequence?" "The consequence !" replied the Speaker, " God
only knows !" Now, in the same manner, ministers have
thought it convenient to keep up the terror of the general
defence act, in order to stimulate the volunteers; yet they arc
sensible, that the menace would fail them, and that if they
were to be asked, what would be the consequence of' their
threat, their answer would be, " God only knows !" for no
man could think of putting in practice a measure so preg-
nant with oppression and injustice.


Having seen, therefore, that the general defence act could
be of no avail as a bugbear, what practical good was it calcu-
lated to afford in strengthening our means of repelling in-
vasion ? I have repeatedly stated, that I conceived it desirable
that, in addition to our other means of defence, we should
have an armed peasantry. Ministers themselves go so far as
to say, that an armed peasantry may be of use to back the
volunteers, as the latter will be of service to back the regular
army. They have never, however, proposed any rational
practical means by which this advantage can be obtained.
Let us, therefore, go into the committee, and discuss the sub-
ject. Let us there try if we cannot devise some mode of
strengthening and confirming whatever is well conceived in
the present system of defence, by that which all consider use-
ful and important, though in different degrees. Let us there
discuss how the peasantry are to be called out, armed and ar-
rayed. Let us discuss how, in case of emergency, they are to
be employed ; how far, if fire arms cannot be found, pikes
may with advantage be put into their hands, and whether
It


may be necessary to }lace them under martial law, or by
what other code they may be rendered subject to discipline.
These are fit objects for discussion in the committee, and there
alone, indeed, can they


be discussed with advantage. There,
too, we may revise, amend, and improve the different mea-s
ures that have already been passed for the public defence;there we may correct their errors, remove their contradictions,


and increase their effect. I have already hinted the generalimportance of calling forth the exertions of an- armed pea-
s
antry, and in this, even those who think more highly of theVol


unteers, will perfectly concur, because the armed peasantryI
s not intended to supersede the volunteers. As to a detailed
Plan on this head, I do not propose to trouble the House with
any at


presents neither am I prepared to say how far this
`swi


ss should be voluntary or compulsory. That the volunr
Lar y zeal of the country would supply every thing that could,


0 0 2




564 MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE [April 23
be desired, I am perfectly convinced. At the same time, if it
should be thought necessary to make the service in some de-
gree compulsory, I will not say that it might not be Proper
to make some provision for it. Nevertheless, the means of
calling forth that aid must be freed from that injustice and
inequality to which the general defence act would now be
liable. How, likewise, is this force to be armed ? And if
muskets cannot be furnished to all, surely those who are most
inclined to despise the pike, must admit that the pike is a
much better weapon than the spade or pitchfork, with which
alone the peasantry are now armed, even were they so arrayed
and organized as to be capable of being employed with effect.
These, however, • and many other questions which are natu-
rally connected with the subject, and which will, no doubt,
be more particularly insisted upon this evening, will be proper
for the consideration of the committee, which it is the pur-
pose of my motion to institute. I shall therefore conclude
with moving, " That it be referred to a committe of the whole
House to revise the several bills for the defence of the coun-
try, and to consider of such further measures as may be ne-
cessary to make that defence more complete and permanent."


The motion was supported by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Windham, and
opposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Secretary Yorke,
Sir William Pulteney, Mr. Tierney, and by Mr. Perceval, the attor-
ney-general.


Mr. Fox rose to reply, and addressed the House to the
following effect : — Sir, so much of this debate has been em-
ployed in personalities; so many observations have been made
upon the character and construction of the motion, and upon
the manner in which I introduced it, and so little has been said
upon the motion itself, that it becomes necessary to trespass
upon the House with a few observations. If ever there was a de-
bate conducted with the spirit of party, indeed I ought rather
to say with the spirit of fiction, it is the present. If ever there
was a case, in which those who opposed a motion displayed
total want of talent and capacity, and in their room had
recourse to unjustifiable personality, it is the present. I will
begin what I have to say with a few observations respecting
myself. I have been used to debates of this kind, and have
always observed, that when those whom I have opposed are
pressed hard, and feel themselves in danger of a defeat, then
I am sure to have all my political sins set forth in array
against me ; then I am sure to be told of my attachment to
French principles; of my culpable love of peace, an d Of the
coalition. I waited in confident expectation that they won


DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY.
565004.]


go back, as usual, to the Middlesex election, but in this I was
for once disappointed. We will begin first with the coa-
lition, an event which occurred one-and-twenty years ago,
before, I believe, the learned attorney-general engaged in
public life. If he wants any information upon that subject,
I wish he would not apply merely to- me, but to others, and
to what he, of course, will consider more respectable authority.
Let him apply to one of the members of the present admini-
stration, I mean the president of the council, who will give
hill) some information upon the principles on which that mea-
sure was founded. Let him apply to one of the post-masters-
general, who was supposed to have had a considerable sharer, .
in bringing about the event, and from the information which
the learned gentleman will receive from his friends, he will be
able to form an opinion upon the subject. The learned gen-
tleman has this night indulged himself in a declamation against
union of all sorts ; but he does not seem always to have enter-
tained such a violent antipathy to them. When a number
of my friends, whom I valued most highly, joined the late
administration ; when the Duke of Portland, when one of the
present post-masters-general, when Earl Fitzwilliam, and
several others with whom I had for years concurred in opi-
nion, coalesced with the late ministers, where then was all
his indignation, where was all his declamation against
coalitions. 'When I was hurt and vexed, as I certainly was
by the loss of such friends, did I attribute their conduct to
any thing but an honourable difference of opinion, which
forced them to take the part they did? Whenever a coalition
is in favour of a ministry of which he forms a part, then it is
entitled to every praise; but if it should have the effect of dis-
turbing such an administration, then it immediately becomes
the subject of the learned gentleman's vehement invective.
The learned gentleman then represents me as an admirer of
French principles. I do not know his history from the be-
ginning of the French Revolution; but I believe that was an
event at which ninety-nine men out of every hundred were ex-
tremely rejoiced — I mean the overthrow of the government
of France ; and I believe that even his majesty's ministers at
first entertained similar sentiments upon the subject. But the
learned gentleman combines the Revolution with all the
dreadful events and crimes that followed, and makes me a
party to the whole. The learned gentleman, I presume, is
acquainted with the history of his own country; let him
look to the year 164i ; he will find that good and honourable
men took a part in producing the events of that time ; lie
knows also that they were followed by miseries and crimes
Which those men could neither foresee nor prevents and it


00 3




566 MR. rox's IVOTION ON THE [April 23.
was one of the misfortunes of this country, that those eaiat
mities made men afterwards go into an opposite extreme ; and
this will always happen as long as human nature remains tale
same. But I clearly perceive the disappointment of the
learned gentleman. He appears of late to have employed
himself in considering parties ; he looks at my right honour-
able friend (Mr. Windham) and at me ; and he takes it for
granted, that whatever change may take place, we cannot
come in ; but the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt) he
supposes will come in, and upon these suppositions he formed
his speech. Be therefore came down ready to treat me with
every species of hostility, supposing that I should make
a long speech against the ministers, and he prepared a
very moderate reply for the right honourable gentleman
under the gallery, who, he took it for granted, would be
rather gentle in his censure of them. All his venom was,
therefore,. poured out upon my right honourable friend (Mr.
Windham) and myself; while he lavished his still more dis-
gusting adulation upon his right honourable friend (Mr. Pitt).
He is not satisfied with praising the former ministers, but
he says, that nothing could give greater satisfaction than the
return of that right honourable gentleman to administration,
and that this is a fact of which the present ministers are per-
fectly convinced. .But is he aware how strongly he is cen-
surino. his present friends by such language ? He is actually
accusing them, in the technical words of an indictment,
cc they, well knowing that he, the said Mr. Pitt, was a
fit person 'to be minister of this country, and well knowing
that his return to administration would give general satis-
faction, nevertheless wilfully, at the instigation, I will not say
of whom, did continue to retain their places and offices, to
the exclusion of the said right honourable gentleman, from
the office of minister." Bat it must be observed, that all this
praise of the right honourable gentleman is only conditional.
They say to him, " You may return to office, and it 'will give
great satisfaction ; but you must take care not to bring any
new friends with you ; because if you do, then you will lose'all
the praise we have given you." One would really suppose
by the apprehension which he expresses about me, that I iv;Is
a barrister, and that he thought I wanted to supersede
his office. The learned gentleman has been very liberal 01
his advice; he advises my right honourable friend (111r.Wrile-
tam) to take care of his character; he advises his righ t 110:
'flOttrable friend (Mr. Pitt) not by any means to join ,uswith
'but I do not recollect that he has been kind enough to
-stow any advice upon me. Dr. Johnson once said to a 1),eeir
ton who was loading him with praise, " Pray; Sir, consla


m804.]


DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY.
567


what your praise is worth, before you lestow it so liberally."
So, I must beg the learned gentleman to consider what his
advice is worth, before he is so lavish of it.


It has been contended that this is an unusual motion : in
answer to this, I only beg to refer to the journals, where in-
numerable precedents will be found. But it is said, your
object is to turn out the ministers ; why do you not move
openly at once ? If this motion has the effect of turning out
the ministers, I shall like it the better; but I take it to be
more parliamentary to prove the misconduct of ministers
before a motion is made to dismiss them. It is said, why
do you not move to censure ministers ? Why, this motion
does contain a censure upon them for not doing their duty ;
for not taking any steps to increase the regular army ; for not
taking any measure for arming the people — and these are
charges which they will find it difficult to answer. It may
be asked, why did I not bring forward this charge before ?
My answer is this : I thought it fair to wait to see whether
ministers would adopt any effectual steps for the security of
the country ; and finding they did not, I thought it my duty
to make this proposition to the House. — The right honour-
able secretary of state says, that this motion is only a pre-
tence, that the real object of it is to turn out ministers, and
that every member ought to vote upon that idea. I most
sincerely hope they will; for if every member, who thinks
that the ministers ought not to continue in their stations, will
vote for this motion, I shall not despair of dividing in a ma-
jority. It is asked with great eagerness, if you remove the
present ministers, who will you put in their place ? To this
question my answer is this : I would exercise the constitu-
tional power of the House of Commons in endeavouring to
turn out incompetent ministers, but I would never invade the
prerogative of the crown by pointing out who were to succeed
them. I wish to turn out those ministers because I think
they are a curse to the country, but I should never think of
interfering with the prerogative of the crown in the appoint-
ment of their successors. Upon this subject, therefore, I.
can give no answer.


b


Another topic of public animadversion has been noticed
y the learned gentleman with the bitter spirit of malignity,


If not in the language of disappointment or despair. It is
the clamour against a supposed coalition. if I have expe-
rienced a return of friendship from those with whom for
some years I have widely differed in public opinions, and
With whom any difference at all times was a subject of sincere
regret, I cannot conceive why the union of sentiment on this
occasion should call forth so harsh a reprehension._from the


0 0 4




OS MOTION ON THE DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY. [April 23,.


learned gentleman ; but if there be any crime in embracing a
return of former friendship and affection, between men wile,
had always entertained for each other private sentiments of
esteem, I have no hesitation in pleading gailty to the charge.
Thus much I think due to attentions which are always g. raiew
int to my heart; and I cannot see any just cause why the
learned gentleman, in the hey-day of . his spleen, should at-
tempt to interrupt our intercourse, or disturb our repose. It
surely is not necessary that either, they or I should consult
him on our selection of friends, or ask his leave how far our
mutual civilities should extend. With regard to a coalition
between myself and the right honourable gentleman under
the gallery, .(Mr. Pitt,) I know of no other coalition, no
other cause of co-operation, titan what may appear to both
fair and honourable as members of parliament, acting for
the best interests of the country. I am totally unacquainted
with any sinister views or private understanding. I know of
no other cause, no other secret spring,- than what may be
openly proclaimed at Charing-cross. Surveying the very
critical situation of public affairs/ fully persuaded that some
effort should be made to restore the credit and the honour of
the country both at home and abroad, we have publicly con-
curred for the honourable attainment of the same desirable
object; and it is hard, indeed, that public men cannot agree
upon • public measures without being liable to the bitter re-
proach of the learned gentleman and his colleagues. In my
motion of this night, I am proud of acknowledging the
powerful aid of the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt);
but with the particular line of conduct or argument, which
the right honourable gentleman meant to adopt, I was, before
the delivery of his speech, as completely unacquainted as any
man in the House. So far we may safely disclaim any coa-
lition or private understanding. It is evident, indeed, that
we fully concur in one particular opinion : we are perfectly
agreed as to the weakness and incapacity of the present mi-
msters. The motion now before the House will prove, if a
committee be granted, the truth of this position ; and should
it be negatived, no proof can, from that circumstance, be
inferred, that the ministers are either wise or able to conduct
the affairs of a great empire. With all my condemnation of
their measures, I have no hesitation to acknowledge that some
of their acts I approved, believing them for the theofgoodg
country. But there is no general rule without an exception.
Am I always to support their measures, whether wise 01.
foolish? Am I always to agree with them, whether in peace
or war ? Although I approved of the peace, as necessary
for the interest of the 'country, yet I disapproved of some


4804.]


ADDITIONAL FORCE BILL.
569


of its articles. With all my partiality for the peace of Amiens,
could not see any propriety in the shameful surrender of all


our conquests. So glad, however, was I of the return of
pea that I did not dwell much upon the terms. Had suchc
a happy event been properly managed, we might still have
been at peace. But foolish and improvident ministers arc ill
calculated to avail themselves of the advantages of such an
event. I do not, however, now oppose them, because we
are at war, but because the country and its interests are in
the most imminent danger.


The House divided on Mr. Fox's motion :




Tellers. Tellers.
''LAS Earl


'Whitbread ') 5Mr. Tierney




L arl Temple 204.—NoEs - — 1 256.*LMr. anace


ADDITIONAL FORCE BILL.


June I S.


ON the 5 th of June, Mr. Pitt, the new chancellor of theexchequer, brought forward his plan for the military defence
of the country, and moved, " That leave be given to bring, in a
bill for establishing and maintaining a permanent additional fierce
for the defence of the realm, and for supplying his majesty's
regular forces, and for the gradual reduction of the militia of
Great Britain." Leave was given to bring in the bill, and on the
x8th, at the close of a debate which lasted till four in the morning,
on the motion that the bill be engrossed,


On the nth of May Mr. Addington resigned the office of chancellor
of the exchequer, and Mr. Pitt was appointed to succeed him. The
following is a List of the New Administration :
First Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer Right Hon,


William Pitt.
President of the Council— Duke of Portland.
Lord Chancellor — Lord Eldon.
Lord Privy Seal — Earl of Westmoreland.
First Lord of the Admiralty — Lord Viscount Melville.
Master-General of the Ordnance—Earl of Chatham.Secretary of State for the Home Department Lord Hawkesbury.
Ditto for Poreily,n.Affairs— Lord Harrowby.
Ditto for the Department of War and the Colonies— Earl Camden.
President of the Board of Controul for the Affairs of India — LordCastlereagh.




5 7
[June 18,0 ADDITIONAL FORCE BILL,'


Mr. Fox rose and spoke to the following effect: — /
shall not at this late hour, and on a question which has been
so often and so victoriously discussed, take up much of the
time of the House in adverting to the topics which the right
honourable the chancellor of the exchequer has thought pro.
Per to take up. In a discussion on a bill of this kind, I am
not surprised there should be so great a difference of opinion.
But in one of the arguments of the right honourable gentle-
man with respect to these topics, he has said, that the mode
which has been pursued to get rid of this bill has been very
personal. I can only say, Sir, that in every business that
comes before this House, on whatever subject it may be, no
one can be more averse to personalities than myself. I ask
the right honourable gentleman, and I think I can safely ap-
peal to the House, whether, till he himself brought them
forward, one single word was said on that subject? and whe-
ther they were not entirely owing to himself, and to the
honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning) sitting by him'? What-
ever may he the inclination of the right honourable gentleman
opposite to enter on subjects of a personal nature, I can assure
him that I do not feel the smallest inclination to follow his
example ; age has diminished my propensity to such contests,
and instead of wishing to show my prowess, I wish rather to
show my prudence. I can say,


Lenit albescens animos capillus,
Litium et rixm cupidos protervm,


although in other times, and in other circumstances of the
country, the latter part of the quotation would have better
suited my disposition,


Non ego hoc ferrem, calidus juventil,
Consule Planco.


Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—Lord Mulgrave.
Secretary at War — Right Hon. William Dundas.
Treasurer of the Navy— Right Hon. George Canning.
Joint Paymaster of his Majesty's Forces — Right Hon. George Rose,


Right Hon. Lord Charles Somerset.
Joint Postmaster-General — Duke of Montrose, Lord Charles Spencer.
Secretaries of the Treasury William Huskisson. Esq., William Stag°


Bourne, Esq.
Master of the Rolls— Sir William Grant.
Attorney-0 eneral — Hon. Spencer Perceval.
Solicitor-General — Sir Thomas Manners Sutton.
Lord Lieutenant— Earl of Hardwicke.
Lord Chancellor —Lord Redesdale.
Chief Secretary — Sir Evan Nepean
Chancellor of the Exchequer— Right Hon. Isaac Corry.


ADDITIONAL FORCE BILL.
571$04.]


In addition to my disinclination to treat the subject in such a
way on the present occasion, my principle would be to avoid
it. I certainly have entertained the opinion ever since the
commencement of the present war, that it would be of the
(neatest. advantage to the country, if; forgetting all former
animosities, it were possible to form an administration on a
broad basis, combined of all parties, and uniting all those
whom the country think proper to look up to. There are,
however, one or two points of the right honourable gentle-
man's speech, on which I must beg leave to make a few obser-
vations. He says, that his majesty is by his prerogative un-
questionably entitled to choose and appoint his own ministers.
This is a position which nobody is more inclined to acknow-
ledge than myself. But how does it apply to his argument ?
He admits that it may be wise in the House of Commons so
to conduct itself as to convince his majesty that he ought to
remove them. He has admitted it more than in words; he
has admitted it in fact. I do not know what the right ho-
nourable gentleman means by an opposition composed of such
discordant materials, that there is scarcely a point on which.
they can agree. If I recollect rightly, there was a period
when what he has said of my honourable friends would equally
apply to himself. There was a period, and that at no very
great distance, in which that right honourable gentleman
himself supported, and a time also quickly succeeding, in
which he opposed the late administration. In the course of a
few months, he supported, with the utmost warmth, .all the
military measures of the right honourable gentleman, his pre-
decessor, and very soon afterwards he opposed the army of
reserve suspension bill, in order to snake way fin- the present
measure, which he gave the House to understand would be
found so much more efficient at the present important crisis.


To return, however, to the prerogative of the crown. If
it be, which I do not deny, the prerogative of the king to
choose his own ministers, it is equally the right and the duty
of the House of Commons to judge of the capacity and the
Intentions of those ministers; and if they should be found de-
ficient in .the confidence of the House of Commons, and in
the confidence of the country, such disapprobation is a strong
and fair ground for the king to dismiss them. If ever there
was an administration that was deficient of that confidence,
I think I may. fairly and justly say it is the administration now
m office. When the right honourable gentleman is attacked
on the subject, he has no other answer to give, but " look
at me," as if the whole administration were wrapped up inhimself, He says, Lord Melville is likely to be a better first
lord a the admiralty than Earl St. Vincent; and, after speak-


13


of Ireland'




5 72 ADDITIONAL FORCE BILL. • [June l g..
ing with the greatest complacency of himself, and the two
secretaries of state, he asks the right honourable gentleman
on the bench below him, (Mr. Addington,) whether he is not
practically convinced that this is a new administration ? If
any one person was more disappointed at the formation of the
new ministry than another, I should have thought that it was
the right honourable, gentleman himself; it is what his friends
give out for him. I Should be sorry to give credit to the ru-
mours which arc abroad, and which go strongly to prove,
that all his wishes centered in the object he has attained. But
lie has dealt harder with my friends on thelower bench. He
says they wished to see him at the head of the government,
and, provided that were the case, they should be happy. He
then taunts them with refusing him their support in his' new
administration. Undoubtedly, Sir, he had a right to offer
situations to whomsoever he pleased, and they as undoubtedly
possessed the power of refusal; and if they thought that in an
administration so formed they could do no good to the country,
their refusal was meritorious.


The right honourable gentleman says, he thinks the oppo-
sition to the present bill extraordinary, and that it is dictated
by a desire to give a hint to ministers to retire. On some
principles of the bill, he says, the opposition totally differed,
and then he asks, how they would have agreed, had they
formed part of an administration ? There, indeed, I cannot
answer the right honourable gentleman. Flow far he might
have insisted on any one or more parts of his bill, and how
far he might have conceived that we ought implicitly to yield
to his opinion and to'his direction, I cannot pretend to say ;.
but this I know, that an administration formed on a broad
and comprehensive basis in times of danger, would be highly
beneficial to the country, and that we should have entered
into such an administration with the spirit of conciliation.
The right honourable gentleman says, we may give as many
hints as we please ; he will not take them; but I should be
glad to know, if the House of Commons shows that it has no
confidence in him, does he mean to say that he will not take
the hint? Did he not give a hint to the right honourable
gentleman on the lower bench, his predecessor? If public


therumours are not very much mistaken, .there arc some off e
th


present administration who did advise their colleague to giv
way, when he saw the sense of the House of Commons was
against his measures. I do not know who they were, but I
hope they did not give the.hint, in order that they
" two strings to their bow." The right honourable gentleman.


might have


was pleased to say, that it would be absurd in the cabinet to beis
counting noses as we do in this House. I dare say, Sir, he


1804.71 ADDITIONAL FORCE BILL. 5 73
perfectly and if his intention was to form an adminis-p
tration in which there will be no counting of noses, I believe
be has completely succeeded. If, Sir, for our opposition to
this bill, we are told that we are " a faction," we are told no
more than the right honourable gentleman himself was told,
a few hours before the late administration were turned out of
office ; and told, too, by that very noble lord (Hawkesbury)
who has consented to accept the office of secretary of state for
the home department,' under the administration of the right
honourable gentleman. The right honourable gentleman has
mentioned the change which has taken place in the secre-
taries of state with some exultation, and contends, that in
such a proceeding there is no degradation. The right honour-
able gentleman is most undoubtedly at liberty to form his
own judgment on such an humiliation ; I can only say, that I
totally differ from him in opinion.
. Now, Sir, having made these few observations on a subject
which it is my constant desire to avoid, I shall trouble the
House with a few words on the bill itself; which, whatever
the right honourable gentleman may please to surmise, -I de-
clare to be the sole object of my opposition. After all that
has been said of the army of reserve bill, the right honour-
able gentleman must be perfectly aware that this bill cannot
be agreeable. He has laid great stress on the clauses which
he has introduced this day, by which 70,000 men are to be
embodied during the war, and then disbanded at the peace,
but registered, so that in case of any future war, they may be
called on to serve again. I cannot help suspecting that these
clauses are a new thought, and not at all belonging to the pre-
sent bill. This, I will venture to say, is by no means so good
as a militia; for in that kind of force you know where to find
the men. You look for the Yorkshire militia in Yorkshire,
and the Kentish in the county of Kent. But where will you
find this army ? These battalions arc to be composed of such
a mixture of men from all parts of the kingdom; that you may
have to look for the Yorkshire in Cornwall, and the Cornish
in Lancashire. In short, there will be no knowing where to
find them. The right honourable gentleman says, is not my
mode more likely to be efficient than any other system ? I
answer, No. It will not be so efficient either as the militia or
the army of reserve. The mode of raising,


recruits by parish of-
ficers I must severly condemn. The influence of parish offi-
cers can be attended with no other advantage in the raising re-
cruits than what results from a system of terror and oppression,
which cannot fail to be the case in such a system as the pm-
sent, where persons are to be fined for not




''


doina what it is
Impossible they should be able to do. Besides, lines are in




5 74 ADDITIONAL roan BILL. [June 1 8.
themselves a species of punishment, and punishment ought
never to attach to persons who have been guilty of no crane.


As a measure of finance, the public most assuredly have
not gained by the present bill. I contend that there is the e
greatest inequality in a system of taxation by fine, such as
this is. For instance, suppose I send my servant to market
to buy a bushel of wheat, or any other grain, but I tell hint,
at the same time, that he must not, on any account, give
more than half-a-crown for the bushel. cc Half


-a-crown, Sir,"
says the servant, " I cannot buy a bushel of wheat for that
sum ; it is worth seven shillings a bushel, and no one will s1'
it for less." " No matter," say I; " you must give no more
than half-a-crown, and if you do not buy it for that money,
you shall be punished with a fine." In the same way will it
exactly turn out with the recruits under this bill. Men will
not enlist for the sum to which these parish recruiting officers
are restricted, and then the parishes must be fined, which will
prove as great a hardship as can well be conceived. The
whole system is also very unequal, for it falls much heavier on
the landholder than on any other description of persons, and
with the greatest inequality even on those. I see no reason
why the mode of recruiting for the regular army advised by
my right honourable friend, (Mr.Windbam,) who has taken the
lead on military subjects, in a manner so honourable to himself
and so beneficial to the country — I say, I see no reason why
that mode should not be tried. Why not enlist men for a limited
time, or for limited service? I am one of those who are exceed-
ingly sanguine of such a mode of recruiting the army. I have no
doubt but such a trial would be attended with success. I can,
however, see no possible advantage, but only the contrary, in
enlisting men for a limited service, in order to seduce them
afterwards into general service, which is to be the operation
of the present bill. Because the army of reserve could not do
its service with the ballot, it is rashly presumed that this bill
will effect the same purposes without the ballot ; a mode of
al-reline., which militates expressly against the nature of things.
For my own part, I voted for the suspension of the army of
reserve bill, fbr the express purpose of giving this measure an
opportunity of being fairly and fully discussed ; and now that
has taken place, I am convinced it is one of the most oppr es


-sive, as well as one of the most inefficient measures, that could
well be devised, for the purposes it is intended to effect. I n


-deed, to speak of the absurdities of the bill in detail, woulclhe
I


ridiculous. I just now said that the bill would be found both n-
efficient and oppressive. But then comes the right bonouTt
gentleman with his famous dilemma. " How," says lie, IL.
you make that out? How can my bill be oppressive Ana


I805.]


PROPERTY TAX. 5 75
efficient too." I say, Sir, the bill will occasion very consi-
derable oppression without producing any considerable ad-
dition to your force. The bill appears to me, in every part
of it, full of oppression and injustice, and tending to a more
circuitous mode to recruit your regular army, than the plan
proposed by my right honourable friend, (Mr. Windham,) and
as such I must continue to give it my determined opposition.


Before I sit down, there is one observation which fell from
the right honourable gentleman, upon which I cannot avoid
saying a few words. The right honourable gentleman says,
‘, if you throw out my bill, I shall be sorry ; because you and
the country will lose a good measure, but you will not thereby
be the nearer getting rid of me." A more indecent and dis-
respectful expression from a minister to a House of Commons
I never heard. Is not this bill a bill of considerable detail,
requiring the general consent and approbation of all ranks of
the community ? Is it possible, I ask, that this House can so
far lose sight of its duty as to send a bill of such unexampled
severity and oppression to be executed all over the coun-
try, contrary to the opinion of nearly one half of its members?
Can such a bill be well executed by a country that disapproves
of it ? It must be allowed that the bill, with all the influence
of government, will be carried by only a very trifling majo-
rity. Under such circumstances, it cannot be executed with
that general good will and general consent by which only its
operations can be rendered beneficial to the country.


The House divided on the motion, That the Bill be engrossed :
Tellers.
Tellers.yrAs Mr. Long
{Earl Temple./


S. Bourne I


10-
Mr. St. John 223'


PROPERTY TA.X.


February 1 8. :Bos.


Ail R. PITT having this day proposed, among the Ways and
-4- v -k


Means of the .
year, an addition of one-fourth, or three-


Pence in the shilling, on the Property Tax,


Mr. Fox said, the addition now proposed to be made on
the property tax, I am sorry to say, will, if I am not much
-reititalt6n, lay the foundation of endleis calamity to this eosin.




576 PROPERTY TAX. [Feb. 18,
try. One great objection to the tax on income is, that it
affords a facility of getting near what we would most •lament
— that state in which a ministercould take the Property of
the subject indiscriminately. This is precisely what we have
to lament in regard to the tax on property, which can only
operate as a facility to that deprecated end. This time 25


next
cent. are added, possibly there will be 2.5 pericent. more put on it; after that, possibly, it NeNX'itll btiern le


then trebled, until the principle is silently, but fatally esta:
Wished, of taking the money of the subject wherever and how
ever it may be found. I have also another objection to this
tax, that though it is less unequal than the income tax, it is
still very unequal. Landed property and property ill the
funds contribute fairly. But the other descriptions of pro.
perty, such as arise from commerce and industry, do no t Pay
in any proportion. If this is the case, I tremble for the con-
sequence of going on increasing this tax. If a property tax
be allowable, even in time of war, it is only on the ground of
its being regular and moderate. If this is to continue many
years, and consumption, so far as yielding a revenue, is at an
end, it is likely the property tax will be considered as a land
tax, or any of those other taxes that arc voted annually as
matters of course. I do not say that this crisis is near, God
forbid it should be ! If ever we come to the state when we
cannot levy taxes on consumption, we shall inevitably be going
the road that leads to the point at which we take from our in-
come, where we can, and all we can, till we go to the principal,
and in time take that likewise. With these impressions of the
vast impolicy of such a growing tax as this, I own that I do
from my heart wish the right honourable gentleman could
have devised any other measure. I never approved of this
tax, nor of the principle on which it was founded, and I think
that limits should be set to it which cannot be exceeded.


In reply to Mr. Pitt,


Mr. Fox denied that the arguments for the increase of the
property tax were such as applied to all taxes. For when a
house tax became too high, a man might avoid it by ceasing
to keep any house ; but property was a thing to which there
could be no limit till the whole was taken. With respect to
wine, tea, or any other articles of consumption, taxation
might proceed without reserve, because the individual would
always have it in his power, as soon as the tax became oppre s


-sive and intolerable to him, to desist from them. He there-
fore preferred taxation of this sort to proceeding on dangerous
principles, taking by little and little from the property the


105'J PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE.
5 77


subject, till the reduction was tantamount to the risk of the
whole. Every body knew how human nature was worked
upon by every thing that assailed it by degrees. He remem-
bered a fable, which, to elucidate the force of habit, related,
that a woman in a certain village had a calf, which she accus-
tomed herself to take in her arms every day, and from the
gradual increase, was able to bear it when it came to be a large
ox. The fable was a good one, but he did not like it in its
application to the present case. For, however we might be
able to bear this little calf, we could not ,


possibly bear the
(neat fat ox it would grow to. He, therefore, could not pos-
sibly approve of a tax that had no natural limit in itself.




PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE.


April 8.


THIS day Mr. Whitbread brought under the consideration of
J..- the House the subject of the Tenth Report of the Commis-


sioners of Naval Inquiry, and concluded a speech of great length,
with moving the following Resolutions :


I. " That it appears to this committee, that on the 18th of June,
1782, the House of Commons in a committee of the whole House
came, amongst others, to the following Resolutions : "That it is


the opinion of this. committee, that some regulations ought to be
adopted for. the purpose of lessening and keeping down the
balances of public money, which appear to have usually been in
the hands of the treasurer of the navy ; and it would be beneficial
to the public if the first and other clerks in the different branches
belonging to the said office, were paid by fixed and permanent
salaries in lieu of all fees, gratuities, and other perquisites what-


' soever.'
That it is the opinion of this committee, that from hencefor-


ward the paymaster-general of his majesty's land forces, and the
treasurer of the navy, for the time being, shall not apply any
sum or .


sums of money imprestcd to them, or either of them, to
any purpose of advantage or interest to themselves, either di=
rectly or indirectly.'


That it appears to this committee, that the commissioners
appointed to examine, take, and state the public aceounts of the
kingdom, have, so far as appears from the reports which they
have hitherto made, discharged the duty intrusted to them with
great diligence, accuracy, and ability; and if parliament shall
carry into execution those plans of reform and regulation which
are suggested by the matter contained in the reports of the said_
VOL. VI.
P P




578 PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE. [April 8


commissioners, it cannot but be attended with the most bene-
ficial consequences to the future welfare -and prosperity of this
kingdom.'
2. " That in furtherance of the intention of the House of Corn.


mons expressed in such resolutions, his majesty, by his warrant
dated June 26th, 1782, directed that the salary of the treasurer of
the navy should be increased to the sum of 40001. per annum, in
full satisfaction of all wages, and fees, and other profits and emo.
luments theretofore enjoyed by former treasurers.


3. " That it appears to this committee, that during the trea-
surership of the right honourable Isaac Barre, the conditions of
the aforesaid warrant were strictly complied with; that the whole
of the money issued from the exchequer to Mr. Barre for naval
services was lodged in the bank ; that it was never drawn from
thence previously to its being advanced to the sub-accountants, to
be applied to the public service ; that during the time Mr Barre
acted as treasurer and ex-treasurer, he bad not in his possession or
custody any of the public money, and that neither he nor the pay-
master of the navy did derive any profit or advantage from the
use or employment thereof.


4. " That the right honourable Henry Dundas, now Lord Vis-
count Melville, succeeded to the office of treasurer of the navy on
the 19th of August, 1782, when a further addition was made to the
salary of the said office, in order to produce a net annual income
of 40001. after the payment of all taxes and . charges on the same ;
and that this additional salary was considered by the said Lord
Viscount Melville as granted to him in lieu of all wages, fees, pro-
fits, and other emoluments, enjoyed by former treasurers.


5. " That the said Lord Viscount Melville continued in the said
office till the loth of April, 1 7 8 3 ; that being asked whether he de-
rived any advantage from the use of the public money during that
period, he, in his examination before the commissioners of naval
inquiry, declined answering any question on that head, but that
he has since, in a letter written to the said commissioners, and
dated the 28t11 of March last, declared that previous to 1786, he
did not derive any advantage from the use or employment of any
monies issued for carrying on the service of the navy ;' but Mr.
Douglas, who was paymaster, being dead, and his lordship baying
refused to answer any question on this head as aforesaid, no evi-
dence has been obtained as to the application of monies issued for
the service of the navy, or the mode of drawing the same from the
bank during this period.


6. " That the honourable C. Townshend, now Lord Baring,'
held the office of treasurer of the navy from the If th of
1783, to the 4th of January, 1784, and that from the examinat ion
of his lordship, it appears that, during , his treasurership, no pars
ofthe money issued for the service of the navy was applied to ras
prim ate use or advantage, and that he does not believe that gr.
Douglas, who acted under him as paymaster, derived any profit or
advantage from the use or employment of the public money exceP
the money issued for the payment of exchequer fees,.


1805.] PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE.
579


7. " That the right honourable Henry Dundas was re-appointed
treasurer of the navy on the 5th of' January, 1784, and continued
in the said office until the 1st ofJune, 1800.


8. " That in t. e year 1785, an act of parliament was passed, 25
Geo. III. chap. 3 1. intituled, ' An Act for better regulating the
office of treasurer of his majesty's navy ;' whereby it is directed,
that no money shall be issued from the treasury to the treasurers of
the navy ; but that all monies issued for naval services shall be
paid to the bank on account of naval services, and placed to the
account of the treasurer of the navy, and shall not be paid out 3f
the bank unless for naval services, and in pursuance of draughts
signed by the treasurer, or some person or persons authorized by
him ; which draughts shall specify the heads of service to which
such sums are to be applied, and that the regulations under the
said act shall take place from the 31st of July, 1785.


" That the execution of the said act was postponed till the
month of January, 1786, and from that time till the month of
June, 1800, when Lord Melville left the office of treasurer, con-
trary to the practice established in the treasurership of the right
honourable Isaac Barre


'


contrary to the resolutions of' the House
of Commons of 18th of June, 1782 ; and in defiance of the provi-
sions of the above-mentioned act of the 25th of Geo. III. chap. 31.
large sums of money were, under pretence of naval services, and
by a scandalous evasion of the act, at various times drawn from the
bank and invested in exchequer and navy bills, lent upon the
security of stock, employed in dicounting private bills, in purchas-
ing bank and East-India stock, and used in various ways for the
purposes of private emolument.


to. " That Alexander Trotter, Esq. paymaster of the navy, was
the person by whom, or in whose name, the public money was thus
employed, and that in so doing he acted with the knowledge and
consent of Lord Viscount Melville ; to whom he was at the same
time private agent, and for whose use or benefit he occasionally laid
out from r o to 2o,ocoi. without considering whether he was pre-
viously in advance to his lordship, and whether such advances were
made from his public or private balances.


" That the right honourable Lord Viscount Melville having
been privy to, and connived at the withdrawing from the bank of
England, for purposes of private interest or emolument, sums is-
sued to him as treasurer of the navy, and placed to his account in
the bank, according to the provisions of the 25th Geo. III. chap. 31.
of duty.guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breachf .


12. " That it further appears, that, subsequent to the appoint-
ment of Lord Melville, as treasurer of the navy, in 1784, and dur-
ing the time he held that office, large sums of money issued for
the service of the navy, were applied to other services ; and
that the said Lord Melville, in a letter, written in answer to a pre-
cept issued by the commissioners of naval enquiry, requiring an
account of money received by him, or any person on his account,
or by his order, from the paymaster of the navy, and also of the
time when, and the persons by whom the same were returned to the


PP




5 80 PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE. r Apra


banks, or paymaster, has declared, that he has no




bmaterials
which he could make up such an account, and that if he had matee-
rials, he could not do it without disclosing delicate and .confidential
transactions of government, which his duty to the public must have
restrained him from revealing.


13. " That Lord Melville, in applying monies issued for the
service of the navy to other services, stated to have been of so de.
licate and confidential a nature, that, in his opinion, no account
can or ought to be given of them, has acted in a manner inconsist-
ent with his duty, and incompatible with those securities which
the legislature has provided for the proper application of the public
money."


The first resolution being put, Mr. Pitt moved the previous ques-
tion thereon. After the resolution had been supported by Lord
Henry Petty, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Ponsonby ; and opposed by
the Attorney-General, Mr. Canning, and the Master of the
Rolls,


Mr. Fox said he should be extremely unwilling to suffer
this question to be put without expressing his sentiments upon
it. For if; unhappily, the vote of the House should be op-
posite to that which he hoped and wished, he should feel
Very uneasy indeed that his name should partake of the uni-
versal odium that must attach to any decision tending to
second such notorious delinquency as the report on the table
exposed. He could never reconcile it to his mind to be
silent upon such an occasion, lest lie should be suspected of
declining to mark with the strongest reprobation guilt of a
nature so glaring, that any man who gave it the sanction of
his vote, or attempted to protect it from punishment, must
be viewed in the light of an accomplice, or one at least dis-
posed to become the accomplice of similar transactions.
Before lie proceeded to the merits of the charges under
consideration, he thought it proper to notice the arguments
of the gentlemen on the other side, not because he considered
these arguments possessed of any intrinsic force, but lest from
the authority of the persons from whom they proceeded they
might have the effect of leading the House to a decision,
which, if it should correspond with the wishes of those by
whom such arguments were used, must destroy its character
with the country and with all Europe. The first gentleman
with whom he would begin was the master of the rolls. That
learned gentleman had directed the whole of his observations
to shew that the House should go into a committee in order,
to ascertain whether the breach of -the act of parliam ent, 11°'
of which Lord Melville stood charged, but of which he car,
fessed himself inky, proceeded from corrupt


• D o 1115corruption consisted merely in a man putting money I s
own pocket, according to the vulgar conception, pei'aP


() motives. 1.1


i 8o5.] PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE. 5 81


some of the deductions of the learned gentleman would be
right. But he would contend that nothing could be more
corrupt, in his opinion, than to permit a man's own agent
to convert the money of others to his own private emolument.
This was the amount of Lord Melville's confession ; and al-
though it might be possible, from a further examination, to
prove the noble lord more guilty, it did appear to him utterly
impossible to prove him less so. For the most conclusive
evidence of the noble lord's corruption, he would only refer
to that paragraph in the report, in which the noble lord
stated, that although he knew his agent Trotter was applying
the public money to other purposes than that for which it was
legally intended, he did not prohibit him from doing so.
'What was that, he would ask, but complete corruption, even
taking the case simpliciter ; but combining it with other cir-
cumstances, could any man entertain a doubt upon the sub-
ject of his guilt ? What greater aggravation of his delin-
quency in tolerating the breach of his own act of parliament
could be imagined than allowing his agent to misapply the
public money, for the safe custody of which that act was
intended ?


But it was pretended that no loss had accrued to the public
from this malversation, and a very singular argument was
advanced, that as there was no loss there was no risk. Now,
said Mr. Fox, it unfortunately happened in certain parts of
my life, which I do not quote with a view to recommend my
example to others, that I was in the habits of engaging in
certain speculations, which are commonly called gambling. If
a man should, in that kind of speculation, win a large sum
of money, I am sure that an argument would not thence
arise that he had run no risk. I rather think the natural
inference would be that his risk was considerable. Probably,
however, in this case, Lord Melville did take care that
Trotter should not lose any money. Trotter was the con-
fidential agent of Lord Melville, and Lord Melville was the
confidential agent of the state. Therefore, in this sort of
speculation in which Trotter engaged, Lord Melville could
guard against much risk. If two men play at cards together,
and a third person stands behind one of them and throwshints to the other, lie that receives the hints is tolerably sure
of winning. Just so in this business; Lord Melville knew
when the navy bills were likely to be funded, and Mr. Trotter
could act upon the information he might receive. Will any
°110 say, then, that from such acting upon such information,
/1.0 loss would accrue to the public? On the contrary, I
maintain, that the public did suffer a loss of .one per cent..
upon the discount of such bills. But, then, the learned


P P 3




582 PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE. [April a. 1S05.] PROCEEDINGS -RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE. 533


gentlemen desired the House to go into an inquiry, theinn j order
ment of the House, whether any farther evidence could he
necessary


f
to
law


enable
which


it
the no


come
ble


to
lord


decided opinion
confessed.


upon thebreach


ug,..obtain farther evidence. He
b
would appeal to


That
opinion the House was called on to declare. The public had
a right to demand it from them.


It was said, that the House ought not to think of acting1judicially, of inflicting punishment without the fullest examin-
accused the fullest opportunity of vindicating himself. And
ation into the merits of the accusation, and affording the


that so far as the confession of Lord Melville went, he had been
already tried. He would, however, defy those gentlemen
who
punishment,


, their
to show,


objection
it


so
was


much
all


upon on
the


the question of
power of that


House to inflict any punishment on such delinquents
as Lord


Melville and Trotter. But if the House should determine
on prosecution in any way with a view to punishment;
whether by directing the attorney-general to prosecute;
whether by moving an impeachment, or preparing a bill of
pains and penalties, which perhaps would be the more proper
mode of proceeding, he would maintain that the confession
of the party accused would be evidence to proceed upon,
and that the House was now called on to act, as it must in
every similar case, as a grand jury, to pronounce upon the
guilt of the accused. It was strange to hear it asserted, that
the accused was not guilty; because no loss had accrued from
this scandalous transaction. To those to whom the loss of
honour was nothing, perhaps, it might be said that no loss
had arisen. But what was the loss of honour to that go-
vernment which, after such a palpable instance of delinquency,
should preserve its connection with the delinquent? And
what the loss of character and honour to that House, should
it attempt by its vote, to screen such a delinquent? — in-
finitely more than any sum of money could amount to.


Whatever the learned gentleman to whom he had already.
adverted might assert, he could not see that any farther in-
quiry could be necessary to enable the House to decide that
a great public officer, who allowed his servants to make illicit
profits from ro


was
the




guilty
public


of
money,
most


in
serious


the teeth
offence


of an
.


act
Theof guiltli


consisted in the violation of the law, and it never could be
pretended that any such violation could be innocent. -when


be could not see that any thing could be obtained to avert
the judgment of the House from farther inquiry. Whatever


i
delay might take place, there was only one mode of confirming
still farther the guilt of Lord Melville, and that was in case
Trotter should "'peach 'pe ;" but there was no mode or evidence


1 possible to be imagined that could refute that which Lord
Al elville himself confessed. On that confession, then, he
called upon the House to adopt the motion of his honourable
friend


respect to the charge of Lord Melville's having par-
ticipated in the profits resulting from Trotter's application of
the public money, he could not say that there was direct
evidence before the House; but there certainly was strong
ground of suspicion. The noble lord, it would be recollected,
retained the office of treasurer of the navy for several years
after he was appointed to that of secretary of state, and when
in that House allusion was made to the circumstance of his
holding the two offices, the answer from the other side of the
House was, that although he held those offices, he only re-
ceived the salary of secretary of state, and nothing from the
treasury of the navy. Did not this justify something more
than suspicion ? Why should the noble lord so fondly cling
to this office of his friend, Mr. Trotter ? There were many
other persons among even his own relations who would have
been glad to occupy this situation. But, no; Lord Melville
seemed particularly attached to it, and would any man of
common sense, in considering a thing of this kind, make no
inference from that attachment ? Another objection arose
against the proposed committee, from this consideration, that
he did not see that any of the difficulties which some gentle-
men complained of could be removed; that any of the obscure
accounts could be explained. Those accounts were, indeed,
a such a nature, that the parties themselves could not un-
derstand them, and how, then, could it be possible for a
committee of that House to make any thing of them ? It had
been said that the House should proceed with the utmost de-
liberation in deciding upon character. But upon whose cha-
racter were they to decide on this occasion? Not, certainly,
upon that of Lord Melville, for his character was entirely
gone ; but upon the character of the House and the govern-
ment, which must depend upon the vote of this night. As to
the character of Lord Melville it was so completely destroyed
in public estimation for ever, that he would venture to say,
that were the vote of the House unanimous in his favour, it
would not have the slightest effect in wiping away the stigma
that was universally affixed to his name. What, then, must
the world think of retaining such a man at the head of the


private individuals became the objects of suspicion, it wa4
their own affair; but when suspicion attached to men
high rank in the state, it became a matter of great public
interest. Putting all the circumstances of the ease together'


P P 4




584 PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE. [April s.
glory of the country ? It was dreadful to reflect, that the
most honourable claims should be placed at the disposal of a
man, with whose name dishonour was inseparably associated
— who had confessed himself guilty of an act of corrupt
illegality.


Are we, said Mr. Fox, to connive at and approve of all this,.
when even the right honourable gentleman, who has moved the
previous question, will not go the length of approving all he has
clone. Sir, we have heard to-night, with sentiments of exult-
ation, the brilliant efforts of a noble friend of mine (Lord Henry
Petty) on the bench behind me. There is not a man in the
House capable of appreciating virtue and genius, who did not
feel a secret satisfaction at the speech of that noble lord. 1
recollect, Sir, when the right honourable gentleman on the op-
posite bench (Mr. Pitt) made his first essay in this House. I
recollect, and many in the House must recollect also, the just
pride which we all felt to see him, much about the same age then
that the noble lord behind me now is, distinguishing himself
in hunting down corruption, in unmasking abuses in the
public expenditure, in proposing and enforcing reforms of
various kinds. What a contrast does his conduct on this
night afford ! et'Heu ! quantum mutatus ab illo !" The right
honourable gentleman who now fills the office of treasurer of
the navy, (Mr. Canning,) asserts that it is physically iinpos-
sible to act up to the letter of the act, and has amused the
House with an account of fractional sums of 8s. 6d. 14s. and
2s. and then turns short upon us, and asks how it is possible
to pay all those trifling claims by drafts upon the bank? I
do not say it is ; but does he not keep money in the iron
chest of his office to pay them, and are not the sub-account-
ants furnished with the means of liquidating them ? But
these abuses, it is said, can never occur again ; Mr. Trotter,
in his dying legacy to his successors, has pointed out the
means of preventing it. No; it shall not be done for the
future, says Mr. Trotter, and he bequeaths that to his suc-
cessors which he never thought proper to enjoy himself. 'flue
act can never be violated again. I hope not. I hope the
decision of the House this night will render it impossible
for the gentleman who at present holds the situation of tre a


-surer of the navy, or for any future treasurer, ever to violate
it. But if we do not come to this decision, what security


a


hav .
we, that, future Melvilles nd Trotters will not break throne).
any new act, we may pass, in the same way in which they have
clone the resolutions of this House in 1782, and the act of the
25th of his present majesty founded upon them. I hope all'
trust, Sir, that a large and virtuous majority - of , this Heal
will be found to-put .


the seal and stamp of their .reprobatiot


1805•] PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE.
585


upon such monstrous and unblushing delinquency. But, say
some gentlemen, the depositions are not evidence. That
deny. If an impeachment were carried against my Lord
Melville and his associate, these depositions might be pro-
duced against them at the bar of the House of Lords.
Really, Sir, I have a strong repugnance to enter into all the
disgusting particulars of the conduct of this person with
whom I had once some slight connection. God knows, it was
a connection of hostility ; but after what appears on the face.
of this report, I should be ashamed of myself if I belonged,
to the same class of society with him. What is any honour-
able man to think of a person, who either refuses to answer
a plain question, or who answers it equivocally, and under
reservation ? " Did you derive any advantage from the use of
the public monies in the hands of your paymaster ?" " To
the best of my recollection I never did." — Now, the ho-
nourable gentleman's objection to this is, that the noble lord.
should have occasion at all to mention his recollection on the
subject. He should have been confident. There are some
cases where a man may be allowed to speak as to his recol-
lection, while in others, to mention it is to betray him. If a
man were asked, whether he was on a particular night in a
particular room with John a Noakes, it. might be very well to
answer, that to the best of his recollection he was not, but
if lie were asked whether John a .Noakes did not charge
him with an attempt to pick his pockets, and kick him out
of the room—what would lie the inference if he were to
answer that John a Noakes did not, " to the best of his
recollection ?" With respect to the noble lord's offer to
swear positively that he did not profit from the misappropri-
ation of the public money, it was remarkable that his offer
was confined to the., period in which Mr. Douglas, who was
now dead, was paymaster of the navy, but did not at all ex-
tend to the paymastership of Mr. Trotter. What was the
conclusion, then, to be drawn from this? Why, that lie was
ready to make oath as to the paymastership of Douglas,.
because he was dead, but did not think proper to swear as to
_Crofter, because he was alive. —As to the letter which has been
brought forward,. and which, in my opinion, only aggravates
and confirms his guilt, we never heard any thing of it, although.
Ins examination took place in November, until a few days
Previous to the day appointed for his trial. It is said that
Lord Melville never saw it till it was in print. Can any one
believe it? Is it credible that the noble lord never had the
Curiosity to dispatch some confidential friend to make an
extract.


of that part of the report which he had good reason
to suppose must refer to him ? When, indeed, he finds the




586 ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May 14.
effect of it on the public mind ; when he finds that there
not a man, woman, or child, in every corner of the king-
dom, in whose mouth the tenth report is not to be found;
then, in order to do away the impression of it, be comes for-
ward with this letter. But what can he now gain by this last
shift of his ? Nothing at all. But if he was suffered to avail
himself of the delay he sought for, would not the country
feel that the House of' Commons favoured public abuses,
screened a great delinquent, and that our navy, the greatness
and glory of the nation, was still governed by that very man ?
Then in what respect would the government be held in the
eyes of the people and of foreign nations, should this man,
in a state of accusation and suspicion, be suffered to hold his
present high situation, when the bravest and most honourable
commanders in the army and navy are always suspended
from duty during an accusation of which the result might he
an honourable acquittal. The impression on the public mind
would now be, that Lord Melville fled for protection to
power and not to innocence. I hope and trust that this
dreadful and disgusting business, like all other evils, will
produce some good ; that this clay will be an mra for com-
mencing an examination into all public abuses, and be the
forerunner of such reforms as shall prevent great mischiefs in
the country. I hope the right honourable gentleman will
himself undertake this great work ; and that the commis-
sioners of naval inquiry, to whom the country is so much
indebted, will continue their laudable and salutary pursuits,
and bring every great delinquent to condign punishment.


The House divided :
Tellers. Tellers.


YEAS Mr. Whitbread} , , 1Mr. Huskisson} 216.x Mr. Caleraft 2 I u.-INOES Mr. Wallace
The numbers being thus equal, the Speaker gave his casting


vote against Mr. Pitt's amendment. The original motion was then
carried, and the rest of the resolutions agreed to.


ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.


May 14.


THE order of the day being read for taking into consi-deration the petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland,


i805.] ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. 589
Mr. Fox rose and spoke as follows:
Sir, at the same time that I cannot help feeling a consider-


able degree of anxiety at being about to bring before the
House a subject which, according to my conception of it,
seems, in its probable consequences, some nearer and some
more remote, to be of the very highest importance; yet, I
confess, I feel infinitely less agitated than upon many other
subjects on which I have lately had occasion to address you.
It is certainly a sort of recreation, if I may be allowed so to
express myself, after having been obliged to perform the ha-
rassing duties of accusation ; after having promoted enquiries
into circumstances, certainly not more honourable to the coun-
try at large than to the individual concerned in them; after
having had my mind so harassed and occupied, to feel that I
am not now the mover of accusation, but that I am pleading
the cause of my fellow subjects, and that I am endeavouring to
add to the strength of the country, without taking from the
credit, power, or authority of any living man in the empire.
I cannot help being sensible of the contrast between the duties
lately imposed upon me, and that of attempting to draw the
attention of the House to a subject, which, however embar-
rassing the discussion of it may be to some persons, has at
least this advantage, that it rests entirely on principles of
general affection and good will, connected with views which
every man must approve, and no man can condemn. The
question, Sir, that I have the honour of bringing before you,
and I do feel it a great honour to have been desired to bring
it before you, is no less than a petition, signed. not indeed by
any very great number of persons, but embracing, and I take
it at the lowest calculation when I say, one-fifth of his ma-
jesty's subjects. Nay, further, I believe I shall not be incor-
rect, if I state them at one-fourth of the whole of his majesty's
subjects in Europe. My duty, therefore, calls upon me to
plead the cause of three or four million of the people of Ire-
land, without reference to the proportion they bear to the
population of that part of the empire, but which must be al-
lowed to contain the greater proportion of the catholic sub-
jects of his majesty— a proportion amounting nearer to a
fourth than a fifth of the whole population of the empire. I
feel particularly fortunate, that when I am pressing the claims
of the catholics of Ireland to the consideration of this House, I
am not pressing them as adverse or hostile to the power or pre-
eminence, much less the liberty, or privileges, of the subjects
of any other part of the country. If I could persuade the
House to do justice to the catholics I should persuade them to
render a most important service indeed, perhaps the most
essential that remains to be done, or that ever was done, for




5 8 8 ROMAN' CATHOLIC PETITION. [May 14.
the security, the greatness, and general weal of the empire,
whether with regard to its internal policy, or external re-
lations.


It may be somewhat difficult for me to choose on what part
of the subject it is most proper to begin. The plain and sim-
ple statement of the question, and the first argument in sup-
port of it, would naturally be drawn from matter of fact, con-
cerning which no controversy or difference of opinion ever
did or can exist; I mean the number of persons who are
affected by the question. If I had not heard that different
opinions were entertained with respect to the expediency of
granting the prayer of this petition, I should hardly think it
could be a question, whether a portion of his majesty's subjects,
so considerable as nearly one-fourth, should be on a footing
with the remainder, or should have the enjoyment of equal
laws, privileges, or advantages, and the full participation and
benefit of the constitution and government of the country.
Against the principle so generally stated, cause may be shown,.
suppositions may be urged, and facts may be referred to,- with
a view to show that this, as well as any other general principle,
may be liable to error. I will not detain the House long upon
this point ; but it is necessary I should call its attention to a
topic, which may be considered more an object of theory than
any thing else.. I shall trouble the House but shortly, and
only explain my opinion, that, whatever difference of senti-
ment and feeling may exist, that difference is purely theore-
tical— the question, in point of practical application, is pre-
cisely the same. What some call rights, and what others call
indulgences, _are precisely and exactly the same. The differences
are rather differences between words than things. There are two
modes of considering this question ; first, as it regards the rights
of the subject; and secondly, as it affects the rights of the crown.
That which was most in fashion at different periods of the last
century,. was the latter mode of viewing it. For my own
part, I consider the rights of the people governed to be the
prominent rights. I consider, that those who compose the
society of a state have a complete and unquestionable right to
equality of law ; but I at the same time admit, that this prin-
ciple is not to be taken generally. [admit the force of the
other general maxim, that salus populi szprenza lex, and ought
with propriety to be considered as an exception. Not only
very able men, but men of practical knowledge, have in their
closets considered it in that light. A most respectable modern
writer of our own country, now living, (Dr. Paley,) has stated,
that the general right of government is to- do whatever nlaYd
be necessary for the advantage of the people : but he, an
every man of sense, will tell you, that although this is undoub t


-edly the general right, yet whenever it is exercised by re-


'805.]
ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.


589
strictions with regard to one class of the people, such exercise
becomes an abuse ; or, in other words, the people have a right
not to be restricted in any thing that is not adverse to the safety
of the country. The people have a right to be exempted gene-
rally from unequal restriction ; but when the safety of the
country demands it, and history shows us that such instances
are numerous, they are exceptions to the rule, and have al-
ways been so considered.


In the way in which different persons consider this
subject, a difference of opinion has been produced, but
the conclusion is the same. Some say they would give
the catholics what they require, as a matter of favour,
and a matter of policy; but not as a matter of right. Now,
I say, I would give it to them as a matter of right : but
we, however, shall not differ, if the practical consequence of our
reasoning come to the same thing. I would give it as a right,
because it is the general right of the people, and because there
is no exception which ought to operate against the catholics
of Ireland. Though government has a right to impose re-
strictions; yet, if there be no necessity for them, then comes
the right of the people to enjoy the benefit of every law, pro-
vided such enjoyment is not mischievous in its consequences
to the country. It was therefore, Sir, I wished to say these
few words, because it is so important a part of the subject, and
one which, from the nature of it, cannot be a mere question
of to-day, but may recur and become a question for future
consideration. I should wish that all should understand each
other, and particularly that it should not be supposed
there is any essential difference, when, in fact, it is a differ-
ence of words rather than of principles. Whatever differ-
ences exist with respect to the two theories, it is evident they
lead to the same practical consequences. To apply this to
the Roman catholics of Ireland : I do not lay down a princi-
ple too large, when I state that it is the general right of the
Catholics, as well as of the protestants, to be on an equal 'not-
ing, to have equal laws, privileges, and immunities, in all cases
where they are not prejudicial to the welfare of the state. The
only differences that could arise would be with regard to the
degree in which they should enjoy those rights. Cases might
be put where persons might say nothing could justify a de-
parture from the rule of right, but expediency. Some might
say, political advantages, connected with external relations,
would justify it; others would require such a degree of expe-
diency as would amount to a necessity. They would require
that not only the greatness of the country, but the security of
the country, should -be concerned. I flatter myself we shall
not go on such near shades. The Roman catholics of Ire-
land have undoubtedly a right to equal laws ; but the govern-




590 ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May 14.


ment has thought fit to curtail that right, and to put them
on a footing disadvantageous to them.


To enter into the question, whether the laws for restraining-
the catholics were originally politic, or, rather, whether they


-


were just; that is to say, whether the policy which dictated
them was of such a nature as to render that just which was
not within the general rule of justice, would be a discussion
exceedingly unnecessary at this moment. At the same time,
it will be necessary to attend to the particular period of his-
tory in which these restrictions were principally imposed. I
think I need not state what will be the argument in reply.
No man's mind, I hope, is so framed as to imagine that the
restrictions can be justified on account of the length of time
they have been allowed to continue. Such an opinion would
be a solecism in political reasoning ; it would do away the
original principle on which such laws were founded, to
contend, that though they might be unnecessary at the time
they were adopted, yet that, by a long lapse of time, they
have acquired a prescriptive right. If a restrictive law is
made on account of peculiar circumstances of a political na-
ture, the moment those circumstances cease, the restriction
ceases to be politic, and consequently ceases to be just. I
cannot conceive how any man can be justified in supposing
that, where the circumstances on which a law is founded have
ceased, the justice of continuing that law can be a matter for
fair reasoning. It may so happen, though I think it has
not so happened in this case, but it has nearly happened,
that the fact of long restrictions may make it difficult
afterwards to restore the objects of them to that situa-
tion in which they would have been if the restrictions had
never been imposed. I think one may generally state, that all
the restrictions of the catholics were laid, not on their reli-
gious but their political opinions. At the time they were
made, I have doubts whether many of those who concurred in
them did not disapprove of the principle; and I have doubts
also, whether others did not mix sentiments of persecution and
rancour with those restrictions. I would not wish to go to
antient times; but in the early period of the reigns of
Queen Elizabeth and James I. no one can suppose-it was any
particular religious bigotry that led to the restrictions with re-
gard to the catholics. As far as one can learn of the character
of Queen Elizabeth, her faith was not so repugnant to the
catholic religion as that of many protestant ministers, who


-


were principally concerned in the restrictions. She managed
the question with a degree of prudence which proved her one
of the most consummate princes of the age. She seemed to
be engaged in a general war with several great catholics powers,
and particularly with the King of Spain. From the con-


1805.] ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
591


nexion which the King of Spain had with the catholics by the
league with France, she was necessarily involved in disputes
with France, as well as other powers of the continent ; there-
fore they were political circumstances which occasioned those
harsh and severe laws against the catholics which passed in
her reign. Whatever other pretences might have been re-
sorted to, it is plain the catholics were not considered as the
loyal subjects of Queen Elizabeth. But I am speaking of old
times, and the circumstances of them do not relate to the pre-
sent. Even in the reigns that followed, very few restrictions
by penal law were enacted, very few restrictions of disa-
bilities took place till a much later period. This may be
accounted for from the circumstance that there was no
suspicion of the catholics; but afterwards, in the time of
Charles I. and II., suspicions had taken possession Of the
minds of the people of this country, which made those restric-
tions necessary, many of which have been done away, and
some are now under consideration. When we conic to the
Revolution, it is impossible not to see that all the laws of the
catholics were political laws. It was not a catholic, but a
jacobite, you wished to restrain. When King James was
driven from the country; when his enormous tyranny became
so mixed with bigotry, that many persons professed to be able
to unravel his conduct and tell what to attribute,


to religion,
what to bigotry, and what to tyranny, it was easy to suppose
that the catholics should be actuated by an attachment for a
king who had lost his throne in consequence of his partiality
for their faith. Ireland at this time was the seat of civil war.
Undoubtedly it was natural, after that war was settled by
conquest, to prevent the conquered from enjoying the pri-
vileges of the conquerors. It was not against the religious
faith of those who adored the Virgin Mary, or believed in the
doctrine of transubstantiation. King William was unques-
tionably a great man ; I may say the greatest that ever filled
the throne of this or any other country; but whoever
would wish to raise his character, by representing him as a
persecutor of heresy and idolatry, materially mistake the cha-
racter of that prince. I am persuaded, that- he most reluct-
antly consented to harsh measures against the catholics of
Ireland, and only did so, because it was represented to him
by his ministers, that they were absolutely necessary. That
King William would have acted wiser, if he had made those
restrictions less harsh, it is not now our business to consider.
King William, in conceding his own to the opinion of others,
acquiesced, on the ground of the difference of opinion among
the Roman catholics as to the right of succession to the
crown, and in conformity to that advice which his ministers


1




592 ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May 14.
gave him. The years that followed the Revolution were
most of them years of war; and those that were not years of
war, were, with reference to the catholics, years of a suspi-
cions nature. Endeavours were made to bring about a religious
war, in which it was impossible for the enemy not to have
looked with confidence to the assistance of Ireland, and there-
fore the catholics were disarmed. It might have been wise
so to do. That there were bigoted motives actuating some I
will riot attempt to deny : there were many persons in this,
as well as that country, who were of opinion, that by these
persecutions they should convert to the protestants the pro-
perty of the whole kingdom of Ireland: others there were,
who thought that more lenient measures were likely to be more
successful. The effect proved that the measures adopted not
only failed, but that they were of a nature which rendered their
success absolutely impossible. They were laws which, though
nominally against the catholics, were substantially against the
jacobites. In the two next reigns the same laws continued, be-
cause the same spirit was supposed to exist, and the same
danger to be apprehended from it. In the rebellions which
followed, the conduct of the catholics in remaining quiet, gave
them a just claim to the indulgence of the House; yet no
man who considers the grounds of those rebellions, will think
that any degree of trust could have been reposed in the
catholics.


We come now to the period of his present majesty's reign;
a period at which all danger of a pretender, and the return
of the Stuart family to the throne, was extinguished. I should
certainly say, that all danger of that nature had vanished in
the latter end of the reign of George II., and that there was
no longer any dispute as to the succession to his majesty's
crown. From that period no further danger existed. Dur-
ing the lord-lieutenancy of the Duke of Bedford, at the tune
of his majesty's accession, the system of relaxation towards
the body of the catholics was adopted. There was a remark-
able circumstance at the period to which I am referring, that
-proves to me more clearly than any thing else, that the causes
of these restrictions were at an end. So fin Was the lord-lieu-
tenant of Ireland, during the American war, and the war with
France, from pretending that there was any danger to be ap-
prehended, that upon an alarm on the coast of Cork, arms,
though contrary to law, were put into the hands of those
against whom the restrictions remained, on account of the air
just suspicion that they were not worthy of being trusted.,
Then, undoubtedly, there was a good deal of difference- 0.1
opinion; for although there was not much doubt in this
House, yet gentlemen must know that the catholics of




1805.] nom A2: CATHOLIC PETITION.
593


land were the subject of much consideration. I need only
rekr to the letters published by the late Mr. Burke relative
to the conversations in those days. I remember in 1776 or
1777, the matter being mentioned in a conversation in this
House. It became a topic of discussion during the period
of the American war, when party politics ran high, and


. when
persons felt warm, as undoubtedly they ought to feel upon
occasions of such public importance. The opinion then was,.
that it was a desirable thing to liberate the catholics front
the disqualifications which attached to them ; and I rather
believe that the real grounds of the motion, and of the bill,
moved and seconded by two celebrated names, Sir George
Savile and Mr. Dunning, were not so much to relieve the
catholics of Ireland. I did conceive, that to bar a man of his
right on account of his religious opinions, was tyranny ; that.
the maxim of sales populi never could apply, because the
safety of the people could not operate as a ground for pre-.
venting a man from enjoying his religious opinion. A great
disposition was shown to follow up the system of relax-
ation. It was thought that what had been done might lead to
a relaxation of all the laws against the catholics. All that
scattered men's minds at the time was this,— an apprehen-
sion of the pope or pretender. There might have been in
some persons sentiments of respect and compassion, and in
others an inclination to taunt or insult; but there was not one
person who had any degree of fear or terror, as one single
ingredient in forming his opinion. It was said, that the re-
strictions in Ireland, the ferocious manners of those who were
protestants, and the insults sustained by the catholics, had
produced, as Mr. Burke says, a degree of desperation in that
unhappy people, which made it doubtful how fin they were
to be trusted. The effect of the system had been that of
changing, by degrees, the whole property of Ireland, and that
country was brought into_ a state highly to be lamented. 1
do not mean to make any comparison between the treatment
of the black slaves on the coast of Africa, and that of the people
of Ireland ; I mean only to state, that it was a circumstance likely
to produce the general disaffection of the people, that the whole
of the property was in the hands of the protestant ascendancy,
While the mass of the population was catholic. Even among
those whose forms. of government are less free than ours,
the property and power should go hand-in-hand, .and there


_should be no other distinction except that of the proprietor
'and the servant. We began by enabling the catholics to ac-
quire property. What has been the consequence ? The
Power connected with the free trade and constitution we gave
to vIoreland in 1782, has produced an increase of property be-




L. v4
Q


10




3'94 RONIAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May Lc,•
yond all proportion greater than that enjoyed by the pro_
testants. There has been not only an increase of mercantile
property among the catholics of Ireland, but also of the landed
property. This has been attended with the happiest effect.
It has produced the effect of softening and correcting those
distinctions between the catholics and the protestants which
were found so oppressive. The catholics are now possessed
of a great deal of that property which was taken from
their ancestors I mention this, because one of the appre-
hensions with 'respect to the eatholics was, that they had
preserved memoirs of the ancient state of 'property, and
that, on a favourable opportunity, they were to claim of
the protestants all the property that belonged to their
ancestors. This objection has been completely done away;
fbr at this moment, if you were to reverse the act of settle-
ment, and restore the property of those who possessed before
Cromwell's time, I believe the catholics would be as great suf-
ferers as the protestants. And what catholics ? Why, the
catholics who are now rich and powerful, viz. the only ca-
tholics to whom we would give an addition of power. From
the time of the acquisition of property by the catholics, I have
never been able to conceive on what principle their demands
were not conceded to them ; least of all, why particular re-
strictions should have been kept•un, when others were aban-
doned. 'What are the restrictions now existing? The ge-
neral restrictions may be comprised under these two heads:
one, the incapacity under which the catholics lie- with regard




to the enjoyment of certain offices, civil and military; the
other, the incapacity of sitting in_ either House of parliament.
Gentlemen who have attended to all this history of the restric-
tions of the catholics (sorry I am to say, -a large chapter in
the history of Great Britain,) need not be told, that -it has
been useless with reference to the ends proposed, and cer-
tainly odious to those who have been affected by it. I believe it
is not considered by foreigners as that part of our constitution
which is most deserving of admiration. The two heads of
restrictions are quite distinct. Suppose I proceed to consider,
first, that with respect to offices; the restrictions under this
head go either to limit the prerogative of the crown or the
Choice• of the people. We restrain the prerogative of the
crown in appointing the catholics to certain offices : let us
examine on what ground. Originally the test act was for
the purpose of excluding the catholics from the service vs
Charles II., to prevent catholics being appointed by Charles ire
to executive offices ; and here a very whimsical but strong
observation occurs. One of the most popular arguments in
favour of the test, with a view to the restraint on the pr ero-
gative, and I have heard it frequently used, was,. that it s°'s


183s.] ROMAN CATHOLIC. PETITION.
59 5


necessary to make the constitution agreeable to analogy; and
that when it was insisted that the king should be of the church
of England, it was necessary all his officers should be of the
same persuasion. What beautiful uniformity there is in this,
I own I cannot see. I apprehend that our ancestors rea-
soned in a very different manner. I apprehend it was not
because we forced the king to be a protestant, that we found
it necessary to have his officers of the same religion, but be-
cause we doubted whether the king was in reality a protestant
or not, and because we suspected him of a design to overturn
the constitution of the country, as in the case of James II.
If we suspected him of being a catholic, it was. right we should
not suffer any officers to be near him who


-might assist
him in an infraction of the constitution. But it is the most
strange reasoning I ever heard, that because the Icing being a
protestant, and therefore not liable to suspicion, you are to
prevent him from having the assistance of his catholic sub-
jects. This test passed in the reign of Charles IL, and with
the approbation of a very great man, Mr. Locke, who ob-
served, that it might have 'ibeert


a necessary measure. The
next reign was that ofJames II., who was a professed catholic.
If there was any virtue in other clays — God knows there was
little enough in his ! If he lied repealed the test act, it would
have been for the purpose of obtaining the means of acting
against the liberty of the subject. Then how came the laws to
be continued ? The continuation. of the test laws after the , Re-
volution, was because the dissenters being included in the test
act, it was the object of the high church party to hold the dis-
senters to a law which they had favoured. It was a kind of
compromise, on enacting it against the Roman catholics, to
say, we will retain it against you. In this controul of the par-
liament, it ought to be observed how the question stands. The
test does not prevent the king from appointing a catholic to
any office, civil or military; it only makes it necessary, after a
certain time, for the person appointed to do a certain act.
With respect to the catholic dissenters, you have given it up
in a great number of points, and you have maintained it in
others.


We come now to the distinction .of those cases in which
you have given up the restraint. You have given it up with
regard to all subordinate offices in the army arid navy, and in
the profession of the law, but you refuse it with:respect to. the
higher offices. Then you say to the catholics, " We have kept
nothing. from you as .a ,


body; you do not all expect to be
chancellors, generals, staff officers, admirals, or other great
officers; therefore, as you do not all expect to arrive at these
distinctions, there can be no harm in forbidding any of you to


QQ 2




516 ItOMA•ST CATHOLIC PETITION. [May
obtain them r Do you wish the Roman catholics to be‘a,eertitt


i:ated by a sense that they are trusted by the executive go
melt, or not? If not, and You should, in giving them of-
flees, appear to entertain diffidence and mistrust of them, the y
will be executed with that remissness and disregard of the
public service which such mistrust is calculated to inspire.
Suppose I send to a gentleman of the law, and I say to him,
it is true you may possess talents, but do you think there is
any probability of your being lord chancellor? He might
probably answer, that there was not ; but is there not a very
material difference in having an impossibility and bar put to
the advancement of a man to the honours of his profession?
Suppose a person is engaged in trade, and he can gain a bare
living, or perhaps save about twenty pounds a year. - I say to


" You may go on, and be as industrious as you please,
but you shall never make more than 100,0001." He says,
he is contented. Well, but does any one think that this
country could have arrived at the height it has, if there had
been such a restriction on the exertions of industry ? It is not
because a man's quality is low, that he is prevented by the
exercise of his faculties from becoming wealthy; but if you
limit his endeavours, you destroy the spirit of enterprise and
exertion which impels him, and by such a system finally pre- .
vent his success. Do you not think it would he the most de-
structive blow to the enterprise, industry, and energy of the
country, and undermine the principal source of our riches,
to put a restraint on the exercise of a man's genius and in-
dustry ? Do we not often hear of a person, not of consequence
either from birth or fortune, say, " I live, thank God, in a
country, where, by industry and talents, I may arrive at the
fortune of the greatest duke in the land." Is not this cheer-
ing? Is not the unlimited power of gain the great principle •
on which industry, enterprise, and commerce exist ? 'What
should we say if men of particular descriptions were to be
restricted in their fiiir pursuits? They stand marked and cir-
cumscribed to the limit of their possible gain.
principle to the professions — to the law particularly, the theeotne;
perhaps, in which it operates the most. I would ask those
who are conversant with the profession, whether it would not
damp the ardour of a young man, if he were to be told that
he might obtain some pecuniary advantage, but that he could
never rise to any office of dignity. I am not supporting the.
propriety of indulging sanguine hopes, but certainly one of
the greatest incentives in the breast of a parent to give his sou
a good education, is the hope of one day seeing him fill the
situation of chancellor, or some other splendid office. Take
that hope away, and you destroy the greatest incentive to at/


I 8 05-.] ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. 597
aspiring mind. But when you apply the argument to a mili-
tary life, how much stronger is it ! Is not the very essence of
the profession ambition, and a thirst of glory ? What can
you expect of a lieutenant or captain, who, after exerting
himself in the service of the country, comes home, and, re-
flecting upon the dangers he has shared, admires the skill and
ability of his commander, or perhaps thinks .something might
have been done better — what must be his feelings, if he is
obliged to add, " But I can never expect to command an
army ; all such thoughts are useless; I may be a colonel, per-
haps a general, but a general on the staff; that I can never be.
I go to my station, because I am a man of honour; but can I do
it with the same eagerness as I should do, if; after I have escaped
the danger, my reward was to be proportioned ?" Does not
such a consideration as this lay an extinguisher on military
enterprise? Is it not desirable that every man should look,
for the purpose of exciting his activity and zeal, to future re-
wards of the highest sort ? But put it in another way. Is it
not of importance that every man entrusted with the concerns
of others should feel the necessity of gaining a great character
for ability and integrity? It is not only satisfactory but ne-
cessary. But if you say, there is a ne plus ultra, beyond which
you cannot go —you are to think only of filling your coffers,
quocunque modo rem, how different must be the situation of
him who feels he can never rise in his profession, though en-
dued with the most splendid talents, compared with the man
whose exertions are excited by the prospect of future honours !
Do you think these men, the catholics, do not believe them-
selves to be a marked people, separated from the rest of the
community, not on account of their religions opinions, but
the political opinions connected with them ? In all great
concerns, the extent of the justice or injustice is of consider-
able importance. Who is it you are thus stigmatizing and
degrading? Is it a few people of a particular way of think-
ing ? No : it is three-fourths of the people of Ireland, and
one-fourth of all his majesty's subjects in Europe.


• Would you
think, that, under these circumstances, such a thing could be,
so far as to the part that relates to the controul of the king's
prerogative ? I ought, however, first to mention the exclu-
sion from being sheriffs; but that is more connected with the
jurisdiction I shall have to mention hereafter. Can any body
suppose, that government would be likely to put improper
persons into the office of sheriff in Ireland ? Would they
nominate catholic sheriffs to raise disturbances ? I say, it is
one of the occasions in which it is least possible to suspect an
abuse of the king's prerogative, and where it ought not to be
controlled.


Q 23




459 8 ROMAN teen/011c merman [May 1 ;
Now, With respect to parliament, the Votes of the peel's


parliament subsisted during the reigns of Elizabeth, James
Charles I. and till somewhere about the period of 1698.
I would ask the most 'zealous historian that took the side
against the Stuarts, whether any mischief by the votes of the
catholic peers did really occur ? Here I quote Mr. Locke,
who says — " and with respect to the votes of the catholic
peers, I think, provided the test act is preserved, they are fit
and beneficial." 'When did they cease? In 1698, upon the
discovery of the popish plot, suppose it to be true or false,
when the country was thrown into a paroxysm of terror, when
it was believed that the catholics were going to massacre the
protestants, when it was expected they were to have the as-
sistance of the King of Spain, and when the ridiculous story of
the silver bullets was set on foot. It was at such a moment
of popular fury this measure passed. No man thought of
expelling the catholics limn parliament till the people had
been put into a paroxysm of rage and terror. Why did they
do this? Because there was nothing else to be clone against
them : it was for no other reason they passed that intolerable
law, which put an end to their sitting in the House of (Am-
mons. You come now to that part of the case which does
not afibet to diminish the power of the king, but to controul
the rights of the people. You go to the electors of Ireland,
and you say to them, you shall not elect a catholic. Upon
what principle is it you conceive, that if a Roman catholic has
a mischievous project in his head, it can be defeated by keep-
ing him out of parliament ? It has always been the objection
to the test act, that two descriptions of protestants are in the
House of Commons. We know the dissenters do sit, and
have become the most meritorious of any of its members.
What is the objection to the catholics? That they cannot
wish well to the church of England. Why, that is your ar-
gumentao'ainst the dissenters. You do not deny the dis-b •
centers the privilege of sitting in parliament, though yeti
say they do not approve the church establishment. But the
practice is every thing. What would be the practical -effect
of the catholics having a seat in the House of Commons?
Does any man believe, that if there' , were a total repeal of
these restrictive laws, there would be twenty catholic mem-
bers returned from Ireland to this House ? But I would take
it according to the population of the country, and say, "that
there were 'four-fifths catholic. If, contrary to all the pri n


-ciples that govern elections, the Mere population Wei:e
the only thing' to be considered, this Would, perhaps, give
about eighty members. Now, the House consists . ot 658
members. Supposing it possible that eighty catholics woe


I805.] ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. 599


to be returned out of that number, though I do not think
there would be more than twenty, could they be dangerous
to the establishment of this country ? If the doctrine of vir-
tual representation be well founded, would it not add to the
true virtual representation of this country, if three-fourths of
the representatives were catholics? 'When people push the ar-
gument to extremes, and say, that this place is not repre-
sented, and that place is not represented, but that you have
those in the House of Commons who represent the whole
community; that the trading and commercial interests, and
the military, naval, and learned professions, are all duly re-
presented; that you have the landed country gentlemen,
statesmen, and politicians, soldiers, sailors, merchants„ law-
yers, in fact, that you have a kind of virtual representation
of all the people of the country, — I deny it: you have not
the representation of the Roman catholics — you want what
you are afraid . to have— you ought to desire what they
pray for you ought to have that complete virtual rep •e-
sentation they offer you. I have been speaking for the public
benefit — I now speak for the benefit of the catholics. You
say to the people of Birmingham, Sheffield, and Manchester,
it is true, you send no members to the House of Commons,
but you have members of parliament who. are connected with
the commerce and manufactures of those places. It is true;
but still it is my wish to have a more direct representation.
The fact is, the'virtual representation is undoubtedly a vital
principle in the constitution of the country. If any particular
class of men are excluded, you have not a real virtual repre-
sentation, in the sense the word representation ought to-be
understood, implying a sympathy and fellow feeling between
the representative and the persons represented. The very
substance of representation is, that the members of
ment should not be able to tax their.:constittionts without tax-
ing themselves. Now I say that there is no feeling of this
kind with respect to the catholics. Upon the same principle
you .deprive the electors of Ireland from electing Roman ca-
tholics — you deny the corporations the right of choosing
them, for they cannot be at the head of any corporation. I
want to know upon what principle it is that corporations are
to be denied the privilege of appointing catholics to the office.
of mayor, or other superior offices? Corporations being come
posed chiefly of protestants, there is not 'much danger, as some.
would say, or not much hope, as others would say, of the Ca-
tholics being ndmitted. Is not this one of those additional'
instances in which you keep the stigma without any practical
advantages? You fix an unnecessary stigma on the catholics;.
and an unnecessary stigma is, of all modes of punishment, that


4




6c;c5 ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May 14.
which is most grating to the people, and destructive of the
unanimity and concord necessary for the safety of the state.


I shall now say a very few words as to certain objections to
the matter of this petition. I think the Objections to the
jacobites are given up ; but it is said, that there is something
in the nature of the Roman catholics that makes it dangerous
to grant them the same privileges as protestants. Some have
stated, that there is a general impropriety and incongruity in
persons of different religious principles acting together.
should like to know the theory on which this arguments rests.
Why should two men sitting in council together, instead of
inquiring, how the forces of the country ought to be disposed
of, and where the fleets ought to be sent, whether to Jamaica
or any other part of the West Indies, fall to a discussion about
transubstantiation, and dispute because one adores the Virgin
Mary and the other adores the saints? Is it to be supposed
that justices on the bench, when they try criminal or civil
points, will quit their duty in order to commence idle con-
troversies on religious points? There are countries where
the law and religion arc one and the same thing; where, con-
sequently, there would be an impropriety in separating them :
-but I want to know, upon what principle it is that men may
not act together, who• entertain .strong differences on reli-
gious creeds. This stands upon theory only, for the practice
is against it. Is there in Europe one state or country that
does not employ persons of different religious persuasions in
the highest oflices?• In former times even this was the prac-
tice, when there was snore heat and animosity. When bigo-
try was at its height in France, when it led Henry IV. to
renounce the protestant and embrace the catholic religion, in
order to obtain the throne of that kingdom, did it ever occur
to any one to suggest, that the Duke de Sully, his minister,
who was a protestant, could not advise with him about public
affairs? Was he ever accused of being a bad minister, because
he was a protestant ? No one ever objected to M. Neckar,
the minister of the late king of France, because he was a pro-
testant. Does not the Emperor of Germany employ Pro-
testants in the various important affairs of his dominions?
The government of Vienna is entrusted to Prince Ferdinand
of Wirtemberg, a protestant. It is true, the bigotry of Fre-
derick the Great could not induce him to employ protestants
as his ministers or officers; but perhaps it was because he
could not find any that were fit for his service. What is the
case with Russia ? The first employment in the service of the
Emperor of Russia is filled by Prince Sartoriski, whose re-
ligion is that of the Greek church. With regard to the Swiss
cantons, the employment of protestants has been, perhaps, less


805.] ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
6o1


than in other places, but they have frequently filled offices
of government jointly with the catholics. In the democratic
canton of Uri and some others, the catholics are more nu-
merous; a proof that they may take an active part in the ad-
ministration of a popular government, without any evil conse-
quences resulting from the opinions they profess. In the canton
of Appenzcl the catholics and protestants arc half and half.


The pretender being gone, and all other questions of ra-
dical difficulty removed as to him, we now come to another
person — the pope. I wish to know whether, during the
last two hundred years, the pope has been a person to be
feared? If he has, it can only have been in one way, by his
oppression of the catholics. Long before the period of the
Revolution, all the political influence of the pope, with respect
to this country, had ceased. His power became afterwards
absolutely insignificant, and during the whole of the question
between the houses of Stuart and Brunswick, it was notorious
that the pope could not stir one Roman catholic in Ireland.
But it is stated that the persons principally concerned in
the rebellion of 17 9 8 were Roman catholics. I have my
doubt that the catholics had their share in that rebellion.
But were they instigated by the pope? What ! by the pope,
while he was in a state of servitude and humiliation ? Did
the pope, while he looked to this country as almost his only
support, wish to overturn our government, and prevail on
the Irish catholies to follow Messrs. O'Connor, Emmett, and
M'Nevin ? This fear of the influence of the pope, when he
has no power to do us harm, and when he cannot do us good,
even though he wished it, is perfectly absurd. It is an alarm
which can be accounted for on no rational principle. Has
the recollection of the proconsuls, sent by the Ca sars to
govern this country, left such an impression upon us, as to
make us dread every thing that conies from Rome? But it
is said, Bonaparte has obtained an influence over the pope,
the pope governs the Irish priests, and thus Bonaparte will be
able to attach to him the catholics of Ireland. Without can-
vassing the question of the inclination of the pope to serve
the views of Bonaparte, I shall admit that the French go-
vernment will willingly employ his influence so far as they
can obtain it. That the great enemy of this country would
be very willing to make use of such an engine to serve his
purposes in Ireland, I have no doubt. But how will he
use his influence? If you repeal these laws, you will have
nothing to fear from that quarter; but if, on the contrary,
you persevere in your restrictions, the way in which the in-
fluence so much dreaded may be exercised can only be this:
the Irish catholics will be told, " an equal participation of




6o2 ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May 1 4 .
rights was held out to you ; but, instead of granting your
just claims, instead of affording you the relief and protectionyou were promised, you are still stigmatized as outcasts.
You have, therefore, now only to look to a catholic emperor
for assistance, and through him you may expect the eman-
cipation which has been denied you." This is the language
which may be used if you are determined to persist i fs your
present. system. But, in the other alternative, what influence
can the pope have? Suppose he were to direct the priests
to take care that none but Roman catholic members were
chosen for Ireland; and suppose this influence were so far to
succeed as to bring a considerable proportion of Roman Ca-
tholics into this House among the representatives from Ire-
land, is it likely that Bonaparte would find many friends
among these Roman catholic members? If there were eighty
members Roman catholics, it would be an extravagant sup-
position indeed to say that even three of them would be so
dead to all sense of honour and duty, so blind to the interests
and happiness of their country, as to become the instruments
of Bonaparte. Of the influence to be used in this way by
the pope, surely no reasonable person can entertain any
serious apprehension. Is it possible to look forward to any
circumstances under which that influence can become dan-
gerous? Great men, it is said, have long views; but some
views are so long, that my sight, I must confess, cannot reach
them. It has been said of our system of government, esto
per petua ; but I should desire no better -security for the power
.and the constitution of this country lasting for ever, than that
they should continue until either a pope or a Bonaparte could
obtain a majority in this House.


I must now turn to another view of the question. It has
always been maintained, that the differences between the
Roman catholics and the protestants are not merely religious,
but political. It is on this ground the oaths the former are
required to take are defended. The oath is framed against
the authority of a foreign priest, though that authority is
merely spiritual. But if it be any objection to the Roman
catholics, that they deny the king's supremacy, what do you
say to the opinions of the people of Scotland. ? The presby-
terian religion, which is established in Scotland, does not •
admit the king to be the head of the church ; and surely the
presbyterian doctrine and discipline of it are at least as
repugnant to the established religion of this country, as the
opinions of the Roman catholics are! Yet Scotland, with tins
.presbyterian church, forms a part of the United Kipgdon•
But do mot the. Roman -catholics.swear, that no temporal
tconsequences Whatever follow from the doctrine they hold


ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
603


on the question of supremacy ? They do swear; and yet it is
said we cannot believe them. What ! are they not to be
believed on oath, because they are Roman catholics? To
make such a declaration, is to display to my mind either
great malignancy of heart, or an extraordinary deficiency of
understanding. But, if the declaration were made on the
part of the government of this country, it would be an avowal
of wickedness beyond any thing I eau conceive. 'Would you
say, that you proposed and passed acts of parliament to
persuade them to swear that which you would not believe
when sworn ? Would you own that you wished to seduce
them into perjury? The moment you find that a man attends
mass; he is therefore a Roman catholic, and therefore no
longer to be believed. To add to the absurdity, you frame
another oath, to keep out of parliament those very persons of
whom it is said you must not believe that which' they swear.
This is really at once insulting to the understanding and the
feelings of mankind. It is more than a generous and in-
genuous mind can be expected patiently to bear.


I shall not pretend to enter into controversial arguments
on the question of doctrine. Indeed, that is a subject re-
specting which I own I have neither sufficient learning nor
patience to fit me for the discussion ; but if I had as much
of both as the lord chancellor of Ireland, I am sure his
example would deter me from undertaking so arduous a task.
WhenI consider the state of religion in Europe, of which,
perhaps, three-fourths of the inhabitants are Roman catholics,
I am astoni:±led that such opinions respecting that religion
can be maintained. Is it possible that any man can be found
bold enough to say of three-fourths of the inhabitants of
civilized Europe, that they are not to be believed upon oath?
Such an assertion implies, that


• Roman catholic nations are
not only incapable of the relations of peace and amity, but
unfit for any of the relations of society. The existence of
any such maxim supposes gross ignorance and barbarism in
the people among whom it prevails. Every enlightened mind,
every man who wishes well to his country, must treat it with
scorn and indignation. When a bill was some time ago in-
troduced respecting the army, I objected to the oaths it
contained, on the ground that it was not fit to ask any man
to take them ; but it will be extraordinary indeed, if those
Who insisted upon prescribing these oaths should now turn
round, and declare, that they will not believe them when
taken. When the petition I had the honour to bring into
this House was first read, the clear and temperate statement
of the case which it contains appeared to make a deep im-
pression. I think I could sec gentlemen say to themselves,




604 ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May 14.
this is not the way I used to think of the Roman catholics.
No, certainly not. It is not the way in which many used
to think, because they had received false impressions from
persons who perhaps had an interest in misleading their
judgment. But it has since been whispered, that the lan-guage of the petition signifies nothing, because it is subscribed
only by laymen. I can assure the House, however, that
there is no ground of any suspicion on this account. The
reason why there are no names of priests in the petition is,
because it relates only to civil rights; on this account only,
clerical persons thought it would be improper in them to
subscribe it. The oath, however, has been taken by all the
archbishops, bishops, and most of the priests of Ireland; and
if it be thought necessary that it should be taken over again,
it will be taken. I, however, have always regarded the ad-
ministration of the oath as improper, and I recollect having
some difference of opinion with a late noble friend of mine
on this subject, I mean Lord Petre, from whom, had he sat
in the House of Lords, the established religion of this country
would have had nothing to fear, for he would have only
obtained more frequent opportunities of displaying his sincere
attachment to the constitution. His lordship defended the
oath, because it afforded the Roman catholics an opportunity
of publicly contradicting the calumnies reported against them.
I said, that that might be an object with him, but it was none
with me, and that I did not wish such a law to remain on
our statute book. Having stated that I entirely disapprove
of this oath, I must, however, inform the Houser that I have
at this moment, in my pocket, a letter from several of the
archbishops and bishops, declaring that they have taken and
signed the oath. They also declare, that it contains nothing
contrary to the doctrines or filith of the Roman .catholic
religion, and that it is to be taken equally by the clergy and
the laity; but foreseeing that the filet of the oath being taken
might be questioned, certificates have been sent from the
courts before which it was administered. It is in these courts,
therefore, a matter of record, and the authority of the fact is
completed.


It is said, that since the Roman catholics have already got
so much, they ought not to ask for more. My principle,
however, is directly the reverse. It is natural that men in
a state of servitude should wish to recover their rights; that,
they should desire to assimilate their rights with those of
their fellow citizens. It is their • ambition to be no longer
slaves, but to become, men. They ask this; and until they
obtain all they want, they have comparatively gained nothing.
It would be to shut your eyes to all the evidence of history,


igo5.] ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
605


to suppose that you could impose upon men an obligation
not to look forward to the complete acquirement of their
rights; from the moment they begin to enjoy any of them,
they must aspire to be on a parity with the rest of their
fellow citizens. The better argument is, that having already
conceded so much, what remains is nothing to you to give.
Nothing can be more absurd than the conduct which is
adopted towards the Roman catholics. You admit the lower
orders into the army and navy, and you prevent the higher
from rising to that rank they might expect to attain. Yon
put arms into the hands of men, who, if the French were
to land, might be, from their want of knowledge, influenced
to do you mischief; and yet you will not trust Lord Fingal,
or his brother, with a command. You rely, it appears, with
confidence, on the loyalty of the ignorant and the prejudiced,
and you intrust them with arms. Of which class of Roman
Catholics are you afraid; the higher, or the lower? You do
not trust those whose property gives them an interest in the
country, and whose superior knowledge and information teach
them to prefer the government of their country to every
other; but you rely on the ignorant and uninformed. You
place in the hands of the latter the means of insurrection,
and you take from the former the power they would have,
by their influence, to repress commotions. But though you
have little to give, what they have to ask is to them immense.
You have left them much power to do you mischief, and have
afforded them little means of doing you good. Though they
requireonly qualification fbr corporations, parliament, and offices
under government, the object is of great magnitude to them.
It is founded on the great principle of requiring to be placed
on a footing of equality with their fellow subjects. Equality
of rights is one of the principles which is dearest to the human
heart, and it is one which the laws of Great Britain, to
their immortal honour, sanction. In whatever country that




principle prevails, it produces the greatest of blessings. That
country is truly happy, where, in the language of a great
modern poet,


Though poor the peasant's hut, his feasts though small,
He sees his little lot the lot of all;
Sees no contiguous palace rear its head,
To shame the meanness of his humble shed."


If a people are placed in a state of humility and degradation,
can it be said, that to get out of that situation


• is to them
nothing? But the confusion which prevails on this occasion
has arisen from mixing politics and religion, two things which
it has always been the wish of the wisest philosophers and




6o6 ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May £4,
statesmen to keep distinct and separate. It is with great
concern I have heard, that some eminent members of the
established church are hostile to the proposition I have to
make; but I have some consolation in reflecting, that 1 have
with me a person who enjoys as high a reputation as any
member of the church, and . for whose character I have the
highest. veneration and respect — I mean, 1)r. Paley. He
observes, " it has indeed been asserted, that discordancy of
religions, even supposing each religion to be free from any
errors that affect the safety or the conduct of government,
is enough to render men unfit to act together in public
stations. But upon what argument, or upon what experience,
is this. assertion founded? I perceive no reason why men of
different religious persuasions may not sit upon the same
bench, deliberate in the same council, or fight in the same
ranks, as well as men of various or opposite opinions upon
any controverted topic of natural philosophy, history, or
ethics." Dr. Paley considers restraints only justifiable on
account of political opinions, which may affect the safety of
government. In endeavouring to state the case of ex:elusion,
he says " After all, it may be asked, why should not the
legislator direct his test against the political principlcs.them-
selves, which he wishes to exclude, rather than encounter
them through the medium of religious tenets, the only crime
and the only danger of which consist in their presumed
alliance with the former ? Why, for example, should a man
be required to renounce transubstantiation before he be ad-
mitted to an office in the state, when it might seem to be
sufficient that he abjure the pretender? There are but two
answers that can be given to the objection which this question
contains: first, that it is not opinions which the laws fear
so much as inclinations, and that political inclinations are
not so easily detected by the affirmation or denial of any
abstract proposition in politics, as by the discovery of the
religious creed with which they, are wont to be united:
secondly, that when Men renounce their religion they com-
monly quit all connexion with the members of the church
which they have left, that church no longer expecting assist-
ance or friendship from them ; whereas particular persons
might insinuate themselves into offices of trust and authority,
by subscribing political assertions, and yet retain their pre-
dilection for the interests of the religious sect to which they
continued to belong. By which means government would
sometimes find, though it could not accuse the individual/
whom it had received into its service, of disaffection to the
civil establishment, yet that, through him, it had cow:aims
sated the aid and influence of a.powerful station to a party


II


£805.-t
ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION*.


607


who were hostile to the constitution. These answers, how-
ever, we propose rather than defend. The measure certainly
cannot be defended at all, except where the suspected union
between certain obnoxious principles in politics, and certain
tenets in religion, is nearly universal; in which case it snakes
little difference to the subscriber whether the test be religious
or political; and the state is somewhat better secured by the
one than the other." 1 shall only take up the time of the
House a few moments in reading another passage, in which
it is clearly stated, that restrictions should not be continued
after the circumstances in which they have originated have
ceased. " Thus, if the members of the Romish church for
the most part adhere to the interests, or maintain the right,
of a foreign pretender to the crown of these kingdoms, and
if there be no way of distinguishing those who do from those
who do not retain such dangerous prejudices, government is
well warranted in fencing out the whole sect from situations
of trust and power. But even in this example it is not to


jpopery that the laws object, but to popery as the mark ofacobitism; an equivocal, indeed, and fallacious mark, but
the best, and perhaps the only one that can be devised. But
then it should be remembered, that as the connexion between
popery and jacobitism, which is the sole cause of suspicion,.
and the sole justification of those severe and jealous laws
which have been enacted against the professors of that re-
ligion, was accidental in its origin, so probably it will be
temporary in its duration; and that these restrictions ought
not to continue one day longer than sonic visible danger
renders them necessary to the preservation of public tran-
quillity." Whatever, then, may be the opinions of certain
members of the establishment, I am happy to have the op-
portunity of quoting one authority, which all who love
profound learning, exalted virtue, and sound morals, must
respect.


With regard to the time when these restrictions ought to
have been removed, if there could be one time more proper
than another, it was when the union was carried. To that
'measure I certainly was hostile, and I have seen nothing
since which could induce me to alter my opinion; but whe-
ther that opinion be right or wrong, is nothing to my present
argument. The period at which the introduction of this
measure would have been most proper, doubtless, was the
moment when the expectations of the Roman Catholics were
raised, when hopes were held out to them, or when they
'themselves at least conceived that •the hour of their eman-
'cipation was arrived, and that they were to be placed on an
equal footing with their -fellow citizens. It has been said,




6o8 ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May 14,


however, that on this subject an argument may be drawn
from practice which is sufficient to silence all reasoning.
No one is a -greater friend to the opposition of practice to
theory than I am, when that opposition is justly applied.
In the present case it is observed, that when the severe laws
existed against the Roman catholics m Ireland, all was tran-
quillity, even during the rebellions of the years 171 5 and
1745 ; but that, after the concessions had been granted, the
rebellion of 1 7 98 broke out, in which the Roman catholics
joined for the purpose of subverting the monarchy and the
constitution. If this argument were true, it would go only
to this; that restrictions are good for keeping mankind in a
state of tranquillity; and, therefore, you ought never to
release them from severe laws, never restore them to their
rights. This argument goes against every principle of liberty,
and is only calculated to support the cruellest tyranny and
most degrading slavery. Its present object is to deprive of
their rights one-fourth of his majesty's subjects, and to place
them in a state which must greatly embarrass the power and
resources of the empire. Surely if there be a malady in our
situation, this is it. But were there no circumstances
besides the concessions, which rendered the situation of the
Irish catholics very different in the year 17 9 8, from what that
situation was in the reign of George II.? Is it supposed that
the operation of the French Revolution had no influence
on their minds, as well as on the minds of men in other
parts of Europe? The circumstances of that Revolution may
fairly be allowed to have tended to make them swerve from
their allegiance, not as catholics, but as subjects. Is there
not also some allowance to be made for the connexion formed
between the Roman catholics and the protestants of the north
of Ireland, a people of enlightened minds, powerful from thei .
talents and their industry? But the people of that part of
Ireland, who are well known not to be much attached to the
established church, considered the catholics to be like them-
selves, persecuted. The year 1798 opened new views, and
to the union which was then formed between the protestants
and the catholics ought the activity of the latter in the re-,
bellion to be in some degree ascribed. There is also another
little circumstance which ought not to be passed over, when
it is attempted to be argued that nothing intervened between
the concessions in the year 1793 and the rebellion. pia
nothing happen during Lord Fitzwilliam's administration?bDid that noble lord not conceive that he was acting the best.
for the peace of Ireland, by holding out to the catholics the
hope of what they called their emancipation ? Doubts have
been entertained whether he was authorized by governme4


I8o5.]
ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. 609


to encourage such hopes: but that has nothing to do with
the present question; that the expectation did exist, is a fact
of the greatest importance. When that ncble lord was.
recalled, when a motion was made on the subject in parlia-
ment, and negatived, the Roman catholics saw with grief the
cup they bad looked at with so much eagerness suddenly
dashed from their lips, at the moment they at last expected
to enjoy it. Would not any man say, that if he were a
catholic, this would have been to him a great cause of de-
spondency? The history of the country showed the melan-
choly consequences of that disappointment; for it was not
until after the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam, that a connexion
began to be formed between Ireland and France: and there
is every appearance that the disappointment then experienced
by the Roman catholics, drove some of them into this
connexion.
.


We have been told, that it appears from certain inquiries.
made by the Irish parliament, that catholic emancipation
and reform were not considered by the people in some parts
of Ireland as of more value than a bit of paper or a drop of
ink. I believe this may be the fact; but was it not also
stated by the same persons, that, had these measures been
granted, they were aware that they must have given up all
hope of doing what they call good, but which we call mis-
chief? All those who wished to revolutionize Ireland were
greatly alarmed during Lord Fitzwilliam's administration,
and were perfectly convinced, that, if the measures to be
proposed were carried, their intentions would be completely
defeated. I have been told, that at the time of the union no
distinct promise of redress was made to the Roman catholics,
and I believe it. No minister could promise that which
depended upon the determination of parliament. The right
honourable gentleman opposite to me could have done nothing
more than promise to recommend their claims: but did not
the catholics believe that through the measure of the union
they would obtain complete redress? Did they not rely on
the promised support of the right .honourable gentleman?
it was on that ground they gave all their weight to the pro-
position of -the union; and 1 know some who have felt less
kindness to the catholics on that account. The persuasion
was certainly general, that the catholic claims would be fully
granted after the union, and a learned gentleman, (Dr. Dui-
genan,) now hostile to diese claims, appears to have promoted
this persuasion. In a letter written by that learned gentleman
to an honourable friend of mine, whom I am happy to see
a member of this House, (Mr. Grattan,) there is a paragraph
to this purport; " if we were one people with the British


VO L. VI.
P R




6to ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION. [May 14,


nation, the preponderance of the protestant interest in the
whole state would then be so great, that it would not be nev
longer necessary to curb the Roman catholics by any restraints
whatever." Now, when the Roman catholics found the • •e opinion
stated b y the learned gentleman, who had been through the
whole of his life against granting them redress, must they net-
have expected that the passing of the union was to be the
signal for the redress of their grievances? In a printed speech,
too, (printed in a way which might entitle it to be referred
to as some authority,) of a noble lord who once filled the chair
of this House, (Lord Sidmouth,) this passage of the learned
gentleman's . letter is referred to in support of the opinion,




no restraints would be necessary after the union. If,
then, that noble lord drew this inference, what conclusion
was it to be expected the Roman catholics themselves should
form ? At that time, then, it appeared to be thought that
the repeal of these laws would be a measure of safety to the
British empire; and yet they remain in the same situation.
I state nut this as any reproach to the right honourable gen-
tleman opposite to me; but what must the catholics think,
when they find that those who most favoured the union, and
who, on account of the measures then in contemplation, held
up that event as eminently calculated to promote the well-
being and security of the British empire, opposed their hopes?
What the circumstances were, which prevented this question
being then brought forward, I shall not attempt to discuss,
because I do not pretend to know them; but I must observe,
that its delay might have led to the very worst consequences.
The catholics, however, hove shown by their conduct that
they are guided by principles which merit the highest en-
comium. Their disappointment has not made them resort to
popular clamour or tumult. They have brought forward
their claims in the most constitutional manner, and they rely
with confidence and respect on the justice of this House.
The presenting of the present petition is a pledge of the
propriety of their conduct; and though my motion should
not this night be acceded to, they will still have gained some-
thing, by having an opportunity afforded them of stating
their opinions. A great and respectable part of the people
of the empire are now in favour of their claims. The people
of England will soon be completely convinced of the pro-


,priety of granting them all they .demand ; and antiquated
prejudices, which it is my lot to expose in i8os, and \chic°.
were doubtful in 1669, will be completely done away. lece


Hitherto I have said nothing of a kind of mysterious
tion which has been lately started. I have been aske
" Why do you bring on this question when success is II"


8o5.3 TioNAN CATHOLIC PETITION
611


possible ?" Another tells me, " I like the measure as well as
you; but why press it when there is no chance of success?"
Why, I know of no circumstance that should render it impos-
sible to carry this question in this House; and there would
at least be a little better chance of success, if all those gentle-
men who are in favour of the measure would favour us with
their votes. I have been told that the repeal of these laws is
conceived to be contrary to his majesty's coronation oath.
Now, Sir, were I to propose any thing which would be a
violation of his majesty's coronation oath, I should


not only
think myself a disloyal subject, but a dishonest man. But
how absurd would it be to suppose that parliament, who made
that oath for the king to take, should understand it to bind
him to refuse his assent to future acts which they might pre-


,
sent to him The oath, as framed by parliament, was admi-
nistered to King William, and statutes now proposed to be
repealed were passed after he had taken the oath. Now, if it
could be maintained that the oath has any reference at all to
legislative measures, still I would ask, how can it affect acts
passed after it was framed ? Such a doctrine appears to me
calculated to produce the greatest confusion, and completely
to overturn the constitution. If it were true, the government
of this country would no longer be a mixed monarchy, but
we should be in a mixed state of anarchy and confusion. But
it is supposed that the coronation oath would be violated, be-
cause the effect of the measure now proposed would, it is
said, be to overturn the church establishment of this country.
These laws were, however, made against dissenters of all
descriptions ; and yet the church was not overturned by our
union with the presbyterians of Scotland. Was the coron-
ation oath made to bend in the one case, and not in the
other ? According to this new doctrine, Queen Anne must
have broken her coronation oath when she consented to the
union with Scotland, and his present majesty must already
have violated his coronation oath more than once, when he
sanctioned the acts passed in his reign for the relief of the
Roman catholics. His majesty did not refuse his assent to
these acts; on the contrary, he did what I am sure he always
will do; he followed the advice of parliament, exercising at
the same time his own judgment. While I glory in the name
of an Englishman, I never can say that any thing which par-
liament thinks fit to be done cannot be done. If it had been
the practice that nothing was to be moved in this House, but
such questions as gentlemen had a reasonable hope of carry-ing, the country would have been deprived of most of the
laws which now constitute its greatest pride and boast; for thebest


measures have in general been at first strongly resisted,.
R 2




61 2 ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION Grays4;


and have been rendered ultimately successful, by the per.,
severance of those who introduced them, and the good sense
of parliament. But I never can believe that any branch of
our constitution will forget' ita duty; and I am sorry that the
report of an opinion having been given on this subject, should
be circulated — said to be given, too, by one who has a lehis..


-


lative voice, but who has no right to pronounce any opinion
on matters pending in this House. His majesty's lawful au-
thority is one of the corner stones of the constitution ; but
while I shall always exert myself to support that lawful autho-
rity, I cannot be silent when I see interested persons endea-
vouring to extend that influence beyond its due bounds. It
would be a (Treat and incalculable evil, were it to be established
as a maxim in this House, that no person must move any
measure, however great its benefits might be, if it were once
whispered about, that it could not be successful, because an-
other branch of the constitution was hostile to it. I could
wish to see any sacrifice made for the gratification of the
crown, except the sacrifice of the welfare and security of the
country. The man who countenances such a sacrifice is not
a loyal subject ; is not one who loves his king, but one who
flatters him in order to betray him.


Having now troubled the House at so much length, I shall
only briefly state a few of the minor points which the subject
presents. There may be some persons who would not wish
to repeal the whole of the restraints upon the Roman ca-
filches, but who would wish to do away a part : I must
therefore expect, that all who view the question in this way
will concur with me in voting to refer the petition to a com-
mittee, in order to discover what part of the laws it may be fit
to repeal. Among these minor points will also fall to be con-
sidered the situation of the army. A catholic may serve in the
king's army in Ireland: he may arrive to the rank of a ge-
neral, but not a general on the staff. If, however, he comes.
to England, he is liable to pains and penalties on account of
his religion. Surely those who would resist the question in
the whole, must at least allow that this is a case in which
some relief ought to be given. I am also assured that the
common soldiers are restrained from the exercise of their re


-ligion sometimes in Ireland ; but almost always in Englanth
Some alteration is also necessary in the law of marriage . . I
Mention these circumstances as forming parts of the question
which ought to induce such persons as think them worthy of
redress, to go into a committee, whatever -their objections tt)
the general question may be. I have stated, that the 'disabi-
lities under which the catholics suffer are of two sorts; 00.117,
those which consist of restrictions on the Ring's prerogative),


II


58051 nonAN- CATHOLIC PETITION'. 6x


and those which restrain the choice of the people. I think that
Roman catholics ought, like all the other subjects of his ma-
jesty, to be enabled to hold places under the crown, and to
sit in parliament; but I understand there are some who would
consent to a proposition for rendering them accessible to
offices, who would not agree to give them seats in parlia-
ment. Those who entertain this opinion, surely cannot re-
fuse to go into the committee. I understand there are others.
who, on the contrary, think it advisable that Roman catholics
should be excluded from offices in the executive part of go-
vernment ; but that, on the ground of virtual representation,
which I have stated, they ought to be admitted to seats in the
House of Commons. I own that I think this opinion the
most rational of the two ; and surely those who entertain it
cannot object to the motion I am about to make,


I have now stated most of the general grounds on which
think the repeal of the laws complained of, advisable ; and
I shall now very briefly mention a few of the advantages which
may be expected to result from such a measure. A great pro-
portion of the last and of the present session has been conr
sunned in considering of the best means of recruiting the
army, and of increasing our local and disposable force.


r


without disparaging the modes recommended by my right
honourable friend (Mr. Windham) on this bench, or the right
honourable gentleman opposite, for attaining this desirable
object, I will venture to say, that no scheme whatever of parish
recruiting, limited service, or militia volunteering, can equal the
effect of this measure. All these schemes are tardy and trifling,
compared to the prompt and large supply which would be
afforded by Ireland, were the laws against the Roman ca-
tholics repealed. You now receive into your army Irish Ro-
man catholics; but what might not be expected from the zeal
and gratitude of a nation famed for warmth of temper and
generosity, fondly exulting in a triumph obtained over illibe-
rality and prejudice? All your other supplies would be little
rivulets compared to this great ocean of military resource.
But you are not merely to consider the number, but also the
nature of the circumstances under which you would obtain the
recruits. Look at the situation of France, our lcirtaidable
enemy; is she formidable for her finances, her naval power,
heiacommerce, or any other resource except her population ?
It is from the disproportion of our population to hers, that
we can have any thing to apprehend. We are weak only in
our ,population. 'Why, then, do we hesitate to adopt a measure
which would afford ,us so powerful a reinforcement ? In this
age foreign 4onquests lave ,been less :valued than they were in
former tunes; but if conquests deserved to be ever so much


Ia R 3




6 14 ROMAN CATUOLIC PETITION. [May 14.
esteemed, what conquest could equal either the true glory
or solid advantage of re-acquiring one-fourth of your popu_
lation ? What prospect can be more consolatory tha i


lthaat
of thus adding to your strength that which cannot now be
called a part of your strength, but may rather be n amed
part of your weakness? The protestant ascendancy has been
compared to a garrison in Ireland. It is not in our


d


power to
add to the strength of this garrison, but I would convert the


r.7)besiegers themselves into the garrison. How c an you - sup
pose that these four millions of men should feel themselves in
the situation of the other twelve millions, which form the po-
pulation of the British empire ? They know that they fiirnish
you with recruits, from whom you may with reluctance choose
serjcants : they send you officers, but they know they can
never rise to the rank of generals. They supply you with
sailors, who never can advance to any eminence in their pro-
fession. How different would our policy be, how different
our situation in a military point of view, were the means I
propose adopted ! There would be no differences, no discon-
tents; but all the subjects of the empire, enjoying equal rights,
'would join with one heart and one mind in its defence. I
am sanguine in believing, that these equal rights and laws
will be granted to the Roman catholics. I am even sanguine
enough to believe, that many bad consequences which might
be expected to result from a refusal of them, will not follow
the rejection of this petition. I rely on the affection and
loyalty of the Roman catholics of Ireland; but I would not
press them too far, I would not draw the cord too tight. It
is surely too much to expect that they will always fight for a
constitution in the H.enefits of which they are not permitted to
participate. No p,v!ananent advantage can arise from any
measure, except tin t which shall restore them to the full en-
joyment of equal rignts with their fellow citizens. In the pre-
sent situation of Europe, and when the designs of the enemy
are considered, Ireland is a place where the active exertions
of this country may be required ; and this is one of the
grounds on which I am anxious that the motion I am about
to propose should be acceded to. -Whatever may be the fate of_
the question, I am happy in having had this opportunity' 01
bringing it under the consideration of the House ; and I shall
detain you no longer, but to move, " That the petition be refer-
red to the consideration of a committee of the whole House.'


The motion gave rise to a debate which lasted two days.
was principally supported by Mr. Grattan, Dr. Laurence, Mr. w11-
ham Smith, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Windham, Sir John Newport,
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald, Mr. Dillon, Mr. John Latouche,


i8os.] MR...GREY'S MOTION, &C. 61;


Hutchinson, and Mr. Hawthorne ; and opposed by Dr. Duigenan,
Sir 0. Hill, Mr. Perceval, Sir W. Scott, Mr. H. Addington, Mr.
Foster, and Mr. Pitt.


At five in the morning, the House divided on Mr. Fox's
.3-notion.


Tellers. Teller s.
, Attorney-GeneralYEA S 5 Earl Temple/s I 24 .---DUES 336.Mr. Dillon Sir G. Hill.


MR. GREY'S MOTION ON THE STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.


June 20.


THIS day Mr. Grey moved, " That an humble address be pre-
sented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased


not to prorogue his parliament until he shall have been enabled
to afford to this House more full information with respect both to
his majesty's relations with foreign powers, and to his views and
prospects in the contest in which his majesty is engaged." After
the motion had been opposed by Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Can-
ning, and supported by Mr. Windburn and Earl Temple,


Mr. Fox said, he could not reconcile it to his feelings to
give a silent vote upon a question so intimately connected as
the present with the rights and privileges of parliament, and
the policy of the country ; be should, however, endeavour to
bring what he had to submit to the House, within as short a
compass as possible. The first point, he observed, was, that
by the three last loans this country had added to the capital of
its debt not less than eighty millions of money. This was a
matter of grave consideration, considering the former burthens
of the country to which this was an addition, notwithstanding
the progress of the consolidated fund, and the salutary system
of raising war taxes, and providing for so large a portion of
our expenditure within the year. With regard to the army
of this country, he should touch upon it slightly, because that
subject was soon to be discussed at large by an honourable
friend of his, who was well qualified for that undertaking
(Colonel Craufurd); and if that honourable gentleman had
been thought sanguine as to his plan in that object, yet it
must be allowed that the right honourable gentleman 'oppo-
site to him (Mr. Pitt) was also sanguine in his plan, for he
had made it one of the great foundations of his attack on the
late administration, with part of wind} he afterwards joined,
that they had not sufficiently provided for the permanent


xt R 4




616 mt. GREY'S MOTION ON [June 20.
establishment of the army, and he had brought in a bill to.
supply that defect: that bill had been tried, and without
being very sanguine as to the effect of the plan of his he_
nourable friend, he might venture to predict, that if it should
be tried, it would be as efficient as the bill of the right ho_
nourable gentleman for the permanent increase of our imilitary
force; indeed, the bill of the right honourable gentleman,
coming from a person so extraordinary in talents, reminded
him of what was said by Dr. Johnson of the poem of Ossian.
Being asked, from what man upon earth but its author, could
it be expected? Did he know any, other man upon earth
capable of writing such a poem? 44. 0 yes," said the doctor,
46 many men, many women, and many children 1" He believed
this to be the true description of the bill of the right honour-
able gentleman for the permanent improvement of the army.


Upon the subject of Ireland, the noble lord (Castlereagh)
had agreed to much of what had been stated by his ho-
nourable friend in the opening of this debate, and he agreed
also with them both, that the state of Ireland was good in.
some respects; but when he used the word good, he used it
in the sense to express the idea that Ireland was considerably
amended from the condition it had been in : and here he must
bear an honest tribute to the merit of Lord Hardwicke, to
whom much of the improvement of the condition of the people
of that country was owing. This he should have no difficulty
in saying, although there were points in the conduct of that
noble lord, as lord-lieutenant of Ireland, towards a relation of
his tiGeneral Fox) while there, which met his disapprobation.
However, he could not help lamenting that Lord Hardwicke,
as he understood from pretty well grounded rumour, was not
supported by that cordiality and union, in the administration
of that country, which, was essential to carry into effect any
of the best plans of any government. He understood that
some part of' the system o'f that noble lord was opposed by
another noble person, who had distinguished himself by his
opposition to the Catholics (Lord Redesdale) : much good was
not to be expected from any government where perfect har-
mony did not subsist aamon all its members. He had had the
honour to present to the


ng


a petition on behalf of the
catholics of that country, the prayer of which had been re-
jected by a large majority,. He wished to know, whether any
thing short of that prayer was intended to be granted to that
body of persons, containing almost all the population of that
country? He had no hesitation in saying, that it behoved go-
vernment to do all that could be done short of granting -the
prayer of that petition. He wished the prayer to be granted
altogether; but, after the sense of parliament had been so fully


1805.] THE STATE OP PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 617


expressed, he could not expect government to have the same
view of the subject. It was not for him who thought the
prayer ought to be granted, to point out what other mode
should be adopted ; but it behoved those who opposed that
prayer to look into the case, and devise the best remedy that
appeared to them to be applicable to it, for it was not to be
expected that the people of that country would be content
with every thing remaining exactly in its present condition.
He recommended this subject to the most serious attention
of government.


He now came to the business of the king's message, and
to that which was connected with the speech from the throne,
to which he wished the House particularly to attend. The
king by that speech told parliament that he had received an'
offer of negotiation from the French government; that,
situated as his majesty was, he thought proper to say, that
he was engaged in confidential intercourse with a certain
great power, meaning the Emperor of Russia ; that he
thought it right to apprise that monarch of the overtures
which had been made by France to his majesty, and that he
must consult with him before he could return any answer to
France. Now, he would ask, what was the meaning of that
communication ? He was not now delivering an opinion
what the answer of his majesty ought to be. It was natural
enough that his majesty should not make any answer to
France until he had consulted with the Emperor of Russia,
possibly until he had agreed upon a treaty with that monarch;
but then it was not so likely a way to negotiate with effect
for peace, if his majesty had to say to the enemy, 46 Stay
until I can see whether I shall be able to enter into a treaty
with another power, for the purpose of our carrying on the
war jointly against you." Now, if his majesty's answer to the
overture of France for peace was capable of two constructions,
it was not wonderful if this was the construction the French put
upon it. The question then was, when that period was to come
when the House of Commons was to have information upon
that subject ? When so proper to ask it as when the appli-
cation was made by the crown for money to carry on the
plan, whatever it may be, which refers to that very subject?
The great and fundamental principle of our constitution was,
that the House should demand all necessary,


,explanation of
the executive government in these important public con-
cerns, and no time was so proper, because none was likely to
be so effectual, as when they were voting money to support
the system of government ; this was the time when the advice
of the House of Commons to the throne was most season-
able, and likely to be xttost respected. This was one of the




618 MR. GREY'S MOTION ON [June 2


right uses which the House had to make of its power over
the public purse, and ministers should, when they came for
money, explain this matter to the House. And here he must
remind the House, that the right honourable gentleman,
when this subject was mentioned at the opening of the budget,
and the sum of five millions was reserved for the probable
use of subsidies, candidly stated, that no member of the
House was to be understood to have pledged himself to any
opinion whatever, not even to the length of granting the
money, or any part of it, unless he should approve of the
proposed application. The House of Commons did not
point out any thing concerning the pecuniary arrangement of
this matter; and the right honourable gentleman had then
hopes of being able to give the House some information upon
this subject in the course of the present session. He should
now ask the right honourable gentleman when he could make
the communication? If he could not answer now, the next
point was, since the answer cannot be made at the present
period of the session, let the session be made to 'continue
until the answer comes ; since the answer cannot be made to
accommodate the session, let the session be made to accom-
modate the answer. He was sure the right honourable gen-
tleman would give the House the information if it was in his
power ; if he could not do so now, he should allow the House
to sit until he could. But this mode of asking the minister
to continue parliament together until he could give it some
information, was holding forth to the public that government
was entitled to a mark of want of confidence in the House !
Want of confidence was the constitutional character of that
House. It was a mark it ought to set upon every minister
of the crown, it was a mark he was entitled to ex officio,
and more especially under the present circumstances; for
here was to be a large sum of money, perhaps five millions,
to be proposed to be voted, without any information as to its
probable application. There was a distinction between the
present case and the former vote of credit of three millions.
At the time of that vote we were at war; so we are now, .bat
then we were engaged in a continental war, and it was then
expressed what the money on the vote of credit was to be
applied to — that of carrying on a continental war, a war
frequently discussed and approved of by the House ; but n ow
the House did not know what this money was for, nor could.
the House have any guess what it was for. The House knew
nothing but what was to be collected from the king's speech
at the opening of the session, and the message of yesterday
but the message was not clearer than the,speech,-and perhaps
it could not at present be clearer ; bgrAien the remedy for


805.3 'rim STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 619


that was for parliament to remain together until information
came. But it was asked, where the difference was between
prorogation, when


-
parliament might assemble in fourteen


days, and an adjournment for that time ? The difference
was, that one of these matters was in the power of the mi-
nister, the other in the power of the House of Commons;
which reminded him of a scene in an excellent comedy,
wherein the father takes out a bond, and the son says, " Let
me hold it in my band." The father says, " What signifies
it which of us should hold it — neither of us shall hold it."
And then he puts it in his pocket. So it was in this case.
The minister asked, what difference there was between an
adjournment and a prorogation ? The difference was, that
he had the bond in his pocket, if there was a prorogation.




He then took notice of the power of parliament to refuse
to confirm the engagement of' his majesty, in the event ofo
its disapproving of the terms of such engagement, for tile
purpose. of showing how much right the House had to demand
explanation before it assented to the granting a vote for a
large sum of Money; and he apprehended that the govern-
ment of foreign powers was not so destitute of information of
tile nature of opr constitution, as not to be fully aware that
all the engagements of our government were subject to the
approbation or rejection of parliament; and therefore the
argument, that this motion, if agreed to, would diminish the
respect of foreign powers for our executive government, had
no force in it.


Mr. Fox then proceeded to observe on the want of con-
fidence in his majesty's ministers particularly. The right
honourable gentleman could not expect him to have much
confidence in him. He certainly had no particular con-
fidence in the right honourable gentleman, but he had no
difficulty in saying, that his want of confidence did not arise
from personal considerations, but from his public character
as to the situation in which he stood ; — the situation in
which he stood with reference to the principle on which the
present ministry were formed ; for the right honourable gen-
tleman was sometimes supported by those with whom he could
not agree before his administration was formed, and with
whom he could scarcely agree now. It was a system of dis-
putes, forced resignations, and rapid reconciliations; but they
now adhered together from a principle which was a very
strong one, although it had no cordiality whatever in it,
namely, that one party could not remain without the adhe-
rence of the other; but when he saw no other principle of
cohesion among these persons, he must be allowed to observe,
that such an administration was not entitled to any peculiar




62o alit. GREY'S MOTION, &C. [June 2o.
confidence ; and without speaking with disrespect of those
who composed the present administration, he might fairly
say, that, independent of the splendid talents of the right
honourable gentleman himself, there was nothing in the pre-
sent administration to entitle them to any peculiar confidence,
and the House ought to take care not to give too much con-
fidence to them. He was the more confirmed in the necessity
of this caution from what had appeared in the course of this
session, by which he was convinced it was morally impossible
for the present administration to expect any extraordinary
share of confidence. Who, said, Mr. Fox, can expect, that
we should give extraordinary confidence, or that foreign na-
tions should give any confidence at all, to such an admini-
stration as the present ? I am, perhaps, less sanguine than
others, with respect to the


feel
that could be done by the


best administration; but I fe l myself sure, that an admini-
stration formed to comprehend all that is respectable for
rank, talents, character, and influence in the country, affords
the only chance of safety; and I trust, that nobody can sup-
pose that any individual, (however he may disapprove, as I
certainly do, the unconstitutional principle of exclusion,)
would suffer any personal object of ambition, if ambition he
had, to stand in the way of the formation of such a ministry.
If the present executive government did not feel this truth, it
was time that the people told them of it. What might be the
effect of such a combination he knew not, but this he knew, that
without it there was no chance of' this country weathering
the storm, and encountering its perils. By this he did not
mean that the country would be annihilated, but that the
prosperity of it would be at an end.


Mr. Fox then proceeded to observe on the conduct of govern-
ment with regard to Russia, and thought ministers ought to
have put a short question to that court, whether they would
consent to our treating with France, or whether they thought
we should refuse altogether? And if Russia refused to answer
that question, with all his partiality for Russia, the negoti-
ation would not have been worth having without that explicit
answer. He then entered into our general policy. He pr e


-ferred the alliance of Russia to that of any other power; but
confessed he saw no prospect of a speedy termination of our
contest by that alliance alone, without the assistance of other
powers. He disapproved of the conduct of France in the
late war as well as in the present, but lie disapproved, if pos-
sible, still more Of nny government pursuing under the title
of indemnities a system of partition of states, making some
republics, some monarchies, and annihilating the political
existence .of others, without regard lo moral rectitude or to


18o5.] CONTINENTAL ALLIANCES. 621
the common feelings of mankind, which considerations had
more influence on the affairs of the world than some politi-
cians were aware. The partition of Poland, the seizure of
Holland, the subjugation of Switzerland, and the division of
states, by the agreement of some, and by the fraud and
rapacity of others, had done more to destroy the confidence
of mankind in each other, than all the other misconduct of
the powers put together. In private society, when men lost
their confidence in one another, the compact' was dissolved.
The same rule applied to states, for they were only aggre-
gates of individuals. He recommended to all the powers of
Europe a system of justice and moderation, as the only means
of putting an end to the evils under which we labour. He
recommended a - general congress, and that these principles
should be prevalent in its deliberations. He knew he excited
a smile when he recommended these notions, because they
were thought chimerical ; but those who thought so had found
their own system had failed, and they had never tried his.
Having dwelt on these and other kindred topics for some
time, he concluded with giving his hearty concurrence to the
motion of his honourable friend.


Mr. Fox was replied to by Mr. Pitt ; after which the House
divided on Mr. Grey's motion :


Tellers.
Tellers.yEA s f Mr. Calcraft 1


Secretary at War 261.
t Mr. W. Smith
1 °*—N.°Es - Mr. Huskisson


.1..e.••••=7.71n
..01111•1011...M=M1


CONTINENTAL ALLIANCES,


June 21.
XII It. Pitt having this day moved, "That a sum, not exceeding


1 3,5co,00d. be wanted to his majesty to enable his majesty to
enter into such engagements, and to take such measures as
the exigency of affairs may require,"


Mr. Fox observed, that after what had passed in the course
of the preceding debate, both the right honourable gentleman
and the public would expect that he should give a direct ne-
gative to this vote. The right honourable gentleman had said
that it VaIS not necessary for him to enter into any further ex-
planation on the subject now. He had said the preceding
alight that it was impossible, and if he still adhered to the
seine declaration it would be equally valid now as then. This




622 CONTINENTAL ALLI ANCES. [June 2 T,
circumstance he adverted to only to slim that the necessity
of explanation had not been superseded by any communi-
cation to the House. When a minister came to that House
for a vote of money, for purposes which he left them to the
wildest flights of imagination to conjecture, and said, - that it
was his duty not to give information, he should reply, that it
was his duty to give no money. No one would deny, that
it was desirable that we should have as extensive co-operation
as possible, but the House had not expressed an opinion on
that subject. After what had passed, it was a matter of less
delicacy to express an opinion on hypothesis, as to the pur-
pose for which the vote was called for; whether on the hypo-
thesis that it was to enable us to make terms of peace, or on
the hypothesis that it was to engage the powers of the conti-
nent to co-operate with us in the war. On this head he should
state briefly his sentiments. It seemed to be the prevailing
opinion, that to engage with Russia alone would make our situ-
ation more difficult than at present, unless Prussia or Austria
could be included in the confederacy : of the first of these
powers co-operating there was less hope, of the latter more,
though he thought-fear a more proper term than hope in the
latter case. Without a sure prospect of efficient co-operation,
he should feel most unhappy if he were to suffer this vote to
pass without entering his pretest against it, without warning
this country and Europe against the consequences. No man
could tell what would be the issue of war; but when they
looked to the past, he asked, with what rational hope such - a
war as the late one could be begun, and with what rational
ground of success? Was it intended that, at the present pe-
riod of the year, when Austria was unprepared, any operations
should be undertaken, or only that every thing should be
prepared to begin the war in the next campaign? If Austria
were to move, and the consequence should be, what was not
improbable, productive of serious disasters, what would become
of our hopes of continental connections ? what of the liberties
of Europe ? what of the prospect of setting limits to the power
of France, justly and rationally considered already too formi-
dable? - Under such circumstances, and on such information,it became wise men to consider well before they should grant
any money where the chances were a hundred to one against
success.


But it was the manner in which the matter- was proposed
that weighed with him. If we had remained at peace, as he
wished we had, and Austria, Russia, or Prussia, had applied to
us for assistance in their quarrel, no man would be more
ready than himself to agree to grant it. But when we had
dashed singly into the war, and, as had been argued the pre-


I0


I805.3
CONTINENTAL ALLIANCES.


623
ceding night, for the purpose of rousing the powers of Europe
by our example, which we could only exhibit in the case of
invasion, that put the question on a different footing. He
disliked the phrase " to rouse Europe," because the attempt
to do so had the effect of producing a disinclination to co-
operate with us. Every man knew that the character of the
British government in Europe was, that it was actuated by
selfish motives in instigating the powers of the continent to
war for British interests. He hoped that this opinion was
false; but if we should attempt to instigate the powers of the
continent to a renewal of hostilities, whilst they wished to re-
main at peace, whether for the purpose of regaining strength
or recruiting their resources, or for whatever other reason, it
would alienate the affections of Europe more from us than
any inefficiency that could take place in the conduct of the
war. If Austria alone were to embark with us in the war,
she could not use her exertions with advantage to herself or
to us. The interests of both would be identified, could not be
separated, and consequently neither could enjoy the full benefit
of her exertions. This- was a ground for thinking that the
result could not be favourable. Austria would be driven to
the alternative of concluding a treaty under the same circume
stances which obliged her to conclude the treaty of Leoben
and Luneville, and to submit to such terms as France should
dictate ; for it was contrary to all experience and history to
suppose, as had been argued, that being engaged to Russia
and England, she would be bound to hold out to the last. No
country could be obliged by any treaty to hold out to its de-
struction, and lie down under its ruin. There was another
alternative which Austria might adopt, which was, to hold
out to the end ; and might riot that conduct endanger the
total extinction of the second power in Europe? If she
chose, as he thought she would, the former alternative, we
should then be driven, after all our efforts and expence, either
to make a separate peace, or to carry on a defensive war.
He hoped we should not be reduced to that Alternative, and
would not discuss what should be our conduct in such a case.
It would be highly indiscreet in us to form an alliance for the
purpose of a continental war with Russia and Austria, and
it would be still more indiscreet in Austria, for Russia and
Great Britain would be in a far different situation from that
of their ally. If such an alliance could be formed with Russia,
Austria, Prussia, and the other powers of the continent, as
would gain their good will, without attempting to rouse 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.




624 CONTINENTAL ALLIANCES. [June 2r.
'His reason for not voting for the- sum proposed was, because


no answer had been returned to the propositions of the French
government. Time obtaining had lapsed for obtainin the con_
sent of Russia ; and the


enough
of withholding explanation from


the House on the subject must be, that they would not place any
confidence in his majesty's ministers. Was any reputation
gained by not returning an answer? Were they not, until
some explanation should be giVen, in the odious situation of
having left a pacific proposition six months unanswered? But
it had been said, that a few days after the proposition, a mes-
sage had been sent to the French council in terms not very
complimentary to the British government. Certainly we
should not be the foremost to notice such expressions, for even
the message under consideration contained language not very
complimentary to the French government. Ile was ignorant
what propositions his majesty's ministers intended to make,
but he had no doubt that they ought to be kept secret till
they should be made known at a genera! congress. If it was
their intention to propose terms through Russia to France, he
took that opportunity of entreating his majesty's ministers,
that they might be reasonable. He did not mean that the
propositions should be exactly what they would insist upon
as their ultimatum, but that the difference between the ex-
tremes of what they should at first demand, and what they
should afterwards-consent to accept, should be as small as may
be. If the propositions should be such as Europe should
think unreasonable, or as this government, if in the place of
the French government, would think unreasonable, to be ac-
cepted ; if they should be such only as were to form the
grounds of a manifesto on the part of powers previously de-
termined on war, though you should engage the continent
.a new war, you would -alienate the disposition of Europe from
you more then if no terms should be proposed at all. fie
spoke thus generally, because totally in the dark on the su


and guided eely by conjecture. 'Whatever we might say
of our disinterestedness, whatever of our moderation and for-
bearance, Europe had a -different opinion, which might possi-
bly be Wrong ; but we had a character to gain or retrieve on
the occasion. Let the answer to be returned contain propo-
sitions reasonable in the extreme, if such a contradiction of
terms could be used; the effect would be, that they might be
accepted, and that would be the only mischief that could re-
sult proposing them. We should then make aseparate
peace, and could any man contend that there was conipara


-tiTely any great difference as to the object, Whether a peace
was to rbe concluded by Great Britain and Russia, or voli


1306.1 VUNE1tAL HONOURS TO fun. PITT. 625


terms that Would be approved of by all Europe, and which
all the powers of Europe would possibly guarantee ? But
if the terms should not be accepted, as some gentlemen were
disposed to think that there was no inclination in the French
government, though for himself he had some doubts of it,
whilst the leaning of his mind was the other way, this would
strengthen the argument of those who urged the necessity of
rousing Europe: The more reasonable the terms that should
be rejected, the greater would be the indignation of Europe
at their rejection. He could not help thinking that Europe
had been, through peace and war, against us and with France.
France had now given us an opportunity to conciliate all the
world, and we should manage it. It was not enough that The
indignation .


of Europe was excited, we should persuade the


j
continent that we had reason on our side, and that the in-
ustice was on the part of France. He was glad of this op-


portunity of stating his opinion on the general question. As
to the particular subject now under discussion, he had nothing
to add to what he had stated at the outset, that he could not
agree to it. If it was a vote of credit, that would not be novel.
When last war a subsidiary treaty had been arranged with
Russia, a sum of money had been voted, but then the House
knew for what object. In the present case they were told
nothing. They did not know whether it was intended for
Austria or Russia, or for purposes of enabling us to procure
terms of peace, and they had no security that it would not be
applied in the manner the House was most apprehensive of.
He should therefore give the vote a decided negative.


FUNERAL HONOURS TO THE MEMORY Os' MR. PITT.


January 27. I 8e6,


ON the 23d of January 1806, died the right honourable WilliamPitt. On the 2 7 th of the same month Mr. Henry Laseelles
moved, " That an humble address be presented to his majesty that
his majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions, that the
remains of the right honourable William Pitt be interred at the
public charge; and that a monument be erected „in the collegiate
church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of that excellent
statesman, with an inscription expressive of the public sense of so
great and irreparable a loss; and to assure his majesty that this
House will make good the expellees attending the same." The
motion was seconded by the Marquis of Titchfield, and supported


VOL. VI.
S S




626 FUNERAL HONOURS TO
[Jan. 27.


by Lord Louvaine, Mr. J. H. Browne, Mr. H. Addington, Sir R.-
Buxton, General Tarleton, Earl Temple, Mr. Ryder, Mr. Rose,
Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Wilberforce. It was opposed by Lord
Folkestone, Mr. William Smith, the Marquis of Douglas, Mr.
Windham, Mr. Ponsonby, and Mr. Fox.


Mr. Fox rose and spoke as follows: — I do not know, Sir,
that I ever rose to address the House in the performance of
my public duty with more pain than I do at this moment.


therefore hope that I shall experience some indulgence, if,
before I. give my vote on this question, I should shortl y


state
the .reasons which compel me to oppose the motion now
proposed by the honourable gentleman under the gallery.
The honourable gentleman says, that all party feelings and
political animosities should be laid aside on the present occa-
sion. I assure him, that I do lay aside all party feelings. If
I had any such at this time, they would lead me to vote with
the honourable gentleman and not against him. At the
same time I do not pretend to undervalue party feelings.
When a person is convinced that the opinions which he holds,
if acted upon, would be productive of benefit to his country,
but finds that the only chance of having them acted upon
depends upon his connection with a party, and the support
which by this means he may acquire, it is his duty to have
recourse to a party. He may consider this fairly and justly
as the best mode of effectually- carrying into 'execution those
measures which, in his estimation, are the most calculated to
promote the public prosperity and happiness. But at present
it is obvious to every one, that all the motives which are
likely to influence me, as far as party is concerned, arc on
the side of the honourable gentleman, and would lead me to.
vote with him. The honourable gentleman must see, that if
the gratification of party feelings, if ambition, if private in-
terest, were my objects, the most proper course for me to
-pursue, would be to give an immediate assent to this motion.
Upon such a supposition, every one must be sensible how
Much it would be my interest to conciliate, as much as possi-
ble, all those who had the greatest respect and value for
Mr. Pitt, to drown, if it could be done, the very remem-
brance of our political contests, and endeavour to gain, by
every means that could be imagined, their support and favour.
This would be the line of conduct which party views would
suggest, as the most proper to follow. But this is not all :
there are other motives of no less weight, that strongly re-
commend the same mode of proceeding. For many of the
supporters of the present motion I have a personal friendship/
which would make me reluctant to oppose them on such an


18o6.]
THE MEMORY OF MR. PITT.


627


occasion ; but, most of all would it be my interest, as well as
my inclination, not to cross, in this instance, the views of the
noble lord near me (Earl Temple) and other near relations
of the deceased minister, with whom I am now likely to be,
for the remainder of my life, inseparably connected. The
vote, therefore, may be considered as one not given to gratify
any feeling of private animosity, or of public ambition, but
extorted by a most painful but imperious sense of duty. In
every party point of view then, whether my object should be
to conciliate those who have the warmest attachment to the
memory of Mr. Pitt, or to join with those who are already
my political friends, my plan would be to support the honour-
able gentleman's !notion. I will go farther, and say that if feel-
ings were to be allowed to direct our conduct on this occasion,
the right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Rose) might
address to our feelings arguments much more powerful than
those which he has just now addressed to our reasons. I, Sir,
have been engaged in a long course of opposition to the per-.
son for whom public honours are now claimed. I may say
that I have been considered, and perhaps it may be called an.
honour, as his rival. But I do assure the right honourable
gentleman and his most zealous admirers, that, during all
that time, I never opposed him from a personal motive.


I will go still farther, and say, that another motive would
lead me to support the motion, and that is the respect which
I entertain for many of Mr. Pitt's personal qualities. Great
qualities he certainly had, in no ordinary degree, in private
life; and great qualities also in points connected with his ad-
ministration. I -do not think this a proper time to enter upon
the particular acts of that administration ; but in the measure
for the establishment of a real sinking fund, he had always
my warmest support, and I freely declare my opinion, that
this has done a great deal of good to the nation, and, that
for this, therefore, the country is highly obliged to him.
There is another quality for which he deserves great praise.
No minister was ever more disinterested, as far as related to
pecuniary matters. His integrity and moderation, in this
respect, are confirmed by the state of his affairs when he died.
I allow that a minister is not to be considered as moderate
and disinterested, merely because he is poor during his life, or
ut his death. But when I see a minister, who has been in office
above twenty years, with the full command of places and
public money, without any peculiar extravagance and waste,
except what might be expected from the carelessness that
perhaps necessarily arose from the multiplicity of duties, to
which the attention of a man,. in such a situation, must be
directed ; when I see a minister, under such circumstances,


S S




628 • FUNERAL HONOURS TO [Jan. 2 7 ,
using his influence neither to enrich himself, nor those
with whom he is, by family ties, more peculiarly connected,
it is impossible for me not to conclude that this man is disin-
terested. I must say, that he has, with regard to private
emolument, acted with a high degree of integrity and mode-
ration. In the course of the long administration of Mr. Pitt,
all that he took for himself, was, I believe, the wardenship of
the Cinque Ports. This was certainly in him highly disinte-
rested; and his disinterestedness in this respect shines with
the more lustre, when we consider the mode in which, ac-
cording to report, this reward has been since disposed of. I,
therefore, Sir, have every reason, from my intimate friend-
ship and near connection with the living, and from my own
private feelings and respect for the dead, who undoubtedly
possessed many estimable qualities, to give my support to the
motion now before the House. I might be led to this by
another motive. If personal vanity had any weight with me,
I might from this consideration concur with the honourable
gentleman. I might by this means gain a great deal of ap-
plause, without any loss whatever in a party point of view,
and I do not pretend to be insensible to praise any more than
others. But there are cases, Sir, in which our public duty is
so clear and imperious, that no desire of praise, no motive of
personal respect, no wish to gratify our friends, nor any
other consideration, however powerful, can possibly enable us
to dispense with it, and in my conscience, Sir, I believe this
to be one of those cases. If the marks of respect were such as
did not compromise my public duty in the compliance, no
person would join in it more cheerfully and more eagerly than
I would. If, for instance, it had been proposed to remedy
those pecuniary difficulties which Mr. Pitt had incurred in the
course of his political life ; if it had been proposed to do
those things for his relations in that way, which his own ac-
knowledged disinterestedness did not allow him to do; if it
had been proposed to supply the deficiencies of his own for-
tune, I would most willingly consent that all this should be
done in the most liberal manner. But it is a very differerit
thing to be called upon to confer honours upon Mr. Pitt as an
4 4 excellent statesman." We ought not, Sir, in such cases,
to be complimented out of our consent, if our public du;
commands us to oppose the grant of such honours. Pub'
lie honours are matters of the highest importance, be-
cause they must more or less influence posterity. They ought
not, therefore, to be conferred lightly, but only where merit
is clearly seen and acknowledged. I could farther add, Sir,
that the manner in which the honourable gentleman opened
this business, would lead me to give his motion my 'support ;


IS


1806.] THE MEMORY OP MR. PITT. 629


but when public honours are solicited, it becomes me to consult
neither my interest nor my feelings, but to adhere rigidly and
conscientiously to the line of public duty. I need not add any
thing to what has been said respecting honours conferred upon
military men and statesmen, by my right honourable friend
on the bench near me, (Mr. Windham,) who has so ably and
clearly pointed out the distinction between the two cases. As
little need I acid to what has been said by my honourable
friend on my right. hand, (Mr. Ponsonby,) respecting many
eminent public men, on whom no honours of this kind were
conferred, and for \\limn none were solicited, though their
talents, virtues, and good intentions were unquestionable. It
is not to particular acts only that we are to look ; we must
consider the general effect which these acts produce, with a
view to the public benefit. Certainly, when I look at Lord
Chatham's monument ; when I find the inscription bear-
ing upon the face of it the grounds upon which this mo-
nument was voted ; when I find it there stated, that he had
reduced the power of France to a very low ebb, and raised
the prosperity of his country to a very high pitch ; I must say,
that this case can never be compared with that of Lord Chat-
ham. I must say, that the country at present is reduced to
the most dangerous and alarming situation — a situation
which might call for any thing rather than honours to be con-
ferred upon him, who had the direction of the measures which
brought it to this state. The right honourable gentleman
(Mr. Rose) has told us, that in the case of Lord Chatham
there was the most perfect unanimity, though there were
many in the House who had opposed his political principles.
Why, so there was ; but then, Sir, the merit was clear, and
the inscription related to points on which there must have
been the most perfect unanimity; and though certainly during
the seven years' war there was a strong opposition, yet his merit
on certain points, to which the inscription referred, was al-
lowed by the bitterest of his antagonists.


But, though no consideration ought to induce us to betray
our trust in conferring the public honours, yet at the same
time there are cases in which the effects of this might be less
sensibly felt. For instance, in cases where we should be
compelled to oppose particular acts of an administration, we
might still make a clear distinction between what was good
and what was bad. In the present case I shall not enter upon
the particular acts. In deciding upon this question, I should
be unwilling to take any one particular act of the administra-
tion of the late minister. I always thought, and do still think,
that an unfortunate system of government has pervaded the
whole of the present reign; and I firmly believe that system


s s 3




630
FUNERAL HONOURS TO MR. PITT. [Jan. 27,


to have been the cause of all the disasters and disappointments
which the country has experienced, almost uniformly through-
out the whole course of it. Being of this opinion, how can I
conscientiously say that he who followed this system was an
" excellent statesman ?" • 'To that system I ascribe the loss of
the American colonies, and I cannot but impute blame, in-
stead of praise or honour, to all the ministers who have sup-
ported it. The Earl of Guildfbrd who conducted the war, in
the event of which those colonies were lost, was a man of very
uncommon talents, and of very amiable qualities. Towards
the latter part of his life, I was connected with him, not only
in political opinions, but also in habits of the most intimate
friendship, But, notwithstanding all that, I have no hesita-
tion in declaring, that if, at the decease of that nobleman,
any motion similar to the present had been made in this
House, much as I esteemed and loved him, and still more
clearly as I loved his son, the late earl, I should have been
the very foremost to oppose it. Thinking as I do of the
disastrous effects of that system, which I before stated to have
prevailed throughout the present reign, I cannot but accuse
the late minister of having, I will not say criminally, for the
expression might sound, in some ears, too harsh, but, most
unfortunately, lent his brilliant talents and his commanding
eloquence, to the support of it. In having done so, and
with the knowledge he must have had of it, I esteem him
the more culpable, as without that splendour of mental en-
dowment, which enabled him to throw a veil over the hideous
deformity of the system alluded to, I am fully persuaded, that
it could not have resisted the attacks made upon it, and con-
sequently could not have existed, and spread its baneful in-
fluence half so long. No man can be more desirous than I
am, to bury in oblivion the remembrance of these contests .
which we were so long engaged. This I sheaved plainly
enough while he was alive. But, I cannot consent to confer
public honours, on the ground of his being an " excellent
statesman," on the man, who, in my opinion, was the sole,
certainly the chief supporter of a system, which I had early
been taught to consider as a bad one. Thinking thus, it
cannot be expected that I should so far forget my public duty,
and the principles which I have uniformly professed, as to
subscribe to the condemnation of those principles, by agreeing
to the motion now before the House. But, I defy the ho-
nourable gentleman, I defy any person who differs from me,
defy any one of those who are most desirous of misrepresen t


-ing my motives, to point out any possible feeling of interest or
ambition, that could induce me to oppose it. My motive Is
a sense of public duty, which would be violated," if L were tt




18o6.] LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S APPOINTMENT, &C.
631


agree to confer honours, on grounds which to me do not
appear to warrant my concurrence.


Sir, I am sorry that this motion was ever made. I said
so before, and if those who were most nearly connected
with Mr. Pitt by the ties of blood, and who may be supposed
to be most interested in his glory, and the respect that is to
attend his memory, had been consulted, I believe a mode
might have been struck out, by which a suitable mark of re-
spect might have been conferred on him, without reducing
us to this dilemma. Now, however, it is too late. The thing
is done, and cannot be helped, and nothing remains for us
but to do our duty, however much our feelings may


• be hurt
by the performance.. I must therefore conclude with saying,
that, in my opinion, my public duty calls upon me, in the
most imperious and irresistible manner, to oppose the motion;
and that, however painful to my feelings in every respect it
may be, I must do my duty.


The House divided on Mr. Lascelles' motion :
Tellers. .erslleT


.i..E,,,s I Mr. H. Lascelles 1 258. —No Es Visc. Folkestone n 9.
- Marg. of Titchfield Mr. W. Smith 89.


LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S APPOINTMENT TO A SEAT IN THE
CABINET. 'k"


March 3.


IN consequence of the appointment of Lord Chief Justice El-lenborough to a seat in the cabinet, Mr. Spencer Stanhope
this day moved the following resolutions : " That it is the


* In the course of the month of February 18o6, a complete change of
ministers took place. The following is a list of the new administration :
President of the Council — Earl Pitzwilliam.
Lord High Chancellor—Lord Erskine.-
Lord Privy Seal — Viscount Sidmouth.
First Lord of the Treasury (prime minister)— Lord Grenville.
First Lord of the Admiralty Lord Howick (late Mr. Grey).
Master-General of the Ordnance—Earl of Moira.
Secretary of State for the Home Department —Earl Spencer.
Ditto for Foreign Affairs — Right Hon. Charles James Fox,


ss 4




632 LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S APPOINTMENT TO [March 3.
opinion of this House, that it is highly expedient that the func-
tions of a minister of state and of a confidential adviser of the ex-
ecutive measures of government, should be kept distinct and
separate from those of a judge at common law.' z. That it is the
opinion of` this House, that those members of his majesty's most
honourable privy council, whom his majesty is advised to direct to
be habitually summoned, and who are so summoned to that com-
mittee or selection of the said council, which deliberates upon
matters of state, and which is commonly known by the name of
the cabinet council, are, and are deemed to be, the confidential
ministers and advisers of the executive measures of government.
3. That the so summoning to the said committee, or cabinet
council, a lord chief justice of England, to sit and deliberate as a
member of the same, is a practice peculiarly inexpedient and un-
advisable, tending to expose to suspicion, and bring into disrepute
the independence and impartiality of the judicial character, and to
render less satisfactory, if not less pure, the administration of
public justice." The resolutions were supported by Mr. Canning,
Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Perceval, and Mr. Wilberforce ; and op-
posed by Mr. Bond, who moved the other orders of the day, Earl
Temple, Mr. Fox, Lord Henry Petty, and Mr. Sheridan.


Mr. Secretary Fox rose and spoke as follows:
With regard, Sir, to the question before the House, I


smust say, that the introduction of it is to me matter of sur-
prise. It is the first instance that I have ever heard of such
a thing as the cabinet council becoming the subject of debate
in this House. I never knew the exercise of the king's pre-
rogative in the appointment of his ministers to be brought
into question upon such grounds as have been stated this


Secretary of State for the Department of War and the Colonies — Right
Hon. William Windham.


Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench— Lord Ellenborough.
Chancellor and Under-Treasurer of the Exchequer — Lord Henry Petty.
President of the Board of Controul for the Affairs of India — Lord Minto.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster — Earl of Derby.
President of the Board of Trade — Lord Auckland.
Secretary at War — Right Hon. Richard Fitzpatrick.
Treasurer of the Navy Right Hon. Richard Brinsicy Sheridan.
Joint Paymaster-General — Earl Temple, Lord John Townshend.
Joint Postmaster-General — Earl of Buckinghamshire, Earl of Carysfort
Secretaries of the Treasury — Right Hon. Nicholas Vansittart, John


King, Esq.
Master of the Rolls— Sir William Grant:
Attorney-General — Sir Arthur Pigott.
Solicitor-General — Sir Samuel Romilly.
Lord Lieutenant— Duke of Bedford
Lord High Chancellor —Right Hon. George Ponsonby
Chief Secretary Right Hon. William Elhot of Is.eland,
Chancellor of the Exchequer — Right Hon. Sir J.Newport


18o6.] A SEAT IN THE CABINET.
633


night. No doubt, if any one should be appointed to the
privy council, or to any select committee of that council,
against whom personal objections lay, it would be a fair
ground for an address to his majesty to advise the removal
of such person. But, where no personal objections are or
can be stated, one must hear it recommended with astonish-
ment, that a class of officers who are admitted to be perfectly
eligible to the privy council, shouN not be allowed to dis-
charge the functions of a privy counsellor —should, in fact,
be excluded from the performance of duties which, on their
admission to the privy council, they are sworn to perform.
So much as to the reason of the question. — But, in point of
fact, there is nothing in our constitution that recognizes any
such institution as a cabinet council; and the House will
recollect that this is an opinion which I expressed long since,
upon an occasion to which every man must look back with
regret (his majesty's last illness). The opinion which I then
declared, I have always held and still hold, that a cabinet
council is unknown to our law, and has in no instance what-
ever been recognized by parliament. That part of the privy
council which his majesty thinks proper habitually to consult
has, indeed, of late years, been denominated the cabinet
council. But names are of small account upon this question.
Call this council what you will — either the ministers of state
or the executive committee, still the law can know nothing
of its members but as privy counsellors.


But a few words as to the general principle. If the point
were mooted, whether the appointment of a cabinet council
at all be not an abuse of the royal prerogative, I confess there
would be much to say on both sides, and I should have great
doubts which course to take. However, it is undeniably a
body which parliament has always declined to recognise;
and their avoiding any such recognition has afforded some
advantage to the gentlemen on the other side, of which they
have very diligently availed themselves. As the existence of
a. cabinet council has never been legally acknowledged, there
is, of course, no legal record of the members comprising such
cabinet ; and we have it not in our power to state any thing
of authority upon the subject, but what may have come within
our own observation, or may have been communicated to us
by our fathers. Therefore, when the honourable gentlemen
ask us to produce precedents, applying to the case before the
House, we must answer that we have it not in our power to
produce many, and they appear to doubt even the few we can
offer. Some profess to think, that the case of Lord Hard-
wicke's being in, the cabinet while chief justice of the king's
bench, is doubtful. Certainly, there is no official authority




634 LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S APPOINTMENT TO [March 3,


to remove such doubt. It is stated by the right honourable •
gentleman (Mr. Canning) that Lord Mansfield was not known,
at a certain time, to have been in the cabinet, until it was
confessed by that noble lord himself. Although the right
honourable gentleman was wrong in this particular instance,
still his confession serves to sustain the proposition I have in
view, as to the difficulty of adducing many precedents upon
this subject. The righelonourable gentleman has frequently
spoken of the cabinet, as a responsible body. I wish that
right honourable gentleman, or any gentleman who supports
his opinion, to point oat.from what parts of our statutes, or
of the recorded proceedings of this House, he has learned
that the cabinet, or any individual belonging to it, has been,
as such, held to be legally responsible. From newspapers
and conversations abroad, the right honourable gentleman
professes to have obtained much information upon this topic.
But, upon such an occasion, would it not be somewhat more
correct to consult the statutes and the journals of this House,
than such sources of knowledge as the right honourable
gentleman has quoted? When the right honourable gentle-
man speaks of the responsibility of the cabinet, I would
recommend him to consider, whether it would be expedient
to insist upon the attachment of responsibility to the whole
of such a body, for every ministerial act; and whether - such a
measure might not be apt to endanger, if not in most in-
stances to defeat, the object of responsibility? For any act
done in my office, I am directly responsible to parliament
and the country; and perhaps it is much better for any
purpose of practical responsibility, that it should fall on one
man, than on a body; for this obvious reason, that the
difficulty of producing conviction and punishment is the less
in one case than in the other. I do not mean to say, that
it is not desirable to bring forward the charges of guilt against
all the advisers as well as the agent, if it were practicable to
prove them. The immediate actor can always be got at in
a way that is very plain, direct, and easy, compared to that
by which you may be able to reach his advisers. Many cases
are to be found in which ,parliament have tried to get at the
advisers too. But how have they tried to do so? Look at
the mode, and that mode alone will sustain my argument,
that the cabinet counsellors are not legally known. For in
the addresses presented upon such occasions as I have re-
ferred to, it will be found, that parliament apply to know
by whom any measure to which the address alludes, havemay
been advised. Surely,. then, such an application serves to


Wshe\, that the cabinet .has never been deemed a responsible:body; for, if it were, such an application would be O


A SEAT IN THE CABINET.
635I So6.]


superfluous. But, do not confine your research to those
addresses; look at the journals throughout. Examine the
several articles of impeachment on record, and you can dis-
cover no instance of any man, .or body of men, being im-
peached as cabinet counsellors. Take the end of Queen
Anne's reign. See the articles of impeachment exhibited
against the Earl of Oxford for the conclusion of the peace of
Utrecht. Lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Prior, who were the
persons principally concerned in that transaction, being then
out of the country, and beyond the reach of parliament, it
was eagerly endeavoured to implicate Lord Oxford. In
prosecution of this object a variety of shifts and expedients
were resorted to, which would have been totally unnecessary
had the cabinet council been considered a responsible body..
No, in that case it would be all easy and smooth. But, in
that case, it appears that not one word was mentioned which
could countenance the idea of any recognition of a responsible
cabinet council. And yet, among the leaders of those who
promoted the impeachment of Lord Oxford, were many very
able men, among others Sir Robert Walpole. I do not
mention this statesman for the purpose of expressing my
concurrence in the general censure which has so long attached
to his character. On the contrary, I think that he experi-
enced much undeserved obloquy, as well in the course of
his life, as since his death. But I confess, that if I were to
panegyrize that distinguished man, I should not rest my
panegyric upon his scrupulous regard to the means by which
he could reach his object, particularly when stimulated by
resentment. Another distinguished person seconded Sir Ro-
bert 'Walpole in this prosecution, and he certainly, however
estimable in other respects, was by no means remarkable for
moderation. And yet these active, able men, never, in their
zeal to achieve their purpose, even hinted at that, the esta-
blishment of which would have so much facilitated their suc-
cess, namely, the existence of a responsible cabinet council


From this, and from other circumstances I infer, that such
a council was never legally conceived to exist. Therefore, the-
first time the honourable mover proposes to the House to
recognize the existence of such a body, if you adopt his pro-
position, I ask, do you mean to stop there? For if in any
shape you acknowledge the existence of a cabinet council, -
you must go on to make such a body not alone formally,
but really known to the House and to the laws. The gen-
tlemen who support the motion may say, that it is not their
object to go so fir; but the consequence I have stated must
naturally follow the adoption of the motion. — One word
more before I . quit this part of the subject. Some gentlemen




636 LORD ELLMIBOROUGH'S APPOINTMENT TO [March 3,


may confound the functions of what is called the cabinet
council, and therefore it may be necessary to state a distinc-
tion, of which the noble lord (Castlereagh) must be aware.
Councils frequently meet, , which are assembled solely for the
purpose of affording to the members an opportunity of con-
suiting with each other, and stating their ideas on points
connected with their several departments, but with no inten-
tion of communicating the result to his majesty. Indeed, upon
many such points it would not only be unnecessary, but im-
proper to communicate with his majesty. The noble lord
knows to what I allude. On other occasions the cabinet
council meet to advise his majesty in person. In the former
case of meeting, it will not surely be pretended that any
responsibility can attach to the proceedings of this council,
or that any individual minister can incur censure for con-
sulting them, the aid of whose counsels may be useful and
necessary. Arid to whom should responsibility attach in the
latter description of meetings? To the agent, to be sure,
who executes the plan resolved on. This I maintain to be
well founded. For if this committee of the privy council
should order any project which did not meet my approbation,
and against which I should consequently protest, still if the
plan were exceptionable, my protest would not acquit me
of the responsibility that would arise from the execution of
it. This I take to be the general rule with regard to minis-
terial responsibility; and every thing that has occurred dif-
ferent from this rule, I consider in the light of an exception.
— In all the observations on the other side with regard td
-this 'subject,, gentlemen appear altogether to overlook the
privy council. They seem, indeed, to forget the existence
of that body; for in talking of 'objects of ambition they con-
fine themselves to the cabinet council. But pray is not a
seat in the privy council an object of ambition also, and is
not the circumstance of being struck off from that body a
cause of disgrace ? There may, to be sure, have been instances
where such striking off produced no disgrace or mortification
to the party concerned, but was felt rather as a source of
pride. But yet, to say generally, that a seat in the privy
council is not an object of ambition, and a removal from it the
cause of mortification and disgrace, would be wholly absurd.
Perhaps the desire of obtaining the seat is balanced by the.
fear of losing it, and this fear affords a guarantee for a privy
counsellor's performance of his duty. These counsellors are
known to the law, and it is known that if any one of them
should advise his majesty, he is responsible for such advice,
whether he belongs to what,: is called the cabinet council or
not.


i8o6.3 A SEAT IN THE CABINET.
63.1


Having said thus much on the subject of responsibility, I
shall now go into the other points connected with this ques-
tion. With regard to theoretical principles, the name of
Montesquieu has been adduced. For this writer, as a general
political philosopher, I entertain the highest respect; but the
application of his opinions to, or his clear comprehension of,
the constitution of England, I am not disposed to admit.
What Montesquieu chiefly insists upon, that has any relation
to the point at issue, is this, that the legislative should be
totally separate from the judicial functions. But will any
man attempt to apply this rule to the constitution of England ?
Will you separate the executive government altogether from
the legislative ? I hardly think that any proposition of that
sort is ever likely to be submitted to this House; and sure
I am, that none such would, or ought to be adopted. But
Montesquieu says, that the judicial ought to be separate from
the legislative inaction. Do gentlemen mean to press the
application of that doctrine to this country ? No, they cannot,
for the case of the lord chancellor immediately presents itself.
Over this case, however, it has been attempted to pass, by
the aid of a fine distinction. In order to favour the adoption
of Montesquieu, and apply it to this question, it is maintained,
that there is a material difference between a civil and a cri-
minal judge. The gentlemen who support. the motion, not
content with the theory of Montesquieu, which is not at all
applicable to the constitution of this country, have had re-
course to the authority of Blackstone, but being unable to
find any theory exactly to answer their purpose, they have,
I observe, endeavoured to pare down different theories :
still, however, they have failed. But with regard to Black-
stone, I beg in the first instance to demur to his autho-
rity as a great constitutional writer. That the municipal
law is laid down by him with uncommon perspicuity, and
that he dilates upon it with great eloquence, I gin ready
to admit. His purity of style I particularly admire. He
is distinguished as much for simplicity and strength as
any writer in the English language. He is perfectly free
from all gallicisms •and ridiculous affectations, for which
so many of our modern authors and orators are so remark-
able. Upon this ground, therefore, I esteem Judge Blackstone,
but, as a constitutional writer, he is by no means an object
of my esteem; and for this, among other reasons, that he
asserts the latter years of the reign of Charles II. (I
mean those which followed the enactment of the habeas
corpus act) to have been the most constitutional period to be
found in our history, not excepting any period that followed.
Now, it would be inconsistent with all the principles which




63 8 LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S APPOINTMENT TO [March 3.


have ever held, to regard such a writer as a constitutional
authority, much less to look up to him as an oracle. How-
ever, the words quoted from this author by the gentlemen on
the other side are, I am prepared to say, quite misunderstood.
When Blackstone says, that " a judge should not be a minister
of state," he means the word minister in the English sense, and
not in the German, Italian, or French. sense. He means, of
course, that a judge shall not administer the affairs of go-
vernment. But that is quite a different thing from the man-
ner in which the gentlemen on the other side would have it
understood or applied. The meaning of Blackstone, how-
ever, will appear to be palpably different from the construc-
tion of the honourable gentleman, when we look at the
conduct pursued during those very latter years of the reign
of Charles II. which forms the subject of his panegyric. It
will be recollected, that in the course of that period Sir
William Temple introduced a bill for the appointment of a
committee of privy counsellors, to consist of about thirty
persons. This bill was shown to, and approved of by, Lords
Essex, Hollis, Cavendish, Russell, and all the best men of
the day, and yet by this bill it was provided, that the chief
justice of the common pleas should be a member of the pro-posed committee of council. But it is clear that Blacks one'sm


eaning applied not to any thing like that which. the gentle-
men on the other side could infer. A judge belonging to the
privy council, according to the sense which these gentlemen
attach to the words of Blackstone, would incur blame; and
yet they disavow any intention of blaming a judge upon that
ground.


So far as to the principle of the appointment complained
of. I shall now advert to the practice. I am told that there
is only one instance stated on my side; namely, that of Lord
Hardwicke ; and the gentlemen are so good as to give me the
case of Lord Eldon in addition. But it has been stated, that these
noble lords held for a very short time only the offices of lord
chief justice and members of the committee of council. But the
shortness of the time was of little account. If the noble lords
thought the retention of such offices contrary to constitutional
principle, they would not surely sanction by their own acts
the violation of such a principle. There is, however, another
case, that of Lord Mansfield : that noble lord connecte d in
his own person, from 1757 to I 763, the two situations, the


junction of which is now so much complained oh I do
not mean to discuss the character of Lord Mansfield, whet
like many great men, had good and bad qualities, but cer-
tainly the odium attached to it, did not proceed from his
merely combining a scat in the cabinet with the chief justice-


A SEAT IN THE CABINET.
63918o6.]


ship of the King's Bench. This combination, however, is
said to have been much condemned by Lord Shelburne, and
to prove this, a speech of that noble lord has been quoted.
I have looked at the quotation, and the words as reported,
are absolute nonsense, and therefore, I am persuaded, never
were uttered by Lord Shelburne. They import that no
political man should have any thing to do with advising that,
which it belongs to his department to execute. Why, if this
were a fair ground of censure, it would apply to myself and
my colleagues beside me, who are every day advising, what
we are ourselves to execute. To ascribe such an observation
to Lord Shelburne is quite ridiculous. It must have been a.
misprint or some• misconception, to which Lord Shelburne,
who, like myself, spoke very rapidly, was extremely liable.—
But, to return to Lord Mansfield ; it really astonished me
to hear it remarked upon, as a new and surprising article of
intelligence, that that noble lord was so many years in the
cabinet, and that sonic gentlemen heard it this night fbr the
first time. What, that Lord Mansfield -could have been so
many years in the cabinet with such different administrations,
with Lord Chatham, the .


Duke of Newcastle, and Mr. .
Grenville, and all the time have kept snug in the corner and
be unknown. Preposterous supposition ! These distinguished
men not only knew that Lord .


Mansfield was in the cabinet,
but they approved it. If they did not, it was not to be
imagined that they would have allowed it. The gentlemen
on the other side will hardly think that if I conceived the
thing of which they complain to he a violation of constitu-
tional principle, I would be a party to it. Let them, then,
give the same fair play to Lord Chatham, the Duke of New-
castle, and Mr. Grenville.


As to the injury likely to result to the constitution, from
the introduction of a chief justice into the cabinet, I think
the bill of the present reign, which establishes the indepen-
dence of the judges, is a sufficient answer to that apprehension.
But I now come to the specific objections made to a chief
justice of the court of King's Bench sitting in the cabinet.
Now, the first relates to libels; but in reply to this, I shall
only say, that I never heard of such a thing as the propriety
of prosecuting fbr a libel being agitated in a cabinet council ;
I never witnessed any thing of the kind, and I do not find
from any of those who were in the cabinet during the period
when many prosecutions took place, that the subject of such
prosecutions was ever discussed there. Sure I am, that no
such discussion ought to take place there. The consideration
of questions of that nature properly belongs to the 'office of
the secretary for the home department, with whom it rests,




640 LORD ELLENBOROUGII'S APPOINTMENT, &C. [March
to give orders to the attorney-general to prosecute. But, the
case of treason has been alluded to. Upon questions of this
kind, Lord Ellenborough is as liable to be summoned to
attend the cabinet as privy counsellor, as he is in his present


o sy
situation. But I contend, that he is likely to be seriously
prepossessed by such previous examination as the magistrates
are, who commit prisoners, or as the judges of the King's Bench
are, when they grant an information upon the affidavit of
one of the parties, without sending the charge to the grand
juries. I have, however, no hesitation in saying, that when
a subject of high treason comes on for discussion in the
cabinet, which may be afterwards brought to trial in the
court of King's Bench, the absence of the noble lord who is
the subject of this debate from any such discussion would be
most becoming. I should certainly feel it right to absent
myself upon such an occasion, if in the circumstances of the
noble lord. But how many are the subjects connected with
war and peace, with our commerce and finances, upon which
a lord chief justice may be consulted without exciting -the
slightest jealousy or objection ! On these points, however,
it is said, you must not consult him, because if you do, you
make him a politician. And pray do gentlemen forget, that
by the very oath of a privy counsellor, the chief justice binds
himself to give such advice ? If, however, you interdict
him, as the advocates of the motion propose, what do you
mean to do with him ? 'We have heard of the dinner placed
before Sancho Pancit : if he wished for fish, that was objected
to ; and if he wished for meat, an objection was started also;
so, between the objections, poor Sancho had no dinner at all.
Just in a similar manner do the friends of the motion propose
to deal with Lord Ellenborough. The noble lord is made a
privy counsellor, but yet he is not to be consulted upon points
of law, •lest his mind as a judge should be prepossessed ; nor
is he to be consulted on points of state, lest he should be
made a politician. Thus it was proposed to destroy his func-
tions as a privy counsellor altogether.


Mr. Fox returned to the subject of the incompatibility of the
judicial and legislative functions, and asserted that such in-
compatibility was never known to have been rigidly insisted
on, but in two instances; the first of which took place under
the second government, after the commencement of the Re-
volution in France; and the second instance was with regard
to Turkey, and upon this he had read no law but in the
Arabian Nights, and other such works; according to which
it appeared, that the bashaw and the cadi must always be
separate. Adverting to the statutes which applied to
question, he quoted the acts of regency adopted on the pro-


18o6.] KING'S urssAGE ON THE WAR WITH PRUSSIA. 641'
position of lord chief justice Holt, in the reign of Queen_
Anne, and that also in the early part of his present majesty's
reign. By both these acts, he stated that a council to assist
the regent was appointed, and it was expressly provided that
the lord chief justice of the King's Bench should be one of
the council. Now, it must be evident that in such situation
the chief justice would have to perform the same functions as
Lord Ellenborough would be now called on to execute. It
appeared, in Eta, that the present cabinet was formed merely
on the model laid down for the councils of regency men-
tioned in those celebrated acts. The last act, he observed,
was supported by the vote of Blackstone, who on this night
was quoted as adverse to its principle. After recapitulating and
ably inforcing his several arguments, Mr. Fox insisted that
the proposition before the House was supported neither by
precedent, law, argument, or expediency. He took notice
of the observation, that the motion was net brought forward
as an opposition question. He assured the honourable mover
and his supporters, that he was not at all inclined to provoke
opposition to his measures. On the contrary, he should be
glad of the support of any set of gentlemen ; but if he
was to have an opposition, he particularly wished that they
might always choose such questions as that now before the
House.


The question that the other orders of the day be now read
being then put, the House divided :




Tellers. Tellers.
YEAS I Earl TempleMr. S. Stanhope} 64.




L Mr. Bond 222*—N°E3 Mr. Wallace


KING'S MESSAGE ON THE WAR WITH PRUSSIA.


April 23,


ON the2Ist of April Mr. Secretary Fox presented the followingmessage from his majesty ;
" G. It.


" His majesty thinks it proper to acquaint the House of Com-
mons, that he has found himself under the necessity of with-
drawing his ministers from the court of Berlin, and of adopting
provisionally measures of just retaliation against the commerce
and navigation of Prussia. His majesty deeply regrets this ex-
tension and aggravation of calamities, already so severely felt by-


vole Yr. T T




642 KING'S MESSAGE ON [April. 23,
the nations of the continent, whose independence and Prosperity
he has never ceased to consider as intimately connected with
those of his own people. But measures of direct hostility,
berately adopted against him, have left him no alternative. in
a moment of confidential intercourse, without even the pretence
of any cause of complaint, forcible possession has been taken by
Prussia of his majesty's electoral dominions. Deeplya jestya


chose,
this


levent affected the interests of this kingdom, his majesty
nevertheless, to forbear, on this painful occasion, all recourse to
the . tried and affectionate attachment of his British subjects. Ife
remonstrated by amicable negociation against the injury he. had
sustained, and rested his claim for reparation on the moderation
of his conduct, on the justice of his representation, and on the
common interest which Prussia herself must ultimately feel, to
resist a system destructive of the security of all legitimate posL.
Session. But when; instead of receiving assurances conformable
to this just expectation, his majesty was informed that the deter-
mination had been taken of, excluding by force, the vessels and
the commodities of this kingdom from ports , and countries under
the lawful dominion, or forcible controul of Prussia; his majesty
could no longer delay to act without neglecting the first duty
which he owes to his people. The dignity of his crown, and the
interests of his subjects, equally forbid his acquiescing in this
open and unprovoked aggression. He has no doubt of the full
support of his parliament, in vindicating the honour of the British.
flag, the freedom of the British navigation; and he will look
with anxious expectation to that moment, when a more dignified
and enlightened policy . on the part of Prussia, shall remove every
impediment to the renewal of peace and friendship with a power
with whom his majesty has no other cause of difference than that
now created by these hostile acts."


The message was ordered to be taken into consideration on the,
23 11; when


Mr. Secretary Fox rose and spoke as follows : — I am sure,
Sir, it is impossible that the message we have now heard read,
can fail to excite the strongest sensation in every temper and
disposition of mind which can exist in this House. In the
first place, when we hear it stated that his majesty has ab-
stained from appealing to his British subjects, on account of
the violence and injustice which have been done to 11..n in
the seizure of his electoral dominions, it is impossible not to
kel grateful for that kindness and mildness which his Majesty-
has always shewn to the subjects of this realm. It was with
extreme reluctance that he could consent to involve them in
war upon any ground that was not immediately and directly
connected with British interests. After the sentiment of
gratitude to his majesty for this tender consideration of NS
subjects of this kingdom, the next feeling which must be
strongly excited by the message, is a feeling of just dil dig-


• •


/8o6.] THE WAR WITH PRUSSIA.
643


nation at the conduct of the court of Prussia. r hope that
every member, while he feels this just. indignation, will, at
the same time, perceive the propriety of uniting the most
Vigorous measures, with a language temperate and moderate,
and which does not violate that respect which has been al-
ways considered as due to crowned heads, and ought not in
the present times to be departed from. Indeed, to describe
justly the Measures which have been adopted by the court
of Prussia against this country, they cannot be called the
measures of the King of Prussia; for that _sovereign is
known to be of a mild and pacific disposition. The mea-
sures must be considered such as his Prussian majesty has
been induced to adopt from the pernicious councils of the
enemies of this country. Had it been my object to condemn
in the strongest terms the decision of the Prussian cabinet,
I might have thought it necessary to lay some additional
papers on the table, but that not bring my object, I have
moved but for few. More would have been unnecessary, as
it was not my wish to give the strongest possible colouring to
the accusation that the message contains.


In order, Sir, to understand.
those proceedings which have


terminated in an outrage, unprecedented in the history of
the worst measures of the worst times of Europe, it will be
necessary to view the transaction a little earlier. The origin
of this proceeding is to be traced to the convention concluded
at Vienna, on the /5th of December, between Count Haug-
witz and the French emperor ; but when it is considered
what was the situation of Prussia, at the time that its sove-
reign concluded that treaty with France, it must be recollected,
that its means of negociation were still greater than what
it derived .frour its own sources, or its own armies. The
armies of Prussia were undoubtedly numerous and respect-
able; but was it on them alone that the King of Prussia relied,
when he was negotiating with France? Certainly it was not.
He had a strong additional support, which gave weight to his
negotiations. The Emperor of Russia, after he had left Au-
sterlitz, gave the whole direction of the Russian troops that
remained in Germany, to the command of the King of Prussia.
'This country, too, had promised him a powerful assistance by
pecuniary supplies, if •he should be driven to a war with
France. These were the means lie possessed of giving weight
to his negotiations. And how did he apply those means?
Why, to seize a part of the territories of one of those powers
which had been supporting him in that rank and situation.
which enabled him to conclude his treaty. Alter this treaty
Vas signed, a considerable difficulty remained in the execution.


of it ; thia difficulty proceeded, in a great measure, from the
T 1' 2




[April 2-3.644 RING'S MESSAGE ore


just scruples of the King of Prussia, who perceived that it
would be very hard to prevail upon his Britannic majesty to
ratify such a treaty, and who, therefore, felt that his title
would be so bad as to make the acquisition of Hanover, under
these circumstances, •a poor equivalent for those provinces
that he was obliged to give up to France. He felt, besides,
that, upon no principle of justice, could he pretend to take it
on other terms than those which France herself had held it
on, and therefore, at first, he did not pretend to take Hano-
ver absolutely, but with the power of restoring it. France,
in the mean time, pressed for the cession of Anspach and
Bayreuth. What, then, did the King of Prussia do ? Cer-
tainly he did not expect that the French government would
be able to negociate between him and his Britannic majesty,
that he should be allowed to retain Hanover; and therefore
he finally resolved to seize it without the consent of his ma-
jesty, and under the pretence of an equivalent for Anspach,Bayreuth, and those provinces which were ceded to France.
it cannot then be said, that this treaty, and the proceedings
which followed it, were altogether the effect of fear; for
what was the necessity under which his Prussian majesty was
placed? Was it merely the necessity of ceding Anspach and
Bayreuth? This might have been a considerable misfortune,
yet it was one which might be justified by necessity. But the
sort of necessity claimed by the King of Prussia, is different ;
he says; " Because I. have lost Anspach and Bayreuth, I
therefore feel myself under the necessity of: seizing the domi-
nions of some third power : not onl y .of a third power, but of
one that, from all times, and by every circumstance, 1 am
bound to respect." This is the sort of necessity claimed by
the Prussian court, and it is this which makes the case cf
Prussia much worse than that of any other nation in Europe.
As for Spain (I do not wish to revive the `differences of opi-
nion with respect to the Spanish war) but Spain, I say, would
comply no farther with the wishes of our enemies, than 1)y
giving a sum of money. Holland, and other powers, have
been, from terror, obliged to make , cessions territority to
France; but no other power has been compelled, by terror,
to commit robberies or spoliations on its neighbours. It is
in this that the case of Prussia stands distinguished from that
of all other nations. 'We cannot help looking, with some
degree of pity and contempt, on a power that can allege that
it is reduced to such a necessit y. It would be, in itself, a
considerable humiliation or degradation to Prussia, to 1)!
obliged to give up those provinces to which it was so muche
attached, and which had been called, "The cradle of Pa
House of Brandenburgli." The degradation of' this


ce$sio


A.o6.] THE WAR 'WITH PRUSSIA,'
645


was still much increased by the conduct of the people of
Anspach, who entreated their sovereign not to abandon them.
Instead of lessening the ignominy of the cession, it was a great
increase of dishonour, to sell a brave and loyal people for
what was called an equivalent: it was an union of every
thing that was contemptible in servility, with every thing that
was odious in rapacity.


On the 26th of January, an official letter was written from
Baron Hardentinrg to Mr. Jackson, expressly stating it to be
the intention of his Prussian majesty to take possession of
Hanover only until the conclusion of peace between England
and France. In the answer to that letter, his majesty ex-
presses his firm reliance on the declaration of his Prussian
majesty, but wishes the terms to be more explicit. The
language that Prussia held at that time to our court, was
the same she then held to Russia, and to every other court
with which she was connected by the relations of friendship.
Soon after this, the convention with France appeared, and
then the court of Prussia wished to represent the measures
taken with regard to Hanover, as in a manner dictated by
France; they would. have it supposed, that it was rather an
object of French than of Prussian ambition, that they should
be posssesed of Hanover. At first, they endeavoured to re-
present to the government of this country, that it was more
for our interest that Hanover should be occupied by Prussian
than by French troops; and their argument was this: " If
we have it, the ports may be still open to your commerce, or
at least your manufactures may have a passage through our
territory." This hope was, however, now entirely cut off;
and M. de Schulenburgh, in his manifesto, professes to take the
country as a present from France, which she had won and
held by the right of conquest. No example could be found
in all the histories of war, and no mention had ever been
made by the writers on the law of nations, of any power hav-
ing a right to receive as a present, a country occupied during
a war by one of' the belligerent powers, but not ceded by the
other. The House must, therefore, see to what extremity
we are now reduced. It would be idle to say that a war
with Prussia would not be a calamity. It is impossible but
that it must be a calamity to this country, to have the num-
ber of its enemies increased. It is also a painful consider-
ation to think that there is no mode of returning this calamity
on the aggressors which will not, in some degree, fall also on
neutral and friendly nations, and even on ourselves. The
House will, however, feel that there are occasions in which a
manifestation of our principles and of our resentment becomes
necessary, although attended with the calamities inseparable


7.• 1. 3




646 KING'S MESSAGE ON [April 23




from war. If such an outrage as this were passed over, 'night
not every other nation in Europe, and particularly those who
have less power to resist than Prussia, say to us, "we wish
as much as you that the power of France could be restrained,
but you see our situation, and the great power of France, to
whiai we are exposed ? What are we to do ?" If this ques=
ton were put to me, I should answer, that powers in that
situation must save themselves as well as they can, and even
make cessions if they are insisted upon. It' Prussia should
allege, that she was in that state of.comparative weakness that
s!ie was obliged to cede Ansnach and Bayreuth ; however his
majesty might lament the necessity, or the accession of strength
iris enemies derived front the acquisition, still he would not
have attempted to oppose it, or make the slightest remon-
strance on the occasion. But when that power shall say, "
am riot only obliged to make cessions, but I am also
obliged to make war with you," then the question becomes
very different, and his majesty is under the necessity of
considering it in a very different light. Although I, for
one, am not inclined to look very favourably on the present
situation of this country, nor to feel so sanguinely as some
other gentlemen, yet I think that, upon the present occasion,
we should make a signal example of the court of Prussia; and
whatever principles theorists may lay down about restoring
the balance of Europe, I think we shall do more to restore
the sound and true principles that ough t to prevail in Europe
by showingthe world, in this instance, that this country will not
abandon them herself', nor consent that they shall be de-
parted from .1-Cy other nations in their transactions with her.
I consider that the power of the country consists, in a. great
measure, in the known justice of its principles, in its mode-
ration and forbearance; but it'll() court of Berlin chooses to
depart from the principles of justice, and to act with hostility
towards this country, it must take the consequence. I be-
lieve it has, as yet, gained nothing by its injustice. Hanover,
desolated as it was, first by French armies, and afterwards, in
a still greater degree, by Prussian armies, can add little or
nothing to the revenues of Prussia, neither can it, in its pre-
sent situation, increase her military strength. The King of
Prussia has been given a. mere nominal possession of that
country; but so far from being.strengthened by this present
from France, lie is only the more completely vanquished and
subdued. Austria was forced, by the fortune of the war, to
cede many of her provinces ; other nations had been obliged
to make similar cessions; but none of them had, like .Prussia,
been reduced to that lowest state of degradation, to consent to
become the ministers Of the injustice and. rapacity foa
By time command of France, - Prussia was obliged to shut the


m .aster


tSc6.] THE WAR WITH PRUSSIA. 647
ports of Hanover against our ships ; and what was the.


posses-
sion which France allowed her to keep of Hanover? She
has sent general Barbou to reside in that country, as a mili-
tary superintendant, to see that every thing was done there-ac-
cording to the pleasure of France. There are many other in-
stances of the manner in which Prussia is now treated .by France;
in several transactions, respecting the possession of Essen and
'Werden, and several little villages almost too inconsiderable
to name, Prussia is treated with as little respect as she de-
serves. The French appear constantly to treat Prussia as a
country that it is impossible to make a treaty or agreement
with; and, in this respect, it is very likely they are in the . right.
In our conduct upon this occasion, we shall Lave avoided a
great evil, and done some good; we shall avoid the giving
the. sanction of this country to the spoliations which have
been committed on the continent; we shall avoid the impu-
tation of being indifferent to the fate of his majesty's foreign
possession, which would be a heavy imputation, even if it
were supposed that their security was not immediately con-
nected with the interests 'of this country ; but, above all, we
shall avoid the giving our sanction to that principle which
has been lately adopted, of transferring the subjects of one
prince to another, in the way of equivalents, and under the
pretext of convenience and mutual accommodation. The
wildest schemes that ever were before broached would not go
so far to shake the foundations of all established goveriI-
ments as this new practice. If we are to make exchanges,
let us exchange those things which are the proper ob-
jects of exchange; let us give a field for a field, or let us
exchange its stock, its oxen, and its sheep; but let us not con-
sider the people of a country, or the subjects of a state, as
matter for exchange or barter. There must be, in every
nation, a certain attachment of the people to its form .of
government, without which no nation can subsist. This
principle, then, of transferring the subjects of one prince t©
another, strikes at the foundation of every government, and
the existence of every nation. I had, therefore, great plea-
sure in presenting the note, delivered by me to M. Jacobi,
which expressed, that no consideration of convenience or mu-
tual atcommodation, much less an equivalent, would ever in-
duce his-majestyto forgetthe exemplary fidelity and attachment
of his • Hanoverian subjects, or consent to the alienation of
the electorate. I do not know that it is necessary to make
any farther observations;' but before I sit down, I must state,
that there can be no doubt but that the shutting the ports of
Prussia to British vessels is alone most clearly and unquestion-
ably an act of hostility against this country.


TT 4




64 8 SLAVE IMPORTATION BILL. [May r.
Mr. Fox concluded by moving an address of thanks to his


jesty, which was agreed to nenz. con.


SLAVE IMPORTATION BILL.


May I.


ON the 3 x st of March, the Attorney..gcneral, Sir ArthurPiggott, obtained leave to bring in a bill " To carry into
effect his majesty's proclamation of the isth of August 18o 4, for
preventing the importation of African negroes by British subjects
or British shipping into the colonies conquered by or ceded to
us in the course of the war." Upon the third reading of the
bill, on the 1st of May,


Mr, Secretary Fox said, that as to this bill having an ope-
ration gradually to abolish the slave trade, as some gentle-
men seemed to apprehend, he owned he could not flatter him-
self in the hope that it would produce such a consequence;
and if he thought it would have such a tendency, instead of
that being with him an argument against the bill, it was one
which would render him ten times more enamoured of it;
but so far from such a consequence, he thought it would only
operate some few years hence, to furnish a new argument,
added to the old ones, of those who opposed that abolition,
but on which certainly he never placed any very strong re-
liance. They had predicted in the same manner of the
slave carrying trade, and of every other regulation calculated
to palliate the enormous abuses of that trade. They had said,
"Oh ! if you pass this bill, there wild be no need to say any
more about abolishing the slave trade, as in a very few years you
will have no such trade to abolish ;" and yet afterwards, when
the gradual abolition came to be proposed, the same persons
argued, " Why abolish? You have already established such
wholesome restrictions upon the trade as to obviate its evils,


probably, in a year or two hence, be the argument applied
Such mightand make it tend of itself to a gradual abolition."


in respect of this bill, which was now spoken of as a measure
destrustive of the trade of this country. Having, however,
no such apprehension, such arguments had no influence


.upon his mind. With respect to the total abolition of the
-sieve trade itself, whatever gentlemen might think of the
consistency of those ministers in office,- who had voted


i8o6.] PROPERTY TAX.
649


for it out of office, he would not take upon himself to answer
for the opinions of all his majesty's ministers : he could an-
swer for himself, and several of those with whom he had the
honour to act, and some of whom held the highest and most
dignified stations in the other Home of Parliament, as well
as in this, that neither he nor they had ever changed the sen-
timents they had so repeatedly avowed upon it. They still
felt it as one involving the dearest interests of natnanity, and
as one which, however unfortunate this administration might
be in other respects, should they be successful in effecting it,
would entail more true glory upon their administration, and
more honour upon their country, than any other transaction
in which they could be engaged. After all that had been
said upon this subject, it would be felt that the measure would
most properly be brought forward by the honourable member
opposite to him, (Mr. Wilberforce,) whose laudable exertions
in that case redounded so much and so justly to his own praise.
Whether he should think proper to bring it forward this ses-
sion or the next, (the sooner the better,) he could assure him
of his most cordial support, and that of those friends who,
out of office, had voted with him for the abolition of that
abominable traffic.


PROPERTY TAX.


May I s.


IN the committee on the property duty bill,


Mr. Secretary Fox said he wished to state in a few words
his ideas respecting the principle of the property tax. The
general principle of it seemed to be, that all persons having
property, of whatever kind, were bound to contribute. The
exception from this principle was, that those were to be ex-
empted from its operation, who could not contribute to the
tax without depriving themselves of the necessaries of life,
and thus becoming the proper objects of charity. In many
cases, it would he impossible to take any thing from the pro-
duce of labour, since it might be barely sufficient to procure
subsistence. Hence the propriety of those exemptions that
Were proposed in certain cases. Annuitants, also, below a cer-
tain sum were to be exempted, because they could not be said




650 PROPERTY TAX. [May ts;
to be possessed of real property. But this would not
apply to income derived from monies in the funds, or
from landed property. Suppose a man to be possessed
of 6 or 7001., from which he derived an income of 3 of,
a year, by subjecting him to the present tax, you could not
be said to deprive him of the necessaries of life, or make lint
an object of charity ; for what title could such a man set up to
your charitable assistance, who was possessed of a capita] of
6 or 7001.? He therefore was not entitled to be exempted
from the general principle ; and this would apply equally to
the possession of landed and of funded property. According
to the extent of a man's income in , many different situations,
he might have it in his peiwer to make such alterations in his
expenditure as that the tax would not entirely crush him : he.
might be able in some measure to relieve himself': if he lived
on the first floor, for instance, he might remove to the second,
find so lessen his expences; if he was on the second already,
he might mount to the attic story ; but, where a man was
already found to be in the cellar, where could he be sent to,
what resource could he have?


In consequence of some observations that were made in the
course of the debate,


Mr. Secretary Fox begged leave to recall the attention of
the committee to the line of distinction he had before drawn,
and to repeat, that it was by no means the wish of those who
brought forward this tax, that it should so far trespass upon
the necessaries of life, as to oblige any of the parties from
Idionr it should be exacted to apply for parochial, or even for
private relief; and therefore upon this principle, as in the cases
of income from labour, the mere annuitant for life in any in-
come from the funds under sol. was exempted by the bill.
But any person who was the fee-simple proprietor of 5 or 60o/.
in the stocks, which might entitle the holder to an income of
20 or 301. a year, he could not consider in the light of an ob-ject likely to want the necessaries of life, or to be•riven . to
seek for charitable relief', and therefore an annuity so circum-
stanced came fairly under the operation of a property tax,
like freehold property in land. For the class of persons who
were struggling with narrow circumstances to preserve ap-
pearances, and maintain the respect to which their characters
in life justly entitled them, he felt as sincerely as any man;
and not merely for those with incomes of too/. or 2 001., but
even in many cases with soot. a year. No man was more sin-
cerely disposed than he was to afford them alleviation . He
begged his honourable friend to be assured, .that he Was
not a friend to the tax nor to any of its principles or ope-


i8o6.] LIMITED SERVICE IN THE ARMY.
65 1


rations; that he was sensible the objections to it were just
and innumerable; but his majesty's present ministers were re-
luctantly forced to adopt it, under the pressure of existing
circumstances, which they had the consolation to reflect
they had no share in producing.


LIMITED SERVICE IN THE ARMY.


May 3 o.


f-FHE House having resolved itself into a Committee of the whole
-1 House on the Mutiny Bill, Mr. Secretary Windham proposed


the introduction of limited service into the army, by the insertion
of a clause to that effect in the bill. After specifying the age of
the recruit, and that lie did not belong to the militia, he proposed
that it should proceed to declare, " that he engaged to serve his
majesty,


for years, which he would fill up with the word
" seven ;" and also for such further period as his majesty should
please to direct, not exceeding years, which he proposed to
fill up with the word " three," but which should terminate at the
expiration of a period of six following months of uninterrupted'
peace. That if the recruit should ppen to be under 18 years of
age, so many years should be added to the period of service, as
should prevent the term of 7 years from beginning to run till he
was actually t8 years of age. That•every soldier abroad, at the
period of the expiration of his service, should be sent home free
from expellee, and, on his arrival in Great. Britain, should receive
the usual allowance of marching-money, to carry him to his par-
ticular parish or place. If in Great Britain at the time he was en-
titled to his discharge, then also that he should be entitled to the
allowance of marching money." The introduction of the clause
was opposed by Sir James Pulteney, Mr. Yorke, Mr. Canning, and
Mr. Perceval ; and supported by Colonel Craufurd, General Loftus,
and Mr. Fox.


Mr. Secretary Fox said, that before he entered into any
discussion of the principles of the measure, he must first an-
swer some interlocutory objections that had been made. As
to the complaint of its being hurried forward with such pre-
cipitation, just as the mutiny bill was going to expire, he must
remind the right honourable gentleman who spoke last, .(Mr.
Canning) and his friends, that, a few days ago, they had .
contended that the discussion should be delayed two days
longer, as they had wished it not to come on before Monday
next. If he and his friends persisted in fixing it for the pre-
sent night, and not putting it off; it was merely that parlia




652 LIMITED SERVICE Ix THE ARM y.
LMay 3e.


Inent should have as much time for the discussion as could he
given before the expiration of the mutiny bill. If they had
fixed it for Monday, the complaint would have been, why did
you not bring it in sooner ? why did you not give us more
time to discuss it ? This was a tolerable sample of the gene-
ral style of the right honourable gentleman's arguments.
the measure had been introduced in the mutiny bill, it was
because such was the constant usage of parliament. The right
honourable gentleman next found fault with popular assem-
blies, and parliament's meddling with the army of the crown.
Where was it that he made that objection ? In a House
where the mutiny bill was annually passed, for the avowed pur-
pose of subjecting the army of the country, in some measure,
to parliamentary controul. " But," said the right honoura-
ble gentleman, " we spent our time much better when we were
in administration ; we never interfered with the army of the
crown ; but we provided a constitutional and a parliamentary
army to be a balance to it, and at the same time to assist it with
recruits." For his part, he must say, he never heard of a par-
liamentary army before, except in the year 1641 ; and, as for
the distinction which had been made, of royal army and par-
liamentary army, it was what no writer, no speaker, nor no
man at all acquainted with the principles of the constitution,
had ever taken notice of. Every army in this country was
royal, and every army was also parliamentary. The right
honourable gentleman seemed to consider the disposable force
as the king's army, and every other description of force as a
sort of balance to it. The militia, indeed, from its composi-
tion, and the description of its officers, might be, in some
degree, considered in that light ; but as to the additional
force raised by the parish bill, nothing could be more ridi-
culous than to call them a parliamentary force, which was to
be a balance to any other, as they were officered by persons
appointed by the crown, and taken from the Icing's army.


An honourable general, (Sir James Pulteney,) had, on a
former night, roundly asserted, that no other nation ill
Europe had ever adopted the limited service recommended ;
but that night he was pleased to retract something from
his assertion, and only said, that the general practice of
European nations was against it. The -honourable general
had not stated the case fairly, when he represented, that, if
old France adopted the system, her armies were the worse for
it, and that in the seven years' war they had been every where
defeated. The honourable general should not have confined
himself to the seven years' war, but should have also taken the
war preceding it. In that war he would have found, that
though the French lost the battle of Dettingen, they won that


LIMITED SERVICE IN THE ARMY.
653


Oi f8°F6o.3ntenoy, and were, in the whole of the war, most con-
spicuously successful.




Even in the seven years war, the con-
duct of the French armies was by no means treated with that
levity in the writings of the King of Prussia, that it had been
by the honourable general. ,


As the Ordonnance subsisted
from 17io to 1787, it was not fair merely to take seven years
of that period as criterion, when for seventy-seven years
they had acquired and supported a high military reputation.
The argument which his right honourable friend, (Mr. Wind-
ham,) had drawn from the Swiss, was, in his opinion, a very
strong one, and completely unanswered. If it were said, that
the moral excellence of the soldier's character was destroyed
by the thoughts of leaving the service and returning to his
home, he should ask, do not the Swiss also feel a strong de-
sire of returning to their native country,; and have not the
Swiss been at the same time good soldiers ? Has not even
the circumstance of their joyful return to their homes and fa-
milies, been made a means of encouragement to others to
enlist? When the young men of the q?untry saw the soldier
return to his home with more reputation, more happiness,
more of every thing that could give satisfaction to mankind,
they wished to embark in the same career. As for the mea-
sure proposed being a novel theory, he should only say that
it had been urged in that House twenty


-five years ago, and
it was no less than sixteen years since his right honourable
friend had stated the advantages which might be expected
from changing the term of service. In the system proposed,
he thought great advantages would be derived, both from the
soldiers who stayed after their terra was expired, and from
those who left the service. Every one who left the service
would shew to his townsmen, or neighbours, the liberty that
was granted to soldiers to return to their homes, and this, he
thought, would immediately have a strong effect. in recruit-
ing the army. It was strange, that those who had so often
argued that there was something in real service, and in the
regular army, which attracted persons who inlisted for home
service, should, upon tile present occasion, contend that it
had no such attraction, and that every one roust prefer the
home service. It was no wild speculation or theory, to cal-
culate upon the common sense and common feelings of' man-
kind. There was no doubt but that any body who had a
horse to dispose of, would rather sell him the twenty gui-
neas than for tell; and there could be no doubt, but that the
military profession must be rendered more attractive by- being
made more eligible.


A right honourable gentleman, (Mr. Yorke,) had asked,
was it necessary to extend one military systerA ? Had we net,




654
LIMITED SERVICE IN THE ARMY. [May 30.


an army which, both in discipline and in numbers, was every
thing that could be wished ; which was fully efficient for every
purpose ? For his part, he could not allow that we did pos-
sess an army efficient for all the purposes of the country. It
must be remembered, that in the unfortunate campaign on
the continent, the country was placed in such a situation, as
to witness the defeat of its allies, without a British soldier
having an opportunity of striking a blow in their defence.
If it is said, that the country had, at that time, an army fully
efficient, what must be thought of those ministers who did not
apply the means they were possessed of for the annoyance of
the enemy, and the support of our allies? That most disas-
trous campaign was decided without a British arm being raised
or a musket fired, in defence of the continent of Europe.
What would the great Duke of Marlborough have said, if the
ministers of •that day had told him, " you are certainly the
best general in Europe, and our army is very fine and effi-
cient to all the purposes of the country ; but we cannot give
you any force, either to protect our allies or to attack the
enemy ?" It has been often said, What occasion has this coun-
try for a great army, when her fleets ride triumphant in every
sea? Ile felt considerable confidence in our navy, and shared
in that pride which every Briton must feel at the brilliant victo-
ries our fleets had obtained over the enemy ; but at the same
time he must say, that by our naval superiority alone we should
never be able to prevent France from extending her con-
quests over the continent of Europe. 0 ! but say others,
we have plenty of money; we can afford to subsidize nations,
and hire foreigners to fight our battles. In answer to that he
must observe, that all history sheaved that such were not the
means by which greatness and national honour were to be
defended. This country had, at many periods, made great
and astonishing exertions. When William III. was at the
head of the confederacy of Europe, this country acquired
considerable-renown. Again, in .the reign of Queen Anne,
when the Duke of Marlborough commanded our armies, al-
though the native British troops that he commanded were a
small portion in number to their German allies, yet they
ranked high in military reputation, and contributed power.;
fully to the common cause. In the seven years' war, a few
British regiments, under the command of Prince Ferdinand,
contributed essentially to the victory at Minden. It was this
way the country acquired renown, 44 Sic ilia- ad astr a."


It


was by the valour of her troops, and not merely by the power
of subsidizing foreigners, that, in the best times of her his-
tory, she had gained so high a character among the nations.
These wars had been undertaken, in a great measure, to pre-


II


806.]
LIMITED SERVICE .


IN .
THE-ARMY.
655


serve the balance. of
. power, and however this idea might be


ridiculed, our ancestors saw, what we have felt, that this ba-
lance of power could not be destroyed without the mho s


se-
.rious evils resulting to Europe, and without our being


exiNed


.to the domineering influence of France. The situation in
which the country was placed was this : it must either trust
.entirely to its navy, its commerce, and its ships, and patiently
submit to see the power of France extending over every na-
tion in Europe; or else, it must think, at some future period,
,f being able to afford some relief to nations that are op.;
pressed, and of preserving its connection with the continent
of Europe. If this was the determination of the I louse, it was
evident, that the only means of accomplishing these things was,
to improve our armies; but if •the country should prefer what




.he considered the ignominious alternative (which he, for his
part, would never consent to) of separating her& from the
interests of other nations, and endeavouring to preserve an
insulated greatness, he conceived that, such a conduct would
be still more dangerous, than it would be to follow a more
generous policy, and one more befitting the character of the
British nation. He should also have an objection to the al-
ternative, even upon constitutional grounds. It was known,
that the character of the house of Brunswick was to resist
every attempt that might be made against the constitution of
this country, and especially any attacks which might be made
by France, or with French assistance. The character, how-
-ever, of any other family which had reigned in this country
had been very different. If, then, it could ever be supposed,
at some remote period, that any sovereign of this country
could act on the principles that some sovereigns had acted on,
when there was a compromise between England and France,
that one was to rule by sea, and the other by land, the assist-
ance of France might be requested against the liberties of the
subjects of this realm. Although he did not state this as a
case very probable, yet he thought the bare possibility of it
made it an object worth consideration.


As to the navy, he had such a high opinion both of the skill
of its officers, and of the great reputation it had gained (a
reputation which would do more than any thing else to pre-
serve its superiority), that he felt confident that France and
Spain could never equal it. He therefore differed much from
some of his honourable friends on the subject of invasion.
He by no means dreaded invasion. He thought we had, in
the first place, a powerful security in the superiority of our
navy ; and, in the second place, in the spirit of the British
nation, which, he was convinced, was abundantly sufficient to
triumph, ultimately, over any army that could invade this




65 6 LIMITED SERVICE IN TIIE ARMY. [May 30.
country. 'When he was asked, then, why do you want a
greater army ? have we not soldiers enough to defend the
country ? he should answer, 66 we have enough, and more than
enough." Sp far from thinking the number too few to de-
fend the country, he would state most distinctly, that if he
saw any prospect of recovering for Europe what had been
lost. in the late unfortunate campaign, he should have no ob-
jection to risk a part of the army we possess in the attempt.
He thought, that we should think of acting offensively in the
war, as far as our powers extended. Although the disposable
force of this country bore but a small proportion to the French
armies, yet, it did not follow that we should not be able,
at some future period, to give a powerful and effectual
assistance to some of those nations which France, in her am-
bition for extending her power, may hereafter choose to at-
tack. He was always an eager and ardent friend of peace,
and he was still a friend of peace. He, indeed, wished for
such a peace as could be made on tolerable terms; but then




the character of the peace he wished for was, that it should
preserve our connections with the continent of Europe, and
not give up any thing which the point of honour forbad us to
give up. If such a peace were made, he hoped the nation
would not uselessly retain the passions of war in a time of
peace. As to what regarded the point of honour, he con-
sidered it still, as he had often stated it, as a matter of the
highest importance among nations, and one of the few legi-
timate grounds of war. In the consideration of the force that
the country required at the present time, it would not be suf-
ficient to talk of what it was in the time of King 'William and
Queen Anne, and say, that it is now double or treble what it
was at that time. The question was, what was sufficient for
the circumstances in which the country was now placed, and
for the objects it had in view ? If its objects were, as he con-
ceived they ought to be, to be able to render, at some future
day, important services to the continental nations, it was evi-
dent that our army ought to be increased; and he knew no
better means of doing it, than by adopting the system which.
was proposed by his right honourable friend. The military
measures which had been proposed in the course of the war,
were merely temporary measures. 'When a great alarm of
invasion had been spread, it was natural to call upon all hands
to repel it. The object, at the present day, was not so much
to repel invasion, as to recover for the country that military
rank and influence which it had, till very recently, preserved
in Europe. He was more sanguine in the immediate advan-
tages of this measure, than was his right honourable friend,
who introduced it, although, perhaps,


11305.7
LIMITED SERVICE IN THE ARMY.


657


as the honourable colonel (Craufurd). He did conceive, that
the great obstacle to the recruiting service, at present, was,
the prejudices of parents, who conceived that their children
were utterly lost and ruined, if they entered into the army,
whether in the cavalry or infantry. If this measure could
remove this prejudice from the minds of fathers or mothers, it
would remove the greatest obstacle that now stood in the way
of the recruiting service. It would not only get a better de-
scription of recruits, but would make the recruiting service
operate on a much more extensive description, by taking in
the inhabitants of the country, as well as the population of the
manufacturing towns.


He was sorry the navy bad been at all mentioned; but,
with respect to the allusion which had been made by an ho-
nourable gentleman to a late regulation, upon a principle
similar to that now proposed, namely, inlisting them, instead
of' for life, only for a term of years, or during the war, he
was surprised that the honourable gentleman was not ac-
quainted who were the authors of that arrangement: he would,
however, inform the honourable gentleman, that it was made
by his own friends, the late administration, as the last act of
their official authority, and it certainly was the best of their
whole administration; and, so far as it went, it was an irre-
fragable proof of the efficacy of the principle, as well in pro-
curing a numerous and rapid supply of recruits for the
marine service, unparalleled upon any former occasion, as
in obtaining them from a better order of men. In answer to
the argument against extending the same principle to the army
in general, he could only say, the principle, so far as it had
been tried in the case just alluded to, and according to the
most general opinions of persons whom he considered the first
military authorities, not only in the present day, but some
years back, he conceived, was a good and an eligible one;
and having heard no other plan as yet proposed, at all likely
to produce similar effects, he should adhere to and support
this.


Much clamour had been raised against this principle, as
new and untried; and the alarm was loudly sounded, to warn
his majesty's ministers against its adoption, lest they should
render themselves unpopular to the whole country ; but,
highly sensible as he was of the excessive solicitude of those
who used such arguments for the popularity of those ministers,
he must beg leave to say, that however unwilling they were to
oppose their own opinions to those expressed by the majority
or any groat portion of the people of England, still they felt it
their bounden duty, at a crisis so urgent as the present, not to
temporise upon a measure of such vital importance to the ge-


VOL. VI.
IT IT


not quite so sanguine




ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.


JUne to.


TN pursuance of the notice he had given,
Mr. Secretary Fox rose and spoke as follows:
Before, Sir, I proceed to state the grounds on which I look


with confidence for the almost unanimous countenance of


658 ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. [.TU/IC IC.


curity of the country, under any apprehension of risking a
temporary unpopularity ; for, if they were to suffer their con-
duct, in concerns of such importance, to be swayed by such con,
siderations, they might do that which would be popularwith one
party to-clay, and unpopular with another to-morrow, and,
in the mean time, sacrifice to popular caprice or selfish con-
siderations, the real interests and security of the empire, in-
stead of doing that which was their indispensable duty, in-
dependent of all minor considerations; namely, adhering
firmly to those measures which appeared best in their con-
viction, regardless of any risk to which their popularity might
be exposed: nor did any man, in his mind, deserve the name
of statesman, who would not, under such circumstances,
firmly adhere to this principle. On the contrary, that mi-
nister who would abandon it under such circumstances, would
swerve from his duty, and act the part of a fool and a coward.
In times like these, they ought not to temporise. If they
were to be content to go on from day to day, from expedient
to expedient, trusting to chance, and consulting every fluc-
tuation of popular opinion, their task would be easy. The
course was before them, like virtue and pleasure in the Gre-
cian writer: the path to which the one led, arduous and
difficult; the other, smooth and easy. But, if they wished to
be really useful to their country, they must often risk both
their power and their popularity : holding a firm and sys-
tematic attention to the public good, they might sometimes
find it necessary to act against the momentary influence of
both ; but, if they hesitated to do so, they would be political
cowards. They would violate their duty, both as servants
of the crown, and as members of parliament, if they were
deterred, by such considerations, from giving their opinions,
and pursuing what they thought right.


On the motion for bringing up the clause, the committee di-
vided : Yeas 254 : Noes 125.


I8o6.]
ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.


659


the House in this measure, I feel myself called upon to say a
few words by way of apology, for being the person to come
forward upon the present occasion. For the last sixteen or
seventeen years of my life, I have been in the habit of uni-
formly and strenuously supporting the several motions made
by an honourable gentleman, (Mr. Wilberforce,) who has
so often, by his meritorious exertions on this subject, attracted
the applause of this House, and obtained the admiration of
the public. During the long period that I found it in such
excellent hands, it was impossible for me to feel the slightest
disposition to take it out of them. I am still of the same
opinion; and cannot but think it would have been much
better, if the same honourable member and his friends had
retained it in their own hands, and they might certainly have
depended upon me, and those with whom I have the honour
to act, for the same ardent support which we have uniformly
given them. But, Sir, the honourable member and many
of his friends, seemed so strongly to entertain different sen-
timents in that respect, from me, that I submitted my own
opinion to theirs, and now assume the task, reluctantly, on
that account, but on every other, most gladly. So fully am
I impressed with the vast importance and necessity of attain-
ing what will be the object of my motion this night, that if,
during the almost forth years that I have had thelzonour of a
seat in parliament, I had been so fortunate as to accomplish
that, and that only, I should think I had dome enough, and
could retire from public lye with comfort, and the conscious
satisfaction, that I had done my duty.


Having made these preliminary observations, I now come
to the main question, but do not think it necessary to stop
at present, for the sake of referring in detail to all the entries
on your journals, made at different periods since the year
1792, the different motions made by the honourable gen-
tleman, the resolutions of the House, and the bills brought
in. to abolish the trade, particularly that which received the
sanction of this House, though it was unfortunatel y


negatived
in another place. I have not lately had time, from other
occupations, to prepare myself by referring minutely to dates
and details; and must, therefbre, content myself with a
general reference, in which, should I fall into any mistake,
I am sure there are gentlemen who will be certain to set me
right. In the execution of this duty, I am happy to reflect,
that whatever difference of opinion might have prevailed upon
some points of this subject, between a few members, and, at
one time, unhappily, so as to defeat the measure, the opinion
of this House upon the subject was, I will not say unanimous,
for in that I may be contradicted, but as nearly unanimous


uu 2





66o ABOLITION OP THE SLAVE *TRADE. [June 104,


as any thing of the kind could be, " that the slave trade is
contrary to the principles of justice, humanity, and sound
policy." These, I believe, were the words of the resolution,
adopted after long and serious deliberation ; and they arc,
those which I mean to introduce into the resolution which
I shall propose this night. Surely, Sir, it does not remain
yet to be argued, that to carry men by violence away to
slavery, in distant countries, to use the expression of an illus-
trious man, now no more, (Mr. Burke,) a man distinguished
in every way, and in nothing more than for his great hu-
manity, " is not a traffic in the labour of man, but in the
man himself." I will not now enter, for it would be unne-
cessary, into that exploded argument, that we did not make
the negroes slaves, but found them already in that state, and
condemned to it for crimes. The nature of the crimes them-
selves (witchcraft in general) is a manifest pretext, and a
mockery of all human reason. But, supposing them even
to be real crimes, and such as men should be condemned for,
can there be any thing more degrading to sense, or disgusting
to humanity, than to think it honourable or justifiable in
Great Britain, annually to send out ships in order to assist
in the purposes of African police? It has, I am told, been
asserted by an authority in the other house of parliament,
that the trade is in itself so good a one, that if it was not
found already subsisting, it would be right to create it. I
certainly will not compare the authority just alluded to with
that of my honourable friend, (Mr. Wilberforce,) who, in
the efforts he has made in order to abolish this dishonourable
traffic, has done himself so much honour. I will not com-
pare that authority with the authority of a right honourable
gentleman now no more, (Mr. Pitt,) whose talents have always
so justly been entitled to admiration, and whose eloquence
was never more powerfully displayed on any occasion than in
opposition to -this scandalous traffic. I will not compare it
with that of a noble viscount, (Sidmouth,) one of your pre,
decessors, but not your immediate one, in that chair, than
whom, though he opposed the manner in which we wished
to obtain an abolition, yet as to the principle, no man ever
enforced more strongly, or with more feeling, his utter de-
testation of it. Another noble lord also, (Lord Melville,)
who took a lead in constantly opposing our attempts at a
total and immediate abolition, yet, in regard to the principle,
when he prevailed in his measure of gradual abolition, re-
corded his opinion on the journals, by moving, that the House
considered the slave trade to be adverse to policy, hurnanitya
and justice.


1806.] ABOLITION OF VIE SLAVE TRADE. 66z
• I do not, therefore, suppose, that there can be above one,
or perhaps two members in this House, who can object to
a condemnation of the nature of the trade, and shall now
proceed to recall the attention of the House to what has
been its uniform, consistent, and unchangeable opinion for
the last eighteen years, during which we should blush to
have it stated, that not one step has yet been taken towards
the abolition of the trade. If, then, we have never ceased
to express our reprobation, surely the House must think
itself bound by its character, and the consistency of its pro-
ceedings, to condemn. it now. The first time this measure
was proposed, on the motion of my honourable friend, which
was in the year 1791, it was, after a long and warm dis-
cussion, rejected. In the following year, 17 9 2, after the
question had been, during the interval, better considered,
there appeared to be a very strong disposition, generally, to
adopt it to the frill ; but in the committee, the question for
a gradual abolition was carried.


• On that occasion, when
the most strenuous efforts were made to specify the time
when the total abolition should take place, there were several
divisions in the House about the number of years, and Lord
Melville, who was the leader and proposer of the gradual
abolition, could not venture to push the period longer than
eight years, or the year i 800, when it was to be totally
abolished. Yet we are now in the year 1806, and while
surrounding nations are reproaching us with neglect, not a
single step


• has been taken towards this just, humane, and
politic measure ! When the question for a gradual abolition
was carried, there was no one could suppose


. that the trade
would last so long : and in the mean time we have suffered
other nations to take the lead of us. Denmark, much to its
honour, has abolished the trade; or, if it could not abolish
it altogether, has at least done all it could, for it has prohibited
its being carried on in Danish ships, or by Danish sailors.
I own, that when I began to consider the subject, early in
the present session, my opinion was, that the total abolition
might be carried this year; but subsequent business intervened,
occasioned by the discussions of the military plan ; besides
which, there was an abolition going forward in the foreign
trade, from our colonies, and it was thought right to carry
that measure through, before :we proceeded to the other.
That bill has passed into a law,--and so far we have already
succeeded ; but it is too late to carry the measure' of abolition
through the other House. In this House, from a regard to
the consistency of its own proceedings, we can indeed expect
no great resistance ; but the impediments that may be op-
posed to it in . another, would not leave .sufficient time to


I




662 ABOLITION OE' THE SLAVE TRADE. [June Ion
accomplish it. No alternative is therefore now left, but to
let it pass over for the present session; and it is to afford no
ground for a suspicion that we have abandoned it altogether,
that we have recourse to the measure that I am now about
to propose. The motion will not mention any limitation,
either as to the time or manner of abolishing the trade.
There have been some hints indeed thrown out in some
quarters, that it would be a better measure to adopt some-
thing that must inevitably lead to an abolition ; but after
eighteen years of close attention which I have paid to the
subject, I cannot think any thing so effectual as a direct law
for that purpose.


The next point is, as to the time when the abolition shall
take place; for the same reasons or objections which led to
the gradual measure of 1 792, may here occur again. That
also I leave open; but I have no hesitation to state, that with
respect to that, my opinion is the same as it is with regard
to the manner, and that I think it ought to be abolished
immediately. As the motion, therefore, which I have to
make, will leave to the House the time and manner of abo-
lition, I cannot butt confidently express my hope and con-
fident expectation, that it will be unanimously carried; and
I implore gentlemen not to listen to that sort of flattery
which they have sometimes heard — and particularly from
one of the members for Liverpool — that they have abolished
it already. When the regulations were adopted, touching
the space to be allowed for each negro in a slave ship,
the same gentleman opposed it as being destructive, and
exclaimed, 44 Oh ! if you do that, you may as well abolish
it at once, for it cannot be done." Yet, when we propose
an abolition altogether, they use, as arguments against us,
the great good already done, by regulating the slave ships,
and bettering the condition of negroes in the colonies. In
the same way, when we first proposed the abolition of the
foreign trade, they told us it would have the effect of a
general and total abolition; and I begb cr of them not to forget
that declaration now; and having made it once, I must use
to them a phrase in common life, 44 Sir, if that be the case,
I must pray you to put your hand to it." As to the stale
argument of the ruin the measure would bring upon the
West India islands, I would refer gentlemen to perhaps the
most brilliant and convincing speech that ever was, I believe,
delivered in this or any other place, by a consummate master
of eloquence, (Mr. Burke,) and Of which, I believe, there
remains in some publications a report that will convey an
inadequate idea of the substance, though it would be im-
possible to represent the manner; the voice, the gesture, the


I 0


/806.] ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.
663


manner, were not to be described.
•^ 44 0 si ilium vidisse, si


ilium audivisse !" If all the members of this House could
but have seen and heard the great orator in the delivery of
that speech, on that day, there would not now be one who
could for a moment longer suppose that the abolition of
the slave trade could injuriously affect the interests of the
West India colonies. I am aware that a calculation was
once made, and pretty generally circulated, by which it
would appear, that were the importation of negroes into
the islands put an end to, the stock of slaves could not
be kept up ; and, if I recollect right, the calculation was
made with reference to the island of Jamaica. Fortunately,
however, for our argument, the experiment has been already
tried in North America, where the trade has been abolished;
and the effect of it shows, that the population of the ne
groes is nearly equal to that of the whites. As that is the
part of the world where population proceeds more rapidly
than in any other, and as we know that within the last twenty
years, the population of whites has doubled, and that of
negroes very nearly so, without importation, it affords, I
will not say a damning, but a blessed proof, that the adop-
tion of a similar course would ultimately produce gradual,
emancipation and an increasing population, and that it would
enable the negroes to acquire property as the reward of long
servitude; and that thereby these islands would be placed in
a state of safety beyond any thing that could be effected by
fleets or armies.


Nothing now remains for me, Sir, but to address a few
words to those members opposite me, who arc so fond of
.quoting the opinions of a right honourable gentleman de-
ceased, (Mr. Pitt,) and who profess to entertain so profound
a respect for his memory. They all know that there was no
subject on which that right honourable gentleman.displayed
his extraordinary eloquence with more ardour than in support
of the abolition of the slave trade. His speeches on that
subject will not easily be forgotten; and, therefore, in ,


sup-
porting the present motion, they will not only. have an opportu-
nity of manifesting their private friendship for him, their
admiration of his splendid talents, and the sincerity of their
zeal and respect for his character and memory ; but also the
opportunity of quoting him with great advantage : added to
which, they may now display all this for the public good,
and on a subject upon which they cannot be suspected of
making that respect and admiration only a vehicle for party
purposes. Mr. Fox then moved the following resolution
" That this House, conceiving the African slave trade to be
contrary to the principles of justice, humanity, and sound




664 ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE, [June 1o.
policy, will, with all practicable expedition, proceed to take
effectual measures for abolishing the said' trade, in such
manner, and at such period, as may be deemed advisable."


The motion was opposed by General Tarleton, Mr. Gascoyne,
Lord Castlereagh, Sir William Young, Mr. Rose, and Mr. Man-
ning ; and supported by Sir Ralph Milbanke, Francis, Sir
Samuel Romilly, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Wilberforce, Lord
Henry Petty, Mr. Barham, Sir John Newport, Mr. Canning, Mr.
William Smith, and Mr. Windham.


The House divided on Mr. Fox's motion : *
Tellers. Tellers.


YEAS Sir S. Romilly) {Sir Wm. YoungOMr. W. Smith j "
-NOES


4' Gen. Tarleton
15'


This was the last motion made by Mr.Fox in the House of Commons.
About the middle of June, he became so seriously indisposed, that he was
forced to discontinue his attendance in parliament. Symptoms of both
general and local dropsy declared' themselves, and so rapid was the progress
of his complaint, that after the middle of July, though informed of every
step taken by his colleagues in the negociations with France, he could
seldom be consulted by them on that or any other public measures till
they had been carried into effect. It was at length thought necessary by
his physicians to have recourse to the usual operation for his relief, which
was accordingly performed for the first time on the 7th of August, and re-
peated on the 3Ist. After both operations, he fell into a state of languor
and depression, but his medical attendants never absolutely despaired of
his case till Monday, the 7th of September, when he sunk into an alarm-
ing state of lowness, in which he languished till the evening of Saturday,
the r3th, when he expired in the arms of his nephew, Lord Holland, in
the fifty-ninth year of his age.


THE END.


0


1,.,=g1741 p
. 3 •:


. 14 sc.


Strahan atid Presten,
Printers-Street, London.