SPEECHES
}

SPEECHES
or


THE RIGHT HONOURABLE


CHARLES JAMES FOX,


VOL. V.




THE


SPEECHES


OF


THE RIGHT HONOURABLE


CHARLES JAMES FOX,


IN THE


HOUSE OF COMMONS.


IN SIX VOLUMES.


VOL. V.


,.41 Bt., 0 f"4,6- \


LONDON:
PRINTED FOR LONGMAN, IItiRST,REES, ORME, AND BROWN,


PATERNOSTER-ROW;


AND T. RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY.


*-A4174.-%
Strahan and Preston,


Printers-Street, London.




CONTENTS


os


THE FIFTH VOLUME.


....1111071.01m.Wraftrojeseat.-",


1792°




Dec. 28. Alien Bill
31. The Same


1793.
Jan. 4 . The Same
Feb. 1. Address on the King's Message for an Augment-


ation of the Forces
Address on the King's Message respecting the


Declaration of War by France
18. Mr. Fox's Resolutions against the War with




France
22. Mr. M. A. Taylor's Motion respecting Barracks
26. Abolition of the Slave Trade


March 4 . Mr. Sheridan's Motion relative to the Existence
of Seditious Practices in this Country


I I. Budget for the Year 1793




15. The Same
Traitorous Correspondence Bill......


21. The Same
22. The Same




April 4. The Same


8. The Same


9. The Same


25. Mr. Sheridan's motion for an Address to ex-
press Displeasure at Lord Auckland's Me-
morial to the States General


2 9
. State of Commercial Credit




3o. The Same


May 2. Sheffield Petition for a Reform in Parliament


Mr. Grey's Motion for a Reform in Parliament
13. Renewal of the East India Company's Charter




vi


CONTENTS. CONTENTS.
vii


1793.
May 17. Renewal of the East India Company's Charter z 19


24. The Same
121


30. State of the Impeachment against Mr. Hastings 126
June 12. Mr. Whitbread's Complaint of a Libel on the


Managers of the Impeachment against Mr
Hastings


131
Mr. Fox's Motion for the Re-establishment of


Peace with France
136


21. Mr. Fox's Amendment to the Address on
the King's Speech at , the Opening of the
Session


15o
Treaty with the King of Sardinia




Augmentation of the Army
178


Mr. Grey's Motion respecting: employing Fo-
reigners in any Situation of Military Trust,
and bringing Foreign Troops into the King-
dom without the Consent of Parliament


184.




March 14. The Same 190
Feb. 25. Abolition of the Slave Trade


193
March 6. Mr. Whitbread's Motion for a separate Peace


with France


to. Mr. Adam's Motion respecting the Trials of
Messrs. Muir and Palmer


17. General Fitzpatrick's Motion relative to the
Detention of M. de la Fayette 212


25. Mr. Adam's Motion for a Committee to consider
of the Criminal Law of Scotland


218.
17. Voluntary Aids for Public Purposes without


the Consent of Parliament
226


24. The Same 227




28. The Same 228
April 7. The Same


8. Motion for taxing Placemen and Pensioners
during the Continuance of the War


17. Bill to enable Subjects of France to enlist as
Soldiers.


3o. Prussian Subsidy 260




May z. The Same 268
13. King's Message respecting Seditious Practices


- Suspension of the Habeas Corpus . Act 27o




16. The Same


273
17. The Same 230


30. Mr. Fox's Motion for putting an End to the War
with France


Page
Vote of Thanks to Lord Howe for the Victory


of the First of June 312
Address of Thanks to his Majesty for his Com-


munications respecting Seditious Practices
Vote of Thanks to Lord Hood for his Conduct


in the Expedition to Corsica 322
Mr. Wilberforce's Amendment to the Address


on the King's Speech at the Opening of the
Session 324*


1795- Mr. Sheridan's Motion for the Repeal of theJan. 5. BD for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act
6. State of the Navy
7- The Same


21. Army Estimates
23. Bill for the Continuance oft he Habeas Suspen-


sion Act
26. Mr. Grey's Motion for Peace with France




Feb. 5- King's Message respecting a Loan to the
Emperor


26. Abolition of the Slave Trade
March 24.. Mr. Fox's Motion for a Committee on the State


of the Nation
April 1 4. Monument to the Memory of Captain Faulknor
May 14. King's Message respecting an Establishment for


the Prince and Princess of 'Wales


June 1. The Same


5. The Same


8. The Same


May 19. Earl Fitzwilliam's Recal from the Government
of Ireland


27. Mr. Wilberforce's Motion respecting Peace
with France


28. Loan to the Emperor


June 3. The Same
10. The Same
15. The Same




Relief to the Merchants of Grenada and St


Vincent's


29. Mr. Fox's Amendment to the Address on the
King's Speech at the Opening of the Session


3. High Price of Corn


18. The Same


Page


17.


31.
1 794-


Feb. 3.
to.


'75


195


202


234


239


245


293


1794-
June 16.


20.


Dec. 3o.


314


340
351
351
354-


363
367


374.
384.


389
1.33


436
444.
447
454.


456


II.


467
475
479
481


482


Oct.


Nov.


483


486
505
510


I I




a


SPEECHES
OF TIIF


RIGHT HONOURABLE


CHARLES JAMES FOX,


4-c. cC.


ALIEN BILL.


December 28. 1792.


ON the second reading of the bill " for establishing regulations.respecting aliens arriving in this kingdom, or resident therein
in certain eases," Mr. Secretary Dundas stated the objects of it.
All foreigners arriving in the kingdom were to explain their
reasons for coming into this country, to give up all arms, except
those commonly used for defence or dress. In their several re-
movals through- the country they were to use passports, by which
their actual residence or occasional movements might be manifest,
and their conduct easily observed. Those who received eleemo-
synary support were to be distributed in districts where they
would be more liable to the vigilance of the civil power. Par-
ticular attention was to be paid to foreigners who had visited this
kingdom within the present year. who should hereafter come with-
out obvious reasons, and be thus more obnoxious to prudent
suspicion. — Sir Gilbert Elliot supported the bill, and alluded to
the difference of opinion between him and some honourable friends
whom he highly respected and esteemed. This difference of
opinion, he trusted, however, would not affect their private friend-
ship, which, he hoped, would remain unaltered. This sentiment
he was the more particularly led to express, as he had received.
distinguished marks of friendship from one right honourable gen;
tleman (Mr. Fox), with whom he was now compelled to express
his difference in opinion. On this occasion he felt himself prompted
by duty to declare, that since the close of last session he had felt
much regret from what had been said by that right honourable
gentleman. The views which he entertained of the present situ-
ation of affairs were not only widely different from his own, but
the means which lie proposed to be pursued for the public welfare
were such as appeared to him to be even of an opposite tendency-.


VOL. V.
-tz




ALIEN BILL. [Dee. 28'
Mr. Fox said, that in whatever political difference of opi-


nion be felt himself with reference to his friends, he would
venture to say, that in all discussions of such opinions he had
never suffered the political difference to interfere with his pri-
vate friendships; yet he did feel some reason to complain, that
all the private friendship and esteem professed for him by the
honourable baronet should not have induced the honourable
baronet to state to him such political difference of opinion as
'he now said had existed so long, and that this should be the
first occasion he had to suspect the least difference of opinion
between the honourable baronet and himself. The honour-
able baronet said, that so long ago as the last session of par-
liament he had reason to differ in opinion from him, and now
declared a general disapprobation of his political conduct.
Till now be had never understood that there was, among
those with whom he had been accustomed to act, a general
difference of opinion from him, and a disposition to support
the present administration. Fie would call no man to ac-
count for his conduct; but he would say, that they had given
him the most distinct assurances that there was nothing which
made them more unwilling than they were formerly, that
they had expressed no disinclination, to follow the same plan
they had before adopted. He had, indeed, on the first day
of the present session, seen gentlemen go out into the lobby
whom he could have wished to have staid in the House; he
had heard an honourable friend of his (Mr. Windham) speak
with that powerful eloquence which always distinguished him
against what appeared to him to be the right and just course
of proceeding, and he had heard him with pain ; but he saw
no such difference of opinion as made it impossible for those
gentlemen, or his honourable friend, to preserve that connec-
tion in which they had so long acted.


With respect to himself; all he could say was, that he wa%
as much devoted to that connection as any gentleman in that.
House; as any man of honourable and independent feelings
could be. He said also, it was the pride of his heart to think,
that the union and exertions of that connection had kept alive
every thing that deserved the name of the spirit of liberty in
that country. He wished not to call to mind particular ex-
pressions ; but lie could not but recollect, that the difference
between those with whom he had acted and the present mi-
nistry, was formerly called fundamental and irreconcileable;
and he did believe that this sentiment still pervaded the majo-
rity of them. Whether his opinion was or was not consonant
with the opinion of that majority lie did not know ; but. this
he knew, that the cause of his country would not suffer him to
say he could support an administration which stood upon


1722.3 ALIEN
BILL. 3


grounds not warranted by the constitution. He had heard,
in this and other places, that the present administration ought
to be systematically supported at all events in the present situ-
ation of affairs. He blamed not those who said so; but, with
regard to himself and those who entertained that opinion,
union and co-operation were at an end. He had not heard
the honourable baronet say so much; for lie was sure, that if
the honourable baronet had done so, he could not have added
that he concurred in sentiment with the illustrious characters
to whom he had alluded. The honourable baronet had al-
luded to a noble person (the Duke of Portland) so much
esteemed by him, that he could not express what he felt in
speaking of him ; a nobleman with whom he had lived sixteen
or seventeen years on terms of friendship, and for ten of those
seventeen had been in habits of the greatest intimacy and
affection ; and be would venture to say that he esteemed him
at least as much as the honourable baronet. He could not
bring himself to believe that that nobleman entertained the
opinion professed by the honourable baronet; for he had
heard that that nobleman, in giving his support to the present
bill, had expressly declared that he could not forget the man-
ner in which the present administration came into power, and
that great part of the difficulties in which the country was
now involved was owing to their misconduct. He therefore ,
believed that no essential difference existed between that noble
person and himself.


If differences did arise from doubts that were entertained,
he asked only for a fair discussion, that it .might be distinctly
known wherein it was they differed. He firmly believed, that
on all the principles of liberty, they not only agreed in mo-
tives but in actions; that they agreed in every thing except the
bill. He disapproved of this bill, and they approved, which
was all the difference of which he knew. But as to other
differences, (and he was conscious of no other,) that subject
must be farther discussed, and better understood between
them. He had long acted, and he wished to continue to act
with characters whom he esteemed and loved ; but if he should
b


-


c driven, which God forbid ! to the situation of acting with-
out; or even against those characters, he hoped and trusted he
should have sense




b
enonah to discern his duty, and fortitude to


sryl
e e


whether
r


perform it. Painful as such a separation would be to him,
a his utmost fortitude to bear, he must then con-k


trusted, however, he. shouldt laci
t'


act alone, or not act at all. He


duty,
the other hand, the difference


( act according:). to his own sense of
if he was compelled to do the one or the other. If, on


the only material difference
on the present bill should be


between them, they might still act
13 2




4 ALIEN BILL. [Dec.31-
in conjunction, as they had formerly done, and be hoped that
all attempts to magnify accidental differences, while they
agreed on one general principle, would fail of their effect.
There were other persons from whom he expected an entire
difference on certain questions, and he had not been deceived.
The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) who had con-
demned his former friends to banishment in Sinope, it might
have been expected, considering the desolateness and sterility
of the land, would have paused, would have thought that a
sufficient punishment ; but he had not done so. All that he
could say was, that nothing should be Wanting on his part, no-
thing of yielding or complying, nothing conciliating or friend-
ly, no submission that friendship and old habits of intimacy
could suggest, that he should not be ready to enter into, if, in
his opinion, it could operate for the public good. Upon the
present bill, as nothing had been alleged that could justify the
principle, which he had no hope of opposing with success, and
as it contained many provisions that could be better debated
in a committee than in any other stage, lie should reserve
what he had to say until it came to that stage.


Mr. Burke answered Mr. Fox in a very spirited but desultory
speech, in the course of which, to enforce his account of the three
thousand daggers manufactured at Birmingham, he threw down
one of them on the floor of the House, and bid them look to it as
a sample of the fruits to be obtained by an alliance with France.
At the same time he exclaimed with great vehemence, that he
would, to the utmost of his power, keep French infection from
our country, their principles from our minds, and their daggers
from our hearts.


December 31.


On the motion for going.
into a committee on the bill, the Mar-


quis of Titchfield said, he agreed that the circumstances of the
country were in the highest degree critical ; and, in such circum-
stances, those who were as little inclined to think well of the pre-
sent administration as himself, might be disposed to adopt such a
conduct in some instances, as at other times they would not be
inclined to pursue. His political sentiments and attachments
remained the same that they had ever been. His opinion of the
gentlemen who composed the present administration, was in no
respect altered : but he felt the dangers which surrounded us, and
the necessity, in that, case, of giving to government such support
as might enable it to act with effect; a support, therefore, directed
to that effect, and governed by those circumstances, was that which
he meant distinctly to give them.


ALIEN BILL. 51792.]
Mr. Fox said, that he should trouble the House but with a


very few words. What he chiefly had to observe was on whathad fallen from the noble marquis in the course of this debate.
He thought it rather unnecessary to take much notice of what
had been expressed on the feelings of others on a former clay.
The whole subject had been explained by the noble marquis
with so much propriety, dignity, and perspicuity, that he
could not entertain a doubt as to his principles and senti-
ments. He had so properly come forward to state his opinion
as a member of that House, that no doubt could now remain ;
all that he had to say on that subject was, that he concurred
entirely with the noble marquis in every thing he had said,
except his approbation of the present bill. There might
be some . explanation upon that subject in the committee ;he
therefore only said, that the committee might, perhaps, be the •
proper stage for him to deliver his sentiments upon the subject.
At present, lie must confess, he was not ready to give his assent
to the bill. He was not surprised that there was a difference
of opinion between the noble marquis and himself upon the
bill. They had formed different opinions on the state of the
country : the noble marquis had thought the country in dan-
ger, and therefore very properly thought that the executive
power should be strengthened, and voted for the bill. He,
on the contrary, was not aware of such danger, and saw no ne-
cessity for the bill; and therefore, when the case was thus ex-
plained, it was not surprising that they differed in opinion.—
The bill now before the House must, he apprehended, be
discussed on two grounds. The first was, whether any dan-
ger did exist in this country? If that was determined in the
negative, there would be an end of the bill ; if in the affir-
mative, then, secondly, whether the present bill contained
the proper remedy for such danger? The present was not
a question of general support of administration, as had been
erroneously stated: it was, whether any thing was necessary
in the present case; and if any thing was necessar y, whether
the present bill was adapted to the end proposed g? He was
ready to say, that if the circumstances of the times were such
as ministers described them to be, it would be necessary for
him to support government; and he would support govern-
ment if there was really danger in this country. He was
always ready to support government when he thought it
wanted support. As a proof of this, lie had given his vote
for the augmentation both of the army and navy this year.
He had done so because he believed this country to be
threatened with external danger. But he did not believe
there was any internal danger, and therefore it was that he
opposed the present bill. If ministers would prove the in-


B 3




6 ALLEN BILL. [Jan. 4:
ternal danger to exist, he should consider himself bound to
vote for it.


Janumy 4. 1793.


On the order of the day for taking into consideration the report
of the committee on the alien bill, a debate of considerable length
took place. The bill was opposed by Mr. M. A. Taylor, the Earl
of Wycombe, Major Maitland, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Fox ; and sup-
ported by Lord Fielding, Lord Beauchamp, Mr.Hardinge, Mr.
Jenkinson, Lord Mulgrave, Mr. Windham, Mr. T. Grenville, Mr.
Mitford, and Mr. Pitt.


Mr. Fox said, that the immediate question before the
House had been discussed in a manner so general, and so
many extraneous topics had been introduced, that he must
depart from the mode in which he had meant to treat it.
He would begin with the state of the country, and examine
what degree of danger existed when parliament met, and
what degree of danger existed now. His opinion on the first
day of the session, (and he hoped he should not be misunder-
stood, or what he said misinterpreted now, as had been the
case then,) was, that no danger existed to justify the measure
of calling out the militia and assembling parliament, and in
the manner in which this was done. His honourable friend
(Mr. Windham) had said, that the dangers alleged in the
proclamation were not to be judged of in detail ; that they
would make no figure mentioned individually, but were to
be estimated by the impression made upon every man's mind,
by the whole taken together. That they were not to be de-
tailed he was ready to admit, for, 4 4 Bolus versatur in gene-
ralibus," they would not bear detailing; if they were to be
mentioned individually, they would appear so many insigni-
ficant circumstances as to excite ridicule instead of alarm,
and therefore his honourable friend did right in begging that
they might be so mentioned. The danger, whatever might
be its degree, had two sources : first, the fear of the propaga-
tion of French opinions in this country; and, next, the fear
of the progress of the French arms. These might for one
purpose be taken conjointly, but he intreated that they might
be first considered distinctly, for he saw them in very dif-
ferent points of view. The propagation of French opinions
in this country was, in his opinion, so very small, so very
much confined, as to afford no serious cause of alarm to any
mind of rational constancy. It had been said, that the pro-
clamation at the close of the last session of parliament bad
checked the growth of the evil; but this was a mere gratis


1793'3
ALIEN BILL. 7


dictum, for those who said so were not able to adduce . juri-
dical, for that was not required of them, but prudential proof
that it had ever existed. What, then, was the alarm ? Those
who thought they had cause for alarm in May, might natu-
rally think that they had still greater cause; that those who
entertained those obnoxious opinions would disseminate them
with greater confidence, would act on them with greater
boldness, when the French arms prospered. For those parts
of the country in which he had not resided he did not pre-
tend to answer ; but, in this town at least, and, as he had
every reason to believe, in all other parts of the kingdom,
these French opinions had not been adopted to any degree
that could be called alarming. His honourable friend had
said, let them compare the phenomena with the theory, and
they could not fail to be convinced of the danger. His
honourable friend's mind, he rather believed, was so full
of the theory, that he could not help inferring the phenomena,
instead of raising the theory from well ascertained phe-
nomena. For his part, he had always said, that whatever
progress the doctrines of France might make in other coun-
tries, they would make. but little here, where rational liberty
was enjoyed and understood. He founded his hopes of this
on his own opinion of the constitution, and the attachment
of the people to it; and the event had justified his hopes,
instead of the fears of some other persons. If real danger
had existed, if those from whom it was app rehended had been
proceeding to action, if they had been rising in arms, if they
had been going to take possession of the Tower-, (supposi-
tions which now no man believed,) then, indeed, calling out
the militia would have been a wise and a necessary measure.
But, if no such act was impending, to what purpose was a
military force prepared ?. To repel opinions? Opinions were
never yet driven out of a country by pikes, and swords, and
guns. Against them the militia was no defence. How, then,
were they to be met if they existed? By contempt, if they
were absurd; by argument, if specious ; by prosecutions, if
they were seditious; although that certainly was not a mode
which he would recommend, but it was a mode which mi
nisters had before resorted to, and which they had still in
their power. If, indeed, any danger did exist, it was,not to
be repelled by calling


aaiw n ,war with obnoxious
the




militia, and, under the pretence
of oxious political principles, bringing
bodies of them nearer and nearer to the metropolis. If; then,
no act, founded on these opinions, was believed to be com-
mitted or intended, they who voted against the address on the
first day of the session were right; for no • od ground hadgo
been laid for the measures which they were called upon to


B el




8 ALIEN BILL. [Jan. 4,
approve. Could not ministers have prosecuted Paine with-
out an army ? Was any apprehension stated that the trial
would not be suffered to go on in the usual course? He had
been asked by a learned gentleman, whether or not a book
with an evil tendency was to be declared innocent, because
not coupled with any act, and without proof of extrinsic cir-
cumstances? His answer was, certainly not, but the evil ten-
dency must be proved. Sometimes the evil tendency might
be evident from the book itself; sometimes it might not,
without being coupled with extrinsic circumstances ; and
where this was the case, the extrinsic circumstances must be
proved to the satisfaction of the jury before they were war-
ranted in pronouncing guilty. This was his opinion ;• and
this, he thought, had been so sufficiently understood by both
sides of the House in the debates on the libel bill, as to pre-
vent any misrepresentation. The alarm, then, on the pro-
pagation of opinions could not justify the remedy which
ministers had adopted, especially when it was coupled with
a fidse assertion of insurrections, and, therefore, if it.did not
create, it certainly augmented, the alarm—he meant not in
the mind of his honourable friend; he had been full of alarm
for several months — an alarm that had taken such complete
possession of his ardent imagination, that he could attend to
nothing else, and he feared it would be several months more
before he could be set right upon this subject. Another
ground of alarm was the progress of the French arms. They
who represented him as indifferent to that progress, did him
great injustice. He was by no means so. He thought the
same national spirit that, under Louis XIV., had threatened
the liberties of all Europe, might influence, and actually had
influenced, the conduct of the French at present; and he
might perhaps think that this national spirit was more likely
to collect and act now than at the time to which he alluded.
He had even said that this country ought to have interfered
at an earlier period. He differed from a noble lord (Wy-
combe) who had spoken so ably, and with so much propriety,.
that he was sorry he could not concur in all the noble lord
had said on two material points. He was clearly of opinion
that the navigation of the Scheldt, if not guaranteed to the
Dutch by the letter of the treaty of 1788, was virtually gua-
ranteed to them by that treaty, and, if they insisted upon it,
would assuredly be a good cams fiederis. He differed
also from the noble lord in thinking, that however much he
might disapprove of any treaty at the time it was negociating,
when concluded, it was as religiously to be adhered to by
those who disapproved of it as by those who made it. But in
all these cases both the contracting parties were to be ton-


793']
ALIEN BILL. 9


1
sidered, the principal and the ally, and they were not to go to
war, even in support of the treaty, Without a mutual regard
to the joint interests of both. In the present case, he thought
it probable that, considering the risk to be run, and the
doubtful advantage of the monopoly of the Scheldt, Holland
might prefer giving it up, to the danger and expence of a war.
If so, surely we were not to force the Dutch into a war against
their own sense of their own interest, because we were their
ally. The decree of the French convention of instruction to
their generals he should also consider as a declaration of
hostility, if not repealed or explained to our satisfaction ;
always understanding that this satisfaction was to be demanded
in the proper way. He, therefore, saw causes of external
danger, and might perhaps think that it was in a great mea-
sure owing to the neglect of ministers; but when he saw the
armies and the fleets of France, and recollected that we had
no public means of communication by which any differences
that had arisen, or might arise, could be explained, the
danger appeared great and imminent indeed. When he con-
sidered the various relations in which we stood with respect
to France, and the numerous points on which the two coun-
tries might interfere, the circumstance alone of having no
public communication would in itself be a great cause of
peril. For this reason, he had voted for an army and a
navy, not for any of the eccentric reasons given by his ho-
nourable friend, (Mr. Windham,) that he would support mi-
nisters because he thought them unfit for their situations ;
but because he never knew a minister so bad, that he would
not trust him with a fleet and army rather than expose the
country to danger.


Having thus pointed out the internal and external dan-
ger, he 'would ask, how the measures that had been adopted
were the proper remedy? If considered distinctly, either the
measure or the mode did not apply. If connected, the remedy
ftdonercilititeatoiene was no remedy for the other. If France threatened


cal-llIion,11rantid, or refused an explanation of the offensive
decree,


out the militia would be right ; but for crush-s
ing objectionable opinions or doctrines assuredly not. He
knew not how to fight an opinion, nor did history furnish
lrirn wbietehninstruction. The opinions of Luther and of Calvin
had
want of blood, no


want
combated


and
r B


through
bwere


by arms; there was no want of war, no
o confederacies of princes, to extir-pate th


son


e
of these • 1 they extirpated? No; they had spread flourished eh bloodshed sh and persecution. The com-


attacked
invidious; but


withit opinions of another description might
seem


not if


ed bu
was so only if they were attacked by


reason, by
war. By force and power, no




10 ALIEN BILL..
[Jan, 4.


opinion, good or bad, had ever been subdued. But then,
it was said, if we went to war, one of the weapons of the
French would be, instilling their opinions into the minds of
our people. If it was, he trusted it would fail. But would
a danger so much dreaded in peace be less in time of war ?
War, it was to be hoped, would be successful ; but were we
such children as to forget, that in war the sway of fortune
was great, and that the burden of certain taxes, disgust at
ill success, and indignation at misconduct, would dispose the
minds of men to receive doctrines and impressions unfavour-
able . to the constitution ? Even all this he hoped they would
resist; but it would be putting them to a severer trial than
Ire wished to see.


On these occasions it was not necessary for him to say,
that he, who loved the constitution, disapproved of the opi-
nions of those who said that we had no constitution. His
love of the constitution was to the constitution on its old
form, which had subsisted by constant reformation, and was
of such a nature, that if it was not improving, it was in a
state of decay. He was happy to find by the resolutions from
various parts of the country, that, in his opinion, he was-not
singular. Like every human production, the constitution was
not perfect, and if it were, it would not long continue so,
unless the practice of it was carefully watched, and if that
spirit of vigilance on the part of the people, which was its
best security, were lulled to sleep. Melancholy, therefore,
as the present prospect was, he saw more danger than ever
from that prospect, from pushing the present alarm too far, and
making the people see the picture all on one side — the dan-
gers of anarchy only, while they were inattentive to the abuses
and encroachments of the executive power on the other. If
the bill was intended to guard us against internal danger,
while we were at war with France, we knew that in 1 71 5


and
1745 the French had not been sparing of attempts to sow
dissentions and excite rebellion in the country; and yet
we had, by the commercial treaty, provided for the pro-
tection •of the aliens of both countries, even after an actual
declaration of war. Did it guard against the introduction
of opinions? No. We had not yet come to the measure
of prohibiting all French books and papers, which Spain
had adopted about a year ago; nor was the policy or the
wisdom of it so much applauded as to induce us to follow
the example. But these opinions were propagated by con-
versation ! What, then, did a Frenchman, when he landed,
find an audience to understand the terms of his philosophy,
and immediately open a sort of Tusculan disputation ? Were
they disseminated in clubs and convivial meetings, Where


1793.7
ALIEN BILL. I I


than gv


propagated at all, it must be by English agents, and these,
ifany such there were, which he did not much believe,
wld remain in the kingdom if every foreigner were sent


ould


men were disposed to approve rather of what was animatedhat was proper ? The very idea of a Frenchman


,was too ridiculous to be mentioned. If they were
up to harangue in his broken English, at such a


fit.
out of preamble of the bill was a complete delusion ; for itp


stated the extraordinary resort of aliens to this country, as the
pretence of the bill, while every body knew that extraordinary
resort to be occasioned by circumstances that had no connec-
tion with it. At the time of the revocation of the edict of
Nantes, when so many Frenchmen came over to this country,
would such conduct have been adopted ? If it had been, it
would have deprived us of some of the best commercial advan-
tages that we enjoy at the present day. The spirit of the bill
was kept up in the mode of the defence; for it was said
by one gentleman, that 400 aliens had marched into London
in one day, while another gentleman (Mr. Burke) said he
had examined these aliens, and found that they were not
dangerous. Surely, where that right honourable gentleman
saw no danger, every body else might be perfectly at ease !
Were an office to be instituted for the purpose of exa-
mining the opinions of individuals, and how they stood af-
fected to the constitution of the country, no person could be
better qualified than the right honourable gentleman to con-
duct the enquiry. Those who should stand this test, and meet
with his approbation, might be reckoned sound indeed.
With respect to the emigrants, among whom it was meant
to make a distinction by the bill, he would protect those who
had fallen a sacrifice to their opinions in favour of the old
government of France ; not because he approved of their prin-
ciples, but because he respected their misfortunes. With
respect to those who suffered for their attachment to the new
constitution, he had heard it said by a person of high rank,
metloliatnitiiIstit:eyrL.s aw w,Fayette were here, he ought to be sent out of the


would not aitbhauss such


this


a


t


ouse


endured ? Was it fit to vest any


fled for fear


power, merely in the hope that they
The third description, those who had


beina- concerned in the de-of punishment, for
btestable massacre of the 2d of Septem er, all men would wish


tcoalsaere lia
•e:,.


raved; but this was a sufficient ground for a parti-
The horrors of that day ought not to be mentioned


as the act of the French government, or the French people,
for both disclaimed it ; but to disclaim was not enough. That
the crime was not prevented or followed up by striking exam-




12 ALIEN BILL.


pies of punishment, would be an indelible disgrace to Paris
and to -


France. But, were we to go to war on account of
these inhuman murders ? No war could be rational that had
not some object, which being obtained, made way for peace.
We were not, he trusted, going to war for the restoration of
the old French government, nor for the extermination of the
French people. -What, then, had the horrors committed in
France to do with the reasons of war ? But they had to do with
the passions of men, and were held out to blind their judg-
ment by exciting their indignation. That we might have a
rational and intelligible account of the object for which we
were going to war, he had made the propositions on which
the House had already decided : and notwithstanding their ill
success, he should not desist till such an account was obtained.
The prerogative of the crown to send foreigners ourittf the
kingdom, said to be left untouched by the




bill, ought not to
remain in doubt. The single instance produced from the
reign of Henry the Fourth was counterbalanced by another in
the same reign, when the king did the same thing by the
authority of parliament which he bad done before by his own
power. He believed that the prerogative did not exist, and
if it did, that it was too dangerous to be suffered to remain.
If, on the other hand, it was a prerogative for ,


the good of the
people —if, indeed, the word " people" was not expunged
from our political dictionary— the good of the people being.
the only foundation that he knew for any prerogative, it was
fit that it should be clearly defined and understood, either by
an enacting or a declaratory law.


In answer to Lord Mulgrave, Mr. Fox paid a handsome com-
pliment to his learned friend Mr. Erskine, to whose abilities and
perseverance it was owing, that the verdict of a jury could now
be had on the guilt or innocence of any writing charged as
libellous. He said, that his learned friend would have been
guilty of a breach of honour in his profession if he had
shrunk from the defence of Mr. Paine, or shewed that
any man prosecuted in this country could be deprived
of the advantage of counsel, where counsel was allowed
by law.


To the charge of inconsistency in having signed the decla-
ration of a society against seditious writings, while he thought
such societies illegal, he said he did not understand the decla-
ration as meaning to prosecute any writings by subscription ;
he had by what he said at the meeting expressly guarded him-
self in this particular, and was told that the money subscribed
was not for any such purpose, but to pay for papers and
advertisements. If he had misunderstood the one, or been
lnisinformed in the other, he would withdraw his name> He


--


.1.1931
ALIEN BILL. T3


had signed a declaration of attachment to the constitution,
because he thought it of importance at the present moment to
let foreigners, and especially the French, see that men of all
descriptions were firmly attached to it ; that they had been
grossly deceived by the addresses from this country, which
told them that their doctrines were very generally adopted
here ; that they had been deceived by the minister's procla-
mations, stating that there was great danger from their doc-
trines ; that they had been deceived by the alarms expressed
by some of his own friends. This he hail clone, and every
thing consistent with honour he would still do to prevent a
war with France ; more especially a war on false hopes, on
one part, and false grounds on the other.


On the subject of party-connections it was seldom proper—
at all times difficult—to speak, and he was not called upon to
do it, He would only just skew his honourable friend a few
of the consequences arisin g the doctrine he had laiddown. I-Iis honourable friend would oppose a ministry
where he had hopes of turning them oat, and seeing his
friends get into their places; but when those hopes were at
an end he would join them. Many of those who had formerly
opposed ministers had done so ; more would follow their ex-
ample ; but they had never dreamt that they should have so
good a defence for their conduct as the system of his honour-


, able friend — a doctrine much more convenient for others than.
he was sure it would be for himself. Did his honourable
friend sec the consequences of this doctrine? Could lie, upon
reflection, reconcile it with his high notions of honour ? Was
it a fit lesson to teach ministers, that, if by their misconduct
the public safety was brought into danger, then they should
have the support of those who had before opposed them ?
Was it proper thus to hold out a reward to misconduct?
Would it curb the inordinate and selfish ambition of men in.
power to say, that if he thought them so good as to resign
their places rather than their country. should suffer, he would-0°


0
oppose them ; but if he




°


tho a It them so bad as to sacrifice


l


principle,


whom


in
.om


on . ,


their
eir bound not


to
their own love l of peace, he should feel him-


sel
them? Thus his


only to withdraw his opposition, but to join


3ouran


peri honourable friend held out a premium to a
wicked


.


In order to


snvae


0


mbition, and, in fact, said to minis-
ters,


they would not have


retain your places, and ensure our supportto y
power,


and perniciou


of ruin, yotouIf
i, only to brine, the country to thebrink


of


.11.1s honourable friend did join ministers,
ipe


l
m much reason to be proud ; for, on his own


bad opini
non to the support he gave them, would behis


those to whom he went, and his good opinion


of


those le had left, Mr. Fox concluded with moving




X4 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [Feb. I.
44 That the farther consideration of the bill be postponed to that
clay three weeks," in order, he said, to give time for enquiry
into the gonads of the necessity alleged for adopting it.


Mr. Fox's motion was negatived without a division. After which
the bill was read a third time and passed.


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE FOR AN AUGMENTATION'
OF THE FORCES.


February I.


ON the 24.th of January, 1793, intelligence arrived in London 41of the melancholy catastrophe of Louis the XVIth ; and on the
z8th, Mr. Secretary Dunclas presented the following message from
his majesty:


" GEORGE R.
" His majesty has given directions for laying before the House of


Commons copies of several papers which have been received from
Mr. Chauvelin, late minister plenipotentiary from the most Chris-
tian king, by his majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs,
and of the answers returned thereto ; and likewise copy of an order
made by his majesty in council, and transmitted by his majesty's
commands to the said Mr. Chauvelin, in consequence of the ac-
counts of the atrocious act recently perpetrated at Paris. — In
the present situation of affairs his majesty thinks it indispensably,
necessary to make a further augmentation of his forces by sea and
land ; and relies on the known affection and zeal of the House of
Commons to enable his majesty to take the most effectual mea-
sures, in the present important conjuncture, for maintaining the
security and rights of his own dominions ; for supporting his allies;
and for opposing views of aggrandizement and ambition on the
part of France, which would be at all times dangerous to the ge-
neral interests of Europe, but. are peculiarly so, when connected
with the propagation of principles which lead to the violation of
the most sacred duties, and are utterly subversive of the peace and
order of all civil society."


The message was taken into consideration on the ist of February,
when Mr. Pitt concluded a long and eloquent speech with moving,-
" That an humble address be presented to his majesty, to return
his majesty the thanks of this House for his most gracious mes-
sage, and for the communication of the papers, which, by his
majesty's command, have been laid before us : To offer to his
majesty our heartfelt condolence on the atrocious act lately per-
petrated at Paris, which must be viewed by every nation in Europe
as an outrage on religion, justice, and humanity, and as a striking


o


T o'


;
10]


FOR AN AUGMENTATION OF THE FORCES.
.1


and dreadful example of the effect of principles which lead to th e...--
violation of the most sacred duties, and are utterly subversive of
the peace and order . of all civil society : To assure his majesty,
that it is impossible for us not to be sensible of the views of ai -
grandizement and ambition, which, in violation of repeated and
s
solemn professions, have been openly manifested on the part of
o


France, and which are connected with the propagation of prin.
ciples incompatiab le with the existence of all just and regular
government : that, under the present circumstances, we consider
a vigorous and effectual opposition to these views as essential to
the security of every thing which is most dear and valuable to us
as a nation, and to the future tranquillity and safety of all other
countries : That, impressed with these sentiments, we shall, with
the utmost zeal and alacrity, afford. his majesty the most effectual
assistance to enable his majesty to make a further augmentation of
his forces by sea and land, and to act as circumstances may require
in the present important conjuncture, for maintaining the security
and honour of his crown, for supporting the just rights of his
allies, and for preserving to his people the undisturbed enjoyment
of the blessings which, under the Divine Providence, they derive
from the British constitution." — The address was seconded by
Lord Beauchamp. The Earl of Wycombe conceived it to be his
indispensable duty to use every argument in his power to prevent
a war. The country, he insisted, was in no danger whatever,
being equally secured by its insular situation, its internal resources,
and the strong attachment of the people to the constitution. As for
French principles, he had no idea of going to war against them ; and
with respect to the cruelties perpetrated in France, he attributed.
them to the infamous expedition of the Duke of Brunswick, which
might be called a fraternity of kings for the purpose of imposing
despotism on all Europe. — Mr. Whitbread opposed the address.
He prefaced his observations by declaring his abhorrence of the
atrocious deed recently committed in France : it would stand,.
he said, one of the foremost in the black _catalogue of crimes
which history had to record ; it would remain a foul stain upon
the national character of the people amongst whom it had been
perpetrated. But he denied that the barbarities imputed to France
were the necessary consequences of the French revolution, or of
aregpat


ti etahne II irbi ne Ilse s .
eribed. These i


•f
• 1


of France, to the sanguinary manifestoes of
f To the conduct, of the powers combined


the Duke of Brunswick,
cstoes bore rather the stamp and character


i might they be, without hesitation, as-
of those Gothic and


u Scythian invaders, with whom to conquer
and destroy were 1


cernible


der


manife


in the


eie the same, than of the gallant and generouslea of the
• •


made of




the emphatical


of two enlightened princes of Europe, at theclose
mg iteenth century. The spirit of Attila was dis-


in a


m, who describing the manner in which himself
war,


.a


any
allow


of the
that


grounds stated in the papers on the table; nor wouldhe


said, " Where Attila's horse sets his foot, the grass never grows.
He deprecated a war with France. He denied it was justifiable upon


ti l words recorded by Mr. Gibbon, had,


calamity.
nister4


had done their utmost to avoid so dreadfullami y.




ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE
[Feb. r.


Mr. Fox said, that although some words had fallen from
the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer which
might lead him to think that war was not absolutely deter-
mined upon, yet the general tenor and impression of his
speech was such as to convince him that there never was a
time when the duty, which he owed, not merely to his im-
mediate constituents, but to the whole people of Great Britain,
of whom the members of that House were individually and
collectively the virtual representatives, more imperiously called
upon him, and upon every man, to speak out and declare his
sentiments frankly and fairly. The misrepresentations and
misconstructions of what he and those who thought as he did,
had already said in the course of the present session, left him
no room to doubt, that what he must now say, would be
equally, and perhaps as successfully, misrepresented and mis-
construed. This only served to . shew, that they were on a
service of honour as well as danger; but if he were deterred
by misrepresentation and calummy from delivering opinions
because they might be unpopular, and from deprecating
war with France as an evil to be avoided by every means con-


. sistent with the honour and safety of us and our allies, he
should basely betray his trust to his constituents and his
country.


The right honourable gentleman had introduced the several
grounds of dispute with France, ably and eloquently; but the
reasons for going to war, he did not mean to say for arming,
had not been very accurately treated. The crimes, the mu•-
ders, and the massacres that had been committed in France,
he did not view with less horror, he did not consider as less
atrocious than those who made them the perpetual theme of
their declamation, although he put them entirely out of the
question in the present debate. The condemnation and exe-
cution of the king he pronounced to be an act as disgraceful
as any that the page of history recorded ; and whatever opi-
nions he might at any time have given in private con-
versation, he had expressed none certainly in that House, on
the justice of bringing kings to trial: revenge being unjus-
tifiable, and punishment useless, where it could not operate
either by way of prevention or example, he did not view
with less detestation the injustice and inhumanity that had
been committed towards that unhappy monarch. Not only
were the rules of criminal justice, rules that more than any
other ought to be strictly observed, violated with respect to
him ; not only was he tried and condemned, without any
existing law to which he was personally amenable, and even
contrary to laws that did actually exist; but the degrading
circumstances of his imprisonment, the unnecessary and in-


1793. 7
VOR AN AUGMENTATION OF THE FORCES. r7


suiting asperity with which he had been treated, the total
want of republican magnanimity in the whole transaction,
(flif -evenein that House it could be no offence to say, thatthere might be-such a thing as magnanimity in a republic,)
added every aggravation to the inhumanity and injustice of


said all this as the genuine expression of histhos
e


,a ;
Nov,


c, t
having


feelings and his conviction, he saw neither propriety nor wis-
dom in that House passing judgment on any act committed
in another nation, which had no direct reference to us. The
general maxim of policy always was, that the crimes per-t,petrated in one independent state were not cognizable by
another. Need he remind the House of our former conduct
in this respect? Had we not treated, had we not formed al-
liances with Portugal and with Spain, at the very time when
those kingdoms were disgraced and polluted by the most
shocking and barbarous acts of superstition and cruelty, of
racks, torture, and burnings, under the abominable tyranny
of the inquisition ? Did we ever make these outrages against
reason and humanity a pretext for war ? Did we ever inquire
how the princes with whom we had relative interests either
obtained or exercised their power ? Why, then, were the
enormities of the French in their own country held up as a
cause of war? Much of these enormities had been attributed
to the attack of the combined powers ; but this he neither
considered as an excuse, nor would argue on as a palliation.
If they dreaded, or had felt an attack, to retaliate on their
fellow citizens, however much suspected, was a proceeding
which justice disclaimed; and he had flattered himself, that
when men were disclaiming old, and professing to ado pt newprinciples, those of persecution and revenge would '1)e the
first that they would discard. No man felt greater horror at
the proceedings of the combined powers than he did. A com-
bination more dangerous to the tranquillity of Europe and
the liberties of mankind had never been formed. It had been
said that Austria was not the aggressor in the war with France.
Had those, who said so, seen the treaty of Piinitz? Let them
look at that treaty, take the golden rule of supposing themselves
ino the situation,ivtisli to oft judged, say and, judging of others as they
had been the aggressors. But,
Austria, was the of


whether or not the French.
. ut, ;whatever might be thought of


territories
Prussia attacked by France? Werehis or his allies insulted ? Had he notbeen completely feta .nh;be.ifena(g'1',c0. 70ressor, he would have called upon us


as o sn. soifi
sfi
Ld c.aeil y,el .i d heits elflso noseluccour : no such call had ever been heard of:


proof,
any proof were wanting, that he never


e but as wiustoine• in an offensive war. What




8 AnDRESS ON THE KING'S 11IESSAGE


[Feb.
were the principles of these combined powers? They saw a
new form of government establishing in France, and they
agreed to invade the kingdom, to Mould its government ac-
cording to their own caprice, or to restore the despotism which
the French had overthrown. Was it for the safety of English
liberty, (liberty that might still be mentioned without offence,)
that if we should make any change in our form of govern-
ment or constitution, and that change should be disagreeable
to foreign powers, they should be considered as having a right
to combine, and replace what we had rejected, or give us any
thing else in its room by fire and sword ?


He would not go over the atrocious manifestoes that pre-
Ceded or followed the march of the combined armies; there
was not a man in the House, or at least but one (Mr. Burke),
who would attempt to defend them. But these it seemed
were not to be executed —he hoped they were not; but the
only security he knew of was, that those who issued them
had not the means. What was their conduct ? Their mode
of raising money was at least as bad as that with which the.
French were reproached. The French confiscated property
where they carried their arms; the Duke of Brunswick took
what he wanted, and gave paper for it in the narne of the
unfortunate monarch whom he pretended to assist. He con-
tracted debts in the name of the French king, which he knew
the French king might never have the means or the inclination
to pay ; and this swindling trick,- for which any man in this
country would have been convicted and 'punished, he con-
tinued after he had begun his retreat. Yet we stood by and
saw all this without alarm; certainly without 'interference.
We perceived no danger in the success of despotism; but
the moment the opposite cause became successful, our fears
Were extreme.


He should now show, that all the topics to which he had
adverted, were introduced into the debate to blind the judg-
ment, by rousing the passions, and were none of them the just
grounds of war. These grounds were three: the danger of
Holland ; the decree of the French convention of November
the a 9 th ; and the general danger to Europe from the progress
of the French arms. With respect to Holland, the conduct
of ministers afforded a fresh proof of their disingenuousness.
They could not state that the Dutch had called upon us to
fulfil the terms of our alliance. They were obliged to confess,
that no such requisition had been made; but added, that they
knew the Dutch were very much disposed to make it. What-
ever might be the words of the treaty, we were bound in
honour, by virtue of that treaty, to protect the Dutch, if
they called' Upon us to do so, -bat neither by honour nor title.


• - - •


1793.] FOR AN AUGMENTATION OF THE FORCES.
19


treaty
till then. The conduct of the Dutch was very un-


fortunate upon this occasion. In the order for a general fast
--by-the States,-it - 'wasexpressly said, "that their neutrality


s
seemed to put them in security amidst surrounding armies,


einand hadhitherto effectively protected them from molestation."This he by no means construed into giving up the opening
of the Scheldt on their part ; but it pretty clearly shewed,
that they were not disposed to make it the cause of a war,
unless forced to do so by us. But France had broken
faith with the Dutch—was this a cause for us. to go to wear?
How long was it since we considered a circumstance.tending
to diminish the good understanding between France and Hol-
land, as a misfortune to this country ? The, plain state of the
matter was, that we were bound to save Holland from war,
or by war, if called upon ; and that to force the Dutch into a
war at so much peril to them, which they saw and dreaded,
was not to fulfil, but to abuse the treaty. Hence he com-
plained of the disingenuous conduct of ministers, .in imputing
that to the Dutch, which the Dutch wished to avoid.


The decree of the 1 9th of November he considered as an
insult ; and the explanation of the executive council as no ade-
quate satisfaction; but the explanation shewed that the French
were not disposed to insist upon that decree, and that they
were inclined to peace; and then otir ministers; with haughti-
ness unexampled, told them, they had insulted us, but refused
to tell them the _nature of the satisfaction that we.required.
It was said, we must have security; and he was ready to
admit that neither a disavowal by the executive council of
France, nor a tacit repeal by the Convention, on the . intima-
tion of an unacknowledged agent, of a decree, which.they
might renew the day after they repealed it, would. be a 'sale
cient security. But at least we ought to tell them what we
meant by security. ; for it was the extreme of arrogance to
complain of insult without deigning to explain wloiaq' repar-
ation we required; and he feared as indefinite term was hero
employed, not.for the purpose of obtainina but of precluding
satistiiction. Next it was said, they must. withdraw their
troops from the Austrian




nnu,


g
Netherlands, before we could be sae


stjasy
fi


to .France, M'!ere "you
then, come to that pitch of insolence as to


Iblouinmia
,ederequire


Yu have conquered part of an enemy's terrie


'awed,


tort' v war upon you, we will not interfere to makepeace,
r)


while
.lis


pre
to abandon the . advantages youhave '


this the neutrality_ pa ing to attack you anew." Was
are invaded .


and ny beaten,
meant to hold out to France ?.. " If you


against
hurt youryou." eaten, we will . be. quiet spectators ; but ifyou enemy,. if you. enter his territory, we declare


If the invasion of the Netherlands was.what
C 2




2D
ADDRESS' ON THE KING'S MESSAGE




[Feb. re
now alarmed us—and that it ought to alarm us if the result
was to make the country an appendage to France, there could,
be no doubt—we ought to have interposed to prevent it in
the very first instance; for it was the natural consequence,
which every man foresaw, of a war between France and
Austria. The .


French now said, they would evacuate the
country at the conclusion of the war, and when its liberties
were established. Was this sufficient? By no means : but we
ought to tell them what we would deem sufficient, instead of
saying to them, as we were now saying, 44 this is an aggrava-
tion, this is nothing, and this is insufficient." That war wee
unjust which told not an enemy the ground of provocation,
and the measure of atonement; it was as impolitic as unjust,
for without the object of contest, clearly and definitively
stated, what opening could there he for treating of peace?
Before going to war with France, surely the people, who must
pay and must suffer, ought to be informed on what object
they were to fix their hopes for its honourable termination.
After five or six years war, the French might agree to evacuate- ,
the Netherlands as the price of peace. Was it clear that they
would not do so now, if' we would condescend to propose it
in intelligible terms? Surely in such an alternative, the expe-
riment was worth trying. But, then, we bad no security
against French principles ! What security would they be able
to give us after a war which they could not give now ?


With respect to the general danger of Europe, the same
arguments applied, and to the same extent. To the general
situation and security of Europe we had been so scandalously
inattentive; we had seen the entire conquest of Poland,
and the invasion of France, with such marked indifference,
that it would be difficult now to take it up with the grace of
sincerity; but even this would be better provided for, by pro-
posing terms before going to war.


He had thus shewn that none of the professed causes were
grounds for croine• to war. What, then, remained but thegoing
internal government of France, always disavowed, but ever
kept in mind, and constantly mentioned ? The destruction of
that government was the avowed object of the combined
powers whom it was hoped we were to join; and we could
not join them heartily it' our object 'was one thing while
theirs was another; for in that case the party whose object
was first obtained might naturally be expected to make se-
parate terms, and there could be no cordiality nor confi-
dence. To this, then, we came at last, that we were ashamed
to own our engaging to aid the restoration of despotism,
and collusively sought pretexts in the Scheldt and the Nether-
lands. Such would be the real cause of the war, if war wo


1193.] FOR AN AUGMENTATION Or THE eateocs.
which he trusted he should soon -see


waseie to
ery


g.
en l e



xecaraIacrl„ as it was now thought to be popular.


e knew,--that for this wish, he should be represented as
generally


holding up the -internal government of France as an object
onimitati Te-ee thought the present state of govern-


ment
or


ill France any thing rather than an object of imitation ;f i ation.
but he maintained as a principle inviolable, that the govern-
ment of every independent state was to be settled by those
who were to live under it, and not by foreign force. The
.conduct of the French in the Netherlands was the same with
such a war as he was now deprecating, and Might be au
omen of its success. It was a war of pikes and bayonets against
opinions; it was the tyranny ofgiving liberty by compulsion ;
it was an attempt to introduce a system among a people by
force, which the more it was forced upon them, the more they
abhorred. The French appeared less moderate, from pre-
tending to be more so, than other nations; by overturning
the ancient government, and imposing theories of their own, on
a people who disliked them, while they pretended to liberate,
instead of using their right of conquest. But was this such a
crime in the eyes of Europe ? As was said of the woman caught
in adultery, which of the courts, that of London or Berlin,
would cast the first stone? The States of Brabant, they were
told, had, pacta conventa, a legal and free government of
their own. But, were the States free under the House of
Austria, under Joseph, Leopold, or Francis? 0 yes ! for when
Dumourier was triumphantly entering Brussels, and the Au-
strian sentgovernors making their escape at a postern, they - -back at'declaration to the States, restoring their magna (imee,
the jnyeuse entree, which had been the perpetual subject of
dispute with their sovereign, and which all their remonstrances
could never obtain before. This was the government that
acted with such honour to its subjects, and put the French to
shame ! He feared that if they were to examine the conduct
of foreign powers, in point of honour and good faith, they
must be compelled to speak less civilly of them than policy
would dictate. Why, then, had he touched upon it? Be-
cause the conduct of nalflame and delude, and it ice was perpetually introduced to in-


-


shewing that
e,


it
ant it was his duty to dispel the delusion,


by
neighbours.


was not more exceptionable than that ofi
In all decisions


not suffer;


• 1 t
-t


ider what we


on peace or war, it was important to eon-
s


the 1
the one hand, mightlose, and what we could gain. On


on
ex ension of territority was neither expected nor


eligible :




rench minist other, although he feared not the threat of theF
1


ei of marine, would any man say that our ally
might er ; t -tat the events of war might not produce a


c3




22
• ADDRESS ON THE KING'S :MESSAGE


[Feb-.
change in the internal state of Holland, and in the situation
of the stadtholder, too afflicting for him to anticipate ? In
weighing the probable danger, every consideration ought to
be put into the scale. Was the state of Ireland such as to
make war desirable? That was a subject which had been said by
some honourable gentlemen to be too delicate to be touched
upon ; but he approved not of that delicacy which taught men
to shut their eyes to danger. The state of Ireland he was
not afraid to mention. He thought it both promising and
alarming; promising, because the government of this country
had forced the government of that kingdom to an acknow-
ledgement of the undoubted rights of a great majority of the
people of Ireland, after having in a former session treated
their humble petition with contempt, and in the summer en-
deavoured to stir up the protestants against the Catholics;
alarming, because the gross misconduct of administration had
brought the government and the legislature into contempt in
the eyes of the people. Here he called on his honourable
friend (Mr. Windham) who had given the aid of his great
talents, as secretary in Ireland, to an administration with
which he had the honour of being connected, on the same
principle on which he had declared, that he would support
ministers when they had done mischief enough to he formi-
dable, , when they had brought the country into a situation
sufficiently perilous, to accept.of the Saine situation again, and
avert the danger which they had created. He hoped the
plan to be pursued would be conciliatory, that concession to
the claims of the 'people would be deemed wisdom, and the
time of danger the fit time for reform ; in short, he hoped
that the plan would be in every thing contrary to the de-
clarations of the right honourable the chancellor of the
exchequer.


The people of this country loved their constitution. They
had experienced its benefits; they were attached to it from
habit. Why, then, put their love to any unnecessary test?
That love by being tried could not be made greater, nor
would the fresh burdens and taxes, which war must occasion,
more endear it to their affection. If there was any danger
from French principles, to go to war without necessity was
to fight for their propagation.


On these principles as reprobated in the proposed address,
he world freely give his opinion. It was not the principles
that were bad and to be reprobated, but the abuse of them.
From the abuse, not the principles, had flowed all the 'evils
that afflicted France. The use of the word " equality" by
the French was deemed highly objectionable. When 'taken
as• they meant it, nothing was more innocent; for what did


'4793'] FOR. AN AUGMENTATION OF THE FORCES.


thi
this he " all men arc equal in respect of their rights." T9


sayas?sented ; all men had equal rights, equal rights to .un-
equalql things; one man to a shilling, another to a thousand
pounds _ ; this- one man to a cottage, another to a palace; but the


theye


right in both--was the same, an equal right of enjoying, an
equal right of inheriting or acquiring, and of possessing in-
heritance or acquisition. The effect of the proposed address
was to condemn, not the abuse of those principles, (and the
French had much abused them,) but the principles themselves.
To this he could not assent, for they were the principles on
which all just and equitable government was founded.


Mr. Fox said, he had already differed sufficiently with a
right honourable gentleman (Mr, Burke) on this subject, to
wish to provoke any fresh difference; but even against so great
an authority he must say


'


that the people are the sovereign
in every state ; that they have a right to change the form. of
their government, and a right to cashier their governors for
misconduct, as the people of this country cashiered James II.,
not by a parliament, or any regular form known to the con-
stitution, but by a convention speaking the sense of the peo-
ple; that convention produced a parliament and a king.
They elected William to a vacant throne, not only setting
aside James, whom they had justly cashiered for misconduct,
but bis innocent son. Again, • they elected the Hoi,ise of
Brunswick, not individually, but by dynasty; and that dynasty
to continue while the terms and conditions on wnie lo it was
elected were fulfilled, and no longer. He could not admit
the right to do all this but by acknowledging the sovereignty-
'of the people as paramount to all other laws.


But it was said, that although we had once exercised this
poWe •, we had in the very act of exercising it, renounced it
for ever. We had neither renounced it, nor, if we had been
so disposed, was such a renunciation in our power. We
elected first an individual, then a .dynasty, and lastly passed


act . of parliament, in the reignpf Queen Anne, declaring
td be the right of the people of this realm to do so .again


without even assigning a reason. If there were • any persons
Among us, who doubted the superior wisdom of our moriar-


Netealelfibair:alledofitgs-
syteri.onnnoriailti,d tlitrerirefielrioror was owing to those


„able foundation in the
right and choice of the people, to a more flimsy ground of
title. To those who proposed repelling opinions by force, the
example of the French in the Netherlands, might teach the
impotence of power to repel, or to introduce. But how was
a war to operate in keeping opinions supposed dangerous out
of this country ? It was not surely meant to beat the French
out of their own opinions ; .and opinions were not iiise comma-


c 4




1


24 ADDRESS ON TILE RING'S MESSAGE
[Feb. I.


dities, the importation of which from France war would pre-
vent. War, it was to be lamented, was a passion inherent in
the nature of man ; and it was curious to observe, what at va-
rious periods had been the various pretences. In ancient
times wars were made for conquest. To these succeeded wars
for religion, and the opinions of Luther and Calvin were at-
tacked with all the fury of superstition and of power.


The next pretext was commerce; and it would probably
be allowed that no nation that made war for commerce ever
found the object accomplished on concluding peace. Now we
were to make war on account of opinions: what was this but
recurring again to an exploded cause ? For a war about prin-
ciples in religion was as much a war about opinions, as a war
about principles in politics. In the excellent set of papers
alluded to by the right honourable the chancellor of the exche-
quer, and which he had no doubt had been liberally distributed
to the gentlemen who had lately got so many new lights on
French affairs, the atheistical speech of Dupont in the con-
vention was quoted. But did they believe all the French to
be atheists and unbelievers on account of that speech ? If
they did so believe, there would certainly be no reason to com-
plain of them for want of faith. But, admitting that the
French were all atheists, were we going to war with them in
order to propagate the christian religion by means contrary
to the precepts of Christ? The justifiable grounds of war
were insult, injury, or danger. For the first, satisfaction ; for
the second, reparation; for the third, security was the object.
Each of these, too, was the proper object of negotiation,
which ought ever to precede war, except in case of an attack
actually commenced. How had we negociated? Not in any
public or efficient form, a mode which he suspected, and la-
mented, by his proposing it had been prevented. A noble
lord (Beauchamp) had said, that he thought it his duty not to
conceal his opinions on so important an occasion, by absence
or by silence; formerly, the noble lord did not think absence
so great a crime. During the nine unfortunate years that he
had maintained the same political connections with himself, the
noble lord's attendance had not been very assiduous; and he
rejoiced to hear that the noble lord meant now to compensate
for past omissions by future diligence.


When the triple league was firmed to check the ambition
of Louis the XIVth, the contracting parties did not deal so
rigorously by him, as we were now told it was essential to the
peace of Europe that we should deal by the French. They
never told Louis that he must renounce all his conquests in
-order to obtain peace. But, then, it was said to be our duty
to hate the French for the part they took in the American


L793.] roll AN AUGMENTATIO N OF THE FORCES. 25


war.
He had heard of a duty to love, but a duty to hate was


new
,
to him. That duty, however, ought to direct our hatred


to -the old government of France ; ,not to the new, which had
no Band hi . the provocation. Unfortunately, the new Frenchgovernment was-.admitted to be the successor of the old in
nothing but its faults and its offences. It was a successor to
be hated and to war against; but it was not a successor to be
negociated with. He feared, however, that war would be the
result, and from war, apprehending greater evils than he durst
name, he should have shrank from his duty if he had not en-deavoured to obtain an exposition of the distinct causes. OF
all wars, he dreaded that the most which had no definite o
ject,


b-
ect, because of such a war it was impossible to see the end.


Our war with America had a definite object, an unjust one
indeed, but still definite; and after wading through years on
years of expellee and blood, after exhausting invectives and
terms of contempt on the " vagrant congress," " one Adams,"
"one Washington," &c. &e., we were compelled at last to treat
with this very congress, and those very men. The Americans,
to the honour of their character, committed no such horrid
acts as had disgraced the French ; but we were as liberal of
our obloquy to the former then as to the latter now. If we
did but know for what we were to fight, we might look for-
ward with confidence, and exert ourselves with unanimity ;
but while kept thus in the dark, how many might there be
who would believe that we were fiffhtino • the battles of de-
spotism ! To undeceive those who might fall into this un-
happy delusion, it would be no derogation from the dignity
of office to grant an. explanation. If the right honourable
the chancellor of the exchequer would but yet consider—if he
would bat save the country from a war—above all, a war of
opinion — however inconsistent with his former declarations
his measures might be, he would gladly consent to give him a
general indemnity for the whole, and even a vote of thanks.
Let not the fatal opinion go abroad, that kings have an in-
terest different from that of their subjects; that between those
who have property and those who have none there is not a
common cause and common feeling !


He knew that he himself should now be represented as the
partizan of France, as he had been formerly represented the
partizan of America. lie was no &'stranaer to the industry
with which these and other calumnies were circulated against
hsteii iirsasend therefore he was not surprised. But, he really was


d to find that he could not walk the streets without
whispers, that he and some of his friends had been


engaged in improper correspondence with persons in France.
if there were any foundation for such a charge, the source of




26 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [Feb. 12.
the information could be mentioned. If it were true, it was ca-
pable of proof. If any man believed this, he called upon him
to state the reasons of his belief. If any man had proofs, he
challenged him to produce them. But, to what was this
owing? The people had been told by their representatives in
parliament that they were surrounded with dangers, and had
been shewn none. They were, therefore, full of suspicion and
prompt of belief. All this had a material tendency to impede
freedom of discussion, for men would speak with reserve, or
not speak at all, under the terror of calumny. But he found
by a letter in a newspaper, from Mr. Law, that he lived in a
town where a set of men associated, and calling themselves
gentlemen, (Mr. Reeves's association at the Crown and An-
chor,) not only received anonymous letters reflecting on indi-
viduals, but corresponded with the writers of such letters,
and even sometimes transmitted their slanders to the secretary
of state. He could not be much surprised at any aspersion on
his character, knowing this; and therefore he hoped the House
would give him the credit of being innocent till an open charge
was made; and that if any man heard improper correspon-
dence imputed to him in private, he would believe that he
heard a falsehood, which he who circulated it in secret durst
not utter in public.


The address was agreed to without a division.


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING THE DECLA-
RATION OF WAR BY FRANCE.


February 2.


0 Nt lit fenliini tihncromfmessage Mr. SecretarySecretaryDundas presentedh
majesty :


"G. IL
" His majesty thinks proper to acquaint the House of Commons,


that the assembly now exercising the powers of government in
France, have, without previous notice, directed acts of hostility
-to be committed against the persons and property of his majesty's
subjects, in breach of the law of nations, and of the tnost positive
stipulations of treaty ; and have since, on the rnostgroundless pre-
tences, actually declared war against his majesty and the United
Provinces. Under the circumstances of this wanton and unpro-
voked aggression, bismajesty has taken the necessary steps to main-


II


--effectual support of the House of Commons, and on the zealous


min the honour of his crown, and to vindicate the rights of his
people ; and his majesty relies with confidence on the firm and
v793'3


dence, to oppose ail-effectual barrier to the farther progress of a


exertions-cf_a brave and loyal people, in prosecuting a just and
necessary war;- - and in endeavouring., under the blessing of Provi-


system


is pursued in open defiance of every principle of mo-
deration, good faith, humanity, and justice.
son to hope for the -cordial co-operation of those powers who are
united with his majesty by the ties of alliance, or who feel an in-
terest in preventing. the extension of anarchy and confusion, and in


the French declaration, and concluded with moving, " That an
contributing to the security and tranquillity of Europe."


humble Address be presented to his majesty, to return his majesty
the thanks of this House for his most gracious message, informing
us, that the assembly, now exercising the powers of government
in France, have, without previous notice, directed acts of hostility
to be committed against the persons and property of his majesty's .


knowledge his majesty's care and vigilance in taking the necessary


subjects, in breach of the law of nations and of the most positive
stipulations of treaty : and have since, on the most groundless pre-


ing, under the blessing of Providence, to oppose an effectual bar-


tences, actually declared war against his majesty and the United
this wanton and unprovoked aggression, we must gratefully ac-


fiance of every principle of moderation, good faith, humanity, and
justice : That, in a cause of such general concern, it must afford


in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, and in endeavour-


and peace of all independent nations, and is pursued in open de-


with his majesty by the ties of alliance, or who feel an -interest in


Provinces : to assure his majesty that, under the circumstances of


rights of his people ; that his majesty may rely on the firm and
effectual support of the representatives of a brave and loyal people,


rier to the farther progress of a system which strikes at the security


us great satisfaction to learn that his majesty has every reason to
hope for the cordial co-operation of those powers who are united


persuaded; that whatever his majesty's faithful subjects must con-


tend.,,—Afte d


-


steps for maintaining the honour of his crown, and vindicating the


si(n
servation. of our laws,


th wd


, our liberty, and our religion, are all involved


shall be proportioned
present


of the objects
; and


-for


that


which h we


seal and


have to con-
sh


bpureventtingthe ex. tension of anarchy and confusion, and in contri-


t


in the issue of theand honour of his


. majesty's crown, and the pre-
c)Ier the


ul


as mostclear


" In a cause -Of such general concern, his majesty :has every rea-


On the following day, Mr. Pitt entered into an examination of


ting to the
security and tranquillity of Europe : 'That we are


I magnitude


w
hich strikes at the security and peace of all independent


RDSPECT17.s.TG THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 27


r the -motion had been seconded by Mr. Powys,
an


,and sacred, the stability of our happy constitu-


ne to the importance of the conjuncture, and to


Mr. Fox said, that on an -occasion so important, and not
fearing the charge of pusillanimity from considering the pre-




23 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE
[Feb. 2.


sent crisis as highly alarming, it would ill become the duty
which he owed to his constituents and to the nation, were he
to decline meeting the imputation of being the abettor of
France, with which he was already menaced; or, by the bold
misconstructions of his sentiments and arguments to which he
had been accustomed, be deterred from examining and stating
what was the true situation in which the country was involved
in war. He had never accused- the honourable gentleman
who seconded the address of a systematic opposition to mini-
sters, nor of acting upon any system; but he called upon
him to name those persons in the House, if any such there
were, whom he meant to include under the description of
supporters of the French system. The honourable gentle-
man knew that just so' were those treated who opposed the
folly and injustice of the American war. Yet, notwithstand-
ing their being long and industriously misrepresented as the
abettors of rebellion,. a band of as patriotic and as honourable
men as ever deserved public gratitude by public services, by
some of whom he trusted he should be supported in oppos-
ing the address now moved, united their abilities to put an
end to that war, and at length succeeded.


The right honourable gentleman who moved the address,
had stated the origin and necessity of the war, on grounds
widely different from those assumed by the honourable gentle-
man who seconded it. The latter had said, that the power of
France, under every change of men and circumstances, was a
monster, whose hand was against all nations, and that the
hand of every nation ought to be against France: the former,
that the cause of the war was not our general bad opinion of
France, but specific aggressions on the part of France. So
far the difference was great with respect to our immediate
situation of being actually at war ; and it was still greater
when we came to inquire into our prospect of peace. If we
were at war because France was a monster whose hand was
against all nations, it must be beltunz internecinunz—a war of
extermination ; for nothing but unconditional submission
could be adequate to the end for which the war was under•,
taken, and to that alone must we look for a safe or honour-
able peace. If, on the contrary, we were at war on account
of a specific aggression, for that aggression atonement might
be made, and the object being obtained, peace might be con-
cluded. He therefore hoped, that the right honourable mover
of the address was sincere in the statement he had given, al-
though he had failed in making out the grounds on which he
endeavoured to support it. Few of those, he trusted, who
had been most zealous in recommending the expediency of
this war, wished it to be a war of extermination— a war for


1793'1
RESPECTING THE WAR WITH PRANCE. 29


extirpating French principles, not for circumscribing French
vet all their arguments tended to alarm him. They


never talked of the danger of French power without intro-
d ci a as a danger more imminent, the propagation of French
power ;


principles. The honourable gentleman asked, if lie could be
expected to make terms with a highwayman, or to take the


purse a satisfaction for the attack upon hiso not. The honourable gentleman knew hislli,7-nh?wa6e7ani'sCertainly


duty to society better, than to let 'the highwayman escape, if
he had the means of bringing him to punishment. But this
allusion strewed, that the war with France was, in the opinionjof the honourable gentleman, a war of vindictive justice. We
said, that our object in going to war was not to effect a change
in the internal government of France, but to weaken her power,
which, in its present state, was dangerous to us, our allies,
and to Europe ; and, that object obtained, we were willing to
make peace. But, would any man say, that when he had dis-
armed a highwayman, it was safe to leave him free to get other
arms? No man, certainly ; and no more on this principle
could we, in an y state of humiliation to which the power of
France might lie reduced, leave her at liberty to recruit that
power, and to renew aggressions, to which we contended she
must have the inclination, whenever she had the means. The
honourable gentleman might support ministers for any reasons
that to himself seemed good; either because he thought them
wise or ignorant, honest or dishonest; but he had no right to
accuse those who thought differently from himself, of sowing
disaffection among the people,. because they wished to inform
the people what were the true grounds of the war, which they
were called upon to support with their property and their
lives. The honourable gentleman rejoiced that the public
entertained a more favourable opinion of ministers, in the
present crisis, than ministers deserved. Did lie mean to argue,
that when ministers, by their misconduct, had brought the
country into danger, and the people, ignorant of their true
characters


:


IN,vvielio
•eidmisepw


better,


to think well of them, the House of


instead of removing
the ter, Ferleavour to continue,


come to this—that implicit
delusion oel c si ii ?


i
is doctrine would then


confidence n ministers, so often
ttinledyshoajd dusntloyrlielp)r robated, was the first duty of the House; that
narchy, it was truly


lu tI?


tc,)
b


watch, and ought never to inquire. Mo-


n •


on, and of all
said, was


eve
corner-stone of our consti-


tuti


portant
the —only


the c
cor er-stone;


:e blessings e enjoyed under it; but it was
not


ex


; there was another fully as im-


the
people and their


p


power


jealousy and vigilance, both of the
epresentatives, with respect to all the acts of


ecutive


i




2:30 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [Feb. 1
Mr. Fox said, he felt himself considerably disappointed at


the conduct of his majesty's ministers. He had flattered him-
self, that when unanimity was so very desirable they would
have brought down a message from his majesty, calculated to
insure it; that they would not have considered a triumph
over the very small number to which they boasted of having
reduced their opponents, to be a matter of such consequence,
as to call for an address to which they knew those few oppo-
nents could not agree, because to do so must preclude them
from all subsequent inquiry. If they had moved an address,
simply pledging the cordial co-operation of the House in pro-
secuting a Just and necessary war, for the purpose of a safe
and honourable peace, to such an address, whatever might
have been his opinion of the previous conduct of ministers,
whether he had thought it temperate and conciliatory, or
arrogant and provoking, he should have agreed. But, the
House was now called upon to vote, that ministers had given
no cause or provocation for the war; to say, that they would
enter into no investigation of the origin .of the war ; to give
them indemnity for the past, and a promise of support for the
future. This was the manifest tendency of the address ; and
to prevent the want of unanimity, which such an address
could not but occasion, he should move an amendment, in
which even the warmest advocate of the war might concur,
because it expressed no disapprobation of ministers, as theirs
ought to have expressed no approbation.


But, first, he must examine the alleged causes of the war.
He would not enter into any of the common-place arguments
on the miseries and calamities inseparable from war. He did
not mean to call them common-place arguments. in the bad
sense of the words, for they were truths so familiar to the minds
of men, that they were never listened to without assent ; and,
however unnecessary it might be to enforce:them by eloquence,
or amplify them by declamation, their being universally ad-
mitted was sufficient to prove, that war should never be
undertaken when peace could he maintained without breach


.of public faith, injury to national honour, or hazard of future
security. The causes of war with France were in no respect
different now from what they were under the government of
Louis XIV. or Louis XVI. What, .then, were those causes?
Not an insult or aggression, but a refusal of satisfaction when
specifically demanded. 'What instance had ministers pro-
duced of such demand and of such refusal ? He admitted,
that the decree of November the loth entitled this ' country
to require an explanation; but even of this , they could not
show that any clear and .specific explanation had . been de-
manded. Security that the French would not . act upon that


IiO3
RESI/ECTING THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 31




decree was, indeed, mentioned in one of Lord Grenvilie's let-
ters; but what kind of security was neither specified, nor even
named. The same might be said with respect to the opening
of the Scheldt, and their conquest of Brabant. We com-
plained of an attack on the rights of our ally ; we remove
strated against an accession of territory, alarming to Europe ;
But we proposed nothing that would be admitted as satisfac-
tion for the injury ; we pointed out nothing that would remove
our alarm. Lord Grenville said something about withdraw-
ing their troops from the Austrian Netherlands ; but if by that
was understood, a requisition to withdraw their troops while
they were at war with the emperor, without any condition
that such evacuation of territory conquered from the enemy
was to be the price of peace, it was such an insult as entitled
them to demand satisfaction of us. The same argument
applied to their conquest of Savoy from the King of Sardinia,
with whom,. in his opinion, they were at war as much as with
the emperor. Would it be said, that it was our business
only to complain, and theirs to propose satisfaction ? Com-
mon sense must see that this was too much for one independent
power to expect of another. By what clue could they dis-
cover what would satisfy those who did not choose to tell with
what they would be satisfied ? Flow could they judge of the
too little or the too much ? And was it not natural for them
to suppose that complaints for which nothing was stated as
adequate satisfaction, there was no disposition to withdraw ?
Yet on this the whole question of aggression hinged ; for, that
the refusal of satisfaction, and not the insult, was 'the justifi-
able cause of war, was not merely his opinion, but the opinion
of all the writers on the law of nations ; and how could that
be said to have been refused which was never asked ? He
lamented, that at a time when the clearest interests of the coun-
try were at stake, the House should have felt so little concern


o


as to deprive
he had


him
given


of the opportunity of making the motion of
w


to ballot for an election
to press for a distil t


for want of a sufficient attendance


the war, and I
.a 1 I


committee. By that motion he meant


, that both


distinct and specific declaration of the causes of.


effect,


tic he succeeded it would have had this good


the war might have been the enemy should




o
ld have known the


grounds of contest, have been able to appreciate them, and


much


fbemer
in mood


the
- decree een but of short duration. There was


could not fairly
y which the French declared war, which


cou
under they be alleged as just cause of war. But, d h


a
nment of France, was it unusual to crowdinto•


int that could


in


manifesto setting forth the causes of war, every coin-
pla be imagined, (rood, bad and indifferent ?.It Was, indeed, to be wished, that nothing should be introduced




32 ADDRESS ON THE RING'S MESSAGE [Feb. t
into such declarations but what was at once true and impor-
tant ; but such had not yet been the practice of statesmen, who
seemed more attentive to the number than the validity of their
complaints. In the year 1779, the Spanish declaration was
swelled to a hundred articles ; and to examine every article of
the present French declaration would only shew that those
wile now exercised the executive government were not wiser
than their predecessors.


To have suffered Earl Gower to remain at Paris, after the
loth of August, would have implied no recognition of the go-
vernment that succeeded that to which he had his formal mis-
sion, any more than to have negeciated with that government,
in the most direct and safe way, in preference to one that was
indirect and hazardous, But the right honourable gentle-
man, who could not get rid of the idea of recognition, ex-
claimed, " Would you recognize a government which, by its
own confession, is no government ; which declares itself only
provisional till a government can be framed ?" This he would
answer was the safest of all recognitions, if a recognition it
must be; for the government being only provisional, we could
only be understood to recognize provisionally, and were at
liberty to act as the case might require with any other power
that might arise in its stead. But, did not history shew us,
that to treat and to recognize were not considered as the
same ? Did not we treat with Philip of Spain, as king, at
the very time that we were at war to dispute his succession ;
and was not the recognition of his title, far from being consi-
dered as admitted by us on that account, actually stipulated as
an article of the peace ? Did not France, when at war to
dispute the accession of William III. to the throne of Eng-
land, treat with him as king, and was not the recognition of
his title also made one of the conditions of peace? Still,
however, he would admit, that withdrawing our minister, or
not sending another, was not a just cause of war on the part of
France; but could it be-denied, that to treat one nation in a
manner different from others was a symptom of hostility ?
The recalling of ministers was certainly once considered as an
indication of war, for the commercial treaty provided for a
case where no war was declared but by such recall.


Mr. Fox said, that none of the alleged grounds in the
French declaration could be more absurd, than that the cir-
culation of their assignats were prohibited in this country ; for
that was purely a measure of internal regulation, as much as
it would be to prohibit the circulation of paper issued among
ourselves that perhaps stood on a much surer capital. But
even here we were not quite impartial; for although that paper
was called worth nothing which at present brought fourteen


RESPECTING THE WAR WITH PRANCE.
33/793.]


balf•a-crown, the paper created by that
swindling, the assignats issued by the leaders of


were not certainly worth more, but wethe


pence t ic


had not thought it necessary to forbid the circulation-of them ;
we had not prohibited the circulation of American paper even
during the war, nor was it at all necessary ; such paper wanted
no prohibition. We had the right to prohibit it if we pleased,
but he did not like assigning one reason for a thing when we
evidently acted from another. The prohibiting the export-
ation of foreign corn to French ports, while it was free to other
countries, 'it was said, arose from preceding circumstances
and according to these circumstances it might be a justifiable
or unjustifiable act of hostility, but it was an act of hostility so
severe, that the circumstances which justified it would havej ustified a war, and no such circumstances, as he had alreadyproved, could be shewn.


The alien bill was not a just cause of war, but it was a viola-
tion of the commercial treaty, both in the letter and the spirit.
The right honourable gentleman said, that the French had
made regulations in their own country by which the treaty had
been already ,completely broken and at an end. But, did he
complain of' those regulations, for it was expressly provided by
the treaty itself,' that no violation should put an end to it, till
complaint was made, and redress refused. But here lay the
important difference. The French made no regulations that
put aliens on a different footing from Frenchmen. They
made general regulations ofsafety and police, as every nation


. had a right to do. We made regulations affecting aliens only,
confessed to be more particularly intended to apply to French-
men. It was admitted, that the French desired an explan-
ation of these regulations, and that an explanation was refused
them. By us, therefore, and not by the French, Was the
commercial treaty broken.


o f as
Our sending


ei ;11
irny'r-.


Aa squadron to the Scheldt they complained0
And here the right honourable gentlemanb


• introduced the popular topic of their charm! a operationsc ing
in Belgium ; the disturbance of which they thought them-
selves intitled to resent as an aggression. He was as little
disposed to defend their operations in Belgium as the right
honourable gentleman, although he saw not for what purpose


. they were here alluded to, unless to inflame the passions, and
mislead the judgment; but if' by that squadron we had dis-
turbed them in their operations of war against the emperor,
just i cause a u hs e to


odcnnntlted we had not done, they would have had
gentleman, plain. " Then," said the right honourable


" they, complain of our conduct on the afflictingiew4..)L.
V.


n s
murder of their king; what, shall we not grieve
v


It


0




34 ADDRESS ON THE XING'S MESSAGE [Feb. 12.
for the untimely fate of an innocent monarch most cruelly
put to death by his own subjects ? Shall we not be permitted.
to testify our sorrow and abhorrence on an event that outrages
every principle of justice, and shocks every feeling of hu-
manity ?" Of that event he should never speak but with grief
and detestation. But, was the expression of our sorrow all.?'
Was not the atrocious event made the subject of a message
from his majesty to both Houses of _parliament? And now
he would ask the few more candid men, who owned that
they thought this event alone a sufficient cause of war, what
end could be gained by farther negociation with Chauvelin,
with Maret, or Dumourier? Did ministers mean to barter .
the blood of this ill-fated monarch for any of the points in
dispute; to say, the evacuation of Brabant shall atone for
so much, the evacuation of Savoy for so much more? Of.
this he would accuse no man; but, on their principle, when
the crime was committed, negociation must cease. He agreed,
however, with the right honourable gentleman, and he was
glad to hear him say so, that this crime was no cause of war ;
but, if it were admitted to be so, it was surely not decent that
the subject of war should never be even mentioned without
reverting to the death of the king. When he proposed send-
ing an ambassador to France, " What !" said the right ho-
nourable gentleman, 66 send an ambassador to men that are
trying their kin!)• !" If we had sent an ambassador, even
then; had our conduct towards the French been more can-
did and conciliating, the fatal issue of that trial might have
been prevented. " But," said the right honourable gentle-
man, 6 ‘ we negotiated unofficially." The importance to any
wise purpose of this distinction between official and unofficial
negociation, of this bartering instead of selling, he could never
understand; but even to this mode of negotiating the dis-
mission of M. Chauvelin put an end. But M. Chauvelin,
it was said, went away the very day after he received the


• .


order, although he might have stayed eight days and ne-
gotiated all the while ! Was it so extraordinary a thing
that a man of honour, receiving such an order, should not
choose to run the risk of insult, by staying the full time
allowed him; or could he imagine, that his ready compliance
with such an order would be considered as an offence? When
M. Chauvelin went away and M. Maret did not think him


-


self authorised to negociate, ministers sent a message to Lord
Auckland, to negociate with General Dumourier, which
reached him too late. Admitting this to be a proof of their
wish to negociate, while negociation was practicable, what
was their conduct from the opening of the session / If he
or any of his friends proposed to negociate— 66 Negotiate


1793.1


RESPECTING THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 35
they exclaimed, " we are already at war." Now it appeared
that they did negociate with unaccredited agents, although
the secretary of state had said that such a negociation was not
compatible with his belief; and, last of all, (strange conduct
for lovers of peace !) they ordered to quit the country the
only person with whom they could negociate in their un-
official way. He was happy to see the right honourable gen-
tleman so much ashamed of this mutilated farce of negociation,
as to be glad to piece it out with Lord Auckland and General
Dumourier. Then was asked the miserable question, " What
interest have ministers in promoting a war, if, as it has been
said, the ministers who begin war in this country are never
allowed to conclude it?" Admitting this to 1;e true, for
which he saw no good reason, then surely they who endea-
voured to avert a war, ought to be allowed some credit for
the purity of their motives. But ministers never opened a
fair communication on the points in dispute with France.
They acted like men afraid of asking satisfaction, for fear
that it should be granted — of stating the specific causes of
war, lest they should lose the pretext.


An opinion somewhere stated, had been adverted to, that
the people might consider this as a war in which kings were
more interested than their subjects. He felt great respect
for monarchy, and it was neither his practice nor his incli-
nation to speak harshly of kings. He had already said, that
monarchy was the corner, or rather the key-stone of the Bri-
tish constitution, which was limited, not unlimited monarchy.
But, with all clue reverence for crowned heads, was it im-
possible to conceive that kings might love, not limited, but
unlimited monarchy; and that resistance to the limited mo-
narchy attempted to be established in France, in the room
of the unlimited monarchy,. by which that country was for-
merly governed, might have been the true cause of the com-
bination of some of 'the crowned heads of Europe ? Our king;
haul sat too


much
long on the throne of a free kingdom ; he had


experience that the love of his people was 4
stronger defence than guards and armies, to forfeit that love,
by transgressing the bounds which the constitution prescribed
to him, were even his virtues and his wisdom less than they
were known to be. But, had not kings the frailties of other
men ? Were they not liable to be ill advised ? What became
of that freedom of speech which was the boast of parliament,if he might not suppose, that, by evil counsellors, their earsmight be poisoned, and their hearts deceived ? He therefore
feared, that this war would be supposed a war for restoring
monarchy in France, and for supporting rather the cause ofkings, than the cause of the people. He would be Ow last


D 2




specifically stated. But what might be the moment of dis-
cussing these objects? The fear,


.their decision
moment of dano. ger and alarm,


with the power his majesty's inspeech, of employing firms
aBny


d
the promise
temperate




res, he had understood, first, remon-
the n ue causes of complaint, then a specific demandes tfr asnact on


sat isfaction, and an armament to give efficacy to both..On his hope of the first two he had voted for the third.
The right honourable gentleman said, we had received in-


sults that ought not to have been borne for twenty-four hours.,
These were magnanimous words. In the affair of Nootka Sound
the aggression by Spain was as direct and unqualified as any
that could be stated, and yet we had borne it for twenty-four
days. Why was not the same course pursued now as then?He was now called upon, as a member of that House, to sup-
port his majesty in the war, for the war was begun, and lie
would do it ; but he was not pledged to any of those crooked
reasonings on which sonic gentlemen grounded their support
of ministers, nor less bound to watch them, because, by their
misconduct, we had been forced into a war, which both the
dignity and the security of Great Britain would have been
better consulted in avoiding. He was never sanguine as to
the success of a war. It might be glorious to our army and
our navy, and yet ruinous to the people. The event of the
last campaign—pi•0ml absit omen — and the example of the
American war, had taught him, that we might be compelled
to make peace on terms less advantageous than could have
been obtained without unsheathing the sword ; and if this might
be the consequence to us, the consequences to our ally, the
Dutch, must be such as he would not suffer himself to antici-
pate. The ordering M. Chauvelin to depart the kingdom,
and the stopping the exportation of corn to France, when ex-
portation was allowed to other countries, acts of hos-
tility and provocation on our part, which LI not allow us to say,
as the proposed address said, that the war was an unprovoked
aggression on the part of France. Truth and justice were
preferable to high-sounding words, and therefore he should
move an amendment, containing nothing that was not strictly
true, and in voting which the House might be unanimous.


TI11/11t.a- tFlo,exlecaoll.icl,hilc,Icitdhwtiilth umtnol‘oing his mendment, as follows :


wreic'oten.d
utmost concern, that the assembly,


oxt‘ilexelise the.
powers or government in France, have di-


tually declared
against


h.
o


ff hisof acts of hostility against the persons


vinces: that we


his majesty'sand property


that his majesty'se um .y beg leave to assure his majesty,
war o-ainst his majesty and the United Pro-


subjects, and that they have ac-


faithful Commons -will exert themselves with
D 3


RESPECTING THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 37
5793.]


36 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE [Feb. 12.
to draw a distinction of interest between the rich and the
poor ; for, whatever the superficial observer might think,
nothing was clearer, when philosophically considered, than
that a man who was not immediately possessed of , property,.
had as great an interest in the general protection and security
of property, as he who was;. and therefore he reprobated all


•those calls upon the particular exertions of men of property,
as tending to excite the idea of an invidious distinction, which
did not exist in fact.


When the attack on France was called the cause of kings,
it was not a very witty, but a sufficient reply, that opposing
it might be called the cause of subjects. He imputed bad


•motives to no man, but when actions could not be explained
on one motive, lie had a right to attempt to explain them on


•another. If there were at present such a spirit in this coun-
try as in the beginning of the American war, what would be
our conduct ? To join the combined powers in their war on
the internal government of France. He was happy that
the public abhorrence of a war on such a motive was so'
great, that the right honourable gentleman felt himself called
upon to disclaim it at great length. But how had ministers
acted ? They had taken advantage of the folly of the French,


they had negotiated without proposing specific terms, and
then broken off the negotiation. At home they had alarmed
. the people that their own constitution was in danger, and
•they had made use of a melancholy event, which, however it
might affect us as men, did not concern us as a nation, to
inflame our passions and impel us to war ; and now that we
were at war, they durst not avow the causes of it, nor tell us
on what terms peace might have been preserved.


He rejoiced to hear that we had no treaty with the em-
peror. If our motives were now suspected, he hoped our
.future conduct would be such as to put away suspicion. If
we joined the Emperor and the King of Prussia, we must
make common cause with them, or act always with the


„jealousy and suspicion of parties, either of whom might secure
their own views by a separate peace at the expence of the
rest. When we found


• ourselves drawn into this common
cause, we might say that we were .forced to what we did not




intend ; but the fact would be, that we should be wasting the
•blood and treasure of the people of this country for an object
which the people of this country disclaimed — to enable foreign
armies to frame a government for France. Such an instance


•would furnish more arguments against the mechanism of our•
•constitution, than all the writers who had scrutinized its
defects. He hoped we neither had, nor should have, any
treaty with the combined powers, unless our objects were




AGAINST THE WAR WITH FRANCE, 39
793.3


the utmost zeal in the maintenance of the honour of his ma-
jesty's crown, and the vindication of the rights of his people ;
and nothing shall be wanting on their part that can contri-
bute to that firm and effectual support which his majesty has
so much reason to expect from a brave and loyal people, in
repelling every hostile attempt against this country, and in
such other exertions as may he necessary to induce France to
consent to such terms of pacification as may be consistent
with the honour of his majesty's crown, the security of his
allies, and the interests of his people."


Mr. Fox's amendment was rejected, and the address proposed
by Mr. Pitt agreed to without a division.


MR. Fox's RESOLUTIONS AGAINST THE WAR WITH FRANCE.


Tebrumy 18.


THIS day, in pursuance of the notice he had given,


Mr. Fox rose. He said that he had delivered his sentiments
so frequently on the several points included in his intended
motion, that the House could not expect him to add much
that was new. Having been accused in the last debate with
repeating the same things over and over, he should now con-
tent himself with referring to the opinions he had formerly
delivered; and hoped that he should not be again reproached,
in the same breath that reminded him of repetition, with fail-
ing to repeat any one of those opinions to whatever part of
the subject it might relate. The present crisis was awful. He
had done every thing in his power to avert the calamity of
war; and he did intend to have made one more attempt, if he
had not been most unaccountably prevented by the failure of
public business for a whole week. That opportunity was un-
fortunately lost. We were now actually engaged in war; and
being so engaged, there could be no difference of opinion as to
the necessity of supporting it with vigour. No want of dis-
position to support it could be imputed to him; for, in the de-
bate on his majesty's message announcing that we were at war,
he had moved an amendment to the address, as much pledg-
ing the House to a vigorous support of it, as the address
proposed by his majesty's ministers, and better calculated to


I I


But the more he felt himself bound to
ensure unanimity.support the war, the more he felt himself bound to object to
the measures which, as far as yet appeared, had unnecessarily
led to it.The necessity of the war might be defended on two princi-
ples : first, the ilu animus, or general bad disposition of theFrench towards this country; the crimes they have committed
among themselves; the systems they have endeavoured to es-
tablish, if systems they might be called ; in short, the internal
government of their country. On this principle, there were
few indeed that would venture to defend it: and this being
disavowed as the cause of war by his majesty's ministers, it was
unnecessary for him to dwell upon it. Secondly, that various
things have been done by the French, manifestly extending
beyond their own country, and affecting the interests of us
and our allies ; for which, unless satisfaction was given, we
must enforce satisfaction by arms. This he considered as the
only principle on which the necessity of the war could be
truly defended, and in this he was sure the great majority of
the House and of the country were of the same opinion. His
object was to record this in an address; and whatever objec-
tion there might be as to time or circumstances, could he ob-
tain the sense of the House purely upon the principle, he
should be very sanguine in his hopes of success. Such a re-
cord would be a guide to their conduct in the war, and a land-
mark on which to fix their attention for the attainment of
peace. In examining the alleged cases of provocation, he
had maintained that they were all objects of negotiation, and
such as, till satisfaction was explicitly demanded and refused,
did not justify resorting to the last extremity. He had per-
Imps also said, that ministers did not appear to have pursued
the course which was naturally to be expected from their pro-
fessions. He did not mean to charge them with adopting
one principle for debate and another for action; but lie
thought they had suffered themselves to be imposed upon, and
misled by those who wished to go to war with France on
account of her internal government, and therefore took all
occasions of representing the French as utterly and irreconcile-
ably hostile to this country. It was always fair to compare the
conduct of men in any particular instance with their conduct
on other occasions. If the rights of neutral nations were now
loudly held forth; if the


edan r to be apprehended from the
aggrandizement of any power was magnified as the just cause
of the present war; and if, on looking to another quarter, we
saw the rights of Poland, of a neutral and independent nation,
openly trampled upon, its territory invaded, and all this for thel
nanifest aggrandizement of other powers, and no war de-


D 4


3 8 MR. FOX'S RESOLUTIONS [Feb. 18.




AGAINST THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 41MR. PDX'S RESOLUTIONS
[Feb. IS.


dared or menaced, not even a remonstrance interposed—for
if any had been interposed, it was yet a secret—could we bejblamed for suspecting that the pretended was not the real ob-ect of the present war— that what we were not told, was in
fact the object, and what we Were told, only the colour and
pretext ?


The war, however, be the real cause what it might, would
be much less calamitous to this country, if, in the prosecution
of it, we could do without allying ourselves with those who
had made war on France, for the avowed purpose of inter-
fering in her internal government; if we could avoid entering
into engagements that might fetter us in our negotiations for •
peace; since negociation must be the issue of every war that
was not a war of absolute conquest, if we should shun the dis-
grace of becoming parties with those who in first attempting
to invade France, and some of them in since invading Poland,
had violated all the . rights of nations, all the principles of jus-
tice and of honour.


On the first principle he had already stated, as one of two
on which it might be attempted to justify the necessity of the
present war, as it was most studiously disclaimed by ministers,
and all but a very few members of that House, it was un-
necessary for him to say any thing. On the second he had
.said, that the alleged causes of complaint were not causes of
war previous to negociation, and on this point his opinions
were not new, as they had formerly been called, but such as
he had always entertained, from the first moment of his form-
ing opinions upon such subjects; neither were they singular.
He had since looked into the writers on the law of nations, and
by all the most approved it was laid down as an axiom, that
injuries, be they what they may, are not the just cause of war,
till reparation and satisfaction have been fairly and openly de-
manded and evaded, or refused. Some of them even went so
far as to say, that reparation and satisfaction ought to be de-
manded, both previous and subsequent to the declaration of
war, in order to make that war just.


Our causes of complaint against France were, first, the
attempt to open the navigation of the Scheldt; second, the
decree of the 19th of November, supposed to be directed


b
auainst the peace of other nations; third, the extension of
their territory by conquest. The first of these was obviously
and confessedly an object of negociation. The second was
.also to be accommodated by negociation ; because an explan-
ation that they did not mean what we understood by it, and a
stipulation that it should not be acted upon in the sense in
which we understood it, was all that could be obtained even
by war. The third was somewhat more difficult, for it in-


1793.]
volved in it the .


evacuation of the countries conquered, and
security- that they should in no sense be annexed to France;
and no such security could; perhaps, at present be devised.
But if we were aware of this; if we saw that during the war
the French are engaged in with other powers, they had no such
security to offer; if we knew that we were asking what could .
not be given, the whole cS our pretended negotiation, such as
-it had been, was a- farce and a delusion; not an honest en-
deavour to preserve the blessings of peace, but a fraudulent
expedient to throw dust in the eyes of the people of this
country, in order that they might be hurried blindly into a
war. The more he attended to the printed correspondence,
the oftener he read Lord Grenville's letter to M. Chauvelin,
so repeatedly alluded to, the moreconvinced he was how ex-
tremely deficient we had been in communicating the terms on
which we thought peace might be maintained. We told them
they must keep within their own territory; but how were they
to do this when attacked by two armies, that retired out of
their territory only to repair the losses of their first miscar-
riage, and prepare for a fresh irruption ? When to this studied
concealment of terms were added the haughty language of
all our communications, and the difficulties thrown in the
way of all negociation, we must surely admit, that it was not
easy for the French to know with what we would be satisfied,
nor to discover on what terms our amity (not our alliance,
for that he had never suggested, though the imputation had
been boldly made,) — could be conciliated. When to all these
he added the language held in that House by ministers, al-
though he b37 no means admitted that speeches in that House
were to be sifted for causes of war by foreign powers, any
more than speeches in the French convention by us: and last
of all, the paper transmitted by Lord Auckland at the Hague,




3


to the States General — a paper which, for the contempt and
ridicule it expressed of the French, stood unparalleled in
diplomatic history — a paper, in which the whole of them,
witl..out distinction, who had been in the exercise of power
since the commencement of the Revolution, were styled " a
set of wretches investing themselves with the title of philo-
sophers, and presuming in the dream of their vanity to think
themselves capable of establishing a new order of society, tk.c."
— how could we hope the French, who where thus wantonly
insulted, to expect that any thing would be considered as
satisfactory, or any pledge a sufficient security ? Let the
House compare Lord Auckland's language at the Hague
with the pacific conduct of ministers at home, as represented
by themselves. While they were trying every means to con-
ciliate; while with. moderation to an excess, which they could




4 2 MR. FOX'S RESOLUTIONS
Feb. 18.


not help thinking culpable, they were publicly ordering M.
Chauvelin to quit the kingdom within eight days, ,but pri-
vately telling him that he might stay and negociate; while
they were waiting for propositions from M. Maret, which M.
Maret did not make; while they were sending instructions to
Lord Auckland to negociate with General Dumourier, Lord
Auckland was writing that silly and insulting paper by their
instructions; for if he had written such a paper without in-
structions, he was very unfit for his situation, and must have
been instantly recalled. Thus, while, as they pretended,
they were courting peace, they were using every manoeuvre
to provoke war. For these reasons, he should move, that
ministers had not employed proper means for preserving
peace, without sacrificing the honour or the safety of this
country.


He came next to consider their conduct with respect to
Poland. He had formerly said, that he wished not to speak
harshly of foreign princes in that House, although the period
had not long since passed, when it was thought perfectly al-
lowable to talk of the Empress of Russia as a princess of
insatiable ambition, and of the late emperor, as a prince too
fiiithless to be relied upon. But when he spoke of the King
of Prussia, lie desired to be understood as speaking of the
cabinet of the court of Berlin, whose conduct he was as free
to criticise, as other gentlemen the conduct of the executive
council of France. In May 1791, a revolution took place in
Poland, on the suggestion, certainly with the concurrence, of
the King of Prussia; and, as was pretty generally imagined,
although not authentically known, with the court of London.
By a dispatch to his minister at Warsaw, the King of Prussia
expressed the lively interest which he had always taken in the
happiness of Poland, a confirmation of her new constitution,
and his approbation of the choice of the Elector of Saxony,
and his descendants, to fill the throne of Poland, made
hereditary by the new order of things, after the death of the
reigning king. In 1792, the Empress of Russia, without
the least plausible pretext, but this change in the internal
government of the country, invaded Poland. Poland called
upon the King of Prussia, with whose express approbation
this change had been effected, for the stipulated succours of




an existing treaty of alliance. He replied, that the state of
things being entirely changed since that alliance, and the
present conjuncture brought on by the revolution of May
r 791, posterior to his treaty, it did not become him to give
Poland any assistance, unless, indeed, she chose to retrace
all the steps of that revolution, and then he would interpose
his good offices both with Russia and the emperor to reconcile


AGAINST TI WAR WITH FRANCE. 43


the different interests. The different interests of foreign
in the internal government of a free and independent


n)
mark and stigmatise all the inconsistencies of the French with
powers
na


tion ! It was singular that ministers should be so keen to


their former declarations, which had been too great and too
many, and yet could sec without emotion such inconsistency,
not to say, perfidy, as this conduct exhibited. He was not
the defender of the gross departures which had been made
by the French from their own principles; but if we thought
it unsafe to treat with them, because of their perfidy, we
had little inducement to unite with the King of Prussia, who
had violated not only principles, but an express treaty, in
a more particular and pointed manner, than they had yet had
an opportunity of doing. Among the powers at war, or likely
to be at war with France, there was 110 great option of good
faith. But the French, it was said, violated their principles,
for the sake of robbery and rapine, to seize on territory, and
plunder property. Let us look again for a moment to the
King of Prussia.


In 1792 he limited the cause of war against Poland by
Russia to the new constitution, which he himself had approved
and promised to defend. But if once this obnoxious consti-
tution was completely subverted, and that excellent old re-
public (for these crowned heads were great republicans when
it suited their convenience) which had for ages constituted the
happiness of Poland, re-established on its ancient basis, he
would interpose his good offices to conciliate the different in-
terests and restore peace. What, then, prevented him from
interposing his good offices ? Was not the new constitution
completely subverted ? Did not the Russian troops succeed
in overrunning Poland? Were they not in possession of the
whole country ? And had not the Empress of Russia been
able to restore the excellent old republic ? But if she was
satisfied with her success in this respect, not so the Kinn.
of Prussia.. He was a critic in principles. When he ap-
pui-loelx.ectel potifo• revolution, the principles of the Poles were
unexceptionable; when they were attempting a brave but un-
successful resistance to a more powerful adversary, their prin-
bcyiplsetsipNevreiroer not dangerous ; but when they were overpowered


possessed by


when they had laid down their arias and
submitted to tie'.


and destructiavelborfei


inciplieesnt.1,ncioonnqi, teiro.r, when their whole country was


these abominable


army, then he discovered that they had
0 min, subversive of all government,French pr


towns. Are


. principles ? Oh ! by an admirable remedy !
all society. And how did lie cure them of


e


their country, and taking possession of their—invading oi
tainted with jacobimsm? Hew down the


793.]




AGAINST THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 4544 MR. FOX'S RESOLUTIONS [Feb. S.
crates of Thorn, and march in the Prussian troops. Do they
deny that they entertain such principles ? Seize upon Dantzick
and annex it to the dominions of Prussia. Now, did not this
seizure and spoil of Poland tend to the aggrandizement of
the powers by whom it was perpetrated ? Was it not a greater
and more contemptuous violation of the law of nations than
the French had yet been guilty of? Most undoubtedly it
was. Had we opposed it ? Had we remonstrated against it ?
If ministers had any such remonstrances to shew, they would
produce them in due time, and the House would judge of
them; but while none were produced, or even mentioned,
he must presume that none had been made. The invasion of
Poland had this- material aggravation, that the powers who
invaded were not themselves attacked at the time. They had
not the excuse of the French to plead, that they did it in a
paroxysm of fear and danger, circumstances that prompt
nations as well as individuals to many acts of impolicy and,
injustice. The King of Prussia first connives at or consents
to the invasion of Poland, which he was bound by treaty to
defend. Next, he attempts an unprovoked invasion of France
and is foiled. How does he revenge the disgrace of his
repulse ? By increasing his army on the Rhine, by con-
centrating his forces for a fresh attack ? No : he more gal-
lantly turns round on defenceless Poland, and indemnifies
himself for his losses by seizing on towns where he can meet
with no resistance, It was not, therefore, on any general
system of attention to the balance of Europe that ministers
were acting, since, while they pretended to consider it as of
the utmost importance in one case, they had suffered it to be
most flagrantly infringed upon in another.


Having dwelt very copiously on the impolicy of viewing,
without emotion, the dismemberment of Poland, by three
mighty powers, and considering the balance of power engaged0 0
only when France had gained the advantage, Mr. Fox de-
precated, of all things, any thing so infinnous as our being
supposed to be a party to this abominable confederacy of
kings. In spealiing thus freely, he hoped he should not be
again accused of treating these monarchs with unnecessary
severity. When public transactions were in question, it was
the right of every one, under whose observation they came,
to treat them in the manner precisely that they appeared to
him. He did so in treating of our own domestic concerns,
and he would take the liberty of doing so, whenever foreign
politics were in any ways connected with them. He had but
little means of knowing the private characters, habits, or dis-
positions of kings; and if he had, still, in discussions in.that
House, he could not fairly be represented as alluding to any


1793.]
other than the public proceedings that were conducted in their
name; so that when he spoke of the measures of the cabinet
of Berlin, and censured them in the manner which he con-
ceived them to deserve, the personal character of the King of
Prussia was by no means implicated in that censure. He
therefore lamented openly, that England could be supposed
to be in the least involved in that detested league. He could
wish, that if we had quarrels, we should fight them by our-
selves ; or if we were to have allies, that we should keep our
cause of quarrel completely separated from theirs, and, without
intermeddling with the internal concerns of the French re-
public, not burthen ourselves with any stipulations which
should prevent us at any time from making a separate peace,
without the concurrence or approbation of those sovereigns.


Mr. Fox concluded with moving the following resolu-
tions:


" That it is not for the honour or interest of Great Britain
to make war upon France on account of the internal circumstances
of that country, for the purpose either of suppressing or punish-
ing any opinions and principles, however pernicious in their ten-
dency, which may prevail there, or of establishing among the
trench people any particular form of government.


2. " That the particular complaints which have been stated
against the conduct of the French government are not of a nature
to justify war in the first instance, without having attempted to
obtain redress by negociation.


3. " That it appears to this House ; that in the late negotiation
between his majesty's ministers and the agents of the French go-
vernment, the said ministers did not take such measures as were
likely to procure redress, without a rupture, for the grievances of
which they complained ; and particularly that they never stated
distinctly to the French government any terms and conditions,
the accession to which, on the part of France, would induce his
majesty to persevere in a system of neutrality.


4. " That it does not appear that the security of Europe, and
the rights of independent nations, which have been stated as


-grounds of war against France, have been attended to by his ma-
jesty's ministers in the case of Poland, in the invasion of which
unhappy country, both in the last year, and more recently, the
most open contempt of the law of nations, and the most unjustifia-
ble spirit of aggrandizement has been manifested, without having
produced, as far as appears to this House, any remonstrance from
his majesty's ministers.


which




may prevent


is the duty of his majesty's ministers, in the present
re sis, to advise his majesty against entering into engagements


t Great Britain from making a separate peace,
whenever the interests of his Majesty and his people may render
such a measure advisable, or which may countenance an opinion
in Europe, that his majesty is acting in concert with other powers




46 Mil. FOX'S RE.S'OIXTION6 [Feb. 18.
for the unjustifiable purpose of compelling the people of France to
submit to a form of government not approved by that nation."


These resolutions were supported by Mr. Grey, Mr. Adam,.
Mr. Jekyll, Major Maitland, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Sheridan, and
Mr. Smith ; and opposed by Mr. Burke, Mr. Jenkinson, Mr. Powys,
Sir Richard Hill, Sir Francis Basset, Sir George Cornwall, Sir
Henry Hoghton, and Mr. Windham. After which,


Mr. Fox rose to reply. He began with adverting to what
had fallen from Mr. Powys. That right honourable gentle-
man, who had lately chosen to distinguish himself by very
particular attacks upon him, had stiled him an advocate for
France. If the right honourable gentleman meant an advo-
cate for what was just and right, so far he would allow him-
self to come under the description : but, if he meant that he


begge
entered into the partialities and interests of an advocate, he


d to disclaim the character. The phrase Was ambiguous,
the right honourable gentleman, in applying it, knew that


it would, and perhaps intended that it should, be taken up by
the public in the most invidious point of' view. That right
honourable gentleman had said, that he rejoiced that the sense
of the House was that night decidedly to be taken. If any
thing could deter him from taking, as he proposed, the sense
of the House, it was this mode of invitation, which was nei-
ther decent nor parliamentary. The right which had lately ..
been insisted upon of a majority to know who were those who
opposed them, was inconsistent with the usage and privileges
of parliament. Mr. Fox next adverted to what a right ho-
nourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) had alleged, that, according
to his mode of reasoning, every thing which had happened in
France was just, and every thing done in opposition to them
otherwise; because he had said, that the French were justifia-
ble in declaring war against the Emperor of Germany, who
had discovered hostile intentions towards them, he was there-
fore supposed to approve of all their proceedings in Brabant.
-Was this a fair conclusion ? 'That right honourable gentle-
man had likewise stated, that he had adopted new principles
of reasoning, and that it was new to state arguments against
the country. Now, the arguments which he had stated were
directed against ministers. And, was it to be understood,
that whenever ministers were blamed, the country was cen-
sured ? -Were we, from our detestation of French republi-
canism, come to that pitch of triple-refined despotism, that,
to arraign the conduct of ministers was to be represented as
an attack upon the country? In that case, it would be better
at once to shut the doors of that House, and dispense with
the form of deliberating, when the substance was destroyed. It


;795'1
AGAINST THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 47


would be better, when a war was declared, to give up at once
all the free part of the constitution ; and to leave every thing
to the absolute and arbitrary decision of ministers. But, had
the right honourable gentleman always acted upon the prin-
ciple which he now wished to establish ? Had he not, in 1778,
thought proper to arraign the conduct of ministers, while the
country was engaged in a war ? There was another point on
which lie wished to touch. Ministers, whom, on the present
occasion, the right honourable gentleman thought proper to
support, had conceived it proper to make attempts to treat
with the French. Why, then, should they escape the right
honourable gentleman's censure, while he imputed as so great
a crime to opposition the very wish to treat with that nation?
Poland, it had been said, was a more remote object; but
what sort of political morality was that which represented an
object as less interesting, in proportion as it was more remote?
Were all the charges of horror to be heaped upon the French,
with a view of exciting indignation against them; and was
the conduct of the court of Berlin, which was still worse, to
be passed entirely by ? Were we to deal out our invectives in
so large a proportion against the French, white, with respect
to the court of Berlin, we abstained from the smallest degree
of censure? In that case, political morality, which had never
been rated high in the opinions of men, would sink very low
indeed ! He considered high rank or situation so far from
being an extenuation, as affording an aggravation of .the
offence. Much had been said about treating with the present
executive council of France. He would only remark, that in
every country you must treat with those who have a power,
unless you are bent on views of extirpation. Much, likewise,
had been said of the influence of France. Was the influence
of France so formidable, and was the influence of Austria and
Prussia nothing? —an influence which had been that evening
stated to have completely shut us out from the republic or
Europe, and to have deprived us of the means of saving Po-
land, however much we might have been inclined. An ho-
nourable gentleman had stated his motion to be insidious, and
the reason which he had assi gned was, that it partly assumed
what had not been admitted inthat House, and particularly
mistated what had. Now, he would inform that honourable
gentleman that his motion had not the smallest connection
with any thing that had been stated in that House, nor even
could admit of the most distant allusion thereto. It had been


that
a


t nothing
House, with


asked, how his motion could have any tendency to bring
about a peace? An honourable gentleman on the other side
of the


e u more
the of youth, had admitted,
or directly lead to peace than a precise




48[Feb. IS.M. FOX'S RESOLUTIONS, &C.
ground being stated for the war. If the nature of the repar-
ation which we desired was specified, the object was then pre-
cise, and, when it was obtained, war was at an end. But•if
his motion was not adopted, and if gentlemen went away with
a doubt of the object which was aimed at by the war, it could
not then be known to what length, or under what pretences
the war might be protracted. In the course of the debate,
one of these pretences was, that the conduct of the court of
Berlin with respect to Poland had not been attempted to he
vindicated. If Brissot was to be the object of so much in-
vective, was the court of Berlin to_ be exempted from cen-
sure? The more elevated the situation from which crimes
proceeded, the more were they to be reprobated, the more
pernicious was their example, and the more extensive the
mischief with which they were attended. That a high situ-
ation should procure oblivion or impunity for crimes, was a
maxim which no just, generous, or magnanimous mind would
readily admit. He was not acquainted with M. Brissot,
whom a right honourable gentleman had stiled the prince of
pick-pockets, but he always understood that any objections
stated to his character arose only from his public conduct.
With respect to M. Chauvclin, he would likewise suggest to
that right hon. gentleman to be cautious in admitting accounts,
as ground for his invective, which came from persons heated
with the most violent personal enmity and political animosity.


Mr. Fox said, he had now finished his task—and could with
confidence say libe•avi aninzam mean. He had done all that
he could do. He had been told that the part he had taken
was not popular. No man was more desirous of popularity
than he was; no man would make more just sacrifices to obtain
it. If the part which a regard to the interests of the country
obliged him to take was not popular, it was not his duty to
be influenced by that consideration. 'We had now got into
a war; and how best to put an end to that war was the object
which demanded their attention. It was their business, tread-
ing the old constitutional ground, to come forward boldly
with their opinions, in proportion to the importance of the
crisis and the dangers of the country, and not to be deterred
by the suggestions of timidity, or by menaces of unpopularity.
It gave him satisfaction that no one had ventured to come
forward to give a negative to his motion, even amidst the ge-
neral exultation which prevailed among the members of that
House, with respect to a war ; but that it was to be got rid
of by the previous question. He feared—he by no means
wished—that this exultation in its event would have a termi-
nation similar to that which had been so emphatically de-
scribed by ,Tacitus,, $17e later, tract atu thew, evenl y, tristia."


1793.7 MR.
TAYLOR'S MOTION RESPECTING BARRACKS. 49


Mr. Jenkinson havin o. moved the previous question on Mr. Fox's
motion, the House divibded :


N . 5 Mr. Powys
Tellers.


YEAS it r. Lambton 44 ' — °Es i Mr. Jenl nsonM
Mr. Adam


Tllers.


So it passed in the negative.


MR. TAYLOR'S MOTION RESPECTING BARRACKS.


February 22.


"THE erection of barracks, which had taken place in several
.I_ parts of the kingdom, though it was not altogether a new


measure, was considered by those who remained of, and adhered
to, the old Whig party, as an unconstitutional expedient, and tend-
ing to the establishment of a standing army. Accordingly this
day, Mr. M. A. Taylor brought the subject forward, and after ad-
ducing a variety of authorities, he concluded with moving, " That
the uniform and persevering opposition given by our ancestors to
every attempt to erect barracks in this country, was founded upon
a just understanding of the true principles of our free and excellent
constitution ; and that this opposition has been justified and sup-
ported by high political and legal authority, whose recorded opi-
nion is, That in time of peace the soldier should live intermixed
with the people, that no separate camp, no barracks, no inland
fortresses, should be allowed ; and that a circulation should be
thus kept up between the army and the people, and the citizen
and the soldier be intimately connected together. " The motion
was opposed by Sir George Yonge, Mr. Minchin, Sir George
Howard, Lard i\flulgrave, Mr. Burdon, and Mr. Pitt ; and sup-
ported by Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, Mr. Courtenay, and Major Mait-
land. General Sir George Howard reprobated the brincrina . for-bringing


-


ward of questions, day by day, reflecting on the conduct of mi-
nisters, at a time like the present. Let them, he said, be supported


aard
'd whenct


now, h acted wrong.


time came, let them be impeached if
t y


Mr. Fox said, that all his respect for the honourable gene-
ral, could not prevent him from saying, that the advice he
had just given, if the House were to follow it, would prove a
complete suspension of the most valuable functions. of that con-
stitution which he was so anxious to defend. If, when the
Country was brought into danger, they were to say, .that they


Blackstorie's Commentaries, b. i.
P• 414.VOL. V.


1- 270.




50 AIR. TAYLOR'S MOTION RESPECTING BARRACKS. [Feb. 22
would . agitate no questions but what ministers chose to agi
tate, that they were in no instance to examine their conduct;;
but to commit the whole management of public affairs
citly into their hands, they would betray the trust which their
constituents had reposed in them, they would relinquish the
most imperious of their duties, namely, that of watching, and,
when necessary, controuling the servants of the executive
power, and the practice of our government would be any
thing but what it had formerly been, and what he hoped it
would long continue. His honourable friend was not to be
blamed for the motion he had made. It arose out of the con-
duct of ministers ; and to that conduct, not to the mover of
it, was it to be imputed.


He had as high an opinion of the integrity, the honour,
and principles of the officers of the British army, as the ho-
nourable general; but he would not pay them a compliment at
the expence of the constitution ; he would not sacrifice to them
that jealousy, which it was the duty of the House of Com-
mons to entertain of every set of men so immediately con-
nected with the crown. To the crown they must look for
promotion ; by the crown they might be dismissed from their
profession without any cause assigned ; and to the crown they
must be attached in different degrees from men on whom
similar motives did not operate. This attachment arose from
the situation in which they were placed, it applied to them
collectively as a body, and was no disparagement whatever to
any of them as individuals. To the crown it was said lawyers
must look for promotion ; the crown could give and take away
silk gowns, but the crown could neither give nor take away
the fair emoluments of a man's abilities in his profession. The
silk gown would bring but few, if any clients, and as few
would the loss of it take from the barrister of reputation.
The honourable general had said, that he had served nine cam-
paigns abroad, and (what the honourable general would not
say) with great honour to himself and advantage to his coun-
try. Now, after all his campaigns, and the very considerable
emoluments with which they had been rewarded, would the
honourable general say that his majesty might not dismiss him
from all those emoluments, for no reason but because he hap-
pened to differ in political opinion from his ministers, were
such a difference ever to take place ? If he could not say so,
then it was clear that they were held at the pleasure of the
king and his ministers, and that such being the situation of all
military officers, they were fit and necessary objects of the
jealousy and vigilance of the House of Commons ; as were,
indeed, in a greater or less degree, all persons whatever em-
ployed by the crown. Late events had added much to his


1793.] MR. TAYLOR'S MOTION RESPECTING BARRACKS. 5 i


jealousy in this respect. They had seen officers dismissed
without any reason assigned or assignable, except theoretical
opinions, which they were supposed to entertain. These
officers had been allowed to receive the price of their com-
missions. But, was it nioitldtintguutioldbeeo t tztiranetdheouhtoopfetsheoity tii)iie•oi-r


Is-lteyesi,naituhiestye;n: o•ht not have been allowedffteuostsusieorienl :foiof.iltub
which


eh


?majesty's
h B


Besides, thought fit so to advise
him, and therefore all the officers of the army knew, that they
were so far completely at the mercy of the crown, and that
men who had shed their blood in the service of their country
might be deprived,'not only of their rank and their hopes, but
of the money with which they had originally purchased their
commissions.


White ministers and their friends were praising the consti-
tution, and deprecating innovation, they themselves were in-
troducing a system for the disposition of a standing army,
which had been always held incompatible with the safety of
public liberty, and always opposed. Was the argument of
innovation always to lead one way ? When any reform of
the abuses of the constitution was suggested, was it to be ever
reprobated ? When to repair any breach that time had made
in the fabric, when to reform any existing abuse in the prac-
tice cf the constitution was proposed, their answer was,
" What ! will you meddle with the constitution at such a
season as this ; will you endanger the whole for the sake of a
part, that may safely wait for a remedy till a more convenient
opportunity ?" When they themselves proposed not reform,
but innovation, the answer was the same, " Consider the.
occasion; will you oppose a measure which the time loudly
calls for ?" . There was not now, it was said, the same reason


foreigner,
being afraid of a standing army, as when William III., a


b ner, was on the throne—an absurd argument in his
ogii)Nieniuopn ;thbeult)riandetiii


-t)iltets of uadmit ing it to have an y weight, were we to


standing
a native?


was the Ojealousy lo
his majesty's


of a
dco. nstituttorn, and a most leading


one


insinuated, that the


. .' m army, because the king was


very different from what
. te I


accession,


ft


ssion, it had, indeed, been
which he could never at least in practice, was to be'


afraid to
of hear revvived.


s


Was


i).erma seutu•l ,y abnecei nw; h ai edho chter i ini oe pfeot
never


i


for
from abroad,


as there not as much reason to be
Yet, now as in the 'year I 740 ? Was there more


cause


ll


of a standing army, when we were menaced
opp


rone?
osed oa Yd,t and dreaded the invasion of a pretender to the


th
si Mr.


r1.
,


Robert


that


Walpole,


the two leading men, Mr. Pul-
teney Pe ham,


ta , one of whom supported, -and the other
. alpole, both united in reprobating the


2




52 MIS. TAYLOR'S MOTION RESPECTING BARRACKS. [Feb. 22,
system of erecting barracks, as unconstitutional and inimical
to the rights of the people. And they said well; for the
mixing the soldiers with the people, by which they imbibed','
the same principles and the same sentiments, was the best
security of the constitution against the danger of a standing
army.


But, it was said the soldiers could not mix with the better
sort of people to learn their political opinions. It was quite
sufficien1 if they were on a par in their opinions of the con-
stitution with men in the same ranks of society from which T :they had been originally taken. But, supposing that there
were any force in this argument, would confining them apart
in barracks give them access to better conversation and better
opinions ? It was entirely new to say, that the military was




necessary to the execution of the civil power. The con-
stitution acknowledged no such auxiliary. For the exercise
of the civil power the means were always in force; an,.; rte
very preamble to the annual mutiny bill, which some people
considered as bombastic, expressly stated, that a standing
army,• in time of peace, without the consent of parliament,
was against law. If magistrates neglected to call in the
military when their assistance was necessary, they did not do
their duty. If there were places where the existing police
was insufficient, let means be tried to remedy the defect,
but let it not be pleaded as a reason for keeping up a military .
force; for of all sorts of police, a military police was the
most repugnant to the spirit and the letter of our govern-
ment, and ought to be the last that ever parliament should
adopt. It was not true that the building of barracks was
acceptable to all the country. There were places where


.it was considered, not as a benefit, but a grievance. It
might be that publicans were glad to be relieved from having
troops quartered upon them, but that proved nothing: and
if they were all of the same opinion, they ought not to be
allowed to sell their permanent security for a temporary
convenience.


There were various instances of something like a design
on the part of ministers to teach the army to look solely
to the crown, without regard to the House of Commons.
One of these was the increase of the soldiers' pay last year,
without first consulting parliament, and before parliament had( met; an increase which the king had no authority to give
till voted by the House of Commons. The king had the
sole command of the army. Why? Because it was given
him by the House of Commons: but it was their exclusive
privilege to say whether or not there should be any army,
what its number, and what its pay. He was still old fashioned


793.] MR. TAYLOR'S MOTION RESPECTING BARRACKS. 53


enough in his notions of government to dread a standing
army, and to think that the conduct of it could not be watched
with too much caution. He did not clearly understand the
argument of the noble lord near him (Beauchamp), who
seemed to say, that the standing army of Louis XIV. was the
ground of our ancient jealousy of a standing army, and that as
France had now an army of another kind, of which she was
not jealous, we, as matter of ton, should be no longer jealous
of' ours. Wishing always to speak with the' utmost respect
of his majesty, and applying his censure of measures only to
his ministers, he would not pay him so absurd a compliment
as to say, that the constitution was more secure under him.
than under his two august progenitors. What motive could
then be assigned for being less jealous of a standing army
now, than in former reigns? Looking back to the conduct
of Sir Robert Walpole as a minister, whatever might be his
faults, no man would now accuse him of having ever enter-
tained the thought of trenching on the constitution by means
of the army; yet the utmost jealousy of a standing army had
subsisted during his administration. 'Were our present mi-
nisters more constitutional than the ministers of those times?
Were they more to be relied upon than the men who had a
principal share in settling the constitution at the Revolution,
and were consequently attached to it from opinion, from ho-
nour, and from affection ? 'Were they fitter to be trusted than
some of the noble lord's ancestors, who made part of the
administration at the period alluded to? Had he in his new
zeal to support them, discovered that the manner in which
they came into power was better, or their respect for the
opinion of the House of Commons greater? He could dis-
cover no ground for the noble lord's giving to the present
ministers a superior degree of confidence, unless, perhaps,
that hope was a stronger principle than gratitude. While
we professed to adhere to the constitution, as transmitted
to us by our ancestors, we ought also to adhere to the maxims
on whi± they exercised it, one of which was, never to allow


the
the le-e pamopyletobbv beingecome a distinct set of men from the mass of


separated from the people in barracks.
Next came the argument, that the measures of ministers


he iweremicli dootton
be questioned, because we are at war. Mr. Pulte-


declaration One Ythee


oineverconsidered as his political model, although
e on t le present occasion what Mr. Pulteney did


government


or


to •
of war against Spain — given his suppor


teilen himself


lifn the measures necessary for carrying on the


miwaonristeiB's u? s


t, diet Mrf. Pulteney, when h me ade that declar-
ation, m up from inquiring into the particular acts of


0 far from it, that whoever would take the
E 3




54 MR. TAYLOR'S MOTION RESPECTING BARRACKS. [Feb. zt


trouble of looking into the journals, would see that the oppo
sition of that time, with more industry and much more success'
than the present opposition, had brought forward motions of
censure on the minister, and divided the House on them. —
They said then, as he and his friends said now, " We will
support the minister against the foreign enemy; but we will.
not support him. against Great Britain." This erecting of
barracks was not a measure of war, but a measure of peace,
for it was undertaken before ministers began to talk of war,
and it effected this country and no other. From the whole of
their conduct there was at least as good ground to suspect
them of improper designs as any that the honourable general
had mentioned for suspecting him, and those who acted with
him. In one point he differed from his honourable friend
who made the motion. When the money for the expense of
these barracks came to be voted, he should oppose it. He
knew he should be told, that the expense was already in-
curred, and that it would be hard to refuse payment to men
who had given their property or their labour on the faith
of administration. This was a dilliculty which the practice
of ministers, in incurring expences without the sanction of
parliament, rendered frequent; but difficult and ungracious
as it was to .refuse to pay, he would prefer doing that to
betraying the constitution. If they felt any respect for the
Commons, if any for the people whom they represented, they
would take care that the people should be free, not in form
but in substance, and that such innovations on their ancient
maxims, or, if they chose to call them so, their ancient pre-
judices, were not attempted till their representatives were
consulted. He wished not to revive the subjects which the
House had already debated; but surely, if the whole country
had been alarmed on points still disputable, it was not being
too delicate to feel alarm on such a measure as that now in
debate, unless they could persuade themselves that a seditious
pamphlet was pregnant with every possible danger, but a
standing army perfectly harmless. He knew not whether
the House had lost its former jealousy of a standing army; he
knew not whether the people had lost theirs; but if they had,
it was the duty of their representatives to endeavour to revive
it; and he should therefore vote for the motion.


The motion was negatived without a division.


1793.]


ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. 55


ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.


February 26.


R. WILBERFORCE moved, this day, " That the House
will, upon Thursday next, resolve itself into a committee


of the whole House, to consider of the circumstances of the Afri-
can slave trade." Upon this, an amendment was moved by Sir
William Young, to leave out the words " Thursday next," and
to insert the words " this day six months," instead thereof •. The
amendment was supported by Mr. Buxton, Mr. Cawthorne, Mr.Dent, Lord Sheffield, and Mr. Gascoyne; and opposed by Mr.
M. Montagu, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Pitt.


Mr. Fox observed, that the question was, whether that
House would now proceed, or at once lay it down as a rule
that they would do nothing whatever upon the subject this
session, although, after a long discussion, deliberate resolutions
had been entered into during the last; although the subject
had been in agitation for between five and six years; and
although they had from that time gone on year alter year,
and had, as was natural in the cause of justice, reason, and
humanity, arrived by discussion nearer and nearer to the
point of truth, and from step to step advanced, until at last
they came to a determination, that the slave trade from Africa
to our colonies and plantations should cease on the 1st of
January 17 96. That was the object now before the House.
He then called the recollection of the House to the circum-
stances of the present question, and dismissed all the arca-


hardships
itphsa t ohawdhitc


the


been brought forward on the
planters would be exposed on the


revival of these resolutions, by observing, that on the bring-
agmforwardp olb e of by an honourable baronet, (Sir Wil-


passed, the trade would
11 be




r advocates crux. out, that if this bill
c e ruined. Had that been true, the


lation of the, middle passage, these
gentlemen andolth'elie


rebdcru


House would not be debating the subject now before them ;
arusepsool inituttleihoirnseslsivaobrifjc


elast


ec th?ad the House on the suggestions of these
gentlemen with respect to the dangers to the trade from the


Hbeolutesire,ev


year; and the question was, whether the


effectual. Upon


or would not go into a committee on Thursday


rence of the legislative body of our colonies, before it could




that -




theu abolition should be with the concur


po what principle it was that we were to
L 4




56
ABOLITION or THE SLAVE TRADE.


[Feb. 26.
anticipate their refusing to concur with us, he knew not; nor,if


we had no influence whatever over them, and they wered
etermined to thwart our intentions, how fir it might be


deemed prudent for us, under such circumstances, to
con-tinue our connection with them, he would not now discuss;


but of this he was sure, that the House had power over the
trade of this country, and could say under what regulations
it should be carried on, and when it should cease, or how
long they would suffer by an acknowledged evil. He ad-
verted to the observation, that this trade was to be abolished
by menaces, and maintained that nothing at any time, par-
ticularly at the present, ought to be more strongly guarded
against, than that of holding out to the public an idea that the
proceedings of that House were influenced by the dread of
menaces, r


eproaches, or even the loss of popularity; that
their votes were the effect of compulsion, and that the moment
they dared to do so, they would rescind them. He trusted
to God that the vote of every one who assented to the re-
solutions of last year, was the result of conviction ; he trusted,
too, that a vote so much to their honour, and which had
entitled them to the applause of all Europe, would not now
be abandoned. He said he had heard it hinted, that a time
of war was improper for the discussion of this subject. He
confessed he did not see the propriety of that objection; at
all events, if it was an objection, it was such as would be very
well discussed in a committee; and then it might be deter-
mined, whether the circumstances of this war were such as
to call upon parliament to continue the evil of the slave trade.
He should be of a contrary opinion, and contend, that allthe a


rguments upon the danger of tumult and insurrection,.
would not apply to the present subject. He therefore should


.14advise the House to regard the present as a very fit time totake this subject up, and to shew to all Europe that the
parliament of Great Britain never lost sight of the principles
of honour, justice, and humanity; that their government washo


nourable, that their pledge was faithfully adhered to, that
while they declared they detested anarchy and confusion,
they also loved the principles of real liberty, that they sin-


right
cerely wished for the happiness of mankind, and revered the


s of nature.
Mr. Fox then observed, that if there were any objections


to the /ate resolutions in any particular part, such objection
would come regularly before the committee on Thursday,
and could then be argued; for as to the danger of agitating
it, lie confessed he differed entirely from those who expressedtheir apprehensions upon that subject; or, if there was any
danger in that respect, it must arise from its not being ag t-


fr


1793.]
ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. 57


toted while there was a difference of opinion; agitation was
necessary to set that difference at rest. Indeed, he once
hoped that the House would not now have had to debate the
question at all, and that the abolition would by this time have
passed into a law. He should not DOW pretend to anticipate
the discussion of the House of Lords; lie hoped, that their
decision would be agreeable to the principles of justice and
humanity ; in the mean time, the House of Commons should
not slacken its efforts. If the course of the discussion in the
other House should lead to such a length, or should take a
turn that would render hopeless the thought of its corning
to a conclusion this session, then he should advise the bring-
ing forward of some other measure that might give efficacy
to the resolutions, which had for their object the immediate
regulation of the trade, independent of the total abolition
in the year 1796.


Mr. Fox next took notice of the trial of Captain Kimber,
on which so much stress had been laid. He said he could
have wished that it had not been alluded to at all, because
it was not regularly before the House; but, as it had been
alluded to, he would only say, in the most constitutional
language he could, that as Captain Kimber had been ac-
quitted, he hoped and trusted that he was innocent, and, as
Mr. Devereux was acquitted also, he hoped and trusted that
lie was innocent; but he believed there were none in that
House who voted for the resolutions last year solely upon
the representation of the subject which brought Captain
Kimber upon his trial; if there were, let such person vote,
if he thought proper, against the resolutions in the com-
mittee upon this occasion; at all events, the House had no
reason for refusing to go into the subject this session.


Upon the point of humanity, which had been so much
urged on a former occasion in favour of the West-India
planters, he must do the honourable gentleman who origi-
nated this subject in that House the justice to say, that he
had always allowed to these observations their full force, and
that he had admitted the truth of many specific acts men-
tioned in support of the humanity of these planters; at the'
same time, he did not sec any thing in the nature of the traffic


b
of these planters, or any thin °. in the spirit of slavery, toinduce him to suppose that those who dealt in it surpassed theirfellow


-creatures in the offices of tenderness and humanity,
nor any thing in the nature of absolute power, that was likely
suti.ozetixeeaslidp


or,
etgits


e,
possessors from the common frailties of our


reifthese gentlemen had these feelings in so emi-
these resolutions were so far favourable tohem)


as to set them free from a station so obnoxious.




58 MOTION RELATIVE TO THE EXISTENCE [March 4.
To return to the point more immediately before the House:


he complained of an evil and an abuse which he maintained it
was practicable to remove, and, as he had before hinted, if
the proceedings of another place should be such as not to
give satisfaction, that they would be removed, and that the
first resolution for abolition in 1796 should pass this session,
then that House should substitute such other remedies as
might meet their ideas upon the regulation of the trade be-
tween this time and the period of final abolition. Until these
points should have been fairly canvassed by argument, be
trusted that the House would not pursue a step so derogatory
to its own honour and dignity, so unsatisfactory to the public
in general, as to relinquish their former opinion, or, in other
words, to tell the world at large, that there was no sincerity
in their declaration on a former day, that they had completely
given up even the gradual abolition of the slave trade, and
that they never would resolve upon that measure at this or
any other period.


The House divided on Mr.Wilberforce's motion.


Tellers.
yEA s Mr. John Smyth


/ Mr. M. Montagu 1
or5 3 .— No ES L d Sheffieldeie5- oMr. Tarleton S 61.


So it passed in the negative. Sir William Young's motion, for
not going into a committee until that clay six months, was then
agreed to.


MR. SHERIDAN'S MOTION RELATIVE TO THE EXISTENCE OF
SEDITIOUS PRACTICES IN THIS COUNTRY.


March 4.


ON the 4th of March Mr. Sheridan brought forward his promisedmotion: the object of which was, " That this House will, upon
this day s'en-night, resolve itself into a committee of the whole
House, to consider of the seditious practices and insurrections re-
ferred to in his majesty's speech at the opening of the present
session of parliament." After the motion had been seconded by
Mr. Lambton, and opposed by Mr. 'Windham, and the Lord Mayor,
Sir James Saunclerson,


Mr. Fox said, that from the speech of his honourable friend
behind him (Mr. Windham), at least till towards the con-
clusion of it, he had hoped for a speedy termination of the


I 0


OF SEDITIOUS PRACTICES.
1793'3


d .atebe
He would not • say, that he was not much interested


in the fate of the present motion, but his anxiety was greatly
lessened, from the reflection, that great part of its object had
been already obtained ; for to have drawn from his honour-
able friend, now so strenuous a supporter of; and so much
in the confidence of the minister, a total disavowal of all those
supposed plots and insurrections by which be late alarm had
been excited, was undoubtedly a great point gained. His
honourable friend had now expressly acknowledged, that no
insurrections or plots, in the sense meant by the mover of the
present question, had ever existed. But did this agree with
what had been held out by ministers? No : plots and insur-
rections of different kinds, and in different places, had been
held forth ; a conspiracy had even been talked of for taking
possession of the Tower, and the time specified when it was to
have taken place. All this, however, was now given up. His •
honourable friend seemed fond of Clealing altogether in ge-
nerals, and in his support of the present administration, lie had
adopted the prudent plan of giving up both fact and argument ;
for he could otherwise give them no consistent support. He
complained of being misrepresented when he was stated to
have said that he gave ministers his support, because he enter-
tained a bad opinion of them : but lie did unquestionably say,
that his obligation to strengthen the executive government
might become, on that account, the more binding. There seem-
ed, therefore, little ground to complain of misrepresentation.
Was it however, said Mr. Fox, or could it be deemed unrea-
sonable, that the denial now given by his honourable friend
should be given formally by the House, that they might give
a vote of quiet to the minds of the people? This, the fortifi-
cations at the Tower, and other circumstances calculated to
impress the minds of the people with serious alarm, rendered
,the more indispensably requisite.


Mr. Fox next adverted to what had been said of the clubs
at Cromer, in Norfolk ; and urged, that if his honourable
friend with been so much misinformed, as he had undoubtedly
b en,
miles of his




to what happened in a village within two


ed him to be
own house, he should have hoped it might have


l more j alous of the information he received as
to other clubs and associations. Mr. Fox said, that he and
his friends were not obstinate infidels ; they desired only to
be convinced, and would readily alter their opinion if they
saw any reasonable evidence to induce them so to do. As' to
what had been said by his honourable friend, that no pretext
had been held forth by ministers to justify the proclamations
for calling out the militia, and for the meeting of parliament,
but that they had fairly and distinctly stated the fact; he must




1


I


1


o 1


The worthy chief magistrate for the city had observed, _dui
the number of disaffected had decreased in Novembor; but
that they now increased. And was not a war theye-ry means
of procuring such increase? kr. Fox now adverted to the
proceedings of Mr. Reeves's association in receiving and con-
sidering anonymous informations, and transmitting them to
government ; which he reprobated in the strongest and most
emphatical terms, as destructive both of the peace and charac-
ter of individuals in all probability innocent, and totally sub-
versive of every principle of liberty.


With respect to the present circumstances of the country,
Mr. Fox said it was undoubtedly true, that many of those
friends whom he highly respected, and with whom lie had long
been accustomed to think and act, entertained a much greater
degree of alarm than he did, and, of course, differed with him
in some degree as to the extent of the support which should
be given at this time to the executive government. They
acted, he knew, on the most honourable principles ; and lie
had the satisfaction also to know, that that temporary disagree-
ment in opinion, on the present occasion, made no difference
whatever in the great line of their political principles ; in their
disapprobation both of the general system of the present admi-
nistration, and of the way by which they came into office. He
said, that the direct lie had now been given to the contents of
many pamphlets equally dangerous with any of Paine's books,
particularly one, called the Dream of an Englishman, and
others ; which had been industriously circulated to spread
alarm and distress over the face of the country. Was it to be
held a justifiable expedient of government to tell the public,
that treasons and conspiracies existed, and neither to prose-
cute nor endeavour to discover the conspirators and traitors ?
He and his friends might be supposed to speak as if they felt
galled upon the subject. He owned he did speak with some
such feeling, because lie knew it had been confidently said
that letters had been written by him and his friends, to per-
sons in France, of a dangerous tendency, and that it was only
owing to the lenity of ministers that they were not produced.
If ministers were in possession of any such letters, he chal-
lenged them to the proof. But he should be told, it was an
aukward thing to produce letters opened at the post-office.


OP SEDITIOUS PRACTICES.
793:3


To that lie should answer, the aukwardness was in opening
them at the post-office. It did, however, so happen, that for,
he believed, more than two years, lie had not had occasion to
write a single letter to France, except one to an English
friend (Lord Lauderdale) when at Paris. Again he should be
told, that he had seen Frenchmen in this country ; that he
had seen the French minister. He had seen Frenchmen here,
and had seen the French minister; but lie had yet to learn
that it was any crime for him or any gentleman to see the
minister sent to our court from any country. He knew
of no law by which members of parliament, like senators of
Venice, were prohibited from even conversing with the mi-
nisters of foreign states. \Vas it not a situation of the country
horrible to relate, that men's correspondence and conver-
sation were to be pried into with such inquisitorial jealousy, as
to make it dangerous for them to commit their thoughts to
paper, or to converse with a stranger but in the presence of a
third person ? Let the House do away all these suspicions and
rumours by an honest inquiry, and restore the public to that
freedom and confidence, both of writing and speech, which it
was the pride of our constitution to bestow, and which became
the frank and open character of a free people.


His honourable friend had said, that these plotters
against the constitution were only quiet like a gang of house-
breakers who had disturbed the family, watching for an op-
portunity to repeat the attempt : but what would be the
conduct of his honourable friend if he were really alarmed by
house-breakers? Would he make no inquiry to discover the
gang, and thereby prevent them from repeating the attempt?
Or would he adopt the spirit of a bill once proposed in that
House, in consequence of numerous burglaries, of which
Jews were suspectedto be the perpetr ators ? The tenor of
this bill was, that any Jew or suspected person seen looking
down_ an area, should be guilty of death. If the House re-
fused to inquire into the grounds of the suspicions to which
they had given the sanction of their belief, they put every
person upon whom suspicion fell into almost as bad a situ-
ation as the suspected persons under such a bill. A circum-
stance creltsipbeicldrb


d


the secession of some gentlemen from the


not been mentione i
alluded to, which he could have wished


had


that secession: but


n that place. The honourable ger:-
deman said lie lla canvassed for no persons to join him in
one it a canvass .


i.2tt H


-lie
was not


was
the
sure


very
that mode


de in
honoura


whichble he had
d
man


was
was


the fr.
his friend, because be told him so : he knew that


le
.


fie no other
of the honourable gentleman; but hadl pool's but the circumstance just mentioned, and


6o MOTION ittLATIvE TO THE EXISTENCE [March 4..
beg leave to observe, that a true fact might frequently be used
as afillse pretext ; and here, by his honourable friend's own
account of the matter, the insurrections satisfied at most but
the letter of the law; while a cause totally different, and un-
connected either with these insurrections or with the purview
of the act of parliament, was recurred to in order to satisfy
the spirit of the act.




62 BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 1793. [March I r.
the publication connected with it, lie should not be so pre-
sumptuous as to hope that any friendship existed between
them. His .honourable friend, whom he never suspected of
intending to support administration in any other mode than
that which he professed, was, perhaps, : raising a sort of in-
dependent corps, 'and some might be induced to join it, pre-
ferring that mode of quitting their old friends to a more open
desertion. But his honourable friend would recollect, that...-
these independent companies, when once raised, were always
incorporated with the regular battalions. The operation of
fear was not easily calculated, when they saw already that it
had made a chancellor. To his honourable friend it had
produced only reputation. He was now extolled as one of
the very first men in the country, not for those virtues and
abilities that well entitled him to the rank, but for his quick
sense of alarm, and his perseverance in dismay. 'When fear
could thus confer both profit and reputation, there was no
saying to what men might aspire by this glorious kind of mag-
nanimous timidity. Mr. Fox concluded with declaring, that
he was still incredulous, and should vote for inquiry ; which
was never more necessary than when the situation of the
country was apprehended to be dangerous.


The motiolkwas afterwards opposed by Mr.Burke, and negatived
without a division.


BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 1 793.


March
rrHE House having resolved itself into a committee of ways
_L and means, Mr. Pitt entered into a detail of the expences of


the current year, and of the means and aid by which they were to
he supplied. After Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Drake had spoken,


Mr. Fox said, that he came down to the House not without
anxiety, but it had afforded him the most sincere pleasure to
learn from the right honourable the chancellor of the ex-
chequer, at the beginning of his speech, that he meant to
go on a large scale, in providing for the vigorous prosecution
of the war in which this country was actually engaged ; and
he also approved of reducing the unfunded debt; but it was
surely rather singular, that while the right honourable gen-
tleman was proposing to pay off 1,5 oo,oco/. of exchequer bills,
he was at the same time to issue exchequer bills to that amount
on a vote of credit. He most sincerely wished that the right


793'3 BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 1793, 63


honourable gentleman, instead of speculating as he had done,
had deigned to follow the advice which he had given in the
last session, as to paying off the 4 per cents. Had he done
so, and paid off the 4 per cents when at 95, a permanent
resource of no less than 2 40,000/. would have been gained to
_the public. Mr. Fox expressed, in strong terms, his surprise
and alarm at that part of the right honourable gentleman's
speech, where he spoke of our entering into numerous al-
liances with foreign powers, besides those in which we were
now engaged. lie anxiously wished to be informed what
alliances were meant, as he dreaded much our being led into
dangerous and improper engagements for the prosecution of
the most unjustifiable purposes. It must surely appear rather
singular to bring forward, as a new and unforeseen resource,
that which might arise from a continuation of the temporary
taxes imposed for defraying the expellees of the Spanish ar-
mament. This must have occurred to every body ; and the
continuing these taxes after the period of their expiration,
was, in fact, the same thing as imposing new taxes; though
he did not mean to say that it was not better to continue
taxes already existing, than to lay on the people any burden
which they had not hitherto born. The right honourable
gentleman had assumed to himself much credit from refrain-
ing to say any thing on the flourishing state of our finances,
in the-discussions with respect to the war. He sincerely
wished that a similar conduct had been followed on the pre-
sent occasion, as it appeared to him not less improper to
bring forward any declaration or observations as to the nature
and -objects of the war in a discussion with respect to finance.
To do so, besides being improper, he thought perfectly useless;.
for, if the war was so necessary as had been represented, in-
volving in it every thing that was dear and valuable to this
country, no matter what our situation in point of finance, no
object of that kind could have prevented our engaging in it;
on the other hand, however prosperous and flourishing the
situation of our finances, if the war was not necessary, that
surely could be no argument for engaging in it.


After the various discussions on the subject of the war thatn
had taken place in that House, it seemed singular that the
right honourable gentleman should suppose that he could, by
declamation, add any thing to what had been already said ;
for lredl


religion;
1t hat he had heard of wars for honour, and wars


honourboth
and had asked, if ever there was a war in which


so deeply religion, and every thing dear to a nation,
wimplicated ? a mode of reasoning specious
enough to impose upon some people. But the answer he
would give to it would be this Can we gain more by the


-


I




64 BUDGET FOR, THE YEAR 1793. [March
event of war, than might, in all probability, have been ob-
tained by negociation ? The relinquishment by the French
of their conquests, the explanation or repeal of their offensive
decrees, the safety of our allies, all these he thought, in the
situation of this country, might have been procured by nego-
ciation. He should be told, however, that supposing this to
be so, what security could we have for the performance of
these engagements on the part of the French ? What better
security, he would ask, could we have after the war ? Unless,
indeed, we were going to war, not for the purpose of forcing
France to relinquish Savoy and her other conquests, or of pre-
venting the increase of her power; but for the purpose of in-
terfering in the internal affairs of France, and of substituting,
in room of the present, a new government, in which we
might place greater reliance. This purpose of the war had
been approved by some persons : but had been uniformly and.
explicitly disavowed by the minister, and was so, in the
clearest and most express terms, at the time he brought down
his majesty's message respecting the war. The language now
held, and the declamation they had heard that day, called for
a distinct explanation upon this most important point. The
right honourable gentleman had asked, why should war
diminish the revenue ? But, were not flourishing commerce
and manufactures the greatest support of the revenue? Did
the right honourable gentleman mean to say, that the manu-
facturers of this country would not be injured by war ? Had
he had any information of late from Manchester, Paisley,
Norwich, and other places, which had induced him to form this


• opinion ? If so, Mr. Fox declared that his information had been
directly the reverse: but this would not certainly operate in.
any degree upon his mind, did he conceive the honour and
dearest interests of the country to be implicated in the war
to the extent which had been represented. As the subject,
of war would not probably be again debated, he thought it
right to say that he remained of opinion that it might have
been avoided ; and when the right honourable gentleman
talked of the prosperous state of this country last year, he
could not but still more condemn the putting that enviable
prosperity to risk without negotiation.


The right honourable gentleman by his declamation had
drawn from him thus much ; and lie could not conclude with-
out saying a few words on the subject of our East-India affairs.
He had not yet given much examination to the papers laid
before the House relative to that business, but he had bestowed
some consideration on it, and he still wished for a great deal
of information. He joined. with his honourable friend in
being averse to taking at present the sco,000l. stated as a


793°] BUDGET FOR THE YEAR
1793.


resource arising to this country from the revenues of India.
The renewal of the charter of the East India company was
the greatest commercial question that had ever been considered


by
tie legislature of any country. It involved a variety of


objects of such magnitude and importance, that, in com-
petition with them, even this soo,000l. ought to be considered
as nothing. He thought it, therefore, highly improper that
the discussion of such a subject should be cramped or fettered
in any shape. True, the right honourable gentleman had
said that, by taking this 5oo,000l. at present into calculation, the
House would by no means be pledged to a renewal of the East
India company's charter ; but he bad also said that the House
would not surely adopt any regulations with respect to India,
from which the public would not derive at least an equal
profit. If the House was to proceed on this ground, there
could be no fair discussion ; for whatever advantages, either
immediate or eventual, and of how great importance soever,
might appear likely to arise from opening the commerce with


if a revenue of soo,000l. should not be immediately
derived to the public, they would be stopped by the poste-
latuni which had been now laid down. For his part, he
could never think it right or prudent to go into the con-
sideration of a commercial question of such immense magni-
tude cramped in the outset by a sine qua non of this sort. To
him the whole business bore much the appearance.of ministers
baying taken upon them to pledge that House and the public
to a renewal of the company's charter, in a manner disgrace-
ful to the country ; and since the publication of the speech of
another right honourable gentleman, (Mr. Dundas,) the
opinion universally entertained was, that a renewal of the
company's charter was absolutely determined on. He did not
say that lie had made up his mind as to the propriety or im-
propriety of renewing that charter; but it was a matter which


boueht certainly to be decided upon with the greatest deliber-
ation, and gentlemen ought to come to it with their judgments
and opinions totally unfettered and unbiassed.


March I s.


The House being in a committee of supply,


Mr. Fox said, that his support of the war now that we
were engaged in it, was as sincere as that of his majesty's
ministers, although on very different grounds. He wished it
to be supported with vigour, because by a vigorous war, we
should the more speedily obtain adequate and honourable terms


voL. V. P




66 TRAITEROLTS CORRESPONDENCE BILL. [March IS.-
of peace. Of those terms he had formed a clear and definite
idea : ministers had not, or at least had never condescended
to state any idea on the subject to the House. He certainly
(lid not think supporting the neglect or the blunders of mi-
nisters the best mode of supporting the war : for he knew,
that they, and all other ministers, would do their duty better
by being carefully watched than implicitly trusted, Let the
minister spew that there would have been any danger in send-
ing 2000 men to Holland in the beginning of February, in-
stead of keeping them till towards the end of it, and then•
his argument might be good for something. Would he call
to his aid those plots and insurrections which had been so
much talked of, but never seen, as a pretext for three weeks
delay? Those plots, he imagined, had done their duty, and
were dismissed from the service, to be pressed into it no more.
—Though he had objected to the war in the strongest terms,
he-Wished, as he believed every gentleman did, that it should
now be carried on with vigour; he only regretted, that the
conduct of a.


war so interesting to this country, should be
in the hands of men who had, on every former occasion, as
well as on the present, proved themselves totally unfit for so
very important a trust. The right honourable the chancellor
of the exchequer had talked in a high strain of his con,
sulting the recesses of his own mind, and seemed to think,
that on an occasion like the present, it was the duty of every
member of that House to trust implicitly to the conduct of
his majesty's ministers. Mr. Fox said, he viewed the subject
in a light very different. He believed. that the country had
a far better security for the good conduct of ministers when
they were closely watched, than when they were blindly trusted:
Such, Mr. Fox said, was his opinion ; and a retirement into
the recesses of his own mind, for an examination into the
principles of his conduct, would only afford him fresh sources
of satisfaction.


TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.


March r 5.
T.A.P. having been declared against France, it Was deemed


expedient to .prevent all correspondence between British
subjects and the hostile party. To render this prohibition effectual,
the. attorney general Sir John 'Scott moved this day "fon leave
to bring in a bill more effectually to prevent during the war, all


I0


1793•] TRAITER.OT,TS CORRESPONDENCE BILL. 67


traiterous correspondence with, or aid and assistance being given
to, his majesty's enemies." , The law of treason was founded upon
a statute of the 25th of Edward III. which had been the subject
of legislative exposition in different laws, enacted since that period.
The acts declared treasonable in that statute were principally re-
ducible to two heads ; to compass, that is, to intend or project
the king's -death_;_to- -levy-War against the king, and to abet or
assist his enemies. Since that period, during wars, parliament


genera].had repeatedly passed laws which applied the l principle to
the existing case; by specifically prohibiting adherence or assist-
ance to nations at enmity with our sovereign. Agreeably to the
original statute, and the consequent explanatory acts, the present
bill was framed. Former laws had id such circumstances, pro-
hibited British subjects from sending military stores, arms, am-
munition, and provision, of various enumerated kinds. 'The present
bill, besides interdicting these articles, prohibited purchases of
French funds or French lands. The reason of this prohibition
was, that as the French government proposed to carry on war
against this country by the sale of lands, British subjects, if al-
lowed to purchase such - land, would not only feel an interest in
the property which they had thus acquired, but furnish the enemy
with the means of carrying on war against ourselves. It was
further proposed, that no persons should be allowed to go front
this country into France without a licence under his majesty's
great seal, and that their neglect of this clause should be deemed
a misdemeanour ; and that no persons, though subjects of this
country, coming from France, should be allowed to enter this
kingdom without a passport or licence, or giving to a magistrate
such security as he should require. The last regulation was to
prevent the insurance of vessels which should traffic with France.
the bill, as the attorney general had moved for leave to bring in


Mr. Fox declared, that he could not omit even this first
opportunity to express his disapprobation of a bill, the regu-
lations of which he regarded as useless, unjust, and impolitic.
If the honourable and learned gentleman meant to say, that
there Were doubts to be removed on the law of treason as
it stood, that many points in that law were not well under-
stood, and that the subjects of this country might, without
knowing it, incur the penalties of the law; if the gentlemen
of the long robe, notwithstanding their great learning, said,
that still to them this law was doubtful, it ill became so
unlearned an individual as himself to say, that a bill to
explain that law was not necessary. But he who had never
before heard of those- doubts, had 310 reason till now to
think that law - obscure, and therefore could not feel the ne-
cessity of a bill to explain it. However, if he was deficient
in knowledge upon that subject, he must allow, of course, -*at
9. bill might be necessary for the purpose of explai ging, the


12




d


4


68 TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL. [March s.
law, and then the question would be, whether the provisions
of the bill now opened conthrmed to that intention. To him.
they appeared of a very extraordinary nature. The first part
that struck his mind was, the restraint upon the purchase,
by any subject of this country, of any land in France. The
bills to which the honourable and learned gentleman had
alluded upon that head as precedents, were not in his mind
very highly deserving of imitation ; for in this, and every
other country calling itself free, he had always held, that pro-
perty was in the highest degree entitled to the protection of
the law; and if so, there could be no doubt but the power
of disposing of it was to be considered under the same pro-
tection; both of which were violated by the present bill.


The second ground upon which the bill proceeded was,
that the possession of land in France, by any of his majesty's
subjects there, might become hostile to the interests of this
country. Should the learned gentleman not have stated some
specific inconvenience that this country had felt by any of
its subjects having possessions in other countries? British
subjects had had from time to time many such possessions,
and no evil, that he ever heard of, had hitherto resulted from
that circumstance : he was firmly convinced, that nothing at
this moment could be more dangerous than holding out that
idea, and that there was not any thing at the present that
made it appear more dangerous to have such possessions than.
at any former period. Indeed, he never expected to hear a
proposition maintained in any part of the world, least of all
in Great Britain, that we should not subscribe to loans, or
engage in the funds of any country; or that those who were
at war with us, were not to have their property considered
as sacred. The direct contrary had hitherto been the rule;
and it had been always held out, that property of every kind
was secured to the use of its possessor, as well during war of
any kind, as in times of the most profound peace? Some-
thing to the reverse of this had been started and proposed
during the American war, respecting property held in Penn-
sylvania; but the minister of that day rejected with disdain.
a proposition so unjust and impolitic; observing, that the
sacredness of the possession of property being the basis of a
free state, the honour, and ultimately, the safety of the king,
dom, might entirely depend upon that principle. This was
wise, as well as honourable. But this principle was totally
destroyed by the spirit of the present bill. Nevertheless, if
we looked at the interest of this country, independent of any
other consideration, he was convinced that we should not be
so rash as to stop the intercourse between this country and
France with respect to the purchase of lands, or the investing


TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.
1793.1
of money in the funds. Had we lost all sense of the ad-
vantage to be derived from keeping that open ? Was it likely
that much of the money of the people of this country would
be laid out in purchases in France? Or was it not rather
more probable, that many of the people of France would
make - purchases _Rith–us-?---We had always encouraged fo-
reigners, even in time of war, to deal in our funds; and we
had always held their property sacred: and he would ask,
whether encouragement affbrded on both sides to deal in
the funds, would operate most in favour of this country
or. of France; of that which had most, or that which had
least credit? Was it to be supposed, that men would be
so blind to their own interest, as not to perceive and avail
themselves of this advantage? But these considerations would
be defeated entirely by the present bill.


The next provision of this measure went to declare it
treason to supply the French, or any in alliance with them,
with arms. If that part of the law was to be thoroughly
revised, perhaps he. might have something to offer to the atten-
tion of the House upon that subject; but, considering all
wars of late years in Europe as contests of revenue, rather
than of arms, he questioned whether it would not be of
advantage to this country to trade with its ene'mics, and
perhaps to sell to them even articles of arms, whilst we had
prompt payment, at our own price, for them. With respect
to the prohibition of Englishmen going to -France without a
passport, as described in the bill, he should pass it by, as he
considered it as the least exceptionable clause. But as to
the provision against Englishmen returning to their country,
it was monstrous enough to make the learned gentleman
himself afraid of stating it. It was giving a power to the
king to banish, during the war, every British subject now in
France. But, it seemed, he had the power of returning in
certain cases, by




o.aivin security and what not for his goodgi ing
behaviour. Who was to be the judge of the amount of that
security? This was to be left to a magistrate. Here again,
a man was to be put under the discretion of another person,
who might render his return impossible by exacting security
to an amount that could not be given. If one man was to
be at the discretion of another in the clearest of his rights,
that of living under the government and partaking of the
advantages of the constitution of his native country, he must
ask, upon what principle it was, that we were daily congra-
tulating each other, and praising our laws to foreign nations?
Where was the foundation of our boasting, if an English
subject, the most meritorious English subject, — and because
he was meritorious he stood a great chance of being obnoxious


r 3




1793.] TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.
Mr. Fox expressed his surprise that the learned gentleman


should wish to carry, with such precipitation, through the
House, a bill which, lie did not hesitate to say, was an attack
upon the fundamental liberties of Englishmen, and a measure
equally ineffectual, impolitic, and tyrannical. An honourable
gentleman- had differed frounhinron this subject, but had been
so candid as to say, that those who now opposed this bill had,
ever since the year 1783, maintained the most constitutional
principles. It was an adherence to these same principles
which made them now . express their disapprobation of a
measure which every good whig, as a whig, must heartily
reprobate. Time ought to be allowed for discussing it; the
precipitation -with which he saw it was now to be hurried
through the House could answer no other end than that of
preventing discussion. A law of no less import than that
of preventing Britons from returning home to their country,
was, without time for consideration, to be committed the next
day. Why? —for no other purpose than that of hurrying
it through the House before the recess. It was, he said,
to be committed to-morrow, reported on Monday, read a
third time on Tuesday, carried to the Lords on Wednesday,
and on Thursday the recess commenced; so that even by that
method it could not be done, and those who attempted it only
committed a useless act of indecency. He trusted that gen-
tlemen on the other side of the House would not be quite
so precipitate, but would allow some little . delay. The bill
affected the nation at large: it was fit, therefore, that time
should be given for the people to express their opinion upon
it; and lie believed that that opinion would be found to be
extremely unfavourable; for, by what he could learn, no bill
had ever been brought into parliament which was more un-
popular, as far as it yet reached. In short, he considered
it to be such an encroachment on the rights of the people,
and such a degradation of justice, that the House should wait
for the sense of the country. — He declared that there was
not a single clause in the bill to which. he would not, in .the
committee, give his dissent, unless he should find something
stronger in favour of' the clauses than had yet been advanced.
To the clause for making it necessary for Englishmen to
procure passports from the secretary of state, to return to
their own country, he was determined to give the most steady
opposition; for by that clause Englishmen would find them-
tsoelvaesks palasceeccrlet the most degraded situation, when obliged


secretary of state's leave to return to their country
and their homes. For his own part, lie should despise him-
tsielf
he




he
could




suffer himself to be placed in a situa-




on w
should be obliged to apply to a servant of


P 4


7'TRAITEROUS CORRESPO'NDENCE BILL. [March 21.
to his majesty's ministers, was to be at the mercy, whim,or


caprice of any creature of the crown, who had the powerto say to him, without assigning a. reason, " You shall not
come over to this country, because I do not chuse you shall
come."


As to the insurance of ships belonging to France, the
question did not involve any principle; for the preventing of
Englishmen from paying the losses of the French was right
enough; but lie wished to know of what utility the prohibi-
tion would be. The truth was, that the premium was always
more than equal to the risk, and the balance was in favour ofthe underwriter. If, for instance, out of one hundred in- •
surances, the profits of the premium was much more than
the loss at the expiration of the policy, then England would
have gained, and France would have lost. Why, then, he titin
must say, that lie did not see the reason for this restraint
upon trade. But, however, he had less objection to this
clause than he had to many of the others, because it appeared
to him to be merely foolish. He ridiculed the attorney ge-
neral's definition of the word correspondence, and thought
that the people of this country needed not to be told, that,
if they entered into any agreement with the enemies of the
state, to perform any thing that tended to its injury, they
were amenable to the law. However, if the learned gen-
tleman thought the people of this country were so ignorant
of their duty to the state, it was kind in him to tell them
what they were liable to in cases of neglect or positive offence.
Mr. Fox concluded with saying, that the whole of the bill,
as opened by the learned gentleman, appeared to him entirely
unnecessary, many parts of it repugnant to the common prin-
ciples of justice, some of them foolish, and he believed it
brought forward with no other view than to disseminate
through the country false and injurious ideas of the existence
of a correspondence between some persons and France, and
alarms of dangers where there were no dangers at all; and
therefore it should meet with his decided opposition, even in
that early stage.


The motion was also warmly opposed by Mr. Erskine ; leave,however, was given to bring in the bill.


March 2 r


This day the bill was read a second time, and on the attorney
general's moving that it be committed to-morrow,




1


TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL. [March 22.
the crown, as a favour, for leave to return to England, or to
his own house.


March 22.


The House went into a committee on the bill. The solicitor
generaliiaving moved, " That the consideration of the preamble
should be postponed till the different clauses of the bill should
be gone through,"


Mr. Fox said he was happy to hear that the gentleman who
brought in the bill began to think that it was not perfect, andb`
that it might want some modification. For his part, he
thought the provisions of the bill to be such as ought to meet
the detestation of the people of this country. He should
attend to whatever modifications should be offered; but the
best modification he knew would be that of expunging all the
clauses out of the bill. He said he wanted to prevent the
progress of a bill, which the imagination of man could hardly
think of without astonishment — a bill which, perhaps, was
never equalled in the despotism of its principle; and he knew
that those who brought it in could not, without considerable
vigilance from others, be prevailed upon to pay any attention
to the constitution of this country. He insisted, that before
a proposition so new and alarming was acceded to, it should
at least be justified by a clear proof of an urgent necessity.
An honourable gentleman (Mr. Anstruther) had quibbled
on this preamble in a most extraordinary manner, and had
been obliged to state it unthirly in order to support his
deduction. lie had asked, whether it could be denied that
it was expedient to prevent corresponding with his majesty's
enemies, &c.; but the words of the preamble were, that 46 it
is expedient more effectually to prevent such correspondence,"
&c.; and he would ask, on the other hand, whether, without
any knowledge of the insufficiency of the existing laws, or
of any dangerous and extraordinary urgency, we should think
it right to go on to the enacting of such dreadful provisions
as some of those which composed this bill ? Gentlemen talked
of what had been clone at the revolution: let them follow
the example of those who acted at that time, by spewing
evidence of the necessity of the present measure. He could
not agree with much that he had heard that night; for, upon
the principle now asserted, if a handful of men, however
insignificant, or however small in number, should happen
to entertain opinions subversive of the established constitu-
tion, this alone would be held sufficient to justify the invest-


I 793:3
TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL. 73


mpg government with the most arbitrary powers,- though there
existed, in fact, no real danger. An honourable gentleman
(Mr. Hawkins Browne) had said, that, if he were a jacobite,
he would not take the part even of his favourite monarch,
if imposed on him by the power of France. For his part, if
the constitution which he so much venerated was to be de-
stroyed, he did n its ts overthrow should come
from France, or originate at home : he would support mi-
nisters in carrying on the war, but he would not agree to
undermine the constitution ; and he could not give his con-
currence to the proceeding one step farther in the present
bill, without evidence of some great and urgent necessity.
It had been hinted, that inconveniencies had arisen during
the American war, from improper intercourse with the
enemy; for his part, he had never before heard of it, and
he was sure no such thing had ever been proved. He be-
lieved that, during the war which begun in 1756 and ended
in 1763, less restrictions had been imposed than in any
other war, and he would submit it to gentlemen, without
any observation, whether this had been attended with any
bad consequences.


April 4.


The House being again in a committee on the bill, the clause
which went to prohibit the return into this country of any of his
majesty's subjects without his leave, being read for the purpose of
negativing the clause, Mr. Whitbread said, he thought the clause
so detestable, that even in its death he could not help taking
notice of 'its character ; he could not allow it the benefit of the
old charitable sentence, de mortuis nil nisi bonum ; on the con-.
trary, he should apply to it the lines written on a tombstone,


" Lie still if you 're wise,
You 're damn'd if you rise."


But this was not all ; he had a question to ask the solicitor general,
and it arose out of this clause, although it was to be negatived.
The reasons assigned by the gentlemen who brought in this bill
for negativing this clause, made his question necessary. They
had insinuated, that the clause was not strictly necessary to the
purpose which it tended to support, as his majesty by proclama-
tion could order what was necessary for the safety of the state.
A proclamation had issued to that effect, forbidding, for a time,
subjects of this country from returning into it, under certain
restrictions. He wished to know of the solicitor general, whether
the king was empowered by law to issue any proclamation, for-
bidding the return into this country of any one of the subjects




74 TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.
[April 4.


of it not convicted of a crime ? Had the King of England the
power, by law, to hinder the return of such a man to his native
country ? The question he thought necessary to be determined
before the clause now before the committee was negatived, because
they should take care upon that negative not to give an oblique
sanction to a principle of tyranny, much more dangerous even
than the effect could be of passing the clause itself : he had heard
that a proclamation to this effect had passed with regard to certain
persons lately arrived from France at Dover, but he had not read
it ; he wished to know whether the law officer of the crown would
say, that such a proclamation was warranted by the law of Eng-
land? — The solicitor general said, that with respect. to the legal
point to which the honourable gentleman had alluded, certainly
his majesty had a right to make a regulation upon the general
policy of this country.


Mr. Pox took fire at these expressions, and, in a strain of
uncommon animation, proceeded to refute the principles
which they appeared to him to support. He said, that he
had, ever since he thought upon the subject, wholly and en-
tirely misunderstood the law, if the king had the power,
which the answer of the honourable and} learned gentleman
insinuated. If the king had the right of preventing any person
from returning to this country, under the specious mask of regu-
lating its general policy, he had in fact the power of expelling
from his native land for ever any person he might think proper.
He knew, in fact, the king had no such power; and therefore
it was that he rose to make these observations, and with them
to defy any man in that House, or any man in this world, to
prove, that the King of England had by law a right to say to -
any subject not convicted of an offence against the law-
" You shall not return to Great Britain without a passport
from me." If the king had ever, if the king should ever, issue
a proclamation to that effect, he would say and maintain,
without the least fear of the colour of refutation by argument,
that such a proclamation was and would be irregular, illegal,
and highly unconstitutional. He believed, that if the trans-
action alluded to, and which happened atDover, should ever be
fairly canvassed, it would be found to be a shameful violation
of the law of this country, and a revival of the principle of
the clause which had just been read, — a principle which would,
to a certain degree, attach shame, scandal, and disgrace on
that House, for having once given to it the colour of a sanction,
by giving leave to bring in a bill which contained a clause to
favour it. " The king had a right to regulate upon points of
general policy in this country." Had he, indeed ! Had he
a right to say to an Englishman, " You shall not return to
England without my passport?" If he had, then it was high


793.3
TRAITEROTIS CORRESPOND ENCE BILL. 7.5


1
time to examine into the expediency of suffering such a pre-
rogative to continue — high time to enquire whether some
means could not be devised to limit the extent, and regulate
the exercise of that prerogative. But, said Mr. Fox, 1 tun sure
he has not, and never ought to have, and never will have,
unless this House shall scandalously _neglect its duty ; but I
wish the solicitor-general would--have the goodness to explain
what he meant by those ambiguous words which he gave in
answer to so very plain a question, and that he would not
leave us under so just a terror for the fate of the constitu-
tion of our country.


In answer to Mr. Pitt, who defended the expressions of the
solicitor general,


Mr. Fox rose again and maintained, that the words of the
solicitor general tended in effect to convey to the House the
most odious and detestable principle, and such as he was sure
did not belong to the constitution of this country. He would
say they were material words, for the words of any high law
authority in that House were always important, and would
be dangerous, if not refuted when they were wrong, because
they would form, as it were, a sort of precedent by acqui-
escence; they were words at which he was justly alarmed,
when he compared them with the plain question to which
they were an answer. " I say," said Mr. Fox, " I am justly
alarmed when I hear such sentiments from such a quarter,
for it is not his own opinion merely that the learned gen
tleman is speaking. I say that I am justly alarmed for the
liberties of the country, when such exploded doctrines upon
the king's prerogative are attempted to be revived; doc-
trines, to explode which the best treasure of this country
was expended, and the purest blood shed." He said, he
was sure that the observation of the learned gentleman up-
on the king's prerogative was worse than the clause which
he gave up—a clause which he would have had gone out of
that House with the stigma that belonged to it ; but the clause
was to be superseded by doctrines worse than its contents. At
these attempts it was high time to be alarmed.


The clause was negatived.


April 8.


The House having gone through all the amendments made in
the bill by the committee, Mr. Adam said, he would then pro-




76 TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.
[April B.


pose a clause, of which he had given notice on a former day.
By the law of high treason in general, every person accused
of treason was entitled to be heard by counsel on questions of
fact as well as of law; to have a copy of the indictment, and
a list of' the witnesses ten days before trial ; by the same
law no person accused could be convicted unless the overt act
of treason was proved by two witnesses. But parliament having
made the counterfeiting of the king's coin, the great seal, &c.
high treason, had made a distinction between treasons of that
description, and treasons against the king's life, or making war
upon him, or adhering to his enemies : for a person accused
of counterfeiting the coin, for instance, though charged with
high treason, was not entitled to a copy of the indictment or
to a list of the witnesses, nor was it necessary that the fact
should be proved by two witnesses, nor was counsel allowed to
speak in behalf' of the prisoner, except a question of law should
arise. The ground for this distinction was, that the latter kind
of treasons (lid not work a corruption of blood, or a forfeiture
of the estate, of the party convicted ; and as the punishment
was the less severe, so the aids allowed to the accused for
making his defence were also less. Mr. Adam laboured to
shew that the distinction did not apply to the acts which were
to be made treason by the present bill ; for they were such as
might be considered as coming within that branch of the statute
of the 25th of Edw. III. relative to "adhering to the king's
enemies," and consequently a person brought to trial upon the
present bill, was, in point of reason, intitled to all the aids
which were allowed by law to persons making their defence
against a charge of high treason. But these aids, it seemed,6
were to be denied under the present bill, fbr this reason, that
it was not to work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate ;
but the reason did not appear to him to be a sound one, for
the House must know, that by the 7th A nne it was enacted,
that corruption of blood and forfeiture of estate should no longer
be the consequence of a conviction of high treason, after the
death of the then pretender to the crown. By the 17th Geo. IL
the period when corruption of blood and forfeiture should no
!ringer attach upon treason, was removed to a more distant
time, and was to take place at the death of the two sons of
that pretender. One of these, it was well known, had died afew years ago ; the other, who was Cardinal York, was an aged
person, and at his death, which could not, in the course of nature,
be very distant, all corruption of blood and forfeiture for high
treason were by law to cease in England. And yet, after that
period, a person accused of high treason would be still intitled
to all the aids which he had already mentioned ; so that it could
not be said that those aids were allowed by law, merely because
the corruption and forfeiture of estate were consequences of a
conviction on charge of high treason. Mr. Adam argued to
shew that there was no analogy between the act of counterfeiting
the king's coin, and, for instance, remitting money to France,du-
ring the present war ; it was true, that after the passing of this


1793']
TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL. 77


bill, these two acts would in law amount to high treason, yet
the latter alone could be said to partake of the nature of treason,
as it argued an adhering to the king's enemies ; and the former
was allowed by all able law authorities to be rather a species of
fraud, and what was called the crimen falsi, than high treason;
and to have been called treason, only because it was an act in
which the public had a concern. As, therefore, these treasons
differed widely in their nature, a distinction, he contended, might
well be expected in the aids to be allowed to persons indicted, as
to the means of their defence. On these grounds he would move
for leave to bring up a clause, the object of which was to extend
to persons who should be tried under this act, the indulgence
allowed by the 7th William III. and 7th Queen Ann ..to per.
sons accused of high treason, under the z 5th of Edward III.=
The attorney general opposed the admission of.-We clause : he
said it went to open a very wide discussion indeed, namely,
whether all those aids which the learned gentleman had enu-
merated, as granted by law to persons accused of high treason,
should also be allowed in cases of felony ; for though coun-
terfeiting the king's coin, for instance, was in name high treason,
it was, as to its effects upon the blood and property of the
convict, no more than felony. If the proposed relief was proper
in this case, he saw no reason why it ought not to be extended
also to those who should hereafter be accused of felony.


Mr. Fox expressed his surprise that the learned gentleman
should have confounded two things, which in their nature
were widely different. A copy of the indictment, a list of the
witnesses, and the aid of counsel in matters of fact as well as
law, were allowed to persons accused of high treason, but not
to persons accused of felony ; the reason of the difference was
obvious; prosecutions for felonies were usually brought by
private individuals, who could not be supposed to have any
extraordinary influence with either judge or jury ; but prose-
cutions for high treason were always brought by the crown ;
the aids, therefore, which the law allowed to a person accused
of treason, were so many shields given to him to defend him-
self, and prevent him from being overborne by the weight, or
influence, or passions of the chief magistrate or his ministers.
These shields must, of course, on this principle, be as neces-
sary in a prosecution on the present bill, as in one on the 25th
of Edward III., as in both cases it would be carried only by
the public accuser at the command of the crown. It was al-
lowed that at the death of Cardinal York all treasons would
be precisely on a level, as far as they affected the inheritable
quality of the blood, and the property of the person convicted ;
what a miserable thing, then, must it be to say, that in a prose-
cution for an act done against the present bill, a man should
he refused a copy of his indictment, and the other aids al-




.11P


7 8 TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.
[April 8.


lowed by law in cases of high treason, merely because the aged
cardinal had not yet paid the debt of nature ! He was glad,
he said, that the penalty Hider this bill was not to be greater
than that to which persons were subjected who were convicted
of counterfeiting the greatseal ; but, on the other hand, he feared
that this seeming lenity was not what it appeared to be, the
child of mercy ; he apprehended that its object was to facili-
tate the conviction of the accused, by taking from him the
means of defence, which he might claim as his right, if the
bill left the enumerated acts within the statute of the 25th of
Edward III. These acts might be considered as proofs of
an adherence to the king's enemies, and consequently came
within the species of treason on which corruption of blood
attached; but, by classing them under the head of treasons
which did not operate a corruption of blood, the framers of the
bill had contrived to take from the accused the means of de-
fence, under the appearance of lenity. Of all the characters
of cruelty, he considered that as the most odious which as-
sumed the garb of mercy : such was the case here; under the
pretence of mercy to the accused, in not charging him with
corruption of blood, he was to be deprived of the means of
making his defence. That he might not stand a chance in
the contest, his shield was to be taken from him. The list of
the jury, to give him the benefit of the challenge—the list of
witnesses, to enable him to detect conspiracies and to pre-
vent perjury — the copy of the charge ten days before the
trial, to enable him to prepare himself for the awl day —
the assistance of a learned gentleman to speak for an unlearned
man—all the arms and means of protection with which the
humanity of the law of England had fortified an individual,
when accused by the crown, were to be taken away. Harsh-
ness and severity were to be substituted for tenderness and
compassion ; and then he was to be insulted by being told he
was spared the corruption of blood ! But, really, it seemed to
him as if some gentlemen thought there ought to be a law for
the facility of conviction of high treason; and if so, why did
they not speak out boldly, and alter the preamble of the bill,
and word it to this effect—" Whereas by allowing prisoners
lists of evidence and juries, copies of indictments, and other
means of defence, it has been difficult to convict them, be it
therefore enacted, &c." He said, he should, on the third
reading of the bill, have another opportunity of opposing its - 11
principle, a principle which would appear somewhat less ty- ',!!
rannical if the proposed clause was admitted, but which must
be still more odious if it was rejected.


The clause proposed by Mr. Adam was negatived by I to to 32-
11/I•


1793'3
TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.


79


April 9.


pn the motion, that the bill do pass,


Mr. Fox said, that as in every stage of this bill he had
entered his protest against it, he should conceive himself want-
ing in his duty to himself and to his constituents, if he now


He therefore was ready to de-safered it to pass in silence.
dare, that in the course of his parliamentary life he had
never seen a bill so unfounded in policy, and which was
contrived so effectually to violate every principle of justice,
humanity, and the constitution, as the one in question. The
right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer had, in.
fending it, confounded two things, in their nature_the'inost
distinct, the principle and the pretext of the bill. He had
said, that the principle must be unobjectionable, because it
was to prevent supplies of military stores and other necessaries
from being carried to the enemy ; but this was the pretext for
bringing in the bill, not the principle on which it was founded.
The bill was much better calculated for entrapping indivi-
duals, than for guarding them against the perils of high
treason.


Mr. Fox said, it would be discovered that they who op-
posed the bill were, in truth, the sole persons who endea-
voured to thwart the designsof our adversaries, while its sup-
porters were giving every advantage to our foreign foes. But
on the grounds of its impolicy he did not now mean to argue.
He recurred to the principles of justice and humanity, which
were superior to all policy, and on which alone true policy
could rest. In the introduction of this bill, it had been' said,
that part of it was declaratory of the old law, and part of it
contained new enactments. But, we were now told, that all
of it was both declaratory and new; and by this sophistical
quibbling, the understanding was confounded, and gentlemen
Ie,oreaedtt.t loss what opinion to form, or upon what 'ground topr c


The first clause was merely declaratory. It did not abrogate
the statute of the 25th Edward III. It did not make that
not to be treason which before was treason, under pretence of
defining the law of treason ; it served as a snare to entrap the
unwary the and inconsiderate. It would have been more proper,
more candid, and more just, openly and specifically to have
stated, whether sending cloth to France was or was not trea-
son. This might easily have been done by an express clause


purpose ; whereas, according to the present existing




83 • TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.
[April 9;


law, if the bill should pass, these clothiers would still be liable
to the penalties of the old law, without the possibility of their
knowing whether they were guilty or not, and at the same
time rendered obnoxious to a severer punishment than that
which the present bill inflicted. He would not repeat the
arguments he had formerly adduced against the first clause of
the bill. By the wording of it, however, he could not help
again observing, that the mere agreement to commit an of
fence, and the offence itself were put upon the same footing,
and liable to the same consequences. Inchoate crimes were
classed in the same degree of enormity with those which were
completed; and, by this confusion, every rational doctrine of
criminal jurisprudence destroyed. Although a verbal agree-
ment for a lease of above three years, and for a sale of goods
above the value of ten pounds, was declared absolutely void
by the statute of the 29th Charles II., because of the ease
with which perjury in these cases might be committed, yet this
bill wantonly exposed the life of an individual in cases
where perjury might be perpetrated with equal facility. The
former wise statute would not permit the fortune of a man to
be injured by such means; the present bloody bill exposed
his life to destruction in similar circumstances. This was,
indeed, a sanguinary part of the clause; and late as the stage
of this bill was, he trusted the House would still recede from
it, covered with shame and confusion for having entertained
it so long.


There was another clause in it, which was also sanguinary,
.but which was, if possible, more absurd than sanguinary; it
was that which made it death in an Englishman — to do
what ? To return to his native country ! An Englishman
might go to Ireland, and there agree, without guilt, for theipurchase of an estate in France; he might go to Hamburgh,
and there make a like agreement, and that would be only an
inchoate crime : he might pay the purchase money, and by


• his attorney take possession of the estate; all this would not
amount to high treason; but should he after this, return to
his native land, this return would consummate his guilt, and
bring upon him the penalties of treason. Some gentlemen
might think such a clause as this without a precedent; but,
in fact, it was not, it was stolen from the national convention,
where the most arbitrary laws were enacted for ascertaining ,.
who should be deemed emigrants, and which afterwards de-
voted them to death, if they. should presume ever to return
to their native country.


In the discussion which had taken place last night, it had
been asserted, that no act was tyrannical which tended to
bring the guilty to a certain and speedy conviction; but, was


7931.
TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.


Trot the acquittal of innocence, as well as the punishment of
an essential object in every humane code of criminal


law ? Why, therefore, were persons, who were indicted un-
der this act, to be deprived of the benefits of the statutes of
William and Anne ? By these acts, a copy of the indictment
was to be ;ranted to the prisoner; counsel were permitted to
plead for him on questions of fact, as well as questions of law,
and what was, perhaps, of more importance, were allowed free
communication with him at all times. To these important
privileges were superadded that of having a list of the jury
who were to try the prisoners, and of the witnesses who were
to be adduced against him. A reason had indeed been as-
signed by the right honourable the chancellor of the ex-
chequer, for withholding this privilege in the present_ in` _
stance, which he confessed he was sorry, as well as ashamed,
to hear assigned. The House had been told, that this privi-
lege was rendered perfectly nugatory, because the crown could
give in such a numerous list of witnesses that the prisoner
could not possibly inquire into their situation, or have an op-
portunity of knowing who were really to be produced against
him. If such an artifice was ever made use of, either by the
right honourable gentleman, or the other servants of the
crown, he trusted there was still virtue enough in the House,
and spirit enough.in the nation, to call them to a severe ac-
count for such notorious misconduct. But, amidst all the
severe enactments with which this bill was filled, they were
still said to be null, because the operation of the laws of for-
feiture was prevented from attaching upon the persons who
might offend within this bill. He lamented, in pathetic terms,
that because this bill was not to work corruption of blood, a
person accused of a breach of it was to be deprived of the aids
and shields which were allowed by the 7th of William III.
to persons accused of high treason; the distinction of treasons,
working and not working corruption of blood, was to cease
at the death of Cardinal York, a period which could not now
be considered as very remote : from all that he had ever heard
of that person, who was by every one represented as a very
meritorious individual, he felt a much greater disposition to
wish him a long life, than to wish for his death; and yet a man
might be tempted to wish for the latter, when he found ae ,
legislature so absurd as to continue a cruel distinction be-
tween


en accused
different species of high treason, and refuse to indivi-


duals of one the in2ulgencies which it allowed when
they were accused of another, and when there existed no
ootfhtehrephroettlesnecoef


Stuart,




the distinction, than an absurd apprehen-
sion of an invasion from an aged cardinal to revive the claims


VOL. v.


Wart. If any person. unacquaintectwith our
0




82


it


TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.
[April 9,


laws, our manners, and our customs, should inquire into the
nature of' a punishment which was said to be lenient, he would
certainly conceive it to be imprisonment or pillory almost ;
but, if he was informed that death, the ultimate right of civil
society on the individual, was still inflicted by this bill, with a
less probable chance of escaping than under the firmer laws
of the country, and with the trifling exemption from forfeiture
and corruption of blood, he might, perhaps, be led to con-
clude, that this tyranny was of all others the most odious
and detestable — a tyranny which wounded under the garb
of mercy.


He could not help again taking notice of the severity of the
bill, in submitting all persons to be tried, without the assist-
ance of a gentleman of the learned profession to address the
jury for them. He must say, that allowing counsel to speak
for them appeared to him an important point. It had, indeed,
been said, that this bill was founded upon the general prin-
ciple of the laws of treason, and on the 25th of Edward III.
That was only a pretext, as he had said before. Was the fact
so ? Not the least like it. Was it no advantage to a poor
man in prison, accused of high treason, to have a counsel
to visit and attend him, and to assist him in making out his
defence ? Was it of no advantage to a person thus accused,
to have a list of his jury before his trial for perusal ? Was
it of no advantage to a person so accused to have a copy of
his indictment several days previous to his being called upon.
to appear upon his trial? Was it no advantage for such a
person to have a list of the witnesses to be examined against
him ? Most unquestionably it was. Under the bill now be-
fore the House, one witness was sufficient; no evidence of
innocence of intention was admissible; no means of defence
provided ; no guards for innocence secured ; no power of
inquiry given; no opportunity of knowing the witnesses af-
forded.


Upon the point of the list of witnesses, he sincerely hoped
the chancellor of the exchequer had repented of what he had
said, in answer to that observation yesterday. He was the
minister of the crown; it must be by his advice that the law
officer of the crown was, in a great measure, to conduct
prosecutions for treasons ; and, that such a person, in such a
situation, should say that a trick might be played on the pri-
soner, by sending him a list of witnesses so numerous that he
should not have time to examine it, by which the purpose of
an act of parliament might be defeated, was a declaration of a
most alarming nature to the people of this country. All he
could say was, he hoped no such infamous tricks would be at-
tempted ; but, if there was such an attorney-general in this


7i 93•^ TRAITEROUS CORRESPONDENCE BILL.
83


country, he hoped there was still spirit enough in the people
to bring him to a proper account for it. If there was such a
minister belonging to the crown, he hoped and trusted there
was spirit enough in that House to bring him to account for
it. He hoped the House would not be reconciled to the re-
mainder of the bill, because several of its harsh, cruel, and
hypocritically lenient clauses were omitted. On the contrary,
emboldened by the success which had attended their endea-
vours, let the House go one step further, and reject the bill al-
together. Much more judicious, manly, and honourable would
it have been, if the promoters of this bill had pursued that
course; but, possessing minds unacquainted with, or hostile to
the constitution, they had thought it more proper to cherish
harsh laws, though they had awkwardly endeavoured to con-
ceal their real sentiments, by expunging clauses introduced by
themselves when the statute would not bear them out, and
proceeded on the supposition of criminality where it could
lend them any assistance. The House would likewise con-
sider the manner in which the bill had been hurried through
the House. They were called upon to meet in Easter-week,
at a time when many gentlemen were necessarily absent, par-
ticularly one honourable and learned friend, (Mr. Erskine,)
from whose knowledge and eloquence so much advantage had
been derived in the commencement of this business, and who
would have been soon enabled to have resumed his seat in the
House. The most gross blunders in respect to the reciprocal
legislations of England and Ireland had been committed ; and,
to facilitate their projects, men had been contented to sacrifice
the natural desire of reputation, arising from their knowledge
of penal legislation and the constitution of their country.
By the exertions of the gentlemen with whom he acted, the
bill had been rendered in some respects less exceptionable ;
and by its total rejection, he hoped that the mildness, philan-
thropy, and liberality for which the eighteenth century had
been distinguished, would still remain its characteristics.
Though, from his not being in a committee, he had no op-
portunity of replying to any misrepresentation of his argu-
hmaerdsiscyheat iteedwhoi d1ul himself with reflecting, that he


every
duty tohis country in giving the present


bill r opposition in his power.


On the /notion that the bill do pass ; the House dividad,


NIvra.s..laochenoSrdniny th 154 .---NoRs {Mr. Whitbread}
yEss /Mr. E..T. Elliot 1


The b ill
G


53.




84 LORD AUCKLAND'S AIEMORIA1.
CApril 25,


MR. SHERIDAN'S MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS, TO EXPRESS
DISPLEASURE AT LORD AUCKLAND'S MEMORIAL TO THE
STATES GENERAL.


April 25.


ON the 18th of April Mr. Sheridan moved for a copy of a me-morial, dated the 5th of April, and presented to the
.
States


General by the British and Imperial ministers. The said me-
morial being produced, on the z5th, Mr. Sheridan, after an elo-
quent speech of considerable length, moved, " That an humble
address be presented to his majesty, to express to his majesty the
displeasure of this House at a certain memorial, dated the 5th of
April 1 793 , presented to the States General of the United Pro-
vinces, signed by the right honourable Lord Auckland, his ma-
jesty's minister at the Hague, the said memorial containing a
declaration of the following tenor: Some of these detestable


regicides' (meaning by this expression the commissioners of the
national convention of France, delivered to Prince Cobourg by
General Dumourier,) are now in such a situation that they can


be subjected to the sword of the law. The rest are still in the
midst of a people whom they have plunged into an abyss of evils,
and for whom famine, anarchy, and civil war, are about to pre-


' pare new calamities. In short, every thing that we see happen
induces us to consider as not far distant the end of these wretches,
whose madness and atrocities have filled with horror and in-


' dignation all those who respect the principles of religion, mo-
' rality, and humanity. The undersigned, therefore, submit to
4 the enlightened judgment and wisdom of your high mightinesses;


whether it would not be proper to employ all the means in your
power to prohibit from entering your dominions in Europe, or
your colonies, all those members of the assembly stiling itself
the National Convention, or of the pretended executive council,
who were directly or indirectly concerned in the said crime ;
and if they should be discovered and arrested, to deliver them
up to justice, that they may serve as a lesson and example to
mankind.'
" To acquaint his majesty of the sense of this House, that the


said minister, in making this declaration, has departed from the
principles upon which this House was induced to concur in the
measures necessary for the support of the war, in which the British
nation is at present unfortunately engaged, and has announced an
intention, on the part of Great Britain, inconsistent with the
repeated assurances given by his majesty, that he would not in-
terfere in the internal affairs of France ; and for which declar-
ation this House cannot easily be brought to believe that the said
minister derived any authority from his majesty's instructions:


79.] TO THE STATES
GENERAL.


1 9 .


CC Humbly to beseech his majesty, that so much of' the said
memorial, as contains the declaration above recited, may be pub-
licly disavowed by his majesty, as containing matter inconsistent
with the wisdom and humanity which at all times have distinguished
the British nation, and derogatory to the dignity of the crown of
this realm, by avowing an intention to interpose in the internal
affairs of France, which his majesty has, in so many positive de-
clarations, disclaimed, and mingling purposes of vengeance with
those objects of defence and security to ourselves and our allies,
which his majesty's ministers have so often declared to be the
sole object of the present war.


" To represent to his majesty, that this House has already
expressed its abhorrence of the acts alluded to in the abovedeclaration ; and that as neither this, nor any other foreign state,
can claim any cognizance or jurisdiction respecting that act, the
only tendency of menaces against the persons concerned in the
perpetration of it, is to reduce this country to the ruinous alter-
native of carrying on war for the subversion of the present govern-
ment of France, or of obtaining peace by an ignominious negoci-
ation with the very government Whom we have thus insulted and
stigmatised.


" That these threats must tend to give to the hostilities with
which Europe is now afflicted a peculiar barbarism and ferocity,
by provoking and reviving a system of retaliation andl bloodshed,
which the experience of its destructive tendency, as well as a sense
of honour, humanity, and religion, have combined to banish from
the practice of civilized war.


" And finally, to represent to his majesty how deeply' the re-
putation of his majesty's counsels is interested in disclaiming these
unjustifiable, and, we trust, unauthorised denunciations of ven-
geance, so destructive of all respect for the consistency, and of all
confidence in the sincerity of the public acts of hi S ministers, and
so manifestly tending at once to render the principle of the war
unjust, the conduct of hostilities barbarous, and the attainment
of honourable peace hopeless."


utkftleLd,IMr. Pitt had entered into an elaborate defence of LordA


Mr. Fox said, that the right honourable the chancellor of
the exchequer had attempted to defend the memorial on the
only ground on which a defence could have been expected,
namely, its want of any definite meaning. In his usual
mode of alluding to past transactions in that House, he had
charged his honourable friend with putting off' his motion for
the purpose of taking new ground, although he knew that his
honourable friend had put it off at the request of friends who
wished to be present at the discussion, and who could not at-
tend on the day for which he had first given notice. With
respect to the motives and feelings which the right honour-
able gentleman had taken the trouble of imagining for his


G 3


85




LORD AUCKLAND'S MEMORIAL
[April 25.


honourable friend in making this motion, his honourable friend
could have but one motive, his sense of public duty; and the
noble lord, whose conduct was the cause of it, could excite
no feeling but that of the most placid and tranquil nature.
The right honourable gentleman had defended the memorial
on the groxind of its meaning nothing at all; but he had not
ventured to say that it had no reference to the commissioners
of the French convention put into the hands of the Austrians
by Dumourier, on the hopes entertained of Dumourier's plan.
The memorial said, that these commissioners were in a situ-
ation to he subjected to the sword of the law : —to what sword
—of what law? To the sword of any law which those to
whom they were delivered, not as prisoners, but hostages,
might frame for their execution ? If it meant to the sword of
some law to be revived or established in France, why was not
that qualification inserted in it ? Lord Auckland's commu-
nication to the States General in September had never received
the sanction of the House, and therefore the House would be
guilty of no inconsistency in condemnine


.
it. The purport


of that communication was simply, that if any act, then gene-
rally apprehended and universally deprecated, should be corn-
mated, the perpetrators of it would not be sheltered from the
laws of their country in his majesty's dominions. But what
did my Lord Auckland ? He, not as a measure of prevention,
not as a warning to.


deter, but on a principle of vengeance,
obviously tending to provoke retaliation, and, in the very first
instance, to endanger the lives of the survivors of the royal
family of France, suggested to subject to the sword of the law
persons given as hostages fbr their safety.


What was the motive of his honourable friend in moving
to censure this conduct ? To obtain the reprobation of the
House against making the war more bloody, and the con- -
test more cruel. If the conduct of the French to French-
men had excited abhorrence, if they had shewn a disposition
unjustly and wantonly to shed blood, now was the time for
the House to shew detestation of their disposition and their
practice, by expressing their detestation of this memorial.
Another motive for his honourable friend's motion was, to
obtain a clear and explicit declaration of the object of the
war. The right honourable gentleman had said, that this
was wholly unconnected with the internal government of Nn'l
France; but at the same time he expressed a wish that, in
making peace, we might not have to treat with those persons


air'who now exercised the powers of government in that coun-
try.


The real object, according to the right honourable gen-
tleman, was to obtain an indemnification for their unjust
aggression, and security for the peace of Europe in future.


IO


1793.]
From this he learned, that indemnification and security might
in the contemplation of the right honourable gentleman, be
gained from those " malheureux," whether wretches or un-
happy persons; for to drive them from the government was not
an object, but a wish. With whom, then, when the hour of
negotiation came, might we have to treat? With those very
men whom, in our memorials and public acts, we were now
stigmatising with every vilifying and opprobrious epithet.
Hard words he had always thought imprudent ; more espe-
cially when applied to persons a whom it was possible we
might afterwards have occasion to speak in very different
terms. With those very persons the right honourable gen-
tleman had treated through M. Chauvelin, and had boasted
of sending instructions to Lord Auckland to treat with them,
even after the murder of the king. Would the right honour-
able gentleman now refuse to treat with them, if an occasion,
consistent with the avowed object of the war, should offer?
No such declaration would he venture to make. Lord Auck-
land, then, if he should be continued in his present situation,
might be, from local circumstances, the most convenient pe •-
son to employ to treat with them. But, what would the
Frenchman say? Supposing him to forget all the eliard-wontc —
all the odious terms formerly applied_ to would very
naturally say, What ! treat with Lord Auckland ? No ; lie
has declared he will hang me if he can catch me, and there-
fore I will not put myself in his power. The answer to all
this was, that the paper was only the too sanguine effusion of
imaginary success, and meant only, that when a tribunal should
be established in France, agreeably to the fancy of the com-
bined powers, the members of the convention and the exe-
cutive council would be subjected to the sword of the law
the memorial ought to have said so ; for it was giving but
little encouragement to those now in the exercise of govern-
ment in France to think of negotiation, to tell them that to
get hold of them, or their aeents, and to hang them, was one
and the same thing.


ts,


His honourable friend had introduced the conduct of Russia,
Prussia, mid the emperor, which the right honourable gen-
tleman has treated as having no connection with the subject.
Was it, indeed, so immaterial? If we were engaged in a war
On the usual principles of war, the cause ascertained and the
object definite, we might indeed avail ourselves of the assist-
ance of powers for the attainment of that object, whose views
-were very different from our own. But if, as the memorial
implied, we were at
and had thrown e


war with persons, not with the nation,
own away the scabbard, it was of great importance


to consider whether or not their object was the same as ours ;
G 4


TO THE STATES GENERAL.
87




I"•
4


g


I


88 LORD AUCKLAND'S MEMORIAL
[April 25,


whether, -while our aim was reparation and security, theirs
was not aggrandizement ; whether, while we sought only to
remove certain persons from the government of France, they
did not look to the partition ? Of crowned heads it was always
his practice to speak with respect; but the actions of their
cabinets were fair matter of discussion. Under this- qualifi-
cation he had no difficulty in saying, that the late conduct of
Russia and Prussia was ten thousand times more reprehen-
Sible than any part of the conduct of France towards other
nations. Of the former partition of Poland he had never
spoken but in terms of reprobation ; but the present was more
odious than the former, inasmuch as it was marked by the
most flagrant breach of faith, and violation of the most solemn
declarations. Prussia, it was notorious, bad encouraged the
revolution in Poland, and expressed the most decided appro-
bation of seating the family of Saxony on the hereditary throne.
That very revolution was now made the pretext for entering
Poland, and forcibly seizing.


on Dantzic and Thorn. Russia
entered Poland, declaring that her only object was to restore
the republic which the revolution had subverted; and having
gained possession of the country, in contempt of all her for-
mer declarations, she proceeded to divide it with Prussia and
the emperor.


Strong, however, as was his reprobation of such conduct,
he had never said that we ought on that account to reject a
useful alliance with either of those powers; but that while
we professed to be fighting against one species of tyranny, we
ought to be careful not to set up another tyranny more dan-
gerous. What was the answer to this? Declamation against
the horrid tendency of French principles, the subversion of all
order, and the introduction of anarchy. When we argued
against principles, let us not confine our view to the mischief
they might occasion, but consider also the probability of their
being established. Were three or four maniacs to escape from
Bedlam, and take possession of a house, the mischief they
would do in it would probably be much greater than that of
as many robbers; but people knew the improbability of their
getting into that situation, and very properly guarded their
houses, not against madmen from Bedlam, but against rob-
bers. Just so was it with the probability of French principles
gaining the ascendancy. Anarchy, if it could be introduced
into other nations, was in its nature temporary—despotism,
we knew by sad experience, to be lasting; the present empe-
ror was but little tried: but if, as generally happened, the
systems of cabinets were more to be attended to than the cha-
racters of princes, we had seen the cabinet of Vienna re-;
peatedly promising to the Austrian Netherlands the restor-


1793.] TO THE STATES GENERAL.
89


ation of their ancient constitution, and as often refusing to fulfil
its promise; we had seen the late emperor promise that re-
storation under our guarantee as the price of their return to
allegiance; we had seen him refuse it when he again got pos-
session ; we had seen Lord Auckland protest against the re-
fusal, and afterwards most shamefully accede to it; and we
had seen the governors of the Netherlands making their escape
by one gate, while the French were entering at another, de-
clare the restoration of that constitution; as if the moment
when they were compelled to resign possession, was the only
fit moment for restoring the rights of those whom they were
sent to govern.


If in all this there were an y symptoms of good faith to
give us confidence, the Prince of'Saxe Cobourg's proclamations
were sufficient to destroy it all. In the conduct of the three
courts, we should find all the crimes of France towards other
nations committed in a more unjustifiable manner. But the
right honourable gentleman said, these were only topics to
induce us to refuse the assistance of those courts. If the
object of the war were distinct, we might, indeed, accept of
their assistance with safety; but, while all was doubt and un-
certainty, how could we pretend to know what were their
views, or what they expected as the price of their assistance
We were now acting in concert with the dividers of Poland.
We ourselves were the dividers of Poland ; for, while we
were courting them to aid us in a war against French prin-
ciples, we furnished them with the pretext, and afforded them
the opportunity of dividing Poland. We were the guarantees
of Dantzic, of which Prussia, our ally, had taken possession.
Did we not say, when the French attempted to open the
Scheldt, that we were the guarantees of the exclusive navi-
gation of the Scheldt to the Dutch ?


mutato nomine, de to
. Fabula narratur.


Prussia was the other guarantee; but regarded guarantees as
little as the French, when Dantzic and Thorn were to be
annexed to his territories. What was this but teaching the
people that the professions of courts were mere delusions —
that the pretext for the war was the danger from French
power and French principles, but the cause, to gratify the
ambition of other powers? How were we ever to make
peace, when we were not agreed upon the terms with those
who assisted us in the war ? Regard for the christian religion
was one of the reasons alleged for dividing Poland; regard
for the christian religion might be alleged for dividing France.
He did not understand that we paid any subsidies, and in




90 LORD AUCKLAND'S MEMORIAL, &C.
[April 25,


one point of view he was sorry for it. We should then un-
derstand for what we had engaged. As the case stood at
present, how did we know what Prussia or the emperor might
require of us ? As Russia had taken part of Poland, might
not the emperor take a fancy to Bavaria and the Palatinate ?
And thus the difficulties of making


.
peace become ,greater


than those of carrying on the war? Add to this, that if
rumour or regard to ancient policy could be trusted, Spain
would not consent to the dismemberment of France. Mr.
Fox said he was the more strongly convinced of the observ-
ation he had made npon a former occasion, that in all these
quarrels there was a material difference between the ratio sua-
soria and the ratio justifica, which were alternately to be sub-
stituted, the one for the other, as called for. If; as he feared,
this war was undertaken against principles, let us look to the
conduct of Germany, Russia, and Prussia, and, if the spirit
of chivalry was so alive amongst us, see if there were no
giants, no monsters, no principles, against which we had
better turn our arms. For his part, he had no hesitation in
saying, that though France had unhappily afforded many in-
stances of atrocity, yet the invasion of last year, and which
our present conduct seemed to justify, was the most gross
violation of every thing sacred which could exist between ,.
nation and nation, as striking at the root of the right which
each must ever possess of internal legislation. The mode of
getting out of this situation was by agreeing to the address,
censuring Lord Auckland, and thus convincing the other
powers of Europe that we would not be parties to their plans
for dividing kingdoms. It was, Weed, matter of great doubt,
whether or not peace for Europe could now be obtained for
any great length of time. The encouragement we had given
to the robbery of Poland might be expected to inflame the
passions of avarice and ambition. There was, however, one
nation, Spain, which had a. common interest with us, and
with which he wished to see a cordial union against the dan-
gerous aggrandizement of the imperial courts and Prussia.
All our victories in the present war had been obtained by
their arms exclusively, and every victory gave fresh cause of
jealousy. To agree to the address would have another good i7
effect. It would satisfy the people, that the reason for the
war and the pretext were the same; and that there was not
one language for the House of Commons and another for the
Hague. Upon these grounds, he conceived the country under
great obligations to his honourable friend for bringing forward
the present motion, as tending to call forth from the minister
a repetition of those causes and objects to which the nation
had a right to look up for the commencement and COP.-


1793.1
tinuance of the war.
approbation.


The House divided on Mr. Sheridan's
Tellers.


YEAS [Mr. Sheridan}
Mr. Grey 3u. - NOES


So it passed in the negative.


STATE OF COMMERCIAL CREDIT.


April 29.
A SPIRIT of commercial speculation and commerce had been


Cl for some time increasing in every part of the kingdom, and
had now got to such a height, as to threaten public credit with very
serious danger. The circulating specie being by no means suf.
ficient to answer the very increased demands of trade, the quantity
of paper currency brought into circulation, as a supplying medium
was so great and disproportionate, that a scarcity of specie was
produced which threatened a general stagnation in the commercial
world. In consequence of this alarming state of public credit,
Mr. Pitt, on the 2.5th of April, moved, that a select committee of
fifteen be appointed to take into consideration the present state of
commercial credit, and to report their opinion and observations
upon it. On the z 9th, the report of the select committee was
brought up, and on the motion that it be taken into consideration
to-morrow,


Mr. Fox said, that he did not intend to make any opposition
to going into the proposed committee ; but if at the present
moment, he forbore to do so, he trusted it would not be con-
strued into his giving any kind of assent to the measure. He
agreed with his honourable friend behind him, (Mr. Jekyll,)
that, taking the evil and the remedy together, it involve&
matter most important to the country, and of very delicate
and difficult discussion. It seemed to him a business of a
very anomalous nature; nor had he ever heard of a system in
any shape similar, having been hitherto adopted or thought of.
But, although he could not feel disposed to give it his assent,
yet he confessed, that under the present most alarming circum-
stances of the country, as to mercantile credit, he wanted
nerves to give it a decided opposition. In such a case, he
should be apt to be somewhat diffident of his own opinion, if
opposed by those who had occasion to bestow more time and.


STATE OF COMMERCIAL CREDIT.
91


He therefore gave it his hearty


motion :
Tellers.


Mr. Neville } 21 1.1 Mr. Jenkinson




9 2 STATE OF COMMERCIAL CREDIT.
[April 29,


attention on the subject, for whose opinions he entertained
respect, and who might be better qualified than himself to
form a judgment as to the probable effect of the measure with
respect to commercial credit. He rose, therefore, chiefly for
the purpose of saying, that it did by no means appear clear
to him at first sight, that the remedy proposed would be
effectual fur the purpose intended ; and that as it was, in his
opinion, a measure of very considerable difficulty and danger,
he hoped it would receive a full and deliberate discussion
when brought forward to-morrow. Whether the present
calamitous state of commercial credit was or was not owing
to the war, was surely a matter not capable of proof; but,
seeing the coincidence betwixt them in point of time, those
would unquestionably be rail), on the other hand, who should.
pretend to say decisively that they were totally unconnected.
He begged to warn the House and the public, that there
ought to be a considerable degree of confidence as to the
good effect of such a measure as the present, before it should
be adopted. If the executive government was to interfere


. in
such a case, might it not be the beginning of a system of which
we could not see the end ? If the sum now proposed to be
raised should be found insufficient, were they to stop ? These
were points for the consideration of the House, and he con-
ceived them to be of very serious moment. He confessed he felt
a reluctance to a measure so novel and important, and he
trusted that every possible information would be brought
forward upon the subject.


Parliament and government, Mr. Fox observed, were now
()Dina to assume a new character and a new function : theygoing


in their nature, the one legislative, the other executive;
but now they were about to depart from their natural functions
and to support the credit of commercial houses by advancing
money upon their stock in trade. It surely would be incumbent
upon ministers to chew that this was necessary on the part of
parliament and of government, and that it could not be so
effectually or properly done by the bank, or any other great
moneyed body of men, much better qualified than the legis-
lature could possibly be, to ascertain the solvency of merchants
and the value of goods. He considered this as the introduc-
tion of a new system, which ought to be very seriously
examined, because it might lead to consequences the most
alarming. There were two points of view in which he thought
it ought to be placed before the House, namely, as it might.
affect the public purse, and as it might affect the constitution.
The public were to be called upon to lend five millions of
money to the traders and manufacturers upon the security of ,
their goods and property. Might not the public be exposed


793.
STATE OF COMMERCIAL CREDIT. 93


to lose a great part of that sum by advancing it upon articles,
the value of which government did not sufficiently understand
to be able to ascertain how much might be safely lent upon
them, or to persons with whose circumstances it had not the
means of being acquainted ? The bank of England was in
every respect better qualified than government for such a
task ; and it was not a very favourable symptom, that the
bank had declined granting the aid to public credit, which
was now solicited from parliament ; for it would seem as if the
persons who were to be assisted were not in such circum-
stances as would make it safe for government to- advance
money to them. It was the interest of the bank to discount
good bills, and when it refused to do it, one might well fear
that the owners of those bills were not considered by the bank
as labouring only under a temporary embarrassment.


When he considered the new system in the light in
which it would affect the constitution, he felt so serious
an alarm, that nothing could possibly reconcile him to it,
but a conviction that it was to exist only for a short period,
and not to be drawn into a precedent. No author that
he had ever read had proposed any system like that now


r'


sug-
crested ; but perhaps he might hear it justified either by some
theory or experiment of which he was as yet ignorant. The
measure proposed was in his opinion dangerous to the consti-
tution. It was investing government with the whole commercial
influence of this country. He might entertain very high senti-
ments of the gentlemen about to be appointed as commissioners,
but he thought the power which they were likely to possess
would endanger the liberties of their fellow-subjects, more es-


.,, peeially when they acted under the control of government.
In a constitutional view, therefore, the present appeared to
him a measure exceedingly alarming to the freedom of English-
men ; and one which ought, unless fully vindicated, to be re-
sisted. The commercial ought never to be involved or
blended with the legislative or executive authority. He
had always understood, that the spirit of commerce was
more free and enterprising when unfettered with the con-
nection now described ; and he implored the House to
pause before they sanctioned a system unknown to our con-
stitution, and which might subvert our liberties. If the
measure were thought laudable by government, why did
not the commercial interests assist each other, rather than
surrender their freedom to those in power ? On these grounds,b
he trusted that the system was to be merely temporary, and
that the most effectual guard would be placed round it, to
prevent it from being abused, and from endancrerina the very
thing it was intended to support.


b




94 STATE O COMMERCIAL CREDIT.
[April 30,


April 3o.
The House being in a committee to take into consideration


the said report, Mr. Pitt moved, " That his majesty be enabledto direct ex
chequer bills to the amount of five millions, to beissued to commissioners, to be advanced by them under certainregulations and r


estrictions, for the assistance and accommo-
dation of such persons as shall be desirous of receiving the same, on
due security being given for the re-payment of the sum so ad-
vanced, within a time to be limited."


Mr. Fox said, he did not wish to trouble the committee
jectmuch at length upon the present occasion. He felt the sub-to be such, that he hardly knew how to speak at all u ponit, and the more so, as he had considerable doubts upon the
expediency of the remedy, supposing the principle of the


pro-posed measure to be unobjectionable. With regard to the
necessity of aiding the public credit at this humiliating andunhappy moment, there was not indeed, either in that House
or abroad, any room for difference of opinion. The state of
public credit was matter of lamentation to this country.Humiliating and l


amentable it must be; for the very circum
stance of that House being in a committee to consider of
means to aid the commercial credit of the nation was decidedevidence of that fact; and he must add, that, the whole


takeninto consideration, we were surrounded by
circumstances of a


most dangerous nature. We were told, that, in point of fact,there was no real danger, for that the distress was merely
temporary, and that the remedy now proposed would be fully
adequate to its removal. He wished to God that might turn
out to be true ! but, at the same time, it was not quite satis-
factory to see that government were obliged to take up


whatthe bank of England would not touch. The answer to this
was, that the bank of England was not in the habit of


enter-ing on a speculation of this nature, and that it would not be
consistent with the regularity of their proceedings to do so at
this moment. Was there any thing so peculiarly regular
and precedented in the legislature taking up the measure,
that taught gentlemen there was no real danger ? If the
bank of England, accustomed as they were to commercialdealings, thought it a scheme upon which it was not prudent
to adventure, how did gentlemen arrive at all at the conclu-
sion, that there was no danger to the public in such an ad-
venture? If it was not the habit of the bank to advance
money upon a certain species of security, he would say,


neitherhad it ever yet been the habit of the public to advance
their money upon that security; and that if there was to be.


1793.1


STATE OF . COMMERCIAL CREDIT,


any innovation in the affairs of commerce, it Was better that
it should be made by the bank than by the public.


But, it seemed, the bank had been applied to in vain upon
this occasion. What was the reason that the bank had been
applied to in vain ? He feared the reason why that appli-
cation was unsuccessful would not be very likely to induce the
public to adopt the measure. These reflections compelled him
to entertain doubts upon the prudence of the measure. But,
it. was again said, that the bank had already issued money
enough upon discount. If that was the case, he was afraid
the public could not be much benefited by issuing exchequer
bills for five millions more, and that means should rather
be devised for paying off those in the market. He did not say
that his opinion upon this subject was direct, hut he could
not help suggesting his doubts ; he should be very glad to
be answered by arguments, and he declared upon his word
that he should be happy in hearing his observations refuted.
He could not help again observing, that the bank must have
some strong reasons for refusing to discount in the usual way ;
for, generally speaking, they were pretty ready to discount
when they thought they could do so with safety, for that was
well understood to be for their interest; if that was the case in
general, how much more so was it on the present occasion ?
Who could be more interested in the general credit of the
commerce of the country than the bank of England ? What,
then, must be the conclusion of a man of common sense when
such a body of men refused to discount ? What must they think
of the situation of the country ? These points pressing upon
his mind, he owned he should not be sorry to hear that the sub-
ject went no farther that night. Again, he must observe, the
bank refused all share in this business for one of two reasons ;
either that they did not like the security that was to be of-
fered to them, or that they had already so far employed their
money as not to be able to afford the relief wanted. If the
first was the reason, there would be a difficulty indeed in the
way of the present measure. The commissioners, whoever
they were, could not be more conversant in commerce than
the gentlemen who had the management of the affairs of the
bank of England, and therefore the plan could not have a
very flattering prospect of its issue. If the bank hesitated, by
what mode of reasoning was it that the commissioners should
not hesitate; and in this view he thought himself, as one of
btli .trustees of the interests of the public, bound to hesitate.
If the other reason was allowed, namely, that the bank had
,already issued all it could afford, lie could not see the ultimate
advantage to the public credit by the issuing exchequer




SHEFFIELD PETITION. 9796 STATE OF COMMERCIAL CREDIT.
[April 30.


He must again repeat, that he spoke upon these points .
with doubts, which he should take pleasure in having removed,
and grief in having confirmed, and he must really say he did
Hot know what to do. He knew not how to say that he
would not agree that'the committee should proceed upon this
subject, for the purpose of supporting the commercial credit
of the kingdom, and to remove the calamity of the country ;
.and yet he did not see how this plan would answer the pur-
pose for which it was intended. He felt also another dif-
ficulty, and that arose from a motive of delicacy, from the cir,.
cumstance of having had nothing to do with entering into the
present war, — the cause, in his opinion, of all our calamities ;
having on the contrary, done every thing in his power to pre-,.
vent it, so he did not wish to be represented as a person not
feeling the calamity, because he had not contributed to pro-
duce it.


A very important part of the question remained ; he meant
the constitutional point that would be involved in it; a matter
in itself of the highest importance. How was government to
take what related to commercial dealings into its hands, without
establishing a precedent of the most dangerous and alarming
nature, and without creating a general timidity in commercial
men with regard to the fate of their future speculations? How
were the committee sure that this would not damp the ardour
of commerce, and shake the general principle, which was the
life of commerce itself, the control which every man had over
his own property ? How were they sure that the commissioners,
when appointed, would be free from partiality, prejudice, fa-
vour, and affection, and all the weaknesses which were com-
mon to our nature ? And how could it be determined that
these commissioners would receive the security of one whose
way of thinking upon politics might be agreeable to the mi-
nister, and refuse an equally good security from a


person of a
contrary way of thinking ? Was not this opening a door to
the most unconstitutional and dangerous patronage? Good
God ! did the committee see the extent of the power which
this might give to the executive aovernment ?— a power
which it was the first duty of that House jealously to watch.
Before, therefore, he voted for such a measure, he ought to
see something like the probable effect of it. He ought to give
power of this nature with a timorous and reluctant mind. He
ought to feel the danger to which his country was exposed in
the possible abuse of such a power. He ought to know some-
thing of the proposed end before lie consented to such a be-
ginning. He repeated, that although he was not in the least
degree accessary to the commencement of this calamitous war,
yet he should be glad to be instrumental in bringing it to a
conclusion as speedily as could be effected with due regard to the


493.1
honour of the country. He blamed not the majority on that
occasion, but gloried in being one of the minority. He wished
to see the hour when this destructive measure was at an end, for
then commercial credit would return, and with it commercial
enterprise and vigour.


The resolution was agreed to without a division.


SHEFFIELD PETITION FOR A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.


May 2.


MR. Duncombe presented a petition from Sheffield, signed by
eight thousand inhabitants, praying for a reform in Parlia-


ment. He said he was a friend to a temperate reform, but he would.
not go the length which seemed to be the object of this petition,
a representation from population alone. But, however, as far
as the words of this petition were to be considered, he begged
leave to tell the House, that the petitioners were only manu-
facturers, and not very well acquainted with the language re-
quired for addressing the House of Commons, and that cir-
cumstance, he trusted, would be an extenuation of their fault.
He then moved, " That the petition be brought up." The mo-
tion having been supported by Mr. Francis, Mr. Grey, and Mr.
Lambton ; and opposed •by Mr. Ryder and Mr. Wilberforce,


Mr. Fox said, that on a subject of this kind, he could not
consent to give a silent vote. If the question was at that mo-
ment, whether the prayer of the petition should be granted,
he would not hesitate to say that he would give it the most
direct and unqualified negative; for, however he might have
been misrepresented out of doors, there was not in the king-
dom a more steady and decided enemy to general and univer-
sal representation, than himself. But as the question was not
at present that the House should comply with the prayer, but
merely that it should receive the petition, his vote should be
of a. very different kind ; for he must strongly support the
thotion.fbr bringing it up. He did not deny that the House
might with propriety reject a petition, on account of disrespect-
ful language, but he never remembered more than one, which
in his opinion- ought to have been rejected on such an account,
if it had been in the power of the House to reject it; and that
was the petition presented, by Mr. Horne Tooke, against the
last ecy.Lion for the city of Westminster. But as it wwasavoc




1793.7
REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 99


and authority, that its acts were not valid, and that the


j
sub-


ects were not nd to obey them ; tis g the
root of all order


b
and governme nt; and


h
yet


was
the


striki
lear


n
ned


at
lord


had defended the remonstrance on this ground, that the sub-
ject having a right to petition for a particular object, he musthave a right to urge every thing relative to that object; and
as the object in this case was to procure a dissolution of par-
liament, the city of London was warranted in saying that it
ought to be dissolved, because it had ceased, in the opinion of
the city, to be a legal parliament, and to keep it sitting and
making acts which the people were not bound to obey,
must be productive of the most fatal consequences to the pub-


licpea. ce.Wlr Fox said, he did not mean to adopt the learned lord's
doctrine to its utmost extent, for he believed it was too far
strained ; but he quoted it to sinew, that in the opinion of a
person now high in his majesty's counsels, the right of petition-
ing was so sacred, that it was not to be defeated under the pre-
tence that it was not exercised in this,or that thrill, or with
this or that degree of respect. Applying this doctrine to the
present case, he said the petition ought not to be rejected, even
though it should, in the most unqualified teruis, deny the
House to be the genuine representative of the, people ; for if
there was a defect in the representation, if any who ought to
be represented were unrepresented, the . fact could not be
stated without its being stated at the same time, that the
House did not fully represent the people; without making
this out, there could be no ground for a reform ; and if it was
asserted and made out, then the House, according to the doc-
trines which he had that day heard, must reject the applica-
tion as disrespectful : this surely, would be an absurdity of the
grossest kind, and the admission of such a principle was the
more fatal, as it necessarily perpetuated abuses, and rendered
a redress of grievances impossible.


As he had never seen the petition which was now the sub-
ject of discussion, he could not say decidedl y that there were
no objectionable parts in it ; but if the objection was limited
to the first part of the petition, he was so far from thinking it
disrespectful, that he thought it absolutely necessary, in sup-
port of the prayer of the petition, for the petitioners to state,
that the House of Commons is not virtually, and, in the just
sense of the word, the true representative of the people of
England. It had been said, that there was a material distinction
between the language which might be spoken in the course
of debate in that House, and the language which was proper
and decent to be made use of in petitions. It had been said,
that freedom . of speech was an essential part of the C9ASti-..,


2


sREFFIEL D PETITION Poi;; [May 2,
petition complaining of an undue election, the FIouse had no
discretionary power, for it was obliged by law to receive it.
Under any other circumstances, a petition containing similar
language ought to be rejected, because the language was n ot used
for the purpose of supporting the prayer; but the prayer was
made solely for the purpose of affording the petitioner an op-
portunity to libel the House of Commons. Mr. Fox said, that
the rule which governed his conduct as to the admission or re-
jection of petitions was this : if the introductory matter was
relevant to the prayer, he thought the petition ought to be re-
ceived,


although the language might be offensive in which *-
that matter was enforced : but if the introductory mat.. r was
irrelevant to the prayer, and conveyed insult or libel, he in
that case would not hesitate to vote for its rejection. 'With-
out such a distinction as this, he did not see how a petition
for a reform in parliament could ever be admitted ; for it must
state that the House was not pure, or that it was corrupt, or
that it did not fully represent the people. If these assertions
were not true, there could be no ground for an application
for reform, and if petitions containing them were to be rejected,
because such assertions attacked the character or the authority
of the House, then there was an end of all hope of reform;
and, what was more, there was an end of the right of the sub-
ject to petition; for if to state his grievance was a libel, the
more real that grievance, the less he must venture to state it,
and consequently it must remain unredressed.


In the opinion of some men, the right of the subject to pe-
tition was so sacred, that nothing contained in the petition
could warrant the rejection of it. He remembered parti-
cularly that a noble and learned lord, now holding the high
office of chancellor, (Lord Loughborough,) asserted many
years ago in the House of Commons, that so extensive and


subje
absolute was the power, and so undeniable the right of the


ct to petition king, lords, and commons, that however
offensive or even treasonable the matter of it might be, neither
could the petition be rejected, nor the parties presenting it be
tried or punished for the contents. This argument was main-
tained on an occasion when the learned lord to whom he
had alluded, was defending the famous remonstrance of the
city of London to the king*, in which his majesty was prayed
to disolve his then parliament : the remonstrance went so


-far
as to state, that the House of Commons, by its decision in
the case of the Middlesex election, had forfeited all power


See the debate in the House of Commons, March Is. am. New Parl,fist. Vol. xvi. 87en




I00 SHEFFIELD PETITION FOR A [May 2.
tution. But, was not the freedom of petitioning equally so ?
And, if so, might not petitioners state their grievances in strong




terms ? He could not see with what propriety this petition
rejeccould be rejected, unless they were to say that they wouldt all petitions praying for universal personal


represent-
ation ; for his part, he would not refuse to admit them, because
he did not conceive himself entitled so to do, though he was
position.pretty well assured that he could never agree to such a pro-


It was a matter of surprise to him, he said, that an ob-
jection should be started to the petition then under


consi-deration by those who had voted for the reception of theNottinghamshire petition in 178 5
; for the latter was, in his


mind, the most dangerous that bad ever been presented; it was
levelled against the constitution in eneral ; for it stated,
that the petitioners had been taught that


that all the formerProsperity of the kingdom had proceeded from a happyc
onstitution; but that, being awakened from their dream,they found that the very frame of the constitution was de-


cayed, and that the happiness of former times was the ef-
fect of a better spirit in tile people, and not of their


con-
stitution. It might be asked, he said, after all this, whether
he thought any petition could be so framed as that it would
be proper for the House to reject it? His answer was, as he
had said before, that if the introductory matter was


disrespect-ful, and net relevant to the prayer, he would not hesitateto reject it : but, if it was relevant, he would not be over
nice in examining and weighing words ; on the


contrary,he would be inclined to overlook offensive terms, if they
conveyed truth, however disagreeable, and tended to enforcethe prayer of the petition. If the House was to shew


itself
over delicate on such occasions, and reject a proper prayer,
merely because it was supported by arguments not over pleasing
to the feelings of the members, the consequence might be fa-
tal to the constitution itself; for the House would cease to be
loved and respected by the people; for want of the people'slove and respect it must become impotent as against the
crown ; and the crown would become impotent


- also, and losethe power of restraining violence and anarchy. He would,
therefore, lay it down as a rule, that no petition ought to be
rejected, unless it was evident that the introductory arguments
were inserted for the express purpose of insulting tile House.
The right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer had,
in other times and in other situations, professed himself afriend to p


arliamentary reform ; why he should not be a friend
to such a measure in the present times, be was unable to


con-
ceive. After the many and unanimous declarations of at-


REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 0
5793.]
taChment to the constitutiou echoed from every part of the
kingdom, it was not to be supposed that there could be any
where an intention to subvert it; at least, if there was, there
was not a shadow of success : this was, therefore, a time
when looseness in the wording of a petition might well be
overlooked; but if instead of that, the House should be
disposed scrupulously to weigh words, and to find them dis-
respectfid, without evidence that the disrespect was intentional,
the consequence would be, that tile people would despair of
ever obtaining a redress of their , grievances from an assembly
that was too obstinate even to hear those grievances stated. In
his opinion, there was nothing so likely to persuade the people
that they had few grievances, as for the House to shew them-
selves willing to investigate them. There was, somehow or
other, an idea of a different kind always entertained by the
people, when their superiors seemed averse to listen to their
complaints. He would therefore conclude with giving his
hearty vote for bringing up the petition.


The motion was also supported by Mr.Wliitbrcad, Mr. Sheridan,
and Mr. Bouverie.


Mr. Fox, in explanation, said he was confident of the words
he had quoted from the speech of the present lord .chancellor
in 1770. But it was not his opinion only, it was also the opi-
nion of Mr. George Grenville, and he believed of some who
were still members of that House. He, however, had no
difficulty in saying, that if a petition was presented to that
House, denying its power to act as the representative body
for the people, to raise supplies, and so on, tending to bring
the power of the House into public contempt, to the recep-
tion of such a petition he should give his negative ; but there
was nothing of that nature in the present petition, and
therefore he should vote for its being now received.


The House divided :
f Mr. Ryder


Las
Letters.


Mr. Sheridan1
Mr. Grey 2 9. -N°E s /Mr. PToelleleCr:rew S


So it passed in the negative.


71f




793']
cured, which considerably exceeded a majority of the House. The
petition dwelt at considerable length, upon all the points already
mentioned, and detailed a variety of other abuses, all which the


et offered to substantiate by proof; and it. concluded byistatng the great necessity there was for the application of anP mediate remedy, and the high importance of such a measure ; and.
prayed the House to take the matter into their serious consider-
ation, and to apply such remedy and redress to the evils complained
of as should appear proper.—The allegations of the petition were
dwelt upon with great eloquence and ability by Mr. Grey, who
concluded by moving, " That the said petition be referred to the
consideration of a committee." Nearly all the principal speakers
on both sides of the House took part in the debate, which was pro-
tracted to the unusual length of two days. The supporters of the
motion were Mr. Erskine, Mr. Duncombe, Mr. Francis, Mr.
Whitbread, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Fox. It was opposed by
Mr. Jenkinson, Mr. Powys, Mr. Windham, Mr. Stanley, Mr,
Buxton, Sir William Young, Sir William Milner, the Earl of
IVIornington , Mr. Anstruther, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Adam. At tha
close of the second day's debate,


Mr. Fox said, he was sorry to trespass on the patience
of the House at so late an hour, when, after two days' debate,
he could have but little hope that he should either enter-
tain or instruct. It was new and extraordinary, that, by
the course and mode of argument pursued by the right
honourable the chancellor of the exchequer, he should
feel himself called upon to apologise for persisting in the
opinion which he had always held upon parliamentary re-
form, or to assign his reasons, and justifY himself' for not
altering it, as the right honourable gentleman had thought
fit to dot He had never before imagined that the pre-
sumption of guilt lay against consistency, .and that whoever
presumed to think as he had always thought must imme-
diately be put on his defence. If the opiniens Which the
right honourable gentleman formerly professed, if the propo-
sitions which he had endeavoured to persuade parliament to
adopt, were so very erroneous, mid pregnant with such alarm-
ing consequences as he had now depicted, it was but natural
to suppose, that he would have read his recantation with com-
punction, and expressed humiliation instead of triumph in re-
capitulating the enormous mischiefs to which his former errors
might have exposed his country. He assumed that the right
honourable gentleman had completely changed his sentimentsb
o11 parliamentary reform, for he had expressly said so, with
the poor reserve, that the time might yet come when he should
lie it as expedient as he had done before. The arguments


had used would apply equally to all times; and it would
II 4


REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 103
102


MX. GREY'S MOTION FOR A [May 7.


MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR A REFORM IN- PARLIAMENT.


May 7.
•A G


REEABLY to the intimation which he had given in the
course of the preceding session, and to the promise which he


had made to the society of the Friends of the People, on the 6th


ject,
of May,


Mr. Grey made his celebrated motion for a Reform
inParliament. After a variety of petitions, pointing. to the same ob-


had been laid on the table of the House, Mr. Grey presented
one, purporting to be the petition of certain. persons whose nameswere th


ereunto subscribed. The petition was of such length, that
the reading of it employed nearly half an hour. It stated, withgreat propriety and distinctness, the defects which at present existin the repr


esentation of the people in parliament. It took noticeof the division of the representation, or the proportions in whichthe diff12rent counties contribute to the total number of the repre-
sentatives; shelving, under that head, the absurd


disproportionwhich takes place in a variety of instances ; insomuch, that thecounty of Cornwall alone sends more members to parliament- than
the counties of York, Rutland, and Middlesex, put together, &c.It proceeded to take notice of the distribution of the elective fran-chise, or the pr


oportional number by which the.different
represen-tatives are elected ; stating, under that head, that a majority of


the whole House of Commons is elected by less than 15,000 persons;
or, in other words, by the two-hundredth part of the people to ber
epresented, supposing that they consist only of three millions of


adults, &c. It went on to take notice of the right of voting, orthe various restrictions and l imitations under which the privilegeof a vote for the choice of a representative is bestowed ; stating thegreat evils and i
nequalities that prevail in that respect. It after-


wards took notice of the qualifications to be possessed by candi-
dates and those elected ; and then considered the evils arising from
the length of the duration of parliaments. It went on to detailthe mode in which elections are conducted and decided; and under
that head, shewing the evils arising from the length of time towhich polls are protracted, from the influence of


corporations bythe powers entrusted to returning of ficers, and from the appeal to
the House of Commons under the operations of the acts loth, r r th,25th, and 28th of Geo. III. as far as the same relate to expenceand delay.


The petition proceeded to take notice of the mischief
resulting from the defects and abuses which it had previouslypointed out, particularly by the system of private patronage andthe influence possessed by peers and wealthy commoners in the no-mination of what are called the representatives of the people ; shelv-ing, under this head, that, by the patronage and influence ofseventy-one peers and ninety-one commoners, the return of nofewer than three hundred and six members of that House


was pro-II




104 R. GREY'S MOTION FOR A
[May 7.


have been more candid tahave said so explicitly, than to have
• held out a hope which, without a second change of opinion
as.entire as the first, could never be realised. In his argu-
ments against the present motion the right honourable gentle.
man had had recourse to the mistake, that the object of the
present motion was universal suffrage : against this, which made
no part of the motion, more than half his speech was employed,
and every iota of that part borrowed from what had been
urged against himself ten years ago, by those who opposed his
first motion for a reform in the representation. Here the right
honourable gentleman, was only a plagiary ; not a common pla-
giary indeed, but such a plagiary as Virgil, for instance, who
improved and adorned whatever he borrowed. He was obliged
to admit that his honourable friend who made the motion
disclaimed universal suffrage for his object; but then, lie said,
look at the petitions ! only one of which, however, contained
this doctrine. Was he ready to say, that, when he brought
forward his motion in 1782, none of the petitions then before
the House contained the very same doctrine ? But, in addi-
tion to the evidence of the petitions, his honourable friend
had, on some other occasion, met certain persons at a tavern,
known advocates for universal suffrage, which was almost
proof positive that his honourable friend was so too ! But how
did this sort of inference operate against the right honourable
gentleman himself? When he brought forward his plans of
reform, he was acting at all points with the Duke of Rich-
mond, the great apostle of universal suffrage; and it was no
very unreasonable supposition, that his first motion on the
subject of reform might have been concerted with his Grace
at Richmond-house. If, then, men's intentions were to be
canvassed by supposed privity to the designs of others, the
privity of the right honourable gentleman to the Duke of
Richmond's system of universal suffrage could not be denied,
and he must be pronounced guilty by his own rule.


The right honourable gentleman's next objection was to the
mode the very same mode which he himself had adopted.
On more mature consideration he had altered his mode ; but
here he must intercede for the right honourable gentleman's
juvenile judgment, and in particular request that he would not
insist on dragging through the dirt all those who had supported
him in his first motion. What reason lie had for changing a
motion, which he lost only by twenty votes, was perhaps bet-
ter known to himself than to others; but he had no right to
say, that ii, motion of the same kind was more dangerous now
than his own was in 1782. Mr. Fox said, that he, who had
supported all his motions for reform, thought the first the least
objectionable. The mode of proceeding lately insisted upon,


793'1
REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.


that a member who proposed the redress of any grievance must
move a -


specific remedy before the House could take the griev-
ance into consideration, was directly contrary to the most
approved parliamentary practice. The member who moved
for a committee might go into it with a specific statement,
which lie might see reason to alter, unless, -indeed, the right
honourable gentleman had got an exclusive patent for alter-
ing opinions ; or the committee, supposing the grievance to
be proved, might suggest a plan of their own, subject, like
every other, to future modification or rejection by the House,
when it appeared in the form of a bill. Such was the most
convenient and the most ordinary mode of proceeding in
matters of great importance. Now, what Was the right ho-
nourable gentleman's specific plan ? He owed an apology to
all those who voted for it, and to him (Mr. Fox) among the
rest, and who, although they approved of a parliamentary re-
form, did not approve of his particular plan, but trusted, that
when the general question was carried, they should be able
to frame the plan in a less exceptionable manner. These were
the precise conditions on which he then called for the support
of all who wished well to parliamentary reform ; and now he
pretended to say, that, by supporting it, they pledged them-
selves, not to the general question, but to the particular plan.
The general rule was, for all who agreed as to the existence
of a grievance, and the necessity of a remedy, to concur as
far as they could, and then to debate the particulars at a more
advanced stage. This was a sufficient answer ad homhzein to
the right honourable gentleman, and to all the arguments
against the mode. All those who wished well to the general
subject ought to concur in support of the present motion, andif that were carried, the specific plan would come properly
under discussion in a future stage.


Another objection was' to the time. When the right ho-
nourable gentleman made his motion, he alleged, as the rea-
son for it, that there were no adequate means of supporting a
good minister, or of repressing a bad one, without a reform in
the representation ; that to the inadequacy of the system had
the misfortune of the American war been owing; and that it
was necessary to provide against the nation's falling into a
similar calamity. What had since happened to make the ca-
lamity less to be dreaded, or the precaution less expedient?
Under the administration of the Marquis of Rockingham, an
administration of which he approved, the right honourable
gentleman first proposed reform, and that, too, in a time of
war. Under another administration, of which he did not ap-
prove, he again proposed it, and in time of peace. On nei-
ther of these occasions did the right honourable gentleman


10j.




106


MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR A
[May 7,


consider the character of the ministry as at all affecting the
expediency of his motion, nor had he ever argued on it in
that way. A third administration succeeded, of which he
certainly did not entertain a bad opinion, for he was


at thehead of it himself; still he maintained, or said he maintained,
all the doctrines he had held before on the necessity of reform.
His reason could not be that he distrusted the virtue of the
then House of Commons, for it was a favourite House ofC


ommons, on all occasions much extolled by him. Such
a favourite indeed, that his plan of reform was not to com-




nience till after the dissolution of that parliammt. Thus,
under all possible circumstances of time, in time of war, in
time of peace, under an administration which had his confi-
dence, under an administration that had it not, and when he
himself was minister, had the right honourable gentleman
agitated the question of reform. What was there now to
make it improper for another to do that which it had been
proper for him to do in every variety of time and circum-
stances? The prosperity of the country was no argument
against reform, for it was not urged as a necessary measure to
restore prosperity, but to give security to the prosperity which
we enjoyed. That security, by the right honourable gentle-
man's own admission, no change of ministers, nothing else
could give; for he had moved it when minister himself; and
he did not surely distrust his own administration. When his
honourable friend gave notice of his motion last year— a part
of his argument which had been very unfairly treated — lie
said, that a time of national prosperity and peace, as the mi-
nister had described that to be, must be considered as favour-
able for reviving the question of reform. Since then, this un-
fortunate and mad war had been entered into, and his ho-
nourable friend said, 44 You who objected to. my motion last
year, as improper in the season of prosperity and peace, can-
not now make the same objection in the season of war and
much public distress." This, which he adduced merely as an
al:omen/um ad homines, to prove the inconsistency of his oppo-
nents, was attempted to be made a charge of inconsistency
against himself. What objection could the right honourable
gentleman raise to reviving the question of reform in a House
of Commons which he had found so favourable to him on
every other subject ? He would hardly venture to say, that
the House of Commons had been so universally complaisant
to him, that he was sure they would never support a bad mini-
ster. Had they often joined him in opposing ministers whom
he thought bad, he might indeed say that they would never
suffer misconduct in a minister; but on nine years' experience
of support to his own administration, it would be rather too


1793.] •
REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 107


much to make the same inference. There could be no objec-
tion to the motion being made now, except that it was made
by his honourable friend instead of the right honourable gen-
tleman. In the pride of his new wisdom, his present self felt
such contempt for his former self, that he could not look back
on his former conduct and opinions without a sort of insulting
derision. As Lord Foppington said in the play, " I begin to
think that when I was a commoner, I was a very nauseous
fellow ;" so the right honourable gentleman began to think,
that when he was a reformer, he must have been a very foolish
fellow : he might, nevertheless, have retained some degree of
candour for his honourable friend, who had not yet received
the new lights with which he was so marvellously illuminated.
If the right honourable gentleman had rested his objections on
the change of circumstances produced by the events in France,
his argument would have been rational, or at least consistent.
But lie appealed to the recollection of the right honourable
gentleman, whether he had not in 1 7 85 argued as earnestly
against universal representation, and painted the dangers of it
in colours as strong as he had done now? The events in
France, therefore, had produced no aggravation of the danger
in his view of the subject, but rather made it less, in as much
as the example of its effects in France had brought it into
utter discredit in the mind of every thinking man ; and what
he had not considered as an objection to his own motion in
1 7 85 , he had no right to insist upon as an objection to the
motion of his honourable friend now.


He had always disliked universal representation as much
as the right honourable gentleman; but that dislike was no
reason for charging it with_ more mischief than was fairly
imputable to it. It had not been the cause, as the right
honourable gentleman alleged, of all the evils in France.
The first, or constituent assembly, was not elected on this
plan, but on old usages and old abuses; yet that assembly
had done some of the most unjustifiable things done in
France: it had despoiled the clergy without regard to situ-
ation or character, and destroyed the nobility. The second,
or legislative assembly, was not chosen by individual suffrage;
for when the constitution was framed, wild as the French
were, they had laid many restrictions on individual suffrage,
and made the distinction between active and inactive citizens.
It was, therefore, unjust to charge on it what was done by
assemblies elected before it was brought into use. France,
after doinn. great honour to herself by shaking off her oldbintolerable despotism, had since been governed by counsels
generally unwise, and often wicked. But, what had this to
do with our reform? It had been said, that French prin-
ciples, though not more detestable than the principles of




8 MR. GREY'S MOT/ON FOR A [May 7.
Russia, were more dangerous and more to be guarded
against, because more fascinating. Would any man now
say that French principles were fascinating? What, then,
had we to fear from what no man in his senses would wish
to copy ?


A right honourable friend of his (Mr. Windham) had last
night, in a very eloquent, but very whimsical speech, endea-
voured to prove that the majority was generally wrong. But -
when he came to answer some objections of his own suggest-
ing, he found himself reduced to say, that, when he differed
from the majority, he would consider himself as equally inde-
pendent of the decision of that majority as one independent
county member of the decision of another—which was just
to say, that he would put an end to society; for where every
individual was independent of the will of the rest, no society
could exist. It was singular for him to defend -the decision
of the majority, who had found it so often against him; and
he was in hopes that his right honourable friend would have
shown him some easy way of solving the difficulty. His right
honourable friend said, that a wise man would look first to the
reason of the thing to be decided, then to force, or his power
of carrying that decision into. effect, but never to the majority.
He would say, look first and look last to the reason of the
thing, without considering whether the majority was likely
to be for or against you, and least of all to force. Mr. Fox
admitted that the majority might sometimes oppress the mino-
rity, and that the minority might be justified in resisting
such oppression, even by force; but as a general rule, though
not without exception, the majority in every community must
decide for the whole, because in human affairs there was no
umpire but human reason. The presumption was also that
the majority would be right: for if five men were to decide
by a majority, it was probable that the three would be right
and the two wrong, of which, if they were to decide by force,
theremould be no probability at all. What was the criterion
of truth but the general sense of mankind ? Even in mathe-
matics, we proceeded from certain axioms, of the truth of
which we had no other proof but that all mankind agreed in
believing them. If; then, what all men agreed on was ad-
mitted to be true, there was a strong presumption, that what 4
many, or the majority, agreed on, was true likewise. Even
reverence for antiquity resolved itself into this; for what was
it but consulting the decision of the majority, not of one or
two generations, but of many, by the concurrence of which
we justly thought that we arrived at greater certainty ? His
objection to universal suffrage was not distrust of the deci-
sion of the majority, but because there was no practical mode
of collecting such suffrage, and that by attempting it, what


1793j REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.
109


from the operation of hope on some, fear on others, and all
the sinister means of influence that would so certainly be
exerted, fewer individual opinions would be collected than
by an appeal to a limited number. Therefore, holding fast
to the right of the majority to decide, and to the natural
rights of man, as taught by the French, but much abused by-
their practice, lie would resist universal suffrage.


Without attempting to follow his right honourable friend,
when he proposed to soar into the skies, or dive into the deep,
to encounter his metaphysical adversaries, because in such
heights and depths the operations of the actors were too
remote from view to be observed with much benefit, he would
rest on practice, to which he was more attached, as being.
better understood. And if, by a peculiar interposition of
Divine power, all the wisest men of every age and of every
country could be collected into one assembly, he did not
believe that their united wisdom would be capable of forming_
even a tolerable constitution. In this opinion he thought he
was supported by the unvarying evidence of history and
observation. Another opinion he held, no matter whether
erroneous or not, for he stated it only as an illustration,
namely, that the most skilful architect could not build, in the
first instance, so commodious a habitation as one that had
been originally intended for some other use, and had been
gradually improved by successive alterations suggested byno
various inhabitants for its present purpose. If; then, so
simple a structure as a commodious habitation was so difficult
in theory, how much more difficult the structure of a govern-
ment? One apparent exception might be mentioned, the
constitution of the United States of America, which he believed
to be so excellently constructed, and so admirably adapted
to the circumstances and situation of the inhabitants, that it
left us no room to boast that our own was the sole admiration
of the world. The objection, however, was only apparent.
They had not a constitution to build up from the foundation;
they had ours to work upon, and adapt to their own wants
and purposes. This was what the present motion recom-
mended to the House—not to pull down, but to work upon
our constitution, to examine it with care and reverence, to
repair it where decayed, to amend it where defective, to
prop it where it wanted support, to adapt it to the purposes
of the present time, as our ancestors had done from gener-
ation to generation, and always transmitted it not only un-
impaired, but improved, to their posterity.


His right honourable friend had said, on a former occa-
sion, that if the constitution of the House of Commons were
that the county of Middlesex alone elected the representatives
for the whole kingdom, he would not consent to alter thata




1793'3
twice —not jealousy captious or malignant, but jealousy
founded on well-examined and rational grounds of suspicion.
?an were not bound to wait till their liberties were actually
invaded; prudence called for means of prevention and de-
fence; and, to justify these, it was sufficient that they saw a
clear possibility of danger.


Now in order to skew that the House in its present state
was unfit for the functions which it ought to discharge, he
would refer to the history of the American war. It was
dangerous to make a concession in argument; for on that
concession was generally built some assertion very different
from what had been conceded. He had once admitted, that
the American war was popular in the beginning ; and on
that had been built the assertion, that he had called it the
war of the people. He never called, nor meant to call it so;
for, in truth, it was nothing less — it was the war of the
court. By the court the project of taxing America was con-
ceived, and the people were taught to believe that their money
would be saved and their burdens eased by a revenue drawn
from another country.


Thus were they first deluded, and then bribed by an appeal
to their pockets, into an approbation of the scheme of the
court. This was no assumption of his, for it was perfectly
well known, that when a considerable addition to the standing
army was proposed, the country gentlemen were induced to
agree to it, by hints that the expellee would be defrayed from
another quarter, instead of falling upon them. In compliance
with the wishes of the court, the House passed the memorable
stamp act. The stamp act was resisted and repealed ; and
the repeal was as popular as the passing of it had been. Was
this a presumption, that the war was the war of the people?
Was it not, on the contrary, a clear proof that the people had
no definite idea of the object of the war? When, by subse-
quent acts of the same nature, and similar resistance on the
part of America, the war was brought on, then, indeed, the
indignation of the people was excited by the supposed in-
gratitude of the colonies to the mother country ; their passions
inflamed; the love of military glory, natural to the minds of
a great and brave nation, roused ; and the war became popular.
But the war itself was the act of the court, deluding the
people by the subserviency of the House of Commons. The
House passed the stamp act ; the House took all the other
measures that led to the war, and voted that it should be sup-
ported, not as the organ of the people, • but as the obedient
servant of the court. What was a successful war, he was
somewhat at a loss to know. The American war from the
beginning he had always called unsuccessful; but he was, year
after year, told that he was quite mistaken, and that the success


REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. III/o BIR. GREY'S MOTION FOR A
[May 7,


mode of repr
esentation, while he knew from experience


thatit had produced such benefits as we had long enjoyed. Now;
suppose, for the sake of argument, that the county of Corn-
wall, somewhat less likely to be a virtual representative of the
whole kingdom than Middlesex, were, instead of sending
forty-four members to parliament, to send the whole five hun-
dred and fifty-eight, such a House of Commons might, for


atime, be a proper check on the executive power, and watch over
the interest of the whole kingdom with as much care as those of
Cornwall ; but, with such a House of Commons, no


argument
would persuade him to remain satisfied, because there was
no security that it would continue to do so. The question
now to be examined was, Did the House of Commons, as at
present constituted, answer the purposes which it was in-
tended to answer; and had the people any security that it
would continue to do so ? To both branches of the question
he answered decidedly in the negative.


Before he proceeded to offer the reasons on which he thus
answered, it was necessary to say a few words on the circum-
stances which, in his opinion, would justify a change. Many
things short of actual suffering would justify not only a change,
but even resistance. When the dispute began with America,
it was not because it was held that the British parliament had
no legal right to tax America, that the project of taxing her
was


opposed. The Americans, indeed, did maintain that the
British parliament had no such right; but he, and many
others who opposed the measure, admitted the right, and he
was still of the same opinion. *hat, then, was the ground
of the opposition ? It was not any actual suffering on the
part of the Americans : they themselves allowed that the
taxes attempted to be imposed were of the most easy and
unoppressive kind. But although these taxes were so, they
had no security that heavy and oppressive taxes might not,
at some future period, be imposed upon them by a legislative
body, in which they had no representation, with which they
had no very close connection of common interest, and over
which they had no means of control. He, therefore, and
those with whom he had the honour to act, thought this want
of security, for what they were not then ashamed to call the
rights of man, a sufficient cause of resistance. They justified
the Americans in that glorious resistance, for which they
were then called the advocates of American rebels, as some
of them, though too familiar with such charges much to heed
them, were now called the advocates of the French. That
glorious resistance was ultimately successful, and to that
success would yet be owing the liberties of mankind; if in
this country they should unhappily be suffered to perish. 'Jealousy, too, was a good cause of change, or even of resis-




1793.7 REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.
113


Let gentlemen read that speech by clay, and meditate on
i t by night ; let them peruse it again and again, study it,
imprint it on their minds, impress it on their hearts : they
would there learn, that representation was the sovereign
remedy for every disorder, the infallible security against,
popular discontent; let them learn this, and give to the people,
not the " unreal mockery," but the efficient substance of
representation.


He came next to consider the conduct of the House since
the American war. When the. India bill, which he had the
honour to propose, was lost, was it because the bill was
unpopular? By no means. Whatever odium had been
afterwards excited against it, the people had then expressed
no disapprobation. The right honourable the chancellor of
the exchequer had no hand in its defeat; for, ready and able
as he was to speak against it, it passed the House of Commons
by a great majority. By whom, then, was it thrown oat?
Let the merit be given to those to whom it belonged — it
was thrown out by certain bedchamber lords, acting under
the direction of those who had access to advise the king.
The dismission of the ministry followed the rejection of- the




bill, and the House of Commons adhered to the discarded
ministers. The right honourable gentleman would surely
allow, that the House, in order to execute its functions,
ought to command respect. Did it command respect on that
occasion? Was it respected by the crown, by the peers, or
by the people ? The advisers of the crown disregarded its
remonstrances; the peers came to resolutions censuring its
proceedings; and the people treated it not as their organ in
the constitution, and the guardian of their rights, but as a'
faction leagued to oppress them, and with whom they had no
common interest or common cause. Since that period the
House had not only commanded respect, but praise, froth
those who were permitted to advise the crown, not by oppo-
sition, but by prompt obedience; not by a watchful and
jealous guardianship of the interests of the people, but by
implicit confidence in ministers, and pliant acquiescence in
the measures of the court. Thrice had that House of Coin;
mons of which he had spoken, and which he should never
mention but with honour, resisted the influence of the crown,
and nothing then was talked of but a reform of parliament.
The House 'of Commons had been now for nine years a,
complaisant and confiding body, and the cry of reform from.
those who were formerly the loudest and most active was


See New Parliamentary History, Vol. p. 513.
VOL. V.


112 MR. G REY'S MOTION FOR A
[May 7,


Was fully adequate to every reasonable expectation. At length
came the final blow, the capture of Lord Cornwallis and his
army — the war was acknowledged to be unsuccessful, and theHouse put an end to it, but not till several years after the people
had begun to send up petitions and


remonstrances against it.In some of the petitions on the table the
accumulation ofthe public debt was imputed to the defect of the represent-


ation, and he was sorry to see such an absurdity in them. Theac
cumulation of the public debt was the necessary consequence


of-the wars which we had been obliged to maintain in defenceof our constitution and our national independence; and hefor one had no scruple in declaring
.


, that every war in which
we had been engaged, from the Revolution to the American
war, was both just and n


ecessary. He would, therefore,
acquit the House of all the debt contracted, except for the
American war, and as much as might fairly- be imputed totoo remiss a superintendence of the expenditure of public
money: for all the debt contracted to support the American
war, after that war became unpopular, the House of Com-mons was undoubtedly a


nswerable. It was not enough for
preventing wars that we were disposed to cultivate peace, if
our neighbours were not as peaceably disposed as ourselves.
'hen, therefore, the petitioners talked of preventing wars
by reforming the House of Commons, they forgot that the
work would be but half done, unless they could give as good
a constitution to France as England would then be possessed
of. But when he mentioned this, lie raised no argumentfrom it against the general pra yer for a reform in the represent-ation. His right honourable friend (Mr. Burke), on presentinghis plan of reconciliation with America in 1775, made aspeech, in which the virtues aid the efficacy of


representationwere displayed with a force and clearness unparalleled. Werethe people of Ireland uncivilised and unsubdued after a
forcible possession of their country for a,


W ges, what was theremedy
then? Representation. Were eWelsh in perpetualcontention among themselves, and hostility to Englishmen,what was the remedy ? Representation.


*Were the countiesof Chester and Durham full of discontent and disorder, whatwas the remedy ? Representation. Representation was t he.universal panacea, the cure for every evil. When the
day-star of • the English constitution had arisen in their hearts, all


was harmony within and without
— Shaul alba nautis


Stella refulsit,
Defluit saxis agitatus humor;
Concidunt vents, fugiuntque nubes,Et tninax (quod sic voluere) potato


reetunbit.




1 . 14 Ppt. GREY'S MOTION ' FOR A [May


heard no more. Reform was then the only thing that could
save the constitution : the very sound of reform was now
pregnant with the most imminent danger. When that House
of Commons resisted the influence of the court, they were
told that they were not the representatives of the people, and.
that they were not so chosen as they ought to be. The
people felt that the charge was true in part, and were easily
induced to give credit to the whole. Had. that House of
Commons been chosen in a less objectionable manner; had
the people considered them as their representatives, could
they have been so contemptuously treated and so ignomi-
niously dismissed as they had been ? No; the people would
have seen that the cause of their representatives was the same
with their own : they would have given them their confidence
and their support.


But, it was said, a House of Commons so chosen as to be
a complete representative of the people, would be too power-
ful for the House of Lords, and even for the king : they
would abolish the one and dismiss the other. If the king and
the House of Lords were unnecessary and useless branches
of the constitution, let them be dismissed and abolished ; for
the people were not made for them, but they for the people.
If, on the contrary, the king and the House of Lords were
felt and believed by the'people, as he was confident they were,
to be not only uselid but essential. parts of the constitution, a
House of Commons, freely chosen by, and speaking the sen-
timents of, the people, would cherish and protect both, within
the bounds which the constitution had assigned them. In the
case of the Russian armament., what had been the mode of
proceeding? The minister thought proper to arm against.
Russia, and the House of Commons was called upon to vote
the supplies. Were they allowed to inquire into the necessity
of that armament, or to judge of its propriety ? No; they
were told that to ministers it belonged to judge, and to them
to confide; and on this implicit confidence they voted the
sums demanded of them. In the mean-time, the people
shewed their disapprobation of a war with Russia; the mi-
nister adopted their sentiments ; called on the House of I.
Commons to agree with him in this change of opinion, and
the House acquiesced. He would neither allow the House of
Commons to judge in the first instance, nor, through him,
look for the opinion of the people in the second. He was to.
collect the opinion of the people, and tell those who ought to
be their representatives, and the organs of their sentiments,
what that opinion was. The lesson thus held out to every
man in the House was this : — " If you look for honour orafiar
power, you must take care to conciliate the advisers of the


REFORAI IN PARLIAMENT. 1 I 5


Icr7o9w3 nIby a ready subserviency to whatever they require. If
you presume to counteract them, you may enjoy the con-•
sciousness of serving the public without hope or reward; but
from power and situation, from all the fair objects of honour-
able ambition, you are for ever excluded."


Having thus shewn that the House of Commons, as now
constituted, was neither adequate to the due discharge of its
duties at present, nor afforded any security that it would be so
in future, what remained for him to answer but general topics
of declamation ? He had sufficient confidence in the maxims
he had early learned, and sufficient reverence for the authors
from whom he learned them, to brave the ridicule now at-
tempted to be thrown upon all who avowed opinions that, till
very lately, had been received as the fundamental principles of
liberty. He was ready to say with Locke, that goverment
originated not only for, but from the people, and that the peo-
ple were the legitimate sovereign in every community. If
such writings as were now branded as subversive of all govern-
ment had not been react and studied, would the parliament of
-1640 have done those great and glorious things, but for which
we might be now receiving the mandates of a despot, like
Germans, or any other slaves. • A noble Lord (Mornington)
had discovered that Rousseau, in his Social Contract, had
said a very extravagant thing. He was not very well qualified
to judge, for he had found the beginning of the Social Con-
tract so extravagant, that he could not read it through, but he
believed it was one of the most extravagant of that author's
works. He did not mean to say that the noble Lord had pro-
duced an extravagant saying from Rousseau as a novelty ; but
it was somewhat remarkable, that an extravagant thing, from
the most extravagant work of an extravagant foreign author,
should be produced as an argument against a reform in the
representation of the people of Great Britain. Reverence for
antiquity was then appealed to, and gentlemen were asked, if
they would consent to alter that which in former times had
been productive of such important acquisitions to liberty.
With equal propriety our ancestors might have been asked, if
they would alter that constitution under which so great an
acquisition to liberty as Magna Charta had been obtained ;
and yet, after the acquisition of Magna Charta, the condition
of this country had been such as was rather to be execrated
and detested, than cherished and admired.


'When gentlemen talked of the danger of rash innovation,
and the great advantages of temperate and slow reform, they
might find all they had to say anticipated in a much more
pleasant treatise than any of their speeches, viz. the Tale of a
.Tub, where brother Jack's tearing. off the Lace, points and em-


1 2




t 6
MR. GREY'S 310TION FOR A


[May 7.,
broidery from his coat, at the hazard of reducing the coat
itself to tatters, and brother Martin's cautiously picking up
stitch by stitch, exhibited an abstract of all their arguments
on the subject. The Septennial act, in the opinion of many,
had been the means of preserving the House of Brunswick on
the throne. But had such a House of Commons as the pre-
sent been then in being, what would have become of the House
of Brunswick and the protestant succession ? " What !" they
would have said, " adopt so violent an innovation as septen-
nial instead of triennial parliaments; do you mean to subvert
the whole fabric of the constitution ? Triennial parliaments
were sanctioned at the glorious epoch of the revolution ; to
triennial parliaments we owed all the prosperity, all the glory
of the reigns of King William and Queen Mary; to triennial
parliaments were we indebted for the victory of Blenheim."
As rationally might they have said, that to triennial parlia-
ments they were indebted for the victory of Blenheim, as it
might be now said, that to the right of Old Sarum to send mem-
bers to parliament we were indebted for our annual exports
being increased seven millions. If to such sources as these, na-
tional prosperity was to be traced; if for the essence of our
constitution we were to repair to a cottage on Salisbury Plain;
or, for the sake of antiquity more reverend, let us take Stone-
henge for Old Sarum ; then might we undertake pilgrimages
to the sacred shrine, and tell each admiring stranger, " Look
not for the causes of our envied condition in the system of our
government and laws ; here resides the hallowed deposit of all
the happiness we enjoy ; but if you Move one of these rugged
stones from another, the British constitution is thrown from
its basis and levelled with the dust."—A right honourable
friend of his (Mr. Windham, who was chairman of the Down-
ton committee,) had been lately employed for many weary
days in examining the divisions of burgage tenures, to be -
found in a trench at Downton. Had it occurred to his right
honourable friend, that in this trench he was searching for the
most essential principles of the constitution, the investigation
would have been somewhat less irksome, the labour somewhatless fastidious.


The petition presented facts into which the House was 4t,'
bound to inquire, both in its legislative and its inquisitorial
capacity. In the petition it was affirmed, that peers nomi-
nated members to seats in the House; and they had a stand-
ing order that no peer should interfere in elections. In the
petition it was asserted, that bribery and corruption were
openly practised at elections; and they had a standing order
against bribery and corruption. Let the facts be inquire4
into, or these idle denunciations be expunged from their


93]
REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. 1 I 7


journals. A select Stockbri
dge had reported bribery against


certain electors of Stockbridge ; and a bill of pains and pe-
nalties, which had been founded on that report, had been


rejected. He was not sorry for it; he wished not to see apoor man punished for selling his vote, while the sale of seats
was connived at. 'The corruption of an individual voter was
undoubtedly an evil, but small in comparison of the mis-
chievous effects which the sale of seats must produce on the
minds of the sellers and the buyers, while both of them knew
that it was contrary to law. Let the House inquire and put
a


stop to such practices, or avow their expediency and repeal
the laws that made them criminal.


The lateness of the hour, the clearness of the case, and
the danger of rejecting die motion, rendered it unnecessary
for him to insist farther upon it. One word only with re-
spect to the time. It was triumphantly said, by gentlemen
on the other side, that ninety-nine out of every hundred of
the people of England were well affected to the constitution,
.and he believed that they were right. Where, then, was the
danger of inquiring into the defects of the constitution with a
view of correcting them? 'Could they hope for some golden
period, in which the proportion of the ill-affected would be
less than as one to ninety-nine? The objection to the time
was, therefore, a fallacy, a mere pretext for putting off what
the House could not help seeing to be necessary, but felt
unwilling to begin. This manner of postponing, on the most
frivolous pretences, what could not be denied to be fit, was
more properly the object of ridicule than of argument: the
time must come when the House would be unable to disguise,
even from themselves, the necessity of inquiring into the state
of the representation ; and then too they might perhaps give
1.,oidoillii. df_or a new application of the poet's raillery on an indi-


" Let that be wrought which Mat cloth say :
Yea, quoth the Erle, but not to-day."


At four in the morning the House divided on Mr. Grey's motion,
" That the petitiobe. referred to the consideration of a committee."


Tellers
yEAs Sheridan


Tellers.


Mr. Whitbread 41. ----- NOES
Mr. Powys 2q2


So it passed in the negative.
Mr. Neville


3I




18 RENEWAL OF THE [May 13,


RENEWAL OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER:


May 13.
.


'HE House being in a committee upon the bill ‘ 4 for continuingA.
in the possession of the East India company, for a furtherterm, the territorial a


cquisitions and revenues obtained in the East
Indies, and for making further provision for the government and
security of the said territories, and the appropriation of the reve-nues thereof; and for the further continuance of' the exclusivetrade of the said company, under certain limitations and restric-tions, and more effectually securing the benefits thereof; and for
applying part of the funds of the said company in the reduction oftheir debts, and appropriating the residue thereof for the benefit
of the public, and of the said company, pursuant to an agreement
made for that purpose,"


Mr. Fox said, he understood it was supposed by
severalgentlemen, that some objections were to be made to this bill


before the Speaker left the chair, and that
afterwards the


clauses would be discussed ; but, although he had great objec-
tions to the principle of the bill, as others might approve of
the principle, and yet might have objections to some of the
clauses, he had suffered the question for the Speaker leaving
the chair to pass, that those gentlemen might follow their own
ideas upon the subject without much impediment from


him,particularly as what lie had to urge might come at a future
stage of the proceeding. He did not, however, wish to letone opportunity pass without entering his protest against some
of the provisions of the bill. It was thirteen years since the
sentiment of the public had been expressed in that House-
" that the influence of the crown had increased, was increas-Mg,


and ought to be diminished ;" and be was sure, there
was as much reason for that resolution now, as there was at
that time. He objected, he said, to the mode in which this
bill tended to extend that influence; and he must now call
upon all those who in the year 1780 declared, that the in-
fluence of the crown ought to be diminished, to compare the
influence then, and the influence now; and then to


say,whether they could consistently vote for the clause which gave
the nomination of three officers to the crown ; whether they
who voted for a bill brought in by a right honourable gen-
tleman, (Mr. Burke,) a bill which would do him immortal 'honour; whether those gentlemen, he said, who had at that


:1793.] MAST INDIA COMPANY'S 'CHARTER. 119


time entertained the sentiments they then professed upon the
increase of the influence of the crown, could now vote for a
measure which so obviously tended to increase that influence.


He maintained, that the clause empowering the crown to no-
minate officers to act under this bill, and who were to be paid
large salaries by the company, was wrong upon the principle
of it. He thought that in all public situations, where officers
were appointed to any place of trust, the public ought to pay
them, because while the payment came from the public purse,
the public had some check, by their representatives, over the
conduct of such officers; but, by this bill, the public were to
pay circuitously and obliquely, by and through the medium
of the company; for the payment of these officers was so
much in diminution of what the public would otherwise receive
from the revenues of the company. He felt this, and he
must add, that in proportion as the House felt the influence
of the crown to be great, they should be impressed with a
sense of their duty not to increase it. He had heard it said
on former occasions, that the gentlemen acting in the affairs
of India were mere birds of passage; if so, he was sure there
could be no good reason for supposing that they would be less
under the influence of the crown than if they were stationary,.
or that they were therefore the less likely to be corrupt. He
should have other opportunities of delivering his sentiments
upon this subject, and he should avail himself of them ; but
he took that occasion of calling the attention of the House to
the point which he should afterwards take notice of. If gen-
tlemen, who with him had voted, in the year 1780, upon the
influence of the crown, had forgotten the reasons upon which
the House came to that resolution—if they had forgotten
they formerly professed upon that subject, all he could say
was, that he should do every thing in his power to refresh
their recollection, and therefore it was that he wished what
he had now hinted to be taken as a public notice.


May 1" 7.


The report of the committee on the bill being brought up ; on
reading the clause to enable his majesty to appoint two additional
commissioners for the management of the affairs of India, who are
not privy councellors, and with certain fixed salaries,


Mr. Fox said, that when a clause of this alarming nature,
with respect to influence, came to be discussed, he could have
wished to have seen in their places those honourable gentle-
men who had expressed their sentiments so strongly on former


14




I 20
RENEWAL OF THE


[May
occasions-against the influence of the crown. It was surely,
on every account, proper that they should come forward,


andgive a decided opinion on this question : let them say
whether


.they had altered their former opinion ; or, if they have not
altered it, which he trusted they had not, whether they could
reconcile the support of such a measure as the present with
that opinion. Persons in their high situations ought to
attend and give their votes. He would wish to know from
them, how far they thought it right to go, in cases of dan-
ger and emergency, in support of any plans brought forward
by


ministers; and whether they were never to oppose this
shameless increase of influence. As to the thing itself, there
were two very considerable offices, with certain fixed salaries,
added to the patronage of the crown. It was, indeed, hinted,
that perhaps some offices, belonging to another kingdom,
held at present by persons in this country, would be taken off
from the patronage here; but, be that as it might, would not
the patronage of another country bear upon this ? When
the board of control was first appointed, it was said there
were to be no salaries ; and surely this country was never in a
situation which called for stricter economy than when we
were involved in war, and in difficulties of which we could
not see a probable speedy termination. However great his
personal respect for the honourable gentlemen he had alluded
to, he could not but complain of their absence; and he called,
too, upon all those who, in the year r 780, joined in the vote
of that House, that the influence of the crown had increased,
was increasing, and ought to be diminished, to come forward:
let them say whether they were then right; and, if so, whether
that influence had since decreased.


With respect to his majesty's privy counsellors, there wee
•surely many of them who possessed lucrative offices under the


crown, who might have leisure sufficient to attend to the bu-
siness of the board of control; such as the treasurer of the
household, the postmasters general, the treasurer of the navy,
&c. If this were not the case, the appointment of this board
of control, in the manner it was held out at first, was nothing
but a deceit practised upon the public. Mr. Fox said, he
was determined to take the sense of the House that night;
.and, if he was then unsuccessful, to do so in any future stage
of the bill, where the forms of the House would permit him,
with respect to this particular clause, as he was resolved it should
not be said that a fair opportunity had not been given to every
gentleman to give his vote and opinion. If he limited his op-
position,


at present, to that clause alone, it was not because he
.did not dislike many other parts of the bill, but because he


did not wish now to mix any other part of it with this. He


EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER. 121


did not wish to say any thing personal to the right honourable
gentleman opposite to him, (Mr. Dundas,) who was not only
treasurer of the navy, put also secretary of state and president
of the board of control. He alluded to this for no other pur-
pose than to ask if that right honourable gentleman had, for
two years past, discharged the important duties of secre-
tary of state, and at the same time had acted as president to the
board of control, whether a treasurer of the household, or a
postmaster general, might not have had leisure to act in the
same capacity? He would only farther observe, that as it was
held out that, when offices were divided, there should be ad-
ditional salaries, it would seem to follow that, when they were
united, there should be a saving to the public, though he bad
never heard that this had taken place with respect to the right
honourable gentleman, or that he did not receive the salaries
and emoluments of all the different offices held by him.


The House divided : for the clause 11 3 : against it 42.


May 24.


On the order of the day for the third reading of the bill,


Mr. Fox said, that havint? before delivered his opinion
upon the subject of the amendment, which he meant to pro-
pose, he would not trouble the House with a repetition of the
arguments on which he founded that opinion ; but as he had
given notice that he should again object to that part of the bill
which went to the creation of new offices in the gift of the
crown, in order that those with whom he had formerly con-
curred in aevote for reducint, the influence of the crown,
might have an opportunity of delivering their sentiments on the
proposed increase of that influence, he certainly should take
the sense of the House upon it. If they still concurred with
him in the opinions they had formerly professed, it became
them, like men who acted from a sense of duty, unbiassed by
any temporary motives, to maintain those opinions by their
votes on the present occasion. If, on the contrary, their opi-
nions had changed, if they had abandoned the principles upon
which he and they had formerly combated the increasing in-
fluence of the crown, it became them, in that case also, as
men who acted from conviction, to avow that change, to ex-
plain the reasons of it, and to confirm it by their votes. In no
case could he conceive it to be proper or consistent with their
duty and their character, to absent themselves, and leave per-
sons who were less inclined to put a candid construction on




122 RENEWAL OF THE [May 24.
their motives than he was, at liberty to suppose that they were
either afraid to avow the change that had taken place in their
opinions, or that, if they still adhered to them, they were un-
willing, on account of some peculiar circumstances at the
present moment, to take that part which their duty required.
At all events, he had done his duty, by giving them this op-
portunity of delivering their sentiments, and should content
himself, without farther trespassing on the time of the House,
by moving to leave out the words "and such two persons as
his majesty, his heirs, and successors shall think fit."


After Mr. Sheridan had said a few words, the House divided.
on the question, " That those words stand part of the bill."


Tellers. Tellers.
YEAS Mr. J. Smyth 1S 'Col. Fitzpatrick ?




I OTIS




1Mr. H. Hobart S t Mr. Whitbread .1 3°'
The amendment proposed by Mr. Fox was consequently rejected.


After which,


Mr. Fox again rose and said : When, Sir, the subject was
first brought under the consideration of the House, I did
expect, that a committee of inquiry would have been ap-
pointed, to call for and to examine the requisite evidence,
which could alone enable us to form our opinions upon so
important a subject, as the government and trade of India ;
and I did expect, that from such a committee a report would
have issued, founded upon the whole of this evidence, and
that, upon the different branches of the subject, the House
would have sat, and solemnly and deliberately determined,
what that system is, which is required for the administration
of our Indian empire and trade. Was this the case ? Nothing
like it ! On the contrary, the only evidence before the House,
that I know of is, that some weeks past, a capital speech was
made by the 'minister for India, giving a general account
of the government and trade of our provinces, and pointing
out the propriety and necessity of renewing the company's
charter, and so forth. In this capital speech, not a word
was heard of the proposed increase of the influence of the
crown, although this was a necessary consequence of the
system which it recommended. To this increase I object,
and I feel it to be my duty solemnly to protest against it, as
fraught with danger to the constitution, and as a measure
which could only have been devised by the most strenuous
advocates for despotic power. Why is this influence danger-
ous ? Because it is irresponsible. Is it to be placed in the
hands of those who are to be vested with the real power ?
No: it is to be given to their agents and dependents, whose


1793'3
EAST INDIA' COMPANY'S CHARTER. 123


responsibility, from the nature of their situation, it is absurd
to speak of. Upon the ground of this objection, and of
others which I shall presently state, I feel it to be my duty
to oppose the whole of this bill, as disgraceful to its proposers,
and, if adopted, to this House; as dangerous to the public in
general, and repugnant to the principles of the constitution
in particular.


Taking this, therefore, as the ground of his objection,
Mr. Fox conceived it to be his duty to submit a few observ-
ations to the consideration of the House. Many of the mem-
bers would recollect, and all of them must know, that in the
year 1783, he had successfully pointed out the ex.traordinary
influence then in the hands of the directors. At that period,
however, as the influence was independent of the crown, he
thought that it might be wise neither to increase it, nor to
diminish it, but to leave it, as to quantity, where it then stood.
A short time afterwards, upon a fuller view of the whole
subject, he was decidedly of opinion, that it was highly im-
proper to leave this influence with a commercial body, and
that it ought to be vested in those, who, from their characters
and situations, with respect to the public, were better qualified
to exercise it. This was the leading provision in the bill,
which he had the honour to submit to the House in 1783.
The fate of that bill, it was now as unnecessary as it would
be unavailing, to relate. But it was impossible for him to
allow the accusations which had been, in his opinion, im-
properly and unjustly brought against him, to pass without
refuting them, and reprobating them in the terms they de-
served. These accusations were twofold : first, that his bill
tended to lessen, and next to increase the influence of the
crown, though in truth, it had neither of these objects in
view. At that time he had stated, and he again repeated,
that his object was to take the power from the directors, where
it was most improperly placed, and to vest it in commis-
sioners, who were to be immediately under the controul of
parliament. This was a subject, however, upon which he
would not trouble the House at any length, as it was not
immediately before them; but this was his only objection to
enter upon the discussion. I am convinced, (said Mr. Fox,)
that the more that bill is examined, the more it will meet
with the approbation of the public. That. bill had a defined
object, a clear and precise meaning; the bill now under
consideration is the reverse of it in every respect. It has no
defined object, and it has a concealed meaning ; for, under
the specious pretext of avoiding the objectionable influence in
Iny bill, it grasps at the whole of the patronage of India, in
a way totally disconnected with responsibility. • '?




4,
Mr. Fox next observed, it could not be expected upon a


third reading of such a bill, that he should enter at
lengthinto the subject. The manner, however, in which the right


honourable gentleman who had brought in the bill had
treatedthe point of influence was such, that he could not allow his


observations to pass without taking some notice of them. It
has been asserted, that the patronage of India consists in
the appointment of a few writers. Now, if there is a manin this House, if there is a man in this country, if there is
one man in any of the British territories in India, possessed of
a spark of common sense, who can believe this assertion to be
true, I wish him joy of his credulity. I ask any man who is
not insane, in whom, if this bill shall pass into a law, will the
whole of the patronage of India be vested ? Will not the
company and their directors be the mere tools of the minister
for the time being? Who appointed Lord Cornwallis; _or
Sir John Shore ? Was it the company ? No ! it was the
board of control. Is this, then, the boasted measure


whichis to lessen the influence of the crown, to convey no nelr
patronage to the minister, and to give him no room to exercise
his caprice or his prejudices in appointments in India? Whatin reality is this boasted bill ? It is nothing but a continu-
ation of that system of deception, fraud, and rapacity, which
has marked the conduct of ministers in the management of
the affairs of India. Have the House forgotten, or must I
recall to their memory, the declaratory bill ? Did not the
minister for India then embrace the principle, of placing the
whole of the territorial power in the crown, and of appro-
priating the revenues to the maintenance of the military
establishments there; though the bill of 1784 had no such
principle, nor any thing like it ?— Ex pede Herculem.d—Thedeclaratory bill was founded on the I ith clause of the


billof 1784, the object of which is only " to afford the board
information respecting the company's affairs abroad, and to
require the company to pay due obedience to such orders as
they shall receive from the board, touching the civil or mi-
litary government and revenues of the British territorial pos-
sessions in the East Indies." The provisions of the declaratory
bill, however, gave to ministers the uncontrouled power ofappropriating the revenues of India to such military establish-
ments as they should think fit to create or employ. The
declaratory bill thus professed one thing, and by its provisions
effit,cted another.


Having referred to the preamble and the provisions of the
bill, he asserted, that obtaining farther information respect..ing India was its professed object, but vesting the power
and revenues of India in the crown its real object, and then


124
RENEWAL or THE


[May 2 1793.]
EAW INDIA COMPANYS CHARTER, 125


pronounced, that the present bill was a continuation of the
system of delusion, fraud, and rapacity, which had been in-
troduced by the bill of 1 7 84 , and by the declaratory bill.
The present bill pretended to wave all patronage, whilst it,
in fact, grasped at patronage of every description. It affected
to say, that responsibility was to be attached to those who
were to exercise power; but, in fact and in truth, it gave
security to corruption, and a facility to the exercise of corrupt
practices. This, (said Mr. Fox,) I am entitled to affirm, be-
cause it will enable the minister to engross the whole power,
and yet screen him from all responsibility. Every thing, by
it, is to be carried onby agents, who, from the nature of all
zs
governments, never can be made responsible for the cor-
ruption of those whose commands they obey. Upon these
grounds, I protest against the whole of this system ; but as it
may be expedient to renew the charter of the East-India
company for a short time, I would propose, as an amend-
ment, " That instead of the words one thousand eight hun-
dred and eleven, the words one thousand seven hundred and.
ninety seven, be inserted," being four years, the same period
which I fixed on as necessary in making an experiment, under
ray own bill.


In a commercial and a political light, Mr. Fox objected
against the whole of the proposed system. In a commercial
light, it pretended to give an exclusive privilege, and yet
admitted provisions which counteracted the whole of this
privilege ; so that, whatever commercial plans might be
adopted in India, and however wise they might be, they
might be overturned at the caprice of the board of control,
though this board might know infinitely less about the busis
ness, than the agents whom they were controuling. In the end,
such an absurd measure must destroy the very spirit and
vigour of the commerce. In a political light, he protested
not less strongly against the whole of this bill, because the
power was to be left in hands where there was no respon-
sibility, and because he considered the whole system to be
dangerous to the constitution, if not subversive of it. Upon
these grounds Mr. Fox concluded, that he must take the sense
or the House on the amendment which he had proposed.


The amendment proposed by Mr. Fox was opposed by Mr. Pitt,
after which it was rejected on a division, by 132; to 26.




1 26 STATE OF THE DIPEACIDIENT [May 3c.


STATE or THE IMPEACH3IENT AGAINST Ma. HASTINGS'.
May 3o.


ON the 28th of May a committee was appointed to consider
the state of the impeachment against Mr. Hastings. The -


report of the said committee having been brought
up on the 30th,a motion was made by Mr. Charles Townshend, " That a


messagebe sent to the Lords, acquainting them with the reasons why
thisHouse cannot proceed on the trial of Warren Hastings, Esq. at :


the time appointed ; and to desire that. the same may be put off to a
afurther day." This motion being opposed by Mr. Wigley, on,


account of the delay it would occasion,


Mr. Fox said, that the learned gentleman had opposed the
motion now before the House upon fair ground, namely, upon
the ground of delay; that delay he had pretty plainly imputed
to the managers : the question, therefore, must be, with regard
to that learned gentleman's objection, whether the managershad been guilty of any unheeessary delay, on their part, in
the course of this trial ? First of all, he begged leave to
protest against the truth of the allegation, and to declare, that
to his knowledge there had not been, on the part of the
managers, any delay whatever. He did not say that there
had not been delay some where, nor that such delay might
not have been necessary; all that he asserted was, and he.
pledged himself to prove it before he sat down, that whatever
delay there had been, or whether it was necessary or unne-
cessary, it did not proceed in any one instance from the
managers. Supposing therefore, for a moment, that this was
the case, which he promised he should be able-to prove, he
would then ask, whether there was a man in that House, or
in the country, who knew any thing of the nature of this
proceeding, who did not know that that which had taken up
so much time already for evidence, did not also require great
time for deliberation ? Was it not possible that there might
be more evidence to be offered on the part of the prosecution,
when that on the part of the defence Caine to be deliberately
examined, in order to rebut the evidence on the part of the
defendant ? Did not this rule apply to the other side, when
the prosecution was closed ? Did it not apply to all judicial
proceedings, and more particularly to those of a criminal
nature ? Let the House look at the course of the trial from
its commencement. On the part of the managers, much of
the time had been taken up in reading the articles of charge,


093.] AGAINST AIR. HASTINGS.


127


and the evidence to support them. Let them look also at the
different mode adopted for the other side. On the part of
the prosecution, the whole of the evidence, at the request of
the defendant's counsel, was read at length. On the part of
the defence, various parts of the evidence were entered as
read, for the purpose of saving time, referring to volumes of
evidence to be printed by the managers before they should
proceed to reply. The managers might have insisted on the
evidence for the defence being read at large, like that on the
part of the prosecution ; but, for the purpose of avoiding, delay
as much as possible, they had consented to this expeditious
mode. He was not blaming the counsel for the defendant
for insisting on all the evidence from books on the part of
the prosecution being read at full length ; perhaps they were
very right; but, then, he expected that there should come front
that quarter no complaint of delay afterwards, especially when
out of favour to them, the managers had consented to shorten
the evidence on the part of the defence, and to give it all
the effect it could have from being read, by consenting to
enter it as having been read at the trial, and consequently
printed with the other evidence. This the counsel on the
part of the defendant could not have done without the consent
of the managers, and yet those very managers, who had been
compelled to go through their own evidence at full length,
because the counsel for the defendant insisted upon their
doing so, and who had consented to accommodate the de-
fendant with the best mode of managing his defence, because
his counsel desired it for the sake of . expedition, were now to
be clanged by these very counsel with having wilfully caused
delay on the present trial !


But it had been said, that the managers had occasioned de-
lay, by proposing questions which could not regularly be
asked, that the opinion of the judges had been often given
against them upon that occasion, and that they had offered
dence which was inadmissible. Upon this be -must confess,
that if there was any reproach to attach to the managers for
such conduct, he was ambitious of having his share of it, and
he claimed a great one. He should not now • say any thing
upon the opinions of those who thought the proceedings of
the managers vexatious in that respect; but would be con-
tented with observing, that whatever their lordships might
think upon the propriety of refusing evidence offered by the
managers, he thought that the managers would have been
highly reprehensible if they had neglected to tender it, and
that the general ground for refusing to receive that evidence
appeared to him ridiculous, and the argument upon it pre-
posterous ; for it was said, that although the evidence in itself




126


STATE OF THE IMPEACHMENT [May ace
might amount to something, yet it would not raise a degreeof presum p


tion in its favour to entitle it to admission, thus
taking the weight of evidence as an


argument againstpetency ; and with respect to the opinions of the ju its
dg


-


es, h
come


could only say, that the managers never knew the principle on
which they proceeded, as they always


gave those opinionsbefore the lords, shut up in their chamber of parliament, to
the absolute exclusion of strangers;


consequently, from such
opinions given in the dark, and to the managers totally behind
the curtain, they had no rule for their guidance and improve-
ment, and therefore they were obliged to persist in every
question they put that might have been objected to by the de-
fendant's counsel, not knowing wha t the judges would approveor what. they would disapprove.


The next co
nsideration was, upon the matter of &et, with


respect to the time which the discussion of this impeachment
had already taken up. It was said, it had lasted six years.
It had so: but how many days had been employed in
that period ? Only 116. In one year only 20 days had been
allowed. If the lords required any


extraordinary diligencefrom the managers, their lordships, from the example they
gave, did not require that diligence with


a very extraordinarygood grace. The managers, however, did riot wish to be ex-
travagant in their requisitions to their lordships ; for they
asked only for a week, upon important ground, for


proceedingupon this trial, although the lords had taken months for them-
selves without condescending to assign any ground


whatever.How stood the case with respect to speeches before
the-lords


upon this trial? Upon the Benares charge, which he had the
honour of opening, he spoke only one day, and an


honourablefriend of his another day. Two days were consumed in
speeches from the managers on this point: eight were taken
up by the counsel for the defendant in answering them. He
did not say that the counsel took up too much time; he dared
say it was too little for the business they undertook ; hut he
mentioned this to shew how the truth was with regard to thequestion of delay.


Another thing was to be noticed upon this trial, and it
arose out of the cifcumstances of its commencement. When
judgmthe lords said to the managers that they should not ask forent charge after charge separately, but that Mr.


e, Hast-ings should hear the whole of the charges to be exhibited
e,


against him before he should be called upon to make a de-
fence to any, —why was this rule not to be followed with


re-spect to the managers in making their reply to the defence of
Mr. Hastings ? Why was one rule to be followed by the de-
fendant, and another to he marked out for the prosecutors ?


1793.1


AGAINST MR. HASTINGS.


129


For, according to the mode allowed Mr. Hastings for his
defence, the managers ought to have time to peruse the whole
of the defence before they proceeded to reply to it. And, if the


the defendant required time to answer the speeches
ecrit litieselinfLgers and to rebut the evidence called for the prose-
cution, why was there not to be time for the reply in the same
manner ? He would go farther, and say, that even if he had
known a good- while ago that the defence would have been
closed at the time it was, he was then entitled to think and
expect from the conduct of the lords, upon former stages of
this trial, that they would not have called upon the managers
for their reply till the next session of parliament. How stood
facts upon this point? On the 14th of February, 1 79 1, the
House of Commons sent a message to the lords, importing
that they were ready to proceed upon this trial. What were
their lordships pleased to do? Not a word was heard from
them until the 17th of May, and then, it might be supposed,


made up by their activity for their past neglect. Howthey
the fact? How many days did their lordships allow


the managers to proceed upon this trial in the whole of that
year ? Only four ; and on the 3oth of May their lordships
diligence closed for the session. Did they then tell Mr. Hast-
ings, that he must make his defence to what had been exhibited


t'
acrains1 him in a week, as they called upon the managers to
reply ? Nothing like it; for they allowed him till the next
year to prepare it. Was there one law for Mr. Hastings, and.
another for the managers ? He confessed, that, upon every
view he had of the subject, and from the conduct of the
lords, he fully expected that they would not have called upon
the managers for their reply until the next session.


Another part of the business had been alluded to by the
learned gentleman, which was, that Mr. Hastings had been
obliged to request his friends to come down to the House on
the day of trial in time to form a House, to prevent delay
that must otherwise have happened. Upon this he must say,
that there might, out of the 116 days which had been taken
up in this trial, be three or four on which the lords might
have waited for the Commons for, perhaps, the space of half
an hour. This, lie presumed, was not very disgraceful to the
managers, nor very extraordinary, for on some days the chan-
cellor did not come before three o'clock in the afternoon, fre-
quently at one, and if he should by accident, without any in-
timation to the managers, be in the hall at twelve, it was not
very surprising that the managers were not in court much be-
fore one o'clock.


• If this was laid as matter of blame upon
the managers, he did think the weight of the accusation not
more than they could very well bear, without thinking them-


VOL. y.




13O IMPEACHMENT AGAINST MR. HASTINGS. [May 34
selves likely to be weighed down by it. It seemed, however,that now Mr. Hastings called for expedition in the course of
this trial, in hopes of having final judgment this session.
Was there any body possessed of the least knowledge of the
subject, who had the most distant idea that final judgment
could be obtained -


in this mighty business this session ? If
there was, he confhssecl himself bound to admire his candour,
and his confidenc$


in the diligence of the Lords.
The most remarkable part of the objections now started


against the delay of the managers was yet remaining. It was
pretended that the managers must know, or might have known,
the whole of the evidence long ago, for that the whole of it might
have been printed. To which he answered, that was impossible,
for a great part of the evidence on the


.
part of the defence


had not, by the express desire of the defendant's counsel,
been heard as yet by any body in that court, having been
carried on from page to page, and entered upon the trial as
read, to be printed hereafter ; and even this could not be
ready for their lordships before the very day on which they
had called upon the managers to appear in Westminster Hail
to rebut it ; and how could the managers do justice to that
House, to themselves, and to the public, under such singular
circumstances, if they were to comment upon evidence Which
they had never heard ? With regard to the speeches of the
learned counsel for the defendant, he confessed himself unable
to reply to them also, without time to read them from the
transcript of the short-hand notes taken at the trial; for
under the idea of being allowed to have that advantage, he
had waved the thought of taking full notes himself; and he
must say, that however great and splendid might be the
talents of the learned gentleman who spoke last, he did not
think that even he would be well pleased if he was called upon
to reply without the assistance to which he alluded. Was it,
therefore, fit that the managers should now be called upon to
reply in this situation ? Were they to comment upon 206
pages of evidence which they had not, and which they could
not have read ? Were they to reply to speeches which took hp
altogether clearly twenty-four hours to deliver without reading
them, and weighing the arguments contained in them ? He
confessed himself unable to do so in less than a fortnight ; more
he did not require.


There was another point which he had hinted at before,
which was, that it was possible that evidence would be pro-
duced in reply, and yet gentlemen persisted in saying, that
the managers ought to go on without farther time, before they
had seen all the evidence on the part of the defence. How
was it possible to know what the evidence, which had been


1793.]
entered as read, might turn out to be? When gentlemen
came to consider these points properly, he hoped the time
.the managers asked would not appear too much, and that
they were not guilty of delay in taking it, if allowed. He
was ready, after the time proposed, to proceed upon the sub-
ject of the Benares charge; at the same time, he doubted the
expediency of it. But, with regard to the other charges, he
must say, it appeared to him to be neither consistent with the
character of that House, nor with justice, to proceed upon the
others, until much more time was taken to consider of the
whole of the defence which had been made to them; rather
than attempt to answer the defence, it would be better not to
answer at all, but to leave the case as it stood, and call
for judgment on it. He was, however, far from being sure
that even that would be of any avail to the defendant, for the
purpose of having judgment in the present session.


Having made these observations, he must say, he was
glad that this debate had taken place, and he was under
some obligation to the learned gentleman whose opposition
had produced it, because it had afforded him an opportunity
of proving what he trusted he now had proved, and what
he had often asserted, that the more this subject was in-
vestigated, the clearer it would appear, that whatever delay
there might be, none of it was imputable to the managers.
On their part there had not, been an attempt at any dila-
tory proceeding. He defied any man, in any situation,
however great his talents or abilities, to prove that the ma-
nagers had neglected any part of their duty iii the course
of this arduous proceeding, or to impute to them any cor-
rupt motives, or to slim what inducement men, situated as
they were, had to have any corrupt motives upon this
subject.


The motion was agreed to, on a division, by 87 to 4.2.


MR. 'WHITBREAD'S COMPLAINT OF A LIBEL ON THE MANA-
GERS OF THE IMPEACHMENT AGAINST MR. HASTINGS.


June 12.


'UR. Whitbread called the attention of the House to a paper,
called " The World," dated the 2 7th of May, containing a


scandalous reflection on the managers appointed by that House to
N. 2


COMPLAINT OP A LIBEL.
131




X :ri,
COMPLAINT or A I.113P.L.,


[June .1.:2,
conduct the . impeachment against Mr. Hastings. t was therestated, that a right reverend prelate, (the Archbishop of York,)
had said, " that it was impossible for him to sit silent, to listen tothe i lliberal conduct of the managers ; that they examined a wit-
ness as if he was not a witness, bait a pickpocket ; and that if Marat
or Robespierre were there, they could not conduct the impeach-ment in a more scandalous manner, &c." This, Mr.


Whitbreadsaid, was highly indecorous, and an insult not only on the
mana-,,erq but also on the House of Commons itself; and they coulde, -5


not expect the House to think highly of them, if they did not vin-dicate
their own dignity, and take such steps as might lead topunish the p r


opagators of such scandalous calumny. He could
have wished to have confined his motion to the person who uttered
the words ; but he found that to be impossible, and that he must
move for the prosecution of the printer of the paper in which they
were reported. Indeed, the printer had thought fit to make corn_
rents on these words, an& those comments were such as tended
to justify the language. Here Mr. Whitbread react the comments,
and contended, that the House ought to take the matter up seri-
ously, both with regard to the printer and the right reverend pre-
late ; the one for the comments, and the other for uttering the
words. That the archbishop had made use of


very scandalous. ex-pressions, he could prove ; for he had been at the pains of procur-
ing a transcript from the short-hand writer's notes taken at the trial.
They stated, that after the examination by Mr. linrke, of a witness
on the 25th of May, the archbishop had said, " Upon my word,
my lords, this proceeding is intolerable ; the gentleman at yourbar is treated like a pickpocket; and if l'slarat or Robespierre-were in the box, they could not conduct themselves in a more
improper manner than I have often witnessed in the course of
this trial." This was the substance of what the right


reverendprelate had said. Mr. Whitbread then expatiated on the impro-
priety and indecency of these expressions, and called upon the
House to support the managers and their own dignity. The mode
which he should propose appeared to him to be the only one
which the House ought to adopt .upon this occasion. It was, to
address his majesty, praying that the attorn ey-general might bedirected to prosecute the printed of this paper, and then to in-
stitute an inquiry, in form, whether the words alluded to had
been uttered, when, where, and by whom. — The said


newspaperwas then delivered in at the table, and the paragraphs complained
of therein being read, Mr. Whitbread moved, " That the said
paragraphs contain matter of a scandalous and libellous nature, re-
flecting on the conduct of the members appointed by this House
to manage the impeachment against Warren Hastings, Esq," The
motion being seconded by Mr. Francis, was opposed by Mr.Secretary Dundas, who concluded his speech with moving, " Thatthe House do now adjourn."— Mr-Windham felt so strongly the
necessity of supporting the managers, that if the honourable gen-tleman who made the first motion should think fit to persist in it,.


i,•he should vote with him, though he could Wish for an
adjourn-ment, Mr.. Burke, after assuring the House that the motiox


COIsTPLAINT OP A LIBEL. 13 3


vas concerted without the smallest application to him, adverted
to the mischievous tendency of the words in question, and of
numerous paragraphs, which had appeared from.time to time upon
the managers of the impeachment ever since it was commenced.
He was sure the House would at last be compelled .to deal with
.a heavy hand with the authors, printers, and publishers of these
scandalous libels. With regard to the original proposition, he
could not accede to it ; for he shotild never agree to send into
the court of King's Bench the trial of the privileges of that House,
because that House was able, and ought always to be ready, to
vindicate its own privileges. .He said he should not vote at all
upon the subject, and came to the house chiefly for the purpose
of repeating his protest against committing the privileges of that
House to any tribunal under Heaven, except its own, which was
always to be enforced by attachment.


Mr. Fox said he felt himself in an unpleasant situation with
repect to the subject now before the House, not agreeing
exactly with any gentleman who had spoken upon it. If the
doubts expressed by the right honourable secretary could be
proved to be well founded, he should feel no difficulty in as-
senting to the motion of adjournment; but he thought these
doubts ought to be considered a good deal before the House
determined that they were well founded. With respect to the
short-hand notes which had been alluded to, he confessed he
doubted whether they could fitirly be deemed evidence upon
'which any person should be convicted!: and upon a former oc-
'casion he had urged a variety of objections to that proceeding,
but he was over-ruled by the House upon that subject. But
let the House consider how that matter stood. When a ques-
tion came before that House for the censure °fa right honour-
able manager [Mr. Burke, for what he said against Mr. Hast-
ings and Sir Elijah impey upon the trial and execution of
Nundcomarl the short-hand writer was called to the bar of
the House, and asked questions upon his notes of the speech •
of the right honourable manager in Westminster-hall in the
prosecution against Mr. Hastings; upon tile evidence of these
notes that right honourable gentleman was censured by that
House. Now, a question arose upon this: Were the notes of
a short-hand writer good for the purpose of proceeding to cen-
sure a manager of the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, and not
good for the purpose of protecting him from a gross insult?
But this was not all : there were other views in which this sub-
ject appeared to him, and they were more general than any he
had yet heard upon it, and upon which he should be sorry if
the House did not take this business up in a serious manner.
With respect to the conduct of the right honourable manager,
it was what he highly applauded : whether lie should have had
1.emper enough to conduct himself in the same way, was what


w. 3




/ 34
COMPLAINT OF A LIBEL.


[June 12.
he exceedingly doubted; but he commended the right


honour-able gentleman for his conduct upon that occasion.
Having said this, he must now observe, that he looked far-ther than this impeachment, and felt some apprehension, notonly for the character of that House, but also for the


opinionthe world might be led to entertain of the constitution itself, if
something like justice did not appear to be i mpartially admi-nistered in this country upon the subject of libels. This was
an eventful year: a great Many libels, some upon the


constitu-tion, some only supposed to be so, and some upon other points,
had been brought forward, and their authors, printers, and
publishers, had been sentenced with a severity, with a degree
of rigour, of inhumanity, that no danger that had


threatenedus could justify, no bad or false representation deserved, no
calamity to be averted even called for. Now, if it should go
abroad that there was, in fact, a principle which guided


thatHowe, such as had i *
his bearing often been to his


mindfoolishly and unconstitutionally asserted, that the House of
Commons were ready to resent an insult from below, as


theyimproperly termed it, by which they meant the people, and
that they were ready to overlook an insult


• from above, bywhich was meant the other branches of the legislature—
hesaid, such an impression was once felt, the result would be
aconviction, that the House of Commons, in all its


attachmentto its privileges, proceeded to exercise them only against the
people; and that with regard to the other branches of the
legislature, the House of Commons observed a servile com-
plaisance. He had often had occasion to make these


observa-tions upon several contests with the crown; and he could not
help thinking that they ought now to be renewed, and that
the people should have as little reason as possible to feel the




truth and force of them. Should the case be otherwise, he
should tremble for the fate of the constitution itself. He left
the House to judge whether these observations applied at all
at this time, when there was such a cry for


supporting theconstitution. The House would remember with what readi-
ness some of the people were prosecuted for libels, and


askthemselves, whether the words here spoken were not of that
nature, and whether the only difference was, that in this case the
insult came from a member of the House of Peers ? With
respect to the silence with which this matter had been treated
by the right honourable gentleman, he must say he


approvedof it; but, then, that silence was of no avail, for who
couldconceal from himself; that through the medium of
news-papers, it was become a matter of public notoriety, that the


managers had been grossly insulted on the trial of Mr.
Hast-ings by the Archbishop of York; and not the managers merely,


793.] COMPLAINT OF A LIBEL. I i5
nor the House of Commons, but also the people of England,
had been insulted. If the House were desirous to have it un-
.derstood that the managers were not to speak on the trial of
Mr. Hastings, but in such and such terms, and that if they
spoke freely, the House would not support them when they
were thus treated, he owned he thought they were hardly dealt
with. When the House chose him as one of the managers,
he was no stranger to them: they knew his way of thinking ;
they knew his manner of speaking: if' they expected that he
was not to speak with warmth and with as much energy as he
was able, that he was not to describe vice in the most odious
colours, and that with an express view of exciting all the re-
sentment and indignation of mankind against the guilty, they
would be disappointed while he continued to be a managen
He therefore had no idea of being compelled to conform to
the fastidious taste of an y peer, who might think this or that
expression ungentlemanly : he must judge for himself, and em-
ploy the words which appeared to him to suit the subject on
which he was speaking; and if the House disapproved of him,
they could remove or censure him.


The question now remaining was, whether the House should,
under all the circumstances before them, proceed to do
themselves justice ? If it could be proved, that that was at
this time impracticable, he should consent to let the business
end here; and upon that subject, he owned he did not feel
himself entirely convinced by any thing that had been said :
the inclination of his mind was, that they might very well pro-
ceed against the printer, and also against the right reverend
prelate; and as to the mode of proceeding in general, he con-
fessed that when the privileges of that House were invaded,
he thought that the House alone were competent to decide the
question : lie was sure they would never be safe, nor of per-
manent existence, if any other mode of procedure was adopted.
With respect to the printer of the paper in question, the
punishment of him was not his object in this business, nor
severity to the right reverend prelate, whose character in
many respects was highly honourable, whose age entitled
him to respect, and whose late domestic affliction made him
an object of condolence. It was not the feeling of a personal
resentment against the right reverend prelate that occasioned
these observations, it was a consideration which, in a member
of that House, ought to be paramount to all others—a re-
gard for the honour of that House, and for the well-beina
and continuance of the best principles of the constitution of
this country. Had the words been applicable to himself per-
sonally, he should have known how to forgive them long ago,
If asked to do so. But he .must have it understood, that if


IC 4




5 3 6 AIR. FOX'S MOTION FOR THE
[June i 7,„


any person spoke disrespectfully of the managers upon such a
trial, he spoke disrespectfully of the people of England, and
the House of Commons were obliged to stop such language,
and, if they thought fit, to censure the author of it. He be-
lieved that no judge in any of the inferior courts of this king-
dom would have suffered such words from one party to an-
other ; and the Lords ought to have censured the noble pre-
late after lie uttered the expressions. If the House saw any
difficulty in proceeding, they might suffer the matter to rest
as it stood : he had given his opinion—he had done his duty
--the subject he now left for the judgment of the House.


The House divided on the question, that the House do now
adjourn.


Tellers. Tellers.YEAS f Mr. ,Tenkinson 111, SheridanCaptain Berkeley}


NOES { Mr. Whitbread 8.So it was resolved in the affirinativf.


MR. Fox's MOTION Fort THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT or PEACY,
WITH FRANCE.


general situation of the country, if circumstances had not
clearly required of him that he should do so. Before the
prorogation of parliament it appeared to him absolutely
necessary, that some decisive step should be taken respecting
the discontinuance of a war, which had already been pro-
ductive of the most Serious calamities. If upon that day he
neglected to recapitulate and enforce those arguments which
he had formerly advanced; if upon that day he omitted to
urge the impolicy of the war; if upon


. that day he passed over
in silence the manifold evils with which the system of our
confederacy was pregnant; he hoped that those who now
heard him would not conceive that he had changed his


1793.1 RE-ESTABLISHMENT Or PEACE WITH FRANCE. 137


opinion upon the measures which brought about this unhappy
war. Such a conclusion would be unjust, and he trusted no
gentlemen would draw it. He trusted the House would feel
that if he waved all these topics, it was because he did not
consider them as necessary to the illustration of the arguments
he had to submit on the present occasion. He should, there-
fore, for the sake of argument, and for the sake of argument
only, grant that the present war was a just, prudent, and
necessary war, a war entered into for the -interest of this
country, and for the general safety of Europe. This was the
broadest way in which he could lay a foundation for argu-
ment; and upon principles so laid down, he should state why
he thought it necessary at the present time, and under the
present circumstances, for that House to interfere and to give
its opinion to the throne, in such an address as he should
have the honour of moving. If there were any who thought
that this might have a bad effect upon the public mind, all.
he could say was, that on his part it would not be intentional,
as he was of a different opinion.


He had always understood that the grounds of the present
war on the part


al ay
Great Britain were principally these: first,


the particular alliance we had with the Dutch, attacked as
they were by the French : secondly, not only this alliance,
which h point of good faith called upon us to act from a
regard to our own honour, but also on account of the interest
we ourselves had in the issue. - There was another ground
stated, and that might be divided into parts, as, indeed, on
-former occasions it had been ; he meant that which was stated
upon the general footing of the aggrandizement of France,
and the effect and operation of the spirit of their councils.
These were the grounds upon which we undertook the present
war. His object was now to, shew, that upon none of these


: grounds could the war be continued. He knew he might,
and perhaps he should be told; that we had been at con-
siderable expence in this war already, and that we had met
with considerable success in the prosecution of it hitherto;
therefore gentlemen inclined to insist upon these points, would
urge, that under such circumstances it was fair for us to say,
that we were entitled to indemnity for the expences we had
sustained, and security against future clanger, or that if we
had not these, the war should be followed up with vigour.
That principle, as fir as it regarded the situation of our allies,
he did by no means deny ; but the continuance of the present
war for indemnity to ourselves and indemnity only, after the
real object of the war was gained, could be maintained only
upon prudential considerations. Now, taking it as a matter
fel prudence, he should wish to ask, what :could.we promise


June 17.


I
'HE order of the day being read,


Mr. Fox rose to call the attention of the House to the
motion respecting the war with France, of which he had.
‹riven notice. He said he should not have troubled the
Mouse, nor presumed to have offered his sentiments upon
the subject he was about to introduce, which related to the


*is




1


I3S4
MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR nin EJune 17•


to ourselves from the.continnance of the present war ? 'What
was it that we proposed to gain ? These were all the grounds
he should have to submit to the House.


In the first place, therefore, he should apprehend from
these premises, that whatever sentiments of indignation the
people of this country might feel with regard to some of the
proceedings on the part of France, (pretty generally the in,
dignation was felt, and by none more than by himself;) yet
he believed it was not in the contemplation of the people of
this country, at the commencement of the war, to insist on
giving France its old absolute monarchy, or, indeed, to insist
on giving it any form of government whatever, or to interfere
with any form of government that might be found in that
country. He thought he was stating nothing more than
the general wish of the people of this country, and what they
felt at the commencement of the war, that the object of it
was not that of giving, or insisting on, any form of govern-
ment to France. He stated this point negatively, because
it would tend to make the positive part which he should
afterwards submit the more intelligible. We were not to
revenge the death of the Kin °.


of Fiance, at least we were
not to go to war for that purpose. Although he felt as much
as any person in this country upon that melancholy occasion,
and he believed, that in this country at least,. it was an event
unanimously lamented; yet it was not for this that we went
to war. How far the indignation of the people had been
roused upon that topic, it was unnecessary for him to re-
peat; it was sufficient in the present instance for his purpose
to say, it was not the ground of our going to war, either in-
sisted on by the most sanguine advocates for the measure,
or by the still higher authority of the communication from
the throne.


The object of the war avowedly was, to preserve Holland .
as our ally, and to prevent the aggrandizement of France,
which was said to be formidable on account of the sentiments
which appeared to actuate their councils. There was, indeed,
another ground, which was, that the French had declared
war against us. That being admitted to its full extent, would
go only to the establishment of one principle—that of mak-
ing the war a defensive war; by a defensive war he did not
mean to describe the mode of carrying it on, for it must be
carried on, as all mankind knew, by force of arms; but it
was on that account merely a defensive war in principle,
which ceased with the occasion that gave it birth. And if he
were asked, when was the time he would put an end to such
a war? He would answer, when we could make our enemies
desist from carrying on their operations .against us; subject


793.] RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE WITH FRANCE. i 39


to the consideration of an indemnity, if indemnity could be
obtained; always keeping in view, that indemnity was also
a point to be governed by considerations of prudence and
discretion. If, therefore, we had no ground for suspecting
that France had any farther means of acting hostilely against
us, or any of our allies, we could not justify to ourselves •the
continuance of the war solely upon the ground that France
had declared war against us. When we had put an end to
the aggression, then was the time to put an end to the war
so Commenced. With respect to Holland, our ally, he must
observe, that the question, whether Holland was now safe
from any attack from France, was easily answered; and he
believed that every man in that House, and every man of
intelligence throughout the country, knew the answer to be
in the affirmative. But whether in the present state of affairs
the future safety of our allies, the Dutch, was to be secured
by our pursuing the war in conjunction with the other com-
bined powers, was a question not easily answered in the same
way. How far, if this war was countenanced by us, the ge-
neral safety of Europe would be preserved, was a topic he
did not wish to decide upon, because it afforded, in his opi-
nion, a prospect that could not be agreeable to any man who
had the least regard for the principles of liberty — all lie
meant in this place was, that the Dutch, as well as ourselves,
were at this moment sufficiently fortified and guarded against
any attack from France. Was there a man this day in the
country who seriously thought that, with regard to Holland
and to us, peace could not be made with France with perfect
safety?


He came now to the consideration of the general state of
Europe at this moment. We attacked France, because our
allies were attacked by her, and because we saw in the cha-
racter and spirit of her councils, views of her own aggrandize-
ment. Was this spirit, and were these views peculiar to
France? Had we not witnessed the same spirit in other
powers of Europe? Had not all parties in that House, had
not all the people of this country, concurred in detesting the
conduct of the present combined powers with regard to Po-
land? Was not that scene sufficiently infamous? Did it not
exhibit sufficient tyranny, oppression and breach of faith?
Could we conceal from ourselves the conduct of Russia and
of Prussia upon that subject? Were we to partake of the
infamy of that transaction? God forbid we should ! Let us,
then, ask ourselves, with all the indignation we naturally
entertain against the conduct of France on many points,
whether the conduct of the court of Berlin and the court of
Petersburgh in their invasion of Poland, and afterwards the




4,
I 40 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR THE


June 17.


partition of it, was not equal in infamy to any thing that
France was ever guilty of? 'Upon this part of the subject he
had a few observations to make to some members of that
House, upon the alarm they expressed at the commencement
of this session, at the progress of the French. What, he
asked, did these gentlemen now feel when reflecting on the
conduct and progress of the Empress of Russia and the King
of Prussia? Was this matter of alarm to any of these gen-
tleman ? Alas ! No. It seemed that nothing was now to be
alarming but French principles., Such were the horrid effects
of fear on account of these principles, and so far had it
affected the Empress of Russia and the King


of Prussia, that
they had laid hold of Poland in the panic. He begged par-


. don of the House for introducing any thing ludicrous upon
so grave a subject; but a story which be remembered, ap-
peared to him so apposite, that he could not resist the temp-
tation of reciting it: A person detected in the act of taking
a watch out of the pocket of another, being accused of it,
confessed the fact, but said in his defence, that he had been
'struck with a panic, and in his fright he laad laid hold of
the first thing he could, which happened to be the gentleman's
watch which he conveyed into his pocket. If, in the present
case, Poland was the first thing these great powers, Russia
and Prussia, could lay hold of, such was the effect of these
royal alarms, such the conduct of these panic-struck sove-
reigns, that in the spasms of their fear, they could not quit
their hold, and having each an equal right to retain what
they had within their gripe, most equitably agreed to divide
the kingdom between them ! Did gentlemen think themselves
happy in seeing this mode adopted to resist French principles?
Was this conduct less dangerous to Europe than that of the


• French ? He knew many reasons why it was more dangerous.
One was, that such a combination of despots was carried on
with more secrecy, than in the wild state of a democracy was
possible at any time. And here he wished to know what
answer gentlemen would give him, if he asked, whether
they thought, that, even if the French had been able to
retain all they took, Flanders and Brabant, it would have
been more dangerous


-


to the general prosperity of Europe
than this division of Poland ? Or that now they were restored,
and supposing them to be under the condition they stood in
by the order of the Emperor Joseph, whether there was a
man in that House of opinion, that our safety required the
continuance of this destructive war ?


As to Savoy, he should say nothing by way of comment upon
the conduct of Great Britain : he believed that business had
been commenced on the part of the French, without any tiling


1793.7 RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE WITH FRANCE. r41


intended to be done by us, and certainly without any promise
of assistance from us to the party attacked; and therefore
we were not involved in any point of honour on that account.
He had indeed been told, but he had no means of arriving
at real knowledge upon the subject, that application had
been made to us at that time, and that our answer on that oc-
casion amounted to a flat negative. In short, he wished to
ask gentlemen who heard him, whether, from all the circum-
stances put together, relative to this war at this moment,
peace might not now be obtained from France, even with the
restitution of the King of Sardinia's dominions ? But he
should think it hard if this country was bound to insist upon
such terms. It might be asked of him, whether, after we had
spent millions in the prosecution of the present war, and con-
sidering the situation we are in at the present moment, and.
likewise that the convulsion and distraction of the French
make it improbable they would be able to proceed without
destruction, we should make peace ? He would answer —
Yes. He did not think but that some indemnity might even
now be obtained from our arms in the West Indies ; but he
called for peace as a matter of prudence on our part, under
all the circumstances by which we were surrounded. And
here he came to the melancholy part of the argument; for
although no views of commerce could justify the continuance
of wiz war, after the aggression that provoked it was at an end,
yet views of commerce might induce us to conclude a peace as
soon as we had obtained the object for which the war began,
in all cases where our honour was not at stake, even although
the terms were not such as we might originally have ex-
pected.


And now he must, however reluctantly, come to the present
situation of this country. The desperate state of the disease
might be judged of from the nature of the remedy which they
had lately been called on to apply ; and here he would desire
them to ask every man, whether peace at this time was not in-
dispensably necessary for the safety of this country in a com-
mercial point of view ? Let them ask every man in the king-
dom, who had any commercial dealings, whether the accounts
he received from all parts of the kingdom, did not call for a
conclusion to this war? Let them ask every man possessed.
of the smallest information upon the subject, whether he ever
heard of a war more destructive to the commerce of the coun-
try than the present? Let them see whether almost every
manufacturing town in the kingdom did not give melancholy
proof of the truth of these reflections. Whether ether the town
of Manchester, and others in its neighbourhood ; whether
Wiltshire, and all the West, did not prove the same thing?.




T 4 2
MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR THE


[June 17.
Some, indeed, had imagined that the city of Norwich had
escaped from the mischief. But he was perfectly sure that if
his honourable friend (Mr. Windham) who was immediately
connected with that city, should take an opportunity ofspeak-
ing upon this subject, he would acknowledge the truth of
these assertions, although he had reason to fear he would
dilfir in the conclusion he would draw. Let them, how-
ever, look at the real state of affairs : let them acknowledge,
that a continuance of war might bring the greatest calamities
upon us. Let them not ask themselves, what indemnity they
ought to have of France ; but what France had it in her
power to bestow ? What Europe had to bestow upon Great
Britain that would recompence her for the shock that might'
be given to her commerce by continuing the present war ?


He knew there were many who maintained, that the pre-
sent war was not the cause of the present commercial ember-
rassments of this country; be did not agree with those opinions.
But supposing them to be right, he would then say, that what-
ever was the cause of our distresses in that respect, we could


,not look with any rational hope of amending
u' condition


without the advantages of peace; and he was ready to express
his perfect conviction, that peace must be had for our re-
covery. Taking this for granted, as he must, he would
ask, what it was that all Europe could give us by way of in-;
demnity for our proceeding farther in this war. What was
it that we were


. now fighting for? For our religion ? It was
not attacked. For our constitution ? It was perfectly secure.
1Vhat if France was distracted, was that circumstance of be-
nefit to us ? What if we made law to-morrow for France?
What if we exacted indemnity ? What had she to give?
What had Europe to give to Great Britain for the prose-
cution of the war ? He said, he saw no room for supposing
that the House would not do him the justice to believe that
he did not speak from any party warmth upon this subject.
He thought, notwithstandingshe had generally the misfortune
to differ from the majority of the present House, that they
would see upon this occasion the necessity of concurring with
him in expressing an earnest disposition for the termin-
ation of the war; because all agreed in opinion, that when-


. ever the object of the war could be obtained the hour of
peace would arrive. What stood now in the way of peace ?
We had no alliance with Austria upon this occasion, nor any
in that respect with the King of Prussia. With regard to
Holland, any proposition for peace must be acceptable to the
Dutch. But an alliance with the Empress of Russia had that
day been laid upon the table; in that alliance there was an ar-
ticle he was sorry to see, by which we engaged not to lay down


YL


1793.] RE,tsTARnisnmEzar OF PEACE WITH FRANCE. 143


arms but by mutual consent; and by which we might be called
upon to adopt the principles of the court of Petersburgh, in
the prosecution of the war : principles in themselves at all
times very dangerous, but alarmingly so at this time, because
we might be compelled to pursue the war until the objections
of the empress were all removed. With respect to the treaty
with the King of Sardinia, that was more direct and positive;
but he should say no more upon these topics at this time, be-
cause that House had not yet adopted them. Another point
remained.


Mr. Fox said, he knew the difficulty which had been often
started with respect to peace. Upon this a question had been
asked, whether we were to treat with France in its present
state? To which he answered—Yes. With him, or them,
be he or they whom they might, we ought, and ultimately
must treat, who had the government in their hands: of
this he was sure. If the contrary was true : if we treated with
them only on a plan of our own, as to a form of government,
we must be at war with them until we had beaten them ; and we
should in that case fight with them until they should obtain a
legally established government. Good God ! what was there
in their proceedings that made us look for an established
government among them? What reason had we to expect
that event to take place? 'When and how were we to enforce
it? Let them sutler the penalties of their own injustice—let
them suffer the miseries arising from their own confusion —
why were the people of England to suffer because the people of
France were unjust ? Why was every man in England to be
a suflerer, because the people of France were in confusion,
and that, too, when France had no power to annoy us, and
when we could conclude peace with safety to ourselves and to
our allies? If we were determined to say, we would not make
peace with the French until they had a form of government of
which we should approve, that would amount to saying, that
we would dictate to them a form of government; and if that
had been avowed at the beginning, he was confident the House
would never have entered into the war at all; and although
it was his majesty's undoubted prerogative to commence it of
his own will, yet the House would have refused to pledge itself
for supplies to carry it on. If he was asked, with whom we
could have signed a treaty of peace some time ago? He
would answer, with M. Le Brun. All those who had support-
ed this war had agreed that peace, if it could be obtained,
was a desirable object ; and all that had been said or done by
the national convention, every tiling that had been said or
done-in the city of Paris, demonstrated this, that it had ever
been the opinion of that people, that a peace with this country




it.
144- ItIli. FOX


5
3 MOTION POP; THE


[June 17;
was the most desirable of all objects for them to obtain. He
owned, for his part, the necessity of this country being at
peace with the French, and he was convinced, that all the
people of England would see it in the same light very soon,
unless they were ready to say they would pay for the follies of
the French. It was a new thing to hear, that to be at peace
with a people, we must. be pleased first with the form of their
government. He knew it was not wise _to treat in general
with those whose power was unsettled. This applied to
treaties of alliance ; but when peace was the object, this doc-
trine was not to be admitted, as, otherwise, we might be at
war for ever.


He felt a considerable deference to others in speaking on
parts of this subject now. From what he had seen some time
ago, he knew there was a cry in that House for entering into
this war; but he thought, that if ever there was a period when
one man spoke the opinion of every man in this country upon
any subject, it was now, when he said that peace was an ob-


• 'IVject the most desirable of all others. He must say, that every
measure should now be taken to put an endto this ruinous
war. An immediate termination of it was almost the univer-
sal


desire of the people of this country. Whether it was the
opinion of that House or not„ he could not tell ; but he be-
lieved, that his opinion upon this occasion was, almost without '
exception, the opinion of the public. He did not advance
this upon slight ground ; he had very good authority for what
he said, and he hoped it would be listened to with the attention
which he was sure it deserved.




.


A report had gone abroad ; how true it was, he did not pre-
sume to determine, because he had no means of accurate in-
formation ; but certainly a report prevailed, and he knew
there were many who thought, that some of the most efficient
ministers of the crown, sensible of the distresses of the country,
and the absurdity of continuing the war, were at the present
moment friends to peace; and since he had considered of making
the motion with which lie should conclude his address to the
House, some persons had told him, that Ile was supported in
his opinion upon this war by some persons high in his majesty's council. Be that as it might, he did not say he wished
Ibr the sanction of this or of that man ; he hoped that who-
ever favoured that opinion would be emboldened to persist,.
and then lie trusted the crown would be advised in the cabinet
to put an end to this war. If it should be so, it would give
him the most heartfelt satisfaction. He knew that the opi-
nions of many in. that House might be an argument for
changing the opinions of some of the members of the cabinet.
lie therefore thought it possible that by diligence, his object


17•93.] RE-ESTAIMISHMENT OF PEACE WITH PRANCE. 14$


might be gained. He confessed that lie so earnestly desired
peace, and saw the policy of it so strongly, that if there was
any one of the council of the king who wished for it, what-
ever situation that person held, and if he said he thought the
continuance of this war dangerous, and wished to put an end
to it, such person for such a purpose should have his support;
and lie was in hopes that the motion he should make that
night would strengthen that opinion. He was the more in-
clined to think that such would be the effect of it, from the
experience of the past. They all remembered the American
war — a war during a long period before the termination of
which, there was great reason to believe, that not only the.
House of Commons and the people of this country, but also
many of the efficient ministers of the crown, wished to put an
end to it. -Whether that was the case, as to the latter part,
in the present instance, he could not tell; but this he would
say, that whenever any minister should stand forth, and, re-
gardless of the impression he should make upon the party on
whose favour he might principally depend, avow his senti-
ments upon this subject—let it be the right honourable gen-
tleman opposite to him, (Mr. Pitt,) — he would gladly join with
him upon that subject, and afford him all the aid in his power.
The American war afforded an awful example to the people
of this country, and he hoped we were not doomed to en-
dure another such calamity. He must once more call upon
the members of that House to exercise their own judgment,
to look at the small possible advantage to be gained, and the
almost inevitable ruin of pursuing this war, and then to act
with courage, and put an end to this dangerous and de-
structive measure. He hoped and trusted they would so
act; and if they did, he was confident he should give con-
solation to them by the measure he was now going to sug-
gest. Mr. Fox then moved,


" That an humble address be presented toiiis majesty-9-6 lay
before his majesty the humble representations of his faithful Com-:
mons on the present awful and momentous crisis ; a duty which
they feel themselves the more especially called upon to perform
at this juncture, as a long and eventful period may probably
elapse before his majesty can again have an opportunity of col-
lecting, through their representations, the real sentiments and
wishes of his people :


" In the name of the people of Great Britain, his majesty's
faithful Commons are bound to declare, that they concurred in the
measures necessary to carry on the present war, for the objects of
defence and security, and for those objects only:


'y' OTL.Iia.


V.


any plan of aggrandizement, founded on the present
distressed situation of France, much less any purpose of establish-




4


146iuR. Fox's MOTION FOR THE
[June 17,


ing among the French people any particular form of government,
never would have had their concurrence or support:


" In expressing these their sentiments and opinions, on entering
into the present war, his majesty's faithful Commons are sensible
that they are only repeating those benevolent declarations which
true policy, and a . careful attention to the real interests of the
British nation, induced his majesty to use in his most gracious
speech from the throne at the beginning of the present session of
parliament, and in repeated messages to this House :


" To represent to his majesty, that though his faithful Commons
have the most perfect reliance on his majesty's sacred word and
promise, solemnly pledged to this country and to Europe, not to
interfere in the internal affairs of France, or to enter into the views
And projects of other powers who, in the present war, may be
actuated by motives far different from those which govern the
conduct of his majesty, yet they feel it to be their indispensable
duty to call his majesty's most serious attention to some of the
circumstances which have occurred since the commencement of
the present unfortunate contest :


" The French arms, which after a successful invasion of Brabant.
had threatened the security of his majesty's allies, the States Ge-
neral, have since been confined within their awn territory, and
are now occupied in defence of their frontier towns against the
united forces of his majesty and his allies : the danger appre-
hended from the former conquests and aggrandizement of the
French nation appears therefore to be no longer a subject of just
uneasiness and alarm :


" Some of the powers engaged in the confederacy against
France have, on the other hand, openly avowed, and successfully
executed, plans of domination and conquest, not less formidable
to the general liberties of Europe. The rapacious and faithless
dismemberment of the unhappy kingdom of Poland, without
having produced, as f ir as it appears to this House, any remon-
strance from his majesty's ministers, has excited in his majesty's
faithful Commons the highest indignation at so daring an outrage
on the rights of independent nations, and the keenest solicitude to
rescue the honour of the British government from the suspicion
of having concurred or acquiesced in measures so odious in their
principle, and so dangerous in their example, to the peace and
happiness of mankind :


" The severe calamities which, since the commencement of the
present war, this nation has already experienced, the shock given
to commercial credit, and the alarming consequences which the
failure of the mercantile and manufacturing interests threatens to
the. public revenue, and to the general prosperity of the country,
cannot have failed to attract his majesty's attention, and to excite
in his benevolent mind a sincere desire to relieve his subjects from
distresses, a termination of which they cannot hope for but in the
speedy re-establishment of peace :


" His majesty's.
faithful Commons make it, therefore, their most


earnest and solemn request, that his majesty, taking into his con-
sideration all the above circumstances, will not fail to employ the


1793.] RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE WITH FRANCE.


earliest measures for procuring peace on such terms as are con-
sistent with the professed objects of the war, and with that good
faith, strict justice, and liberal and enlightened policy, which have
hitherto so peculiarly distinguished the British nation."


The motion was supported by Mr. Hussey, Mr. Jekyll, Mr.
William Smith, and others ; and opposed at considerable length
by Mr. Windham, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Pitt. After which,


Mr. Fox again rose. He confessed himself unable to resist
the opportunity of troubling the House for a short time, even
at that hour of the night, for the purpose of replying to some
of the principal arguments that had been urged against his
motion. If any argument against attempting to make peace
was to be drawn from a supposed kind of tacit crengaement of
gratitude to the emperor for 'his assistance in saving Holland,
there could be no end of the war. He should state to the
people of England, and especially that part who could not
judge for themselves, and were consequently most liableto be deceived, the truth on that subject. Was it meant, in
plain words, that we were not to make peace till all the objects
which the emperor might propose, should be fulfilled ? If
that was the fact, he wished in God's name to know, if we
could be informed what those objects were Were they just?
Were they honourable? Were they to the advantage of this
Country? No ! they were secret; and we were to spend our
treasure and our blood to support that prince, to rob the
Elector of Bavaria of his territories. The emperor had
made no renunciation of all his objects; and since this court
was to be drawn in to co-operate with whatever might be his
views against France, it was a mockery in the king's ministers
to disclaim intentions which they meant to carry into effect
indirectly and circuitously, if not openly, in favour of the
emperor. With regard to the manufacturers of this country,
he did not deny that they might be incompetent judges on the
present question ; but though they were not competent judges
as to the propriety of continuing the war, they must abso-
lutely pay for its continuance. Then let us give them reasons
for the measure; let us not delude them. But could that be
done? No ! for so far from being able to tell thorn what
those objects were, the House had not inquired into them
themselves. A right honourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) had
declared, that the language which he had used that day
ought not to be held unless it was to be followed by the draw-
ing of the sword. After the language which that right ho-
nourable gentleman had himself applied to France,' at a time
when we were boasting of our neutrality, he confessed he did
not expect such a reproach from that quarter. That right


L 2


1 47




[June r 7.
148
MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR THE


honourable gentleman had spoken of M. Brissot in a manner
not very creditable to himself. He had judged of him from
the writings of his enemies; which was as unfair A test of his
character, as it would be if any one were to judge of that
right honourable gentleman's character from what had been
written against him by Mr. Hastings's friends.


As to the character of the persons now holding the govern-
ment of France, if that were to be urged as a reason for con-
timing the war while they should continue in power, was
this more or less than proclaiming, that, so long as those men
remained in power, we would continue the war to punish
ourselves, and not them, for their crimes and enormities ?
This declaration, however, was ranch fairer than the argu-
ment of the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer ;
for he bad asserted, that if we could obtain reparation and


objecsecurity, the form of government in France would be notion to our making peace, and, in his opinion, he had
spoken well. But he had afterwards dwelt on the difficulty of
expecting so favourable a circumstance. For his own part,
he thought it much better to say, like the first honourable gen-
tleman, that we must always wage war against such a power,
than like the right honourable gentleman alluded to, who said,
that the existence of the power in France would be no objia-
tion to peace, if peace could be properly attained, but after-
wards insinuated the impossibility of its attainment. If he
understood the right honourable gentleman aright, there were
three species of security on which we might


rely. The first
was a change of power in France. Was that our object?
If so, we were at war with France for the purpose of giving
her a constitution. The second species of security was to
arise from the persons in France still entertaining the same
principles, but convinced by the chastisement they might suffer
of the inefficacy of attempting to carry them into execution :
but if our arms should prove victorious, as a supposition of
that security implied, would a people who had thus severely
suffered be thus easily convinced ? The third consisted in a
relinquishmen t


of a part of their dominions ; and if such
were the object, had we not already obtained that species of
security? If it were said that we must possess Normandy and
Brittany, let ministers say so; and, extravagant as the declar-
ation might appear, it would be intelligible. It had been
asked by the right honourable gentleman, were we to stop,
because they had stopped, when France, by stopping, had
only ceased to do us an injury ? and ought we not to chastise
them for that injury ? Yes. We ought to do both. We
had chastised them, and therefore we ought to stop, because
they had stopped. We had gained that species of indemnity


17931 RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE WITIl FRANCE. 149


which the right honourable gentleman wished, by the capture
of some of her West-India islands. Did that right honour-
able gentleman desire to prosecute the war farther, merely
that he might be the tool to serve the unjust purposes of some
German prince? In the course of his whole argument he
had talked as if this country was suing for peace. This
was weak. Was it suing for peace, when the proposition
had first come from the enemy? 'With our miraculous
successes and armies, the right honourable gentleman con-
sidered a proposition of that kind as having the appearance
of suing for peace ; but, under such circumstances, would it
not appear more like making an offer to grant it? It would
not be mean, but manly ; not base, but magnanimous.


An honourable friend TM-. Windham.) had asserted, that
asking for the object of a war previous to its commencement
was a new principle. He begged leave to give that position
(and he was sure his honourable friend understood him to
he speaking logically, not personally,) the flattest contradic-
tion. Whenever war was commenced, it had been usual to
state some object on which that war was to depend. Was
a dislike to the doctrine of the rights of men to be pushed so
far, that the people were to be denied the right of knowing
why they were to suffer the expellees and distresses of war?
One right honourable gentleman had said, that to make
peace with France would be to make war with our allies:
but, would not the example of overtures for peace from Great
Britain be rather likely to produce a general peace on the
continent ? The right honourable the chancellor of the ex-
chequer had said, that our distresses were but temporary :
he hoped so too. He believed he had likewise said, that they
were only imaginary : he (Mr. Fox) did not wish to give his
word where it might not be taken; but if he were inclined to
pledge his veracity to any fact, it would be to the direct con-
trary. That right honourable gentleman had called his speech
at the commencement of the war a desponding one. He,
however, did not think it was, under the existing circum-
stances. As to the principles of the French revolution, his
opinion remained exactly what he had before stated, though
he saw and detested their present scandalous perversion. The
extreme, however, of their principles in favour of democracy
was not worse than the species of principles which he had
heard urged in favour of royalty. He thought, however, that
of all the arguments that had been urged against royalty, none
was more erroneous than that most popular one which rested
on its expence. The expellee of royalty itself was paltry,
and not worth the attention of a great nation ; but if the
public were to be involved in the expellees of a war for the


I. 3




x 5 o
AnnxtEss ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Jan.


2 I,
purpose of establishing royalty in another nation, it was
enough to render them disgusted with royalty, and would give
ject.the utmost force to the revolutionary arguments on that sub-If there were persons among us who wished for the
establishment of revolutionary principles in this country, he
believed their numbers to be very few; to no description of
men could his proposition be so odious as to men


composinga party of that kind. It was a proposition abhorrent to their
principles, and would inevitably crush them. It was only
by war that such people and such principles could thrive.On the question of an i


nterference in the internal concerns
of Prance, he should freely declare his opinion. He thought:
that such an interference ought not to be the object of this
country; but that if it were necessary as a means of obtaining
our object, it ought not to be disclaimed. As to what he had
said concerning a difference in the cabinet, he had spoken
from the information of the right honourable gentleman'sfriends, in the n


ewspapers, on the subject; and they had
adopted a new mode of serving him by circulating such


fidsereports. On the cabinet he, for his part, could expect to
have no influence; but if what he could say on the part of
the public ever had any influence, he hoped it would


at,this
moment. He had now done his duty. He had attemppd
to check the torrent of that calamity which the present war
had too fatally produced, and should persist in, and take the
sense of the House upon his motion.


The House divided :
Tellers.


T.
. GI-111.017y 1 47.


ROES
So it passed in the negative.


YEAS Tellers.SMr. Windham /
t Mr. Jenkinson • .1 1°7'


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF
THE SESSION.


janUaly 2I. I 794.
ji-'HE session was this day opened by his majesty, with the,following speech :


" My lords and gentlemen; the circumstances under whichyour arc now a
ssembled, require your most serious attention. —


We are engaged in a contest, on the issue of which depend the'm
aintenance of our constitution, laws, and religion ; and the se-


1794.] ADDRESS ON THE RINGS SPEECH.


151


curity of all civil society. — You must have observed, with satis-
faction, the advantages which.have been obtained by the arms of
the allied powers, _and the change which has taken place in the
general situation of Europe since the commencement of the war.
The United Provinces have been protected from invasion ; theAustrian Netherlands have been recovered and maintained ; and
places of considerable importance have been acquired on the
frontier of France. The re-capture of Mentz, and the subsequent
successes of the allied armies on the Rhine, have, notwithstanding
the advantages recently obtained by the enemy in that quarter,
proved highly beneficial to the common cause. Powerful efforts
have been made by my allies in the South of Europe ; the tem-
porary possession of the town and port of Toulon has greatly
distressed the operations of my enemies ; and, in the circumstances
attending the evacuation of that place, an important and decisive
blow has been given to their naval power, by the distinguished
conduct, abilities, and spirit of my commanders, officers, and forces,
both by sea and land. — The French have been driven from their
possessions and fishery at Newfoundland ; and important and
valuable acquisitions have been made both in the East and West
Indies.— At sea our superiority has been undisputed, and our
commerce so effectually protected, that the losses sustained have
been inconsiderable, in proportion to its extent, and to the cap-
tures made on the contracted trade of the enemy.—The circum-
stances by which the farther progress of the allies has hitherto
been impeded, not only prove the necessity of vigour and per-
severance on our part, but, at the same time, confirm the expect-
ation of ultimate success.— Our enemies have derived the means
of temporary exertion, from a system which has enabled them to
dispose arbitrarily of the lives and property of a numerous people,
and which openly violates every restraint of justice, humanity,
and religion ; but these efforts, productive as they necessarily have
been of internal discontent and confusion in France, have also'
tended rapidly to exhaust the natural and real strength of that
country.


" Although I cannot but regret the necessary continuance of
the -war, I should ill consult the essential interests of my people,
if I were desirous of peace on any grounds but such as may pro-
vide for their permanent safety, and for the independence and
security of Europe. The attainment of these ends is still ob-
structed by the prevalence of a system in France, equally incom-
patible with the happiness of that country, and with the tranquillity
of all other nations. — Under this impression, I thought proper
to make a declaration of the views and principles by which I am
guided. I have ordered a copy of this declaration to be. laid
before you, together with copies of several conventions and.treaties
with different powers, by which you will perceive how large a part
of Europe is united in a cause of such general concern. — I reflect
with unspeakable satisfaction on the steady loyalty and firm at-
tachment to' the established constitution and government, which,
notwithstanding the continued efforts employed .to mislead and
to seduce, have been so generally prevalent among all ranks ofL 4




152
AnnitEss ON THE RING'S SPEECH.


[Jan. •
my people. These sentiments have been eminently manifestedthe zeal and alacrity of the militia to provide for our interndefence, and in tine distinguished bravery and spirit displayedevery o


ccasion by my forces both by sea and land; they ha
maintained the lustre of the British name, and have shown they
selves worthy of the blessings which it is the object of all o
exertions to preserve.


" Gentlemen of the House of Commons ; I have ordered ti
necessary estimates and accounts to be laid before you, and


' am persuaded you will be ready to make such provision as tin
exigencies of the time may require. I feel too sensibly the repeated proofs which I have received of the affection of my subjects, not to lament the necessity of any additional burdens.


Iis, however, a great consolation to me to observe the favourabl(
state of the revenue, and the complete success of the measure
which was last year adopted for removing the embarrassment
affecting commercial credit. — Great as must be the extent of our
exertions, I trust you will be enabled to provide for them in such
by my people.a manner as to avoid any pressure which could be severely felt


" My lords and gentlemen ; in all your deliberations, you willundoubtedly bear in mind the true grounds and origin of the war.
An attack was made on us, and on cur allies, founded on prin-


ciples which tend to destroy all property, to subvert the
laws andreligion of every civilized nation, and to introduce


universally 01,4wild and destructive system of rapine, anarchy, and impiety, the
effects of which, as they have already been manifested in France,
furnish a dreadfid but useful lesson to the present


age and to
l


posterity. — It only remains for us to persevere in our unitedexertions ; their dis
continuance or relaxation could hardly pro-


cure even a short interval of delusive
repose, and could neverterminate in security or peace. Impressed with the necessity of.


defending all that is most dear to us, and relying, as we may, with
confidence, on the valour and resources of the nation, on the
combined efforts of so large a part of Europe, and, above all, onthe in


contestible justice of our cause, let us render our conduct
a contrast to that of our enemies, and, by cultivating and practis-
ing the principles of humanity, and the duties of religion, en.deavour to merit the c


ontinuance of the Divine favour and protee-
tlon which have been so eminently experienced by these


kingdoms.'An address of
.


thanks, in approbation of the' speech from tine
throne, having been moved by Lord Cliffden, and seconded by
Sir Peter Burrell, a debate of great length ensued. After tho
proposed address had been supported by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Haw,.Inns Browne, tine Earl of Mornington, Mr. Windham, and Mr.
Secretary Dundas ; and opposed by the Earl of Wycombe, ColonelTarleton, Sir William Milner, Mr. Courtenay, and Mr. Sheridan,


Mr. Fox rose and spoke as follows: Notwithstanding, Sir,the lateness of the hour, I feel it incumbent upon me to
tres-pass upon the attention of the House, by delivering In semi-.'


1794'] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH, I 5


me/Its at some length upon a question in itself of the highest
importance, and which, by the advocates for the prosecution.
'of• the war, has, in my opinion, been treated in the most
confused and complicated manner. In the course of what
I have to offer, I shall endeavour, if possible, to dissipate the
mist, in which the subject has been studiously involved, and
to call the attention of the House to what is the real state
of the question. I shall once more endeavour to obtain an
explicit declaration of the object for which we are engaged in '
war, that the people of this country may no longer be the.
dupes of artifice, and be made to believe that they are ex-
pending their money and their blood for one purpose, while
in fact they are called upon to do so for another.


I hope that the noble earl (,iornington) will not deem
me guilty of any incivility, if I say, that on this point, the
last few sentences of his speech, long and eloquent as it was,
were much more to the purpose, and afforded more valuable
information, than all the rest: The noble lord has declared,
in explicit terms, " That while the present, or any other
jacobin government exists in France, no propositions for
peace can be made or received by us." Such are his remark-
able words, from which we are now, for the first time, to
learn, that while the present government exists in France
peace is impossible. Had these words been uttered last year,
they would have rescued the nation from the degrading situa-
tion of having been drawn into the contest, step by step, of
having been seduced by the arts of invective and delusion,
and of having placed their confidence in men who did not
blush to disguise the real motives of their conduct, and to
disclose only such false pretexts as might tend to deceive and
to mislead. We are thus at once to be betrayed and insulted,
and after having been drawn into the war by artifice, to be
told that we must persist in it from necessity. After having
been made the dupes of false pretences, we are to be told
that we are pledged to what those who have deceived us
clime to lay down as principles, that we have now gone too
far to recede, and that we must continue to carry on war
because it is impossible to make peace.


Such, Sir, is the situation in which we are placed. But
let us look to the conduct and declarations of ministers last
year. The right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer,
in the course of last session, although he deprecated the con-
tinuance of a jacobin government, nevertheless declared, that
he would not consider that as a bar to a negociation, pro-
vided the objects then held out, namely, the safety of Hol-
land, and the exclusive navigation of the Scheldt, could be
.secured. The right 4ouourable gentleman went farther, he


"2 I


la]
on


ve


n-


ut


le




154
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.


[Jan. 2 I .
illustrated his doctrine by his practice; for he actually opened
a negociation with persons deriving their powers from the
then jacobin government of France.. What, then, became
of the argument, that there could be no safety fbr neighbour-
ing states, no security for the observance of any treaty, while
such government was permitted to exist ? Ministers had
treated both with General Dumourier and with M. Chau-
velin, and if, in consequence of such negociations, peace had
then been preserved, what must now have become of that
reasoning which is so studiously brought forward to show
that peace is impossible, and which must have applied with
equal force at that dine as at the present moment. But I
shall, perhaps, he told that the appearance of negociation
was merely fallacious, that its object was not to preserve peace,
but the more easily to delude the people of England into a
war. I shall, perhaps, be told, that the preservation of peace
was neither expected nor intended by ministers as the result
of their negociations; and indeed in order to be convinced
of this it is only necessary to look to the manner in which
these negociations were conducted. The means which they
employed will best prove how far they were sincere with re-
spect to the end which they professed to have in view. Did
not the insulting and-haughty correspondence of Lord Gret17.
ville with M. Obauvelin prove to the world that the British
government had no wish to preserve peace ? Did it not prove
that they had begun a negociation which they had no intention
to complete, that they were only seeking for pretences to re-
concile the minds of the people to a war in which they had
previously determined to embark ? It now- appears, that while
they were so anxious to put the war upon the footing of pro-
tecting au ally, their object in reality was the subversion of
the ruling power in France. Such were the arts by which
they deluded this country into a ruinous war; such the false
pretences which they set up in order to draw money from the
pockets of the people for purposes in which they might other-
wise not have been disposed to concur ; and such the means
which they employed to bring about a war, which they affirmed
to be strictly defensive in its object !


Again, Sir, I will ask the question, though I own I shud-
der to hear the melancholy information; but if it be so, if the
fatal die be cast, let not the country be left ignorant of its
real situation; let it be unequivocally told, that we are en-
gaged in a war, which can have no termination till we have
exterminated French jacobinism, or, in other words, till we
have conquered Prance. Is it at last decided, that we are to
stake the-wealth, the commerce, and the' constitution of Great
Britain, on the probability of compelling the French to re-




1794.3 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
1 55


pounce certain opinions, for which we have already seen that
they are resolved to contend to the-last extremity? If such
is the case, dreadful is our situation; but let us at least be ap-
prised of our danger. And such, indeed, must be the case,
if the majority of this House have come over to that system
of extermination which last year was supported only by a
few individuals, actuated by that sanguinary spirit which is
the consequence of excessive alarm, and which at that time
ministers, from motives of policy, thought proper solemnly
to disavow.


I admire, Sir, the eloquence of the noble lord's peroration,
but I must own that I heard it with much less satisfaction, as
I could perceive it not to be altogether new, and that the
manlier of it had been exactly borrowed from certain speeches
and reports that have been made in the French convention.
And I cannot help remarking, that, from a sort of fatality,
those who profess the most violent detestation for the princi-
ples and modes of expression adopted by the French, are
continually copying them in their sentiments and language.
The noble lord asked, what dependence could be had upon
the religion of a Robespierre, the justice of a Cambon, or
the moderation of a Danton? The answer of the French con-
vention to his majesty's declaration appealed in terms not de-
cent to be mentioned in that House, to the wisdom of one
monarch, the good faith of another, and the chastity of a third.
My honourable friend, (Mr. Windham,) in attempting to prove
that the origin of the war was not imputable • to this country,
treated the established principles of the law of nations with as
little respect as M. Genet, the French minister to the United
States of America. My honourable friend said, that no de-
pendence could be placed upon the authority of Vatel, with
respect to the . question of an interference in the internal
affairs of other nations, and that arguments might be drawn
from his work favourable to either side. • He contended, that
there ,might exist circumstances of such a peculiar nature, as
to supersede authority, and preclude the application of esta-
blished principles. Exactly in the same manner reasoned
M. Genet; " I would throw Vateland Grotius into the sea,"
said that minister, " whenever their principles interfere with
my notions of the rights of nations." Just so, my honourable
friend seems disposed to treat them whenever they controvert
his ideas of those principles which ought to regulate our con-
duct in the present moment. Thus both, in order to suit
their own convenience in departing from the established stan-
dard, give their sanction to a new code. I, however, more in-
clined as I am to adhere to the ancient standard, and to follow
established rules a judging, hold the opinions of eminent




156 ADDRESS ON THE iciNG's SPEECH.
[Jan. 21,


men, dispassionately given on subjects which they have accu-
rately studied, to be of considerable importance. I consider
those opinions formed under circumstance's the most favour-
able to the discovery of truth, to be the result of unbiassed
inquiry and minute investigation, and therefore entitled to
great weight. in regulating the conduct of nations. Those
writers, in laying down their maxims, were not distracted by t!-
local prejudices or by partial interests; they reasoned upon
great principles, and from a wide survey of the state of na-
tions, and comparing the result of their own reflections with
the lessons taught them by the experience of former ages,
constructed that system, which they conceived to be of most
extensive utility and universal application. From the system
of such men I should be cautious to deviate. Vatel, than
whom I know of no man more eminent in the science on which
he has written, has laid it down as a principle, that every in-
dependent nation has an undoubted right to regulate its form
of government. Upon this authority I last session reprobated
the conduct of Austria and Prussia, in attacking the French.for no reason but because they were attempting' to regulate
their internal government—a conduct which has, I fear, been
more fatal to the political morality of Europe than any thing
the French have yet done. It is true, as my honourable
friend (Mr. Sheridan) has stated, that the French are not
alone chargeable with those crimes and calamities which we
have beheld follow one another in such rapid succession.
To them alone is not to be imputed that scene of carriag
which has desolated the nations of Europe. Those who have
been most forward to bring against them the charge of cruelty
are themselves the accomplices of their crimes. I am not apt
to think that war in general has a tendency to make men more
savage than they were before ; yet I must confess, that I re.
carded the manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick, upon its
first appearance, as the signal for carnage and general war. I
am no advocate for French cruelties ; but, to the spirit
breathed, and the declarations contained, in that manifesto,
I can trace much of that scene of horror and bloodshed which
has followed. For carnage, by whomsoever committed, I ne-
ver can be the apologist; such a task is equally repugnant to
my judgment and feelings, and therefore have I been anxious
to keep myself clear of all concern in measures which have
tended to lead to it, and to enter my solemn protest against
those steps which I saw likely still farther to increase the effk-
sion of human blood. It is some satisfaction to me to reflect, •
that I had no share in that system of policy, which, in what-
ever motives it might originate, has in its consequences been '
productive of so many atrocities, - Posterity, feeling a just


1794:3
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 157


abhorrence for those cruelties which have disgraced the pre-
sent age, will be better able to investigate their causes, and to
discriminate their authors. They will look farther, perhaps,
than to the sanguinary temper of a people who were seeking
to establish their freedom ; for the love of liberty is not ne-
cessarily connected with a thirst for blood. They will endea-
vour to discover by what means that sanguinary temper was
produced: they will inquire if there was no system of pro-
scription established against that people ; if there was no com-
bination formed, in order to deprive them of their freedom?
Those who were concerned in framing the infamous mani-
festoes of the Duke of Brunswick, those who negociated the
treaty of Pilnitz, the impartial voice of posterity will pro-
nounce to have been the principal authors of all those enor-
mities which have afflicted humanity, and desolated Europe.
If this country has had any share in the detestable treaty of
Pilnitz, she will not be acquitted of her share of the guilt;
To that treaty I ascribe the origin of the war, and all its
subsequent calamities. Can it be pretended, as has been.
asserted, that France has been in all cases the aggressor ?
Was she so with respect to Prussia? The proof to the con-
trary is obvious. We had a treaty of alliance with Prussia,
by which we were bound to furnish certain succours if Prussia
should be attacked. Were we called upon for those succours?
No such thing. Sufficient evidence this that Prussia did not
consider the war with France as a war of defence, but a war
of aggression, voluntarily undertaken.


But whether we or the French were originally the ag-
gressors, makes no great difference now. This much we
know, that they offered to negociate, and that all their propo-
sals were treated with a disdain, which could not fail to render
peace impossible. Robespierre, that great authority, whom
the advocates for the war never fail to quote when they find
him on their side, accuses Brissot of having involved France
in the war with this country. On the strength of Robes-
pierre's impartial judgment 'in the case are ministers excul-
pated from the charge of having caused the war ! Such are
the authorities which their friends bring forward in their vin-
dication, and such the arguments by which they attempt to
defend their conduct ! Upon the subject of' acts of aggression,
previous to the war, there subsists this difference between
I{ rame and Great Britain: France was always ready to nego-
elate ; the British government invariably refused. France
expressed the strongest dislike to war, and seemed anxious to
take every step to avoid it; the British government sheaved
not only an inclination for war, but employed every mea-
sure that could tend to provoke hostilities. From the very




z 5 8


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH,
Van. 2 I.


circumstance that Robespierre attached it as a crime to Bris-sot, that he was the author of the war, I draw a very different
conclusion from that which has been attempted to be impressed
upon this House. It thews, that even the most


violentpartyin France were adverse to a war with this country. And in
the charge brought against Brissot, I certainly coincide with
Robespierre. Whatever might have been the views or the
conduct of the British minister, he, as a wise statesman, ought
certainly not to have induced France to declare against this
country till the last moment. I clearly think that war might
have been. avoided. Such was the opinion which I expressed
last year, contrary to the sense of the majority of this House,
contrary to the voice of the nation at large, and contrary to
the sentiments of some of those friends whom I most highly
valued. Such was the opinion which I supported, at the
price of any political weight I might possess in this House;
at the price of any little popularity which I might enjoy
abroad; and of what was still more dear to me, the friendship
of those with whom I was most closely connected. However
painful the sacrifices which I was then obliged to make,


I re-pent not of what I then did ; on mature reflection, I find as
much solid satisfaction from the advice I then gave, and from
the conduct I then pursued, as it is possible to derive fronz i i ,
the have been.


But,


that they were precisely such as they ought


But, Sir, the origin of the war is now a matter of secondary
consideration. The first question is, how can it be concluded ?
My opinion still is, that we ought to treat with the present
or with any other government to which the present may give
place in France ; while others contend, and an awfull consi-
deration it is, that no treaty with any modification of jacobin
government can be secure. In discussing this question, it
is my wish, if possible, to reconcile both sides of the House.
A desire has been universally expressed, that an honour_
able and secure peace should be established ; such also is
my desire; and if peace cannot be concluded on such
terms, I will then grant that the war ought to be carried
on. But it remains to be proved that such a peace cannot
at present be obtained. If I shall be able to show that it
can, I shall then have established my principle, that we
ought to treat with the jacobin government of France. The
question of security I shall now examine, considering an
attempt to negociate in the only two points of view under
which, as appears to me, it can possibly fall. My own opi-
nion, or rather conjecture, is, that peace may be obtained.
But however well or ill-founded this opinion may be, we are *1,
to consider first, whether such a peace as may be supposed


1794.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 1 59
attainable, is so desirable as to induce us to negociate ; and
next, whether a failure in the negociation will be attended
crith such dangerous consequences as ought to induce us not
to hazard the attempt.


However, Sir, we may abhor the conduct of Frenchmen
towards Frenchtnen, whatever indignation we may feel against
crimes at which humanity shudders, the hatred of vice
is no just cause of war between nations. If it were, good
God ! with which of those powers with whom we are now
combined against France should we be at peace? We, proud
of our own freedom, have long been accustomed to treat
despotic governments with contempt, and to mark the vices
of despots with vigilant sensibility. Of late, however, our
resentment has been most readily excited by the abuses of
liberty ; and our hatred of vice is very different on different
sides. In France an old despotism is overturned, and an at-
tempt made to introduce a free government in its room. In
that attempt great crimes are committed, and language is ran-
sacked, and declamation exhausted, to rouse our indignation,
and excite us to war against the whole people. In Poland,
liberty is subverted; that lair portion of the creation seized
by the relentless fangs of despotism; the wretched inhabitants
reduced to the same situation with the other slaves of their
new masters, and in order to add insult to cruelty, enjoined
to sing Te Deum for the blessings thus conferred upon them ;
—and what does all this produce? Sometimes a well-turned
sentence to express our sorrow, or mark our disapprobation.
But hatred of vice is no just cause of war, nor ever was among
nations ; and when. I hear men declaim on the crimes of
France, who know how to reason as statesmen, I cannot but
suspect that they mean to deceive, and not to convince. But,
it is next said, can a. secure peace be made ? The question
is, I confess, difficult of solution. On the one hand, abstract
consideration must be avoided ; on the other, experience and
precedent attended to as much as possible. Do I think that
a peace, concluded with such a government, would be secure?
Perhaps I do not think it would be as secure as. I could wish
fbr the permanent interest of this country ; but I desire the
House to recollect what has been the nature of almost every
peace that has been made in Europe. From a retrospect of
the circumstances under which former treaties were ratified,
it will, in all probability, be as secure as any peace that has
been made with France at any other time, and more so than
any that they, who would make no peace without the restor-
ation of the monarchy, can ever expect to make. The pre-
sent rulers of France, itis said, have declared themselves our




1 6o ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
[Jan. 21.


natural enemies; and have contrived schemes, and sent emissa-
ries to overturn our constitution. Was not all this constantly
done by Louis XIV. ? Was he not the declared enemy
of our glorious Revolution ? Did he not keep up a corre-
spondence with the jacobite party •among us; and endeavour,
by force and artifice, to overturn our establishment in church
and state ? Had our new-fangled politicians lived in those
times, they would have said, before the peace of Ryswick,


unjus" What ! treat with Louis XIV. who has made war upon youtly, who has fomented treason and rebellion, who has
attempted to destroy all that you hold sacred, and instead
of a limited monarchy, and the protestant religion, to impose
upon you the fetters of despotism and popery ?" Such muse
then have been their language; but King William and his
ministers would have thought those who held it fitter forbedlam than a cabinet. But, it is said, the jacobins have
threatened to over-run Holland, and extend their conquests
to the Rhine. And did not Louis XIV. invade Holland ?
Were his projects of conquest so moderate as to be confined
within the Rhine ?


The whole argument then comes to this, that you must be
satisfied with the best security you can get, taking care that
the power with whom you make a peace, shall have no tempt-
ation to break it, either from your misconduct or want of
vigilance. The best security for Holland is, the emperor's
possession of the Netherlands, and repairing the fortifications
of the barrier towns, which he is bound by treaty to maintain.-
Whether the emperor shall be obliged to do this at his own
expence or whether Holland and Great Britain shall assist
him, is matter of future discussion ; certain it is, however,
that it will cost us much less than another campaign. If we
look at the declaration to the people of Prance, the first idea
presented by it, although afterwards somewhat modified, but
again confirmed by the declaration at Toulon, is, that the re-
storation of monarchy must be the preliminary to peace. Now
suppose that instead of the jacobin republic, some stable form
of government, but not a monarchy, should be established,
with which we might think it safe or necessary to treat, what
would become of our promises to Louis XVII. and the people
of Toulon ? Then, as to our security, according to the de-
claration, as soon as the French have a king we will cease to
make war upon them, and then they may set about modifi-
cations of their monarchy. But how are these to be made?
Not, certainly, with a guard of German troops surrounding
the hall where those who are to make them are assembled.
France will then be left in precisely the same situation as she,


794°] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. I 6 t


was in 1789, from which flowed all the mischiefs that are now
said to render it impossible for us to treat with them. Such
is the notable security which the minister proposes to obtain !


The minister also promised at Toulon, or those whom he
employed promised for him, to restore the constitution of 1789,
and it was, in fact, restored there. Louis XVII. was not
styled King of France and Navarre, &c. but King of the
French, and all the authorities appointed by the constitution
of 1789 were re-established. How did this agree with the
conduct of our allies? While we were in possession of Toulon,
General Wurmser entered Alsace, where he issued a procla-
mation, dismissing all persons appointed to offices under the
constitution of 1789, and restoring, till further orders, the
ancient system, which we are apt to call despotic. I will
suppose a thing too absurd to be supposed but for the sake
of argument, namely, that France is brought to submit to
whatever we may chuse to propose. Must she have a king?
She consents. Must that king be Louis XVII.? She consents.
-


What, in this case, will be our security ? Do ministers mean
to restore to France all they may take from her in the course
of reducing her to this submission ? Do they mean to restore
Valenciennes, Conde, Quemoy, and St. Domingo? No: the
secretary of state says not : he declares that you must have an
indemnification for the expence of your services in the war.
Admitting that Louis XVII..will in that case have a proper
sense of gratitude, and that gratitude in kings is stronger
than in other men ;—a position, however, rather doubted;
for although " as rich as a king," " as happy as a. king," and
many expressions of the same sort, are common sayings, the
breasts-of kings have not always been considered as the deposi-
tories of gratitude. The phrase of " as grateful as a king,"
Is not yet proverbial. Yet, supposing that Louis XVII. would
be as grateful as this country could desire, as monarchs
must be subject to the voice of their people what would that
voice be? That France was deprived of her former pos-
sessions, that she was shorn of her ancient lustre, and that no
lair occasion should be lost of regaining what had been ravished
from her. And thus France would seize the first opportunity of
attacking us, when we might possibly have no ally but Holland,
and when Prussia or Austria might be leagued with France.


Sir, will any man say that this is not the probable course of
events? Unless, indeed, it can be shewn that princes are more
honest and true to their engagements than other men; but
from what history this observation is to be collected, I am yet
to learn. I know, indeed, that there are certain high stoical
sentiments, such as " We know what becomes us to do, and
in that line of conduct which duty prescribes . we are deter-


VOL. V.





16 2 ADDRESS ON THE ICING'S SPEECH.
Pan. 21.


mined to persevere, be the consequences what they may." On
such sentiments men may act, if they please, for them-
selves, but this House can have no right to act so for their
constituents, whose interests they are always bound in the
first instance to consult. Are gentleman ready to say that,
sensible of all the calamities which must result from their ad-
herence to their present line of conduct, they are nevertheless
determined to persist, and to brave those calamities with their
eyes open ? There are causes, indeed, which dignify suffering;
there are some occasions on which, though it is impossible to
succeed, it is glorious even to fail; but, shall we expose that
country, with whose welfare we are entrusted, to certain ca-
lamity and repulse; and all for a ridiculous crusade against
the jacobins !


When I heard that the success of the campaign waS to be
made matter of boast in the king's speech, I thought it the
highest pitch of effrontery to be found in the annals of any
nation. Little did I imagine that his majesty would conceive it
necessary to recapitulate•from the throne all the successes ob-
tained before th e rising of the last session ofpar]iament; successes
ofwhich we had been told over and over. If, however, these suc-
Cesses were estimated from June, whmh is majesty last addressed
the parliament, to what do they amount ? Or if,which is, indeed,
the only rational mode of forming a judgment of the future,




the situation of France when first attacked 1w Austria and
Prussia, is compared with her present situation, what is the
prospect of final success? Far from imagining that I should
have to contend, that the campaign has been neither success-
ful nor glorious, I expected to be asked, when I came to talk of
peace, "What ! are you so pusillanimous as to suffer your spirits
to be depressed by a few untoward events ? Would you so
far degrade your country as to offer terms of peace now, which
we disdained to offer in June, when our good fortune was at
its height? 'When we have been repulsed at Dunkirk;
when the Prince of Saxe-Cobourg has been repulsed at Mau-
beuge ; when we have been driven from Toulon in a manner
so afflicting, if not disgraceful; when General Wurmser has
been routed in Alsace; the siege of Landau raised ; and the
Duke of Brunswick can scarcely protect the German cities on
the Rhine — to offer terms of peace would be to supplicate,
not to negociate."


Such an appeal to my feelings, I must have endeavoured
to answer as well as I could ; but from that task I am.
completely relieved, by the boast made by ministers of their
victories. If the advantages we obtained were such as they
represent them to be, we can negociate without dishonour;
we can assume the dignified character of being in a con-


II


379+1 - ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 163


dition to dictate the terms of peace, and of forbearing to
insist on all that our superiority entitles us to demand. Here
then is an additional reason for pursuing the course which
I recommend. The right honourable secretary (Mr. Dundas)
has said, that our object in the West Indies was to gain some
solid advantage for ourselves, as an indemnification fior the
expenses of the war. This, however, is a perfectly distinct
object from that of giving such a government to France as
ministers might think it safe to treat with ; and in many re-
spects contradictory to the other. In pursuance of the object
of solid advantage to ourselves, whatever islands we took for
Louis XVII. we must wish to keep ; and as we wished to keep
the islands, must wish that Louis XVII. who would have a right
to demand them of us, should not be restored; and thus our
two objects would run counter to each other. The right ho-
nourable secretary has also said, that if we were to make
peace with France on the principle of uli possidetis, the cam-
paign would be the most advantageous and the most glorious
in the records of history. Advantageous in that point of
view, it certainly might be ; but glorious it can hardly be
called, when it is considered that we are leagued in it with. so
many other powers against a single nation whose force we had
formerly met, not only without allies, but with those who
ought to have been our allies marshalled under the standard
of our enemy.


But the real object of the war is the destruction of the jaco-
bin power in France. Have we succeeded in that object?
Is it not clear to the apprehension of every man who pos-
sesses the smallest degree of information, that we arc now
more distant from it than ever? The right honourable secre-
tary has informed us, that ministers have been greatly em-
barrassed, whether they should send the forces at their dispo-
sal with Sir Charles Grey to the West Indies, or with the
Earl of Moira to co-operate with the royalists in France.
The answer is easy. If the war with the persons who now
govern France is, as the friends of ministers state it to be,.
belluni ernecinum, they ought not to have hesitated a mo-
ment. All expeditions ought to give way to that which alone
could most materially promote their object.; namely, the aid
afforded to the royalists, for the purpose of marching directly
to Paris, and exterminating that party, which is the object of
such detestation, that ministers can alone be satisfied with its
utter extirpation. I hope that they have not in the present
instance, as sometimes happens to men fluctuating between
two purposes, so divided their attention, as to have allotted
I'oorneliliteheerctauasl.us fficient force, and thus contrived to render
both ineffectual.


3P





164
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.


[Jan. 2 r,
My honourable friend (Mr. Windham) has stated, that an


idea was last session held out to the country, that the war
would be concluded in one campaign, and that this unreason-
able expectation, artfully instilled into the minds of the public,-
is the chief, if not the sole source of any disappointment,
which may be felt in the present moment. It is true, that I,
and those who then thought as I did, represented the dangers
to be apprehended from the war; but I appeal to the recol-
lection of every man who heard us, whether we ever said that
the war was likely to be terminated in one campaign. On
the other hand, was it not insinuated, if not expressly stated;
in the speeches of those who advised going to war, that one
campaign would be sufficient to bring it to a conclusion ? Do
not ministers know that the same idea has been circulated by
every ministerial scribbler in every ministerial newspaper ?
And is it not notorious, that this delusion has induced many
persons to approve of the war, who would otherwise have op-
posed it ? My honourable friend has ridiculed the idea of the
war having, united the French among themselves. He has
asked, whether, instead of union, there has not taken place a
contest of two parties, which has led to a series of murders?
All this Igrant to be true; we have, indeed, beheld the most
sanguinary scenes in France, in consequence of the contests
of jarring parties; the complete triumph of the present
jacobin party has lately been sealed by the blood of their op-
ponents. But whatever may have been the contests of parties
in France, or whatever the consequences to which they have
led, I affirm, that the war has produced in that country not
only union, but what is still worse for the allies, a degree of
energy, which it is impossible to withstand.


Let us look, Sir, to the real state of the ease: When the
session closed in June, there were parties existing in France
of equal strength. The Girondists occupied Lyons, Baur-
deaux, and other places; the royalists possessed La Vendee ;-
and the convention had to contend with Austria, Prussia,
.Russia, Great Britain, the Holy Roman empire, Sardinia,
Tuscany, and Naples. (Tuscany, by the way, did not come
under the British wing so willingly as the right honourable
secretary asserted.) Yet, with these powers against them,
the convention have not only quelled all internal insurrec-
tions, but defeated their foreign enemies. Toulon was taken
by the British, in consequence of certain conditions stipulated
by the inhabitants. And yet even with the certainty of the
guillotine before them, these inhabitants were so unwilling to
assist the British, that no other than an ignominious evacu-




ation •
could be effected. As far as can be collected from' in-


formation, there is not now an insurrection from one end of


1.794.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
165


France to the other. What, then, is the inference? That
there is no probability, nor even possibility, of overturning
the jacobin government of France in another campaign, nor
in another after that. The French are now inspired with
such an enthusiasm for what they call liberty, that nothing
but absolute conquest can induce them to listen to any plan
of government proposed by a foreign power. Considering
the spirit of the French in this point of view, I am not much
comforted by any thing that the noble lord has said of their
finances. I remember to have heard much the same argu-
ments delivered from the same side of the House during the
American war. The noble lord will find, in the debates of
those days, much talk of a " vagrant congress," which was no
where to be found, of their miserable resources, and their
wretched paper-money, at 3 0o per cent. discount, of which,
with the few halfpence you might happen to have in your
pocket, you might purchase to the amount of a hundred dol-
jaM The Americans were represented as exercising against
the royalists the most unheard-of cruelties; and then came
what was now the master argument, that if such principles of
resistance were suffered to exist, if the cause of the Americans
was ultimately to be successful, there must be an end of all
.civilized government, and the monarchy of England must be
trodden in the dust. At the time when such arguments were
made, we were in possession not only of one port like Toulon,
but of almost all their principal ports. Yet, I was not then
deterred from recommending what I now recommend —
negociation, while negociation is practicable. I lived to see
.Great Britain treat with that very congress so often villified
and abused, and the monarchy subsist in full vigour, certainly
faller than it had ever before subsisted since the Revolu-
tion. And if it were not presumptuous for a man to reckon
on his own life, I might say, that I expect to live to see Great
Britain treat with that very jacobin government with which
you now refuse to treat; and God grant that it may not be
under circumstances less favourable for making peace than
the present !


Having shewn that as much security might be obtained by
treating now with France as in any case that comes within our
experience, it remains only to prove that even if negociation
should fail, we have still much. to gain, and nothing to lose.
We shall thereby demonstrate to the world, that the war, on
our part, is strictly defensive; and convince the people of
England that their money is expended not to gratify the ca-b ,
price of an individual, but to protect the honour and interests
of the country. In France the advantage will be still greater ;
for there, where enthusiasm supplies the place of military clis-


11 3




66 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
[Jan. 2 I.


cipline and military skill, where it makes the people submit
to tyranny almost beyond human'


patience, we shall diminish
that enthusiasm, by shewing them that they are not engaged
in a war of defence, but of conquest. The country will no
longer be governed by declamations against the allies, and
exhortations to fight upon the frontiers: the refusal of the ja-
cobins to treat will ruin them in the opinion of the French
people; and thus we shall at once secure the great ends of
policy and justice. We shall shew to the people of England,
that we do not wantonly lavish their blood and treasure ; we
shall reconcile them to the war, if its continuance should
be found necessary ; and we shall disarm the enthusiasm
of the people of France, by proving to them our own mo-
deration, and our disposition to make peace upon equitable
terms.


Whatever Frenchman can do, I am told that Englishmen
can do .


also. I have no doubt Cut they can ; and that under
the same circumstances, the efforts of the people of England
would equal or exceed the efforts which are at present made
by the people'of France. Frenchmen, as they conceive, are
contending for their independence as a nation, and their
liberties as individuals. Some, indeed, say, that we are en-
gaged in a similar contest, but few or none believe this to be
actually the case. "We make fine speeches, in order to shew
how much we are alarmed, and to communicate the alarm to
others. But what effect do they produce? They are the re-
sult of cold declamation and artificial eloquence: they are the
speeches of orators, not the effusions of manly feeling ; no-
body is persuaded of the facts which they assert, or impressed
with the sentiments which they convey. The success of this
or that compaign will make little or no difference with respect
to the security of our religion and liberty, so often brought
into the question. The French, on the other hand, dread
equally the despotism of Austria and of Prussia: I wish they
*nay not add, the despotism of Great Britain. In France
they have ceased to make speeches on this subject, because
every man feels it unnecessary to declaim on that which he is
convinced every other man feels equally with himself.


On the conduct of the war, and the mismanagement of the
force with the direction of which ministers were entrusted,
the lateness of the hour would induce me to postpone any re-
mark, did not the boastful manner in which they have talked
of their own exertions render it impossible for me to be
Silent. The right honourable secretary has expatiated on
the protection aflbrded to commerce. Has he forgot the
situation in which commerce was left in the West Indies ?
Has he forgot how long the whole Jamaica fleet waited for


794.]
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 167


convoy, and under what convoy it was at last obliged to sail ?
Does he not know, that at the very moment he was speaking,
the French had blocked up the harbour of Cork, and with
few frigates parading the British channel, arc making prizes of
our merchantmen, and chasing our cruizers into our own ports?
Sure I am, that if such unexampled protection has been af-
forded to our commerce as the right honourable gentleman
boasts of; our merchants are the most unreasonable and un-
grateful people in the world. On this subject they hold a
language very different; their complaints of want of protec-
tion are loud and general. When the right honourable gen-
tleman was taking a review of the campaign, and representing
it as so highly creditable and satisfactory to himself and his
colleagues, I am surprised he forgot to' mention Dunkirk.
Of the expedition against Dunkirk, by what strange omission
I know not, the right honourable gentleman did not say a
single word. I should be glad to know, Sir, the wise man
who planned that expedition, and advised the division of the
combined forces in Flanders. If I may trust to information,
which I see no reason to doubt, such advice was never given.
by the Duke of York, and was directly contrary to the semi-
3 nents of that experienced general the Prince of Saxe-Cobourg.
If the plan was reprehensible, let us look to the manner in
which it was carried into execution. What exertions were
made by ministers after the siege was undertaken to ensure
success? What must have been the feelings of a gallant Bri-
tish prince, who, through dangers and difficulties, had ap-
proached the sea, the natural dominion of his country, and
expected to find the whole coast a fortress for him, at behold-
ing his troops destroyed by the gen-boats of the enemy com-
manding the shore, and impeding all his operations ! Of that
expedition, so full of imbecility and blunders, on the part of
those who directed, and who were bound to co-operate in the
undertaking, not of those to whom was left the task of execu-
tion, without being furnished with the necessary means, some
account must be given. This failure ministers are bound to
explain. To the conduct and skill of the Duke of York I have
every reason to believe that the subsequent preservation of
West Flanders was owing. The wise precautions taken by
him upon that occasion saved that country from the fate to
which it was exposed by the rashness and imprudence of
ministers.


With respect to Toulon, I have always understood that we
obtained possession of it by negociation, and that it was de-
livered up to us on conditions agreed upon with the inhabi-
tants. If it was right so to take it, it became a matter of indis-
pensable duty to defend it. But what was done on the part


AI 4




168
ADDRESS ON THE' RING'S SPEECH.


Nan. 21.
of ministers to fulfil this important part of the agreement?
Might they not have sent such a force of British or Austrian
troops to occupy the heights that surround Toulon as would
have foiled all the attempts of the enemy ? Instead of this,
they sent a miserable crew of Neapolitan and Spanish troops,
without discipline, experience or courage, neither skilled in
the arts of defence, nor capable to resist the ardour of an im-
petuous enemy. Such were the men whom they opposed to
a French army, whose courage was exalted to the highest
pitch by a sense of national honour, and their enthusiasm in
the cause of freedom, When they understood, however, that
the place was to be attacked, they considered some additional
assistance as necessary, and in order to make a suitable pro-
vision against the danger, they borrowed an idea from the
enemy, and threw in, as a reinforcement, the abilities of a civil
commissioner, Sir Gilbert Elliot. Of the circumstances
under which Toulon was evacuated, we arc not sufficiently


tiinformed to speak with confidence. But from all that mini-
sters have thought proper to publish, and all that we have
heard from other quarters, I fear it was an event as disgraceful
to the British arms, as afflicting to humanity. I shall be told,


•that it is not fit to blame officers in their absence, and there-
fore that the conduct of Lord Hood is not now to be discus-
sed : but, Sir, by the address I am called upon to praise Lord
Flood ; arid surely, before I give my assent to such an address,


have a right to inquire into the grounds of approbation.
The conduct of Lord Hood, I am told, ought not to be
censured; it has not yet been an object of examination and
discussion ; and if on this ground it be proper to deprecate
censure, it is surely equally proper to withhold praise. At
present I can only judge from what appears on the face of
the transaction, aided by those imperfect accounts which mini-
sters have thought proper to communicate to the public. The
evacuation seems to have taken place under circumstances
against which policy ought to have provided ; and I fear the
result was such as British humanity will contemplate with but
little satisffiction. I am told, indeed, by the right honourable
secretary, that no man was left behind who was disposed to
quit the place; and I am bound to give credit to his assertion.
But, when I read in the accounts given into the French con-
vention, of two hundred in one day, and four hundred in
another, (and accounts of this sort have, unfortunately, in
general, proved but too true,) who, for the assistance which
they afforded the English, were conducted to the guillotine,
what am I to infer? Am I to infer, that from the experience
of the conduct of the English, such was their detestation of
their character, that-they chose rather to wait for death from


.0!!1


1794•3 ADDRESS ON THE
KING'S SPEECH. 169


the vengeance of their countrymen, than to seek for safety
from British protection ? If such is the inference, in what
a point of view does it place the honour of the British nation,
and the boasted generosity of their character ! But if the fact
be otherwise, if after having betrayed these men to assist in
your views, you abandoned them to that ruin which was the
consequence, their blood is on your heads, and at your hands
will it be required. What people henceforth will be desirous
of the friendship of Britain, or able to repose themselves with
confidence in your fidelity ? What dependance can they have
upon the efficacy of your assistance, or what security even
against your desertion'? Toulon, purchased by compromise,
you have lost with disgrace; you have placed yourselves in a
point of view entirely new to British character ; you have
proved yourselves neither useful as friends, nor respectable as
enemies. You have now to contemplate loss and repulse as
the result of a transaction . equally degrading to your resources
and your principles, every part of which stamps your efforts
with feebleness, and brands your character with dishonour.


Nevertheless a noble lord (Mulgrave) whom I do not see
in his place, and who arrived in this country a short time
before the evacuation, affirmed in his dispatches, that Toulon
was in a state of comfortable security. What idea, Sir, must
we have of what constitutes a state of comfortable security,
when such proves to have been the event ! When ministers
had failed at Dunkirk, and, perhaps, notwithstanding this
assertion of comfortable security, foresaw that they should fail
at Toulon, they projected, or rather talked of a descent on
the coast of France, under the command of the Earl of Moira;
when we ask why that expedition was so long talked of, and
never undertaken, the right honourable secretary tells us, that
it was delayed for want of troops. What ! when we had at
last hit upon a plan which was to conduct us to the gates of
Paris, were we obliged to abandon it for want of men ? Were
no Hanoverians, Hessians, or even Austrians, to be found ?
Miserable, indeed, must be the alliances entered into by the
minister, if' neither those whose cause he had undertaken to
support, nor those whom he had taken into his pay, would
furnish him with men sufficient for an expedition, the success
of which might have redeemed so many miscarriages ! Did
he defer that expedition till winter, because the difficult navi-
gation of the coast of Normandy was peculiarly safe at that
season ? Or did he chuse to delay it, because the Prince of
Cobourg would be unable to act, and, of consequence, tile
French troops in that quarter would be disengaged ?


With the knowledge of these events, if we retain the least
spark of that independence which was once the characteristic




170
ADDRESS ON TITE KING'S SPEECH'. [Jan. 2.


of a British House of Commons, we cannot concur in 'an
address which tells his majesty that we think the campaign
has been successful. If there is a man among us who is
not the sycophant of ministers, he cannot say that the con-
duct of it has displayed any thing on their part but imbecility
and want of resource. The right honourable the chancellor
of the exchequer possesses great talents and great eloquence;
and the long period during which he has had the opportunity
of displaying those talents in office, has, no doubt, added
to the number of his admirers; but he must now pick from
the very lowest class of his flatterers before he can collect
thirty men around his own table who will tell him that he is
a great-war minister. His friends, perhaps, will tell us, that
he may do better another time, and therefore they will con-
tinue to support him; but, at what expellee is the experiment
to be made, and how much British blood and British trea-
sure must be lavished, while he is learning how to conduct a
war ! The right honourable secretary has said, that when
Lord Hood had taken possession of Toulon, all the states of
Italy hastened to put themselves under the protection of the
British fleet. What haste the Duke of Tuscany made to
seek that protection, and with what reluctance he was com-
pelled to accept of it, the memorials, or rather menaces, de-
livered by Lord Harvey, who, I believe, acted in perfect
conformity to his instructions, will sufficiently evince. While
we were declaiming against the insults of the French to
neutral states, we took upon us to dictate to the Duke of
Tuscany, not only with respect to his public conduct, but
his private feelings. Lord Harvey was instructed to tell him,
that he misunderstood the interests and disregarded the wishes
of his people; that the minister in whom he confided was a
person unworthy of trust; and that he himself had no proper
sense of the duty he owed to his uncle and his aunt, and all
his relations of the house of Austria. Our conduct to the
Genoese was modelled upon the same principles; and we only
had not the guilt of bombarding Genoa, because that republic
refused to depart from its neutrality.


What, too, was the conduct which was observed towards
the Swiss Cantons? On that subject I am particularly in-
formed, in consequence of a letter which I received from a
noble relation of mine, (Lord Robert Fitzgerald,) employed
by ministers in that quarter. In this letter he states, that he
was instructed, on the part of the British court, to intimate
to the cantons, that they might, indeed, preserve their neu-
trality, but that they should hold no commerce with France.
What sort of neutrality was that, Sir, which excluded all,
commerce, which deprived them of every advantage which


1794'3
ADDRESS ON. THE KING'S SPEECH. I 7


such a situation entitled them to expect? And what sort of
respect did ministers show for the rights of independent states,
by thus presuming to dictate to them the terms upon which
they should regulate their conduct with regard to other
nations? Of the same nature was the interference attempted
in the instance of Denmark and Sweden ; and if these courts
bad not had the wisdom and the firmness to resist all the arts
and menaces employed to draw them from their system of
neutrality, and engage them in the combination against
France, they might at this moment have been sharing, in
common with the other powers of Europe, all the hardships
and miseries of war. Such has been the scandalous conduct
of ministers towards neutral states ! But did these very mi-
nisters forget, that they had themselves all along boasted of
their neutrality; that they had on every occasion held forth
as their justification, that if Fiance had not declared war,
this country would still have remained neutral ? Such was
the credit due to their assertions, and such the coincidence
between their professions and their conduct ! At the very
moment they were inveighing against the French as invaders
of the rights of nations, and boasting of their own strict ob-
servance of neutrality, they were committing the most daring
infringements on the rights of independent states, and at-
tempting, by the most unwarrantable means, to engage them
to take part in hostilities against France. The injustice of
such a conduct could only be aggravated by its meanness.
The nations with respect to whom this interference was exer-
cised, were such only as ministers might hope to frighten by
their menaces, and awe to compliance by the terror of superior
force. We condescended not only to lay aside all respect
for justice, but all dignity of character, and to become the
bullies of those states whom we deemed incapable of resist-
ing our imperious demands. Oh, shame to our policy ! Oh
spot indelible to the British name ! When, indeed, I con-
sider the present system adopted in the courts of Europe,
when I look at the infamous conduct of Russia and Prussia
towards Poland, I own that I tremble for the fate of Europe.
Convinced I am, that no power which is not founded in jus-
tice can either be sound or permanent. If, indeed, the
courts of Europe are menaced with imminent danger, they
have chiefly to apprehend the consequences of their own recent
proceedings. If in no cabinet there is to be found any rem-
nant of decency, any sense of honour, such a state of things
must tend more to the dissolution of established systems than
all that can be effected by jacobin principles or jacobin force.
The rage of the jacobins may, indeed, be directed against




172
ADDRESS ON THE ICING'S SPEECH.


[Jam 21.
the outworks of their power ; but they are themselves under-
mining the foundation.


next come to the conduct of ministers with respect to
America. In this instance they seem likewise to have adopted.
the maxim of M. Genet, in setting aside the authority of Vote],
and testifying the most perfect contempt for the principles laid
down by established writers on the law of nations, where they
happen to differ from their own notions of political con-
venience. Their system of aggression on the rights of in-
dependent states, they followed up with respect to America,
by issuing an order to seize on American vessels bound to
the French West-India islands. This order, however, they
were afterwards prevailed upon to withdraw, in consequence
of being informed by the merchants, that congress could
never brook so wanton an aggression, so unprovoked an in-
sult; and that the measure, if persisted in, must infallibly
produce a rupture between America and this country. 1,
trust, the retraction has come in time to prevent the con-
sequences of the error, but it can reflect but little honour on
the ministers of this country, that they have been compelled
to respect the rights of an independent state only from a
dread of its power, and that they have shewn themselves
to be more influenced by a sense of fear, than by a principle
of justice.


And here, Sir, I cannot help alluding to the president of
the United States, General -Washington, a character whose
conduct has been so different from that which has been pur-
sued by the ministers of this country. How infinitely wiser
must appear the spirit and principles manifested in his
late address to congress than the policy of modern European
courts ! Illustrious man, deriving honour less from the
splendor of his situation than from the dignity of his mind,
before whom all borrowed greatness sinks into insignificance,
and all the potentates of Europe (excepting the members of
our own royal family) become little and contemptible ! He
has had no occasion to have recourse to any tricks of policy
or arts of alarm; his authority has been sufficiently supported
by the same means by which it was acquired, and his conduct
has uniformly been characterised by wisdom, moderation, and
firmness. Feeling gratitude to Prance for the assistance re- Oh
ceived from her in that great contest which secured the in-
dependence of America, he did not chuse to give up the
system of neutrality. Having once laid down that line of
conduct, , which both gratitude and policy pointed out as most
proper to be pursued, not all the insults or provocation of
the French minister, Genet, could turn him from his pur-,


1794.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
173"


pose. Entrusted with the welfare of a great people, he did.
not allow the misconduct of another, with respect to himself,
for one moment to withdraw his attention from their interests.
He had no fear of the jacobins; he felt no alarm from their
principles, and considered no precaution as necessary in order
to stop their progress. The people over whom he presided
he knew to be acquainted with their rights and their duties.
He trusted to their own good sense to defeat the effect of
those arts which might be employed to inflame or mislead
their minds; and was sensible that a government could be in
no danger while it retained the attachment mid confidence
of its subjects — attachment, in this instance, not blindly
adopted, confidence not implicitly given, but arising from
the conviction of its excellence, and the experience of its
blessings. I cannot, indeed, help admiring the wisdom and
the fortune of this great man ; by the phrase "fortune,"
mean not in the smallest degree to derogate from his merit.
But, notwithstanding his extraordinary talents and exalted
integrity, it must be considered as singularly fortunate, that
he should have experienced a lot, which so seldom falls to the
portion of humanity, and have passed through such a variety
of scenes without stain and without reproach. It must, in-
deed, create astonishment, that, placed in circumstances so
critical, and filling for a series of years a station so conspicu-
ous, his character should never once have been called in
question; that he should in no one instance have been accused
either of improper insolence, or of mean submission in his
transactions with foreign nations. For him it has been re-
served to run the race of glory, without experiencing the
smallest interruption to the brilliancy of his career. But, Sir,
if the maxims now held out were adopted, the man who now
ranks .as the assertor of his country's freedom, and the guar-
dian of its interests and its honour, would be deemed to have
betrayed that country, and entailed upon himself indelible
reproach. How, Sir, did he act when insulted by Genet?
Did he consider it as necessary to avenge himself for the mis-
conduct or madness of an individual, by involving a whole
continent in the horrors of war? No; he contented himself
with procuring satisfaction for the insult, by causing Genet
to be recalled; and thus at once consulted his own dignity
and the interests of his country. Happy Americans ! while
the whirlwind spreads desolation over one quarter of the
globe, you remain protected from its baneful effects, by your
own virtues and the wisdom of your government ! Separated
from Europe by an immense ocean, you feel not the effects
of those prejudices and passions, which convert the boasted
seats of civilization into scenes of horror and bloodshed l




1 74 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
Van. 2I.


You profit by the folly and madness of contending nations,
and afford in your more congenial clime an asylum to those
blessings and virtues which they wantonly contemn, or
wickedly exclude from their bosom ! Cultivating the arts of
peace under the influence of freedom, you advance by rapid
strides to opulence and distinction; and if by any accident
you should be compelled to take part in the present unhappy
contest ; if you should find it necessary to avenge insult, or
repel injury, the world will bear witness to the equity of your
sentiments and the moderation of your views, and the success
of your arms will, no doubt, be proportioned to the justice of
your cause


Sir, I have now nothing more with which to trouble the
House; I am sensible, indeed, that at this advanced hour I
have already detained them too long. But I was anxious to
put the question upon its true footing, and to free it from that
misrepresentation in which it has been so studiously involved.
'We have of late been too much accustomed to inVective and
declamation; addresses to our prejudices and passions have
been substituted instead of appeals to our reason. But we
are met here not to declaim against the crimes of other states,
but to consult what are the true interests of this country.
The question is not, what degree of abhorrence we ought to
feel'of French cruelty, but what line of conduct we ought to
pursue, consistently with British policy. Whatever our
detestation of the guilt of foreign nations may be, we are not
called to take upon ourselves the task of avengers; we are
bound only to act as guardians of the welfare of those with
whose concerns we are immediately entrusted. It is• upon
this footing I have 'argued the question, and if I have suc-
ceeded, I trust the House will be disposed to support me in.
the amendment with which I shall now conclude; intreating
his majesty to make peace, whenever it can be done upon safe
and honourable terms, without any regard to the form and
nature of the government existing in France. But if gen-
tlemen will carry on the war until the jacobin government of
France be exterminated, they must be prepared to carry on
the war to all eternity. Mr. Fox then moved the following
amendment to the address proposed : " To state the deter-
mination of this House to support his majesty in the measures
necessary to maintain the honour and independence of the
crown, and to provide for the defence and safety of the nation;
but at the same time to advise his majesty to take the earliest,
means of concluding a peace with the French nation, on such
terms as it may be reasonable and prudent for us -to insist on:
That, whenever such terms can be obtained we trust that no•
obstacle to the acceptance of them will arise from any con-


a 794-]
siderations respecting the form or nature of the government
which may prevail in France."


After Mr. Pitt had spoken, the House divided on Mr. Fox's
amendment :


Tellers.
cMr. Grey 1 —


YE A S Mr. Adam S 59'
So it passed in the negative.


TREATY WITH THE KING Or SARDINIA.


January 31.


"VTR. PITT having moved, " That the copy of the treaty be-
tween his majesty and the King of Sardinia, signed at


London the 2 5th of April 1793, be referred to the committee of
supply ;"


Mr. Fox said, he considered this treaty to be one which his
duty to his constituents did not permit him to assent to with-
out some observations, and a satisfactory answer to those
observations. He had never conceived that it could be wise
to enter into any treaty by which we were to receive nothing
and to give every thing; or to bind ourselves to maintain a
perpetual war for the benefit of the party with whom we
contracted, without something stipulated in our favour that
might be held an equivalent for so hazardous an engagement.
-


When he looked at the treaty, he should have supposed that
the King of Sardinia had had it in his power to put into our
possession the port of Nice, or to afford us an easy passage
into France through his territory of Savoy. These, indeed,
would have been advantages for which we ought to have given
something in return; because, under certain circumstances,
they might have contributed much to the facility of carrying
on a war with France. But, when he recollected the
cumstances under which the treaty was made, he found that
the King of Sardinia had lost both Nice and Savoy before
we thought of entering into any negotiation on the subject.
He admitted that the- assistance of the King of Sardinia
might be useful in the prosecution of the war; but in obtain-
ing assistance we ought to estimate the benefits on either part,
as well what we gave as what was to be given us. By this
treaty the King of Sardinia was bound only to maintain


TREATY WITH THE KING OP SARDINIA.


17S


Tellers.
I Sir Peter Burrell 277 ,


,tots PR. John Smyth


L




I 76
TREATY WITH THE KING OF SARDINIA. [Jan. 3 t.


s
o,000 men for the defence of his own territories. If we


had expected any thing more of him we had been miserablydis
appointed; for that part of France which was justly sup-


posed to have been the most averse from the present reigning
system in Paris, and therefore the most likely to enter into
our views, far from receiving any support from the King ofSardinia, had been left to pay the forfeit of what the con-
vention called treason to the republic. What,- then, did we
gain by this treaty, in stipulation or in fact? That the King
of Sardinia should keep up a force to defend his own ter-
ritories. What did we engage to perform ? Not only to
pay a subsidy of 200,000l. a-year in aid of maintaining this
force, but to restore to the King of Sardinia all those ter-
ritories which the French had wrested from him, while :ye
were sitting quietly by and boasth)g of our neutrality. Unless
we could afford to make war for ever; unless we supposed
ourselves exempted from the ordinary vicissitudes of human
affairs, we might be reduced to purchase peace by great
sacrifices on our own part, in order to make good our engage-
ments with the King of Sardinia, or to subject ourselves to
the reproach of breach of faith, by making peace without
obtaining the restoration of his territories. One would have
thought, that for all this the King of Sardinia was to do
something of equal importance for us; but in the treaty we -
looked for an equivalent in vain. We were not only to pay '11


,him for keeping up a force to defend the territories he had -41i
still remaining, but bound ourselves not to make peace with-
out restoring to him the territories he had lost.


For the sake of argument, Mr. Fox said, he would admit
that the restoration of Savoy to the King of Sardinia was ne-
cessary to the balance of Europe, and that no peace ought to
be made with France but upon that condition. Why, even
in this case, fetter ourselves with an engagement which we
could not possibly know that we should be able to fulfil?
When the time of treating for peace came, with how much
more advantage, and how much more honour to ourselves,
should we have said, " The King of Sardinia is not to be Op-
pressed because he is weak. In all transactions between na-
tions, justice is to be regarded as well as power. The restor-
ation of Savoy is demanded by justice, and essential to the
future tranquillity of Europe. We shall listen to no propo-
sitions for peace of which this is not a preliminary." With
how much more advantage and honour might we thus have
stipulated for the restoration of Savoy, if this miserable treaty
had never been made? We should then have stood forward_
as the protectors of the weak, and the defenders of the ba-
lance of power. Now, we had not given, but sold our assist-


1794'] TREATY WITH THE KING OF SARDINIA. 177


Rnec to the King of Sardinia—and sold it, for what? For
nothing. Ministers having done this, and the House having
sanctioned it, they were next to call upon the people of
England to pay a subsidy of 200,0001. He knew, that in
every war to be carried on by a confederacy, we must pay the
weaker powers whom we engaged in that confederacy; but we
were not certainly to pay them all ; nor those whom we did,
for defending themselves. Did we suppose, on the present
occasion, that the King of Sardinia had no inclination to de-
fend his own dominions? If we did, our money should have
been asked`for as a grant, not as a stipulation, which was to
involve us in difficulties of a thousand times more consequence
than the value of our money, We could not, however, sup-
pose that the King of Sardinia was not inclined to defend
himself; without our paying for it. Our treaty, therefore,
was not a purchase, for we did not buy the King of Sardinia's
inclination; nor was it a gift, for we, the givers, came under
an obligation to the party to whom we gave. It might be
said, that the treaty bound the King of Sardinia, to continue
the war as long as we might think fit, even after he himself
might wish to conclude it. If this was what we had gained
by the treaty, would not the neutrality of the King of Sardinia
have been more beneficial and far less embarrassing? It would
not be argued, that there was any chance of a separate peace
between the • King of Sardinia and France ; or that the King
of Sardinia had any prospect of recovering Nice and Savoy,
without our assistance. What, then, had we done? If the
recovering of his territories was of more importance to the
King of Sardinia than it could be to us, we had given a sub-
sidy, where we ought to have received one.


He should perhaps be told, that the treaty being concluded
by his majesty, the proper representative of the country in all
transactions with foreign powers, the House could not refuse
to ratify it, without subjecting themselves to the imputation
of a breach of faith. This doctrine he must peremptorily
deny. If the House was considered as bound to make good
every treaty which his majesty, by the advice of his ministers,
might think proper to conclude, there was a complete surren-
der of the public purse to the executive power. Mr. Fox
concluded with observing, that having thus briefly stated his
objections to the treaty with the King of Sardinia, the other
treaties, particularly that with his Sicilian majesty, were not
to be considered as having his approbation, because he did
not state his objections to them at the same time.


vol. V.




AUGMENTATION 01' THE ARMYe


AUGMENTATI ON
OF THE ARMY.


February 3.


rI-IE secretary at war having moved in the committee of supply,.
That a number of land forces, including 3882 invalids,


amounting to 60,244
effective men, commissioned and non-com-


missioned officers included, be employed for the year 1794," this
augmentation of the army was opposed by Mr. Hussey on the
ground of its inefficacy for the purposes of the war. The navy of
Great Britain, he said, ought rather to have been augmented. A
few stout ships were of much more utility than a land-force, inmaking such an impression upon the enemy as would be solid and'
serviceable to the interests of this country. He entertained no
doubt of the courage and gallantry of our officers and soldiers ;
but would rather have seen our naval list carried to 100,000 men,than vote for any farther increase of the army. After Mr. Jenkin-
son and Mr. Pitt had spoken in support of the augmentation,


Mr. Fox said, that although a future discussion was promised,
some sentiments had fallen in the course of the debate on
which he must make a few observations while they were fresh
in the memory of the House. He agreed perfectly with the
honourable gentleman who had opened the discussion, on the
propriety of the time he had chosen for making his obser-
vations, as well as of the observations themselves. Accord.,
ing to the best practice of the best times, it was strictly in.
order to consider the ability of ministers to direct to the most
beneficial effect that force to pay for which they were about
to vote the money of their constitutents. He was glad to find
gentlemen on the other side of the House so much pleased as
they professed to be with the successes of the campaign. Ifit


were possible to talk with levity of a situation of Europe,
which he considered as highly disastrous, he should congra-
tulate the House on the issue of a campaign with which all
parties engaged in it were pleased. We extolled the success
of our armies; so did the French that of theirs. We ap-
plauded the evacuation of Toulon as a most fortunate event;
the French celebrated the same event by public festivals. So
that both parties might meet and join in a common ju7-bilee. Unfortunately for him, he could not participate in
these rejoicings, while he saw Europe brought into a situation
which must be afflicting to every man who retained the least
spark of justice or humanity.


1794.]
AUGMENTATION OF THE ARMY. I i9


Since the prorogation of parliament, when the advantages
we had obtained were set forth in terms as vaunting as they
could well bear, we had seen little success and much defeat.
When he saw that all the latter part of the campaign had
been uniformly unsuccessful ; when the successes of the early


P.
part instead of conducting, as might have been expected, to


,new successes, had only led to disaster and disgrace, he an-
oared but ill of the future ; as in such circumstances every ra-
tional man must augur. He could neither agree with. the
honourable gentleman, nor with the right honourable the
chancellor of the exchequer who corrected him, on the subject
of responsibility ; which instead of laying wholly with generals,
or jointly on generals and ministers, lay wholly with mi-
nisters in the first instance. There was, or ought to be, a
military man in the cabinet, and he supposed the commander
in chief held that situation now, on whose information and
advice ministers were to decide both as to the propriety of un-
dertaking expeditions and the force requisite for them. They
might have much information respecting which the officer ap-
pointed to command in any expedition might be ignorant ;
consequently they, and not he, were to judge of the force
necessary, and the acceptance on his part of a command with
an inadequate force was no justification for them. If he knew
that an officer had misconducted the force entrusted to him,
{and he hoped no man would be so uncandid as to suppose •
what he said to have any particular application,) he would
charge ministers with the blame in the first instance, because
it was their duty to employ none but proper persons. When
they were put upon their defence, they might skew reasons
for the choice they had made, and in proportion to the validity
of those reasons would they be exculpated. He did not pre-
tend to know whether the commander in chief of the com-
bined army, and the illustrious prince who commanded the
troops sent against Dunkirk, approved or disapproved of the
expedition ; but this he knew, that if, on the general inquiry
into the business, it should appear that it was undertaken con-
trary to the judgment of such professional men, the circum-
stance would form a strong aggravation of the charge against
ministers.


The righthonourable the chancellor of the exchequer had said,
that the defence of Toulon was not to supersede the expedition
to theWest Indies. In one point of view, the defence of Toulon
was paramount to the capture of all the West India islands, for
it was to preserve the faith of the nation solemnly pledged to
the inhabitants, who had put themselves under our protection.
We entered Toulon by treaty, not by conquest, as the ally of
Louis XVII. in conjunction with the King of Spain, to whom


N 2,


[Feb. 3.




I So AUGMENTATION OF THE ARMY.
[Feb. 3.


the place was as much surrendered as to us, and on the ex..
press condition of restoring to the inhabitants who admitted
us, what they called their constitution of 1789, although he
heard that the part of the treaty to which he alluded had been
broken by our subsequent proclamations. We got possession of
the ships and stores in trust for our ally Louis XVII., and after
that, to boast of destroying them as the ships of an enemy,
was a perversion of terms. He admitted, that when they
could not be defended, we had a right to destroy them, or,
'what was still better, to bring them away, in order to prevent
their falling into the hands of those who were the enemies of
Louis XVII.


- But this was to be lamented as a misfortune,
more especially if any considerable part of them did fall into
the hands of his enemies, not vaunted as an instance of extra-


, ordinary success. Let ministers hold to Louis XVII. or his
representative, if he had any ; let them hold to French royal-
ists the language they held to the House, of preferring


an
expedition to the West Indies to the defence of Toulon : let
them say, " We have got possession of a port and a fleet in
trust for you; but we must take your West-India islands for
ourselves; we cannot attempt the one without endanger-
hag the other; and we prefer taking what we mean ,to
keep at all events, to defending what we must restore to you
when re-instated on the throne of your ancestors," and see
with what cordiality and gratitude it would be received. If
seating Louis XVII. on the throne of France was the object
to which ministers looked as the means of peace, they ought
to have sent the whole force at their disposal to Toulon, if
necessary, in preference to every other expedition, on mo-
tives of common pokey, much more on the strongest of ail
motives, that of good faith.


He had often heard, as he had again been told that day,
that all the inhabitants of Toulon who chose it were taken
away by .


the British fleet. Was it not true, however, and no-
torious, that hundreds, nay thousands of the unfortunate re-
mainder, had glutted the vengeance of those whom they had
made their implacable enemies by the confidence they reposed
in us? If it should be said, that these victims preferred stay-
ing to being brought away, that would contribute but little to
his satisfaction ; for what must our treatment of those men
have been, what opinion must they have formed of us, seeing
that they preferred the fury of avowed enemies to our pro-
tection ?


It had been insinuated, that the surrender of Toulon had
been effected by blockade and famine, and the decided supe,
riority in regard to appointment, of the English over the
French fleet. This did not appear, upon investigation, to be


1 794']
AUGMENTATION OF THE ARMY. I S


the real state of the case, for there never was any contention
between the fleets; for the French fleet was commanded by per-
sons inimical to the French government, who surrendered their
trust upon certain terms. And this French fleet had been
reported by Admiral Trugnet, to the convention, to be in a
state upon which no reliance could be placed. With respect
to the destruction of the French fleet at Toulon; which was
made a boast of as the greatest blow the naval power of France
had ever sustained from the effect of a single action, he ob-
served, that as they were vessels which we had taken, and
engaged to preserve for Louis XVII., we could only justify
destroying them upon one principle, that it was the only
means of preventing them from falling into the hands of the
enemy. He defended the expression used by his honourable
friend, (Major Maitland,) that we had acquired no military
glory at Toulon. By this lie (lid not mean, that the particu-
lar generals, or officers, or privates, had not discharged their
duty there. He knew they would ever do their duty when
they were put in a situation to act; but what was meant was,
that the result of that business was not an acquisition of glory
to this country. The ground, it was stated, upon which the
expedition against Toulon had been concerted, was an expec-
tation that they would have been joined by the royalists of
Lyons and Marseilles, who were at that time in considerable
force ; but any person who remembered the American war,
ought to know the futility. of such expectations : we hoped
and trusted that one town, or one state, would be more fa-
vourable to our cause than others had been ; but as often as
we expected, so often were we disappointed. In the same
way our hopes from the Lyonese and Marseillois had been
frustrated, and those unfortunate persons who set their faces
against the tyranny by which they were oppressed, had, many of
them expiated, on the block, the crime of federation ; nor
had we been able to raise any diversion in our favour in any
of the provinces in the neighbourhood of Toulon, either in
Provence, or in Languedoc, or in Dauphiny.


Mr. Fox said, he next wished to enquire, if the force sent
to Toulon Was sufficient to preserve it? From every thing he
could learn on the subject, and from military men, he under-
stood, that to preserve that place, a force of at least 30,000
effective men would have been necessary. What was the force
sent for the protection of that place ? There were only.
ts,000 men, and those not all English, nor equal in point of
service to half' the number of English, but a motley group,
consisting of Piedniontese, Spaniards, French, and 'Neapoli-
tans ; and to complete the success of the business, an actual
dispute, he understood, existed between Admiral Gravina and


IC 3




I 82
AUGMENTATION or THE Anil/V.


[Feb. 3.
our general, who should be commander in chief of this army.
If Success was to be considered primajitcie evidence of merit,
he had a right to asume that ill success was evidence of de-


jette
merit : as such he should consider the expedition, or the pro,


d expedition under the Earl of Moira ; but he might be
told, that it could not yet be called unsuccessful, as it had not
been entered upon ; but he contended, that it was unsuccess,
ful, insomuch as it was injurious in its effects to the cause
which it was intended to serve; for what Frenchman would
be mad enough to hazard his life, by opposing the tyranny
which he detested, upon the hope that he would receive assist-
ance from this country, when our troops had been in the im-
mediate vicinity of their coast, and had not been able to effect
any thing to serve the cause of the royalists, either in LaVendee, or in any other part of France ? And they had,
moreover, the example of Toulon to deter them. As to the
question, whether Toulon or the West-India islands were to
be preferred by this country ? that was a question which very
objec
much depended upon what was the object of the war. If our


t was to gain permanent possessions, which we deter-
mined to keep, there could not be a moment's doubt but that the


ject
West-India islands were of the most importance; butif the ob-


of the war was, as it seemed to be confessed by the minister
and the majority of that House, to force upon the people
of France, in conjunction with the other powers of Europe,
some form of government in the place of that tyranny
which now subsisted there, for the attainment of that object,
the possession of Toulon would be more instrumental than
Martinico, Guadaloupe, Saint Domingo, and all the other
West-India islands together.


An expression had fallen from the right honourable the
chancellor of the exchequer, that we were not now at


'Wilt
with an army, but an armed nation. This taken in one point
of view was a very alarming circumstance, for he believed no
position would be more readily admitted, than that an armed
nation, so long as it acted upon the defensive, was invincible,
and happy he was that it was invincible, for it was the only
security that one nation had against the designs of combined
and ambitious neighbours, for the preservation of its liberty
and independence: he did not mean that kind of liberty
which they had in France, but that rational and desirable
liberty which was enjoyed under a well-regulated government.
If Great Britain should be attacked by a combined force of
the powers of Europe, which was not a thing impossible, the
troops they were about to vote that night would be as nothing
to oppose against it. 'Would sixty thousand of her sons be
all that would take up arms in defence of Britain ? No; we


I 794`] AUGMENTATION OP THE ARMY.


583


should arm as one man, we should have but one sentiment, to
conquer or to die; and, on this principle, he rejoiced that an
armed nation was invincible. The same reason that made an
armed nation invincible in defence, rendered it in attack quite
the contrary. The desire of conquest could animate but a
few, and they would be opposed by the same principle of re-
sistance in their attempts to conquer other countries which
enabled them to defend their own. The French, therefore,
would not succeed in their attempts at conquest if they had.
not abandoned them, and we might make peace with them,
in full as much security that it would be permanent as we had
done at any former period. If in former times we had said,
that we would make no peace with France, without a change
of that government, which we knew to be hostile to our own,
we should have been at war for more than a hundred years.
What were the dangers we had now to dread from France
more than those we had actually experienced and repelled ?
An honourable friend of his had said, that when a danger
rose to a certain magnitude, all beyond that became of no ac-
count, because we already saw what we dreaded more than
loss of life. Now, what was the danger from which we were
delivered in the days of the pretender? A powerful foreign
despot attempted to seat on the throne a prince whose right
we had abjured; to overturn our constitution and establish an
arbitrary government; to subvert the Protestant and introduce
the Roman catholic religion ; in one word, to ravish from us
all we held most dear, and force upon us all we most abhorred.
Yet we never went into the extreme of saying, " We will
make no peace with the government that has attempted this ;
we can have no security while a ruling power exists, whose
principles are so hostile to ours." Sorry he was to find such
sentiments entertained now; for if France was become an
armed nation, we might accelerate the calamities we dreaded,
but we should not conquer France. He should, perhaps, be
told, that, if France had become an armed nation, it might
be necessary for us to become one also. But we ought not to
become an armed nation in order to carry on an offensive war.
If, unfortunately, we should ever be driven to fight on the
same terms as the French had been, we too should become
an armed nation, and like them be invincible.


The resolution was agreed to.




184 MR. GREY'S MOTION RESPECTING
[Feb. to,


- MR. GREY'S MOTION RESPECTING EMPLOYING FOREIGNERS
IN ANY SITUATION or MILITARY TRUST, AND BRINGING
FOREIGN TROOPS INTO THE KINGDOM, WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT.


February


1-41 ARLY in the session Mr. Secretary Dundas bad brought
down a message from his majesty, stating, that is corps of


Hessians employed in his service having been brought to the coast
on the Isle of Wight to prevent sickness on board the transports,
his majesty had given orders they should be quartered in the island.
This corps constituted a part of the army destined to co-operate
with the French royalists in La Vendee, under the command of
the Earl of Moira. The House thanked -his majesty for the com-
munication : but as it seemed that the ministers of the crown
meant to pass silently over this transaction, which, though circum-
stances might render it proper, was in a constitutional view alarm-
ing, Mr. Grey, on the moth of February, called the attention of
the House to the subject in a speech replete with historical, parlia-
mentary, and constitutional information, clearly proving that the
measure in question was contrary both to the letter and the spirit
of the constitution, as established at the Revolution ; and that,
whenever such a measure became necessary, ministers should
either obtain the previous consent of parliament, or resort to


a. bill
of indemnity. Mr. Grey concluded by moving, " That employing
foreigners in any situation of military trust, or bringing foreign
troops into the kingdom without the consent of Parliament first
had and obtained, is contrary to law." The motion was opposed
by Mr. Powys, Mr. Windham, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Montagu the
attorney-general, Mr. Yorke, Mr. Pitt, and also by Mr. Serjeant
Adair, who moved the previous question. Mr. Grey's motion was
strongly supported- by Mr. Whitbread, Lord George Cavendish,
Major Maitland, Mr. Francis, Mr. William Smith, and Mr. Fox.


Mr. Fox began with observing,. that he never recollected a
question that had given rise to so much extraneous matter, or
to so great a variety of abstract arguments as the present. He
felt considerable difficulty in replying to the different ob-
servations made on both sides of the House, but notwith-
standing all the grave advice from the attorney-general, on
the danger of agitating the question, he considered himself
as indispensably bound by his duty to his constituents to de-
liver his sentiments on the present occasion. The honourable -
and learned gentleman had expressed his doubts on this ex-


*


I 7943
EMPLOYING' FOREIGNERS, &C. x85


tension of the, prerogative, and wished that the question
might not be argued;


prerogative
the right honourable the chancellor


of the exchequer had differed materially from the learned
gentleman, and had given a decided opinion upon this point
of prerogative. It was not for him, he said, to account for
the conduct of the right honourable gentleman, who perse-
vered in his opinion on a question that had excited no small
share of indignation, even among those gentlemen who co-
operated with him on other subjects. If the doctrine of the
right honourable gentleman were true, he argued, that nothing
which had been said by the most atrocious libelers of the
constitution could be reprehended by administration ; because
the arguments of the right honourable gentleman went to
prove, that we had a constitution in words, but not in reality.
But thank God, he exclaimed, this was not true ; for the bill
of rights was in direct contradiction to what had been ad-
vanced by the chancellor of the exchequer and his right ho-
nourable friend (Mr. Windham) who sat near him. That
right honourable gentleman had thought fit last year to mani-
fest his fears, and had supported the minister in every question,
since he joined the ministerial standard. He had deserted his
friends, because he thought the constitution in danger : this
he must attribute to the acuteness of his feelings ; and the
same motive which urged him to depart from his friends,
should now have induced him to resist this most violent and
unconstitutional stretch of prerogative.


.Mr. Fox-reprobated the conduct of ministers, in attempt-
ing to justify the landing of foreign troops in this kingdom
without the previous consent of parliament. It was unneces-
sary for him, he said, to point out the consequence that must
arise from such doctrines, if adopted, where foreigners, being
the instruments of any misguided prince or licentious govern-
ment, might be turned against the dearest rights of the con-
stitution. Great stress had been laid by the chancellor of the
exchequer on the circumstance, that they were not to remain
long in the country ; but now the House was informed that
they were to remain in the kingdom until sent on foreign ser-
vice. He was of opinion, that a bill of indemnity should
have been at least introduced to justify the measure, a measure
which, during the American war,. was declared, in both
Houses of Parliament, to-be one that annihilated Magna Charta.
If a bill of indemnity had, been brought in, the preamble
would have run thus, as in former instances ; " Whereas
certain doubts have arisen :" but to this constitutional phraseo-
logy the minister was averse, as he argued, that the preroga-
tive of the crown was fully competent to the introduction
of foreign troops, agreeably to the bill of rights. His




MR. 'GREY'S MOTION RESPECTING
[Feb. ro.


learned friend (Mr. Seijeant Adair) had observed, thatit was
better not to argue the question than for


• the opposers of his
honourable friend's motion to have a decision against them;
but this was an argument to which he never could be brought
to subscribe; for, though left in a minority, it was his duty
to persevere in what he thought for the benefit of his country;
and though the House might not take care of its honour,
it did not follow that he should deal treacherously with his
own. A bill of indemnity had been offered to the right ho-
nourable the chancellor of the exchequer, but this he rejected
with indignation : he, however, conceived it equally the duty
of parliament to form a bill of indemnity on one question, as
it might be necessary to bring forward a bill of attainder on
another. But if a bill of that nature was brought forward,
gentlemen on the other side of the House would thereby seem
to confess, what they were not willing to admit, that the pre-
rogatives of the sovereign were not such as they wished to
maintain, though he trusted, that the House would ever ex-
ercise its dignity, and chew them that the king was endowed
with no prerogative that militated against the constitution.


It had been said on the other side of the House, that the
gentlemen who supported the motion had presumed on more
wisdom than their ancestors; although the precedent of 1737
clearly bare them out in every argument they had offered. It
was urged, too, that they had not brought forward a single
new argument on the subject in debate. Then, how incon-
sistent was it to accuse them of being bold innovators, and
agitators of a question repeatedly discussed, and which it was
argued should sleep for ever. Mr. Fox ridiculed with much
success the idea that as the word "war" was not precisely spe-
cified in the bill of rights, and the word 64 peace" was
alone mentioned, that his majesty could, consistently with the
constitution, introduce foreign troops into the kingdom. This,
he said, was a fallacious argument, reprehensible in the ex-
treme, as being a most daring attack on the principles of the
bill of rights, which he defined not to be an enacting, but a
declaratory law, upon which the House should, on all occa-
sions, put the most liberal construction. Allowing the right


'Mhonourable the chancellor of the exchequer every argument
that could operate in his favour founded on the precedents
which he adduced, he would ask him what had been the law
anterior to the passing of the hill of rights or the act of settle-
ment? If the House had been guided by precedents, those
acts. never would have passed, which prevented the landing or
the suffering of foreign troops to remain in this kingdom. He,
maintained, that it was monstrous and absurd to say, accord-
ing to the right honourable gentleman's definition of the bat


1794.7 EMPLOY 11,
1G FOREIGNERS 8'C. 1 87


of rights, that the royal prerogative could be exercised to land
foreign. troops in this country in time of war, or in time of
peace. If this were the case, how could he reconcile to him-
self the mutiny bill, the preamble of which did not recog-
nize any such prerogative, but was in direct contradiction to
the arguments adduced by the right honourable gentleman?


Mr. Fox reminded gentlemen of the debates that had taken
place in the year 1 7 75, on sending foreign troops to garrison
Minorca and Gibraltar. With what indignation was the pre-
amble of a bill of indemnity brought in by ministers then re-,
ceived, because it stated that doubts had arisen respecting the
legality of employing foreign troops in any part of his ma-
jesty's dominions without the consent of parliament ! The bill
with this preamble passed the House of Commons: but when
it came to the House of Lords, it was thought better to throw
it out entirely than suffer it to pass with a doubt expressed in
it on a point of such constitutional importance. During the
debates on this subject it was that Lord Camden had laid it
down as a maxim, that the law knew no distinction between
peace and war, with respect to the right of bringing foreign
troops into this country, and that it could be done at no time
without the previous consent of parliament". The bill of
rights, Mr. Fox said, was to be considered as declaring the
constitution on particular points recited in it, which had
been previously attacked and endangered, not as declaring
the whole of the constitution. In what books, or in what
practice anterior to the Revolution, did gentlemen find this
distinction between peace and war, which they now so much
relied on ? The Dutch guards in the time of William the third,
were not suffered to remain in this kingdom by virtue of the
royal prerogative. They were voted in the army estimates,
and had therefore the sanction of parliament. Where, he
asked, could an instance be brought of foreign forces being
introduced, without the approbation of the Commons? In the
year 1 745, it was true, they were introduced; but then the
country was in a state of rebellion, and even at a period so
alarming, it was acknowledged that the minister did an illegal
act, for doing which he was indemnified by the subsequent
approbation of parliament. In 1775, there was a previous
consent of the House, and therefore all these precedents went
to deny that any such dangerous prerogative existed in the
crown, which those gentlemen who opposed his honourable
friend's motion hachsuggested. An act of indemnity, he con-
fessed, was unusual where it applied to the officers of the


See New Parl.Iiistory, .vol. xviii.. p. 8 r st.


4




x89188 MR. GI/Ey% MOTION RESPECTING
[Feb. o,


crown, when acting illegally; but. where a number of persons
were implicated; for instance, if these troops were resisted by
those on whom they were billeted, in consequence of their
being an illegal force, a circumstance which might lead to
consequences the most disagreeable and dangerous, then a
bill of indemnity was necessary to avert the evil. So far such
a bill, in his mind, would have been a more salutary measure,
than the previous question, which had been moved by his ho-
nourable and learned friend:


Mr. Fox entreated gentlemen to act with great caution and
deliberation on a quession as momentous as ever arrested the
attention of a British parliament, and to resist, with a manly
firmness, the strange and incoherent doctrines advanced by
his majesty's ministers: It had been asserted, that these fo-
reign forces had been introduced here for the purpose of
foreign service ; but he cared not what was the cause, where
the consequences to the bill of rights were so fatal. Subse-
quent events might reveal the mystery. But again he would
wish to impress on the House the consequences which might
Attend this unwarrantable exercise of the prerogative, if these
troops were to become the instruments in the hands of a
wicked prince, or a venal minister. The divine prerogative of
the crown was language which he did not expect to have heard
in the course of that night's debate. During the arbitrary
reign of James, it was true that it was considered blasphemous
to attempt defining that prerogative, to which he set no
bounds ; but he conceived at this time that words more suit-
able to the tongues of British freemen, were those that defined
and supported the divine rights of the Commons. They were
assured by his majesty's ministers, as an excuse for the land--
ing of these troops, that they were not to remain long in the
country. But this was not the question. Would the minister.
say that the introduction of these troops was legal or consistent
With the spirit of the constitution ? Who were to tell an army
of Austrians, of Hessians, of Hanoverians, or of Dutch, that
their further continuance in England was contrary to law ?
He would appeal, he said, to the right honourable gentleman's
own good sense on the occasion, whether or not it would be
either wise or prudent to neglect ascertaining our rights, till
we were surrounded by an army of foreign mercenaries —
till the critical period arrived, when the members of that
House would be questioned on their ingress and egress respect-
ing their political sentiments—till they were surrounded by
perhaps 30,000 usurpers, who, under the pretext of defend-
ing their liberties, would sacrifice and violate the few remains
of the constitution. Let gentlemen recollect the danger of
an imperious military government—let them recollect, that a


77947] EMPLOYING 'FOREIGNERS) &c.


powerful army was an engine of the most alarming nature—
let them remember, that such a weapon had more than once
overthrown the liberties of Europe—that if we yielded in the
first instance, we betrayed the confidence reposed in us by
our fellow-citizens — that he who dared present our bill of
rights as a remonstrance to an army of foreigners, would find
it a useless piece of parchment and that our wisest conduct
would be a steady adherence to the maxims of prudence of
our ancestors, who had uniformly resisted, upon this point,
every act of innovation. By pursuing a contrary conduct,
we should hazard the liberties of the people and the privi-
leges of parliament, and he entreated those who heard him
not to desert either, through private friendship or personal
interest. If there existed a party in this country who mani-
fested a wish to lower the monarchical branch of the consti-
tution, that party would be defeated by not rendering that
power odious by a wicked and dangerous extension of the
prerogative of the crown. Let the Commons. prove true to
the people, and the people would remain obedient to the
commons. We had no invasion to fear but an invasion of
the constitution and the parliament, which was its natural
watchman, would regard with a jealous eye any measures•
calculated to destroy the balance of power in the three estates,
by an unconstitutional extension of the prerogatives of the
crown. At a moment when the eyes of the world were
turned towards the constitution of England, he implored the
House not to suffer its admiration to cease by defacing this
noble structure. Ireland, lie said, was a free and imperial
kingdom ; though she might suffer foreigners at home, yet if
they once crossed the channel and arrived in this- country,
they must be recognized as an illegal army, and government
could not, without the consent of parliament, suffer them to
remain in this kingdom. It was therefore incompatible with
Magna Charta to oppose the motion of his honourable friend;
and, consistently with the arguments he had had the honour
of submitting to the House, he must oppose the previous
question.


Tile previous question being put, the House divided




Tellers. Tellers.
y EAs i'Mr. Grey f Mr. Hide East}




tMr. Plumer 3 35 * — "Mc'Es' 1Mr. Yorke
184.


.Mr. Grey's motion was consequently negatived.




t90 MR. GREY'S MOTION RESPECTING [March I


March 74.


This important subject was again brought before the Houseby Mr. Grey in a somewhat different form. He controverted,in the strongest terms, the opinion given in the course of the
former debate by Mr. Pitt, which, coming from sucl: authority, he
regarded as of the utmost importance. Mr. Grey said, that he was
far from calling in question the propriety or necessity of landing
the Hessians ; but he could never suffer it to be advanced, as a
principle of the constitution, that the king had a right to introduce
foreign troops into the kingdom as a regular branch of the roveprerogative. On the contrary, the letter, spirit, and practice of
the constitution all militated against it. He concluded with mov-
ing, " That leave be given to bring in a bill to indemnify such
persons as have advised his majesty to order a certain corps of
Hessian troops to be disembarked and stationed, for the present,
on the Isle of Wight, at Portsmouth, and the places adjacent."
The motion gave rise to another interesting debate. The prero-
gative of the crown to introduce foreign troops without the con-
sent of parliament was defended by Mr. Grenville, Mr. An-
struther, Mr. Yorke, the attorney general, and Mr. Pitt. Mr.
Grey's motion was supported by Mr. Francis, Mr. Serjeant Adair,
Mr. Sheridan, the Earl of Wycombe, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. William
Adam, and Mr. Fox.


Mr. Fox said, it was not his intention to enter into any
argument, after the able discussion the question had received
from his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Seijeant Adair);
nor, indeed, was there any occasion, for none of the argu-
ments which he had advanced had been in the least refined.
His honourable and learned friend had considered the subject
in a plain and manly point of view; and from what he had
heard advanced by him, and from his own opinion on this
important subject, he concluded, that if the introduction of
foreign troops into this country was legal, to talk of liberty
was absurd, to speak of a free constitution was weakness.
If the House did not come to some resolution on the illegality
of the measure, all the libels of those who said we had no
constitution would be converted into melancholy truths; and
even Mr. Paine himself had not written a word of falsehood;
but the question had been that night too well argued for him,


jector any unprejudiced man, to entertain a doubt upon the sub-_
. Ought. such a question to be agitated in a free par*


liament ? Ought such assertions as had been advanced, tofind their way into that House ? Or ought we to remain
moment in doubt, whether such a dangerous and arbitrary


1794•3
EMPLOYING FOREIGNERS, &C.


power should be vested in the hands of the executive ma-
g, istrate ? If there was, or if there ought to be, such powerin his majesty's ministers, all he would say was, that every
idea he had formed of the British constitution was vanished ;
and as long as he remained in that House, and had the liberty
of speech, he would remind the House of its situation; and.
again and again remind the country also, that it was not the
intention of our ancestors that his majesty's ministers should
possess this authority. The attorney-general had, although
he opposed the motion, again declined to state his own opi-
nion on the general question ; but it was not very difficult to-
guess what opinion must be; for if it had been conform-
able to that of the minister, it would not have been withheld.
Indeed, he was surprised to see the learned gentleman so soon
forget those sentiments he had advanced on a former night :
the learned gentleman seemed to feel the difficulty of his situ-
ation, and Mr. Pox said he was afraid he could not help him
out Of that difficulty.


As to the illegality of introducing these troops, he hoped.
there would be but one opinion. He trusted that the House
would execrate the idea of the crown having this power ; and
he hoped it would be equally execrated throughout the country.
The objection made that night to the motion was, that, be-
cause bills of indemnity were unusual, they ought not to be
granted. On a former night the motion was refused, because
it was unnecessary. Indeed, there were different opinions in
the House on this clear and constitutional principle ; some
said they ought not to interfere because the measure was
illegal; others justified the proceeding ; whilst others refused
to give any vote on account of the illegality. With regard to
precedents, they had been so fully debated, that he would not
trouble the House on that head. He said it would be criminal
to sit silent now, and not at least establish a precedent for
our posterity, since it was the silence of other parliaments on
similar questions, that gave us the smallest cause to doubt of
the illegality of such a prerogative as was now maintained.
I-lad this occurred to those great men who framed that act,
or had they the smallest doubt that the legality would be dis-
puted, they would have guarded against the cunning of the
artful servants of the crown. One honourable gentleman had
alluded to the case of a sick Hessian, and had asked, if one
sick Hessian was landed on our coast, would we require a,
bill of indemnity ? And this case, he said, applied in the
present instance. But how could any gentleman use such an
absurd argument? Was that the case, or was it not? When
this message was sent down by the crown, it was asked, how
many foreigners were to be introduced? His majesty's mi-





I92 MOTION RESPECTING EMPLOYING FOREIGNERS. plarcirLi,
nister answered he could not declare. It was next demanded,how long they were to remain in this country ? On that headwe were left equally uninformed. But now it turned out,
that this country was to be the rendezvous of this foreign
army, and here they were to remain till a descent on France
should be practicable. He declared he should be very happyif the House would agree to the motion, and give his ho-
nourable friend leave to bring in a bill; for the legality of the
power would then be fully discussed, and the people of this
country would know whether or not they were free, and
whether their constitution was worth protecting.


It had been said that every prerogative was carefully
watched, and that ministers were responsible for any abuse.
He did not suppose a minister would engage in a measure
decidedly illegal, unless he had some grounds to justify thatillegality; but if their intentions were pure, if they were
upright, what objection could they have to this bill of in-
demnity? He could not dive into the hearts of men, but he
knew ministers were naturally attached to prerogative, and
often increased it to answer some favourite object. He alluded


opto the argument that had taken place in 1767 respecting the_
corn embargo, and .quoted the authority of Lord Mansfield,
to skew the propriety of ministers having recourse to in-
.demnity, when even necessity should urge them to act il-
legally. Nothing could be more dangerous than this pre-
rogative, unless, indeed, the refusal of the crown to assemble
parliament. If a minister could introduce foreign troops
when the parliament was sitting, he might as well attempt
it when it was not sitting. In such a case, every subject was
bound to rise is arms to oppose him, and bring him to a
proper sense of his duty.


He trusted that gentlemen would not return to their con-
stituents, and tell them that the minister had the power to intro-
duce foreigners at his discretion. That they would not say,
" We have reposed in him, with regard to mercenary Hessians,
that power which we are jealous of giving with respect to
-our own militia. We have permitted him to send from the
country our own- regular troops, and have suffered him to
substitute in their place Prussians, Hessians, Austrians, or
Russians. We have surrendered those rights which our
fathers struggled to procure; we have reposed in him that
in/limited confidence which his predecessors were never suf-
fered to enjoy. 'We gave our liberties to be protected by


-s
trangers, who are ignorant of their value; we have thus


sported with your freedom, and abandoned your dearest rights
to the discretion of ministers." No, said Mr. Fox, let us not
betray the trust reposed in us: let the crown lawyers come


1794'3
ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE, • 193-


forward and not decline giving their opinions: let them de-
fend this important point : let them declare the language of
the British law, which is so clear and decisive on the subject;
and let no man in this House conceal his sentiments on this
material, this fundamental principle. He said he would vote
for the bill, though he would not deny that he preferred the
former motion, as the more regular and parliamentary pro-
ceeding On the decision of that night the liberties of
Englishmen were at stake; for, if the legality of the proceed-
ing should be confirmed, those liberties would thereby receive
a shock from . which it would be impossible, he feared, to,
recover.


After Mr. Pitt had replied to Mr. Fox, the House divided on
Mr. Grey's motion :


Tellers.Tellers.
N OE S


Mr. Gre


Mr. E. J. Elliot 1 „
Y" 3 {Mr. Francis] 41. E3 (Mr. Anstrutheri




So it passed in the negative:


ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.


February 25.


rtN the 7th of February Mr. Wilberforceobta
ined leave to


bring in a bill " for abolishing the trade carried on for sup-
plying foreign territories with slaves." Upon the second reading
of the bill on the 25 th, in reply to Mr. Jenkinson, who thought
the bill could produce no good, inasmuch as it could not operate
during the continuance of the war, (for during that time the
foreign trade could not exist,) and was likely to produce evil,


Mr. Fox said, that as the honourable gentleman who spoke
last admitted the trade proposed by this bill to be abolished
for .ever, had now no existence, it would be impossible for
him to maintain with any consistency the impropriety of this
bill. Because, if the trade had no existence at present, the'
question was, Whether we should revive it ? The trade now
having no existence, what became of all the arguments they
had heard concerning the mighty capital embarked in it, the
sanction which parliament had given, from time to time, to its
continuance, the violent attack on private property, the injury


VOL. V.




194 ABOLITION OF viz SLAVE TRADE.


E Fenb. s
to commerce, the danger of innovation ? All these arguien2t :if arguments they could be called, were fled; nothing note
remained, but for parliament to take care that, having fled,
they should never return. This was essentially and em-
phatically their duty; because, if parliament should


now re-
main silent upon the subject, the friends of the trade, on
attempting to revive it, would say, that not having taken
measures to prohibit the revival when the trade was dead,
and consequently no injury could arise to any individual,
they had acquiesced in its principle, and held out encourage-
ment for others to adventure- when an opportunity should
offer; and then it would again be attempted to be proved, that
parliament had pledged itself to support this abominable, this
execrable traffic.


Having said this, he came to
- notice the determination of


that House, to abolish the slave trade gradually, and the
period at which the House bad fixed the final abolition of
this trade, namely, the 1st of January, 1796. Of that re-
solution he considered the present bill a material part, and
the House in pursuing it did nothing more than hold out to
this country, to Europe, to the world at large, that they were
sincere in their intention. He trusted also that the honour-
able gentleman (Mr. 'Wilberforce) who first brought forward
this subject, would not abate in his zeal and ardour for the
glorious cause in which he had engaged: Perhaps it might
not be absolutely necessary in this session, but, sure he was,
that the agitation again in that HODSe, of the general, ques-
tion of the total abolition of this detested traffic, should not
be delayed beyond the next; for he was clearly of opinion, it
could not be too frequently agitated. In what state was this
great question at the present moment? He would not speak
with disrespect of the House of Lords; but, surely, if this
question had, from the multiplicity of business before their
lordships, not received their determination, it could not be
improper for the House of Commons to be vigilant, and to
remind their lordships of the subject. The House would
recollect, that the Lords had received the resolutions of the
House of Commons on the subject of the slave trade in April
1792. What progress their lordships had made in the sub-


ject he could not find, but he had understood that their lord-
ships had that very day farther Postponed the consideration
of the slave trade to that day fortnight. Therefore, if theLords delayed this question, if they shunned it, if they


shrankii•om it, if they shifted or neglected it, the House of Commons
Ought again and again to remind them of it. He did not
accuse their lordships 'of any sinister intentions upon this


or
any other subject ; he had too much confidence in their in-


1794.1 MOTION FOR A SEPARATE PEACE WITH FRANCE. 195


tegrity, their justice, their humanity, and their prudence, to
Suspect them of any intention. to prevent the abolition of so
foul a trade.


The bill passed the Commons, but was rejected by the Lords.


ma. 4WHITEREAD'S MOTION FOR A SEPARATE PEACE WITH
FRANCE.


March 6.


DIVERS treaties which his majesty's ministers had concluded
with the several powers forming the coalition against France,


having, by the enormous expellee they created, and the nature
of the obligations therein contracted, become objects of such
magnitude, as to excite great alarm throughout the country, Mr.
Whitbread this day moved; " That an humble address be pre.
sented to his majesty, to represent to his majesty, that his faith-
ful Commons having taken into their serious consideration the
various treaties winch have, by his majesty's command, been laid
before this House, cannot forbear to express their deep concern,
that his majesty should have been advised to enter into engage-
ments, the terms of which appear to this House to be wholly in-
compatible with the declarations repeatedly made to this House
from the throne, relative to the professed objects of the present
unfortunate war ; To represent to his majesty the afEiction and
alarm of his faithful Commons, that his majesty should have been
advised to make a " common cause" with powers whose objects are
unavowed and undefined, but from whose conduct his faithful
Commons have too much ground to dread, that they carry on war
for the purpose of' dictating in the internal affairs of other coun-
tries; views which have been repeatedly and solemnly disavowed
by his majesty and his ministers, and which are utterly abhorrent
from those principles upon which alone a free people can, with
Honour, engage in war: To represent to his majesty, that if the
present war had been what his majesty's message in the last session
of parliament stated it to be, a war of aggression on the part of
France, and of defence on the part of Great Britain, that, by a
treaty previously in existence between his majesty and the King of
Prussia, the co-operation and assistance of that power were in-
sured to this country : That it does not appear to this House, that
the succours stipulated by the defensive treaty of 1788 have been
required by his majesty, but that a new convention has been
entered into, the stipulations of which have no other_ tendency
than: the involving us in schemes, as foreign to the true interest,
as they are repugnant to the natural fetlings ,of Englishmen, and
of imposingg -a restraint Upon his majesty's known disposition- ter


0 2




• 196
MR. WII IT13READ'S MOTIO N


FOR A [March 6.
avail himself of any circumstances which might otherwise


enablehim, consistently with the honour of his crown, and the welfare
hnd


security of the country, to relieve his people from the
present burdensome and calamitous war : To represent to


hismajesty, that the irruption of the French into Savoy, and their
possession of that part of the dominions of the Kin.. of Sardinia,did not appear to his majesty so far to endanger the balance


ofpower in Europe as to induce his majesty on that account, to
commence hostilities against France. That his faithful Commonsdo therefore express their disapprobation of that part of the treaty
recently concluded between his majesty and the King of Sardinia,
by which his majesty is bound not to lay down his arms until the
restitution of Savoy shall have been accomplished; a species of
engagement which it can at no time (excepting in cases of the
greatest emergency) be either prudent or proper to make, and


.


much less for an object which was not deemed, in his majesty's
wisdom, to be so connected with the interest of this country, as
to occasion a declaration of war: To represent to his majesty,
that it appears to his faithful Commons to be the general tendency
of these engagements, to involve us in connections of undefined
extent, for objects which we disapprove, and have disavowed :
and this, with powers on-whose principles of equity and moder-
ation we are instructed by experience, to have no reliance, and
whose complete success may, in our opinion, prove fatal to the
liberties of Europe : To represent to his majesty, that having thus
expressed ow sentiments upon the engagements which his majesty
has been advised to contract, we feel it our bounden duty most
humbly and earnestly to implore his majesty to consider of such
measures, as to his royal wisdom shall seem adapted (consistently
With that national faith, which, in common with his majesty, we
desire to preserve religiously inviolate,) to extricate himself from
engagements which oppose such difficulties to his majesty's con-
cluding a separate peace, whenever the interests of his people
may render such a measure advisable, and which certainly
countenance the opinion, that his majesty is acting in concert
with other powers, for the unjustifiable purpose of compelling the
people of France to submit to a form of government not ap-proved by that nation."


Mr. Whitbread supported this address by
a variety of powerful


arguments. The views of the combined powers were justified
by Mr. Jenkinson, who stated, that the main object of the war
was, to recover from the French the countries they had taken;:
The means employed to obtain this end were, he said, entirely
proper. 'We could not be too solicitous in preventing the French
from extending their dominions. The honourable mover had.
endeavoured to make a deep impression on the minds of the
members by an appeal to their passions respecting the melancholy
case of Poland. Such an appeal was, however, in his opinion,
inapplicable to the present situation of affairs. There was an old
adage, that when your own house is on fire, you ought not to.
exert yourself to extinguish the flames in that of your neighbour.
but he affirmed, that while his own house was on fire, he wotifil


.1794.] 1SEPARATE PEACE wrrg ritAxcr 97.


not go the distance of a mile to extinguish the flames of another.
Forming the analogy, he insisted, that it was absurd to talk of
Poland, a territory at such a distance, when there were the
greatest apprehensions of danger so near home. While we lamented
the misfortunes of Poland, let us look to ourselves ; let us en-
deavour to extinguish the flames of discord which now prevailed.in France, and then we might have a chance of peace on rational
and permanent grounds.


Mr. Fox said, that he thought himself bound, in the first
place, to return his most cordial thanks to his honour-
able friend, for the able and eloquent manner in which he had
brought forward the motion, and, next, to give it every de-
gree of support and countenance which it was in his power to
bestow. An answer to a very small part of his honourable
friend's speech had been attempted to be given by an honour-
able gentleman ; but those arguments, which had been de-
duced from the general distress of the country at the end of
what had been most falsely called the tenth gear of unexampled
prosperity, and the consideration of the enormous and increas-
ing burdens under which we groaned, had been passed over in
silence, and that for a reason sufficiently obvious, namely, be-
cause they were unanswerable. Independent of any remark
with regard to the origin of the war, on which so much had
already been said, it still remained for them to examine into
the manner in which the war was conducted, and into the
views of those with whom we carried it on. It was impossible,
by any sophistry, to evade the conclusion, that Austria and
Prussia were the fomenters of this contest, by the stipulations
of the treaty of Pilnitz ; a treaty which had for its object an
unwarrantable and impious purpose, namely, the destruction
of an independent state, by lawless and insatiable ambition.
When this was considered, every principle of reason and mo-
rality loudly called upon us to balance the advantages we
might reap from such an alliance, with the shame and dis-
grace attendant upon any engagement with those with whom
we had connected ourselves. It had been asked, in respect
to Poland, whether or not when our neighbour's house was
on fire, it would be wise to run to extinguish a fire at a mile's
distance? Mr. Fox begged leave to continue the allegory, and
to ask, whether it would be commendable in a man, when he
found his neighbour's house on fire, to call in a band of plun-
derers and robbers to his assistance. Rather than make as
common cause with them, either by pumping the engine, or
even handing them a bucket, he would hazard every danger
to which he might be exposed by the conflagration.


He admitted that the treaty of Pilnitz, although a notorious
aggression on the part of the Emperor and the King of Prussia,


03




198 MR. WH ITBREAD'S MOTION FOR A
[March 6;


was an aggression for which an apology might have been made
and accepted, provided all intention of following it up hadbeen un


equivocally disavowed. But, was the treaty annulled ?
-Was any apology made for it? Did not the emperor persist
in avowed interference in the internal (lairs of France ? Did
he not make constant complaints of the clubs of France, and


subje
other matters which could only concern the sovereign of the


cts of that country? With respect to the King of Prussia,
he had no pretext forattacking France. He did not even pre-
tend that he had any. He never called upon us for those suc-
cours, which, had lie not been the aggressor, we were hound by
treaty to furnish him. Next, we were told, that the conduct
of those powers with whom we were confederated towards
Poland, was not to be considered with relation to the present


,


war. From the same persons who held this language, lie had
often heard on former occasions, that a commercial connection
with Poland might be one of the most valuable that this
country could form. That system was now forgotten. Poland
was no longer of importance in the scale of nations. Be it
so : but, were we to shut our eyes to the perfidy of those
powers with whom we contracted alliances ? Where was the
instance in the French convention, or the jacobin club, that
could match the perfidy of the King of Prussia to Poland ?
He not only encouraged the Poles in modelling their consti-
tution, but he publickly congratulated them on having made
their monarchy hereditary in the family of his relation, the
Elector of Saxony; and twelve months after, he had the un-
exampled impudence to declare, that this very alteration had
given just offence to the Empress of Russia, and was a sufficient
cause for joining his arms to hers against Poland. Surely,
this was sufficient to teach us caution ! When negociation
with France was the question, we were told, C4 Think not of
France as a nation, look not to general maxims of policy, con-
sider only the morals and characters of the men with whom
you must negociate." When the conduct of our allies was
Mentioned, we were told, " Think not of the cruel and per-


objec
fidious dismemberment of Poland, look only to the present


t, and the aid they can afford you to obtain it." Hence
he conceived this was the inference, "Make peace with no
man of whose good conduct and good faith you are not per-
fectly satisfied; but make an alliance with any man, no matter
how profligate or faithless he may be."


When he spoke of kings, he desired always to be under-
stood as speaking of courts and cabinets ; for he held it to be,
in general, as true in other countries as in this; that for the
actions of princes their ministers were responsible, Till that'
disgrace on civilized society, the hnprisonment of the virtuous.


II


SEPARATE PEACE WITH FRANCE. 199
1794'3
and meritorious, La Fayette was done away, no Frenchman
who loved his country could repose confidence in the pro-
fessions of the combined powers. It was in vain that we had
virtue, humanity, religion in our mouths, while passion and
malignity were rankling in our• hearts, and displayed in our
actions. He had been informed that the King of Prussia, in
answer to applications for the liberation of M. de La Fayette',
had said, that La Fayette was not his prisoner, that he was
the prisoner of the combined powers, and could not be re-
leased but by general consent. This answer he knew had
been given; with what truth, ministers could best tell : but even
if it was false, it was so much the more incumbent upon us to
clear ourselves from the obloquy of being parties to the cruel
treatment he had received. By our own declarations, al-
though these were not all very consistent with one another,
we engaged to support the constitution of which La Fayette
was one of the principal authors. Under the constitution of
1789, we accepted of the surrender of Toulon, in trust for
Louis XVII. According to the forms of that constitution,
the government of Toulon was administered while we were
in possession of it. Louis XVII. was not styled King of
France and Navarre, as by the old government, but King of
the French, as by the constitution of 1789. On the restor-
ation of monarchy we offered peace to the French, .and thus
we explained, that we would be satisfied with that sort of mo-
narchy which La Fayette had assisted in endeavouring to
establish. Where was the French constitutionalist who did
not then call for La Fayette? With how much more effect
might he have been sent commissioner to Toulon than
Sir Gilbert Elliot? But, mark the horrible contrast between
our words and our actions. While we were holding this lan-
guage to the people of Toulon, he who loved rational liberty,
who loved his country and his king, who had sacrificed, in
their defence, all that makes life desirable, was languishing in
one of the most loathsome dungeons of a Prussian prison.
About the same time that we were professing to support the
constitution of 1789, General Wurmser had entered Alsace.
What were his orders from the emperor ? . Did he pro-
fess to support the constitution of 1789? No : his orders were
to abrogate every authority under that constitution, and re-
store the old form of government. This, which was matter
of fact and practice, proved that the views of the emperor
could not be the same with ours.


When Dumourier, the most enterprising and the most ac-
tive general that had lately appeared, proposed joining the
Prince of Saxe Cobourg, he was declared a wise and virtuous
citizen, resolved to give peace to his country, and to assist


0 4




200
MfL. 'NM/TB/LEAD'S MOTION' PDX A


[March 6,
with his army in restoring, not the old despotic system, but
the limited monarchy of 178 9


. Why was this proclamation
issued by the prince of Saxe Cobourg ? Because he meant to
adhere to it ? No such thing. As soon as Dumourier's de-
fection was found to be, not the defection of an army, but of
a ber


eneral and a few followers, all his wisdom and his virtue va-
mshed with his power, and within four or, at most, five days,
the Prince of Saxe Cobourg, without waiting to see what effect
his proclamation would produce in France, with audacity and
effrontery unparralleled in history, issued a second proeht4'
motion retracting every word of it. This he mentioned to
show, that there was as little sincerity in the emperor's pro-
fessions as in those of the King of Prussia. The Prince of
Saxe Cobourg was not a man to issue proclamations hastily
or without orders ; and from the dates, and other circum-
stances, it was evident, that he must have bad the second
proclamation by him when he issued the first. Soon after, the
" wise and virtuous" Dumourier came to this country, which
he was almost immediately ordered to quit; and he had since
been reduced to a situation not much to be envied by a French
general even before the revolutionary tribunal. What was
the lesson thus held out to Frenchmen ? That it was better
to run the hazard of the guillotine in France, than to take
the certainty of misery and


-contempt among the allies. Such
was the capacity we had shewn for overthrowing the jacobin
power in France ! Had the King of Prussia, or had Russia,
acceded to our views any more than the emperor ? If they
had, what better security for their good faith had they given
us, than they had given to Poland ? Were they, who held
themselves bound by no engagements, to make a splendid ex-
ception in our favour, and keep sacred to us promises which
were given to others only to betray ? We talked of indent,
nity for the past, and security for the future, as our objects in
the war. Let us suppose 'ourselves in the situation of a well-
disposed person in France, an enemy to the tyranny of the
iacobins, and see how these would operate. Security we t
might think reducing the exorbitant power of France, and to
this the well-disposed Frenchman might assent. For indem-
nity, we might be content with sonic of the West-India islands;
and to this also the Frenchman might agree. But, then, our
allies would want an indemnity, and what would be enough
for them ? If the Frenchman looked to Poland, he would see
that nothing short of the partition of France would satisfy
them; and could he be expected to risk his life by rising in
opposition to the convention, when the most flattering pros-
pect was the ultimate ruin of his country ? If France shouldbe


subdued, (an event which he never considered as probable,)


794.3 -SEPARATE PEACE
WITli PRANCE.


1


the . whole kingdom might not be sufficient to indemnify all.the powers at war ; and then we must have to fight for the di-;
vision of the spoil, without even that delusive calm, which had
been said to be all that could now be obtained by a peace with
France. It was pretty well known that some of our allies
were not very cordially disposed towards one another.
Where Prussian and Austrian troops were brought together




they were much more inclined to fight with each otherthan against the common enemy, and were only restrained
by the strong arm of power. Except ourselves and Holland,
not a state had joined the confederacy but those under abso-
lute






monarchies. Holland, we all knew, had been drawn
into the combination by influence equivalent to force, and
would rejoice in an opportunity of getting out of it with
safety.


But he should be told, that it was easier to look back and
find fault than to look forward and point out a remedy. The
motion made by his honourable friend presented the means of
finding that remedy. The inclination of Holland to peace
could not be doubted ; Spain, if he was not much misinformed,
would consent to it without any indemnity ; and it was very
generally reported and believed, that Prussia demanded of Us
a subsidy of 7 oo,000/. as the condition of prosecuting the war.
This, if true, was a fortunate circumstance, for iteopened
door for peace with the consent of all the allies. The late
campaign had been called successful beyond our hopes. The
latter part of it, certainly, was not that which could be thought
the most fortunate. Now, after being told, as the House was
repeatedly told last session, that France was only capable of
one desperate effort; and after seeing that effort baffled, in:
the early part of the campaign, but the loss nearly repaired
in the subsequent part of it, not by desperate efforts but by per-
severance, lie could not entertain very sanguine hopes of the
next campaign, even if it should begin as brilliantly as the last.
He was not bold enough to assure himself, or the House,that
we should be able to obtain the restoration of Savoy, which
we had bound ourselves by treaty to obtain; but if he were, he
should still object to giving the means of making peace out
of our own hands. When ministers were charged with ne-
glecting the business of convoys, they answered, that France,
in the first instance had reaped the fruits of her unexpected
aggression ; yet this unexpected aggression, as it was called,.
was made several months after the conquest of Savoy, after
the battle of Jemappe, and the invasion of the Austrian
Netherlands.


Mr. Fox said, it was matter of great consolation to him,
that in spite of popular clamour, he had used every endeavour


201




202
MR. ADAM'S I%10TI ON RESPECTING THE [March to.,


to prevent the war; and, when it was unfortunately com-
menced, to render it as short as possible. Believing now,
that several of the allies were disposed to peace, he thanked
his honourable friend for affording him an opportunity of re-
peating and recording his opinion on the subject. He would
say nothing of the calamities inseparable from war, although
on every question they were perfectly in order. It was idle'
to say, that because they were general topics, and applicable
to every war, they were fit matter of argument against none.
The very circumstance of their generality, rendered them
matter of serious consideration before we entered upon any
war. It was impossible to devise productive taxes that would
not fall ultimately upon the lower classes ; and when such
additional burdens


.


haul been imposed, it was impossible to call
war a state of prosperity. Every new tax fell heavier than
those which went before it, because its weight was added to
that of all the preceding. Thus, the taxes for the American
war fell heavier than those for the war preceding; those for
the present heavier than the taxes for the Anierican war; and
those for any future war must be heavier still.


The House divided:
Tellers.
Tellers.YEA s Mr. Whitbread?
Mr. J. Smyth /2G•---NOES -r 130-,j Mr. Sheridan


. ore Carew .)So it passed in the negative.


MR. ADAM'S MOTION RESPECTING THE TRIALS OF MESSRS..
MUIR AND PALMER •


March I o.


Y sentences of the court of justiciary at Edinburgh, and of theLP
circuit court at Perth, Mr. Muir and Mr. Palmer, for the


crime of l easing-making, were adjudged to transportation,. andBotany Bay was understood at the time the sentences were passed
to be the place to which they would be transported. These were
the first instances in which transportation was imposed by the court
of justiciary in Scotland for an offence of that nature. On the
loth of March, Mr. William Adam called the attention of the
Rouse to the subject, by moving for a copy of the record of the
trials of Thomas Muir and the Rev. Fysche Palmer. From the
records demanded, his object, he said, was to question the legality
of the sentences passed upon them. But as no appeal could lie
from the decision of the court, however questionable, he proposed,
in consequence of the doubtfulness of the case, to move for the


S 794•] TRIALS OF MESSRS. MUIR AND PALMER.


203


production of certain records relating to the trial, and for a pe-
tition to the crown in their favour. The crimes for which they
were indicted, were stated in Scotland leasing-making, correspond-
ing to that misdemeanor in England, called a public libel on the
government, and tending to disturb the peace. No other crime
was charged in their indictment ; and transportation could not be
legally inflicted for leasing-making the only punishment for
which by law, was fine, imprisonment, or banishment. Nor, if the
acts charged in the indictments did not amount to leasing-making,
were they charged with any crime known to the laws of Scotland.
He then adverted to various circumstances attending the trial,
which he decidedly reprobated as oppressive and unjust ; and con-
demned the sentence altogether, as, illegal, arbitrary, and unwar-
rantable. On these grounds, 1‘ ,r1r. Adam maintained, that their
punishment exceeded all the bounds of equity and moderation.
He concluded by declaring, that he had undertaken the present
business neither from interested motives, personal affection to the
sufferers, whom he knew not, nor disrespect to the judges who had
presided at these trials ; but solely from a persuasion, that an im-
partial administration of justice was the surest preservative of
public liberty, and that the perversion of the law, where the in-
terest of the whole community was at stake, tended to introduce
despotism or anarchy. — The lord advocate of Scotland, Mr.
Windham, and Mr. Pitt, contended strongly for the propriety of
the sentence, and of the proceedings of the Scotch courts. The
first of these gentleman even went so far as to assert the superi-
ority of the Scotch over the English laws, for the punishment of
libels and the suppression of sedition. The second seemed to in-
sinuate, that if the English laws were not equal to those purposes,
the Scottish law should be substituted.


Mr. Fox rose and said : — It was my wish, Sir, that this
question should neither be agitated in this House, nor in the
House of Lords ; but since it has been brought before the
House, and since doctrines of the most extraordinary and
monstrous nature that ever fell from any gentleman within
these walls, have been advanced by a learned lord opposite
me, who has risen to vindicate the conduct of the tribunal
of Scotland, and to defend the part . which he has taken in
the proceedings, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour,
I should feel myself deficient in the duty which I owe to my
own character, as a representative of a great and free peo-
ple, if I withheld my sentiments, and contented myself with


a silent vote on this occasion. The present, Sir, is a
question of the greatest importance a question involving in
its consideration, not only the fortunes of two suffering and
oppressed individuals, but the consequences which will be
produced to posterity, by establishing a precedent inimical
to, the liberties of mankind. No wonder, Sir, that my ho-
nourable friend who has just sat down, (Mr. Whitbread,) should




204
"SIR. ADAM'S MOTION RESPECTING THE [March 10.


have displayed such honest indignation, and expressed him-
self in so feeling a manner on such a subject; but there is
one point in the speech of my honourable friend, which
cannot help taking notice of, and on which I am under the
necessity of entirely dissenting from him. My honourable
-friend has declared, that if any minister should dare to in-
troduce into this country the law of Scotland, he hoped
there would be found in this House men bold enough to
impeach him. I cannot agree with him on this point; for
so dearly do I prize the freedom of debate, in such vener-
ation do I hold the free and unlimited discussion of any
political or constitutional question within these walls, and so
jealous am I of-every tiling which would look like an infringe- '46. •Mem of this our most valuable privilege, that if the minister
Were to advance the most dangerous and detestable prin-
ciples, if he were even to propose a bill to this House, to
alter the succession to the throne, and introduce in the place
of our sovereign, a foreign pretender, I would hold him
justifiable for the unconstitutional measures he attempted in-
to introduce, and would with my voice endeavour to rescue-
him from a public impeachment or prosecution.


The learned lord over against me, in his panegyric on the
laws of his own country, has thought proper to throw out
insinuations against the laws of England. From his train
of reasoning, and from the many arguments he has brought
forward, in attempting to defend his favourite system of
Scottish jurisprudence, it struck me, and it must have struck-
every man open to the most common impressions, that it
was his sincere and fervent wish, that his native principles
of justice should be introduced into this country; and that
on the ruins of the common law of England should be erected
the infhmous fabric of Scottish persecution< Indeed, Sir,
when I recollect what has been advanced by the learned lord,
I can easily account for the sentence pronounced against
these two unfortunate gentlemen. If that day should ever
arrive, which the lord advocate seems so anxiously to wish
for— if the tyrannical laws of Scotland should ever be in-
troduced in opposition to the humane laws of England, it
would then be high time for my honourable friends and my-
self' to settle our affairs, and retire to some happier clime,
where we might at least enjoy those rights which God has
given to man, and which his nature tells him he has a
to demand.


I will now, Sir, address myself to my honourable friend
who has just sat down (Mr. Windham), and ask him what
he meant by an expression which fell from him, implying a
doubt of the laws being adequate? Does he mean to assert


794.] TRIALS OE MESSRS. mum AND PALMER.
205


that the laws are not adequate in this country to punish
sedition? There was a time when my honourable friend
agreed with me, that the laws were adequate, and surely he
must think so still. He has told us, that it' they are not suf-
ficient to check the career of sedition, laws ought to be in-
troduced to answer that purpose. Would my honourable
friend introduce the tyrannical laws of Scotland ? No: struck
with a sense of the cruelty of the punishment which has been
inflicted on these gentlemen, struck with a conviction of
the iniquity of the whole proceedings, impressed with a
veneration for the laws of his country, and an apprehension
of the inevitable and fatal consequences that must result to
English liberty, from the horrors of such innovation, he has
qualified a little his expression, and has ingeniously slipt in
an —" your f is the only peace-maker, much virtue in if:"
My honourable friend has said, if the laws are not adequate,
why then let the laws of Scotland be introduced in their
place. The question, Sir, is unfortunately a complicated
one. In complicated questions it will always happen that
there are some particular parts in which gentlemen disagree;
there will be parts that some will overlook and others com-
bat; but in every question, however intricate, there are
certain essentials in which all who value truth, and act from
the honest impulse of their heart, must be unanimous. Most
true it is, Sir, that in every country there will be points on
which the sentiments of men will be at variance, for it is the •
nature of men to differ; but justice in every country is the.
same, and in what relates to her there can be but one opinion.
If, therefore, this sentence must in England be considered
as notoriously unjust, and repugnant to every principle of
humanity, it is impossible for ingenuity to varnish such a
system of iniquity, or give to that which on its very face
wears the features of cruelty and oppression, the appearance
of justice or humanity.


Now, Sir, let us examine a little what the lord advocate
has stated with respect to precedent, and on this point I will
be bold enough to assert, that except in one case, I mean the
statute of bankruptcy, the learned lord has not pointed out a
single case which bears on the present motion, or warrants
the interpretation he has put on the word banishment. 'With
respect to the act of 1703, it is a limiting act; it uses simply
the word banishment. In the statute of 1672 the word ba-
nishment is mentioned with additions: so that if gentlemen
examine all the statutes which have been made, it must strike
the minds of those open to conviction, what the real meaning
and the fair and honest interpretation of the word banishment
implies. The lord advocate, to vindicate the proceedings OA




206
mit...ADAM'S MOTION RESPECTING THE [March 16.


the trial, and give it at least an air of justice, has treated
theword .


in rather a singular Manner, and has
endeavoured toprove that it is synommous with transportation. But let us


refer to the last statute quoted, namely, that of 1672, and
gentlemen will clearly discover, that. wherever it was


theintention of the legislature to extend banishment to transport-
-ation, the place destined for the culprit's transportation was
specifically declared. Hence, in the statute of 1672, we


see.banishment to the West Indies; if this word extended to
-transportation, why "is the place pointed out in some


cases
and omitted in others ? The reason is obvious : when the law
of Scotland only meant simple banishment, that is, exiling a
Irian from his country, it only used the word, and gave him
the liberty of chusing a spot for himself; but where the offence




.„called for more severe punishment, the place of transportation
was identified. There is one statute, and only one, which
makes in favour of the learned lord's argument, and that is
but a poor assistance; I mean the statute of 1696. That
statute enacts, that banishment, or otherwise, should be the
consequence on conviction ; now, to argue on the word
" otherwise," and make it a ground for a severer punish-
ment than the word banishment, would be contrary to all
rules of law, and, 'in- my mind, every principle of Englishjurisprudence. The precedent of 1 7 04


was made by theprivy council of Scotland, the most reprobate and despicable
tribunal that ever disgraced the annals of its history; we know
this, as well from the circumstances of the case itself, as from
what fell from the noble lord on the woolsack last year, who,
when this precedent was mentioned, started up and declared„he would pay no attention to any thing which came from that
infamous and reprobate tribunal.


I come now to this enormous and gigantic sedition, which
has induced the lord advocate to ransack precedents which
have laid dormant for two centuries. In the last century he
says there are no precedents, though in that period there were
two rebellions, and we find the names of a Graham and se-
veral others, who were convicted of more atrocious offences,
but punished with less severity. But what is this sedition ?
The learned lord has mentioned the name of Mackenzie, and
has misquoted him, in support of his own principles; but
this is an authority which I never mention without reluctance
and humiliation, (but I am obliged to have recourse to him, as
there is no other constitutional writer,) because this very man
was the flattering apologist of the tyrannies perpetrated in
the latter years of the Stuarts, and which are now attempted
to be revived in Scotland. Indeed, Sir, so strikingly dis-
c7ustRil .


are the whole features of this trial, and so enormous its


1794.7 TRIALS OP MESSRS. MUIR AND PALMER. ao


proceedings, that when I first heard of them, I could not pre-
vail on myself to believe that such proceedings had actually
taken place ; the charge itself, and the manner in which that
charge was exhibited, made my blood run cold within me. I
read the first edition, I discredited ; I read the second and
third editions ; I was inclined to disbelieve them all ; nor would
I even believe it now, but in consequence of what I have heard
from this lord advocate himself. But, if sedition is to be
proved by such an evidence as Anne Fischer, evidence which in
no civilized country ought to be permitted, there is an end ofjustice. This infamous evidence, this domestic spy, was evenquestioned respecting the private and unguarded conversation
of her master, and her testimony was allowed, because it was
solicited. Good God ! Sir, what man amongst us, if our ser-
vants and our friends were called to give evidence against our
private declarations, would not stand guilty ? And which of
us would not be liable to transportation ? If so tyrannical a
law exists, our fortunes, our honours, our lives, are at the dis-
posal of the executive power. But since the lord advocate
has introduced a neighbouring country, and has spoken much
of the word sedition, I will ask him where he is to find this
word sedition ? It is not to be found in the common law of
England or Scotland ; but I will give him a little assistance to
help him out of his embarrassment, and will advise him to
change this word into incivism. Let the lord advocate imi-
tate the example of France; let him convert sedition into
incivism ; and let him, like the unfeeling and ferocious rulers of
that people, doom the suspected to Botany Bay or the guillo-
tine. Let him tell me where I can find a common-law case of
sedition in Scotland. The only authority he can produce is
Mackenzie, and that is unfavourable to his argument. Let
him shew me by what laws of eternal justice such proceedings
as have lately taken place in Scotland can be vindicated. It
is too much for professional men to expect that we should
pay implicit obedience to their doctrines. Does the lord ad-
vocate suppose that I will give unlimited confidence co his
ipso dixit ? He is wrong if he imagines we are not equally
capable of discussing subjects of legal policy. It is evident
from all that has been said, that the legality of the sentences
passed upon Messrs. Muir and Palmer is highly questionable.


My honourable and learned friend who opened the debate,
has clearly shown, that the pannals were indicted on tile
statute of leasing-making; we have also clearly seen that the
penalties to be inflicted on the convicted, are either banish-
ment, fine, imprisonment, or corporal punishment. The
lord advocate has seriously asked the House, if these men
were not transported, what would be done with them ? Shall I
imprison them, said he ? Imprisonment is a poor chastisement




210
MR. ADAM'S MOTION RESPECTING THE [March To,


learned lord's discretion to give Mr. Muir either to the
lows ! — to wild beasts! or to Botany Bay ; and, of thewhole
he had happily selected the mildest ! He was utterly amazed
when he learned that a judge had seriously supported such
unaccountable nonsense from the bench — such nonsense as
ought not to he suffered from the youngest or most ignorant
student. He bad always entertained the highest veneration
for the character of a judge ; and his indignation was roused,
to find that the learned lord, instead of discharging his duty
with the gravity becoming the bench, had acted with igno-
rance, levity, and hypocrisy. After having put his invention
to the, rack, he had at last hit upon the mild punishment, of
fourteen years' transportation beyond the seas ! Good God !
Sir, any man of spirit (and such he believed Mr. Muir to be)
judge
would sooner prefer death than this mildest instance of the


's mercy. But. another of these learned lords, or per-
haps the same, (for with their names I profess myself totally
unacquainted,) asserted, that now the torture was banished,
there was no adequate punishment for sedition,! Here, Sir, is
language which also shows the temper, the ignorance, the
levity, the hypocrisy of this imprudent man : let him be either
serious or in jest, the sentiment was equally intolerable. I:
know not which of them advanced such a proposition, but
God help the people who have such judges !


.1 admit, Sir, that the conduct of a lord advocate is less ma-
terial than that of a judge; but I do not think, that in Great
Britain any person should be declared guilty, before


,he is
arraigned and convicted of the offence. Shall we send Muir,
Palmer, Skirving, Margaret, and Gerald, to England ? said
the lord advocate. BLit here he acts, with respect to Mr.
Gerald, as he did towards Mr. Muir, and supposes him guilty,
without ever being brought to a trial. The abuse of dis-
cretion has been made a.topic of debate; but I assert, that
when these learned lords are about to exercise discretion, they
should look to England, and regulate their conduct by her
example. What, Sir, was the case here? A Mr. Winter-
bottom was convicted ;


and punished with fine and imprisonment.
In the course of his imprisonment, he was placed among the
common felons. As soon as the attorney-general of this
country was made acquainted with the circumstance, with
that humanity which should ever attend his office, he ordered
him instantly to be removed; exclaiming at the same time,
" God forbid, let his crime be sedition, or what it may, that


41I should suffer this man to mix with such company, to have
his morals corrupted and tainted with their villainy I I will
hot allow it." But, how different was the conduct of the
humane court of justiciary! They send the unjustly-accused


6


1• 7 0..] TRIALS or MESSRS. MUIR AND PALmER,


and convicted to herd with the most infamous and. abject,
and even think this punishment too mild for the of-
fence. I wish gentlemen would' speak out—that they
would tell us what their notions are of the law of Scotland.
Let us, for Heaven's sake, be informed what the opinion of
the House really is as to this tyrannical law. Were I to
live in Scotland, I should consider my life, my property,
and my liberty to be insecure, and should place no confidence
in the enjoyment of any of those blessings.


It cannot have escaped gentlemen, that not many years ago,
associations were formed in this country, exactly on the same
principles that Mr. Muir and his friends formed their asso-
ciations. Sir, it is precisely for those very offences which
were committed by those very associations in England, that,
Mr. Muir and Mr. Palmer are now condemned to transport-
ation for fourteen years. But it will be said, that the French
revolution has changed the nature of the case. It may be
so: but I wish never to believe, that what -was once merito-
rious, what was once fit, and what was considered as the
only means of preserving the liberties of this country, can all
of a sudden have so changed its complexion, can have be-
come so black and atrocious a crime, as to call down on the
head of him who so far reveres the constitution of England,
as to wish to restore it to its primitive perfection, the unre-
lenting vengeance of persecution ; while those very men, who
perhaps sat this tatat example, have fled into the arms of, „
power, as into an asylum, and are now enjoying the emolu-
ments of the highest places this kingdom knows — the wages,
perhaps, of their apostasy. Yes, Sir, these unfortunate gen-
tlemen have done, what the right honourable the chancellor
of the exchequer, what the Duke of Richmond, have done
before them. They have clone no more. Can this House
forget the addresses of those two personages to the people ? and
this, not to petition for a reform in parliament, not simply
to state the abuses, and to pray for, in the language of sup-
pliants, a redress of those abuses; but to demand, I say
demand them as their right. As long as gentlemen shall
recollect the Thatched House, and these very associations,
it is impossible they can forget their addresses to the people.
Oh, human folly and inconsistency ! Why are these very
men now exalted to the most envied stations, while poor
Muir and Palmer are doomed to waste out the remainder
of their lives in a foreign climate, the 'companions of out-
casts, felons, the most degraded of the human species ! And
have we not, at some period or other; all . of us called as-
semblies? Have we not all of us been guilty of crimes which
might drive us to Botany Bay? Happy am I to beast, that


P 2,


211




212 GENERAL FITZPATRICK'S MOTION RELATIVE [ March 17


however I may disapprove of those violent prosecutions which
have been conducted in this country against individuals, on
charges of sedition, that ,these, when compared with the trials
now before us, arc merciful and humane. Happy am I. to
boast, that it is my fortune to be a subject and an inhabitan


t
of England. Were I a native of Scotland, I would instantly


_prepare to leave that land of tyranny and of despotism.
Until these infamous laws arc abrogated, you may talk of


justice, you may talk of juries, but all trials arc mockeries.-
Until these infamous laws are abrogated, the liberty of the
subject is insecure and unprotected; and Scotland, like France,
is a land of despotism and oppression.


After having bestowed a very warm panegyric on his ho-
nourable and learned friend, Mr. Adam, who had that day
delivered one of the most excellent and argumentative
speeches ever heard within those walls, Mr. Fox concluded
by urging, that the present question was of the very first im-
portance, not only to the. people of England, but to all
civilized society. Until such time, continued he, as there is
a law to send me to Botany Bay for publicly avowing my
sentiments, I shall think it a duty incumbent upon me to
condemn the actions of those in power, whenever they may,
as in the present instance, call forth the, execration of man-
kind. if England, unhappily relapsing into despotism,
should ever be governed by such principles, then farewell, a -long farewell, to our boasted freedom !


The motion was also warmly supported by Mr. Sheridan, Mr >Whitbread, and Mr. Grey, after which the House divided
Tellers. Tellers.YEAS


.:Ur.
Gy


Mr. reSheridan} ' NOES { Lord AdvocatelMr. Anstrutherf
So it passed in the negative. Mr. Adam's speech on intro-ducing his motion was, by all parties, deemed one of the first that -


had ever been delivered upon a subject of law within that House.


E


A


GENERAL FITZPATRICK'S MOTION RELATIVE TO TILL
DETENTION OF M. DE LA FAYETTE.


March 17.
'TEE


melancholy situation of General La Fayette, who, since
his flight and capture 'on neutral ground, had been groaningin the dungeons


of Magdebourg, exciting the compassion of manyrespectable persons, General Fitzpatrick called the attention of


1794.] TO THE DETENTION OE IV. DE LA FAYETTE. ' 213


the House of Commons to the subject, by this day moving,
" That an humble address be presented to his majesty, to repre-
sent to his majesty, that the detention of the peneral La Fayette,
Messieurs Alexander Lameth, La Tour Maubourg, and Bureau de
Pusy, in the prisons of his majesty's ally the King of Prussia, is
highly injurious to the cause of his majesty and his allies ; and most
humbly to beseech his majesty to intercede with the court of
Berlin, in such manner as to his royal wisdom shall seem most
proper for the deliverance of these unfortunate persons." General
Fitzpatrick in the course of a most able speech, insisted, that La
Fayette had suffered for his attachment to the constitutional mo-
narchy which we now professedly wished to restore, and enlarged
on the merits and services of that unfortunate person, as far over-
balancing any errors with which he might be chargeable. After
the motion had been seconded by General Tarleton, Mr. Pitt
opposed it as equally improper and unnecessary. He denied that
La Fayette's conduct was ever friendly to the genuine cause of
liberty, and affirmed, that the interference required would be
setting up ourselves as guardians of the consciences and characters
of foreign states.


Mr. Fox said, that the right honourable the chancellor of
the exchequer, perceiving the difficulty of answering the par-
ticular arguments of a speech on which he had justly bestowed
the praise of great ability, had deemed it wise to oppose the
motion on as general grounds as possible. The speech of his
honourable friend had not been more distinguished for ability
and eloquence, than for truth and solidity of argument. If
ever there existed a man who, in a great and hazardous
situation, amidst the conflict of opinions carried on either
side to extremes, could claim the merit of having steered a
temperate and middle course, -uninfluenced by the violence of
the moment, and directed by preconceived opinions, that
man was M. La Fayette. In consequence of the treatment
which he and his fellow prisoners had been made to suffer,.
and the pretext well known to have been alleged for con-
tinuing that treatment, namely, that they were the prisoners of
the allied powers, not to interfere in their behalf, was to suffer
this country to be implicated in the odium, and handed down
to posterity as the accomplice of the diabolical cruelty of
the Prussian cabinet. If in any point his honourable friend.
who made the present motion had failed, it was in not paint-
ing this cruelty in colours sufficiently strong. How were
these unfortunate gentlemen confined ? in separate apart-
ments, that they might not enjoy the melancholy consolation
of communicating their sorrows to one another—in dungeons
sunk under ground, where the only apertures to which they
could turn for air, presented to their view a court where other
prisoners were almost daily suffering the various punishments


P 3




IV


2 14 GENERAL F TZPATRIEx's MOTION RELATIVE [March
to which, he would not call it law, but arbitrary will, had
condemned them. This he affirmed on information that
could not be doubted, to have been their situation at Mag.
debourg. Yet even this condition was capable of being
aggravated. Though debarred from communication with onebb
another, they had sonic satisfaction in knowing they were all
within the walls of the same prison. Two of them were,
therefore, left at Magdebourg, and two removed to other
places. So severely was this felt, that M. La Fayette im-
plored it as a boon of the King of Prussia, that M. Latour
Maubourg might remain in the same prison with him; and
this; boon, small as it must appear, was denied him.


But it was asked, what were we to do in such a case? He
maintained that the customs of civilized nations presented no
bbstaele to our interposition. In the case of Sir Charles
Asgill, private applications there made from this country to a
court with which we -were then at war. The good offices of
the Queen of France were solicited; they were granted, and
proved effectual. America, the ally of France, yielded to an
interposition in behalf of humanity; and what prevented his
majesty from using his good offices with an ally in the cause
of humanity also ? But if no such instance were to be found,
the nature of the war in which we were engaged, and the
particular situation in which they were placed might require,
and would therefore justify a new mode of proceeding. Had
not the King of Prussia declared that M. La Fayette was
the prisoner of the powers combined against France, and
that he and his friends could not be released but by the ge-
neral consent of those powers ? Did his majesty's ministers
not believe that this declaration had been made hy the King
of Prussia himself and by his ministers, to various persons
both publicly and privately ? In answer to this it was said,
that we were not engaged in the confederacy against France
et the time when those unfortunate gentlemen were made
prisoners. By this declaration, however, of the King of
Prussia, from which we were not excepted, part of the odium
was thrown upon us; and there was no way for the combined
powers to clear themselves from it but by each of them in
particular declaring that they disavowed the whole proceed-
ing. The ministers had, indeed, said that they were not
parties to it ; but this was not enough, there ought to be an
authentic declaration by the king, to which every English-
man might refer, in any part of the world, and clear the
character of-his country from so foul a reproach.


If the national honour demanded this, it was equally called
for by policy. We had offered friendship and protection to
all the. wellediepoeed French, whn should declare in favour


794.] TO THE DETENTION or Ii. DE LA FAYETTE. 2I"


of monarchy ; and to the people of Toulon we had granted
that protection as far as we were able, on condition of their
declaring for monarchy, as limited by the consitution of i 789.
The right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer had
denied that La Fayette was in the same situation with those
to whom friendship and protection had been offered; but, by
every fair and candid inference, he most clearly was in that
situation. If we had promised, and actually given protection
to those who declared for the constitution of 1789, must it
not follow in the mind of every man, not a caviller, that the
persons who had supported that constitution, at the hazard of
all that was dear to them, were to be protected also ? If
M. La Fayette, instead of being in a Prussian dungeon, bad
been, like many others, concealed in. France, and had come
forward on the proclamations at Toulon, to accept of the
offers there held out, could we then have refused him pro-
tection ? If he had even been in a French prison, within the
reach of our force at Toulon, and had solicited his release,
could we have refused attempting to release him, even at
some risk, supposing the attempt to have been consistent with
military prudence ? In the name of common sense, then,
why refuse now to make an easier and safer effort in his favour?
All the general reasons alleged against it, admitting them to
their full extent, ought to yield to the strong claim of hu-
manity. These reasons must necessarily rest on the general
policy with respect to the Nvar ; and of that could there be a
doubt ? Had not the imprisonment of La Fayette and his
friends prevented many from joining the standard of royalty
which we wished to rear in France? It was improper to
mention names; but he knew many, and ministers he was
sure must know many more. Without entering into detail,
the very reason of the thing must shew, that when French-
men were balancing in their minds, between declaring for the.
allies, or joining the ruling party, the Ihte of La Fayette must
decide their choice. Did ministers any longer entertain the
hope of conquering France, or establishing any form of go-
vernnient in it, but by the assistance of Frenchmen? He
knew the professions they held out to Frenchmen, namely,
that all who repaired to the standard of monarchy were to be
protected, and that monarchy being once re-established, they
were to be left to temper it with such modifications as they
should think fit. Of all the forms of monarchical govern-
ment, did they mean to proscribe exclusively that of 1 789 ?


If they did, why had they not said so? Why had they
givenground for believing the contrary? Frenchmen in this
case must suppose, either that our declarations were all as faith-
less as those of the King of Prussia and the Prince of Saxe


4







2 13
MR. ADA3I's .MOTION TO CONSIDER THE [March 25.


the case, it behoved that House to consider whether they
were not called on to consult their own feelings, and en-
deavour, by an honourable interference, to promote the suc-
cess of that cause which they professed to support. . Upon
these grounds he should support the motion of his honourable
friend.


The motion was also supported by Mr. Grey, Mr. Whitbread,
Mr. W. Smith, Mr. R. Thornton, Mr. Martin, Mr. Stanley, and
Mr. Courtenay ; and opposed by Mr. Burke, Mr. Ryder, the so-
licitor-general, and Mr. Jenkinson. On a division the numbers
were :


Tellers.
Tellers.General Fitzpatrick I




YEAS 46. — No E s f Mr. Jenkinson)1Colonel Tarleton
/ Mr. J. Smith S 153-So it passed in the negative.


MR. ADAM'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER OF
THE CRIMINAL LAW OF SCOTLAND.


March 25.


R. ADAM, still persisting in his determination to introduce,
if possible, some regulations into the Scottish coins of


justiciary, that would be more favourable than the present to the
liberty of the subject, and to a milder administration of justice,
moved, this day, " That a committee be appointed to take into
consideration so much of the criminal law of Scotland as relates
to the crime of leasing-making ; the crime of sedition; the right
of appeal from the supreme criminal courts in Scotland; the right
of convicted persons to a new trial ; the law as it regards the
competency and credibility of witnesses, particularly in answering
the preliminary questions; the law respecting the admissibility
of evidence under the allegation of art and part ; the mode of
returning and chusing the common jury ; the legal grounds of
objection to jurymen; the power of the lord advocate as public
prosecutor; the propriety of introducing a grand jury for the
purpose of finding bills of indictment, and making presentments
in criminal cases; the power of the court in punishing contempts
of court ; the power of the sheriffs, and other magistrates, in tak-
ing precognitions, or informations for the commitment and trial
of persons accused; the power of courts of inferior jurisdiction
-in criminal matters to try crimes without the intervention of a
jury ; and to report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to
the House." After the motion had been ably supported by'
Mr. Serjeant Adair, and opposed by the waster of the rolls, the


1794.] CRIMINAL LAW -or
SCOTLAND: 2 1 9


lord advocate of Scotland, and Mr. Secretary Dundas, who con-
tended that the Scottish nation were very happy under their own
laws, and that the alterations proposed would be a violation of
the articles of the union,


Mr. Fox rose and said: Sir, I have often been surprised
at doctrines advanced in this House ; I have often prepared
myself not to be astonished at any desertion of former . pr d


in-
ciples; I have often had my understanding perplexed an
confused; but never did I find myself so much at a loss as
on the present occasion. The learned lord advocate com-
menced and concluded his speech with reproaching my learned
friend who sits near me, (Mr. Serjeant Adair,) . with misquot-
ing and mistaking the law of Scotland ; but after preparing
to expose my learned friend's ignorance, after increasing our
expectations, lie did nothing more than repeat, but in a louder
tone, what had fallen from my learned friend, .and what had
been asserted by both the gentlemen who spoke so ably in
support of this motion. I really, Sir, supposed that I did
not hear the lord advocate, or that I misunderstood him.
My learned friend, speaking of the construction Of petty juries
in Scotland, said, that from the forty-five chosen to try the
cause, fifteen were struck by the court. Now what statement
can be more alarming to justice, what more dangerous to the
liberty of the prisoner? But when the lord advocate comes
to speak on the same subject, notwithstanding h is surprise at
the ignorance of my learned friend, he uses the very same
words, and says, that after the forty-five were given in to the
court, the judges selected fifteen ; not as in England, by
taking the first twelve that came, or on special juries, by
ballot, but by selecting number one, two, or any other num-
ber as best suited his purpose; and the manner i.n which the
first list was made out by an inferior Officer of the court, only
served as an additional cause for alarm, because it rendered
packed juries more easily obtained ; for certainly the power
of the judge to select such as he pleased from the number,
was tantamount to a packed jury. If the lord advocate in-
tended that we should believe my learned friend had mis-stated
the matter, he should have framed some argument, either to
chew that the jury was not packed, or that there was no danger
Qf such an event taking place.With respect to the power of the lord advocate, he can
create prosecutions. I collect from the learned lord, that
if the guilt of any person is made out, the court will order
the prosecution to be commenced; but -this is only with
respect to public crimes, in which the lord advocate may
,corrarkenc. -or discontinue any prosecution. Da he has




220
MR. ADAM'S MOTION TO CONSIDER THE [March 2c:


treated the argument of the able mover with great unfairness:
he has said, that my learned friend wishes. to introduce the
whole of the criminal law of England into his country, and
on the impropriety of this measure he has dwelt for a con-
siderable time: he should recollect, that my honourable friend
was not. speaking of felony or larceny, but of public crimes
against the state; and that it was only the criminal law
which related to those crimes, that he wished to introduce.
In that sense I am certain the House understood him. Did
my honourable and learned friend mean any thing else, much
as I admire his talents, and much as I might respect his
intention, I certainly could not coincide with him. In many
respects I revere the criminal law of England; but it would
be after serious reflection, and unprejudiced consideration,
that I would consent to extend it, with all its penal statutes,
to any country; because there are several of those statutes,
that contain provisions, of which I can by no means approve.
My honourable and learned friend meant only to introduce
the criminal law which relates to sedition; and in his exa-
mination into the law of Scotland, with a view to its alter-
ation, he does not assert that he would change it generally,
but particularly, and only as far as relates to leasing-making,
and the other points enumerated in the question.


The lord advocate has spoken of the act of union. He
says, that by this act we are prevented from making any
change in the jurisprudence of Scotland; but he ought to
have recollected, that the emphatic words of that act not only
declare what the law is, but that the criminal law of Scot-
land may be altered by the parliament of Great Britain, when
in its wisdom it should be deemed expedient and requisite
for the public good. He has mentioned the different laws
which support his assertion; the learned lord, however, says,
that we should not proceed to make any alteration, until it
come recommended from the throne, as- had been the case
in respect to the law of treason. Indeed, Sir, we have lately
heard such strange things advanced of our constitution, we
have seen it receive so many wounds, that we ought not to be
astonished at this suggestion. Does the learned lord mean,
that we are to wait until ministers come down to this House
to complain, that the prerogative of the crown is exerted too
strenuously against the privileges of the people, that they who
oppose their measures arc punished too severely, and that
the law ought to be made more lenient ? I cannot understand
what the learned lord intends by this idle assertion, which
means nothing; and that it does mean nothing, is the best
construction that can be put upon it. The next case the • .
learned lord said, bad proceeded after 2 previous inquiry


1794.] CRIMINAL LAW • OF SCOTLAND.
221


between the House of Lords and the court of justiciary. I
have as high an esteem for the House of Lords, in their


J'
udicial capacity, as any person can possibly have, but I
cannot allow them any exclusive right to legislate, nor that:-
any such alteration of the law ought to originate with them;


. for in their legislative capacity pro tanto the House of Com-
mons is in every degree equal. Indeed, the learned lord
saw the folly of this argument, for he was obliged to own that
the bill was rejected in the first instance, and came from the
Commons at last : but, then, he said it was carried through
by the attorney and solicitor general; this might appear to
the learned lord very proper ; but I trust we have not yet
forgotten all sorts of equality so much as to sanction a mea-
.sure because it comes from this or that lord in one house,
or from the attorney and solicitor general, or any member
in the other. We all have the same trust reposed in us by
our constituents, and our duty being the same, so is the.
degree of respect to be paid to us. This question, I contend,
should be treated as a practical one. But, Sir, there may
be some members in this House, and I have reason to think
there are, who were not present during the late discussions:
there may be some,- who, attending cursorily, and hearing the
debate relating to Mr. Muir and Mr. Palmer, and the one of
this night, may conclude that the proceedings adopted with
respect to these gentlemen were legal; but I persist in con-
tending that this was by no means the case. These arc the
first punishments inflicted on such crimes. It is true, they
argue on the other side, that they are legal. They argue
from analogy ; they admit (for obliged they are to do so), that
in the sixteenth century no such punishments were inflicted
on conviction of such offences; they can consequently find no
precedents to bear them out on this occasion. In vain they
searched; no industry, no trouble was spared. Certainly
the lord advocate would have availed himself of it, could any
such be found. But, Sir, the right honourable secretary
asserts, that the people of Scotland enjoy practical happiness.
When did they attain this desirable situation? Let him point
out the date, and name the period. Was it under the reign
of Mary, or the two first Stuarts? Was it at the union of
the two crowns, in the reign of Charles the Second, or of
his brother James? If there has been any period at which
happiness has been enjoyed in that country, it must be since
the union or revolution: but these crimes were never pu-.
Wished with such dreadful severity till within the last eighteen
months; and no precedent can warrant that severity, except
the infamous and abominable precedent of 5704. The right
honourable secretary says he likes the criminal law of En g-,




22 2 MR. ADAM'S MOTION TO CONSIDER THE [March 25.
land, but that of Scotland better; he will not therefore con-
sent to alter it; and he doubts whether it can he altered.
Has it not, Sir, been altered by parliament since the union ?
Did we not change it with respect to treason in 1708 ? Yet,
in the reign of Queen Anne, when we did change it, we
were not considered guilty of a breach of faith.


But, Sir, does not every circumstance of the late proceed..
ings dictate the propriety, nay more, the necessity, of going,
into an inquiry ? What was advanced by one of the judges of
the court of justiciary on a late occasion ? " New crimes,"
said the judge, " arise.from the new state of things; and courts,
not legislatures, are to find new and adequate punishments."
From the time of the union down to the present, no such pu-
nishment is found. The circumstances ofthe country are new;
the lord advocate is puzzled ; he finds no precedent for a
century ; he looks for the law ; and where does he endeavour
to find it? Not subsequently to the union ; no, but beyond
the union of the two crowns; and not finding it any where,
he has recourse to ingenuity; he reasons from analogy, and
finds he may transport these culprits to Botany Bay ! This,
Sir, is a new case ; for which there is no punishment pre-
scribed by statute, no precedent to support it, nothing which
can warrant it, but an argument from analogy. For my part,
I think the new method of punishment in Scotland as danger-
ous as the old method in England is adequate. What then
is it we say to you ? We tell you, " We live in a country not
totally exempt from the crime of sedition, though we allow
there never was less of it than since the accession of the House
of Hanover; we, who are well acquainted with the crime, are
able to judge what is the punishment suited to the offence:
we know that, in point of fact, the punishment inflicted in
this country is so adequate, that sedition was never less com-
plained of. We have practice in our favour : you are totally
ignorant of the crime, and equally ignorant of the punishment
suited to the crime; you may have had more confusion in your
country for the last century than we ; but we think a few li-
Ids, and one or two mobs, better than two rebellions ; this
'crime to you is new, to us it is old ; we tell you your new re-
medy is dangerous ; our old one we find adequate; we there.
fore wish to recommend it,."


But, while we are kindly interfering, while we are offering
our friendly advice, we are told that we are speculatists, that
we are no judges, and incapable of dictating what ought to be
your conduct. When we offer part of the criminal law of
England, and tell you that imprisonment is the punishment
suited to the offence, you return for answer, that imprison-
ment for many years is worse than transportation. This, Su',


1794.] CRIMINAL LAW OF SCOTLAND. 223


I deny. Imprisonment cannot be compared with transport-
ation for fourteen or even seven years. But what is the
case in this country? The punishment in few cases of libel
has exceeded two years; the longest I ever heard of (the case
of Lord George Gordon) was five years; and that, Sir, give
me leave to say, was not a proceeding which reflected the
highest honour on the country. But for a misdemeanour, I
know a single instance of seven years' imprisonment having
been inflicted. Does any one think seven years' imprison-
ment is equal to the offence of sedition ? Indeed, Sir, when
I heard of this severe punishment being inflicted on a man in
this country, and when I saw it connected with the name of
the judge, for whom I have a personal esteem, (being no
other than my learned friend, when recorder of London,) I
inquired what crime the prisoner could have committed ; but
found he was convicted of an offence little short of murder,
and that the misdemeanour was aggravated by several other
shocking offences. Surely, the crime of sedition does not re-
quire a greater punishment than that which our constitution
inflicts on those convicted of the most heinous offences ! The
learned lord has gone into clergyable offences; but, Sir,
arosuing about felonies has nothing to do with the present
question; this constitution could not have been preserved, if we
did not observe a greater jealousy with regard to state crimes
than any other. I cannot suppose there exists a desire injudges and ministers to press excessive punishment in cases ofpetty larceny, or other small offences ; but I can well imagine
that punishment may be pressed against those who oppose their
measures, or are obnoxious to their scheines; the jealousy should
be greater where we have any reason to fear that men high in
power may be actuated by improper motives. Treason is the
same in both countries; nor can I see any sort of difference with
regard to sedition ; it is not more local than treason, -and is
equally directed against the King of Great Britain, in what-
ever part of the kingdom committed ; the punishment, there-
fore, ought to be the same on both sides the Tweed.


But, suppose sedition to be an English crime, and that an
Englishman in Scotland were to publish a libel against the
government of this country, he must by the laws of Scotland be
tried upon principles totally different from English. How
absurd ! An English crime ought to be tried by English laws,
and on English principles. I confess, I feel, Sir, the impor-
tance of this question; I feel that the House has the greatest
Interest in the motion of this night. Considering the question
merely as it relates to sedition, there is ample ground for go-
ing into an inquiry : we should know what it is; that we may
not comment upon, speak about, write of, or venture to pro-




794 j CRIMINAL LAW OF SCOTLAND. 225
ments, which, if declared here, would be taken no notice of?
Has no one in this country a right to think or speak on poli-
tical questions but members of parliament? Indeed, Sir, if
general sedition is allowed as a charge, and such witnesses as
Anne Fischer are produced to maintain and support it, I can
easily conceive the danger of delivering sentiments freely in
any place. I recollect that, when I was a boy, attending the de-
bates in the gallery of this House, a sentiment fell from the
late Earl of Chatham, which warmed and filled my breast
with admiration ; and which did him more honour in my eyes,
than many things that have since been related of him. The
American war was then extremely popular, and a member
having asserted that there was a rebellion in America, 64 I re-joice," said this great man, " that America has resisted :I rejoice that she has shewn that symptom of British spirit and
British blood in her veins ; and I hope it will flow unimpaired
to her descendants, till they have accomplished all they mere."
This raised him high in my estimation; this splendid senti-
ment he never after denied ; for though he left this House, it
is well known what lie uniformly advised in another. If this
great man had been in Scotland at that time, and ministers
had had the opportunity of prosecuting these words before the
court of justiciary, his sentence would have been transportation
or perhaps this punishment would not have been sufficient; if
one of those judges who latel y presided, had then the di-
rection, the torture might have been introduced as alone ade-
quate.


But, Sir, allow me to say a few words in answer to a chal-
lenge thrown out by the right honourable secretary. Does
he mean to say that, intrusted as he is with a great employ-
ment in this country, and enabled consequently to know the
extent and application of the criminal laws of Scotland, lie
thinks those laws inadequate ? Why then, Sir, reflecting on
his situation, and seeing all the trusts that are reposed in him,
does he suffer crimes to be inadequately punished? Will he,
forgetful of his situation, sit supine, and leave them unpunish-
ed? Or, will he act the more manly part, and say, I cannot
see crimes punished in so inadequate a manner, without at-
tempting to alter the laws ? Which will he do ? Will he prefer
the latter ? If he do, I give him credit for his courage, and his
consistency, absurd and eccentric as the idea of increasing
the punishment is : if he do not alter them, I cannot give him_


The speech to which Mr. Fox here refers, was the last the Earl of
Chatham ever made in the House of Commons. It took. place on the
z 4th of January 1766. See New Earl. Hist, Vol, xvi. p. 104.


VOL. v.


224 MR. ADAM'S MOTION TO CONSIDER THE [March 25•
pose reforms in Scotland. If in England I am accused of
sedition, it is not the general crime which is laid to my charge ;
there is some specific act stated : supposing even the act I am
accused of proved, and that I am found guilty, if it does not
appear a crime in the eye of the law, I still shall be relieved.
But what is the case in Scotland ? The general crime is
stated in the indictment : I have seen the general crime, the
3najor proposition of the syllogism, in the case of Mr. Gerald :
but the lord advocate treats with levity di e idea of packing juries;


jand he tells us with triumph, that in all the late proceedings theuries were unanimous. What does this argument prove ?
Nothing. It is true they might all be unanimous, but surely
they might still have been all collected under the eye of the
officer;


and direction of the court. Good God, Sir, however
I may disagree with many of my friends on other topics, will
they not all agree with me in this? Will they not alt see its
danger in the same view that I do? Will they not all coin-
cide with me in declaring; that no man is safe, no man's
liberty secure, if he can be charged generally on the crime of
sedition ?


I am taking the late proceedings; for argument's sake, to
be strictly consonant to law ; though God forbid I should ever AI
be inclined td think them so; yet is there not something, with
respect to the evidence in those cases, which calls for your in-
terference ? The House will recollect the evidence of Anne
Fischer, that infamous witness, that domestic spy, whose testi-
mony I cannot think of without shuddering at it ; yet she,
and other such witnesses, were produced as to the general
charge of sedition. Do I stand, Sir, in a British House of
Commons? Which of us is safe, if charged on


.
the general


ground? If every action is to be examined, if evidences from
different quarters are to be collected to prove different charges,
without any specific act being stated in the indictment, I ap-
peal to every man who hears me, whether there can be any
liberty in the country where such practices are allowed ?
Which of us can be comfortable in our minds, if such doe-
trines are countenanced ? Let us set free our countrymen in
the other part of the island. Let us go into the committee;
let us both legislate and declare. The people of Scotland
have a right to expect both ; and I hope, when the House
shall be more accurately acquainted with the proceedings, to see
the sentence condemned, the mode of conducting these trials
censured, and the production of that most infamous witness
Anne Fischer both reprobated and regarded with disgust.
What, Sir, is not a man to say out of doors what has been
advanced within the walls of this House? Is a man to be,
punished with transportation for advancing political senti-




226 VOLUNTARY AIDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES [March 17.
credit either for courage or consistency : if he attempts to alter
them, I then give him credit for his courage ; for others have
been very severely punished for less dangerous attempts. But
this assertion of the right honourable secretary, that the laws
and inadequate, is not an assertion which has accidentally
escaped in the warmth of debate; it must have been an ex-. 11,
pression carefully considered, and minutely examined; it has
been ruminated over for four or five days; nor, Sir, ought it
to he received with indifference : his official situation makes
every thing which comes from the right honourable gentle-
man of importance. The right honourable gentleman does
not say he advances this, because he is dared to it. I would
nevertheless advise him to beware how he meddles with the
liberties of Englishmen, and consider well before he increases
punishment. Let him not think our laws inadequate until
he shall have made some motion to that purport, and has as-
certained whether this House thinks with him on that point.
•I am fully satisfied that something ought immediately to be
done to correct this abuse of law in Scotland, and to put
an end to the tyranny practised under the pretext of admin-
istering justice in that part,


of the kingdom.


The House divided:
Tellers. Tellers.


f Mr. Whitbread I
Lord Advocate /


77-YEAS 24.— NOES -E-N1 Mr. Hussey j
i Ir. Attorney Gen. j


So it passed in the negative.


101


T794.] WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT. 227


Mr. Fox said, that the measure said to be going through
the country, by way of a recommendation from his majesty
to the people, to stand forth and assist the executive govern-
ment with voluntary subscriptions, he had held often, held
now, and was likely to hold, to be entirely illegal, and a
measure the most dangerous to the constitution of this coun-
try. If the object was to legalize that practice, he was per-
fectly sure that there should have been a bill for that purpose.
A bill must pass to authorise the application of such money,
even after it was raised, otherwise not one shilling of it could
be legally applied. This opinion he had frequently given
during the American war, and all he had ever heard upon
the subject had not, in the most distant degree, tended to
alter that opinion. Having said this, he must now confess,
that with respect to facts upon the present case, he was with-
out information : he spoke in that respect entirely from rumour.
What had been sent to the lords lieutenants of the counties, and
what their answers might be, he knew not; but, supposing
the message alluded to, of a recommendation for the opening
of a general subscription, to have been sent, he had no doubt
that acquiescing in such a message, and applying such money
without an act of parliament, was not only illegal, but highly
dangerous. Whenever the subject came forward, he should
be ready to argue it on the points he had just mentioned ; and
he hoped that the House would not proceed on doubtful points
without first removing all difficulties that stood in the way of
the regularity of the proceedings.


March 24.


VOLUNTARY AIDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT.


March 17.


THE ministers having issued a requisition under the name of arecommendation, for the raising of volunteer companies of
horse and foot, in order to preserve internal peace, and suppress do-
mestic insurrections, and to aid the military, if necessary, against
an invading enemy, the subject was mentioned in the House of
Commons on the 17th of March, by Mr. Baker, who objected to
the measure as an irregular one.. Parliament, he said, was the only
legal organ of the country, through which the people should con-
sent to assist the carrying on of any measure to be paid for out of
the public purse.


Mr. Sheridan having moved an address to the king for a coin.
munication of all the papers relating to this subject,


Mr. Fox'said, he could not let that opportunity slip of de-
claring his opinion on the subject to be the same with the
minority of that House, and with the House of Lords in the
year 1778, on the illegality of these subscriptions in any case
whatever. The whole defence on that occasion was, that those
contributions were purely voluntary and bona fire sponta-
neous, that there had not been a hint on the subject from the
crown, or from any of his majesty's servants, and that there
was nothing that could be construed into an application in the
most remote manner. But in this case, there had been a
direct application from the king's secretary of state officially;
and it was a maxim universally maintained, that when he wrote
a letter of that kind, though lie did not say, " I 314 com-


Q




228 VOLUNTARY AIDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES [March 28.


mantled by his majesty," &c. it did imply a command, and
that he was acting in -


obedience to such a command. - He
-


was, therefore, clearly to understand, that the king had sent
his mandate to different parts of the country, to ask, without
the consent of parliament, who would, and who would not,
contribute what was necessary for the defence of the country.
He hoped they should soon have an opportunity of discussing
the business at length. There was something in the adver-
tisement, as if' those who did not chase to obey the call of the
lord lieutenant to these meetings, were not well affected, to
the king and his government. Parliament was now actually
sitting, and the representatives of the people of England had
come there expressly to consider, whether they would or
would not comply with the request of his majesty; and yet
his majesty, by his secretary of state, was now levying money
on his subjects without the intervention of that House, when 'IF
the constitution had, over and over again, declared, that
money should not be given to the king by the people of Eng-
land through any other channel than that of their representa-
tives in parliament.


ilicovh 28.


This day Mr. Sheridan again called the attention of the House
to the subject, and concluded an able and eloquent speech with
moving, " That it is a dangerous and unconstitutional measure for
the executive government to solicit money from the people as a
private aid, loan, benevolence, or subscription, for public purposes,
without the consent of parliament." Mr. Sheridan was answered
by the attorney-general, who justified the conduct of ministers, as
agreeable to precedents and constitutional authorities. He cited
the letters written by the Earl of Shelbourne, while in office, to the
lieutenants of counties,. in 1782, as a case precisely similar to the
present ; and mentioned the raising of companies by private sub-
jects, at their own expellee on other occasions, in much the same
light. He concluded by moving the previous question. Mr. Powys
said that the safety of the country, in the present contest, called
for the most active exertions, though he could not altogether ap-
prove of the measure in the manner it had been adopted. He
thought it best, however, to get rid of the motion, and should
therefore vote for the previous question.


Mr. Fox said, that he had attended to the present debate
with a consideraMe degree of curiosity, as he understood,
from what had dropped from the right honourable the chan-
cellor of the exchequer on a former night, that the charge of
political inconsistency was to be brought against him. I'wo
points had puzled him considerably; the first was, who was


2794.] WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT. 229


to make the charge; the next, what the charge was to be.
He could not expect it from the honourable gentleman who
was alarmed at the danger of Hessian troops being sent to
Gibraltar, but saw not the smallest ground for apprehension
from their introduction into this country ; nor from the right
honourable gentleman on the other side, who commenced his
political career as the firm and unalterable advocate of par-
liamentary reform, but who had since not only abandoned
that cause, but had been its strenuous opposer in whatever
shape it had appeared. I recollected, said Mr. Fox, the
vulgar adage, that he whose house is made of glass, ought
not to throw stones; and likewise that most excellent maxin
of a most excellent book, " Let him that is innocent, throw
the first stone." I was pretty certain, therefore, that this
charge of inconsistency must come from some young member,
as a young member would be the least liable to have the charge
of inconsistency retorted upon him. The contest for some
time upon whom this duty should fall, seemed to lay between
a young member, (Mr. Jenkinson,) and the learned gentle-
man who made it, and who, though not a young member, is
young in respect of the transactions of which he has taken
upon himself to speak. From a young member of parliament
I expected perfect consistency, especially from a member
who had undertaken the charge of inconsistency against an-
other. But the honourable gentleman who seconded and
supported the motion made by the learned member, is not so
young a member; he well recollects the circumstances which
took place in the year 1782; and if that honourable gentle-
man saw any thing censurable in the conduct of that day,
why did he not fully and fairly condemn the measure? Did
he do any such thing? So far from it, he was perfectly silent
on the subject ; he either saw nothing that could be con-
demned, or thought it too trifling for censure. Certain I am
that, in Lord Shelburne's letter, he will not find the most
distant allusion to any subscription. It was a circumstance
that never entered the minds of any of those gentlemen who
composed the administration of 1782. They had no 'idea of
the kind; and if' any person had intimated that my Lord
Shelburne's letter had suggested such an idea abroad, it would
have been matter of great surprize indeed.


The learned gentleman has asserted, that he who asks for
money's worth, asks money. 'With this principle, in its full
extent, I can by no means concur; if so, the impress of sailors
Is a mode which the king possesses of raising a supply inde-
pendent of his parliament. It is a distinct prerogative vested
in the crown, arising from peculiar circumstances, and pecu-
liar necessity, with which the other has not the most remote


2 3




230
VOLUNTARY AMS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES [March 28.


connection. My Lord Shelburne's letter was 'hot a solicit-
ation, it was not a request, nor even a hint at any contribution
or subscription ; and if any such were entered into in conse-
quence of that letter, they must have been of so trivial a na-
ture as not to have made any impression upon my memory.
This letter had merely for its object to take the advice of the
people at large, with respect to arming for the defence of the
country. It was not intended to take the people from their
several employments: he who pursued agriculture was not
required to abandon his plough, nor the artizan the im-
plements of his trade; all that was wished for was, that they
should give up a few hours of their time to acquire some
little knowledge of the use of arms, in order to render them
in some measure capable of defence, and to prepare them
against danger that might threaten them. It has been
urged, that the measure in 1782 differed not from that which


opposed in I 778, supported by my Lord Camden and Lord
Ashburton. I had, in the year 1782, the honour to be of
his majesty's cabinet council, consisting at that. time of eleven
members, ten of whom had opposed the subscription of 1778.
Was it likely that we should, directly after our entering into
the ministry, adopt those principles in 1782, which we had
with such firmness opposed in 17 7 8 ? Lord Camden and
Lord Ashburton, men well acquainted with the law and the
constitution, were at that time in the cabinet. The Marquis
of Rockingham, though no lawyer, was a man who under-
stood the constitution, and his greatest enemies will allow, that
he possessed firmness and consistency, that he had not that
versatility of character that could make him act on principles
when in administration opposite to those which he avowed
when in opposition. It seems rather extraordinary, that now
after a period of twelve years has elapsed, an attempt should
be made to convict me of inconsistency,. which at the time of
the transaction was never thought of. Would it not be na-
tural, if any objection were made to the measure adopted in
1782, to have stated, you are now acting upon the identical
principles which you opposed in 1 7 78? Was any such ob-
jection started ? No, Sir, the objections were of a very different
description. The danger of becoming an armed nation, like
Ireland, was strongly urged, and the injuries that had been
committed by the volunteers of that kingdom, who, in my
opinion, far from injuring their country, rendered it great
and essential services. I have, Sir, consulted the record of
the . debates of that day, the parliamentary register, which,
though not in every instance the most indisputable authority,
certainly gives the general line of argument, and the great
principles advanced. In them I can find nothing to brand


094.] WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT. 231


me with the charge of inconsistency. On the contrary, I
find directly the reverse, and that the expressions which I
then employed exactly correspond with the principles which
I at present maintain.. The learned gentleman says, that I
did not oppose the giving ships, and other private aids. He
mentioned the offer of a 74-gun-ship from the Earl of Lons-
dale, the name of which is not to be found in the list of the
navy of Great Britain ; and other ships from the East India
company. These measures I did oppose, and that in my
speech at the opening of that session. I opposed and censured
them, because 1 looked upon every gift of that nature as an
injury to the constitution. In arguing the question of law,
the learned gentleman began with the latest precedents, from
a hope, I suppose, that, after a legal manner, he could make
the matter appear more clearly, but he seems to have been
disappointed in his hopes; surely the learned gentleman must
have quibbled away his senses in the pursuits of his profession,
or he could never have argued this point in the manner he
has done. The precedent of 1782 he has contended to be
similar to the present, and also to that of 1778. I shall here
take the liberty of quoting the authority of a right honourable
gentleman, (Mr. Burke,) whose abilities all must confess and
admire, and whom for many years I had the happiness to call
my friend : his opinion is clear and decided upon this head,
in favour of the doctrine which I support. The learned gen-
tleman contended, that the ground of argument used by Lord
Ashburton and Lord Camden, in the year 1778, turned en-
tirely on those contributions being left at the disposal of his
majesty. I remember the arguments of Lord Ashburton well:
he confined himself to no such narrow system ; he took the
broad and general ground of objection to contributions in any
shape. I remember, too, the arguments of Lord Thurlow,
who certainly advanced many forcible reasons which had con-
siderable weight in my mind, though I concurred in opinion
with Lord Ashburton ; but the point for which he contended
was, that contributions were legal and constitutional, when
they came voluntarily from the bounty, of the people, without
solicitation on the part of the sovereign. The- authority of
the twelve judges he has cited, which he thinks is not to be
surmounted ; but the circumstances which occurred in 1745
are not to be quoted as precedents for measures which should
not be adopted, except in case of the recurrence of such de-
plorable times. The judges, he says, had they done wrong,
should have called for a bill of indemnity. How long, Sir, is
it since the learned gentleman became the advocate for bills of
indemnity? A few days since he maintained a conduct and
opinion widely different from this; he tells us, that, on the


2 4




VOLUNTARY AIDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES [March 28.,
present occasion, he delivers an opinion, not because it is ne-
cessary to deliver an opinion on a great constitutional question,
but because it is pleasing to many of those who are dear to him.
On a former day, when another constitutional question was
discussing, and when he then, as he does now, supported the.
previous question, he would not, he said, deliver an opinion.
From this, may we. not suppose, that it would not be so
pleasing to his friends ; and that his silence makes for us
In one case as much as his arguments make against us in
another ? That great palladium of British liberty, the bill
of rights, which should never be mentioned but with vener-
ation, and respect, I now hear spoken of with apprehension,
lest it should be made use of as an argument to deprive us of
some privilege or right : because the bill of rights is silent on
the subject of voluntary contributions, on that ground such
contributions are held to be lawful ; as well might it be said,
that because it contains a declaration of the subject's right to
petition the king, but is silent. with regard to his right of
petitioning the Commons, that therefore no such right exists.
The learned gentleman has depended much on the constitu-
tional authority of Lord Coke; but I wish at the same time
he had quoted Sir Francis Bacon, a man of great talents and
erudition also, though unable to withstand the lure of cor-
ruption. In his political conduct, much as I defer to his
opinions in other points, Lord Coke does not seem to be quite
consistent. In the case of Mr. Oliver St. John, (his ex-
pression I shall use, because forcible and well founded,) speak-
ing of contributions, he says, 44 contributions never can be
voluntary, some giving through pride, others through fear,
and some from interest." Sir Francis Bacon, in his life of
Lord Coke (though it is not very fair to take the account
from his rival or enemy,) says, that when the case of Mr. St.
John was first represented to him, he delivered it as his opi-
nion, " that all gifts, however voluntary, were illegal," but
when he came to judge Mr. St. John in the star-chamber, he
changed that opinion ; and, at all events, the sentiments of
Lord Coke, which go to support this doctrine, are taken
from his posthumous works, which never underwent a revi-
sion ; though possibly if they had, they would never have
appeared to the world in the shape they now do. With regard
to the opinion given by Lord Hardwicke, which has also
been relied on, it was certainly an extra-judicial opinion, and
therefore of less authority.


But, are these contributions innocent .as far as regards the
constitution ? Are they attended with no evil consequence
whatever? Allowing this right of private contribution, might
not a great party, or great power, joining with the crown,


1794.] WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT. 237


enable the latter to carry on a war contrary to the opinion of
parliament, or to undertake measures still more destructive
to their liberties? It is certain ministers could be found to
urge such measures, and assist their execution. This argu-
ment has been urged already by my honourable friend, (Mr.
Sheridan,) and still remains unanswered. The motion, it is
said, does not apply to what has happened. Now, what is it
that has happened? The executive government have issued a
request or requisition, stating, that it would be desirable to
enter into subscriptions for certain purposes; and what is my
honourable friend's motion ? That such conduct is danger-
ous and unconstitutional. Does not this go to the very
point to which it ought, namely, to a censure of his ma-
jesty's ministers for misconduct? Gentlemen say, if therebe misconduct, why do you not impeach ? I am not for
impeaching ministers for every offence; the object of an im-
peachment is to procure punishment for great offences. It
does not appear to me in what manner the king can make any
request to his subjects, as separate and distinct from the two
Houses of Parliament, who arc co-equal in authority with
him. In his individual capacity, the only connection he can
have with the subject is to command him, which if the com-
mand be lawful the subject is bound to obey. It is not an
easy thing for a subject to refuse the request of a king : we
cannot refuse him with the same indifference we would a
fellow-subject; and, if an individual were to refuse to comply
with his demand, would not his ministers be apt to point him
out as an object of suspicion ? I think such requests incon-
sistent with the dignity of a. king, and the situation of a
subject. Wherein consists the utility of the measure? Will
it be said, that it is not a tax upon the poor as well as the
rich? I know of no way by which we can tax the rich, that
will not ultimately fall on the poor. It is foolishly ima-
gined in France, that to deprive one great man of his dishes
of silver and gold, and another of his money, will be of
advantage to the poor. No, Sir, these are the means by
which the poor are maintained. The luxuries of the rich
constitute the principal means of their support, by employing
their industry. If the rich man gives up part of his pro-
perty in voluntary contributions, lie must deduct so much
from his expellees, which the poor must ultimately feel. In
short, a system of taxation that will affect but one class of
men is a thing impossible.


But why should his majesty's name be carried beggingbt,
about the country to excite discontents and jealousies ? Why,
if it is for the purpose of raising, a defence for the kingdom,
are not the Commons applied to '? if there be a danger, it is




34 voLUNTARY AIDS FOIL PUBLIC PURPOSES [April 7,
rather that they will be too profuse, than not sufficiently
liberal in their grants: why then should ministers occasion
these differences? Is it for the sake of those who have lately
joined their standard, in order to exhibit with what facility
they are disposed to contradict all those opinions and prin-
ciples they had ever maintained? But let opinions be what
they may, in case of invasion, are not we all equally appre-
hensive of the danger, and equally interested in the event;
unless it be supposed that the national convention keep a list
of the minority, and upon coming here would preserve their
lives and their properties inviolate ? That I shall be this
night left in a minority, I have but little doubt, as I had it
yesterday from good authority, being so told by a lord of the
bedchamber, a wonderfully sagacious animal at smelling out'a
majority in either House ; therefore I have the less reason to
regret that the previous question has been moved. Upon the
whole, Sir, I consider this measure of raising money by
public contribution so impolitic and unconstitutional, that
were a bill brought in similar to that passed in the reign of
Charles the Second, authorizing his majesty to receive volun-
tary contributions, and limiting the sum to be so received, I
should oppose it with all my power. Let us adhere to that
wise custom of our forefathers, as the best preservative of
our independence, the sole right to grant money to the crown.
Suppose the House of Lords were to offer out of their pri-
vate pockets to contribute to the exigencies of his majesty,
would you not spurn at the proposal Even in the less en-
lightened days of Henry and Edward you would not suffer
it, and will you at this period allow your right to be en-
croached upon at every county meeting?


The motion was opposed by Mr. Windham and Sir James
Saundcrson. On a division the numbers were:


Tellers. Tellers.
yEA s I Col. Tarleton I 34.— NOES I Mr. NevilleMr. Grey Mr. John Smyth S zoo.


So it passed in the negative.


April 7.
On the third reading of the volunteer corps bill, the measure


of voluntary aids was again brought fbrward and defended at
some length by Mr. Pitt.


Mr. Fox said, he could not conceive why the right honour-
able the chancellor of the exchequer should have thought it
necessary to go so much into the business on the third read-
ing of the bill, having said so little upon it before, unless it


1794.] WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT.


was because he saw that the measure was not adopted, in
various parts of the country, with such eagerness as he ex-
pected. If the right honourable gentleman's speech was
meant as a puff' for the subscriptions, it was well adapted to
its end ; if it was meant as argument to persuade a House of
parliament that such subscriptions were constitutional and
legal, nothing could be more impotent and inconclusive. The
right honourable gentleman said, it was right to afford men
an opportunity of chewing their opinions, and to convince
the enemy that the war was not a war undertaken and pro-
secuted by the English government, but by the English peo-
ple. This, which, the right honourable gentleman stated as
an advantage, was one of the most material objections to the
measure. Under such circumstances as the country was now
said to be, a statesman, far from seeking opportunities of
exasperating opposite opinions by forcing them into collision,
would endeavour to soften and conciliate. No man, after
being told that the subscriptions were proposed as the test of
his opinion, could be imagined to feel subscribing or not sub-
scribing as a matter of indifference. He must know that, if
he did not subscribe, he was to be held, in the estimation of
at least a very powerful part of his fellow-citizens, as enter-
taining opinions of the most shocking tendency. It was said,
that from a voluntary subscription there could be no ground
for apprehension, because it' the people suspected that it
might be employed against their liberties, they would not
subscribe; and if' they did subscribe, the deluded people of
France must see the falsehood of what their rulers were daily
telling them, that the English government, not the English
nation, were their enemies. He was sorry to see, that, for a
considerable time past, not the English government, but the


hEnglish nation, had been held out as the object of abhorrence•
to the people of France.


But supposing the case to be otherwise, the rebels of France
would say to the people, " Mark the number of the sub-
scribers in England ; they are the only persons who are adverse
to our principles, all the rest of the English are obviously
our friends." All this arose from the mischievous distinction
attempted to be made between the rich and the poor; classes
of men who were taught to believe that they had separate and
even opposite interests in society, while their true interests
were one and the same. What was the common language of
the French ? That the rich only were their enemies, the
poor their friends. Would not the subscriptions inflame this
language; and enable them to say, " The rich only, and
persons connected with government, will contribute to the
defence of the country; the rest of the people are ready to


235




2 3 6 VOLUNTARY AIDS FOR PUBLIC PURPosEs [April 7,
receive us with open arms." But the measure would not
even mark the distinction which ministers pretended to expect
from it. Many persons, as zealous for the war as ministers
themselves, might object to subscriptions on the recommend.:
ation of the crown, as unconstitutional ; many, who with
him, thought the war unnecessary and impolitic, would do so
too ; and yet ministers knew, that both descriptions would be
as ready to oppose a foreign invasion as ministers themselves.
In 1778, when voluntary subscriptions were opposed, were
not France and Spain on the point of declaring war ? Was
any man supposed to oppose them because he wished the
country to be invaded by France ? "What Englishman did
not as much abhor an invasion of his country by .LouisXVI.,
great as the moderation and the virtues of that monarch
were, as by Robespierre and Danton ? Were Marcus
Aurelius to rise from the dead, who would not subscribe, if
necessary, to oppose an invasion by his arms ? The question
was not, who was the invader ? the resistance was made to
an invasion by a foreign foe.


The right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer had
enlarged on the impossibility of arriving at perfection ; a po-
sition of the truth of which most of his hearers were probably
convinced before. The exertions of human creatures were
not to attain perfection, but to come as near it as they


• could. But how did this apply ? Those who thought with
him, contended only, that calling for voluntary subscriptions
was a prerogative which the crown did not possess ; while
those who took the other side said, the king must possess
the prerogative, because human institutions could not be per-
feet. In what respect would denying this prerogative clog
the wheels of government? Could any instance be pointed
out in which the country would suffer if such a prerogative did
not exist ? But then, it was said, a prerogative that can do
no good can do no harm. The prerogative in question might
be efficient for mischief to the country, but never for good.
While no danger was apprehended to the constitution at
home, men's confidence in parliament for providing for the
defence of the country against danger from abroad, would
make them think it unnecesary to be eager in coming for-
ward with individual subscriptions ; but, for purposes of mis-
chief tending to subvert the constitution, in which many
might be interested, and for Which parliament would not pro-
vide, individual subscriptions might be large and dangerous.


Mr. Fox said, he disdained the defence set up by the right
honourable gentleman for the proceeding in 1782. Rather
than defend it on such grounds, he would frankly own that it
was inconsistent with the opinion he held in 1778. In the


/794.3 WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT. 237


letter of the secretary of state on that occasion, he saw nothing
analogous to the request for private subscriptions. It did not
even contain an allusion to any subsequent application to par-
liament; a clear proof that it was not meant to convey any
request for raising money. If he had been capable of erring
on that occasion, the other members of the cabinet, and the
Marquis of Rockingham who was at the head of it, a man
whom, both on account of his public character and his private
worth, he could never mention but with reverence and affec-
tion, would not have suffered it. The measure now adopted
was inconsistent with that of 1782, as was the measure of
1778 ; and those who had opposed the subscription of 1778,
and supported the present, were the persons to whom the
charge of inconsistency applied. His having suffered the ad-
dress of December 1782, in answer to a speech from the
throne, alluding to subscriptions entered into after he was out
of administration, to pass nem. con. was no reason for saying
that he approved of those subscriptions. A right honourable
gentleman, (Mr. Burke,) in terms the most eloquent and
splendid, objected to almost every part of that speech, and yet
suffered the address to pass without moving an amendment.
The answers to the letter from the secretary of state of 1782
he had no means of seeing, although they were constantly
made the ground of argument against him. It was of little
consequence to be told, that they were not referred to as
proofs of inconsistency ; for unless he could say, with some
other gentlemen, that he thought one way then, and another
way now, the arguments built upon them could prove nothing
but inconsistency. The right honourable gentleman who
had refused to produce them for the information of the House,
had now offered to show as many of them as he could. He
.regretted that the offer was made just at the time when a dis-
cussion upon than was likely to be at an end. He should
have thought that the right honourable gentleman who warned
an officer (Sir James Murray) not to give any information to
the House unless called for by a vote, would have warned his
learned friend, the attorney-general, against producing, as
matter of argument, papers which he could not suffer to be
laid before the House as matter of information.
_ The attempts now made to prove him inconsistent were
highly flattering: for what could be more flattering than to.
rest the defence of a measure almost entirely on some opinion
that he was supposed to have entertained twelve years ago ?
In 1782 the whole measure proceeded upon a principle in
which he and the noble lord, then secretary of state, agreed,
however they might differ on other points, namely, that
the people had a right to artn




their own defence, without




Ago


4


238 VOLUNTARY AIDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, &C. [April 7.


the orders of government. On that occasion no man was
called upon for money ; the expcnce, whatever it might be,
either in arms or in time, was to be paid by government. On
the present, money was the only thing asked for. He under-
dertook not to maintain the legality of giving ships to the
crown by subscription, although of that the danger was small,
because ships could not be manned without money. In the
present instance, an army was to be levied by the king with
money given him without the consent of parliament. If the
measure of 1782 was similar to this, it was strange that those
who disapproved of the subscriptions in 1778 should not have
told him of it at the time. If it were true, as contended for,
that the king had the prerogative of landing foreign troops,
he might now get money to pay those troops by voluntary
contributions. The fund would probably last for a very short
time ; but when the troops were landed, and so paid for any
given time, he should be glad to know how long the subscrip-
tions would be voluntary ? .Men who refused to subscribe
would then be marked in a very different way from that in
which it was now supposed they would be marked. That
such power could not exist in a free constitution, it was easy
to maintain in defiance of all precedents.


Mr. Fox proceeded to examine the several precedents ; and
spewed clearly that they did not apply. He observed, that
those who thought the degree to which a principle was car-
ried in politics to be every thing, ought to see the necessity of
watching and resisting the very first degree from the manner
in which things inconsiderable in themselves were drawn into
precedent. An invasion by the French, as he had before
said, was equal in all possible cases. It was a thing which
every man must resist, not only with his property but his life;
and what greater peril could be stated? No man could now be
said to refuse subscriptions upon the same grounds as certain
persons were supposed to have done in 1745. Then it might
be possible, although he did not know it to be so, that some
persons might feel themselves in such a situation, as to think
they could be bettered by restoring the house of Stuart to the
throne. Was there a man in that House.who could be bet-
tered by a successful invasion of the French ? Who, under
such a calamity, could even hope to be safe ? Those who were
the most apt to throw out the insinuation did not themselves
believe it, because they knew it to be impossible. The right
honourable the chancellor of the exchequer said, the sub-
scriptions were desirable, in as much as they would draw forth
men's opinions. Would he say, as a man of honour, that he
believed any person who refused to subscribe had a French,
ticket of civism in his pocket, or held a French invasion in


1794.] MOTION FOR ;AXING PLACEMEN, &C. 239
less abhorrence than he did himself? Here, then, was a new
objection, namely, that people might feel themselves forced to
subscribe under a menace of the severest kind — a menace
to their reputation as good citizens. Under all these objec-
tions, and finding it not relied upon as a measure of finance,
for the right honourable gentleman had owned that he ex-
pected little from it, he must persist in his opposition.


MOTION TOR TAXING PLACEMEN AND PENSIONERS DURING
THE CONTINUANCE OF THE WAR.


April 8.


r `HIS day Mr. Harrison moved, " That leave be given to bring
in a bill for the purpose of appropriating a certain part of the


emoluments arising from certain pensions and sinecure places, for
the service of the public, during the continuance of the war, at
the disposal of parliament ; and also for the purpose of appropri-
ating a part of the emoluments arising from certain efficient places,
amounting to more than a specified sum, to be applied to the same
purpose." The motion was supported by Mr. Coke, Mr. Curwen,
Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Fox ; and opposed by Mr. Hawkins Browne,
Mr. Montagu, Mr. Burke, Mr. Rose, Mr. Pitt, and others. In
answer to what fell from Mr. Rose,


Mr. Fox admitted that he did hold one sinecure place, but
not more. He was, he acknowledged, one year clerk of the
pells in Ireland; and, to accommodate the government there,
he had, upon an improvident bargain, given it up, and ac-
cepted a pension in lieu of it, divided into two parts ; but
why it was called two places, he did not comprehend. The
place had not been granted to him, but was given by George
the Second to his father, for services done to government :
it was enjoyed by his father, afterwards by his brother, and
then it devolved to him as part of his inheritance. Mr. Fox
proceeded to state his opinion as to the present motion, which,
he said, was different from that of his honourable friend,
however he might agree with him in the necessity of adopting
such a plan at the present unfortunate juncture. He .


thought
the motion applicable to the times, and therefore he should
support it. The sacredness of property was to be determined
by a general view of what might be considered property, and
not by any degrees. Pensions and sinecures held by patent
were as much property as any other possession ; and the prin-




24° MOTION FOIL TAXING PLACEMEN [April 8.
ciple of property was so sacred, that no argument of degree
could for a moment be admitted as ground for trenching upon
it. Where his majesty had a right to grant a place for life,
ministers might be made to answer for giving it to an impro-
per person ; but the grant, if legally made, was good. A very
large proportion of the property of the kingdom would be
found in the same predicament, particularly that of a noble
relation of his, the Duke of Richmond, and several others,
none of which, it would be thought, could be invaded; and
if they were to look into the grants of the crown, the greatest
part of the landed property of the kingdom would be found
resting on that security. For this reason, if the bill should
ever go to a committee, he should expressly be for exempting
all sinecure places granted for a term of years, because he
would not allow an infringement on property in the first in-
stance. Principiis obsta. He did not think, however, when


. ministers were attempting to raise supplies in a new and un-
constitutional manner, that it was unbecoming in any mem-
ber of that House to call on persons holding great offices and
places under the crown, to chew their zeal by a voluntary sur-
render of some of their official emoluments.


Gentlemen who would give themselves the trouble to in-
vestigate, would see that 'Dthe propriety of the bill proposed
arose from the new mode of raising supplies by way of sub-
scription. When ministers went out of the legal road for
means to support the measures necessary to the war, and jus-
tified their doing so on the principle that it animated the peo-
ple, and excited zeal in the cause, it surely could not be
deemed inexpedient to call on those for aid whose business it
peculiarly was to manifest zeal, and exert every effort in the
maintenance of the war. Mr. Fox said, he should not take
any notice, because it had. been so fully answered already, of
the monstrous proposition made by a right honourable gentle-
man, (Mr. Burke,) that the crown was to be the sole judge of
the merits that called for reward, or the quantity of reward that
was to be bestowed. If the proposition itself; which the mo-
tion before the House stated, had been brought forward durieg
a time of peace, lie should have his doubts how far it would
be expedient; but, under the existing circumstances, he con-
sidered it a fair and prudent measure, as tending, in common
with the subscriptions which had been promoted, to evince the
zeal of the objects of it in common- with the rest of the
kingdom.


The conduct of the two secretaries of state furnished him
with an additional argument in favour of the measure. He
did not mean to say, in respect to the one, that 40001. a-year, ,
as treasurer of the navy, was too large a recompence for his,:


1794.] DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE WAR. 241


services, in addition to his place of secretary of state ; but he
himself had admitted the principle, when lie fairly resolved
to take the salary but of one, and not of both places. In
like manner, with regard to the other noble secretary, who
had relinquished his salary as auditor of the exchequer. But -
if they thus relinquished such considerable salaries, what be-
came of them? Why should they not be applied to the benefit
of the public ? The fact was, that the whole transaction was
nothing better than a manoeuvre, and instead of benefiting the
public, the amount of those places reverted back to the civil
list, which was a mode of adding to that list without the
consent ofparliament, and all that was thus saved to the civil
list became the means of extending the influence of the crown
in the hands of the minister of the day; which influence,
upon a comparison with what it was in 1782, would, he be-
lieved, be found to be much increased. Thus the public were
deceived with the appearance of saving, and consequent be-
nefit, when, in fact, the public gained no more than they
would have gained if those salaries went to their original des-
tination. He was decidedly of opinion, that, upon the whole,
the efficient offices of the country were not paid over-much,
and that what they got might be necessary to their support or
reward. With respect, however, to certain great officers, such
as the first lord of the treasury, the two secretaries of state,
&c. it was to be remembered, that when the present chan-
cellor of the exchequer was formerly in power, one of the last
acts of that administration was to record a minute in the
treasury office, that in future those offices were to be reduced
in their salaries ; the first to 50001. a-year ; the two second to
45oo/. each. It was true, that when he (Mr. Fox) Caine into
office, administration, not thinking that principle a wise one,
did not adhere to it : and upon their going out, and the right
honourable gentleman again coming into place, it would scent
that he also thought better ofit, because he did not think pro-
per to return to his former regulation. By what they did
upon that occasion, however, they left, as it were, their last
dying act upon record in favour of the reduction.


With regard to the nice calculations of the reduction of in-
fluence by means of the reformation boasted by the honourable
gentleman (Mr. Rose) to have been effected in the treasury,
although the question was not properly before them, he would
put it on its proper footing, and then sec how it stood. The
advantages to be hoped from such a reform were founded on
principles net so much of economy as of influence. This
being the case, he desired the House to compare the influence
before, with the influence as it existed at present; and though
Great Britain and Ireland were more distinct than formerly in
some instances, that man, hensaid, knew but little, Who did


vox. v.
A




242 MOTION FOR TAXING PLACEMEN, &C. [April Ff.
not know that the influence of the crown then extended itself
to Ireland ; and it could not be denied, that influence in either


t"kin gdom served mutually to strengthen the hands of admi-
nistration. The situation of India, likewise, with respect to
the subject of influence, would be found another splendid ex-
ception to the honourable gentleman's proposition.


There were some general topics, that applied to the present
question, which he could not avoid taking notice of. One
honourable gentleman had asserted the flourishing state of
this country. This was a language which must be considered
as harsh and grating to the cars of those who were labouring.
under the burdens occasioned by the present singular con-
cussion of events. It was doubly insulting, as coming con-
nected with a budget, which added 900,0001: fresh taxes upon.
the subject. Was it in that addition of taxes that the people
were to look for the proofs of the flourishing state of our af-
fairs ? It might possibly be said, that some of thin burden was
of a nature in itself beneficial, as containing regulations highly
salutary. This might be true with regard to spirits; there,
however, if the benefit was certain, the tax must be as cene
tainly inefficient; and so vice versa, if it should be productive
by the quantity consumed, what became of the benefit to the
lower orders? Allowing, however, for the moment, that this
regulation was generally beneficial, was even that plea of be,
nefit applicable to the others? The increase, for instance,
on sugars; what could it be called, but completely burden-
some upon even the lowest orders, where tea, from habit, was
to be considered among the absolute necessaries of ? It
had been likewise stated, that our commerce was in a flourish-
ing state. How was that to be proved ? Not by a compa-
rison between the present and former wars (although even
there the argument would fail, the last war perhaps alone ex-
cepted,) but by taking our situation in the present war, as
compared with the years of peace immediately preceding, to-
gether with the similar analogy in former wars. In this true
way of considering the subject, he was sorry to say, we should
find no cause of triumph. The state of our manufacture-:
was likewise made a ground of exultation ; and it was said,
that Norwich was constantly lugged in as an exception to the
assertion. In point of fact, this was not true; but if it were,
the reason was obvious, because Norwich had been a principal
victim to the baneful effects of the war. It was not, however,
to that place alone that they were confined : look- throughout
Yorkshire and Lancashire, and would it be denied that dis-
tress, the most poignant, reigned universally through those
manufacturing counties ? 'Whether this distress were fairly
owing to the war or not, it certainly was not decent to state
them as if they were in a very flourishing situation.


1794.] DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE WAR. 243
'With respect to the disposition of the various places in the


gift of the crown, Mr. Fox said, he did not mega to question
the propriety of any individual gift, but should content him-
self with observing, that the whole administration must be of
the most meritorious description to deserve, in any degree, the
accumulation of places with which they had been loaded.
He agreed, that when a minister served his country, with
the approbation of the king, and that Bouse, it was highly
fitting that his labours should be amply and liberally rewarded;
and it was upon this principle that he had in some degree op-
posed a bill formerly brought in by Lord John Cavendish, for
abolishing the offices of the tellers of the exchequer, because
he conceived it but reasonable, and beneficial to the true in-
terests of the country, that the crown should have it in its
power to reward such of its servants as should serve with abi-
lity and fidelity; but when war pressed on us with all its
train of difficulties, when all parts of the country were called
upon, almost with threats, to subscribe towards defraying the
expences, he thought it reasonable that those who involved
the country in such difficulties, and who were the first to call
upon the people individually


for support, should themselves
begin, by setting the example which they wished to be fol-
lowed. In like manner, too, he was of opinion, that the
charges attending the carrying on of our government were
not inordinately expensive, because though compared with
some they might appear large, yet, taking the whole of human
affairs and human reasoning with us, they would be found as
moderate as could be expected. It was not, nevertheless, an
argument, that, because perfection was not attainable, it was
not to be attempted ; in striving to lessen some of the evils, a
great deal of good was to be attained ; in striving to lessen
some of the expences, much benefit was to be derived.


It had been said, that the present mode of negociating loans
was likely, in time of war, to save 500,0001. for the public; it
should however be remembered, that this mode, promising as
it might be, had been tried for only two years ; and, though
it had been successful in the last, it had led, in the first, to a.
very improvident and disadvantageous bargain. To repeat
the names of those who would have given better terms, : would
be only to mention some of the most respectable inhabitants
of this metropolis. Consols, it was certain,. would have been
taken by these persons at 75, instead of 72, the price given.
For the reasons which he had stated, he should vote for bring-
ing in the present bill ; and lest the bill might never reach
a committee, he would take that opportunity of declaring
what regulations he should think it right to propose if it were
2a a committee. He should think it but just to exempt Lavery


2




244 MOTION FOR TAXING PLACEMEN, &c. [April (8,,
place in which any legal interest could be established. As
to the rest, he should propose to examine them, office by office,
and determine, upon their individual merits, how much should
be taken from each. In this view only he could agree to the
bill, as thereby it would be founded in some degree on pre-
cedent, and as being at this time rendered peculiarly necessary
from the circumstance of the subscriptions set on foot. He
declared he was himself much attached to old practices, but,
if driven to it, he must apply to new remedies.


Mr. Fox said, he could not conclude without doing some
justice to his feelings by taking; notice of the expressionsb-1
which had fallen from the same gentleman relative to the pro-
perty made by his father, as paymaster of the forces, coupled
with a statement of the immense deficiencies which remained
unaccounted for in the pay-office. He appealed to the House
whether it was fair and candid to unite these two circum-
stances together, so as to make them appear connected, with-
out one solid ground for any thing like serious accusation ?
If the honourable member meant such insinuation, he would
reply, that it was not founded in fact, and he would defy him
to the proof; but he did not believe he meant any such thing.
He ought however to have considered how deeply he wounded
the feelings of a gentleman by such insinuations. The fact
was certainly true that his father had made a large fortune—
great fortunes were made by the predecessors of his father in
that office—great fortunes were also made by his successors.
It was as true that great and unaccounted deficiencies existed
in his office ; but it was equally true that such deficiencies were
as great and as unsettled under former paymasters as him,
and with as little personal blame. Of a disposition generous.
beyond suspicion, he was liable to expose himself to imposition.
He was of an easy nature, which was not always— he believed
seldom — the mark of a guilty mind. The case of Lord
• Chatham himself was a proof that accounts might be long
out-standing without any disinclination to have them adjusted.
Without taking any ostensible part in the discussion of the
accounts, he certainly had seen the reports on the subject
by those reports he called upon gentlemen to judge, and not
to be led away by insinuations, which he again challenged
any man to vindicate or substantiate,


The. House divided
Tellers. Tellers.


YEAS {Mr. A.Taylor 7 N„ Mr. Neville 7 1,„la.jor Maitland 9"' "' t Mr. Sargent •
So it passed in the negative.


19.


1794.] BILL TO ENABLE SUBJECTS OF TRANCE, &C.
24s-


BILL TO ENABLE SUBJECTS OF FRANCE TO ENLIST AS
SOLDIERS.


April 17.


IN addition to the plan of raising an internal force by voluntary
subscriptions, Mr. Pitt moved on the 7th of April, " For leave


to bring in a bill to enable subjects of France to enlist as soldiers
in regiments to serve on the continent of Europe, and in certain
other places, and to enable his majesty to grant commissions to
subjects of France to serve and receive pay as officers in such
regiments, or as engineers under certain restrictions." Leave
was given to bring in the bill, and on the motion for: ts passing,
upon the 7th,


Mr. Fox said, he was really sorry, at that stage of the
business, to trouble the House, as their minds must be to a
considerable degree made up upon the subject; but .he ab-
solutely felt himself called upon to say at least a few words,
because the bill appeared to him in sonic points of view, to
be of the utmost importance, and, if carried into effect upon
those principles upon which it had been maintained, likely
to produce consequences of the most alarming tendency, and
calamities the most dreadful that ever War in modern times
had produced. In the earlier stages of the bill, he was not
very anxious to deliver his sentiments upon it, because he
wished to be silent as to his objections, until he had heard
the reasons which should be urged in its favour; and although
the House was then in the last stage of it, the same distress
and difficulty remained as to the principle upon which it had
been brought forward, as existed at the commencement of
this proceeding. It was true, several objections had been
made to the some amendments had been proposed, with
different degrees of success, and some answers had been given
to the objections; but these applied chiefly to the provisions
of the bill. As to the principle of the bill, very little indeed
had been urged in its support, and nothing that had in the
smallest degree changed the first opinion he entertained on
the subject; on the contrary, many of those reasons which
had been urged in favour of thy. bill, and which had been
approved by the majority of the House, had excited in his;
mind very great alarm at the measure altogether. Almost
all that had been said by one set of its defenders amounted
to this, that those men who were to be inlisted under it,
would feel that, from success, they might hope to be restored.


30




vr


.146 BI'LL TO ENABLE SUBJECTS OF FRANCE [April 17.


to their honours, their fortunes, and their country; from
defeat, they must expect to meet either poverty or death.
Standing in this alternative, where success promised so much,
and defeat placed before their eyes the most dreadful cala-
mities, they must, it was supposed, engage with ardour in the
cause. Another set of the defenders of the bill, and par-
ticularly one right honourable gentleman, (Mr. Burke,) had
said, " that the bill was an auspicious beginning of a new
system; that the honours, rights, and property of the emi-
grants must be restored to them before our own could be
said to be secure; that Great Britain, with regard to its
property, and its rights, should feel an identity of interests
with the emigrants of France; and that, except those pro-
perties and those rights, were restored to them, our own
would be comparatively of little value." This, Mr. Fox said,
must be admitted to be a position perfectly novel, and would,
in his opinion, in its nature and tendency, be dangerous to
this country and to Europe, if adopted by government or
sanctioned by parliament.


He wished, for a few moments, to call the attention of the
House to the progress of the business. Though inimical to
the war in its commencement, and wishing sincerely, as he
thought it for the interest of the country, that it should be
avoided if possible, yet being once entered upon, he held it
right that it should be prosecuted with energy and effect.
To this end he promised his support, thinking that it was
to be carried on as all former wars had been carried on, by
fleets, armies, and money; and, in the view in which it was
stated to the Home at its commencement, that was the species
of support that it was understood government looked for ;
for it was at that time distinctly stated, that the object of the
war was to repel a distinct aggression of France against
Great Britain and her ally the United Provinces, which
aggression was the insult offered to this country by certain
decrees of the national convention, and by their attempt to
deprive Holland of the exclusive navigation of the Scheldt.
That those were good grounds of war could not be denied,
unless satisfaction might have been obtained by negotiation.
They were certainly proper subjects to discuss by negotiation;
and it was his opinion, if those means had been tried, that
the present war might have been avoided. But such was
not the opinion of the executive government; it was not the
opinion of the House of Commons; and we therefore had
recourse to arms to procure satisfaction for the insult, security
from further aggressions, and indemnity for our losses. Mr.
Fox said, he sincerely lamented that such was the opinion of
the executive government, and of the House of Commons;


II


I794.] TO ENLIST AS SOLDIERS. 247


because he believed it to be the cause of all the evils we had
already suffered, and of the many calamities in• which we
and the rest of Europe were likely to be involved. He
wished that we had had recourse first to negotiation; and
if that had failed to procure us all we had a just right to
demand, no doubt could have been entertained of the pro-
priety of our entering into a war, and endeavouring to
procure from France, by the success of our arms, that justice
which she refused to the wisdom of our councils.


At the commencement of the war, the government of
France made no part of the consideration of parliament as
connected with the question of peace, except as .to how far. •
such a government was capable of affording security against
future insult and aggression. When that security was dis-
cussed in that House, and those who were most disposed to
decry every thing that belonged to the government of France,
were driven to an explanation of what they meant and what
they really intended to insist on, the opinion of the House he
understood to have been this, that it was a matter of much
difficulty, to know precisely what kind of security could be
obtained from the present government of France; but it was
then admitted, that to obtain some security on that point
was not altogether impossible; and that if security could
be had, there existed no objection to the fbrin of government,
nor should that be considered as any obstacle to concluding
a peace. There was no necessity for him to argue, that
there existed a possibility of obtaining security from such a
government, because from the statement of the condition,
obviously the possibility was admitted. If those gentlemen,
who argued this conditionally, did not feel the possibility of
obtaining security, they certainly dealt in a very unfair and
uncandid manner with the House and with the country;
for if they were of opinion, that we could not obtain security
from the present government, ought they not, ill an open,
bold, and manly way, to have then declared, that it would
be impossible to obtain peace while that government had
existence, and that, to obtain so desirable an object, that
government must of necessity be destroyed? That, however,
was not the state of the case last year; nothing of that sort
had been insisted upon; no such opinion was ventured to be
advanced; and he was very much inclined to believe, that
if the object for which we were about to engage in the war
had been stated by the executive government to have been
the subversion of the government of France, that it would
not, either in that House, or by the people of the country,
have been supported. He complained, therefore, on the
part of the people of England, and on the part of the House


1 . 4




248 MILL TO ENABLE SUBJECTS OF FRANCE [April 17,
of Commons, that we had been led into a war upon one
pretence, and that the operations for carrying it on were
directed to purposes and objects totally different from those
held out to that House and to the country, by his majesty's
ministers.


He would ask, if this measure was necessary for carrying
on the war on the principles avowed last year, although it
was not then either a fit or necessary one? It would be a
trifling answer to say, " It might not have been necessary
then, but we know it to be so at present, and it is never too
late to mend." The manner in which they proposed it
should have been fair, open, and sincere; they should have
told the House the truth ; they should have confessed their
own Inches last year, and shewn they were willing and de-
sirous, by new diligence, to make the best atonement in their
power to their country for their former neglect and inatten-
tion : they should have said with one voice, " We now look
upon the war as such, that this measure should have been
adopted originally, and that it is a necessary one, though we
entertained a different opinion at first."


.They should declare
to the House what was in reality their system and their object;
in what particulars it had been altered from their original
plan; and then, whether such alteration was for the better
or the worse, have left parliament to judge. Certainly, he
thought the war - on our part to be both just and necessary,
provided it was impossible to obtain, in the first instance,
satisfaction and security by negotiation; but he could never
agree that we should continue the war for the purpose of
imposing a form of government on France. He certainly
thought, that even though the government of France was an
unjust or wicked government, it was in direct contradiction
of the first principles of an independent state, and of the
sovereignty of nations, to interfere with its formation. If a
people, in the formation of their government, have been
ill-advised, if they have fallen into error, if they


have acted
iniquitously and unjustly towards each other, God was their
only judge; it was not the province of other nations to
chastise their folly, or punish their wickedness, by chusing
who should rule over them, or in what manner and form they
should be governed.


These points, continued Mr. Fox, seemed to have been
universally understood and assented to last year; they were
points agreed on by all the authors lie had ever had an op-
portunity to consult, who had treated of the law of nations,
or the nature of government. Now, it seemed, we had en-
tirely changed our system, and were to employ the French
emigrants in support of our new one. If the purport of


1794.3 TO ENLIST AS SOLDIERS. 249


this bill had been simply to enable Ins majesty to enlist fo-
reigners, he should have considered it in a much more fa-
vourable light; but, to his understanding and Comprehension
it appeared to be Ibis: that we pledged the faith of this
country to the emigrants for the full restoration of all their
rights, titles, privileges, and properties, which they had lost
by the Revolution, and that we would overturn the present
existing government of France by force of arms. With re-
spect to those unfortunate men, the emigrants, there was no
man who felt more sincerely for their situation than he did.
It was true he differed in sentiments with most of them ; he
disapproved of their conduct in many instances ; but, if dif-
ference of opinion were a cause of withholding sympathy and
compassion, this would indeed be a dismal world to inhabit.
Difference of opinion was, in his mind, one great cause of
the improvement of mankind, because it led to inquiry and
discussion. It was his opinion that in all points, civil and
religious, toleration of opinion was wisdom; upon that de-
pended all the peace, he had almost said all the virtue, and
consequently all the happiness of the world. 'This humane
doctrine was the :Treat leading feature of the mild and bene-
ficent system of Christianity, and what had tended to render
it such an inestimable blessing to mankind. He should,
therefore, by no means say any thing harsh of the emigrants,
though differing from them in sentiments ; on the contrary,
it appeared from their conduct, that they were sincere in
their professions. But because he sympathized with and
compassionated the sufferings and misibrtunes of those men,
it was not necessary that he should be willing to pledge the
faith of the country for the restoration of all they had lost
by the Revolution, and for the total subversion of the pre-
sent ruling powers in France; that was a conduct, which, if
adopted, would, in his opinion, expose this country to great
and tremendous evils.


The war in itself, considering the present condition of
France, Mr. Fox considered as formidable to this country
and to its constitution. Whatever might be the objects to
be attained by it in the minds of other men he could not tell;
two only seemed most desirable to be entertained: the first,
that its duration should be as short as possible ; the second,
that in its prosecution it should be as little bloody and savage
as the nature of the case would admit. The present bill he
principally objected to as militating against those two wishes
of his heart; for it would certainly tend both to prolong the
war, and render it more savage, bloody, and inhuman, than
any war that had ever disgraced the annals of modern nations.
If the object of the war, as had been originally . stated, was




250
BILL TO ENABLE SVBJECTS OF FRANCE [April 17,


to recover the exclusive navigation of the Scheldt for the
United States, or to repel any insult offered us by the French,
or to obtain satisfaction for present, and security against
future aggression, he confessed that he should be sanguine in
his hopes with respect to its termination. He might then
think, that those who considered the last as a fortunate
campaign, had not viewed the matter so unfairly ; because,
if such were the objects of the war, the consideration of the
places we had taken might induce the French to think of
peace. If we took Pondicherry, that might bring us a step
nearer peace; because prudence might induce them to the
measure, in order to save the remainder of their Indian pos-
sessions. The capture of St. Domingo, or Martinico, would
be another step nearer the attainment of that desirable object ;
because a regard for the preservation of their other domi-
nions in the West might incline them to conclude a peace.
In that point of view it was easy to conceive how a nation of
Europe might be conquered in the East or West Indies :
successes of this kind, in all former wars, had been so many
steps towards the conclusion of peace. Upon such grounds
as these were founded the peace of Utrecht concluded by
Louis XIV., the peace of Fontainblcau by Louis XV., and
the peace of Paris in 1783 by Great Britain. But was that
the case in the present war ? No such thing; because the
object of the present and former wars was essentially different.
If the principle of the present bill was carried into effect,
we must necessarily destroy the present existing government,
or what you please to call it, of France. it would avail us
nothing, if our object be the destruction of the French go-
vernment, to take the whole of their East and West India
dominions; it would avail us nothing that Brissot, or Danton,
or Robespierre were put to death ; for what would the French
say ? "True, we have had all these losses ; but we are not
fighting for dominion or territory, or for particular men ; we


_ --


are fighting for our existence, and for the existence of our
government." Successes of this kind, therefore, had no
effect whatever towards accelerating the conclusion of a peace.
It was true, it might be said, that the more we took of their
possessions, the more we should reduce their strength, and
therefore the more we should incline them to wish for peace.
This mode of arguing was certainly right when one thing was
held equivalent to another, and when the great object was
the loss or gain of possession or dominion. These arguments
had force or application only to a case where we chanced to
be at war with a government that it was not our object to,
destroy, but they could have no bearing whatever on the case
of a war with a government, the destruction of which was


TO ENLIST AS SOLDIERS. 251


made a necessary preliminary of peam To such a govern-
ment, therefore,. the loss of an island, of islands, could
afford no argument for making peace, because the persons
exercising the powers of government knew that our object and
endeavours aimed at their entire destruction.


It might be said, that by degrees we might so weaken
them, that they would consent to any form of government
rather than continue the war; for, by diminishing their
power, we should lower their pride. He would ask, was
there any man in that House, or any man in the country,
that had ever considered the subject, who thought that in the
'present situation of France such an effect could follow from
such a cause ? Could we conceive that those men, with such
a spirit, whether from terror of their rulers, depravity of
heart, enthusiasm, or from whatever cause such a spirit and
disposition might have originated; could' we conceive that
these men would be found, in any considerable number, to
change the sentiments they had almost to a man adopted, of
forming a government for themselves, and tamely and sub-
missively bear the yoke of a foreign power, and take any go-
vernment that should be dictated to them ; and all this because
we might have proved successful in the East or West Indies?
If any person could hold such an opinion, his mind must be
strangely constituted indeed ! It might, however, be said,
that our successes would tend to make the people discontented
with their present rulers, and diminish their attachment to
their government. Was such an effect to be expected, or at
all likely to be produced ? Was there a man, woman, or even
a child, in France, who, having borne all that they had borne
within the last five years, who, having witnessed the horrors
and blood with which their country has been deluged, to
whom each day had been a day of life and death, yet had
nevertheless adhered to their government and their rulers,
would now desert them merely for the loss of an island in the
East or West Indies ? We all knew that when the mind was
irritated and goaded, when it was busied in viewing daily
objects of terror at home, it was not likely to be much af-
fected by remote consequences : they were either not taken
into its consideration at all, or, if considered, compared with
nearer evils they were looked on as nothing. If our object
was, therefore, against the government, and not against the
possessions of FraLce, there was no man of sense who would
not admit that those different 'advantages which he bad enu-
merated, had not the smallest tendency to promote or restore
peace; and there could be . no advantage which we could pos-
sibly gain, that could contribute to this end, unless we should
be able to take Paris, or some other material part of France;




252 BILL TO ENABLE SUBJECTS OF FRANCE [April 17.


which would be found an undertaking of infinite difficulty
and dreadful danger.


It was not his intention, Mr. Fox said, to inquire into the
conduct of the war. He had stated these points merely for
the purpose of pointing out the difference between the two
kinds of war to which he had alluded, as to the circumstances
which tended to the acceleration of peace; and certainly, in
that point of view, the difference was great indeed. Viewing,
therefore, the present bill on such a principle, and consider-
ing it, what the common sense of mankind must admit it to
be, a virtual engagement on the part of this country to restore
the ancient government of France, and to replace those emi
grants in the situation they formerly enjoyed, surrounded by
all that pomp and dignity we heard so elegantly depicted,
peace appeared to him an object infinitely tely distant. It was
impossible to say what turn the affairs of France might take;
nothing could be more improper, or even ridiculous, than
any attempt to predict what might occur: but looking on the
circumstances of that country as they were at. present, he felt
himself bound to say, that the conquest of the French seemed
to him a task so dangerous and difficult, that he should be
unwilling to advise it to be undertaken. It had been said on
a former night by an honourable gentleman, (Mr. Jenkinson,")
and it was wisely and truly said, that the best mode of con-
quering France was to take Paris, and that the only means
by which this could be effected, would be by first taking the
strong towns on the northern frontier, which might serve as a
protection for our troops, and enable us to march forward
with security : that, Mr. Fox said, he also conceived to be
wise and just reasoning, and the only way in which Paris
could be taken ; but, the very mode proposed for attaining
this object, convinced him at once of the difficulty, and al-
most impossibility, of carrying it into effect. When we
looked on the iron frontier of France, and saw what must be
passed, before we could have any fair prospect of marching
to Paris, we must be convinced that the task was of an Her-
culean kind; required an Herculean labour, length of time,
and an uninterrupted series of success to accomplish ; and we
should also take into consideration the nature of the cause,
and the temper and disposition of the people with whom we
have to contend.


It had been mentioned more than once, and he presumed
by way of reproach to him, that he gloried in the victory
of Jemappe. He had heard it, often as it had ,been men-
tioned, without pain or emotion ; for he had not said any
thing upon that subject which he had yet found cause to re-
pent of; nor did he retract a single syllable of what he had


1794.]


TO ENLIST AS SOLDIERS. 253


ever said on that occasion. It had been asked, by way of
derision, was it any thing extraordinary for 6o,000 men to
vanquish 20,000, and wherein consisted the glory of the
action ? He did not mean to say that it was a thing extraor-
dinary or surprising; but let them not therefore howl va-
lour or military character of the French too cheap even in
their present situation. It was not his design to detract from
the valour of the Austrians or Prussians, much less did he
wish to detract from the well-known bravery and military skill
of his countrymen ; at the same time, if it was wise and ne-
cessary to look our danger in the face, let us not think of de-
spising our enemy : from this error many fatal consequences
had often arisen. He should refer the House for the military
character of the French, to the manifesto of the King of
Prussia: when assigning his motives for withdrawing himself
from the war, he spoke of diem as a people of uncommon
bravery, and approved tactics. This was the opinion of ex-
perience; and not merely the opinion of the king himself,
but that of all his generals and officers; men, if he might use
the term, the most learned in military affairs, and founded
on dreadful experience of their prowess.


Experto erudite, quantus
In clypeum assurgat, quo turbine torqueat hastam,


In the description which this declaration gave there was nothing
upon which any reasonable hope could be founded, that the
French were a people easy to be conquered : to which he must
add, that the experience of history had taught him to expect
that such a people, fighting under such circumstances, must
be very formidable to the most powerful enemy that could be
opposed to them; and if we were to conjecture the future
from the consideration of the past, such an event, as the com-
plete conquest of the French in war, could not be reasonably
expected. If, therefore, this was likely to be a pursuit so
hopeless, he should wish to ask, whether it were prudent, or
consistent with the dignity and honour of this country, (for the
honour of a nation, like the honour of an individual, was the
most valuable and sacred of its possessions,) to employ those
unfortunate people in such a visionary scheme? It was not
right to pledge our honour for the performance of what all
the world knew to be extremely difficult to perform, and what,
perhaps, many experienced people considered as altogether
impossible to effect.


Having thus endeavoured to shew that the prospect of peace
would by this measure be placed at an infinite distance, and
that it was highly improper to pledge ourselves for the per-
formance of what all the world must perceive to be very




254 BILL TO ENABLE SUBJECTS OP FRANCE [April r-,a
doubtful, if not desperate, namely, to overturn the present
existing government of France, and to restore to these emi-
grants all the rights, honours, and privileges they formerly0 3
enjoyed, he was led to consider the effect that this Nvar, by its,
continuance, would have on the hearts and the general mora-
lity of the people of Europe. He did not mean to boast the
possession of humanity as peculiar to himself; more than to
any other person; but he begged leave, at the same time, to
say; that he hoped he did not possess less than any other man,
who had not more acute feelings, or a better understanding :
he was, therefore, convinced, there was not one man in this
country, however he might differ from him in opinion as to
the justice, or the origin, or the necessity of the war, who
felt more real anguish for the calamitous state of Europe at
this moment than he did. It had been said, and truly, that
one of the many evil consequences of the war was, that it
tended to render the hearts of mankind callous to the feelings
and sentiments of humanity. When we daily heard of the
massacres of such numbers of individuals, that memory could
not even recollect their names ; when we contemplated the
slaughters at Lyons, at Marseilles, at Bourdeaux, at Toulon ;
he much feared that the effect would be injurious to the morals
of all Europe: the misfortunes experienced by multitudes of
individuals at these and other places had been so great, that
the mind was bewildered in the magnitude and complication
of the misery. He was' clearly of 'opinion, that the human
mind might be made so familiar with misery, and scenes of
horror, as at last to disregard them, or at least to view them
with indifference. It was difficult to preserve always the
acuteness of the feelings; and it was, in his mind, no small
misfortune to live at a period when scenes of horror and blood
were frequent. By the constant repetition of such scenes, our
feelings were by degrees blunted, and in time became indif-
ferent to what at first would interest them with the most
amiable sympathy and distress. Humanity on this account,
had been, by the Stoics, deemed a weakness in our nature,
and in their opinions impeded the progress of the judgment,
and consequently the improvement of morals ; but his senti-
ments so widely differed from theirs, that he thought huma-
nity not only not a weakness, but the strongest and safest
friend to virtue. No man could lament, therefore, more than
he did, the mischief done to mankind by making the heart
too familiar with misery, and rendering it at last indifferent;
because, on the heart and on the feelings, chiefly depended
our love of virtue; and he was convinced they did more ser-
vice to the cause of virtue,, than the wisest precepts of the,
wisest men. Humanity was' one of the most beautiful parts


1794.] To ENLIST AS SOLDIERS. 255
of the divine system of Christianity, 'which taught us not only
to do good to mankind, but to love each other as brethren ;
and this all depended on the sensibility of our hearts, the
greatest blessing bestowed by Providence on man, and with-
out which, with the most refined and polished understanding,
he would be no better than a savage.


The feelings of all Europe had already suffered by the re-
peated horrors of France; but, with regard to egeir cause,
the French appeared to have, in a great measure, been ,
driven to these violent scenes of bloodshed and horror. It
was with a nation as with an individual ; for if an individual
was placed in a situation in which he felt himself abandoned
by the whole world, and found that no one was his friend, that
no one interested himself in his happiness or welfare, but that
all mankind, as it were by general consent, were his enemies,
he must become a misanthrope and a savage, unless he pos-
sessed a mind more heroic and exalted than we had any
right to expect. Such was the situation in which France had
been placed; almost all Europe had united against this single
people; not for the purpose of regaining any territory upon
the Rhine, or restraining the strides of an ambitious monarch
towards universal empire, as had been the case with the com-
bination against Louis XIV.; not for the purpose of repelling
an aggression, or to obtain reparation for an injury, or satis-
fhction for an insult, or indemnification for losses, and secu-
rity for future peace, but for the open and avowed purpose of
destroying a people, or compelling them to accept a form of
government to be imposed on them by force of arms; and
that, too, the form which, from every conjecture that could
possibly be made, they most detested and abhorred—their
ancient monarchy. Could it be wondered at that the French,
under such circumstances, were savage and ferocious? He
did not say that it was the intention of the combined powers
to compel them to return to their ancient form of government;
it was' enough that they were under the apprehension of it,
and that almost the whole of Europe were leagued in arms
against them ; and no man could deny, but, as a people, they
had an equitable mid moral right to resist such an attempt,
and to refuse their submission to such dictation.




A right honourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) had drawn a
pleasing picture of the happiness of the people of France un-
der their monarchy, and had bestowed what he considered
an unmerited eulogium on that form of government, where
the French peasant was described to have sat in happiness and
security under his vine or his olive. He, for his part, Mr.
Fox said, had certainly no pretensions to any thing like pro-
found philosophical obseryation on men or 'twirlers, but he




256 BILL TO ENABLE SUBJECTS OF PRANCE [April 7,
had been in France where this mild and temperate monarchy
was, and had seen some of their peasants, who were so far
from having any thing like security for the possession of any
property they might have, that it was altogether at the dis-
posal of the higher orders; and their situation in general was,
to all appearance, so replete with misery, so abject, and so
wretched, that they could not be objects of envy to the sub-jects of the most absolute despots upon earth. He knew that
France had" been called " a mitigated absolute monarchy :" ,
This he would deny, from experience, and contend, that it
was most fierce and barbarous. Ile did not mean to compare
the situation of the people of France, under their monarchy,
with the situation of the people of this country, or with the
situation of the inhabitants of Holland, of the United States,
or the happy Cantons of' Switzerland; he would compare
them with the inhabitants of Germany and Italy, and the
other despotic governments of Europe, and contend, that
their situation was by far the most distressed and wretched of
any of them. Seeing this to have been their situation, and
apprehending the object of the combined powers to be to re-
place them in that bondage, it was not surprising that they
should become furious.


In a former debate on this bill, he bad heard it asked,
Whether, if any of the emigrants employed by this country
should be taken and put to death, we were to retaliate? He
had heard also, in reply, a solitary, but dreadful," Yes ;" and
surely the wit that had been used on this reply was as ill-timed
as it was inapplicable. Dreadful were the consequences that
must follow the adoption of a system of retaliation ; dreadful
the situation in which these unhappy men would be placed,
who must, if taken, be considered as rebels, and put to death:
as to these unfortunate men, the war would be a civil war to
all intents and purposes ; and every man knew that civil wars
had never been distinguished by humanity. A great military
authority (Lord Mulgrave) had asserted, that these evils, so
much apprehended, were not likely to be produced. He re,joiced at this information ; but, nevertheless, he believed that
those gallant men who fought under the Prince of Conde,
and were unfortunately taken prisoners, had been to a man
put to death. The same noble lord- had asked, whether we
should suffer ourselves to be bullied by the French out of the
means which were in our power? Certainly not ; but let us be
certain, in the first place, that these means rested upon fair
grounds, and were such as we had a just right to use. The
opinion which he was about to state, was like many other of
his opinions, perhaps singular; it was this, that war ought to
be carried on as mercifully as possible, without any regard to


1794.] TO ENLIST AS SOLDIERS. z57
persons. He certainly could not find this opinion either in
books, or in the practice of Europe; and history taught all
who perused it, that the treatment of prisoners in civil wars
was never remarkable for humanity. Let us look to our own
history, and to what were called good times. We had had,
during the present century, in this country, two rebellions,
in the years f7 1 5 and 1745. Did we then reverence this
merciful maxim? Did we consider that the treason of every
man was done away by his holding a commission from a fo-
reign power, when taken in the field of battle? No : Mr.
Radcliffe offered this plea; but it did not avail him : he was
executed.


If the French were to land in this kingdom, and there
chanced to be any body of people so abandoned to all sense
of duty, so lost to the love of their country, so dead to their
own interest and happiness, as to join them, shoulit we pardon
any of them, who should produce a commission from the con-
vention ? 'We should not. If, therefore, any of these emi-
grants were taken in the field of battle, in arms against their
country, was it to be supposed that the convention would re-
spect the commissions granted by the King of Great Britain,
or that those commissions would afford them protection, or
secure them from punishment? In the present question, if we
determined not to retaliate, in what a disgraceful and calamitous
situation did we place those whom we employed ! And if we
did retaliate, good God ! in what horrors would Europe be
involved ! In whatever point of view he considered the mea-
sure, it appeared highly objectionable; it would tend, if adopt-
ed, to render the war more bloody and of longer duration.


Let us take a view (continued Mr. Fox) of ancient history,
and see how wars have been conducted, and compare them
with the present; we shall then see the reason why the present
war is more bloody and more cruel, than any of those wars
recorded in modern history. In modern wars, the contest
has been, generally speaking, concerning the possession of
territory; at least the loss of territory, for the most part, has
determined it; each acknowledging the independence of the
other as a nation; and therefore the parties, like two indivi-
duals at law, did not seek to destroy each other after their
difference was determined. In ancient wars, the contest was
between powers seeking the destruction and extermination of
each other as a nation. It is not my wish to take from the
mild effects of the Christian religion, which also has tended
to soften the manners of men, but the merciful manner in
which modern wars have been carried on, in comparison of
the ancient, has resulted chiefly from this great difference be-
tween their objects. Delenda est Carthago, said the ,Roman


VOL. V.




2S8 BILL TO ENABLE SUBJECTS OP PRANCE [April 17.
senate, of .Carthage: Athens conceived it was for her interest
to destroy the government of Sparta, and, vice versa, the Ma-
cedonians were convinced of the necessity of extirpating the
Greeks. To these wars of the ancients, the civil wars of mo-
dern times alone afford a parallel, because their objects are
also to effect the destruction of governments; and for this
reason, they are less merciful and mild than wars waged be-
tween independent sovereigns. The present contest with
France may be justly termed a civil war, in the force, the
acrimony, and savageness with which it is carried on.


The combined powers had declared that the government of
France must be destroyed, and that declaration had rendered
the French desperate and cruel. That was a system at which
humanity shuddered; that was a system promoted by the pre-
sent ; a system openly avowed and maintained by those
who supported the principles of this measure. That system
had already had its effects in this country; it had rendered the
people callous; some through fear, a power which deprived a
man of rationality; others by indifference, which prevented .
a man from exerting his intellects, and benumbed his feelings.
To what but this could be imputed the excessive severity of
the °sentences lately passed upon Mr. Muir, Mr.- Palmer, and
others, for having done nothing more than an honest man,
acting perhaps under the influence of a misguided judgment,
might conceive it to be his duty to do; for having done no-
thing more than pursue a little too closely the former con-
duct of his present prosecutor? To what but this could be
imputed the general disinclination of the House, and lastly,
its absolute refusal, to interfere with these sentences? If any
man, three years ago, had committed such an offence, and
had received such a sentence, the House would have fired
with indignation, and interfered to prevent its execution.
That punishments so enormous should be inflicted on gentle-
men of a liberal education, and irreproachable manners, pro-
bably possessed of good hearts, and whose only crime so nearly
resembled the virtues of other men, who even arrogated to
themselves some merit on that head; that such men, for a bare
misdemeanour, should receive a sentence worse than death;
a sentence that had the certainty of death, without its imme-
diate release from misery, a lingering, peevish infliction of a
punishment, which, in cruelty, exceeded immediate death;
and all this for a conduct not long since deemed meritorious;
this was owing to the horrid examples of France, and arose
from inordinate fear, and miserable apprehension. \Vas he
not, then, entitled to say, that the present war was dangerous
to the constitution of this country, since it tended so directly,
to extinguish, in that House and in the people, the spirit which.-


;t


1794.] TO ENLIST AS SOLDIERS. 259


had hitherto guarded the constitution from the daily attacks
of the executive power ? Impressed so forcibly with these sen-
timents, he felt himself unable to withhold his opinion; not
from any expectation of making any deep impression on the
majority of that House; that, he was well convinced, would
be a hopeless expectation ; but because he conceived it his
duty so to do, that the public might be called upon to exert
their judgment.


There were two points more to be considered, before he
could take leave of the subject: first, the probable effect this
system would have on the French character ; and second, the
immense expence the measure might introduce in the public
expenditure of this country. With regard to the first point,
it was to be observed, that the French character was a marked
one ; and nothing was more prominent in it than an attach
meat to their country, which might be called patriotism, , or
nationality, but which consisted in the desire of having France
appear magnanimous and great in the eyes of the world.
Perhaps in this they had never bean equalled, except by the
ancient Romans. This ought to make tile House cautious as
to what might be the result of employing any very consider-
able number of these men. Let them consider, that should
we even succeed in placing Louis XVII. on the throne, and
a question of indemnity were to arise, perhaps these very
French troops we had employed might take part against us ;
they might possibly have also other interests in betraying us.
He did not mean to say they would do it, but at the same
time it would not be altogether discreet to hold out to them
too great a temptation. Suppose, however, that we should
.fail in our attempts, and should be forced to return to the
first object of the war, what would be then the consequence ?
We should become the sad spectators of the rum we had oc-
casioned ; we should hear these emigrants reproach us in this
manner : " We depended on your promises, and you have
deceived us; we relied on you with confidence, and you have
thus prevented us from using any endeavour to reconcile our-
selves to our country." "We should then be forced, either to
cast them out to the wide world in misery and distress, or to
burden the people of this country for their maintenance; a
burden that would be more heavy, .and less just, than that in
consequence of the protection afforded the loyalists in the
American war. -With regard to the expence, it was impos-
sible to say to what extent it might go ; and as our resources,
like all human things, had their limits, we could not be quite
sure the people would be able to bear the burden; nor could
we be sure, supposing them able, that they would be long
willinZ to do so. When so desirable an end would be aceorn-,


2




260 PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY.
[April 3o.


pushed God only knew ! but he contended, that we should
endeavour to accelerate the period of peace, and to make the
war as little savage and ferocious as possible: This bill, as
inimical to these two very desirable objects, which were so
much the wish of his heart, should have his decided negative.,


The bill passed without a division.


PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY.


April 3o.


ON the 28th of April a message was delivered from the king,informing the House of Commons of the treaty concluded
with the King of Prussia ; by which Great Britain and the States.
General had jointly stipulated'.


to grant that monarch a larger subsidy
for the prosecution of the war. When the terms were laid before
the House, it appeared that 1,800,000/. were to be paid him for
the services of a twelvemonth ; of which Holland was to furnish
400,0001. The immensity of such a sum, advanced to a prince in
whom little or no confidence was reposed, awakened the fears of
those who dreaded his duplicity, and that being once in possession
of this treasure, he would feel little concern for those from whom
he had received it. This apprehension was the more justlyfounded, as he was privately negotiating with the French govern-
ment at this very time, and preparing for that secession from the
confederacy which lie had already resolved on. The message was
taken into consideration on the 3oth, when Mr. Pitt


- opened the sub-ject to the House, and moved, " That the sum of two millions five
hundred thousand pounds be granted to make good the engage-
ments which his majesty has entered into with the King of Prussia,
as well as to defray any extraordinary expences which may be in-
curred for the service of the year 17 94, and to take such measures
as the exigency of affairs may require ; and that such sum be
raised by loan or exchequer bills, to be charged upon the first
aids to be granted in the next session of parliament."


Mr. Fox said, it was necessary for him to say a few words
upon the present extraordinary occasion, and the extraordinary
manner in which the subject had been brought forward by
the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer. The
commencement of the speech of the right honourable gentle-
man appeared to him to be of the most alarming tendency. It
held out a system, which, if pursued, the wealth of this coun-
try, even supposing it to exceed the most sanguine hopes of


794.] PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY. 261


the most liberal calculator, was comparatively nothing. It
seemed to convey this idea, that we were not only to subsidize
the King of Prussia, and enable him to carry on his operations
in the war, whenever he might be tired of so doing at his own
expence, but also to bear the whole expellee of any other
power, whenever that power should be in the humour to ex-
press the same inclination. The right honourable gentleman
had said, that if he had the honour of advising the court of
Berlin, he had no doubt which way his opinion would be
given ; because the existence of the nation depended on the
issue of the contest; but that the court of Berlin, from a con-
sideration of the restricted commerce, the limited resources,
and the nature and form of the constitution of Prussia, (which,
by the way, was no proof of its excellence,) might have enter-
tained doubts how far it was prudent to remain a principal in
this contest; yet, notwithstanding these considerations, the
right honourable gentleman would have had no hesitation in
advising that court to have continued a principal in the war.
The house would recollect, therefore, that it was told by the
minister of the King of England, that his ally, ,he King of
Prussia, had been so ill advised, that he had taken the timid,
the weak, the mean, the wicked, the shameful and scandalous
determination, by abandoning the war, or abandoning his own
honour, abandoning the interest and safety of his own subjects;
this was the amount of that observation.


The right honourable gentleman had not, however, stop-
ped there ; he went further, and said, since this was the case,
since such had been the disgraceful conduct of Prtissia, such
the timid and pusillanimous result of the councils of the court
of Berlin, that Great Britain ought to step forward,
and press the King of Prussia to proceed contrary to
the advice of his counsellors, and engage to bear the
expence. What ! when Spain, Austria, and all the other
powers, might come to the same resolution ? Yes, though
all Europe should come to that resolution ; for lie had said,
that from the moment that resolution was taken, it became
our interest and our duty to stand in the place of this monarch,
and to say to him, " Since you are so ill advised upon this
business, and are determined to withdraw yourself from the
contest, let us have your troops, and you shall have our money."
Mr. Fox said, he wished to ask, whether the whole of that ar-
gument was not applicable to Spain, and to all the other com-
bined powers, at present at war with France ? This was not
an idle speculation, it might soon become a reality. Did the
right honourable gentleman know the resources of Austria?
Kid he any thing to say, that could give the people of this
country any ground to hope that the same difficulty would not


S 3




262 PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY.
[April 30.


be felt by the other powers as had been expressed by Prussia?
They had the same circumstances of difficulty with regard to
their wealth and commerce ; and all, except the Dutch, the
same defect with respect to their constitution. Was there
any inconvenience felt by the King of Prussia, that did not
belong, in a great degree, to the Emperor, to the King of
Spain, and to the other combined powers ? 'What ; then, was
to be expected to be the result of all this ? Why, that the
whole expence would eventually fall on Great Britain. He
laid the more stress upon this, because-the whole force of the
right honourable gentleman's argument went to this point.
When this came to be coupled with the avowed object oft he war,
the total destruction of the French government, the situation
of this country was dreadful. If we should be of opinion, that
our existence as a nation depended on that point, as the right
honourable gentleman's argument maintained, and the other
powers should follow the steps of the King of Prussia, then,
for the sake of our own existence, we might be brought to pay
ter every man and every horse in Europe, employed against
the French in the present dreadful contest. From our con-
duct in this war, it would seem as if we had been originally
attacked in it, and Prussia not at all; as if France had at-
tacked us iatheEast and the West Indies ; and that the King of
Prussia was only at war with France as our ally and assistant.
But we all knew the fact to be otherwise, that the King of
Prussia originally began it; and, for any thing we could now
prove to the contrary, it was that very beginning of his which
brought on the aggression made by the French on Holland,
and which involved us in the contest. What does the King
of Prussia say to us upon this occasion ? Does he say, " Sorry
I am that I have involved my friends in a disagreeable situ-
ation ; that I have, without intending it, brought upon them
the calamities of war; but now that I have done so, I feel
myself bound, by every tie of honour and of justice, to double,
nay, treble my efforts to get them out of it ?" No : the language
was this, " I have got Great Britain and Holland into
this contest: they are involved in it at this moment from
my adventure, and my dominions are more remote, and con-
sequently not so immediately affected as theirs : I will dis-
continue my efforts, unless they chuse to bear my expellees."


It was hardly possible for the mind of man to conceive a
circumstance more odious, and more liable to suspicion of
every kind, than this conduct of the King of Prussia : it had
in it such materials, and was composed of a mixture of fraud,
perfidy, and meanness, perfectly new to all modern political
history. He had declared it to be our cause, and not his; and
that he would proceed no further on his own account. So


1794.] PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY. 263


infamous, indeed, had been the conduct of the King of Prussia,
that it was impossible for any man of the least prudence to
trust that court in any thiug ; and yet this was the court to
which the people of this country were, by the proposal of the
minister of the King of England that night, to pay 1,350,0001.
for carrying on the war which that court itself commenced.
What security had we, even after agreeing to pay this money,
that the King of Prussia would not say, he had met with fur-
ther difficulties, and make another demand of us, even in the
course of this campaign ? 'What confidence could we place in
a person who had already betrayed all confidence? How did
we know that the success of this application would not give
birth to others? Though some might be disposed to blame
them, yet in his mind Austria and Spain might come to
us with a much better grace, with more honour, and with
more reason, for a subsidy than Prussia.


All this while, however, it would seem that he was mistak-
ing the thing altogether. It was not Prussia that asked this
of us, it was we who requested Prussia to accept it. It seemed
as if the existence of Great Britain, as a nation, depended upon
this assistance of Prussia. This was called a day of good
fortune to England. A clay of " joy, and satisfaction !" The
right honourable gentleman, indeed, seemedtruck with the
words as soon as he used them, and on that account had en-
deavoured to explain them away ; the explanation, however,
was of a curious nature. It seemed that the existence of Great
Britain, as a nation, depended upon this assistance of Prussia ;
and on this account it was matter of joy, that we possessed
the means of affording this assistance. It might be, compared,
not to the case of a man congratulating his friend afflicted
with a dreadful disease, that though the amputation of a limb
might be painful in the operation, and perhaps doubtful in
the event, yet that it would probably save his life ; but it re-
sembled the case of a man expressing to that friend his joy
and satisfaction that there were no other means of saving his
life. It might have been wished that the minister had pos-
sessed a better taste than to have selected such a topic as a
theme of joy. It should have been spoken of as a scene of
painful suffering, such as this country had seldom if ever before
felt.


Having said this, he wished to know in what light we were
to consider the situation of the King of Prussia in the war
at this moment? It was at least extremely ambiguous. Had
he ceased to be a principal or not? Indeed, the right honour-
able gentleman had given no information on that subject;
for a good reason, because .he had none to give. But he
had thought proper to allude to other treaties, and to take


84




264 PRUSSIAN. SUBSI DI%
[April 3o.


what he called a comparative view of them and of the present;
and in doing this, he had recourse to a paltry quibble, that
was unworthy of him. He was surprised that a man, pre-
tending to any thing like intellect, or who had a mind of any
size, should attempt it. He meant the allusion to the sub-
sidiary treaty with Prussia against the power of Austria, in
the year 17 5 8, at a time when we were not actually at war
with the House of Austria, though it was well known that
at that period France was supporting the Empress Queen in
Germany, and we engaged, in opposition to them, to espouse
the interests of the House of Brandeubourg. To revert,
therefore, to his question, he would ask, whether the King
of Prussia was any longer to be regarded as a principal in
the war, or not? If he was to be regarded as a principal,
why was he to be treated with on the footing of a neutral
power, or why were we to hire -,, o,coo men above those he
was bound to furnish us with by treaty, merely to enable
his Prussian majesty to display his thirst for military glory
at our expellee.


The next point to be considered was the command of the
troops that were to be employed, and for which we were to
pay the King of Prussia. The right honourable gentleman
had said, iti was proper they should be under the command
of a prince snfond of military glory; now, he did not expect
to hear that it was matter of " joy and satisfaction" to the
people of this country, that when their money was voted for
the maintenance of an army, some officer of' their own was
not to have command and controul over them : in the com-
mon course of common sense, it might have been expected,
that those who paid them should command them, instead of
giving the command to a person who had already given such
very indifferent proofs of integrity. In the next place, how-
ever, we were informed, that this subsidized army was to be
employed for British purposes, and that the conquests it
might make were to be placed to the advantage of the mari-
time powers: but a very slight reflection would convince the
House, that this boasted convenience was productive of no
beneficial consequences; but, on the contrary, rather tended
to retard than to accelerate the purposes for which the treaty
had been made. The great object of all these treaties was,
to enable the continental powers with whom we were con-
nected to fight their own battles with effect, and to create so
powerful a diversion on the side of France, as to hinder the
full effect of her naval exertions. When this was understood
to be the nature and effect of these alliances, every contract-
ing party under the influence of private interest would na-
turally be disposed to the utmost exertion for the common


1794'] PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY. 26e


cause. But we were now so diffident of the zeal of our allies,
that we were determined to make it entirely a British and
Dutch concern; and yet to employ a monarch to act in our
behalf, who took no interest in the issue of the enterprizes he
might undertake. The right honourable the chancellor of
the exchequer had been as perspicuous as he usually was in
'matters of detail, in his comparative estimate of the expence
of this subsidiary treaty, and those which had been concluded
between this country and the other German princes. But
without examining into the minutiae of these different treaties,
he would only remark, that under the stipulations of the
treaty of 1 7 87, the King of Prussia was bound to furnish the
King of Great Britain and the States of Holland with
3 2,000 men, for the sum of 600,000l. so that every shilling
of the remaining part of the aggregate sum was appropriated
to the payment and sustenance of the additional 3 0,000 men,
which was at the rate of at least 121. per man, exclusive of
the 400,000/. which were to be paid to the King of Prussia
before lie began his march; so that-upon the whole the
sum of sixteen hundred thousand pounds was to be paid
to this prince during the first nine months of our alliance
with him.


On this part of the subject it was not, however, his inten-
tion to dwell any longer, as the terms gf this bargain gave
rise to inquiries of very inferior moment, when compared
with those more important suggestions which arose from the
general view of the subject, and the character and conduct
of the party with whom we had formed this alliance. And
here he would ask the House, whether the perfidious conduct
of the court of Berlin to France and Poland was a sufficient
motive to induce us to place implicit confidence in its future
adherence to the faith of treaties? Or could we hope to
derive much benefit from the protection of' the King of Prus-
sia, when his having ruined his own subjects, and exhausted
his treasury, were assigned as the principal reasons for afford-
ing him this supply of money? He was also under some
difficulty as to the extent of the engagements under which
the States of Holland had conic by the stipulations of this
treaty: for, according to its tenor, we were bound, in the
first instance, to pay the King of Prussia the whole of this
sum, and had only the collateral security of Holland to the
amount of 400,000l., and the Dutch were only bound to make
this payment for the course of the current year ; whereas, by
a separate article, we had agreed to continue it during the
continuance of the war. The right honourable gentleman
was, indeed, better acquainted with the resources of the
States of the United Provinces than lie could pretend to




r


266 PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY.
[April 3c.


be; but, could he give the House any assurance, that they
could bear this expence for any longer period than the pre-
sent campaign, however willing they might be to continue
it farther? And however that might be, he was compelled to
say, that amidst the general commiseration which be felt for
every nation involved in this contest, he could not help feel-
ing, in a peculiar manner, for the Dutch, because he was
persuaded they were forced into the war against their in-
clination, and because otherwise they would have preserved
their tranquillity by a candid and open negotiation. At the
commencement of the war, we were told that the Dutch were
seriously aggrieved by the French. It was contended, that
we were bound to maintain to the Dutch the exclusive
navigation of the Scheldt. But did they complain of the
infringement or aggression ? Certainly they did not; they
would, however, have complained; but such was their situ-
ation, and such their awe of the French, that they dared not.
Now gentlemen began to speak more openly, and ridiculed
those who could be so weak as to believe that these were the
grounds of the war. One right honourable gentleman had
exclaimed, " A war for the Scheldt ! une guerre de pot de
chambre ! Do you really think so? Arc you really such fools?
Are you such ideots as to think that what was held forth in
the king's speech, and in the address of this House in answer
to it, as the pretences of the war, to be really the objects of
the war?" Sir, (said Mr. Fox,) to tell you the truth, I am
not that fool; for I never did think so; and I'as much believe
that ministers went to war for the exclusive navigation of the
Scheldt to the Dutch, as they would for the mean object
alluded to by the right honourable gentleman.


But, was it probable that this measure of subsidizing the
King of Prussia would be in the end effectual? The different
powers in the confederacy were in distressed circumstances
already. If report spoke truly, this application for a sub-
sidy to the King of Prussia was made to other powers before
it came to us: others had had an opportunity of sharing in
the glory of this clay, but they had declined the honour; it
was reserved exclusively for Great Britain. If report spoke
truly, the Emperor had the offer of that honour. If report
spoke truly, the King of Spain had the same honour. If
report spoke truly, they were all unable to defray their own
expellees; even the Empress of Russia was in that situation.
It was prudent of them not to engage to defray the exigences
of others, before they were able to discharge their own. It


• appeared now that Great Britain was engaged in a contest
with such an enemy as the King of Prussia had described
the French to be, and that she possessed such allies as, the


-94.3 PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY.
267


Dutch excepted, could not afford to furnish On e farthing for
any external assistance. Even Russia, if she could be con-
sidered as an ally, possessed very insufficient finances. If
Great Britain, therefore, was to supply all the wants of her
allies; if she was to be the only power by whom resources
were to be furnished, what wealth, great as he allowed the
wealth of this country to be, would be adequate to supply
such wants, and to furnish such resources? With those sen-
timents of the objects of the war, which the allies knew the
government of this country to possess, it would be needless
to Niggle about the amount of a subsidy; for as the assistance
of the allies was contended to be necessary, they would them-
selves settle the amount of such subsidies, and, according to
the arguments of the right honourable gentleman, their
demands must be complied with, whatever those demands
might be.


After adverting to a part of the right honourable gentle-
man's speech which, he contended, furnished him with a
supposition that the subsidy to Prussia had been foreseen at
the period when the budget was opened, but that the minister
had been disappointed in the expectation of the amount of
the subsidy, Mr. Fox next touched upon the expellees of the
war. The present year, he contMided, would be a more
expensive one than this country had ever experienced. It
could be considered, however, only as the first year of the
war, and the committee might be assured, that the expence
would increase every year during the continuance of the war.
When the people took this into their consideration, when
they considered the great scale on wleich taxes had been
imposed this year, and the load that would be laid upon
them next year, when they reflected, too, upon the principle
of subsidizing all Europe, the present day, lie believed, would
be to them a day not of " joy and congratulation," but of
real, national concern. They would see, that if the present
system were persevered in, this country would at length
be reduced to the exhausted state in which Prussia now was,
but that, unlike Prussia, she would have no Great Britain
to recur to for assistance, no credulous dupe to supply her
wants; she would find all her allies equally, perhaps more
exhausted than Prussia, who, he believed, was even now not
the poorest of them. He for his part thought, perhaps,
more highly of the resources this country, than the most
learned man who had ever yet spoken or written upon them ;
but as an honourable friend of his (Mr. Whitbread) had said,
they were like every thing else in human affairs, not infinite
but finite, they ought not therefore to be opposed to expence
that was infinite. He then advised the committee to think




268
PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY.


[May 2.
of the probable effect on the people of a great accumulation
of taxes, in the prosecution of an object which appeared to
him to be unattainable, namely, success in the war, accord-
ing to the present avowed object of it, — the total destruction
of the government of France. For these reasons, he should
move by way of amendment to the present resolution, " That
the sum of 1,15o,000/. be inserted instead of 2,soo,0o01."


The amendment was negatived, on a division, by 1 34 against33 , and the original motion agreed to.


.211-4 2.


The resolution being reported to the House,


Mr. Fox said, that after having delivered his sentiments upon
this subject in general, he should at present confine himself
to a few points. He thought that the House had at least a
right to be distinctly informed in what situation the King of
Prussia stood with regard to the present treaty; whether
merely as a prince, who hired out his troops to fight, in a
cause in the event of which lie was not interested; or whether
we had entered into this treaty with the King of Prussia as a
person interested and engaged as a principal in the war, but
who was unable to prosecute it further without pecuniary
assistance. In either of these points of view, the present
treaty appeared to him ridiculous and improvident. If the
King of Prussia was to be regarded in the first light, as a
prince who hired out troops, was it not a circumstance un-
precedented, that the command should not be in the persons
who subsidized those troops; especially when the troops so
hired ,


cost more than troops in a similar situation had ever
done?


Mr. Fox said that he should at present confine himself
merely to the question of expellee; not that he approved of
the other parts of the treaty, but because they had been al-
ready debated. We were to pay for these 30,000 troops, if
we kept them a single year, 1,600,000k If the war lasted
another year, certainly the expence would be somewhat less,
because the sum of 400,000/. for out-fit and return, would
be spread over two years, and then it would be 1,400,000/.
per annum. If for four years, it would be 1,300,000/. spread-
ing the expellee of out-fit and return over the whole time,
which, upon comparison, would be more expensive than the
same number of Hessians or Hanoverians. It was to be re-
membered, also, that we retained the entire command and


794.] PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY. 269


disposition of the latter; but of these Prussian troops we were
to have neither command nor disposition ; and the execution
of all the projects, though for British purposes, was left in
the King of Prussia's hands. If we' looked at any other
treaty, we should find that the price to be paid under this
present treaty was larger than we had ever paid for the assist-
ance of troops over which we had had the entire command ;
and as we were to have no command whatever over them, the
price was enormous indeed. On the other hand, if we con-
sidered them as the troops of a prince engaged in the war,
we must naturally look to the late treaty entered into with
Sardinia. By that treaty 50,000 men were to be supplied
for the support of the common cause, for which we paid but
200,000/. If we were to pay in proportion to this subsidy
for 3 0,000 troops, the expence would be no more than
120,000/. but, instead of that sum, we were to pay 1,600,000/.
In 1756, we subsidized Frederick the Great, uncle to the pre-
sent King of Prussia : let us compare the terms of that treaty
with the present: he was to furnish 150,000 men, for which
we were to pay 670,000/. According to this rate, we should
pay for 3 0,000 troops, to be furnished now, about 135,000/.
instead of the enormous sum of x,600,000/. For gentlemen
were to consider, that this sum was not paid for 62,000
men ; because in that number were included the 32,000
men stipulated for by the former treaty of 1788. Waving
that consideration for a moment, for the sake of argument, let
them compare these treaties, and see how they stood. When
the 600,coot. to be paid under the treaty of 1788, was added
to the x,600,000/. it •made a sum of 2,200;0001. which we
were to pay instead of the sum of 220,000/. which should be
paid at the rate of the treaty with the late King of Prussia;
or 240,000/. which was the extent of what should be paid at
the rate of the late treaty with Sardinia. Instead of paying
220,000/. as in the one case, or 240,000/. as in the other, we
profusely squandered away the enormous sum of 2,200,0001.;
so that in the one calculation this treaty, as compared with
others of a similar nature, was in this latter statement ten to
one against us: in the former, which was the true statement,
it was fourteen to one against us.


But from the ambiguous situation of the King of Prussia
arose other difficulties. When the question between us and
that monarch was a question of expence, he said, " I am not
so much interested in the event of this war as you are; you
shall therefore bear the whole of my expence." But when it
became a question of who should command the troops, or to
what objects they were to be directed, he would immediately
say, " I am a principal in the war, and equally interested in


ulu




270 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING
[May 13,


its consequences with you; I can as well judge of the effect of
its operation to our mutual benefit ; and will have the sole
command over my own troops." Such conduct was really
intolerable : it was a tricking, shifting, shuffling behaviour
in this prince, acting, no doubt, by the advice of his council;
but that was no reason why the people of Great Britain should
become the dupes of such knavery. He, for his part, wished
to have the situation of the King of Prussia fairly stated : if
he were a mere hirer of men, never was there such audacious,
impudent conduct, as to insist on the command and disposal
of the troops he had let out for hire. If, on the other hands
he was a principal in the war, whom we subsidized, the pre-
sent treaty, compared with others of a similar nature, was,
according to one calculation, fourteen to one, and, even ac-
cording to the most favourable, ten to one, against this coun-
try. He therefore hoped that gentlemen would a little con-
skier how far they could answer to themselves, and to their
constituents (he did not mean their particular constituents,
but all their constituents in the general sense of the word, the
people at large,) for having in a few days voted such an enor-
mous sum of money, without any possible opportunity of con-
versing with them on the subject. He wished to ask them, if
they could consider themselves entitled, by such conduct, to
the character of faithful stewards ? It was too much, that the
wealth of this country should be so profligately squandered,
to answer the unprincipled rapacity, or contemptible finesse,
of any prince or court in Europe.


The resolution was agreed to by the House.


KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING SEDITIOUS PRACTICES —
SUSPENSION or TEE HABEAS Con 'US ACT.


32r72/ 1 3.


ON the tzth of May, the following message from the kingwas delivered to the House of Commons by Mr. Secretary
Dundas:


" G. R.
" His majesty having received information, that the seditious


practices which have been for some time carried on by certain:
societies in London, in correspondence with societies in different
parts of the country, have lately been pursued with increased ac-
tivity and boldness, and have been avowedly directed to the object
of assembling a pretended general convention of the people, in,
contempt and defiance of the authority of parliament, and OD


1794.]
SEDITIOUS PRACTICES, &C. 27 1


principles subversive of the existing laws and constitution, and
directly tending to the introduction of that system of anarchy and
confusion which has fatally prevailed in Prance, has given direc-
tions for seizing the books and papers of the said societies in Lon-
don, which have been seized accordingly; and these books and
papers appearing to contain matter of the greatest importance to
the public interest, his majesty has given orders for laying them
before the House of Commons ; and his majesty recommends it to
the House to consider the same, and to take such measures there-
upon as may appear to be necessary for effectually guarding against
the further prosecution of those dangerous designs, and for pre-
serving; to his majesty's subjects the enjoyment of the blessings
derived to them by the constitution happily established in these
kingdoms."


On the following day Mr. Secretary Dundas having presented
to the House the books and papers referred to in the said message,
Mr. Pitt 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 to assure his majesty, that this House
will, immediately, take into their serious consideration the subject
recommended to them in his majesty's message, and will adopt
such steps as may appear to them to be necessary on a matter of
such high importance to the safety of his majesty's dominions."


Mr. Fox said, he did not rise up for the purpose of oppo-
sing the present motion, as he conceived iLto be in some
sort a thing of course, but merely to say a few words preli-
minary to his acceding to it ; and he was the less inclined to
oppose it, as he conceived that his assent in no way precluded
him from exercising his right to . discuss the various subjects
referred to in the message when they came before the House;
and that the questions, Whether the object before them was -
properly fit for their investigation ? What the means were by
which the papers were procured? Whether the seizure !of
them was constitutional and legal? And whether the mode
of collecting the information respecting them were justifiable?
were still as open to the investigation and discussion of him-
self and every other member, as if they refused their assent
in Entine to the address. But what he chiefly wished to re-
mark was, that if _the papers were scaled up, and their con-
tents therefore unknown to the House, lie thought it would
be rashness to refer them to a secret committee, unless prece-
dents were first adduced upon which to ground such a mea-
sure ; for of all modes of proceeding, the steps which had been
adopted in the present case seemed to him to be those which
it was most necessary to watch over with vigilance.


The address passed nevi. con., as did also a motion, that the,
books and papers be referred to a committee. Mr. Pitt next
moved, " That the said committee be a committee of secrecy."




272 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING
[May 1 3 .


Mr. Fox said, he hoped that the right honourable gentle-
man who made the motion, would either support it by some
precedent, or demonstrate that there existed such a distinction
between this and former cases, as should induce the House
to have recourse to new modes of proceeding unsanctioned
by precedent. With regard to the argument urged by the
right honourable gentleman in support of his proposed mode
of inquiry, namely, the fear of discovery defeating the objects
of it, he would only say, that those objects not being suf-
ficiently defined or expressed, could form no ground of argu-
ment. Was the object prosecution ? Prosecution was already.
in the hands of the crown, who seemed desirous of calling
upon the House to take their part in it. He wished to know
what the object of the crown was. He could not suppose it
was impeachment ; for though he would always maintain the
inquisitorial right of that House, he thought that impeach-
ment could not properly conic from the crown. He could
not, therefore, see why the committee should be a secret
committee; yet if; as he had said before, the right honour-
able gentleman could either cite precedents on the one hand,
or mention on the other, grounds sufficient to warrant a
deviation from all rule, he would not object to it.


The motion being put and carried, Mr. Pitt moved, " That the
number of the said committee be twenty-one."


Mr. Fox said, he had no objection to the number; twenty-
one was, perhaps, as proper as any other; but there were
some things which he wished to know respecting this trans-
action. He was particularly desirous to be informed, what
had been the mode of obtaining those papers? For there was
an ambiguity in the words of the message, which left him at
a loss to determine respecting that particular; and he there-
fore wished to know on which of the grounds stated in it the
seizure of the papers had been made? Was it only on the
ground of' the seditious practices, or on an allegation that the
persons implicated had entered so far on the execution of the
plan of a general convention as to be guilty of an overt act
of treason h? As a member of the House of Commons, and
a friend to the constitution, he respected the opinions of par-
liament; and it was a resolution standing on the journals of
that House, that seizing the papers of a person accused of a
libel was illegal, founded on the principle, that such an ex-
treme step should not be taken unless there was an actual al-
legation for treason or felony. He therefore insisted, that by
the resolutions of that House he was warranted in saying,
that seizing papers for seditious practices, or for any thing


r 794.] SEDITIOUS PRACTICES, &C. 273
short of treason, was illegal. If, then, the present seizure'
was made on an allegation for seditious practices alone, it
was, according to the declared sense of the House, illegal:
if otherwise, it might be legal. He therefore wished that the
House was informed which it was. The c:se he alluded to
occurred, he said, in April 1766. It was discussed and de-
termined on the generality of the warrant. He therefore
pressed ministers to give an answer to the question he had
put, as he was averse to ,countenance any thing that might
militate against the resolutions of that House.


Mr. Secretary Dundas said, that what the substantial grounds
of seizure were, the House would judge on inquiry ; but he would
at present solve the right honourable gentleman's doubts, by telling
him, that the warrants were grounded on allegations for treason-
able practices. The motion was then agreed to.


May 16.


This day Mr. Pitt presented to the House the first report from
the committee of secrecy. He stated at great length his view of
its contents. It appeared to the committee, he said, that a plan
had been formed, and was in forwardness, to assemble a conven-
tion of the people ; which was to assume the character and powers
of a national representation, and to supersede the authority of
parliament. A mere parliamentary reform was not the real aim of
these societies : their papers would make it evidentpthat they had
been during the two last years, leagued in a correspondence with
other societies in this and a neighbouring country ; from which the
clearest inference mi


'


ht be drawn, that a convention, such as
described, had been tneir original view ; and that they were only
waiting a fit opportunity to realize itr The report, he said, would
shew that a correspondence had subsisted between these societies
and the jacobin club ; that they had sent delegates to the conven-
tion at Paris, which had formally received them ; and that when
the French jacobin government commenced the war against Great
Britain, these societies had to utmost of their power acted an
hostile part, manifested an adherence to the same cause, assumed
their expressions and appellations, and laboured to disseminate
their principles. It was chiefly in the manufacturing towns their
efforts were greatest, from the number of ignorant and discontented.
people with which they abounded. Notwithstanding their endea-
vours to conceal their intentions at times, they had not been able
to disguise them at others. In one of their letters, that to the
society at Norwich, they plainly intimated that they looked for no
reform but from the convention they had in view, advising, how-
ever, a continuance of petitions for reform, as a cover to their
designs. They had the audacity to style the Scottish convention
a lle,goaLl.


representation of the people ; and to justify those whom




2 74 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [May 16.
the law had sentenced to punishment. The condemnation of those
men was the signal at which they had agreed to come finally to an
issue upon the point, whether the law should frighten them into
compliance, or whether they should oppose it with its own
weapons, force and power. This society, however despicable,
and consisting of the lowest of the people, had found the moans
of a most expeditious and extensive increase : it counted thirty
divisions in London only, some of them amounting to six hundred
individuals ; and it kept a. regular correspondence with many
others, systematically distributed through various parts of the
kingdom, particularly in the manufacturing towns. It had auda-
ciously assumed the task of watching over the transactions of
parliament, and of limiting boundaries to its powers, threatening
destruction if it dared to transgress them. It was no longer than
six weeks, he said, since the corresponding society had laid before
the constitutional society a scheme for calling together a con-
vention of the people, manifestly for the purpose of dissolving the
government, and lodging the supreme power in their own hands.
This was to have been executed in a few weeks. The addresses
they had drawn up to this effect were circulated with the utmost
care and expedition : they had chosen a central spot (Sheffield,)
in order to facilitate the assembling of delegates from all parts ;
and every society was requested to transmit an estimate of its
numbers, that the strength of the combined societies might be
exactly known. These wretches, said Mr. Pitt, expected, by
following the precedents of the jacobin principles and practices to
arrive at the same degree of power. They had, no longer since
than the i4th of April, held a consultation, wherein the members
of every department of the state had been most scandalously
villified, as unworthy and incompetent to hold their official situ-
ations. The report, he also said, mentioned that arms had been
actually procured and distributed by those societies. In conse-
quence, therefore, of the informations contained in this report,
he would move for a suspension of the habeas carpus act, as par-
ticularly necessary when a conspiracy existed in the heart of the
country. Mr. Pitt concluded with moving, " That leave be given
to bring in a bill to empower his majesty to secure and detain such
persons as his.


majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his
person and government."


Mr. Fox rose and observed, that however unpleasant it was
for him to attend that day in the House on account of indis-
position, he had thought it his duty to do so, on being told
that the report of the committee of secrecy was to be made ;
for in the course of that report he had expected to have
heard something new, and something that might call for the
immediate attention of the House. He had listened with all
the attention he was master of to the report; and he must
confess he never was more surprised in his life, than that
those who framed the report, men of such talents and cha-
racter, should have thought it necessary to recommend so


sravrious PRACTICES, &C. 275


sudden, so violent, so alarming a remedy as that which had
been proposed; a proposal grounded upon facts that had
been, all of them, notorious for years. He was aware there
was some part of it which stated to be something new ; but of
that he should say something presently. He was surprised,
however, that the committee should call the attention of the
House so solemnly for the purpose of telling them that two
years ago a society had come to certain resolutions, which
were published in every newspaper in the kingdom ; to tell
the House in a pompous, public, formal manlier, what had
been presented to the national convention of France, and
what answers had been given ; to inform the House in detail
what administration had seen passing before them day after
day, and then to call on the House for its immediate consider-
ation of the probable effect of such events, and of the necessity
of putting an end, by the most violent of all means, to what
had so long been suffered to pass in silence. The report,
-however, was not a mere report of these stale, ridiculous,
contemptible facts; it stated also an inference arising out of
them. He could not arrive so readily as the right honourable
gentleman at a conclusion upon these points, taking them all
to be exactly as they were related. He begged leave to differ
from him and from the whole of the committee upon that
subject: he thought the inference of the committee unfair:
he would go further, he thought that taking, for the sake of
argument, the inference to be fair, that would not warrant
the measure proposed. He should not go into the question
whether these persons had acted consistently or not; that was
not matter for consideration then ; through the whole course
of the business they had wished for a convention,..for the
purpose of legally obtaining a parliamentary reform. The
convention at Edinburgh had been taken notice of; that con-
vention, in all its proceedings published in the newspapers,
had uniformly stated their views to be not to oppose the power
of government, but to seek redress of grievances. 'With re-
gard to conventions of this sort, was the right honourable
gentleman prepared to say they were seditious ? He did not
know that the right honourable gentleman was a member of
any former convention, but he himself certainly was a member
of one in the year 178o ; they were chosen as delegates, and
had several meetings in London and Westminster afterwards;
and if that was illegal, all he could say was, that they carried
on their proteedings with great imprudence, for they went
on in the most public manner, and held correspondence pub-
licly with societies in Yorkshire and other places; they pre-
sented the result of their labours to the House; the House
refused to recognise them in such a character as delegates,


r2




276
KING'S


'S MESSAGE RESPECTING
[May 16.


but said that they had a right to petition as individuals, and
therefore received their petition. He mentioned this merely
to shew that such a convention was legal. Never till lately
had such a measure been thought either against the letter or
the spirit of the constitution. If it had been illegal, the mi-
nister had been scandalously negligent, and so had many
others. A scandalous negligence must have attended the ob-
taining a free constitution for Ireland. A scandalous neg-
ligence alone could have suffered the Roman catholics of
Ireland to obtain what was lately granted to them, for it was
by a convention they had succeeded in obtaining their late
privileges. His majesty had received them in the capacity of
delegates, and granted their request. Happy was it for them,
and happy for a great part of the rest of the world, that
such an event had happened. His majesty had received them
with that benignity which belonged to his character; but
would it be contended, that the Roman catholics would have
gained this object, if it had not been for a convention ? He,e,‘
indeed, well knew what extraordinary things were attempted
by those who were supported by great numbers. Let gentle-
men look to the rejection of the Roman catholic petition: in
the first application of the Roman catholics to parliament
there were only about five and twenty in its favour; but how
differently were they received the next year, when they were
so supported, and when they appointed a convention of de-
legates ! After that, would any man say that he had a doubt
of the means by which this had been effected ? But, when he
made this remark, was he consequently saying, that the pro-
posed convention in the present case would be meritorious?
No such thing: he was giving no opinion upon that subject;
he only said, that it would be dangerous for that House to
declare its illegality. There was not any other charge against
these persons, than that they might of their own authority
make an attempt to alter the form of parliament; now, he
asked, if any gentleman was prepared to say, that that very
convention would not apply to parliament for a parliamentary
reform ?


With respect to the number of these persons, he really
believed that it was not very considerable. That they had
increased since their first formation, he had no doubt; for it
would be strange, if the measures of administration had oc-
casioned no dissatisfaction in the country; it would be won-
derful in our history indeed, if a war of two years, carried
on upon such principles, and attended with such disastrous
circumstances, had not excited a spirit of discontent and re-
sentment against the authors of those calamities. He would
go further, for he would not be intimidated; many internal


1794.] SEDITIOUS PRACTICES, R.C. 27 7


circumstances, many things had taken place, to which he
could never subscribe; the punishments lately inflicted in
Scotland were of the same nature; he did not approve of
any of these things ; on the contrary, he agreed with those
who thought these proceedings an abuse of the power of go-
vernment, an abuse of law, an abuse of justice, an outrage to
humanity, and likely to tend to alarm every man in England
who had the least esteem for the principles of liberty; since,
if these proceedings should become general, there was an end
of all liberty.


With regard to the nature of the convention which had
been so much talked of, Mr. Fox said, he must make one
observation. Against whom, he would ask, was this thunder
of government levelled? Was it against men of influence?
No. Such a convention could have no influence, and it
would be ridiculous in government to stop them. The con-
stitution had too many admirers, had too many defenders, to
have any fears from the attempts of such men. But if go-
vernment did really believe that they meant to form a govern-
ment of themselves, could they be so mad, so absurd, as to
suppose that they would be joined by any body sufficiently
numerous to create any serious alarm? Surely not. For his
part, he solemnly believed, that if a hundred men were to
assemble together, and presume to dictate laws to the rest of
the community, there could not be found another hundred
who would be willing to join them. This constitution had
too many defenders, too many well-wishers, to fear any such
paltry attempts to overturn it. But he should suppose this
convention assembled by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Adams, and
that they entertained the views ascribed to them; be•would
then say, that the measure now proposed was of infinitely
greater mischief to the people than that which it proposed to
remedy. Were the House aware of the event of this mea-
sure? It was no less than giving to the executive authority
absolute power over the personal liberty of every individual
in the kingdom. It might be said that ministers would not
abuse that power. He must own for his part, that he did
not feel himself very comfortable under that reflection ; every
man who talked freely; every man who detested, -as he did
from his heart, this war, might be, and would be, in the hands
and at the mercy of ministers. Living under such a govern-
ment, and being subject to insurrection, comparing the two
evils, he confessed he thought the evil they were pretending
to remedy, was less than the one they were going to inflict
by the remedy itself. We were going to give up. the very
best part of bur constitution ; and that which every man was
entitled to do, and which he was now doing — delivering the


T 3




278 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING
[May x6.


sentiments of his heart upon the affairs of government, for
the benefit of the public, would be at an end at once. Might
lie not then say, that there was an end of the constitution of
England.


But was there any instance on such an occasion, of such
a measure? Such a measure had been adopted in the reign
of King William. Was that similar to the present reign?'
The same measure had been adopted in the time of the re-
bellion in 1 7 15, and again in x745. Were the circumstances.
then similar to the present ? At that time there was an army
in the kingdom in favour of a popish prince, claiming a right
to the throne; and that too, if we were to credit report, at a>
time when the people were a great deal divided in opinion as
to the propriety o f


the succession of the house of Hanover.
Was there any such prince now ? Were there any such
circumstances now ? Nothing like it. Here we saw a number
of individuals without arms, without means of any kind
whatever, talking of a reform in parliament. Such being the
circumstances, lie must say, that the House would betray its
duty to the constitution, if it should agree to the present
measure, Having said thus much, he had but one thing
more to submit. He was exceedingly surprised at the pre-
cipitation with which this business was brought forward ; he
conceived that a few days could make no difference, and that
the right honourable gentleman could have no objection to a
call of the House on a question of such magnitude. Was the
danger so imminent, that a number of members must be
deprived the privilege of delivering their sentiments upon so
alarming an exigence ? Could one fortnightmake such a dif
ference ? Was the danger so great, as to exclude all pos-
sibility of deliberation, and compel the House to run head-
long into the snare which the timidity or temerity of the
minister had prepared for them? For his part, detesting
equally the endeavour to intimidate, as the endeavour to en,
slave, he must feel it his duty to oppose the leave for bringing
in the bill. He saw that a fancied terror had intruded itself
upon the faculties of several members, and that they were
prepared to sacrifice their duty to notions of supposed expe-
diency and groundless alarm. Having an invincible objec-
tion to every species of delusion, lie for one should enter his
decided protest against the proceeding about to be adopted.
Ile saw this measure in so dreadful a point of view, that he
should consider himself as betraying his constituents and the
public, if he did not oppose it in every stage. It was a mea.
sure that went to overturn the very corner-stone of the con,
stitution, and which surrendered to ministers the personal
freedom of every man in the kingdom.


1794.]
SEDITIOUS PRACTICES, &C. 279


The motion for leave to bring in the bill was supported by Mr.
Burke, and opposed by Mr. Martin, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Harrison,
Mr. Grey, Mr. Jekyll, and Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Grey reprobated
the motion in, the strongest terms. He expressed his great sur-
prise that any measure of any sort could be founded on those
trumpery papers alluded to in the report, all of which had been
published long ago, and, if worthy of notice, ought to have been
attended to last year, when at the meeting of parliament there
seemed to sonic gentlemen to be so much cause for alarm. On a
division the numbers were :


Tellers.
{ Lord Mul grave }


Tellers.
{Mr. Grey


201. — -NOESMr. BuxtonYEAS Mr. Sheridan} 39'
Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill. After which


Mr. Grey moved, " That this House be called over on this day
fortnight." He remarked with much severity on the indecent
haste with which the bill was pressed through the House. Even
the gentlemen who voted for the bill, he was well assured, were
not aware of the extent of the measure until they heard it pro-
posed by the chancellor of the exchequer. Mr. Pitt said, that
as the bill required all possible dispatch, he would oppose the
motion as calculated but for vexatious delay.


Mr. Fox supported the motion of his honourable friend.
He could not but notice, he said, the tone of exultation iii
which the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer
dwelt on a measure, which, if actually necessary, should be
noticed by all as a serious calamity. He dared that right
honourable gentleman —he dared the whole committee — to
say, that there was any such thing in this country as an armed
insurrection. if there was not, he contended that the delay
of one week could make no material difference as tg the ob-
ject in view: if the object was punishment, there must be
guilt, and the present laws were fully adequate to that : if' it
was merely to prevent the escape of a few guilty persons from
justice that this unprecedented measure was called for, he
maintained that it was scandalous for a single moment to
surrender the liberties of the whole kingdom on such an ac-
count. He lamented that the old established laws known to
the constitution had not been applied to the evil, if any
existed ; for it was an infamous libel on the constitution to
say, that it was only able to maintain itself in times of peace
and tranquillity, but must be surrendered in times of danger
and difficulty. He wished to know for What length of time
this suspension was to continue, or how it could possibly be
necessary? At a time when we were engaged in a war upon
such honourable principles, that it was approved by the whole
kingdom — at a time when there was the most popular
administration that ever governed in this kingdom, who


T 4




280 RING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING
Nay 17.


had on every occasion a majority of ten to one — was it at
such a time, that we found it necessary to suspend the
habeas corpus act, from the apprehension of an insurrection
in. the heart of the kingdom ? He contended, that the pre-
tences brought. forward to support this measure were the
most flimsy and barelked he had ever witnessed, and the
measure itself the most daring and impudent. It was true,
that since terror was the order of the clay (to use a French
mode of expression) those opinions might be awhile stifled,
but they would but rankle in secret ; curses Would follow,


not loud but deep," and what might be the final event
-no man could say ! After this measure should have passed,
he doubted whether it would be of any utility for those
who acted with him to continue their opposition in that
House. This was the moment for the House to pause and
deliberate, before they gave up that privilege which might
decide, whether it would be worth the while of any member
to attend a discussion within those walls.


" Tempus inane peto., requieni spatiumque furori."
If violences should succeed, he should feel the consolation of
having clone every thing in his power to avert the impending
evil from his country—that to his latest moments would be
his consolation ; and he did not think in case of any disturb..
ance, that one head in that House would be more secure
than another.


The House divided : Yeas 32 : Noes zoi. After which the bill
was immediately brought in by Mr Pitt, read a first and second
time, committed, and at three o'clock on Saturday morning re-
ported, and ordered to be read a third time at three that afternoon,
if the bill should be then engrossed.


May 17.


On Saturday afternoon the House met again, when the motion . for
the third reading of the bill being put, it was strenuously opposed
by Mr. Grey, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Courtenay, Mr. Sheridan, Mr.
Curwen, Mr. Jekyll, and Mr. Fox ; and supported by Mr. Canning,
Mr. 'Windham, Mr. Dundas, Mr. Pitt, and others. Mr. Windham
in the course of his speech observed, that it could not be reasonably
denied that sufficient proofs had been adduced of a conspiracy to
overthrow the constitution. The principle of universal suffrage,
he said, was alone a source of the most lamentable evils, as France
could amply testify. The mild conduct of government having
failed of putting a stop to the licentious proceedings of ill-inten-
tioned individuals, it was time to employ severe methods ; and if '
those did not produce the end proposed, stronger and severer


1794.3 SEDITIOUS PRACTICES, &C.
28






-


measures still must be adopted. The evils threatened must be ob-
viated at all events ; and if the laws in being were inadequate to
that purpose, others more effectual ought to be framed. As soon
as Mr. Windham had sat down,


Mr. Fox rose and said, that he should not have troubled the
House with any further observations on the subject of the
present bill, after having given his opinion so fully upon it the
night before, but for the very extraordinary topics which had
been introduced by his right honourable friend (Mr. Wind-
ham.) If he had expressed himself warmly on the subject
of that bill, he begged leave to say, after the most mature
reflection, that he did not repent of such warmth. He de-
sired to be considered as repeating and confirming every
assertion. It was a bill characteristic of the .worst times, and
which, he feared, predicted much calamity to the country.
We were hurrying into that most dangerous and alarming
predicament, which would produce either the horrors of
anarchy and confusion on the one side, or that despotism
of monarchy, which Mr. Hume called " the euthanasia of
the British constitution" on the other; in either of which
cases he saw the complete extinction of liberty ; and he
dreaded to think what must be the shocking alternative
which he, and others who loved the true principles of the
constitution, must be reduced to in the impending struggle.
The bill was characteristic of those violent times, when, in-
stead of being guided by reason, we were to be put under
the dominion of wild passion, and when our pretended
alarms were to be made the pretexts for destroying the first
principles of the very system which. we affected to revere.
Every warm expression, therefore, which he had used the
night before, he now upon reflection justified anik repeated;
and even yet, while a moment was left him, he deprecated •
the horror of passing the bill into a law.


Mr. Fox said, he would pass over all the lesser topics
of the speech of his right honourable friend, in order to come
to that most portentous part of it, which had made an im-
pression upon his mind never to be effaced, and which fore-
told the destruction of the British constitution. It was an
argument, upon which if the present measure was really
founded, that he hoped would even yet make the House
pause before they proceeded further. His right honour-
able friend had said, that to the existing evil of-the jacobini-
Cal doctrines, remedies ought to be applied in gradation.
From mild remedies he would proceed to remedies less
mild, from less mild to severe, and through all the degrees
of severity. What by this argument was he to think of




82 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [May f7.
the present measure, but that it was only one step in his
ladder, and that if that should fail of producing its effect, he
had still remedies more severe in reserve. The right honour-
able gentleman had tried already his gentle remedies ; the
alien bill was an anodyne, the treasonable correspondence
bill was also a gentle medicine; and as these remedies had
failed of producing the proper effect, nay, as by the king's
speech it was said, that, notwithstanding these measures, the
evil still existed with increased meI'gnity, he was about to try
this severer remedy ; with the declared intention that if this
should also fail, he had still more violent measures to pursue.
When the experiment should have been made, and proved,
like all the former, to have failed of producing the effects
expected from it, he desired to know what must be the
answer to this question, if, next year, enough of the con-
stitution should remain to enable him to put a question to the
right honourable gentleman in his place—what would be
done beyond this ? After suspending the habeas corpus act,
what would he do more? Wouldsuspen ing prohibit all meetings
of the people so as to debar them from all- discussions on po-
litical subjects, and prevent all free intercourse between man
and man ? And when this should be found ineffectual, would
he give to ministers the power of making arbitrary imprison-
ment perpetual? Would he still further go on in the exact
and horrid imitation of the men who now held France in
anarchy, and establish a revolutionary tribunal, or what,
perhaps, he would call an anti-revolutionary tribunal ? Where
would he stop? What limit did he propose to make?
Was there no end to his plan of securities, until he should
accomplish the end of annihilating all doctrines that he might
affect to dread, or destroy all the disaffacted spirits which he
might pretend existed in the country? It was of consequence
tothe House to sec what they were doing. They were told that
what they had done was not enough ; and that even this might
not be enough. Good God ! what was to be done after this?
Under the colour of pretended alarms, Were they to go on to
an unlimited infringement and demolition of all the strongest
and most beautiful parts of the constitution ? The right ho-
nourable gentleman was offended at the comparison that had
been made between the conduct of ministers and their adhe-
rents, and the conduct of the present rulers in France, and
he had with great felicity quoted from Captain Fluellan the
comparison between the river in Macedon and the river in
Monmouth, because there was salmon in both. But with all
respect for his wit, the right honourable gentleman must be,
content to incur the imputation of similarity, when his own
conduct and that of the rulers of France was so similar. They
had taken great pains to throw odium on the pretended de-


379+] SEDITIOVS PRACTICES, &c. 283


signs of a convention, on account of the word convention. Let
gentlemen look at their own conduct, and see if it was not in


,
substance the same as that of the present rulers in France.
What was the conduct of those rulers? From day to day
they circulated stories of alarms, and plots, and conspiracies,
and' insurrections among the pa,opiL, to inflame and agitate
their minds, and to spread panic and terror over the whole
country, that they might take advantage of their fears, and
obtain unlimited power, to be exercised in carrying on and
confirming that very terror. They inspired the double alarm
of danger from conspiracy, and danger from the exercise of
their own unlimited power, exerted as it every day was, in the
most shocking murders, with hardly the aspect or form of ju-
dicial trial. 'What was the conduct of the ministers here?
Precisely in the same manner they circulated stories of alarms
and conspiracies, to fill the public mind with fear, and, to use
the jargon of the French, to make terror the order of the day.
By • spreading these false and idle alarms, they succeeded in
obtaining powers destructive of the constitution, which, as in.
France, were to be exercised with such inhuman rigour, as to
keep the country iii double awe, and, by fostering indignation
and discontent, give rise again to new jealousies, which would
afford occasion for still further stretches of power. Thus they
followed the example set them by the men whose doctrines
they pretended to abhor, with the most shocking fidelity.
Every part of their conduct was built on the French model,
and he dreaded that it would be productive too certainly of
the same effects.


The precise question fore the House was, to compare the
danger with the remedy. The pretended danger was, as we
might collect from the documents that had been laid upon
the table— documents that every one had see published in
the newspapers — that there was in certain societies a tendency
to a convention. Whether the word convention was a bug-
bear that was to be held up to terrify their imaginations, lie
knew not; but it was of consequence to inquire a little into
the nature of the thing, and not to be startled at names.
A convention, he supposed, meant no other than a meeting
of the people ; and if that meeting was for the discussion of
any subject of general interest, in a legal and peaceable way,
there certainly was nothing in such meeting that could either
call for or justify any such measure as the present. To a con-
vention that had for its purpose to overawe the legislature,
and to obtain any object, either of universal suffrage, or other
wild and impracticable theory, he should not certainly chuse
to give his countenance. But if there was a convention either
of individuals for themselves, or of delegates of towns and dis-


ro




284 RING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [May- I7,;
tricts, for the purpose or striving, by petitions and addresses to
the three branches of the legislature, to put an end to the
present most ruinous and unprovoked war, he should certainly
neither be ashamed nor afraid—at least not until after the
present bill had passed into a law—to attend, and be a mem-
ber of such convention. But what was to be dreaded from
even the convention that was threatened, which the laws of
the country were not of themselves sufficient to check ? If
they meant, by their intended convention, to overawe the
government of this country at a moment of such unprece-
dented strength as the government now possessed, he would
say that they were fit for Bedlam, and for Bedlam only. So
perfectly and entirely was it possible for magistrates, in every
part of the kingdom, to execute the laws, that he would ven-
ture to say, that if any man, or men, at such convention,
committed any illegal act, he or they might be sent to prison,
and tried for the offence as securely as if no convention
existed.


The danger, then, called for no such remedy ; and it was
not because any such remedy was necessary that the present
bill was introduced. It was to keep alive the passions of
the people; it was to.


agitate and alarm their minds, to put
them under the dominion of terror, and take from them
the exercise of their rational faculties. Ministers knew. well
the dangerous predicament in which they stood : they had
weakly and, as he thought, wickedly, involved the country
in a most disastrous war; every day plunged them deeper
and deeper in the fatality which they had brought upon their
country; they saw no hopes of extricating the nation from
it with honour, nor of proceeding in it with success, and
they dreaded all reflection on the subject : they knew that
they had no safety but in depriving the people of repose ;
they knew that if the alarm should be suspended for a mo-
ment, and if men were allowed time and leisure for the ex-
ercise of their understandings, the war, and the principles on
which it was undertaken, would be scrutinized and discussed.
They dreaded to encounter so hazardous a trial, and all their
measures had been directed to keep alive an incessant cmn-
motion, so as to suspend every operation of the public intel-
lect. For this reason a subscription had been set on foot ;
he said " for this reason," because ministers had been open
enough to acknowledge that it was not for money. It was,• e,
they had . declared, to excite the zeal of the people. Zeal was
one of those fervent emotions which would be favourable to
their. views, and which, while it lasted, would keep them from
examining the objects of it. But the subscription, he sup


-posed, had not succeeded to the hoped-for extent; that zeal


1794.] SEDITIOUS PRACTICES, &C. 285


which they had aroused was not equal, apparently, to the oc-
casion, and they now strove to awaken a more powerful emo-
tion, that of terror. In short, it was a government of passion,
a government.in which ministers strove to lull asleep all the'
sober operations of the mind, and to awaken only the fears
and terrors of the heart. Reason they dreaded, for reason
was their enemy. It was well said by a philosopher of great
character, that all men dreaded reason who acted against rea-
son ; and certainly it was natural, and in the order of things,
that animals, which, by their practice, counteracted the na-
tural course and dictates of reason, should shrink, and dread
as their enemy those who seemed to be guided by its wisdom.


It had been said that the secret committee had been spoken
of in terms not the most respectful. He, for one, certainly
could not speak of some members of that committee without
expressing his high respect and regard for them. He was
not among those who gave up their personal friendships on
account of differences in political opinion. A noble lord near
him (Lord George Cavendish) had, in very affecting terms,
deplored the circumstance, that in the present moment, he
differed from men so near and dear to his heart, as to make
him feel it like differing from himself; so, he might say, that
for some of those persons, though he had not tics of consan-
guinity, he felt so sincere a regard, and so poignant a regret
at differing from them, as to make it like a parting from him-
self. His early habits of respect, his warm affections, all led
him to this feeling ; but the present was not a time to com-
pliment men, or to shrink from the severe duties which con-
science imposed, from recollections .of tenderness and esteem.
He must say, then, however highIST he regarded some indivi-
duals of that committee, that it was made up of two charac-
ters; men who were dupes themselves, or men who were will-
ing to dupe others. Their whole report was triflinoSand in-.
consequential ; it told nothing which every man did not know
before; for the last assertion about arming, the right honour-
able gentleman had said, was merely supplemental, and was
not to be taken as a component part of the report. • Then,
what did the report consist of? Of a collection of papers,
which had all been seen by the public, and which, if they did
contain any danger, was not a danger of that day. It was known
by every one, and steps might have been taken on the subject
months ago. Their avowed intention was to procure a system
of universal suffrage ; and this the right honourable gentleman
said was what had destroyed France. However freely he might
be disposed to agree with him, as to the wildness and im-
practicability of universal suffrage, lie must doubt of the fact
of its having been the cause of the destruction of France. Oa




286 ICING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING
[May


the contrary, universal suffrage was to be considered rather
as the effect than the cause; for the book of the right ho-
nourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) which had produced such
enormous and fatal effects in England, bad charged upon the
French, that they had not acted upon their own principles,
but had narrowed the suffrage in a way totally inconsistent
with their own doctrine. But were we to argue theoretically
or practically from the example of France, which the right
honourable gentleman so incessantly presented to them ? Was
every man who had liberty in his mouth to be considered as
a traitor, merely because liberty had been abused in France,
and had been carried to the most shocking licentiousness ? He
would venture to say, that if this was to be the consequence,-
fatal, indeed, would it be for England ! If the love of liberty
was not to be maintained in England; if' the warm admiration
of it was not to be cherished in the hearts of the people: if
the maintenance of liberty was not to be inculcated as a duty;
if it was not to be reverenced as our chief good, as our boast
and pride and richest inheritance; -- what else had we worthy
of our care? Liberty was the essence of the British constitu-
tion. King, lords, commons, and courts of judicature, were
but the forms; the basis of the constitution was liberty, that
grand and beautiful fabric, the first principle of which was
government by law, and which this day they were going to
suspend.


He called upon the right honourable gentleman
.to say,


whether there was any true parallel between the constitution
of this country and the old government of France, that we
should dread the same effects from jacobinical doctrines,
which that despotic government had suffered ? France had no
habeas corpus act: France had no system of respect for the
liberties of the people; it had not been because France had held
out a mild and equal government by law, that France had
been overcome by the doctrines of jacobinism. On the con-
trary, it was a fair conjecture, that if France had had a habeas
corpus act, and had not suspended it, if France had upon
every occasion respected the rights and the liberties of the
people, the doctrines of jacobinism would not have pre-
vailed over the established power. He stated this as not an
improbable conjecture; he did not presume to lay much stress
upon such conjecture, but it was material to the right ho-
nourable gentleman in supporting his argument, to prove that
the old government of France had been overthrown, because
there was a want of power; for his argument was, that we
must go on from measure to measure, until we should arm
ministers with sufficient power to resist and overcome all in-
novation, and until they had rooted out all appearance of


7794.] SEDITIOUS PRACTICES, &C. 287


jacobinical principles. The despotism of Louis XVI. had
not been sufficient to save France from jacobin doctrines.
Were we to go beyond that despotism to give ourselves
greater security than France possessed ? The doctrines of the
right honourable gentleman went to the utter extinction of
every vestige of the constitution ; and such was the effect of
his principle, that it was impossible to limit the progress of
his remedies; they were all to be hot medicines ; he did not
admit the possibility of doing any good by the contrary prac-
tice. If one hot medicine failed, a hotter only was to be
tried; and thus he, was to proceed, through all the race of
the most powerful stimulants, instead of trying what the op-
posite course of cooling mixtures and gentle anodynes might
produce. What the nature of his provocatives was he had
not condescended to state. He had alluded to his former
opinion, that if the laws of this country were not sufficient for
the suppression of seditious practices, the laws of Scotland,
not as they really existed, but has they were stated to exist,
should be introduced; and so he supposed one of his plans
was, that juries should decide by a majority instead of decid-
ing with unanimity ; and that men should be punished with
sentences more rigorous than immediate death ; that was, should
be sent to die far away from all -the civilized world, merely
on account of apolitical opinion. And these severities were to
be introduced—for what? Because any great body of people
were disaffected to the state? No, no such thing ! It was the
boast of ministers, and their adherents, that every part of the
country was most strictly united in love and attachment to the
constitution. But all this was to be introduced, because some
low persons, without property and without consideration in
the country, were found to entertain opinions about a parlia-
mentary reform that were thought to be dangerous. How
long would it take to eradicate these opinions from the minds
of these men ? Did they mean to keep them all in confine-
ment under this bill ? They would be forward, he tipposcd,
to disclaim any such intention. What did they mean, then,
to do ? To suspend one of the grandest principles of the con-
stitution of England, until there should be found no men
within the kingdom tincturedwith discontent, or who cherished
the design of reform. If they meant to suspend the habeas
corpus act until such time, there was an end of it in this coun-
try. And what (lid they declare by this to all, mankind ?
That there was no period when it would be possible to restore
to the country that grand and inestimable right ; that the
constitution of England was fit only for an Utopian society,
where all men lived in perfect concord, without one jarring
sentiment, without one discontented feeling ; but that it was


A




288 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING
[May 7;.


utterly unfit for a world of mortal and mixed men, unfit for
any state of society that ever did exist upon the face of the
earth, or that was ever likely to exist. Never, never then,
upon this doctrine, was it probable that we should again re-
cover this most essential part of the British constitution; for
it was not the will of Providence that society should be formed
so perfect and unmixed, so free from all passions, as to meet
the ideas upon which it was contended that the constitution
of England could be with safety conferred upon them.


It was said, that the example of France threatened not only
this, but all the countries of the world. Whatever the right
honourable gentleman might feel upon this subject, there
were several countries who thought differently, or which at
least did not seek their protection by similar measures. They
found their safer course was in being neutral •as to the war,
and in preserving to their people the blessings of peace and
industry. " But America even felt alarmed." If it was
true that America felt alarmed, it would be wise for that
House to observe what had been her conduct in that alarm.
Had she involved herself in a belluez internecinum to exter-
minate French principles? Had she suspended her habeas
corpus act ? Had she passed an alien bill? A treasonable
correspondence act ? Had she shocked every feeling, every
humane and every considerate mind, by the scandalous
rigour of her legal punishments ? Had she plunged herself
into a war, and loaded her people with new and excessive
burdens? No : she had maintained a strict and perfect neu-
trality., as to the belligerent powers; and she had protected
herself at home, by exhibiting to her people all the beauties
of their own system, by securing to them all their privileges
in their full enjoyment, by enlarging rather than abridging
their liberties, and by spewing that, so far from dreading
comparison, she placed her confidence in leaving to the free
judgment of the people the most ample discussion of political
doctrines.


With regard to the persons who composed these societies,
le certainly knew little of them; it could not be supposed
hat he entertained any peculiar partiality towards them, at
.east if men were to judge from the opinion they had always
lelivered of him ; they had never failed to speak of opposi-
ion, and of himself personally, with exactly the same ex-
)ressions as they had used towards administration. The
age distrust of their conduct, the same avowed hostility ape.
seared in their writings towards both. They had certainly paid




!fin personally a compliment, in mentioning him at the same
ime with the right honourable gentleman the chancellor of
he-exchequer, as far as regarded the splendid talents of that


5794.] SEDITIOUS PRACTICES, &C.
289


right honourable gentleman; but it was not equally flattering
to him to be put on a comparison with that right honourable
gentleman, in regard to their right to the confidence of the
public. It was .not likely, therefore, that he was actuated
by any partial regard to these societies; but he considered it
as an unwise and illiberal course to take advantage of any
odium that there might be against persons, in order to stig-
matize measures which might otherwise be good. Though.
there were among these societies men of low and desperate
fortunes, who might be very ready to embrace any enterprise,
however hazardous, and though there might be others, whom
he believed, from their characters, to possess wicked inten-
tions, yet still that was no argument with him for casting a ge-
neral obloquy on measures which were in themselves harmless.
To deny to the people the right of discussion, because upon.
some occasions, that right had been exercised by indiscreet
or bad men, was what he could not subscribe to. The right
of popular discussion was a salutary and an essential privilege
of the subject. He would not answer long for the conduct
of parliament, if it were not subject to the jealousy of the
people. They all entertained becoming respect for the exe-
cutive government, that was, for the chief magistrate of the
kingdom, but their respect for the king did not supersede
the vigilance of parliament. In his opinion, the best security
for the due maintenance of the constitution, was in the strict
and incessant vigilance of the people over parliament itself:
Meetings of the people, therefore, for the discussion of public
objects, were not merely legal, but laudable; and, unless it
was to be contended that there was some magic in the word
convention, which brought with it disorder, anarchy, and
ruin, he could perceive no just ground for demolishing the
constitution of England, merely because it wo intended to
hold a meeting for the purpose of obtaining a parliamentary
reform. With respect to their plan, that of universal suf
frage, he never had but one opinion on the subject. He
had constantly and uniformly considered universal suffrage
as a wild and ridiculous idea. When his noble relation,
the Duke of Richmond, had one day taken pains to explain
his ideas on this subject, a learned and ingenious friend of
his said to him, with as much truth as wit, " My lord, I
think the best part of your grace's plan is its utter impractica-
bility." He had always thought that it was impracticable;
and though he could not agree with the opinion, that rather
than continue the present state of representation, ne would
incur all the hazards of universal suaage, yet he was ready
to say, that the measures o last year, the horrid and detest-
able prosecutions, the scandalous sentences that had been


VOL. v.




290 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [May 17;


passed, and the scandalous way in which they had been
executed, did not tend to make him wish less than heretofore
for some reform, that should protect the country against these
violations of good sense, propriety, and justice. If the ha-
beas corpus act was to be suspended upon such an argument
as had been advanced that night, and we were to go on step
by step, as we were threatened, with the introduction of the
Scots criminal code, with the extinction, perhaps, of the trial
by jury, and he should then be asked what was his opinion,
he did not know but he should be ready to prefer any change
to such a horrid situation as the country would then be re-
duced to. He made no scruple to own, that the events which
had lately passed in France, had made a most powerful im-
pression on his mind. He should not do justice to himself,
if he did not frankly confess, that they had served to correct
several opinions which he previously held; they had served
also to confirm many former opinions. They had con-
vinced his mind of the truth of an observation of Cicero,
one of the most common, which was early taught in their
grammars, but from which, when a boy, his heart revolted.
It was this:


" Iniquissimam pacem justissimo bello antefero."
He had, in the ardour natural to youth, thought this a most
horrid and degrading sentiment. What ! give up a just and
glorious cause, merely on account of the clangers and, per-
haps, the miseries of war ! When he came to maturer years,
he thought the sentiment at least doubtful, but he was now
ready to confess, that the events of the French revolution had
made the wisdom of the sentiment clear and manifest to his
mind. He was ready to say, that he could hardly frame to
himself the condition of a people in which he would not
rather covet to continue, than to advise them to fly to arms,
and strive to seek redress through the unknown miseries of
a revolution. Our own glorious revolution in 1688, had
happily been clear of all these horrors; that of 1641 had
shewn a great deal of this kind of calamity; but the French
revolution had exhibited the scene in its most shocking
aspect. The more, however, his heart was weaned from such.
experiments, the more he detested and abhorred all acts on
the part of any government, which tended to exasperate the
people, to engender discontent, to alienate their hearts, and
to spirit them up to resistance and to the desire of change.
The more he deprecated resistance, the more he felt bound
to oppose all foolish and presumptuous acts on the part of
government, by which they expressed a disdain for the
kelings of the people, or by which, they strove to keep down


1794.] SEDITIOUS PRACTICES, &C. 291


all complaint by inhuman severities. He was convinced that
wise men, deliberately weighing the relative duties of govern-
ment and people, and judging of human nature as it was,
would see the wisdom of mutual concessions, would recom-
mend incessant conciliation, and would deplore all measures
which could exasperate and inflame the minds of the people,
and induce them to wish for the horrors of_ a change. No-
thing was so clear from all the history of England, as that
we had never been so fortunate as when the government had
conciliated the people ; never so miserable as when a wretched
system of persecution had been unhappily and unwisely
adopted by ministers. Persecution had never been success-fill
in extirpating opposition to any system either religious or
civil. It was not merely the divinity of christianity that had
made it triumph; for other religions, certainly not divine,
but which were founded in imposture, as well as a number
of the wildest sects, had thriven and flourished under per-
secution, on account, as he believed, of that very persecution.
The human mind was roused by oppression; and so far from
yielding to persecution, exerted all its energies in consequence
of the attacks it had to encounter. Was it believed, that,
if there was a party in this country, who cherished in their
hearts the desire of reform, the sentiment could be extirpated
by exercising over the individuals legal severities? Impotent
were the men who thought that opinions could be so encoun-
tered ! There were some things that were most successfully
vanquished by neglect. America held out to us the true
course and the wise plan to be pursued. Let us, like her,
demonstrate to every man the blessings of our system. Let
us show that we not only are convinced that it is good, but
that it will bear to be examined and compared with any other
system. Let us make the people proud to court c&nparison,
and strive rather to add new blessings to those they enjoy,
than to abridge those which they already possess. Let us
think for a moment what must be the joy which the present
measure, if adopted, will produce in France. How will it
be received in the convention ? Barrere will, no doubt,
triumphantly hold it forth as a proof that all the stories which
he has tried to propagate in France, of there being a party
in this country favourable to them, are true. At least, he
would say, it had broken out to such a height, that ministers
could no longer think the g-overnment safe, and the constitu-
tion was to be suspended in order to protect the state against
the French party. If any accounts of the true state of this
kingdom had reached France, which told them that we were
united almost as one man against all doctrines which led to
anarchy, Barrere would hold up the present measure in eon-


1.7 2




292
'KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING, $1.0


[May 17


tradiction to that fitithful report, and say, that it was obvious
there must be a formidable party in England in favour of
French doctrines, when one of the most beautiful branches of
our boasted -constitution was to be lopped from the tree.
Nay, though he for one had always treated with scorn the
idea of an invasion, he asked those who held out that fear
to the country, if any thing could be more likely to induce
the French to undertake such an enterprise, than by thus
giving to them the impression that we were threatened with
an insurrection at home? Some words had passed, as if he.
had the night before said, that he would withdraw his atten-
dance from the House. He thought it incumbent upon him
to say, that he should act in this respect as upon reflection
he felt it to be his duty to his constituents. But he certainly
has not said that he should withdraw from the House. Mr.
Fox concluded with a strong admonition to the House on the
present alarming measure. He said, he saw it was to pass;
that further effort was vain ; that the precipitation with which
it had been hurried on, made it idle for him to hope that
argument would induce them to hesitate; and all that re-
mained for him was to pronounce his solemn protest against
a measure pregnant with consequences so fatal to the esta-
blished order and strength and freedom of the country.


Mr. Pitt followed Mr. Fox, after which,


Mr. Fox, in explanation, declared, that with regard to
what he had said on the subject of the christian religion, the
Tight honourable gentleman had entirely misunderstood and
mis-stated him ; which he did not conceive possible, as he
had taken particular pains to make his meaning clear and
obvious. What he had said was, that the Christian religion
owed much of its success to persecution; not insinuating from.
that, that it was deficient in point of divinity; it was a re-
ligion of which he always had been accustomed to speak with
reverence, and which lie had ever professed; and further, to
elucidate that point, he had observed, that not only the
christian religion, but other sects, which had no just claim
to divine institution, had flourished under persecution. He
repeated what he had said respecting a proper vigilance in
the people, over the proceedings of parliament, and their
right to associate for legal purposes. He declared, if such
a bill as had been alluded to by his right honourable friend,
(Mr. Windham,) to assimilate the law of this country to tha;
of Scotland, was ever to be introduced into that House, he
should think it his duty to associate with persons from the
different C01111tiO4 and. towns in England,, to resist it by


1794.]
MR. FOX'S MOTION, &C. 293


every legal and constitutional means. With regard to dis-
-affected persons, no country was without them, but the bill
was holding out to our enemies that they were so numerous
as to require the strongest efforts of the executive government
to resist them.


Mr. Pitt expressed his satisfaction at the explanation given by
Mr. Fox, and assured him that what he had said arose from mis-
conception. The House divided on the motion, That the House
do now adjourn :


Tellers. Tellers.




YEAS
iMjr Maitland'? 3 NoEs Sir J. Saunderson}1 Mra. Jekyll S 3 • Mr. Adams 183.


The bill was then read a third time and passed, and at three
o'clock on Sunday morning the House adjourned.


:\Irt. Fox's MOTION FOR PLYTTING AN END TO THE WA:e.
WITH FRANCE.


May 3o.


J
N pursuance of the notice he had given on the 26th instant,


Mr. Fox rose and said, that thinking as he did of the pre-
sent lamentable and disastrous war, he should not do his
duty, if he did not once more, before the close of the session,
give theHouse an opportunity of consideringthe situation
in ,which the country stood with respect to that war, and of
reviewing the events which had led to that situation. On
the war itself little now remained to be said: his present
object was to call the attention of the House to particular
facts that admitted of no dispute, and the inferences which
every unprejudiced and dispassionate man must draw from
those facts. First, then, as to the origin of the war : he had
always considered as one of the greastest advantages of a
free constitution, the publicity of all the acts of government;
and thence he had hoped, that it was impossible for us to be
plunged into a war upon false pretences, for one thing to be
held up to the people as the cause, and another to be pur-
sued by ministers as the end. Here, however, his hopes
had deceived him. At the commencement of the last session
of parliament, the language of ministers, and the language
of the House, breathed nothing but the strictest neutrality.


n3




294 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR PUTTING
[May 3e.


it was not merely in the beginning of the French revolu-
tion that this language was held, but after the king had
been dethroned, and many of those atrocities had been
committed, at the view of which every feeling mind shrunk
with horror. Ministers professed then to think that we were
not to look to the conduct of another country in its inter-
nal affairs, as the criterion of peace or war ; and, although
many acts had been done in France of which it was difficult
to say whether they were more calculated to move pity or ex-
cite indignation, still they pretended to court peace and neu-
trality. They said fairly, that if the French should make an
unprovoked attack on any of our allies, or pursue plans of
aggrandizement, which, if accomplished, would render it dif-•be
ficult to oppose any attack they might afterwards make, we
must take part in the war. Great paws were taken to per-
suade the House, that their attempt to open the navigation of
the Scheldt was an aggression upon our allies the Dutch ;
and however ludicrously or contemptuously that had been
since treated as the cause of the war, he appealed to the re-
collection of the House whether it was not at first the point
principally insisted upon. To settle the dispute upon this
point, he had recommended negociation to the House, and
the House refused to adopt it. But although the House de-
cided against it, the ministers thought it convenient to follow
his recommendation. They had recourse, not to an open
and manly, but to an underhand and equivocal mode of nego-
ciation, which, even if meant honestly, could hardly fail of
defeating its own purpose. In every dispute, the first step
towards an accommodation was, to show the other party that
we did not mean to treat them with contempt. But ministers,
in their negociation, by their inimical conduct, by refusing
to acknowledge that those with whom they were treating had
any power to treat, took the sure course of rendering it in-
effectual. Their object was to pretend a negociation, and to
pursue such means as must make it fail. It failed accordingly.
Even after that, nothing was said of interfering in the internal
government of Prance. On the contrary, it was asserted by
those who were in the confidence of his majesty's ministers,
and by ministers themselves, that the form of the French go-
vernment at that time, or whatever future form it might as-
sume, was not a fundamental objection to peace. During
the recess, severe declarations were published in his


.
majesty s


name, very inconsistent with our former professions of having
crone to war only to repel an unjust aggression on our allies,
and an unprovoked injury offered to ourselves. When
Dumourier declared against the convention, and proposed •
marching to Paris, to restore the monarchy, the Prince of


I 794.3 AN END TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 295


Saxe Cobourg, in the name of the emperor, issued a pro-
clamation, by which he acceded to the constitution of 1789,
and declared, that whatever strong places should be given up
to him, he would hold in trust for Louis XVII. till that con-
stitution should be restored. True it was, that proclamation
was almost instantly retracted, to the disgrace of all those
who were parties to it. Whatever might be the fate of his
present motion—whatever might be the issue of the war, the
time he hoped would come, when we should clear ourselves
in the face of Europe from the infamy of having been acces-
saries in that transaction. The emperor, as dead to all shame,
as unfeeling with respect to every principle of justice, re-
tracted his proclamation before it could be known what effect
it might have produced on the people of France, and within
five days after it had been issued. -What could be found to
match this, even in the conduct of those who governed France?
It appeared to be done as if the emperor had feared, that the
King of Prussia's perfidy to Poland might stand unparalleled,
and he himself could not be considered as a fit member of the
confederacy, till he had clone something to keep his ally in
countenance. In a cause, which we were so often told was
the cause of morality, virtue, and religion, he trusted that his
majesty, for his own and the national honour, would disclaim
all participation in or approbation of such acts. The surren-
der of Toulon was considered as a fit occasion for declaring
the intentions of ministers. Lord. Hood took possession of
it on the express condition of maintaining the constitution of
1789, and pledged himself to protect all Frenchmen who
should repair to that standard. A declaration in the name of
his majesty, afterwards came out, different, indeed, from this;
verbose, obscure, and equivocal, like the production of men
who were afraid of saying any thing distinctly, who wished
not their meaning to be clearly understoo4 3; that, stript of all
the elegant rubbish with which it was loaded, declared only
this—that the restoration of monarchy, without specifying
of what kind, was the only condition upon which we could
treat with France. Thus did our avowed objects progressively
change. It would be said, that we might fairly enter into a
war with one view, and afterwards, as the alteration of cir-
cumstances made it necessary or convenient, change that view
for another. Be it so, for the sake of argument ; but it be-
came not us to say that we were fighting in defence of mo-
rality, religion, and the rights of civilized society, who had.
entered into the war about the navigation of the Scheldt.
We had confessed that this was the object for which we began
the war, and we were not now to boast of higher motives.
But for this aggression on our ally, the cause of morality and


4




296
MR. Fox's MOTION FOR PUTTING


[May 3o.
religion would have been left to other defenders. If the
change of object was a question of policy, let it be so con-
sidered. What had appeared to make it more politic now
than at the commencement of the war? Had our experience
at Toulon, the success of the Earl of Moira's expedition, or
the internal state of France, convinced us that we had a better
prospect of terminating the war by the aid of Frenchmen
than before? We had disclaimed peace with the present
rulers, and we had disclaimed interfering in the internal. go-
vernment of France. But how had we disclaimed interfering?
We were actually interfering, and our interference was of the
most objectionable kind. We said that our object was not to
build up a government for France, but to destroy the system
which now domineered in it. Suppose this point gained,
were we to leave the French, thus deprived of every thing
like a government, to settle one for themselves? Were we to
say to them, " You, of whose.


wisdom, moderation, and hu-
manity we have had such proofs, and entertain so high an
opinion, assemble again by your delegates, as you did in 1739,
and build up a government to your own liking, a monarchy,
a republic, no matter what, so it be not jacobinism ?" Thus
we should propose to let loose the French again to that state
from which we wanted to recal them, and to renew all those
horrors which we had so often deplored. This mode of in-
terference, was only politic inasmuch as it was faithless. It
might be hoped to unite in our favour, all those who hated
the present system ; but of these how many must be deceived!
One man might join us because he wished for the restoration
of the old despotism, another because he wished for a limited
monarchy, a third for a republic on better principles—and
each confiding that our views were the same with his own.
Two of these at least must be disappointed, perhaps all the
three. Was this, he asked, mere theory ? Had not a noble
lord (Mulgrave) told the House that such was the state of the
people at Toulon, almost equally divided between abhorrence
of the old government and abhorrence of the new? and when
there was neither foreign force, nor the cruel rigour of the
present system to controul their passions, would they not
break out into acts of open contest and violence ? But what
he thought most to be complained of, was, that we had been
drawn into the war upon professions of neutrality, if neutrality
could be preserved, and were now called upon to persist in it,
on declarations directly opposite; that the people had been


deluded by fidse pretences, to spend their money and their
l?lood fbr purposes to which, if fairly stated to them in the
first instance, they would not have consented ; and being once
engaged in the war, were told that they could not get Out of


1794.] AN END TO TIIE WAR WITH FRANCE. 297


it, He had often been puzzled to divine what were the
motives upon which ministers themselves were acting. Dur-
ing part of the last campaign, he thought they meant to
adhere to their professed intentions. While a civil war was
raging in La Vendee, we took Valenciennes and Mentz.
The garrisons of those places we bound not to serve against
Any of the allies for a stipulated time, but we did not prohibit
them from bearing arms against the royalists in La Vendee.
In fact, we did as much as if we had sent them against the
royalists, for we dismissed them without the possibility of
being employed but only there. This was, perhaps, meant to
shiny that they disclaimed interfering in the internal govern-
ment of France; and to refute as calumnies, the allegations
that to interfere was their express, although not their avowed
object. In the subsequent part of the campaign, the effect of
this conduct was completely effaced in one point of view, but
not in another, for the reproach of it still remained. It was
effaced by the declarations at Toulon, by the king's manifes-
toes, and by preparing an army for the avowed purpose of co-
operating with those very royalists.


He had thus shown the inconsistencies of ministers and their
supporters with respect to the professed object of the war, but
these were not all. They had formerly contended, that if we
suffered France to aggrandize herself at the expellee of the
emperor and the King of Sardinia, we might have to contend
against her increased power, when our present allies, offended
at our neutrality, would not assist us. He bad never been
able to see the force of this argument. He had always ima-
gined that what we should be principally called upon to fur-
nish in any war with France, would be money; and that our
continental allies would not refuse to accept of subsidies from
us at any time. What was now the fact? Did we fear that
the emperor would make peace with France too soon, if we
did not interpose? Fortunate for Europe would it la.ve been
if he bad done so; mid the barrier of the Netherland's, which
the mistaken policy of a former reign had demolished, might
have been restored. Would the King of Prussia have with-
drawn himself sooner, or might he not have been prevailed
upon by a subsidy to lend his troops as he had done now—
as the emperor might soon do also? Besides our engage-
ments with the King of Prussia and the emperor, we had en-
tered into various conventions with other powers. One of
these, the treaty with the King of Sardinia, had been the sub-
ject of discussion before, and it was unnecessary to enlarge
upon it again. But in this had we any equivalent for what
we engaged to perform? On all the occasions referred to as
precedents in the former debate, we had to fear that the King




298 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR PUTTING [May 30,
of Sardinia might join our enemy, and to bring him over to our
side was a. material advantage—Was there any danger of his
joining France in the present war, if we had left him to his
own councils? His neutrality would have been much more
advantageous to the allies than his assistance. But it was said
he might make a powerful diversion in our favour, and by
drawing off a considerable part of the French force 'to the
South, facilitate our operations in Flanders. At present, the
diversion he made was, by an incursion of the French into
his own territory. 'Would he, with his British subsidy, be
able to defend his own dominions, and protect Italy? Clearly
not, and the safety of Italy must now depend on a great Aus-
trian force. From such inlbrmation as was accessible to every
man, he heard of nothing but the success of the French on
the side of Italy, and, what was still worse, the disposition of
the people in their favour, who hated nothing more than they
did both the Austrian and Sardinian government. The French
had entered Piedmont at two points, were threatening Turin,
and could only be repelled by an Austrian army. In whose
favour, then, was the diversion by subsidizing the King of
Sardinia?—of the French who employed a force in that
quarter which they could not, perhaps, have transported to
the North ; and against the emperor, whose exertions in Flan-
ders must be weakened by the exertions he was thus obliged to
make in Italy.


All the conventions entered into by us contained a clause
by which the contracting parties bound themselves not to lay
down their arms, while any part of the territory of either of
them remained in possession of the enemy, and this was to
extend to all powers who should accede to the confederacy.
Ministers were formerly asked, whether the emperor and the
King of Prussia had acceded to this guarantee? It was unne-
cessary to ask them that question now; the King of Prussia
had laid down his arms, till he was bought by our money to
take them up again ; and the emperor had refused to agree to
the clause. Thus, we alone were bound to continue a war,
now declared to be a war ad internainem and consequently
of incalculable duration. We entered into a treaty with the
King of Prussia, by which neither party was to have laid
down arms, but by consent of the other. From this engage-
ment he escaped by a loop-hole; for as none of his dominions
were within reach of the enemy, he had only to withdraw his
troops from the scene of action, and tell us that he had made
peace with France. But he was bound to continue war in
other parts, till the objects of it were obtained. But did he
not get rid of this by another loop-hole, under the words
" as 'long as circumstances will permit?" such was his en-


31794.] AN END TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE, 299


vagement in July, 1793. 'What change of circumstances had
happened in February, 17 94 ? Had he sustained losses?Had he suffered defeats? No. The campaign, ministers as-
sured us, had been most successful: but he had discovered.
that war had a tendency to exhaust his finances ! he had found
out a circumstance which it was impossible to foresee, that
his victories would cost him something ! This was the un-
looked-for circumstance that would not permit the King of
Prussia to continue the war. Had the public been told in
July, 17 93, that the treaty was binding upon him only for
the rest of the campaign, they would have seen it in a very
different point of view. The war was called the common
cause of the civilized world, and all Europe, we had been
assured, would join us in it. A great confederacy, indeed,
had been formed ; but many of the powers of Europe had
not joined us, and it was reasonable to conclude that they had
not the same apprehensions of danger. If the general in-
terest were to be admitted, the emperor had still a more par-
ticular interest than we had. He contributed large armies,
but no part of the subsidy to Prussia. It was even said, that
ministers asked him to pay his share, but that he refused :
hence it ':cas clear, that all the money must be supplied by us
and the Dutch. The emperor possessed various and rich do-
minions remote from the seat of war. From these he could
not draw supplies in money. Even the part of his territories
the most exposed to the enemy, more abounding in wealth
than almost any country-, this excepted refused to assist him ;
so that he was obliged to come here for great and heavy
loan. The propriety of allowing a foreign power to draw
money out of this country by loan, lie would not now discuss.
His opinion was, that it was best to leave individuals to their
own judgment. But the loan showed that the emperor had
no resource but here. If the loan should fail, where was he
to go? Or if he wanted another next year, and could not ob-
tain it, must he come, like the King of Prussia, fw a subsidy ?
How could we refuse him, if it was true that the existence of
jacobinism iu France was incompatible with our safety as a
nation ? Must not we give subsidy after subsidy, while the
war was going on with various success, and the end of it, on
the only terms on which we said it could be ended, was too
remote for speculation?


The consequence which he drew from all this was, that we
ought to think of some rational mode of obtaining peace.
That could only be effected in one of three ways — by treating,
by compelling the enemy to submit to our own terms, or by
treating with sufficient force in our hands to induce compli-
ance with reasonable demands. The House had never sane-




300 FOXIs MOTION TOR NUTTING [May 30.
tioned the dangerous speculation, that to secure England, we
must destroy jacobinism m France. The experience of ages
had proved it to be the will of Providence, that monarchies,
oligarchies, aristocracies, republics, might exist in all their
several varieties in different parts of the world, without impo-
sing the necessity of endless wars on the rest. The argument
for peace had this advantage, that if peace should fail, we
might then resort to war ; but from war to peace, if that ex-
periment should fail, the transition was not so easy. The
French government had existed for two years. A powerful
confederacy had been formed, numerous armies and great ge-
nerals employed against it, and yet internally it appeared to be
stronger than ever. In the first campaign, the Duke of
Brunswick, at the head of a veteran army, had been compel-
led to retreat, and the Austrian Netherlands were over-run.
In the second campaign, armies still more formidable had been
brought into the field, and it had been, as ministers boasted,
not merely successful, but brilliant. Yet the French govern-
ment internally remained untouched by our disasters or our
successes. If this was the dreadful situation in which we were
placed, -- if we were at war with a nation that rose in num-
bers and enthusiasm as much on our victories as our defeats,
we must adopt the principle,


Nil actuin reputans, si quid superesset agendum.
We had done nothing while any thing remained to do.


We might take islands in the West Indies; we might even
circumscribe the European territories of France ; but while
the nation remained, we were no .nearer peace. This was a
situation, melancholy and deplorable at any time, but much
more so when we adverted to the inability of our allies to go
on, but as we could afford to pay them. But if we chose to
revert to the old maxim of state policy, that the internal an-
archy of France, or of any other country, was no concern of
ours, then, indeed, our successes in the East and West Indies
would tell in our favour. Far was he from undervaluing those
successes, or the merit of the gallant officers by whose valour
and skill they had been atchieved; but he wished them to
prove not merely a source of glory to the officers, but of solid
advantage to the country. The settlements and islands we
had taken in the East and West Indies, were excellent mate-
rials for negotiation, but nothing for overturning the present
government of France. If we aimed only at a safe and equit-
able peace for ourselves and our allies, they might be restored
for restitution of what had been conquered from any of those
allies,kr kept as indemnity for the past and security for the


1794.)


AN END TO TIE WAR WITH FRANCE. 301


future, as the relative circumstances of the war and our en-
gagements, might point out.


He therefore wished the House and the country to con-
sider, whether we had not now the means of making peace; for,
on the terms on which ministers said it could alone be made,
he despaired of ever obtaining it. They said formerly, that
France was not in a negotiable state; that there was no man
in it who could answer for the conduct of another. Was
this the present state of France? He was little inclined to pay
any compliment to tyranny, but it was surely in the power of
tyranny, while it lasted, to coerce its own subjects. If the
present rulers of France thought proper to declare war
against any neutral nation, even against America, did any
man doubt that they would be obeyed ? Why, then, doubt
their being obeyed if they made peace with any nation with
whom they were at war? If by force, as some pretended,
they sent their people to the field of battle, very little force
would be sufficient to restrain them from it. They had been
guilty of no infringement of the rights of neutral states ; they
had respected the Swiss territory under very difficult circum-
stances, and had passed through part of the Genoese territory
in arms, without giving occasion for a single complaint. He
wished that we might be able to maintain a good under-
standing with neutral states, in every instance, as well. He.
was ready to allow, that it was one thing to propose
peace, and another to obtain it. With a nation in a state so
anomalous as that of France, all events must be doubtful; but
if we were to propose peace and fail, what should we lose?
Would the King of Prussia take no more of our money?
Would the emperor refuse a subsidy when he had occasion,
for it? This we should gain, that the convention would be no
longer able to delude the people of France into the persuasion
that we were making war upon them, not for the usual objects
of war, but for the destruction of their liberties; and we should
convince the people of this country, that the' ar was not car-
ried on upon principles hostile to freedom, from which Great
Britain had more to fear than any other nation.


Some sanguine men were of opinion, that certain principles
established in one country must necessarily disturb the peace
of another. He had doubted the doctrine when he first heard
it; and the more he had examined, the more he disliked it.
If it was maintained, that opinions held in France must con-
taminate the minds of Englishmen, this would lead to a revi-
val of every species of intolerance, and to a more rigorous
/scrutiny of opinions than could be safe for states or mdivi-
duals,.more especially for this country. Had it not often been
said that the. Freuch lievolatian. owed iu axi aaA t9 the .A.mexi-


:$




302
MR. FMCS MOTION FOIL PUTTING


[May 30.
can war; that opinions borrowed from America gave it birth?
This was so plausible that he knew not how to doubt it. Not
that the French took the American opinions as they really
were ; they adopted them crudely in theory and perverted
them in practice. Whence did the Americans receive their
opinions? not from the wandering Indians, not from Mexico
and Peru — they carried them with them from England. He
must, therefore, deprecate questioning opinions on the pos-
sible consequences to which they might lead, for then would
both America and England be found guilty. Whence were
derived the Rights of Man, so much abused by misappli-
cation, so fundamentally true ? Not from the ancients, not
froni,


Asia or Africa, but from Great Britain; from that phi-
losophy, if it was still safe to use the word, which Locke and
Sydney taught and illustrated. If we were once to argue,
that the principles of any one people were dangerous to others,
then we must be odious to all other nations, whose forms of
government and modes of thinking had less of liberty than
our own. To despotic governments we must be detestable,
64 Although France," they might say, 64 has been the theatre
on which the abominations that flow from those principles
have been exhibited, yet England is the author;" and the
example of England they would feel to be more dangerous,
as truth was a more powerful instrument than error. 'When
the courts of Berlin and Vienna exhibited such instances of
perfidy and injustice, might they not well think that British
justice and good faith afforded an example to their people
and a reproach to themselves, not to be tolerated ?


He would now assume, that the House was to differ from
him in all he had said, and to persist in the plan of over-
turning jacobinism in France as the only road to peace. In
that case they were bound to say so in explicit terms, and to
declare moreover, that in conjunction with a certain description
of Frenchmen, they meant to obtain some definite form of
government for France. Then every Frenchman would
know what he had to expect of us. If we declared for what
some chose to call the old. monarchy, but which he should
ever call the old despotism, many would repair to the standard.
If we declared for the constitution of 178 9, those who ap-
proved of that constitution would join us. And if we declared,
for any form of a republic, a word which a remembrance of
the grievances and oppressions under the monarchy had ren-
dered popular, we should have the adherents of that system:
Then men would join us whom we meant not to deceive.
By professing only to demolish jacobinism without specifying
what we/meant to erect in its stead, we might have more
hands but fewer hearts; for all who joined us would con-


i6


AN ENIS TO THE WAR WITH FIANCE. 303


stantly suspect that they were assisted but to be betrayed. If
therefore, the House should not adopt the better resolution,
he should move another resolution to this effect.


He had carefully avoided touching on the military conduct
or the present state of the campaign. He had early in the
session examined the attention paid to protecting our trade,
he feared with but little of the effect which he hoped to pro-
duce, as the premiums for insurance, then triumphantly held
up as an argument against him, too fully proved by their
rapid increase. He looked to Flanders with pain and
anxiety; we had destroyed many of the enemy, since the
opening of the campaign, but alas ! the slaughter had not
been all on one side. He had felt some curiosity to calculate
the loss of the allies of all descriptions in the last campaign
in all the points of action, from such documents as were
public, and also to estimate the loss of the French, which
could scarcely be less than 200,000 ! What, then, were we
to think of conquering a people who could bear such a loss
as this, and still present superior numbers in every point of
attack? We had reduced Landrecies, and while we were
doing that, the enemy had pushed into West Flanders, from
which, with the well-earned laurels our troops had ob-
tained, we had not yet been able to dislodge them. Without
professing to be a critic in matters of war, when he looked
at the frontier, he could not kelp thinking the conquest of
France a more desperate crusade than ever. What said our
allies of the French ? The emperor had published that the
attack of the 17th was admirably planned ; that in the exe-
cution, generals, officers, and men, all merited equal praise ;
and vet it had totally tailed ! Hence he must conclude that
we had to cope with a very formidable enemy. Was it
owing to the elements that the plan had miscarried ? No, it
was because West Flanders was intersected by hedges and
ditches. • But was this a thing unknown before to the em-
peror's officers in his own territories ? Dtfi they plan an attack
only to discover that they were fighting in an inclosed
country ? It was like the 'King of Prussia's discovery that
war cost money. Since then we had obtained a victory, on
which no man could be supposed to dwell with more peculiar
pleasure than he himself, but the only effect of that victory
was, not to dislodge the French from their position in
Flanders, but to avert a great danger from the allied army.
When such was the state of the campaign in Flanders; when
the Spaniards and Piedmontese were repulsed, and instead
of making a diversion required assistance, surely he might
infer that there was as little prospect of destroying the jacobin
government of France now as when the war began, and we




3 04 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR PUTTING [May 30.
professed no such object. Why not, then, recur to old
maxims, when our victories and the islands we had taken
might give them such effect ? It was impossible to dissemble
that we had a serious dispute with America; and although
we might be confident that the wisest and best man of his
age, who presided in the government of that country would
do every thing that became him to avert a war, it was
impossible to foresee the issue. America had no fleet,
no army; but in case of war she would find various means
to harass and annoy us. Against her we 'could not strike a
blow that would not be as severely felt in London as in
America, so identified were the two countries by commercial
intercourse. To a contest with such an adversary he looked
as the greatest possible misfortune. If we commenced an-
other crusade against her, we might destroy her trade, and


'check the progress of her agriculture, but we must also
equally injure ourselves. Desperate therefore, indeed, must
be that war in which each wound inflicted on our enemy
would at the same time inflict one upon ourselves. He hoped
to God that such an event as a war with America would not
happen : but whether it did or did not, he contended that
every day afforded additional reasons for putting an end to
our crusade against France.


Mr. Fox concluded with reading the following resolutions :


" That it appears to this House, that during the several
changes which took place in the constitution and government of
France, before the commencement of hostilities, and more parti-
cularly after the events of the moth of August 1792, when his ma-
jesty was advised by his ministers to suspend all official commu-
nications with France, it was, and continued to be, the pro-
fessed principle and policy of his majesty's government, care-
fully to observe a strict neutrality, and uniformly to abstain from
any interference with respect to the internal affairs of France :
that, when his majesty was advised to make a farther augmen-
tation of his forces by sea and land, at the beginning of the last
year, it was for the declared purpose of opposing views of aggran-
disement and ambition on the part of France, and that, when his
majesty acquainted parliament, that acts of hostility had been di-
rected by the government of France against his majesty's subjects,
and after war had been declared against his majesty and the United
Provinces, the then avowed object of prosecuting the war, on our
part, was to oppose the further views of aggrandisement imputed
to France, and that the prosecution of the war on this ground,
and for the attainment of this object, was approved of by both
Houses of parliament.


z. " That it appears to this House, that, at or before the end
of April 1793, the armies of France were obliged to evacuate Hol-
land and Flanders, and to retire within their own territory ; anti


1794-3 AN END TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 305


that the Prince of Cobourg, commander in chief of the Emperor's
forces in Flanders, did, on the 5 th of April, engage and declare that
he would join and co-operate with General Dumourier, to give
to France her constitutional king, and the constitution which
she had formed for herself; and that the Prince of Cobourg did
also then declare, on his word of honour, that if any strong
places should be delivered over to his troops, he should con-
sider them no otherwise than as sacred deposits ; and that, on


,month9th all the preceding declarations ofthe of the sa e
the Prince of Cobourg were revoked.


3. " That it appears to this House, that, by the i5th article
of the treaty concluded with the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel on the
Toth of April 1 793 , his majesty's ministers were of opinion, that
the situation of affairs had then entirely changed its aspect, in
consequence of which his majesty might not have occasion for the
Hessian troops, and might be at liberty to relinquish their service,
on certain conditions of compensation to be made to the Land -
grave.


4. " That it appears to this House, that, on the 14th of July
1793, a convention was concluded between his majesty and the
King of Prussia, in which their majesties reciprocally promised to
continue to employ their respective forces, as far as their circum-
stances would permit, in carrying on a war equally just and
necessary.


5. " That it appears to this House, that, on the 2 3 d of August
7 93, Lord Hood declared to the people of Toulon, that he had


no other view but that of restoring peace to a great nation, upon
the most just, liberal, and honourable terms ; that the inhabitants
of Toulon did in return declare, that it was their unanimous wish
to adopt a monarchical government, such as it was originally
formed by the constituent assembly of 178 9 ; and that Lord hood,
by his proclamation of the 28th of August, accepted of that de-
claration, and did then repeat, what he bad already declared to
the people of the south of France, that he took posesssion of Tou-
lon, and held it in trust only for Louis the XVIlth.


6. " That it appears to this House, at the constitution to
which the declaration and acceptance stared in the preceding re-
solution are applied, was the same which his majesty's ambassador
at the Hague did, in a memorial presented to the States General
on the 25th of January, 17 93, describe in the following terms,
viz. ' It is not quite four years since certain miscreants, assuming


the name of philosophers, have presumed to think themselves
capable of establishing a new system of civil society ; in order


' to realize this dream, the offspring of vanity, it became ne-
' cessary for them to overturn and destroy all established notions
' of subordination, of morals, and of religion ;' and that this
description was applied by the said ambassador to a government
with which his majesty continued to treat and negociate from its
institution in 178 9 to its dissolution in August 17 9 2, and that his
majesty's ambassador was not recalled front Paris until that go-
vernment was dissolved.-


7. " That it appears to this House by the declaration made by
voL. v.


go


4




3 C6 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR PUTTING
[ May 3o.


his majesty's ministers, and dated on the 2 9t11 of October, 1793,
That his majesty demands only of France that some legitimate
and stable government should be established, founded on the ac-
knowledged principles of universal justice, and capable of main-


' taming with other powers the accustomed relations of union and
peace ;' and that his majesty, in treating for the re-establishment
of general tranquillity with such a government, would propose


none other than equitable and moderate conditions, not such as
the expences, the risks, and the sacrifices of the war might jus-


tify ;' and that his majesty hoped to find in the other powers
engaged with him in the common cause, sentiments and views
perfectly conformable to his own.


8. " That it appears to this House that, at the commencement
of the war, the prosecution of it was considered by his majesty as
a cause of general concern, in which his majesty had every reason
to hope for the cordial co-operation of those powers who were
united with his majesty by the ties of alliance, and who felt an
interest in the same cause.


9. ".That it does not appear to this House, that in the prose-
cution of a war considered by his majesty as a cause of general
concern, and as a common cause, his majesty has received that
cordial co-operation which we were led to expect, from those
powers who were united with him by the ties of alliance, and who
were supposed to feel an interest in the same cause.


to. " That, on a review of the conduct of the several powers
of Europe, from whom, if the cause was common, and if the
concern was general, such cordial co-operation might have been
expected, it appears to this House, that many of those powers
have not co-operated with his majesty ; that the Empress of
Russia has not contributed in any shape to the support of this
common cause ; that the crowns of Sweden and Denmark have
united to support their neutrality, and to defend themselves against
any attempt to force them to take part in this common cause ;
that Poland is neither able nor inclined to take part in it; that
Switzerland and Venice are neutral ; that the King of Sardinia
has required and obtained a subsidy from Great Britain to enable
him to act even on the defensive ; that the King of the Two
Sicilies, professing to make common cause with his majesty in the
war against France, is bound to it by nothing but his own judg-
ment in the course of events which may occur, and that he is at
liberty to abandon the common cause whenever he shall judge that
he cannot any longer with justice and dignity continue the war ;
that the efforts of Spain and Portugal have been completely
ineffectual.


" That, with respect to the powers who were principals in
the present war, (viz. the States General, the King of Prussia,
and the Emperor,) it appears to this House, that the States Ge-
neral, having refused to contract for the payment of their portion
of the subsidies to be paid to the King of Prussia, beyond the
term of the present year, have thereby reserved to themselves a
right to withdraw from the support of the war at that period, and
to throw the whole–burden of it upon Great Britain ; that the


1794.] AN END TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 307


King of Prussia being bound by the convention of July 1793, to
act in the most perfect concert and the most intimate confidence
with his majesty, upon all the objects relative to the present war,
and having then promised to continue to employ his forces as far
as circumstances would permit in carrying on the war, and his
majesty having since been obliged by the treaty of the 19th
April 1794, to grant to the King of Prussia an enormous subsidy,
in order to engage him to continue to co-operate in the prose-
cution of the war, it follows that the King of Prussia is no longer
a principal party, nor even an auxiliary in the said war, but that
he basely lends out his troops to this country in return for a most
profitable pecuniary compensation at our expence, and that Great
Britain is, in fact, loaded with his proper share of the burden of
a war, which is said to be the common cause of every civilised
state ; finally, that if it were expedient or necessary to purchase
the King of Prussia's co-operation on such terms, the emperor,
whose interests are more directly at stake, was full as much bound
in reason and justice, as his majesty or the States General could
be, to contribute equally to that expense; and that if, at any
future period of the war, the emperor's finances should be so
exhausted as to make it impossible for him to maintain it on his
part at his own charge, his imperial majesty will be invited and
encouraged, if not justified, by the example and success of the
King of Prussia, to call upon this country to defray the whole
expence of whatever army he may continue to employ against the
French ; nor does it appear to this House by what distinction in
policy or in argument the terms granted to the King of Prussia
can be refused to the emperor, whose efforts and expences in the
course of the war have infinitely exceeded those of Prussia, or
how this country can in prudence or with safety, decline a com-
pliance with such demands, if it be true, as has been declared,
that the destruction of the present French government is essential
to the security of every thing which is most dear and valuable to
us as a nation.


12. " That it appears to this House, that in consequence of the
events of the war on the Continent and elswwhere, all views of
aggrandizement and ambition on the part of France, supposing
the French to entertain such views, are evidently unattainable,
and must be relinquished by France; and that therefore, the ob-
ject of the war as it was originally professed on our part, viz. the
restoration of peace on terms of permanent security, is now
attainable, and may be secured, provided that on one side the
French shall be content with the possession and safety of their
own country, and that we, on the other, shall adhere to the prin-
ciples of justice and policy, so often declared by his majesty and
avowed by his ministers, of uniformly abstaining from any inter-
ference with respect to the internal affairs of France.


13. " That it is the duty of his majesty's ministers to avail them-
selves of the present circumstances of the war, and to promote a
pacification by every means in their power, by proposing . to France
equitable and moderate conditions, and above all things, by
abstaining from any interference in the internal affairs of France;


X 2




3 08 MR. Fox's MOTION FOR. PUTTING
[May 30.,


14. " That it is the opinion of this House, that in every pos-
sible case, it is equally desirable that his majesty should make an
explicit declaration of his views, If it is the intention not to
terfere in the internal government of France, nothing can con-
tribute so much to advance a negotiation with those who now
exercise the power of government in that country, as such a de-
claration solemnly and explicitly made. If on the other hand it is
intended to interfere, it is highly essential to make the degree of
interference precisely known, to induce such parts of the French
nation as are dissatisfied with the present government, to unite
and exert themselves with satisfaction and security."


Upon the first resolution being put, Mr. Jenkinson rose and
moved the previous question thereon ; in which he was supported
by Mr. Pitt. The resolution was warmly defended by Mr. Sheridan.
In reply to what fell from Mr„ Pitt, who bad cast some reflections
on the conduct of Mr. Sheridan,


Mr. Fox said, that when he considered the secret com-
mittee that had been alluded to, there were some men among
them whose talents and integrity he held in the highest
esteem ; but if in point of abilities, if in point of integrity
and honour, if in point of every quality that could adorn the
character of man, they were compared with his honourable
friend, (Mr. Sheridan,) they were compared with their equal,
and the comparison would do them no dishonour. With
regard to the question before the House, the right honour-
able gentleman had blended two things essentially distinct;
the medium by which we were to carry on this war, and the
object for which it was carried on. And here he must say,
that it was not originally expressed to be the object of our
executive government; it had never been expressed to be the
object of that House ; it never ought to be the object of this
country, to carry on the war for the purpose of forming a
government for France. Surely, if there was any distinction
to be marked by words, means were one thing, the object
another. The right honourable the chancellor of the ex-
chequer insisted that he had confounded the idea of the
alteration of the government of France with the conquest of
France, and that in reality the majority of the people of
France were against the present government. For his part,
he would not insult the good sense of the House by seeming
to agree to that position. For how stood the facts as opposed
to the bare assertion of the right honourable gentleman? Let
the House look at the expedition of the Earl of Moira, an
expedition not planned in secret, and overturned by stratagem,
but an expedition publicly announced, and for six months
endeavoured to be carried into execution, by affording to the
majority of the Frencl\ an opportunity of joining us, for the'


794-] AN END TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 309


purpose of destroying a form of government of which they
were said to be so tired. If he were, after this, to say that the
great majority of the people of France were desirous of join-
ing us to destroy their present government, he should after-
wards be ashamed to show his face any where in Europe.
The French were not now desirous of destroying their re-
public. Had they ever been so? What was the case at the
desertion of Dumourier ? He abandoned the cause of the
French republic. How many followed him ? A few officers
and domestics. We took Valenciennes. How many repaired
to our standard in consequence ? We took possession of
Toulon by the agreement of some of the inhabitants. We
erected there a standard of royalty. How many Frenchmen
came to it? A declaration was made in favour of royalty,
the French were called upon to shake off their sanguinary
tyrants, and were told that we would protect them. How
many Frenchmen flocked to us for that protection ? Were we
not compelled to fly, and abandon the town and its inha-
bitants to the fury of their enemies? To all these facts the
right honourable gentleman was to oppose a speculation of
his own, to prove that the majority of the Trench were hostile
to the present government. If there were a majority of the
people in that country who favoured the designs of the allied
powers ; but, after all the opportunities which had been given,
found it impossible to act, they might as well not be in exist-
ence, for " de non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est
atio." If the peasants all along the frontier of France, who


had Prussian, Austrian, or British troops to fly to for pro-
tection, did not do it, but continued to oppose them, what
hopes could we form that they would yet do it ? No, no,
whatever the French might think of their government, they
would never join the allies to alter it; they had too clear a
specimen of Prussian and Russian and British vild Austrian
integrity, to remain doubtful of its nature; they saw by the
partition of Poland, that when the allies professed to protect,
their object was to plunder, and that in order to show their
hatred of innovation, they themselves introduced innovations
of the most shameful and oppressive kind. It was said to
be extraordinary, that gentlemen should . both oppose and
support the war. He was one of those who did so ; let the
ridicule attach to him if there would be any. He Would do
all in his power to persuade the people of this country to de-
mand peace ; but if a headstrong, rash, ignorant, or haughty
minister should plunge us into a war, then we must do the
best we could to get out of it; and to keep up our respect-
ability to the rest of the world, supplies must be granted.
He would not consent to ruin his country, because a minister


X 3




310Artt. FOX'S MOTION FOR. PUTTING
[May 302


had been either weak or wicked enough to involve us in a
great difficulty. This was called supporting and opposing
the war ; but it was not new to him either in practice or
in accusation. He did the same thing in the American
war after the French had joined in it. He could not consent
to receive laws from the French ; and he believed they would
be as unwilling to receive laws from us; this was a distinction
which every man could understand, who gave himself the
trouble to .comprehend what he heard.


With respect to his assertion, that the emigrant corps bill
was the first open avowal of the intention of this country to
interfere in the internal concerns of France, what he meant
was, that it was the first efficient act to prove such an avowal;
for before, it consisted merely in declarations, and he knew the
right honourable gentleman could, in a very happy manner,
explain away those declarations if he found it convenient, or
if it was necessary to the preservation of his place, even to
condescend to apology or humiliation ; for there was no pill
however bitter, that he would not swallow, however high and
vaunting his expressions might be in that House, rather than
surrender power, that God of his idolatry. In support of this
assertion Mr. Fox adverted to the right honourable gentle-
man's conduct, after all his great words concerning Oczakow,
when he submitted to the most degrading apology to the
Empress of Russia. If lie found it answer his purpose to
explain away his declaration with regard to France, he could
prevail on Mr. Fawkener, or some other person, to go to
Paris on that business; but overt acts were not so easily done
away. Another objection he had to the emigrant corps bill,
-was, that though this country might break its faith with re-
gard to nations, it should be cautious of preserving it with
individuals, and of not holding out to those unhappy people
a protection which we were either unable, or had no intention
to afford them.


As to the gen eral argument, that the House had already divided
on many points which were now brought forward, it was an
answer that might be made to cover any error however enor-
mous : it was an answer which he had continually received
during the American war, and which he had as continually
despised: it was a mode of answering, however which had
cost the country above one hundred millions of money, and
many, ninny thousands of men ; it was by this sort of obsti-
nacy in ministers, and implicit confidence in the House, that
this country might be ruined. These topics were resorted to,
and this system adopted, by many of the same men in this
and in the former war; the conclusion of this might,, perhaps,
be more calamitous to this country than the conclusion of that


1 794.] AN END TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE. 311


war had been. The right honourable gentleman had said a
great deal on what was due to our dignity, and that we could
not negociate with the present rulers of France without dis-
aracino• ourselves. Had the right honourable gentleman for-(rotten that he himself had negotiated with M. Chanvelin,
the then minister of these very Jacobins ? and that Lord Auck-
land had negotiated with Dumourier, the then agent of these
very persons ? The right honourable gentleman, on all occa-
sions, dwelt much upon danger at home. The House, he
}cared, would be often called upon to attend to that subject.


When the militia was called out contrary to law, insurrec-
tions were alleged as the pretext; but the right honourable
gentleman was unable to produce a single instance of any set
of individuals having gone any length that was alarming to
the constitution. It had happened, however, that as the
war had proceeded, jacobins had increased in number in
Germany and in Italy. War, therefore, had not hitherto
tended to their extermination. He did not intend to have
said any thing upon the alarm that had gone forth In this
country, nor on the means made use of to increase and spread
it; whenever the day came, he should be ready also upon
that point. He could not now dismiss the subject, however,
without observing, that an alarm had been spread over this
country, and a false one, for political and unfair purposes ;
the charge of conspiracy had been most !bully exhibited
against innocent persons. He knew how Mr. Walker was
indicted for a conspiracy: that charge was most infamously
false ; it was supported by nothing but the most gross and
disgusting perjury ; and the jury, against whom no complaint
of attachment to jacobinism was or could be exhibited, had
unanimously given a verdict of not guilty. This prosecution
was forwarded—by whom ? He had seen hand-bills upon
that and similar subjects; he would not say they were propa-
gated by ministers, but he knew it to be by men not tikcon-
nected with ministers. With respect to himself, no man who
thought of him with common candour and fairness, would
think that he had wishes hostile to the constitution of this
country ; honest men would think well of him, and from men
of another description, he knew he should meet with misre-
presentation and slander. It was a misfortune which he had
already frequently incurred, and which he must submit to in
the present instance. He, therefore, in spite of popular cla-
mour, would declare it to be his opinion, because it was his
opinion, that there was that day great cause for alarm in
this country, but that the danger was not to be apprehended
from low and inconsiderable persons, who had read Mr.
Paine's book, and who, perhaps, might not understand it,


4


4




3 I2 VOTE or THANKS TO LORD HOWE [June 16.
but from those who make the weak, instruments in the hands
of the wicked, for the purpose of destroying the fairest, the
most beautiful, the most ornamental, and at the same time
the .


soundest and the best part of the constitution of England,
by suspending the laws for,


the protection of the subject.
That there was in this country, at this day, a party who
thought the present a good opportunity to try to effect their
purpose, and to defeat all the principles of government that
were popular at the accession of the house of Brunswick, who
wished to establish in this country the despotism of some of
the worst governments of the continent, by which all the free-
dom of the constitution of this country, and the blessings we
had enjoyed under it, were to be done away for ever =he was
firmly persuaded : they were active, and not without hopes
of success ; but it was his duty to tell this to the public, that
they might see their danger, know whence it came, and pre-
vent it before it was too late. They were a party who had
always existed in this country, and who, at different times,
under the appellation of high churchmen, Jacobites, and tories,
had endeavoured to destroy the civil liberties of the country.
However odious they might endeavour to make him, he
should not cease to oppose their views, so long as he remained
in this House, and to warn the people of their danger ; and
though, in the execution of this duty, he might have to en-
counter clamour and misrepresentation, be should at least be
secure of the approbation of the wise and good, and also of
his own conscience.


The House then divided :
Tellers. Tellers.


YEAS j Mr. Grey
— NOES I Mr. Jenkinson


Mr. Lambton } 55 *
Mr. John Smyth 208.


So it passed in the negative.


VOTE OF THANKS TO LORD HOWE FOR THE VICTORY OP
THE FIRST OF JUNE.


June 6.


fi R. Secretary Dundas having moved, " That the thanks of
this House be given . to Admiral Earl Howe, for his able and


and gallant conduct in the most brilliant and decisive victory ob-
tained over the French fleet, on the first day of this instant June,
by the fleet under his command."


7794.] FOR THE VICTORY OF THE FIRST OF JUNE. 313


Mr. Fox rose to give his most hearty assent to the motion
now before the House. He declared, he had no doubt of the
spirit, activity, skill, talents, or patriotism of the noble earl :
however in political questions lie might have the misfortune
to differ from him, there was not a man in that House, or in
the country, who had given higher satisfaction in all his profes-
sional life than the noble earl had ; he therefore never heard
a motion which had more decidedly his approbation than the
present. He had uniformly believed, that if the noble earl
should not engage the French fleet, it was only because he
had no opportunity of doing so. The noble earl had, to his
knowledge, been engaged in the service of his country at a
time when faction was extremely high, and, under all the dif-
ficulties that naturally arose under such circumstances, he
maintained his character for spirit, skill, and talents, so as to
make it impossible for any rational man to suppose that he
would not attack an equal force of the enemy at any time.
Having said this in mere justice to the character of the noble-
man who was the deserved object of admiration, he must add,
that he could have wished that the right honourable gentle-
man who brought the business forward, had not introduced
extraneous matters, under the convoy of this victorious fleet,
and that he had not blended mints on which opinions were
divided with those on which there was, as ought to be, perfect
unanimity. Such conduct, on the part of' his majesty's mini-
sters, would, on any other occasion, call for his animadversion ;
but on this he should not say any thing that might, by the
most perverse construction, be supposed to diminish the unani-
mity of the day. With regard to the brilliancy of the victory,
he subscribed to every word that had been said in praise of
it; nor were the observations that were made on the humanity
displayed on the occasion at all misplaced. This added to
the numerous proofs we found in the history of battles, that
true valour and humanity were nearly allied ; and he hoped
to God they would for ever remain inseparable companiong,
Of this victory he should say nothing more, than that he
rejoiced in it as much as any man in England could rejoice in
it; and that, considering it in a defensive point of view, it was4 extremely important to this country, as well as glorious. He
could not, however, help saying, that if at an early period of
the war, any man had said that this was a matter then so doubt-
ful, that on its happening it would be considered as a matter
of' great triumph, and- to be rejoiced at as an event not
to be expected, such a person would have been considered
as making use of a very desponding observation. He re-
joiced in this victory, not on account of its being beyond
his hopes in the beginning, but on. account of the coin-




June 16.3 1 4 ADDRESS OF THANKS TO HIS MAJESTY [


fortable reflection arising out of it ; for it had saved us from
the possibility, and removed our apprehensions of an invasion
from the French ; and if it was made proper use of by


his


majesty's ministers, for the wise and salutary purposes of pro-
curing peace, it would then be indeed a blessing to this country.
If turned to the purposes of peace, then we should have reason
to rejoice, then it would be as solidly useful as it was un-
questionably brilliant; more


• so, perhaps, than this country
ever knew at any period of its history. If, on the contrary,
it was made use of for the impracticable object of destroying
the government of France, though its brilliancy remained,


jits utility would cease. He should say no more upon this sub-ect ; he should not touch on the points which lie could have
wished the right honourable gentleman had passed over, be-
cause he was extremely desirous there should not only be an
unanimity in the vote, but in the language also of that House
on this occasion. He should, therefore, only say, that he
never gave a vote in his life with more complete and heartfelt
satisfilction than the present ; first, as to the noble earl under
whose command the victory was gained ; and next, as to all
the officers and men who acted under him, for be presumed it
was to be extended to them all : a vote, he believed, never
passed that House, that was followed with more general and
cordial concurrence throughout the country.


ADDRESS OF THANKS TO HIS MAJESTY FOR HIS COMMU-
NICATIONS RESPECTING SEDITIOUS PRACTICES.


June Y 6.


THIS day the Lords agreed upon the following address of
thanks to the king, which they sent down to the Commons


for their concurrence :
" Most Gracious Sovereign,


" We, your majesty's most dutiful annd loyal subjects, the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in parliament as-
sembled, having taken into our most serious consideration the
communications, which your Majesty has been pleased to make
to us, respecting designs against the public peace and safety car-
ried on within this realm, think it our bounden duty, at this period,
humbly to lay before your majesty those sentiments to which we
are led by the result of that examination.


" We have seen, with the utmost concern and indignation, that
there has existed within this realm a seditious and traitorous con-


1


1794.] FOR HIS COMMUNICATIONS, &C. 315


:piracy, directed to the subversion of the authority of your majesty
and your parliament, and to the utter destruction of the esta-
blished constitution and government of these your majesty's king-
doms ; and that, for the execution of those wicked and detestable
designs, means of open violence were preparing, and acts medi-
tated, leading to all the horrors of insurrection, anarchy and
rebellion.


with the fullest conviction of these designs, thus deli-
berately entertained, openly avowed, and on the very point of
being attempted to be executed, we feel ourselves bound to express
to your majesty our gratitude for the paternal care which your
majesty has shown for the dearest interests of your people, in hav-
ing taken such measures as might best tend to defeat all such
purposes, and to bring the authors and abettors of them to public
justice.


" We have, on our part, proceeded without delay, after the
example of our ancestors, and under the just impression of the
exigency of such a situation, to vest in your maj esty, by law,
such additional powers as seem best calculated to provide for the
public peace and tranquillity : and we rely with confidence on
your majesty's employing all legal and constitutional means for the
punishment of such crimes ; for the suppression of the first appear-
ance of any tumult or disorder connected with them ; and, gene-
rally, for the giving, as the circumstances manifestly require, full
energy and vigour to the execution of the laws by which all your
majesty's subjects are equally protected, and from which alone
they can derive the secure enjoyment of property, of liberty, and
of life itself.


" And we beg leave to assure your majesty, that, as we are de-
termined to defend with resolution and vigour, against our foreign
enemies, the rights of your majesty's crown: the safety and wel-
fare of our country, and the existence of good order and civil
society, so we will, on every occasion, afford to your majesty the
fullest support and assistance in maintaining inviolate the free
constitution of these realms, in preserving internal peace and tran-
quillity, and in resisting the desperate purposes of those who
would introduce among us the miseries which now prevail in
France ; such being the conduct which we feel to be due from us,
as faithful and affectionate subjects, and as men deeply impressed
with the value of the blessings which we enjoy."


Mr. Pitt having moved, " That this House doth agree with the
Lords in the said address,"


Mr. Fox said he should have been happy, if lie could, con-
sistently with his duty, have given his vote in favour of this
address. Various associations had certainly been formed ;
some of them for laudable purposes, and others for purposes
perhaps not so laudable. He should have considered the ad-
dress with more satisfaction, if he had been persuaded that the
effects of it on the persons who were its declared objects,
would be such as gentlemen who supported. it seemed to ex.




4


316 ADDRESS OF THANKS TO HIS MAJESTY [.Tune 16.
pect. 'With regard to those persons, who had formed them-
selves into associations, with views more or less laudable, as
far as their views were to be judged of from their original pro-
fessions, it could not be suspected that he had any partiality to
influence his opinion. Partiality could be derived only from
general concurrence of sentiment, favour shewii, or support
received. Those persons, however, among many other im-
portant instances of signalizing themselves, had always been
signalized as his personal and political enemies: they were
also, the greater part of them, the very persons who had sup-
ported that system of power against which he had always con-
tended ; they were the persons who had at all times, till very
lately, supported the present minister : who had lent their
utmost aid to bring him into power; and who, by their pre-
sent conduct in opposition to him, contributed more to pro-
mote his measures than by their former support. In the
discussion of public questions, much as he regretted when it
was his misfortune to differ from those with whom he had
long lived in habits of intimacy, or generally agreed on con-
stitutional principles, he was not to be governed by personal
feelings or political kindness. He was not now to debate,
whether or not there were some persons who entertained prin-
ciples and favoured designs hostile to the established govern-
ment of the country. At all times there had been such
persons, and ever would be under any possible system. Was
it not notorious, that during the reigns of the two first princes
of the house of Brunswick, there existed, not a few inconsi-
derable persons, but a party of,great weight and influence,
from numbers, rank, property and character, not merely
entertaining, but actively prosecuting designs hostile to the
protestant succession as established in that house ? But, had
the best bulwarks of the constitution, and the most valuable
defences of our rights been suspended on that account ? No;
the good sense of the people at large, and their attachment to
a system, the practical effect of which they felt to be the pro-
motion of their happiness, rendered fruitless the systematic
hostility of that party. On the decline of that party, by
whatever name it might be called, other disaffected persons,
with the same or perhaps other views, naturally arose. How
this new party acted in 1784, it was unnecessary for him to
mention. Gentlemen could not but know that the system of
vilifying parliament, so successfully pursued at that period,.
must have produced a very great effect, and perhaps been the
immediate cause of all those proceedings which they were now
called upon to repress by such extraordinary measures. The
question to be debated was not the existence of disaffected per-.
sons, but whether what they did was sufficient to call for or


1794.] FOR HIS COMMUNICATIONS, &C. 317


warrant a departure from the ordinary course of administering
the government ? Were not the laws against -seditious or
treasonable practices in full force ? and was not the general
disposition of the peopk loyal and zealous to support the con-
stitution ? What more was necessary?


As the French by their abuse of liberty had brought liberty
itself into disrepute, he warned the House against the fatal
error, of bringing the constitution into contempt with the
people, by teaching them, that it was inadequate to any emer-
gency, that it possessed not vigour to oppose the least attack,
that it held forth the semblance and not the substance of pro-
tection. In discussing questions of war or alliances, they
were told, that it was the prerogative of the crown to declare
war and conclude treaties, and- that parliament was not to
interfere with the exercise of that prerogative, but to punish
ministers in case they abused it. Was it not equally the
prerogative and the duty of the crown to punish all attempts
against the constitution by the regular course of law, and the
province of parliament to animadvert on ministers if they
neglected or betrayed that duty ? No reason could be alleged
for deviating from the ordinary mode in the one case any-
more than in the other. Why, then, were they called upon
to take the lead and give a previous sanction to measures,
which it was their duty only to superintend ? 'What, after
all, was expected from their address ? Professions of loyalty.
Surely, surely, the House of Commons had better means of
manifesting their loyalty than by professions ! Professions
they had already given in abundance, and they were now to


?
()lye no material advice ; they were only called upon to witness
acts, to affirm their belief of the existence of a conspiracy,


which were already in issue on the trials of the persons com-
mitted as accomplices in that conspiracy. The papers in the
report on which the address was founded, were many of them
the composition of ministers : of the authenticity of such
papers, neither the House nor the secret committee had any
knowledge of their own ; and they might all be as false as the
charges upon which Mr. Walker of Manchester was brought
to trial. The effect of the address could only be to publist„
the opinion of the House that the constitution was in danger.


He had flattered himself, that the day on which they had
voted thanks for a great and glorious victory, atchieved by
the united zeal and valour of every officer and seaman in our
fleet, would not have been chosen as the day to sound alarm.
That victory, he trusted, would have banished every idea of
invasion from the enemy, the only circumstance that could
give colour to danger from disaffected persons at home; and
he had hoped that Lord Howe had not only conquered the




313 ADDRESS OF THANKS TO HIS MAJESTY [June 16.
French fleet, but reconquered the habeas corpus act. But
although the cause of alarm was gone, the effect still remained.
What were the numbers of those persons from whom so much
was dreaded, and what their quantity of arms even as stated
in the report? Too insignificant surely to act by open three !
But they talked of a convention. What was the magical in-
fluence of this word, that if' any set of people were to meet
and call themselves a convention the whole nation must be
undone? Were they to form their convention, and attempt
to exercise any authority contrary to law, the nearest justice
of peace, he was fully convinced, might easily disperse them.
Their conversations about arms, too, it appeared were all pri-
vate. They were not held in their public meetings, but by a
few persons after the other members were gone. They did
not venture to trust the secret of providing arms even with
those whom they expected to use them.


Between the former state of France and the state of this
country there was as little resemblance as between what had
happened there and what was apprehended here. There was
not in this country that wide separation of rich and poor,
without any intermediate class, which too generally prevailed
in France. The revolution in France was not begun by the
lower and inconsiderable orders of the people. It was an as-
sembly, uniting in it much of the rank and property, and,
perhaps, the greater part of the talents of the kingdom, that
commenced the French revolution and overturned the ancient
government. Such men as composed some of the dreaded
societies in this country, had risen to power in the progress of
that revolution, but they were utterly:ancapable of beginning
it. He was glad to find that more stress was laid in the re-
port on what had been discovered in Scotland than on the
discoveries made in England; both on account of the natural
predilection which every man felt for the part of' the country
in which he happened to be born, and because it was a com-
plete answer to the desperate proposition with which the
House had been threatened, of introducing the Scotch law
into England. Under the mild system of English law, so
effectual had experience proved it to be, sedition was hardly
to be found ; under the rigorous system of Scotch law, still
existing in full force, sedition had grown up to rebellion.
Such was the fair inference from the report ; and the con-
verse of the argument might be also true. The rigour of the
Scotch law might have tended to raise sedition. Might not
there be many men in Scotland who, like himself, would feel
but little interested in preserving a system of government un-
der which they should be exposed to such treatment as ap-
peared in the cases of Muir and Palmer? In such discussions


794.3 FOR HIS COMMUNICATIONS, &C. 3 19


;:i s were necessarily occasioned by the late proceedings in par-
liament there might be much mischief. in attachment to the
constitution, he would not yield to any man ; but he was
attached to the substance and vital spirit, not merely to the
form. The substance and vital spirit was political freedom.
A convention, and resistance to the form in favour of the
spirit of the constitution, had rescued our ancestors from im-
pending slavery, and seated the House of Brunswick on the
throne. It was the right of the people to meet ; it was their
right to discuss either their private or political affairs. Those
rights were sacred and essential to freedom. If they were in-
vaded and suppressed, the constitution might be reduced,
without a struggle, to a level with those of other countries,
which, perhaps, once resembled our own, and of which the
forms had not long survived the substance. He was, there-
fore, sorry when he saw the people called from that attention
which they ought always to pay to the administration of
the government, to alarms for the existence of their go-
vernment itself; and he now believed the old faction he had
mentioned in a former debate, which, by whatever name, had
uniformly pursued the same plan of throwing all power into
the hands of the crown, to be spreading a false alarm of dan-
ger from one quarter to cover a real danger from another.


A case might be supposed in which it would be the duty of
the people, assembled by their delegates in convention, to call
upon parliament to do what parliament would not do of itself.
Was it not, then, the height of madness to blunt the weapons
and discredit the means to which we must resort in such an
emergency? He would not quote the resistance made to
King .James as an example to prove that the prince on the
throne might at any time be resisted. How then, it would be
asked, was the obedience of the disaffected -to be secured ?
The law had provided for the punishment of the disaffected,
whenever disaffection appeared in their acts. This was the
proper means of prevention ; and the true answer to all that
had been said about suffering the mischief to grow to a head.
To put the law in force, was it necessary for the House to
declare that they believed in the existence of a conspiracy
against the government on evidence which they should have
been ashamed to listen to ? At the Lancaster assizes, Mr.
Walker and other persons were charged with a conspiracy,
which if true, would have amounted to treason. The. evidence,
it was feared, would not be sufficient to make out the charge
of treason ; but, on the principle adopted under some of the
Stuarts, it wa-sthought that it might be sufficient for a charge
of a less heinous nature, and they were indicted for sedition.
The only witness, when he came to be examined, was such D.




3 20 AnnitESs OT THANKS TO HIS MAJESTY [June 16.
witness that the counsel for the prosecution themselves were
ashamed of him, and the defendants were honourably- ac-
quitted. But had parliament before that trial declared their
belief in the conspiracy with which those gentlemen were
charged, a jury, prejudiced and misled by such a declaration,
might have found a verdict of guilty, on the testimony of a
witness, who, in the common course of law, was held to be
unworthy of any credit. Much horror and remorse, lie con-
ceived, must those who advised the prosecution have felt in
such a case; and although they might have obtained a re-
mission of the sentence, they could not have repaired the in-
jury done to the defendants. For these reasons he objected
to that part of the address which declared the belief of the
House in the conspiracy, and should move to leave it out.
He objected, also, to the declarations of loyalty as unnecessary,
but should not vote against them.


An argument had been urged to which he should not at-
tempt an answer, namely, that the second report from the secret
committee being stronger than the first, the second, by the
rule of three, would justify a stronger measure ; and the sus-
pension of the habeas corpus having; been voted on the first,
there could be no objection to voting an address, something
less strong, upon the second. This mode of reasoning,
though -very disputable in logic, was conclusive in numbers, and
therefore he should not divide the House on his amendment.
The party who now governed France had usurped their power
and still maintained it, by the alarm of numerous royalists
existing in the country,—an alarm as false as the alarm of
numerous republicans being.


in England. The principle in
both cases was the same. By propagatino


.
the alarm of re-


-


propagating
publicans here, ministers obtained powers that would not have
been granted, and drew around them the support of persons
who would not have voted for their measures under any other
circumstances. He saw things in both countries with vulgar
optics ; in England a general and steady spirit of royalty,
from a sense of the blessings derived from a limited monarchy ;
and in France, a general and desperate spirit of republi-
canism, from a recollection of the oppression suffered under
despotism. Ministers, to gain supporters in carrying on the
war, wished to reverse the picture, and make the House be-
lieve that France was full of royalists, and England of re-
publicans. If this alarm were not kept up, the people would
attend to the policy and the conduct of the war; they might
even think that the war ought not to be persisted in ; or, if
we could not get out of it, that it ought to be directed by
abler hands. From all these considerations, it was the in-,
terest of -our ministers to divert them as long as possible..


170.]
were there among the persons from whom danger was


renc


ap-


perty
1 .nded any considerable number of men of rank or pro-


, 5 t


? Was it pretended in the report that they had since
the war any correspondence with the French ? -Were they
connected with any faction in the state? If they were to
burst into the House of Commons, it would be indifferent to
them, whether they turned to the right or to the left, whether
ministers or opposition were their first victims. Such men
might possibly rise in a revolution, but could never create
one.


In the advice he now gave, he must be admitted to be
disinterested ; for it would hardly be imagined that he should
wish to go to the guillotine, merely for the sake of being
accompanied by the gentlemen over against him. The pro-
secutions ought to proceed, because they had commenced;
but it was not therefore necessary that parliament, as had
been suggested, should be kept sitting, to echo back the
information received from the privy council. Rash, and
even seditious conversation, he supposed would be proved;
but he trusted no man would be found so far to have forgotten
his duty to his country as to have embarked in treason. At
all events, the trials would be conducted, and the punish-
meats awarded, with the dignity and humanity of British
justice; and the examples, in his opinion, strike With greater
force without any previous declaration by parliament. In
countries where the taking off a few individuals might over-
turn the government, a -few individuals, however obscure,
might effect a revolution; but in such a country as this,
where the revolution must be popular to have the most dis-
tant chance of success, nothing could be more irrational than
the attempt. Suppose such persons mad enough to attempt
it, the danger would be contemptible to all but themselves,
and they might be pronounced fitter for Bedlam than for•
Newgate. This argument, however, applied only to the
present time: for if ministers were to persist in this ruinous
war; if the exploded maxims of divine right were to be
revived; if the dearest parts of the constitution were to give
way, one after another, to the convenience or caprice of the
government of the day, the situation of the people would
become so desperate, that the most despicable faction might
provoke a revolution. What, then, did he recommend ?
To study the peace and prosperity of the people; to hold
out to them, not the unsubstantial theory, but the practical
benefits of the constitution; to shew that the first wish of the
government was the real happiness of the people; to put an
enidtrugtoiL3.1, by






and to inspire them with a love for the eon-
stitution,


exhibiting it in its native purity. Tgshew them


FOR ISIS COMMUNICATIONS ) &C. 321




3 22 VOTE OP THANKS TO LORD HOOD. [June 20.
that liberty was as consistent with order, as order with liberty;
and that the constitution, with all its restrictions on the
executive power, the most valuable part of it, in his opinion, •
was sufficient for all the purposes of just subordination. This
he might be told would be a degradation, and a compromise
with a set of low and desperate men. In his opinion, it would
not be a compromise, but a defeat. With disaffected persons
be proposed no compromise. He was not so wild a spee
culatist, as to believe that any government could satisfy every
one of those who lived under it: his advice was only to retie
der the number of the discontented as small as possible, by
removing as many as possible of the causes of discontent.
Let all civil distinctions on account of religious opinions be.
abolished. Let dissenters find equal protection and equal
encouragement. Let the rights of neutral nations also be
respected, more especially the rights of America, so intimately-
connected with us by common language and common interest.
If at ameris, amabilis esto was a sound maxim in philosophy,
though used by the poet on a slight occasion—if the great
body of men, who were supposed to be adverse to the con-
stitution, should be made to experience an equal protection
from the laws, and an equal interest in the welfare of the
country; then the small body of men, who might wish for
a revolution in this realm, would stand at once insulated
and disavowed. They might be confined if their efforts were
thought dangerous; if not, they would be scouted from .society.
Such were, in his opinion, the means, and the only means,
to secure liberty and happiness to this country.


Mr. Fox concluded with moving, as an amendment, to
leave out from the words " by the result of that examination,"
at the end of the first paragraph, to the words " and we. beg
leave to assure your majesty," at the beginning of the last
paragraph.


.The amendment was negatived, without a, division, and the
original address agreed to.


VOTE. Or THANKS TO LORD HOOD FOR . HIS CONDUCT 'IN
THE EXPEDITION TO CORSICA.-


June 20.
It,. Secretary Dundas having moved, " That the thanks 'of
this House be given to Admiral Lord Flood, for the im-


portant service which he has rendered to this country, by his able


1


9-[•] VOTE OF THANKS TO LORD HOOD. 323


and gallant conduct in the expedition to Corsica," Mr. Sheridan
moved the previous question.


Mr. Fox said he felt himself under the necessity of second-
ing the motion of his honourable friend. He said his situ-
ation was peculiarly delicate in opposing the thanks of the
House to the noble lord, as he had been engaged in political,
contests with him, and those of a nature the most likely to
produce acrimony and ill-blood for the time; but every per-
son who knew him, would do him the justice to say, that his
conduct on the present occasion could not be influenced by
any other motive than a zealous wish to discharge what he
conceived to be his duty to the public. He had had the
honour, upon a former occasion, to vete the thanks of that
House to the noble lord, when he had acted in conjunction,
with Lord Rodney in the West Indies. His duty, however,
called upon him at this time to vote for the previous question.
He thought ministers ought to have stated precisely what it
was they were about to thank the noble lord for : if it was the
conquest of Corsica, certainly the taking of Bastia did not
complete that; and while any part of that enterprise re,-
mained uncompleted, it would have been as well to refrain
from voting the thanks of that House, which had always
been considered the highest mark of honour which could be
conferred upon any person to whom they were given. The
thanks which had been voted a few nights before, he was
sure, proceeded from the most unanimous and general sense,
both of that House and the country at large ; so much so,
that every body would have been astonished had it been
omitted to bring the motion forward upon the very first
opportunity. The thanks moved this day, if they were any
ways merited, he thought, ought to have been moved for
long before, because all that had been done by the noble lord
was known and published long before the glorious victory of
Earl Howe took place He observed, that when Martinique,
in the West Indies, was taken, no mention was made of
thanks to the officers who commanded; and, when other
places of as much consequence as Bastia had been taken,
Valenciennes and Conde, the illustrious general was not
thanked; and therefore he considered there must be some-
thing personal in the business. It could not be said that the
Duke of York was not thanked, from any consideration of
his rank, because many of the royal family had been thanked
by that House for public services, and felt themselves exalted
by the honour. He was inclined to think that, in the whole
of the business that day, there was something rather of a
political than military natue. He adverted to the trans-


x2




324 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
[Dec% 3 0.


actions at Toulon, which he deemed as disgraceful as um.
fortunate. With regard to the importance of Bastia, as con-
nected with Corsica, to which the question at present entirely
related, it did not to him appear to justify the present mea.
Sure. He adverted to the capitulation, which did not tend
to add any laurels to his success. With respect to the noble
lord in question, he knew him to be posessed of great cou-
rage and skill, and capable of conducting the most difficult
enterprises with honour to himself and advantage to his
country; and he entertained that opinion of the gallant offi-
cer, that he was sure he would feel much dissatisfaction at
being thanked for a service so comparatively small. Having
thus given his reasons, Mr. Fox said, he wished that the
previous question might be carried.


The amendment was negatived without a division, after which
the vote of thanks was put and carried.


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEE011 AT THE OPENING Or
THE SESSION.


December 3 o.


711E king opened the session with the following speech to
11 both Houses :


" My lords, and gentlemen ; after the uniform experience which
I have had of your zealous regard for the interests of my people,
it is a great satisfaction to me to recur to your advice and assis-
tance, at a period which calls for the full exertion of your energy
and wisdom. — Notwithstanding the disappointments and reverses
which we have experienced in the course of the last campaign,
I retain a firm conviction of the necessity of persisting in the
vigorous prosecution of the just and necessary war in which we
are engaged. — You will, I am confident, agree with me, that it
i$ only from firmness and perseverance that we can hope for the
restoration of peace on safe and honourable grounds, and for the
preservation and permanent security of our dearest interests.


—In
considering the situation of our enemies, you will not fail to
observe, that the efforts which have led to their successes, and
the unexampled means by which alone those efforts could have
been supported, have produced, amongst themselves, the pernicious
effects which were to be expected; and that every thing which
has passed in the interior of the country has shewn the progressive
and rapid decay of their resources, and the instability of every
part of that violent and unnatural system, which is equally ruinous


1794.1 ADDRESS ON THE XING'S SPEECH.


to France, and incompatible with the tranquillity of other nations.
The States General of the United Provinces have nevertheless


been led, by a sense of present difficulties, to enter into negoci-
ations for peace with the party now prevailing in that unhappy
country. No established government, or independent state, can,
under the present circumstances, derive real security from such
negotiations : on our part, they could not be attempted without
sacrificing both our honour and safety to an enemy whose chief
animosity is avowedly directed against these kingdoms. — I have
therefore continued to use the most effectual means for the further
augmentation of my forces; and I shall omit no opportunity of
concerting the operations of the next campaign with such of the
powers of Europe as are impressed with the same sense of the
necessity of vigour and exertion. I place the fullest reliance on
the valour of my forces, and on the affection and public spirit of
my people, in whose behalf I am contending, and whose safety and
happiness are the objects of my constant solicitude. — The local
importance of Corsica, and the spirited efforts of its inhabitants to
deliver themselves from the yoke of France, determined me not
to withhold the protection which they' sought for ; and I have since
accepted of the crown and sovereignty of that country, according
to an instrument, a copy of which I have directed to be laid before
you. — I am happy to inform you, that I have concluded a treaty
of amity, commerce, and navigation, with the United States of
America, in which it has been my object to remove, as far as
possible, all grounds of jealousy and misundersanding, and to
improve an intercourse beneficial to both countries. As soon as
the ratifications shall have been exchanged, I will direct a copy
of this treaty to be laid before you, in order that you may consider
of the propriety of' making such provisions as may appear necessary
for carrying it into effect. — I have the greatest satisfaction in
announcing to you the happy event of the conclusion of a treaty
for the marriage of my son the Prince of Wales with the Princess
Caroline, daughter of the Duke of Brunswick : the constant proofs
of your affection for my person and family persuade me, that you
will participate in the sentiments I feel on an occasion so interest-
ing to my domestic happiness, and that you will enable me to make.
provision for such an establishment, as you may think suitable
to the rank and dignity of the heir apparent to the crown of these
kingdoms.


Gentlemen of the House of Commons ; the considerations
which prove the necessity of a vigorous prosecution of the war
will, I doubt not, induce you to make a timely and ample provision
for the several branches of the public service, the estimates for
which I have directed to be laid before you. While I regret the
necessity of large additional burdens on my subjects, it is a just
consolation and satisfaction to me to observe the state of our credit,
commerce, and resources, which is the natural result of the con-
tinued exertions of industry under the protection of a free and
well regulated government_


" My lords, and gentlemen ; a just sense of the blessings now
Y 3


-n2
.3




326
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.


[Dec. 30.
so long enjoyed by this country will, I am persuaded, encourage
you to make every effort, which can enable you to transmit those
blessings unimpaired to your posterity.—I entertain a confident
hope that, under the protection of Providence, and with constancy-
and perseverance on our part, the principles of social order, mo-
rality, and religion, will ultimately he successful; and that my
faithful people will find their present exertions and sacrifices
rewarded by the secure and permanent enjoyment of tranquillity
at home, and by the deliverance of Europe from the greatest
danger with 'which it has been threatened since the establishment
of civilized society."


An address of thanks, in answer to the above speech, having
been moved by Sir Edward Knatchbull, and seconded by Mr.
Canning, it ,was objected to by Mr. Wilberforce, as pledging the
House to carry on the war till a counter-revolution was effected in
France : he therefore moved the following amendment : " To
assure his majesty, that we are determined to grant the most liberal
supplies, for the purpose of enabling his majesty to act with vigour
and effect in supporting the dignity of his crown, the internal se-
curity of his dominions, and the good faith towards his majesty's
allies, for which this country has been so eminently distinguished:
and that, notwithstanding the disappointments and reverses of the
last campaign, we are firmly convinced that from the unremitting
exertions of his majesty, and the spirit and zeal which have been
so generally manifested throughout the kingdom, by a people sen-
sible of the advantages they enjoy under his majesty's government,
we may promise ourselves (by the blessing of Divine Providence)
complete security from the attempts of foreign or domestic enemies :
that at the same time we beg leave most humbly to represent to
his majesty, that, upon fill consideration of all the events and cir-
cumstances of the present war, and of some transactions which
have lately passed in France, and also of the ne gotiation entered
into by the States General, we think it advisable and expedient
to endeavour to restore the blessings of peace to his majesty's
subjects, and to his allies, upon just and reasonable terms : but
that if, contrary to the ardent wishes of his filithful Commons, such
endeavours on the part of his majesty should be rendered ineffec-
tual by the violence or ambition of the enemy, we are persuaded
that the burdens and evils of a just and necessary war will be borne
with cheerfulness by a loyal, affectionate, and united people." —
The amendment of Mr. Wilberforce was seconded by Mr. bun-
combe and Mr. Burdon, but opposed by Mr. Windham. The ill
success of the war he solely imputed to the misconduct of some
of the allies. Comparing the events of the present with those of
former wars, he asserted that all that could be said on this subject
was, that hitherto it had only been negatively successful. The
most alarming circumstance attending it was, he said, that we were
not true to ourselves. The political societies in England had
propagated principles inimical to it. The acquittal of those mem-
bers belonging to them, by a jury at the late trials, he represented
in the most odious light, styling them " acquitted felons." Being


1794.1


called to order, he explained himself by saying, that though proofsbad not been adduced of their legal guilt, it did not follow that
they were free from moral guilt. — The desire of terminating a
ruinous war was strongly approved by Mr. Bankes, as equally just
and indispensable; after the fruitless trial to reduce the enemy
to our own terms. If no peace were admissible, while France was
a republic, the war might be endless.— These explicit avowals of
a disapprobation of farther hostilities, on the part of members who
had hitherto coincided with the ministerial system of war, seemed
to strike Mr. Pitt with great surprize. He denied the tendency
of the king's speech to inculcate the continuance of the war till
France re-assumed a monarchical form ; though he acknowledged
his persuasion, that no peace could be depended on, till a kingly
government was re-established ; the only safe one, in his opinion,
for all the European nations.


Mr. Fox said, that exhausted as he felt himself, and dis-
gusted as the House must be at hearing a repetition of the
same arguments upon which we bad been first involved in a
situation disastrous beyond example, if he did not endeavour
to state to the House the necessity of adopting the amend-
ment, or an amendment of some such nature, he should be
-wanting in his duty. On the conduct of the war, not a word
had been said. The honourable baronet who moved the
address, had declined all discussion on that head, expressing
his belief, that those who were entrusted with the direction
of it would give the necessary explanations at a future period.
The time certainly would come for those explanations, or,
a least, for calling for them. At present, lie wished gen-
tlemen to consider the horrible picture which two of his
majesty's ministers had given of our situation : that we were
engaged, and must persevere in a contest, the issue of which
involved, not territory or commerce, not victory or defeat,
in the common acceptation of the words, but our constitution,
our country, our existence as a nation. Viewing this picture,.
he was glad that truth and reason had at length found their
way to the minds of some men. He should have thought it
strange indeed, if, while so many had separated themselves
from him on differences of political opinion, there had
been none to adopt the opinions which +he still retained.
Those who moved and supported the amendment now said,
that the House of Commons ought not, by their address to
the crown, to pledge themselves never to agree to a peace
with France, while the present republican government ex-
isted. Was this a new doctrine? Certainly not: but it was
new to call upon the House for such a pledge. It was the
first time of asking parliament to assure his majesty that they


Y 4


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 327




3 28
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.


[Dec. 3o,
would never think it advisable to treat with the French
republic on the present system, unless in a case of such im-
perious necessity on the part of this country as must preclude
all reasoning; and he gave ministers credit for their candour
in asking it thus fairly, and without equivocation. [Mr. Pitt
intimated across the table that expressions in a former ad-
dress pledged the House to this.] Mr. Fox said, he wished
to give the right honourable gentleman some credit for
candour, but the right honourable gentleman so detested the
thing, that he could not endure even the name. He knew
there were expressions in former addresses that might admit
of such a construction ; and, aware that they would be so
construed, when ministers found it convenient, he had warned,
but in vain, the House against adopting them. If, in the
misfortunes of his country it were possible not to sympathize,
he should feel some consolation in observing the effect of
double dealing; of using words in one sense, with the inten-
tion of their being understood in another ; of courting the
support of some men upon one interpretation, and of others
upon an interpretation directly opposite. If the minister had
said candidly and plainly, in the first instance, " 'This war
is undertaken for the express purpose of destroying the French
government, and, come what will, we can never make peace
while that government endures," he might not, perhaps, have
had so many supporters, but lie would have been saved the
unpleasant feeling of this day's difference with his friends.
His eagerness to obtain the support of all, led him to make use
of equivocal words: and now his own friends told him, that they
did not interpret those words as he did; that they thought
the destruction of the French government a desirable object
if it could be accomplished on reasonable terms; but that if
they had imagined that peace must never be thought of till
that government was destroyed, they would not have voted
for the war. Here was an instance of the minister's deriving
no advantage from equivocation. Here, at length, was what
he had so often laboured, but without effect, to obtain ; —a
clear declaration of the precise object of the war, and of the
terms on which alone we could hope for peace.


This led to the question of policy; and, in proceeding to
examine that question, he found another instance of inge-
nuousness. The speech from the throne, the mover and
seconder of the address, admitted that we had experienced
disasters in the course of the last campaign. The two mi-


. nisters who had spoken on the subject, both said " they would.
not deny" that the enemy had over-run provinces and taken
strong towns. They would not deny ! — astonishing can- ,


794.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 329
dour ! The accession of strength and integrity they had gained
in the cabinet inspired them with such confidence that they
felt bold enough to substitute plain dealing for shuffling and
equivoque — and " they would not deny" that the enemy had
over-run provinces and taken strong towns — when the true
statement was, that never, in any one campaign, since the
irruptions of the Goths and Vandals, had such reverses been
experienced on the one hand, and such acquisitions made on
the other. The French had not only driven the allies from
France, and retaken all the captured fortresses, but were now
actually in possession of all the Austrian Netherlands, Dutch
Brabant, a considerable part of the United Provinces, all the
left bank of the Rhine, except Mentz, part of Piedmont, all
the province of Navarre, and much of Biscay and Catalonia.
— Then ministers were ready to confess that the French had
taken strop °. towns ! Were so many ever taken in any five
campaigns in the history of modern Europe? He should be
told, it was acting the part of a bad subject to exaggerate the
successes of an enemy : he would reply, that he was acting the
part of an honest member of parliament, in telling the House
truths which they ought to hear, as the only grounds of
deciding properly ; and reminding them of disasters which,
not fortune, but folly, had brought upon the country.


On the means by which the exertions of the French had
been hitherto stimulated, much declamation had been wasted.
If we were ever to be, unfortunately, in the same situation
with the French, we should then make similar exertions, and,
not till then. Why not make similar exertions now? Because
we had not similar motives. That we were fighting for our
constitution, our liberties, religion, and lives, did very well
for rounding a period in a speech ; but the people would be-
lieve none of all this, nor that they who said so believed it
themselves. To him it was astonishing, how any set of men
who did believe it could have so worked themselves up, as to
risk such a war on the wild theories they had nourished in
their own minds, or the applauses of those who were but too
ready to applaud upon trust. To hear them, one would think,
that no nation was at peace with France, or tilt, if any were,


Previous to the meeting of parliament several changes in the admi-
nistration had taken place. In July Fitzwilliam was appointed Lord
President of the Council, Earl Spencer Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of
Portland Third Secretary of State, and Mr. Windham Secretary at War.
Before the close of the year Earl Fitzwilliam was appointed Lord Lieu-
tenant of Ireland, and David Earl of Mansfield, (late Lord Stormont,)
succeeded to the Presidency of the Council. Earl Spencer was placed
at the head of the admiralty, and the Earl of Chatham was made Ford.
Privy Seal.




-*;


af


33e ADDRESS ON 'Tilt. KING'S` SPRECII.
[DCC. 30.


it, must already be undone. Was Denmark, Sweden, or even
Genoa, notwithstanding our tyrannical conduct towards it,
in anstate :o •


anarchy, in consequence of being at peace with:
France ? Was America, whose own glorious constitution was
founded on the rights of man? No such thing. NATith Ame--
riea the intercourse Of France was great and constant; in
America, French principles, more than in any other country


_ the principles of liberty and equality — might be expected to
find a genial soil; yet America was so fii• from being thrown
into a state of anarchy by the growth of those dreaded prin-
ciples, that she had just obtained a very advantageous treaty
of amity and commerce with this country—a treaty, as far As
he had heard of it, which justice and policy would have dic-
tated at any time, but which, he feared, the difficulties in
which our ministers had involved themselves, rather than their
justice or policy, induced them to give. Why, then, were
we to be so much afraid of peace with France, when so many
other nations had made the experiment without any mis-
chievous consequences? When men were attached to theories
they shut. their eyes against the plainest and the strongest
facts. The French revolution had now subsisted five years
and a half; and in the sixth year of it we were told, that if we
were to make peace with the present rulers of France, their
terrible principles would spread anarchy and robbery and
bloodshed, not only over this country, but over all the world.
Yet, though their successes had been brilliant beyond example
— and how far success imposes upon the bulk of mankind, the
right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer could tell
better than most men—except in the petty state of Geneva,
the revolution of which he did not know to be upon French
principles, not a single revolution had their example produced.
To us, however, it was said, that their intercourse in time of
peace would be most formidable. From Calais to Dover
they would pour in upon us so many missionaries. What !
had they none already here? Had not ministers told the
House and the public, that for more than two years, jacobin
societies, corresponding with the jacobin societies of France,
had been labouring, with indefatigable zeal, to propagate ja-
cobin principles ? Happily these emissaries, who knew the
habits, manners, and language of our people, had been la-
bouring without effect; nay, he was justified in saying so by
ministers themselves; for, thank God, tilt. king's speech, for
the first time these two years, had nothing of an alarm in it.
There must, then, be something in the French language,
so agreeable, so soothing, so captivating, so intelligible to
English ears that French emissaries would be sure of success,


94•] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 331


where English emissaries had laboured in vain for more than
t wo years !


On the expression—" acquitted felon," which a right ho-
nourable gentleman had used, he hoped inadvertently, since
he had thought it necessary to explain it, he should say no-
thing of how reprehensible it was, either in a constitutional
or moral point of view. Of the societies then in the right
honourable gentleman's mind, he believed the truest de-
scription had been given from the Bench, namely, that


they wanted numbers, arms, money, and even zeal." This,
he believed, would be found to be the accurate description of
any society, formed in this country for the purpose of over-
turning the constitution. That there might be a few spccu-
latists in this country, who would prefer another form of go-
vernment to the present, he had no doubt: there were such
in every country; and even these seldom had much zeal.
But the English language would not do to seduce the people
of England from their allegiance to the constitution. French
emissaries must come over, and inculcate French principles
in the French language. They must go among our labourers
and manufactures, and, as the calamities of ,war had proved
insufficient to rouse them, tell them they were now exposed
to all the calamities of peace ! The right honourable gen-
tleman last alluded to complained of want of zeal in the coun-
try. Surely, our soldiers had not fought with less valour, nor
our officers with less skill, than in any former war. What-
ever bravery or conduct could atchieve, they had uniformly
done ; but it must be recollected, that the general exertion of
a campaign depended upon the numbers brought into the field.


-
When he formerly made a motion in that House for peace,


he found no want of zeal for war, no want of zeal to cry down
any man who had the hardiness to oppose it; at least, he
found enough, and knew not to what greater length it could
have gone, unless they had expelled him the House, or de-
clared him a traitor, as they seemed to think a laudable prac-
tice in other places towards any man who opposed the will of
the majority. What was the cause of that zeal ? Contempt
for the enemy and confidence in their own strength ; and the
cause being gone, the effect had ceased. Such would ever be
the case with zeal founded on false principles. Why were
the zeal and exertions of the French less affected by ill suc-
cess than ours ? Ministers would answer : " They force every
man into the field who is capable of serving, they strip every
other man of whatever they want for the service of the army,
and amid misery, wretchedness, and death, they produce an
unnatural exertion by means of tyranny and terror." At the


16




33 2 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Dec. 30.
call of necessity, even such means must be resorted to. Were
a French army to land in this country, declaring that they
would make no peace with us, till we renounced our consti-
tution and accepted of a form of government according .


to
their fancy, who would deny that every man capable of
serving against them ought to he compelled to service,
and that every sacrifice must be made by individuals to repel
the common danger? Such acts in such cases, instead of
tyranny, became a virtue; and lie was surprised to hear men
of correct minds deducing arguments from them, of which
they ought to be ashamed. " Would we submit," it was
asked, " to treat with the present government of France ?"
Submit to what ? Submit to the French having a bad go-
vernment? Had we not submitted to this for more than a
century ? Had we ever found ourselves uneasy under our sub-
mission to Persia having a bad government ? Had we not
submitted to all the injustice, cruelty and slaughter perpetrated
in Poland? Then it was asked, " Would we submit to pro-
pose peace?" If all nations were to stand upon this point, no
war could ever be concluded, but by the extermination of one
or other of the contending parties, for one or other must sub-
mit to propose peace. But to propose peace was no sub-
mission, no degradation. Peace had often been proposed by
the victorious party, and this had always been deemed an act
of wisdom and magnanimity, not of concession. What were
all the other degradations and submissiops but lofty words
and unmeaning phrases ?


We had once said, that we would never treat with the pre-
sent government of France. Take away this impediment to
peace, and every advantage we obtained afterwards, if the
war must be continued, would be something in our favour ;
whereas, while that remained, our successes would only stimu-
late the enemy to fresh exertions, by fresh sufferings and fresh.
sacrifices; for it was impossible to suppose that the French
government would ever negociate for its own destruction.
Would not this give a clear sanction of justice to the war?
Would it not produce unanimity with greater zeal and exertion
at home, by convincing every man that we were not at war
for unreasonable or impracticable objects, but to bring an un-
reasonable enemy to equitable terms of peace? But what
might it not be expected to produce in France, where, as mi-
nisters said, the government was perpetually changing from
hand to hand, and the loss of power marked the period of
life? Ministers were always speculating on the internal affairs
of France; why not try a little of this speculation? The con-
vention, they said, deluded the people by telling them that ,
they were waging a war-of extermination,To offer to treat


T794.] ADDRESS ON TRE KING'S SPEECH. 333,


would put an end to the delusion, the people would open
their eyes, and the convention must give them peace or meet
the extermination which they were said to denounce against
others.


The present state of the war was calamitous beyond exam-
ple. We had gained Martinico, Guadaloupe, St. Lucia, and
part of St. Domingo, in the West Indies, with Corsica in
the Mediterranean. Our allies had lost all lie had enumerated
in the former part of his speech. If these astonishing ex-
ertions of the enemy by land had impeded their exertions by
Sea, it would be something; but, unfortunately, the prediction
in one of the king's speeches, that their navy had received an
irrecoverable blow at Toulon, was already falsified, Was it
not true, that a fleet had already sailed from that port supe-
rior in point of number to our fleet in the Mediterranean?
Their naval exertions at Brest had afforded Lord Howe one
of the most glorious triumphs in the annals of our history..
If their navy had been such as ministers represented it at the
commencement of the war, viz. a navy only upon paper, Lord
Howe would not have had the glory of beating an enemy of
superior force. But even that blow proved not to be irrepa-
rable, for they had now a fleet at sea which it was doubtfull
whether we could immediately collect a sufficient force to
drive from the English channel. These circumstances were
matter of very serious consideration to every man who felt
for the honour and safety of his country. If the war should
go on, must we not expect, from what we had seen, that
the enemy would again dispute with us the superiority at sea?
The skill and courage of our navy he confided in as un-
matched by any nation in the world ; but skill and courage
could not always compensate for inequality of force, and as
our chance of victory was greater, so was our stake. The
defeat of the French fleet, as we had so lately experienced,
would be of little consequence to the general issue of the
campaign, while the defeat of our fleet would be little short
of absolute destruction. Why, then, expose us to such un-
equal risk? It was admitted, however, that when disaster
had subdued obstinacy and extinguished hope, we must make
peace, even with the French republic. Then, indeed, all
that was now imagined of humiliating and degrading would
be true; we must throw ourselves at the feet of those we had
contemned and reviled, perhaps exasperated, and submit to
whatever terms they thought fit to impose. Why expose
ourselves to the bare possibility of such ruin ? Why not T,-
pounce the visionary project of overturning the present go-
vernment of France ? If after that they abused the peace
we made with them, we should do as we had done with France




334 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
[Dec. 3e,


before, contend for superiority with the same &ice and the
same exertion. Ifasked, what terms of peace he would advise,
he would answer, that to adjust the terms' was the business of
ministers, who alone possessed the necessary information. Let
them propose such terms as, on a consideration of all the
circumstances of the relative strength of the contending par-
ties, of what might be gained and what lost on either side,
they should judge to be fair and equitable; and, if these were
refused, we should be in a better situation than before, be-
cause both parties would know what they were fighting for,
and how much the attainment of it was worth.


Another difficulty arose from the French ro yalists. Thank
God, he was innocent of whatever might befal these unfortu-
nate men ! Re had deprecated the war in the first instance,
and after its commencement, every act which could give the
'French emigrants reason to expect our support in their pre-
tensions upon their own country. Next, it was said : " Will
you give up the West India islands; will you deliver over those
men to the vengeance of- their implacable enemies, who, as the
price of your protection, assisted you in taking those islands?"
To these questions, let them answer who had sacrificed the
French emigrants fighting in our pay, in almost every garri-
son we had been compelled to surrender, who had thrown
men into situations from which they could not be extricated,
nor yet receive the ordinary protection of the laws of war. .
These might be difficulties. to the minister : these might be
reasons why he could never be able to extricate himself from
the business with honour; but it was the nation's honour, not
the minister's, about which he was anxious.


The honourable baronet who moved the address, had ex-
pressed his hopes of a unanimous vote in support of it. If it
were to be voted unanimously, this country could never make.
peace with honour ; if there were a division upon it, part of
the country would come out clear. In his majesty's speech,jthere was no mention of allies; it was only said, "that his ma-esty will omit no opportunity of concerting the operations of
the next campaign with such of the powers of Europe as are
impressed with the same sense of the necessity of vigour andjexertion." 'Who those';powers might be we were left to con-ecture. The Dutch, however, we were told, were negoci-
ating, and the King of Prussia, we knew, bad failed. The.
honourable gentleman who seconded the address, had given
him the credit of predicting this failure ; but had added, that'
lie himself had predicted the fall of Robespierre and various
other matters which had also come to pass. The honourable
gentleman might have predicted that it would be a dry sum-
mer or a rainy autumn ; he resigned teollim all the honour
of prediction. For his own. part, he bad predicted nothing ;


ADDRESS ON TH1; KING'S SPEECH. 335


he had only used the best arguments he was able, to show that,
from the past conduct of the King of Prussia, there could
be no reliance on any engagement he might enter into-with
us; and the event had shown that those arguments were well
founded. The minister himself would not now promise us
any assistance from the King of Prussia beyond his con-
tingent as an elector of the empire, even on the treaty of I 787.
But the emperor was to make a great augmentation of his
forces, by money borrowed on our credit. Why on our
credit? Plainly, because he had no credit of his own. 'Were
there no monied men in the emperor's dominions? Were
the capitalists of Europe so short-sighted, so slow in perceiv-
ing the advantages of an imperial loan, that they could not
see them, till pointed out by our government? They saw the
advantages; but they would not lendi their money, because
they knew the borrower was not to be trusted. The loan was
neither more nor less than a subsidy under another name, a
distinction so flimsy and so trifling, as he had hoped never to
have seen attempted by the ministers of great potentates.


Mark, then, the desperate situation to which we were re-
duced. The only ally from whom we had any hopes of ef-
ficient aid was the emperor ; and from him, .for the enormous
sum of six millions, we might get as good and!as useful a
subsidiary treaty, as was our treaty with the King of Prussia.
last year. The .emperor, it would be said, had more faith—
so it was said of the King of Prussia; but he had very little
confidence in the faith of thecabinet of any absolute monarch.
During the American war, a noble marquis then command-
ing a separate army, expressed his , great surprize at finding
the people of Virginia so like the people of- Carolina. Next.
year we might have to express our great surprize at finding
the King of Bohemia so like the Elector of Brandenburglt
He would agree to put the whole argument on the opinion
of any experienced officer who had served the last campaign
on the continent, whether or not there was any rational
hope of co-operation between the • English and the Austrian
army. They hated one another-more than either hated the
French ; and from the battle of Tournay, wherethe Austrians
fought the whole day, or rather stood the whole day with.
out fighting, and the enemy were repulsed by a detachment -
of the British army, their mutual complaints and recriminations
had been incessant.


But the finances . of France • were exhausted, and therefore
we ought to try whose finances would. hold out the longest
Into this part of the question he would not enter, because vfe
were told the very same thing last year, and on the very same
arguments. The king's speech last year said the resources of




336 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
[Dec. 3o.


the French were rapidly .declining: but " rapidly" was only a
relative term ; they were again rapidly declining this year;
and so they might be ten years hence. The fall of Robe-
spierre— he seemed a great favourite on account of his power
— it was said had relaxed the terror, and consequently the
energy, of the French system. The fall of Robespierre, from
the stress laid upon it, one would think a tale of yesterday ;
but when we looked at dates, we should find that he was put
to death on the 27th of July, and since that time there ap-
peared at least no relaxation of the French successes. Mo-
deration, it was contended, must weaken their government
and cripple their exertions; he believed no such thing ; lie
looked to general principles, and inferred that moderation gave
strength. Why, it was asked, were we to look for less co-
operation in the interior of France than formerly'? Because
there was no insurrection at Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon, and,
he apprehended, very little in La Vendee. Our resources, it
was said, were not yet touched. No ! The speech did not
tell us, as last year, that the burdens to be imposed would be
little felt by the people— an omission he much regretted, as
it certainly was not made in compliment to his arguments on
the impropriety of such an insertion. Would the right ho-
nourable the chancellor of the exchequer say, that if the war
was continued another year, the people had yet felt one-tenth
of the new taxes they must have -to bear? Taxes were felt,
by the poor, and their situation was particularly to be con-
sidered, when the object of the war was so equivocal, that it
might be doubted whether the attainment of it would be desir- .
able, even if it could be attained by making peace. Ministers
appeared to know every thing that was passing within France,
but nothing that was passing out of it. Of the sailing of
fleets from French ports, which it might be worth knowing,
they had no information. Just so our hostility seemed to do
every thing within France, to raise a tyrant and to pull him
down, but to do nothing out of France.


The depreciation of assignats was with him an argument -
of little weight. He had been accustomed for years to hear
that the paper currency of America was depreciated, not to
one half or one fourth of its nominal value, but to nothing.
His information, however, differed entirely from that of the
chancellor of the exchequer on the depreciation of assignats.
On the ruined state of French commerce it coincided; but on .
the state of industry and agriculture it totally disagreed. He
was told by American gentlemen, and these by no means par-
tial to French principles, that at no former period had the
cultivation or the produce of the soil been near so great.,
When he heard of the sunimum and the expedients con-


I 794•] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 337


nected with it, he inferred that the misery and distress of the
poor must be necessary consequences. He was assured, how-
ever, that the poorer classes of people in France had now a
much greater portion of all that to them constituted the com-
forts of life, than had ever fallen to their lot before the Revo-
lution, or perhaps to the lot of ninny of the poor of this coun-
try. It might be said, that his informants were inaccurate
observers or false relators ; but who were they from whom
ministers derived their information ? The very persons who,
deluded themselves, had an interest in deluding ministers into
the prosecution of a hopeless contest. He depended not alone
upon the accuracy of those with whom he conversed. The
circumstances they stated he found confirmed by the pain-
phlets of French emigrants.


But he did not rest his politics on the situation of France,
of which his knowledge must be imperfect; he looked to the
situation of England, which he had the means of knowing; he
saw us involved in a war which must produce increase of debts
and taxes, with no compensation even in prospect, and thought
that the sooner we got out of it the better. Peace, it was
said, would be insecure ; we should not be able to disarm be-
cause the French could not venture to disband their numerous
armies, and bring back so many men, without fixed habi-
tations or employments, into the heart of the country. Thus
were ministers reduced to this curious argument, " We ought
to continue the war, because the French have an army which
they cannot disband." What the effects of peace might be in
France, whether the old government would be restored, or a
better system established in its room, were speculations which,
as a philosopher and philanthropist, he might indulge in, but
never as a member of parliament or a counsellor of his majesty,
adopt as principles of conduct. It was pretended that our
hostility had already produced a change of system for the bet-
ter; but on comparing facts with dates, we should have more
reason to say that our hostility produced the system, with re-
ference to which only the present system was admitted to be
better ; that our invading France had made Robespierre a
tyrant, and our running away destroyed him. In giving his
vote for the amendment, he should wish to leave out the words,
"transactions which have lately happened in France," because
we were not to treat with any set of men on account of their
good or bad characters, but on account of their possessing the
power to treat. If, however, the gentlemen who moved and
seconded the amendment, should object to leaving out those
words, he should vote for it nevertheless.


Our acquisition of Corsica, although mentioned in the
speech, had not been once noticed in the debate. The mode in


VOL. V.




.338 ADDRESS ON TIIE KING'S SPEECH. [Dec. 3o.
which we had made the acquisition was curious. If it was
valuable to the enemy or important to us, we might fairly have
taken possession of it by right of conquest; as we had taken the
West-India islands ; but we had not done so. We had done
it in a way that illustrated the doctrine in Dr. Price's sermon,
rendered so conspicuous by the notice taken of it in the Re-
flections on the French Revolution, a book of such excellence,
that a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Windham) had re-
commended reading it over again, having probably done so
himself, as he had changed his first opinion of it. His ma-


ofjesty .was once king ot North America ; he was now king of
Corsica. In North America he had been cashiered, in Cor-
sica he had been elected — so that the doctrine of electing
kings, and cashiering them for misconduct, was not matter
of dangerous theory, but of approved practice. Sir Gilbert
Elliot convened the primary assemblies of Corsica ; they chose
delegates, who met with various other persons, and all had
voices that came ; so that the election, by his own account,
was something very like universal suffrage. But this was not
all—his majesty had previously determined not to withhold
from the inhabitants of Corsica the protection which they
sought for in their spirited efforts to deliver themselves from
the yoke of France ; and thus was made by his ministers to
avow acting upon the famous decree of the French conven-
tion, holding out protection to the inhabitants of all countries
who should-make efforts to deliver themselves from the yoke
of the government under which they lived — a decree which
the mere circumstance of the convention having passed, with-
out having ever acted upon it, was two years ago held forth
as a sufficient cause of war with France. On the propriety
of his majesty's accepting the crown of Corsica, without con-
sulting parliament, he should say nothing at present ; but lie
had much doubt of its ultimately conducing to the honour
of this country, or contributing to the restoration of peace.


If we were never to treat with the heads of the convention,
but in such extremity as left no room for choice, when
could we look for peace ? He wished the chancellor of the
exchequer would recollect that his honour, and the honour
of the country, Were two distinct things; and that it was too
much to wait till the hour of extremity came, merely that he
might be able to say,


Potuit qua: p]urima virtus,
Esse fuit-


When he proposed treating, he held it more honourable not
to wait till he was beaten into it. The country was already
sorely beaten ; it had received wounds both deep and wide,


1794.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S 8PEECI3. 339
but the obstinacy of ministers was not yet conquered. Per-
haps, as they thought upon the same principle, that it would
be dishonourable to restore the conquered West India islands,
they were waiting till the French should retake them. He
knew not if this was their intention, but they had given time
French ample opportunity.


if it were advisable to go on with the war, let us look at
the conduct of it for two campaigns, and see what hope we
could have of success under the auspices of those who now
directed its operations, Lord Chatham had retired from the
admiralty, full of glory, covered with laurels, for his able dis-
position of our naval force, and the active protection he had
given our trade. If the boasts of last year on this subject were
true, it was unfair to check his lordship in the career of his
glory, and unjust to deprive the country of his services at so
important a crisis. But the boasts of last year were not true;
his retiring was a confession of incapacity or negligence; and
if he had delayed it much longer, there would have been pe-2
titions for his removal. To the West Indies such a force had
been sent, as nothing but the great abilities of the officers
who commanded it could have enabled to take the French_
islands, and, when taken, was insufficient to defend them,
To Toulon such a force was sent, as was too small for (lc,
fence, and too great to retreat with honour. The projected
invasion of France had been kept alive from year to year,
and served only to_ weaken our strength in quarters where it
ought to have been more powerful, without even an attempt
to carry it into execution. Were our cause as good as our
resources were said to be inexhaustible, with such weakness,
such want of system, such hesitating, such wavering incapacity
in the direction of our force, we could hope for no success.


If the honourable gentleman who moved the amendment,
and his friends (for the honourable gentleman he felt great
respect, on account of the part he had taken in the abolition
of the slave trade, a measure in which he felt deeply inte
rested,) thought that, in consequence of their aiding him to
obtain a speedy peace, peace might be made, without an inquiry
into the causes of the war, he gave them notice that he would
receive support upon no such terms. He would never forego
inquiry into the causes of the war, and measures to prevent
similar calamities in future. This was clue to the people, least,
in the enjoyment of peace, they should forget their former
sufferings from war, and again yield themselves up to delusion.
Both the present and the


i
war were owing to a court


party in this country, that hated the very name of liberty ; and
to an indifference, amounting to barbarity, in the minister, to
the distresses of the people. It was some consolation to him


Z 2




340 MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE BILL [Jan. g,
that he had done his utmost to prevent the war, and to know
that those who provoked it could not but feel, even while they
were endeavouring to persuade others of the contrary, that
they must, in no very long space of time, adopt the very course
which he was recommending as fit to be adopted now. In
the speech, not a word was said of the navy. He should only
observe, that in our present circumstances, the neglect of
building a single ship that could possibly be built, was a ne-
loulect highly criminal.


The House divided on Mr. Wilberforce's amendment :
Tellers. Tellers.


.1 Col. Maitland j
Mr.Serjt.Watson7


— NOESt Mr. Whitbread ' 3 ' Mr. Sumner
.


So it passed in the negative.


MR. SHERIDAN'S MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE BILT,
FOR SUSPENDING THE HABEAS COltPUS ACT.


January 5. 795•


rrIIIS day Mr. Sheridan moved for leave to bring in a bill ta..
A repeal the act of the last session " to impower his majesty-


to secure and detain such persons as his majesty shall suspect are
conspiring against his person and government." The motion was
strongly opposed by Mr. Windham, who imputed the favourable
verdict of the jury, in the late trials of the persons accused of
conspiracy, to ignorance and incapacity to discern the true state
of' the case before them. He asserted, that the real object of the
societies was to overturn the constitution, and that the principles
imported from France would produce the worst effects, unless.
they were opposed with the strictest vigilance. The propriety of
continuing the suspension of the habeas corpus act was discussed,
in a long and elaborate speech, by Mr. Erskine, who concluded, from
what had passed on the trials, which he accurately recapitulated,
that a conspiracy had been explicitly disproved. This being the
basis on which the suspension rested, no pretence could remain for
its continuance ; which would be to suspend the liberty of the whole
nation, on the mere suspicion of some individuals. Mr. Serjeant
Adair replied, that if the determination of a jury were never to be
called in question, the liberty of the subject would stand on feeble
ground. Parliament, he said, was clearly entitled to investigate
the conduct of juries ; otherwise there would be no redress against
the corruption of juries or of judges, nor against ministerial op.
pression.


YEAS


T795,] FOR SUSPENDING THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT. 341


Mr. Fox said, that if a person unacquainted with the rules
of proceeding in that House, had listened to the speech just
delivered, he would have thought he had heard a learned ser-


jeant pleading for a new.trial, an inflammatory orator excitingto var, by a declamation on the state of France, or an ad-
mirer of the constitution opposing some motion for altering
the government ; but it never would have come into his head,
that the speaker was attempting to prove the necessity or
the use of continuing the suspension of the habeas cor-
pus act. On this, which was in fact the whole question in
dispute, not one word had been said by his learned friend.
Whenever the repeal of that suspension was proposed, the
proof lay all on the side of ministers ; for if they could not
prove, that to continue the suspension was absolutely necessary,
it ought not to be continued for a moment. They were bound
to do more: — they were bound to prove that it was useful.
But, of what use could they now prove it to be ; or what
good purpose could they shew to be answered by it? Had
they discovered a new treasonable conspiracy? or, having
failed in their first attempt to prove treason, did they know of
any new persons fit to be taken up on the old plot, and on
whom a second experiment might be made with better hope
of success ?


It had been asked, wherein the difference consisted, be-
tween the state of the country when the suspension act was
passed, and its present state ? It consisted in this, that mini-
sters had prosecuted the persons whom they considered as the
principals in the alleged conspiracy ; that, with respect to some,
they had failed in establishing the charge, and, with respect
to others, had declined proceeding. They were now called
upon to say what object they expected to obtain, by continuing
the suspension ; for their old object was gone. Would they
say, that they had prosecuted the wrong persons, that the
conspiracy existed, although they had been mistaken as to
who were the conspirators, and that they meant still to go on
prosecuting ? They could not say so, for the effect of the
verdicts of Not Guilty, at least the prudential effect, as ap-
peared by their own conduct, was, that not a single per-
son was now under prosecution on account of the supposed
conspiracy. It was unworthy of the talents of the learned
serjeant to attempt to influence the House, by arguing as if it
were intended to set up the decision of a jury as paramount to
the authority of parliament. Was the suspension of the
habeas corpus act a question of general legislation? He feared
it was; for, from what he had heard, there was too apparently
an intention to render it perpetual. But, on a particular case,
which parliament, by what some thought sufficient ground for


z3




1195.] FOR SUSPENDING THE IIABEAS CORPUS ACT. 343


supposing the conspiracy to be proved, had been but little
relied upon by his counsel; a strong presumption, at least,
that the verdict of the jury was founded on their disbelief of
a -treasonable conspiracy. On the law of treason, (for dis-
cussing which at large a proper time would come,) he should
only say now, that he maintained the doctrine of his honour-
able and learned friend (Mr. Erskine,) and the admirable
maxim of Lord Coke, thatjudicandum est legibus ?Wit exemplis.
He reprobated Mr. Windham's doctrine of making old laws
apply to new cases by construction, which, he said,


making


made
the learned serjeant shudder, and which no jury, no judge,
he hoped would ever adopt. ("Mr. Windham said, he (lid
not mean that juries should go farther than construction was
warranted by precedent.] Neither precedent nor anthority
would sanction the kind of construction which the right ho-
nourable gentleman had talked of, and he would recommend
to his attention the advice of Lord Hale, viz. that if new
cases should arise not within the letter of the treason, it would
be the wisest way to consult parliament, and to be very wary
of making constructive treasons by parity of reasoning; for
if that _.:..actice were once adopted, no man could -'know
where it would end. Prophetical was this expression, and to
this law he adhered ; for if it were not law, there ought to
be an act of parliament declaring it to be so.


The inquest of a grand jury was secret, and on ex parte
evidence. The very nature of its functions took from the
authority of its decision. The finding of a grand jury was
not, even in law, a bar to an action against a malicious pro-
secutor ; much less could it be adduced as a proof of legal
or moral guilt against time acquittal of a petty jury. Before
a grand jury witnesses might be brought, (lie meant not to
insinuate that such had been the case in the late prosecutions,)
that no prosecutor would dare to produce before a petty jury,
where they were to be cross-examined, confronted with other
witnesses, and their characters investigated. A grand jury
might be deceived, not only with respect to the appearance
of guilt against an individual, but even withrespect to the
existence of the crime charged. It was not by any means
necessary that the judge or the jury should have said that the
proof of the conspiracy had failed the moment the evidence
for the prosecution was closed, although he should have felt
no difficulty in saying so. They might think that there were
matters which required explanation on the part of the pri-
soner, and therefore hear his defence, and when they had
heard it:, they could not refuse to bear the reply on the part
of the prosecution.


z4




itionorot tot, THE REPEAL OF TIE BILL [Sail
a temporary measure, had been induced to adopt, would it
at all derogate from their dignity to yield to the decision of
juries, perhaps more in the habit, and better fitted fOr the in-
vestigation of evidence, and with more evidence before them ?
With the learned serjeant he did not, in one point of view,
love to contend, because there was no man fin- whom per-


subje
sonally, and on account of his constitutional principles on most


cts, he felt more respect ; and few men possessed greater
powers of reasoning: But, in another point of view, he loved
to contend with him, because in general lie stated his adver-
sary'sargument fairly. Hence the argument of the learned
serjeant, and that of his honourable and learned friend (Mr.,
Erskine) as stated by him, were by no means incompatible,
and both went in fact to support the motion. The jury ac,
quitted Hardy, either because they did not find a treasonable
conspiracy made out by the evidence, or because they did not
find that Hardy was implicated in the conspiracy. Now,
he contended with Mr. Erskine, that they acquitted him on
the former reason.: Why ? Because all the papers alluded
to by the learned serjeant were signed by Hardy or brought
home to him as a party, and if the jury believed that those
papers contained proofs of treason, they could he under
no difficulty in finding that Hardy was an accomplice in - -
that treason. Which was it more easy to imagine, that
the jury did not think the papers amounted to proof of treaa.
SOD, or that they could not read Hardy's name at the bottom
of them ? The learned serjeant, in a speech chiefly intended to
jury
shew the treason contained in those papers, appealed from the. .,


to the House " And here," said Mr. Fox, "let me
adore the trial by jury ! When this speech was made to an-
other 1-


jury, (Theiwall's,) a speech which has been to-night re-
ceived with such plaudits, that we seemed ready ire pedibug


sententiam, it was answered with a cold Not Guilty. Such
would have been my verdict, had I been in their place; such
will ever be the judgment of men consulting their conscience
and not their passions. But such is the partiality of the
learned gentleman for his own chain of reasoning, that he
will rather believe the jury blind to the name of Hardy, at
the bottom of the papers he signed, than deaf to his argin,
ments, that these papers were full of treason." Mr. Erskine,
he contended, had renounced no part of what he maintained -
as the law of treason, on the trials. But it was said, he had
not rested the defence on that alone, which, if true, would A*have been conclusive — if lie had omitted any point that
could be urged, he would, in such a case, have failed in his
duty to his clients. It was said from the bench, that the
argument of Hardy's not being implicated in the conspiracy,




'3144


MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE BILL [Jan. 5,


But, were he to give up this part of the argument, and
admit the conspiracy, how would the matter stand ? There
would then he a conspiracy without conspirators. Gentle-
men of such acuteness as to define and divide our successes
in the campaign could easily conceive the abstract of a
conspiracy without conspirators, like Crambe in Martinus
Scriblerus, who swore that he could, " frame a conception of
a lord mayor not only without his horse, gown, and gold chain,
but even without stature, feature, colour, head, feet, or any
body, which he supposed was the abstract of a lord mayor."
If they had tried every man and woman in the kingdom, and
found that none of them were accomplices, this abstract of a
conspiracy could not be very formidable. They had not
done this in form, but they had done it in fact. They had
charged certain persons with conspiring together, and with
other persons unknown. Some of these they had tried, and
the juries returned verdicts of not guilty. If they thought
these verdicts wrong, why did they not go on ? Why did
they suffer others to be acquitted, without attempting to prove
the charge, against whom they had as good, if not better evi-
dence ? All the guilt must now lie with the persons un-
known. Did they mean to drag these persons to light, and
bring them to trial? They would not pretend they did.
They ceased to prosecute, because they were satisfied they
could not convict. They had, therefore, virtually acquitted
every man and woman in the kingdom, except the few whom
the juries acquitted of this treasonable conspiracy, and no-
thing but the abstract of it was left. Was it to guard against
the abstract of a conspiracy that the habeas corpus act was
to remain suspended, and the people deprived of the best
safeguard of their liberties ? A right honourable gentleman
(Mr. Windham) had given an explanation of his former
words, "acquitted felon," but an explanation as unsatisfactory
as the expression itself; and had asked how others could re-
joice in such acquittals? " For my own part," said Mr.-Fox,
" I hardly remember when I felt joy more nearly approach-
ing to exultation than on these acquittals. I rejoiced that the
country was rescued from the foul stain attempted to be fixed
upon it. I rejoiced that we had escaped from the perils of
constructive treason. I rejoiced that the people would sec
through the slanders by which they had been deluded into a
ruinous war; and, as I believe they have done, more in con-
sequence of those acquittals than of any other circumstance,
recover from their delusion, and wish that war at an end."
A man, it was said, might be acquitted on'a misnomer, or a
flaw in the indictment, which would be no proof of his in-


795.] FOR. SUSPENDING THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT. 345


nocence : — granted ; but was either the case in the trials for
treason ? To what end, then, were such grounds of acquittal
alluded to? A man charged with picking a pocket might be
acquitted for want of legal evidence, and yet nobody doubt
of his guilt : true — because men charged with such offences
might have so concealed their actions, that, although their
guilt was believed, there could be no proof either of the actior the ntent. But was this the case of any of the persons
charged with treason ? Was proof wanting of their actions,
their words, nay, almost of their thoughts I On Thelwall's
trial, a. letter had been produced, written indeed by him, but
never sent to or seen by any person till his papers were
searched. This reminded him of the unpublished papers
produced as evidence on the trial of Algernon Sydney, a
circumstance, which, perhaps, more than his merit, great as
that was, had endeared his name to posterity ; for it was one
of the most valuable qualities of our nature to ascribe merit
where we saw persecution. Every thing done, said, or written
by the prisoners, had been brought against them ; the jury
must have acquitted them, because they could not so qualify
their acts, as they were qualified in the indictment; and there-
fore their acquittal was a complete declaration of' their inno-
cence. A jury, it was said, was bound to acquit when doubt-
ful. The House was now sitting as a jury on the palladium
of the liberty of the subject, and surely ought in this to
imitate the conduct of a jury, and not decide against it with-
out clear proof. It was said, that to suspend the operation
of it would save the necessity of bringing other persons to
trial. Just such was the defence of lettres de cachet in
France. They were only to save the necessity of bringing
people to trial ; but they might do this for the whole life of
the prisoner. He lamented to see men whom he esteemed,
accustom themselves to speak of such things with patience,
for indefinite imprisonment had been the instrument of tyranny
in all countries.


When the late Lord Camden, a man desery dly popular,
and to whom, as a constitutional lawyer, the country bad
great obligations, once defended a measure of government as
being only " a forty days' tyranny," how much indignation
did the expression excite. Even from such a man, English
ears could not endure to hear of a forty days' tyranny. But
now, men could talk without a blush of suspending the
safeguard of the subject against capricious or mistaken im-
prisonment for any length of time. It was said, that gentle-
men who would not allow the verdicts of English juries to
be impeached, had thought themselves at liberty to treat the
verdicts of Scots juries with very little respect. When Scots




1795.] Loft SUSPENDING THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT. 347


When they are Constantly dinning in our ears that the ex-
ample of the French people ought to put us on our guard
against the licentiousness of the English. people, and calling
upon us to prevent licentiousness by cutting down every fence
of liberty, we have surely a right to say, that the example of
foreign despotism ought to put us equally upon our guard
against the increasing power of the crown. In what- instance,
they demand, has the King of England been made more like
the tyrants of the continent ? I answer, by the alien bill,
by the traitorous correspondence bill, by the suspension •of
the habeas corpus act. Are these light or trivial instances,
or how many more do they mean to give us? Have they yet
deigned to tell us, or do their incurable and increasing alarms
point out where they may be expected to stop ? Thus, with
their usual injustice, they charge us with intending to do
what they, on pretext of preventing us, are constantly doing:
The dissenters, formerly, in times at least as perilous to the
family on the throne as at present, approved the firmest
friends of the constitution, are now represented as its enemies,
as meditating nothing less than the subversion of church and
state, and the destruction of private property. The dissenters
endeavour to repel the charge by rational argument and
peaceable demeanour. An orthodox and loyal mob prove it
upon them by burning their houses, menacing their persons,
and plundering their property. Why is it that men in other
respects of acute mind and sound judgment, cannot see to
which side the charge of insurrection and anarchy properly
belongs? It is because their understandings are blinded by
excessive fondness for a system of reasoning of their own in-,
vention ; because the natural love•of our intellectual offspring
is as powerful as our love of the offspring of the body ; be-
cause real dangers make no impression when compared with
the phantoms of a. distempered imagination."


The separation between him and many of those with whom
he had long acted in politics, and been connected by the
dearer ties of private friendship, no man could lament more
sincerely than he did. Those who had lately given a great
accession of abilities and character to the cabinet, he was per-
suaded, had been influenced by no personal views, but had
acted as they thought would be most advantageous to their
country. But, while he did justice to the purity of their
motives, he could not help observing, that they had given a
deadly blow to public confidence in public men ; a very serious
evil to tho public in his opinion. They had weakened all the
reciprocal ties, by which men, , who differed on particular
points, as all men of liberal and active minds must ever do in
some degree, were enabled to act together on a general Sys.'


346 MOTIOT FOR THE REPEAL OP THE BILL [Jan, S.
juries should be ameliorated, and put more nearly on the
same footing with English juries, their verdicts would be en-
titled to equal deference. When, however, he read the trials
of the two persons convicted of high treason in Scotland, if,
indeed, it was not an abuse of words to call the trial of
Downie a conviction, he had flattered himself that all alarms
about treason were at an end. In Scotland, where the House
had been taught to believe that the growth of treason was
most formidable, he found that nothing like treason could
be proved against more than one obscure man ; that this man
had been in the pay of government for giving information
against others; and that, disgusted with his employers, or
more probably with the view of enhancing the price of his
discoveries, he had endeavoured to inflame the minds of
those with whom he associated; and to provoke them to cri-
minal excesses. What was the consequence ? that he was
almost immediately abandoned, and his conduct reprobated by
the very persons he attempted to mislead, and at last fell the
victim of his own violence or treachery. When he read all
this, lie was persuaded that men must see how unfounded
their alarms had been,


But the very existence of ministers depended upon alarms, 40
By a false alarm of the crown being in danger, they had ori-
ginally come into office; by false alarms they had maintained
themselves in office; and melancholy it was, that some of
those who exposed their early artifices with the greatest zeal
and ability, had since joined in filling up the cry. Their
whole conduct had been one tissue of alarms; not a moment
had they suffered to pass, -not an incident to occur, without


de
agitating the minds of the people by the most inflammatory


clamations on some imaginary danger.
-Well had his ho-


nourable friend who made the present motion, in a style of
eloquence of which he knew not how to speak in adequate
terms, described their expedients of calling out the militia,
suddenly convoking parliament, marching cavalry from the
country to the capital, and fortifying the tower, to give a
colour to their alarm of insurrections in 1792. Were any of
these hidden insurrections proved on the trials for high
treason ? Not one. Why ? Because they never had any
existence but in the imagination of the deluders and the fears
of the deluded. " When," said Mr. Fox, " we complain
that they are undermining the constitution which they would
be thought to save, they start from defence to accusation,.
they charge us with intending to subvert the constitution, and
exultingly ask,


Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?




34 8 MOTION FOIL THE REPEAL OP THE BILL Pall. Sd


tern of politics — the only mode in which the government of
this or any other country could he conducted. They, how..
ever, had acted front their own conviction of the best means of
averting the dangers with which they imagined the country to
be threatened ; and would, lie hoped, do him the justice to
believe, that in adhering to the course they had long pur-
sued in concert with him, his motives were equally honest.
It was difficult, lie knew, in the present inflamed state of
men's minds, for personal friendship to survive political
union ; but what seemed difficult was not always impossible,
and nothing consistent with his sense of duty to the public
should be wanting, on his part, now to give an instance.
For many of them he entertained the most sincere personal
regard ; and with one, in particular, the noble earl appointed
his majesty's representative in Ireland (Earl Fitzwilliam), he
had cherished a friendship from his earliest youth, which,
matured by long i ntercourse, and endeared by mutual kindness,
was entwined with his very habits of thinking, and which
nothing but the utmost violence could ever tear from his
breast.


Every time the propriety of suspending the habeas corpus
act was called in question, being as ministers themselves were
obliged to confess, not a permanent but a temporary measure,
they were bound to show that it was still necessary. He
would appeal triumphantly to every man who had listened to
the debate, whether a single argument had been adduced to
shew that continuing the suspension was of any use. Was it
treason they were afraid of? Where did it lurk ? Every
step they had taken since the suspension of the habeas corpus
act served only to prove that the allegations of treason were
unfounded. 'Were they afraid of sedition or misdemeanor ?
Over these the suspension gave them no more power than they
had before, for its operation was restricted to treason only.
Many of the papers produced on the trials had been read in
the course of the debate, and by those who read them
maintained to be indisputable proofs of treason. Many of
those papers, with very little alteration, he himself would
subscribe. That which proposed calling general meetings to
prevent certain unconstitutional measures specified, from
being passed into laws, he would readily sign. Those with
whom he had formerly acted, the friends of the late Marquis
of Rockingham, had always maintained and actively incul-
cated the propriety of calling meetings of the people in their
respective towns and districts, to discuss important matters
pending before parliament, and make known to parliament,
as far as it could be collected, the opinion of the people at
large. The paper setting forth, that the time seemed not to


I 5


1795.3 FOR SUSPENDING THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT. 349


be far distant when tyranny must be resisted by force, he
would also sign, but not without some correction, for he was
far from looking to the event, as the writer professed to do,
without fear. If such a measure as a Convention-bill were to
be introduced into parliament, those who should call public
meetings to oppose it, by collecting and declaring the general
sense of the country, would act not only innocently but me-
ritoriously. We dwelt on the crimes committed under the
name of liberty in France, till we could see no danger but
from one extreme, or were ready to pardon every outrage
and excess committed on the other. 'Why were the errors or
the crimes of a people trained under the yoke of despotism, to
no ideas of justice or humanity, but the will, caprice, or
passion of the strongest, to be charged upon the friends of
rational liberty, as things which they approved and wished to
introduce? A majority of that House had voted for the abo-
lition of the slave trade. If the negroes in our islands were
to emancipate themselves by force, who did not see to what
excess beings degraded by a system of oppression below the
standard of reason, and almost of human nature, would carry
their power of acting for themselves, or how dreadfully they
would retaliate upon their former masters?" Yet, would any
man affirm the cruelties they might commit to be inherent
in the natives of Africa, much less that every one of the
majority who voted for the abolition of the slave trade, wished
them to be committed ?


Between what England now was, and what France was
before the Revolution, there could be no resemblance. Our
people were inured to very different habits, and trained to
very different feelings. Our constitution, maimed and man-
gled as it now was, differed less from a republican than from
any despotic form of government ; less from the government of
America than from that of Russia or Prussia. When gentle-
men talked of monarchy in Great Britain as the same in sub-
stance with monarchy in most parts of the continent of
Europe, they put a change upon us by substituting the name
for the thing. Our constitution was a republic in the just
sense of the word ; it was a monarchy founded on the good of
the people, in a race elected by parliament, the representa-
tive of the people ; limited in its functions and controuled in
the exercise of those functions by the united wisdom of the
nation for the general benefit of the nation. Let us return to
the old maxims of administering such a government ; let us
remember that the attachment of the people to the constitution
was not to be secured by alarm and terror, but by practical
experience of the blessings derived from it ; that wars of spe-
culation, whether undertaken with the view of making con-




350 AIOTION FOR_ THE REPEAL OF THE BILL )
&C. [Jan. S.


quests or extirpating opinions, were always oppressive to the
greater part of the people, generally fruitless, and sometimes
ruinous ; that peace promoted commerce, Commerce encou-
raged industry, industry gave plenty, and plenty content.
These were maxims so old and so trite, that no man cared to
dwell upon them, for fear of being told that he was repeating
what lie had learned of his nurse. But they were not the less
true for being trite ; and when men suffered themselves to be
hurried away by a set of new-fangled notions diametrically
opposite, could not be repeated too often. If we persisted in
the other course, we must go on increasing our debt till the
burden of our taxes became intolerable. That boasted constitu-
tion which we were daily impairing, the people would estimate,
not by what it once had been, or was still asserted to be in the
declamations against anarchy, but by its practical effects ; and
we should hardly escape the very extreme we were so anxiously
desirous of shunning. The old government of France was
surely provided with sufficient checks over the licentiousness
of the people; but of what avail were those checks when the
ambition and prodigality of the government had exhausted
every resource by which established governments can be sup-
ported ? Ministers attempted to fix upon others the charge of
innovation, while they themselves were, every session, making
greater innovations than that which they now called the most
dreadful of all, namely, a reform in the representation in
parliament. But it was the infatuation of the clay, that,
while fixing all our attention upon France, we almost consi-
dered the very name of liberty as odious; nothing of the oppo,.
site tendency gave us the least alarm. Those who had become
converts to this new system, saw nothing but royalists in
France and republicans in England. God grant they could
but invert the telescope, see with the eyes of reason, and
understand with the understandings of unprejudiced men


On a division the numbers were:
Tellers. Tellers.


YEAS Mr.
. Erskine
Sheridan {Mr. Serjt.Watson


1
/ 2s 41.


NOES Mr. J. Smyth ?.$
So it passed in the negative,


1795,3
STATE OF THE NAVY*. 3 5 1


STATE OF THE NAVY.


January 6.


7;\,/rPk.. Maurice Robinson having intimated his intention of bring.
-1- vA ing forward. a motion relative to the state of the navy,
Mr. Pitt said that he should flot shrink from any inquiry which the
honourable gentleman might think proper to institute.


Mr. Fox said, that the right honourable the chancellor of
the exchequer had uttered some words which he intended, no
doubt, to be considered as a challenge for inquiry into the
subject of the navy ; but from his conduct, there was no rea-
son to believe he was sincerely disposed to do what he said ;
the manner in which he had conducted himself with regard to
inquiries, gave no encouragement to any member of that
House to move for any ; for he had always, when his own
conduct, or the conduct of any of his colleagues, had been
moved to be inquired into, pompously denied the fact that
was alleged as a foundation for inquiry, rested it on his own
assertion, and then insisted upon it, that no inquiry was ne-
cessary. This had been the right honourable gentleman's
practice hitherto, and, Mr. Fox said, he was afraid he could
venture to f'oretel, it was thus he would act with regard to the
navy. He would first loftily pretend to challenge inquiry,
and then, if an inquiry was moved for, he would insist that
no inquiry was necessary. But, if the right honourable gen,
tleman saw this matter in its proper light, and had no reason
to fear the result, he would find that he had every motive, for
the sake of his character, his honour, his personal connections,
and, above all, the satisfaction of the public, to come for,
ward, and to ask the House to enter into this inquiry.


Janualy 7.


The House being in a committee of supply, a motion was made
by Admiral Gardner, " That ioo,000 men be employed for the sea
service, for the year 1 795, including 15,000 r. marines." A dis-
cussion took place on this occasion, upon the construction of
English ships of war. Mr. Robinson asserted their inferiority to
the French, in the circumstance of quick sailing. Captain Berke-
ley admitted they were better built, but denied their sailing faster ;
the French models he acknowledged to be superior to the English ;
but these had the superiority in workmanship, Admiral Gardner,




352 STATE OF THE NAVY. [Jan. 7. 1795.] -TATE OF THE NAVY. 353
however, allowed the quicker sailing of the French ; and ascribed
their superior construction to the premiums given, by their govern-
ment, for the best models, which were regularly submitted to the
examination and decision of the academy of sciences. But the
vessels taken from them had lately been the means of considerable
improvements in the building of our own.


Mr. Fox stated, that he had been accused with having made
an attack upon the character of the noble earl (Chatham)
lately at the head of the admiralty. He had no such intention ;
he had indeed said, that his public conduct was not such as
appeared to him to deserve approbation, but without the
smallest feeling of personal disrespect. He had last session
stated grounds for an enquiry into the conduct of the noble
earl ; be had not lately made so minute an enquiry into par-
ticulars as he did upon that occasion, but he was prepared to
state the general result, that the captures of last year exceeded
the number of ships taken within a similar space in any for-.
mer war, and exceeded also the proportion of the increase of
our commerce. It appeared to him, that the navy ought to
have been increased more in the present war than in any for-
mer period. But he was told, that from the increase of our
commerce, we might expect a greater number of ships to be
taken. If our commerce was increased, it afforded also the means
of increasing our navy, and thereby providing an additional
degree of security. Though our navy, he confessed, was large
and respectable, still it was by no means what it ought to have
been. At the commencement of the war, the French navy
was weak, and it must certainly appear, from the result of the
naval operations, that our navy had not had that effect upon
the decision of the contest which it ought to have had, from
its great superiority to that of the enemy. An honourable
gentleman had said, that we had been lavish in our praises of
the victory of the 1st of June. We had only been just. No
man would accuse him with wishing to detract from the glory
of that action ; still, however, prudence should have dictated,
that the English ought at least to have been equal to the French.
The French had at present in Toulon a fleet of fifteen sail,
and it was a question whether it might not be equal to our
fleet in the Mediterranean, which, from its long absence, must
now be considerably deficient in force and the number of its
men, and he was sorry to add, with respect to British seamen,
in discipline. He was told that the noble lord (Chatham) had.
been injured; if so, he must have been injured by his own:
friends, by those who had put him out of office.


He lamented that our naval exertions had been obstructed
by an ostentatious display of zeal in, the land service. Up.


wards of 201., he understood, had been given for a man ;
circumstance which had greatly injured the recruiting for the
navy, and which the country might afterwards have occasion
to rue. • It was the true policy of this country to encourage as
many landmen as possible to enter into the sea service. When
he heard talk of an invasion, an event which he had not been
accustomed to regard with great apprehension, he must own
that he would feel much more secure from a certain superi-
ority at sea, than from any number of land forces. When to
all the disasters we had experienced at sea, he added the glar-
ing deficiency of intelligence, which had appeared in so many
instances, he must own, that he could riot give to the noble
person lately at the head of the admiralty, credit for all the di-
ligence that had been ascribed to him. He always understood
that the French ships sailed faster than ours; in this idea he
was confirmed by what had fallen from the gallant admiral.
He had learned both from him. and from the honourable cap-
tain, that we owed to French models the improvements in the
construction of our ships. We were indebted to both.
the gallant officers for bringing French prizes into our ports,
and thus enabling us to improve by the superior ingenuity of
the enemy. But, it surely was not very flattering to the sci-
ence, industry, and glory of the country, to be obliged to im-
prove by others, and to be content always to imitate. He was
told, that it did not belong to the admiralty to attend to the
construction of ships. He did not care to whom it belonged ;
he had a right to expect attention to this particular from the
executive government. He always understood, that the ad-
miralty had the superintending power with respect to whatever
related to the navy. He was entitled to ask them, why mea-
sures had not been taken sooner to improve the construction
of our ships ? The period of war was urged as an argument
why these measures could not be taken at present the very
circumstance which, in his mind, weighed most powerfully
that they should be adopted without loss of time. He was
told, that no improvement could be introduced with respect to
ships already built, or that were now upon the stocks ; but he
should deem it a most criminal neglect, if care was not taken
to set on foot the building of new ships upon the improved
construction, in every dock in the kingdom, and indeed where-
ever it was possible ; and this, he trusted, would be the first
measure of the new board of admiralty.


To all that he had stated, lie had heard no other answer
than. what had been given last year, an enumeration of the
ships taken, including those we had got by capitulation at Tou-
lon. But it was not a pleasing circumstance, that one of our
own ships of the line had fallen into the hands, of the enemy,


VOL. V. A A




-7,
• 354 - ARMY ESTIMATES. [Jan. 21.
a circumstance which had not often happened in former wars
to this country ; only one had been taken during the whole
course of the American war, when we had to contend against
the combined naval three of Europe, and that had been retaken.
With respect to the admiralty itself, the character of the noble
lord had been more injured by his colleagues than by any
other person. It had been said, that nothing would be more
pleasing to that noble lord, than to have an inquiry instituted
with respect to his public conduct. A general wish of that sort
had so often been expressed, and the particular proposition
when brought forward defeated by some particular consi-
deration, that much stress would not now be laid on such a.
declaration. If the noble lord was, indeed, the able and dili-
gent character he had been held out, it could only be said,
that he had the most injurious colleagues, and served the most
ungrateful public, since the former must have consented to re-
move him from a situation which he occupied with so much
credit, and perhaps no change was ever so generally approved
by the latter.


Mr. Fox concluded with declaring that the navy of Eng-
land was of more importance now, than at any former period.
The whole of the campaign ought to teach ministers the in-
efficacy of military operations. He had been told, that there
were ships ready to be sent to sea, if sailors could be got to
man them. He trusted that this was not the fact, that
steps would be taken immediately to procure more ships and
more men for the service, and that no diminution of the mili-
tary force would be considered as too great a sacrificer, n
order to extend the scale of our naval exertions.


ARMY ESTIMATES.


January 2 i .


1:HIS day Mr. Windham, the new secretary at war, presentedto the House the estimates of the army. These amounted, in-
cluding the regulars, the militia, and the new levies, to i5o,000.
The expellee of maintaining it was computed at 6,652,coo/. He
accordingly moved, in the committee of supply, that the army es-
tablishment for the present year should consist of the number
stated. The motion was opposed by General Tarleton and Mr.
Hussey : the latter gentleman moved, That the chairman do leave
the chair and report progress. Mr. Pitt said, that in order to ea-


1795.]


ARMY ESTIMATES. 355


able the navy to make a proper impression on our foes abroad,
we ought to place ourselves in a state of complete security at home,
which could be done only by keeping a formidable army on foot.
The expellees arising from this necessary measure were, doubtless,
great, but the dangers thereby averted were much greater. True
it was, that the confederacy had suffered severely ; but this country
not only maintained its superiority on the seas, but had, in the
midst of every pressure . occasioned by the war, increased both
its commerce and its resources, in a manner that opened the
most promising prospect of being able to carry it on with the
utmost vigour, and that afforded the strongest presumption of
terminating it finally to our honour.


Mr. Fox said, that if the right honourable gentleman had
had the good fortune to be minister of this country in the
reign of Queen Anne, when we had, by the wisdom of our
measures, gained such military reputation, and which he
hoped, we should never lose ;— if he had been minister, as
his illustrious father was, at the end of what was generally
called the seven-years war; — if he had the reputation which
his father had established for securing North America to this
country for a time; — if he had gained in proportion as he had
lost;— if he had acquired as much glory by his political con-
duct as lie had entailed upon himself' disgrace,— he should
then, Mr. Fox said, have had some doubt whether the stile
and tone of the right honourable gentleman could have beenjustified : prudent it could not he in any man, House any time,under any circumstances ; but what would the se think,
and what would the people feel, when they found such a. mall
coming forward under such circumstAnces? 'What was to be
said of a minister who asked, and that with a tone of autho-
rity, for the confidence of the House in this prosecution of
the war? A minister who had been so unfortunate, at least,
as to see every one of his predictions reversed by events; who
had year after year, regularly and constantly, pursued mea-
sures the most extravagant, and dangerous, which expe-
rience taught us to be so, and which had brought us into a
situation that, in point of real calamity, was, perhaps, never
equalled in this country at any former period. That such a
minister could have the hardihood to claim further confidence
was astonishing. It was adding insult to injuries. It was
telling us that what the country suffered be regarded not ; that
what defeat, disgrace, or disaster befel us, he minded not;
for, that under them all, his spirit remained unbroken. Nor
was he content with this, for he affected to cast ridicule on
those who opposed the war, by saying that it was the fashion
with them to call this war calamitous and disgraceful : Now,
he should be glad to know, if it was the fashion, who was the


AA 2




3 5 6 ARMY ESTIMATES: [Jan. 2r..
cause of it? Would the minister deny any one of the state-
ments that were made of the disastrous events by which the
war had been so unhappily _distinguished ? Would he deny
That the object for which the war was undertaken on our
part was lost? Would he deny that we had met with dis-
appointments and defeats, misfortunes and disasters, which
were unequalled in the history of the world? Would the
niinister shew one event in the whole course of the present
winter that could be construed in our favour? Not a
week had passed without producing a gazette giving some
account of our misfortunes. But what reply had he made,
what colouring or excuse had he offered, for the numerous
disasters which had been quoted even in the course of that
day? The rich territory of Flanders had been lost in the
last campaign ; not by a sudden incursion of the enemy, but
by a series of battles and sieges, bloody on both sides, and
disastrous to the defeated armies beyond all parallel. The
whole of Germany, on the southern side of the Rhine, had
been lost, with the single exception of Mentz. A great part
Df Spain, and of Italy, was now in the possession of the enemy;,
and some of our West Indian conquests were recovered from,
Sts. Did these losses, either collectively or individually taken,
amount to nothing like disaster? This was the man who asked
for the confidence of the House in future, and who affected
to treat with levity the sentiments of those who did their duty
Ito the public, and who said what they thought, that the pre=
'cent war was calamitous and disgraceful.


And what was our prospect at this moment ? The minister,
said, that in some sense, this was our last stake. What did
he mean by that ? Had he the same object now in view, as
be professed to have at the commencement of the war ? Would
be now seriously tell the House, that he had any hope of
effecting a counter-revolution in France ? Was not that object
lost for ever? Was it not given up by every power in Europe
except Great Britain ? Had not


- every one of them vir-
tually, by their actions, acknowledged the French govern-
view, while we stood alone, vainly and foolishly attempting
40 prevent it, by which we had brought ourselves to the verge
of ruin ? He remembered in what manner the minister, some
time ago, used to answer objections that were made to his
administration he affected, with a manner half modest and
half assuming, to say, that with all the defects that might be
urged against the conduct of the government, the country
was in a prosperous condition. Little . .merit as there might
be in such a declaration, when urged by way of argument,
yet it taught us to reflect on our condition noi,v, and to make,
tt feel thi,tt if any merit of tie minister had. brought us to a


p795.] ARMY ESTIMATES. 35 4


state of prosperity, there must be some fault in the same
person who had brought us to the verge of ruin.


He remembered, he said, the calamities of the American war,
and, at the time, he thought them great, but now, when he
compared them with the calamities of this war, they sank into
trifles. He then said, that ministers were to blame: such
appeared to be the general opinion, and Lord George Sack-
ville and Lord Sandwich were removed: something of this
kind was the case with regard to the late first lord of the
admiralty, but that was not the case with respect to thc mi-
nister at war, on the contrary, a third secretary of state
was appointed, seemingly for the purpose of keeping the con-
duct of the war in the hands in which it was before; and to
the same hands which managed the last glorious campaign
was to be entrusted the care of the next. And what were the
people of the country to expect from all this ? The ministers
themselves, or their friends, continually told us, that the
British arms had been well conducted ; if so, our hopes must
he at an end ; for, with all the advantage of such good con-
duct, the result to us had been only calamity and disgrace.
By whose fault we had been brought into this situation wee
not a matter of the same importance as the question, what
means we should pursue in future? He, for one, was ready
to declare, that all the blame appeared to him to be attribut-
able to ministers; for, if ministers were accused, and some
general, or any other officer, was to blame in the conduct of
the war, it was an easy thing for ministers to say so ; but if,
with brave troops, good generals, faithful allies, and good
conduct, this was our situation, there remained, with respect
to the prosecution of the war, nothing but complete despair.
Having said this, he came to take notice of the situation of
our troops in Holland. Whether the Dutch entered into
negotiation with the French with or without our knowledge,
was a matter that must be explained hereafter; but when we
knew that such was the case, it was the duty of ministers to
take care that the British troops should not be left in a situ-
ation where they might be sacrificed: the best thing that
could be clone in that case, was to give the army as good
winter quarters as could be provided, and as speedily as
possible bring it back to England.


With regard to the effect of the proposed vote, he was
one of those who were willing to assent to it if necessary, pro-
vided that could be done without crippling the navy; but as
it possibly might have that effect, the better way would be to
enquire into that fact previously ; and therefore he Should
support the motion of his honourable friend, that the chair-
man should leave the chair, report progress, and ask leave to


A A 3




35 8


ARMY ESTIMATES.
[Jan. 21.


sit again. The minister was sanguine as to the powers of
this country to raise money, and, Mr. Fox said, he was so
likewise; but the greatest difficulty he had was about raisin°,
the men, and he was well assured that the great bounty which
was given to volunteers in the army, had a bad effect on the
Service of the navy. He was sorry to be compelled to say,
that on comparing the preparations for this with the prepara-
tions for other wars, the army had in this much more than
its due proportion, when contrasted with the navy. Now
there never was a war when the exertions of this country
should be so much directed to the navy as the present ; and
what was every man to conclude from the vote which was
proposed that night, but that we were going to send thou-
sands of British troops out of this country to he slaughtered
in Germany, or imprisoned in France ? \Vas not that true?
Had not that been the case this campaign ? He had no in-
telligence except what the gazettes afforded, from which he
found the loss of the British troops to be dreadful. He
hoped that no more of them were to go to the continent, for
of the two alternatives, if the one or other must be adopted,
he would rather that English money should be squandered,
than that English men should he slaughtered.


Mr. Fox then took a short view of the conduct of adminis-
tration since the commencement of the war, and maintained.jthat they had pursued many measures which were highly in-urious to the interests of this country, and omitted many by
which those interests might have been highly benefited.
And, after all, was it not more than a British House of Com-
mons ought to hear, that a mighty army was to be put under
the direction of men Who had gone so far towards the ruin
of their country, and who would not give so much as an
account of their conduct? What, he would ask again, did the
minister mean by an affected sneer, that it was the fashion
to call this a disgraceful war ? Would he attempt to deny,
that assertion ? Would he say it was not disastrous, cala-
mitous, and disgraceihl? Would he compare it with any
other in which this country had ever been engaged? Would
he compare the events of it with those of any other ? Town
by town lost, army by army defeated! Here Mr. Fox entered
'nto an enumeration of the losses of Valenciennes, Conde,.


'd the various other places, until he came to the late of
ILI:land, in all which he saw nothing on the part of ad-


- ration but arrogance and incapacity. Ile did not wishmy na
o Say a


.t






thing of himself, but he had no doubt that if his,
unsel h,co






al been followed, even a long time after the war
comme,had iced, we might still have saved Holland. Was


,btIfe .




that it was the fashion to call this a disgraceful6 e told


1795.] ARMY. ESTIMATES..
359'


war ? It was the fashion with him to say what he knew, and
it ought to be the fashion with the people to express what
the


f.et lit"
lv
yil regard to the finances and resources of this country,


he admitted them to be great, but he desired it to be re-
membered also, that the debt which we already owe was
extremely great ; and if we proceeded much farther in this
ruinous war, it might come to be a question, What were the
resources by which we might pay off the interest of our debt.
and support the government? This war had deeply affected
our resources already. It had affected our manufactures in
a very considerable degree ; if the minister doubted it, a right
honourable gentleman near him, (Mr. Windham,) could give
him some information from his constituents of Norwich, upon
That subject; but if that was the case with regard to our own
manufactures, before we lost Holland as an ally and a cus-
tomer, what was to be the case now, that Holland had got
into the hands of the French ? He had heard it said, that the
credit of the two countries was inseparably blended; that in
particular the bank of England and the bank of Amsterdam,
were, in point of concern to us, one and the same thing. This
was the language held out in order to get us into this war
he admitted it was ,not used by the ministers, but they all
suffered it to have its weight at the time it was uttered; they
said nothing to shew the fallacy of it. If, on the other hand,
there be no fallacy in it, what was the situation of Amster-
clam, and consequently the situation of this country, at this
very moment? He was sure he did not know; and he was
afraid the minister did not know. He was afraid, too, that
the Dutch would be of opinion, that our excessive friendship,
our great good-will, had been the cause of their ruin. In-
deed, there was too much reason to suspect that this was true
with regard to the Dutch; but, as to ourselves, we were in
a similar situation — we were the only power in Europe who
refused to acknowledge the present government of France ;
all the others had virtually done so. We were now about
to persuade the emperor, by means of six millions of money,
to pretend to change his opinion upon that subject, after we
had tried all other in vain upon the same occasion. Good
God ! that a minister who had brought us into this cala-
mitous and disgraceful situation should come to the House
of Commons, and expect confidence as to his future oper-
ations ! Still more deplorable was it, that there should be a
House of Commons who would hear such a proposition.
In this there appeared to him to be something sadly inau-
spicious and alarmingly ominous. The duty of the minister
was to come to that House, and to express himself only in


A A 4




36d ARMY ESTIMATES.
[Jan. 21


tones of sorrow and contrition; and the duty of that House,
in his opinion, after what they had heard from the minister,
was to express their indignation at his arrogance. Mr. Fox
concluded with observing, that he should not have entered
so much into the various points he had insisted on that night,
if the minister had not, by his manner of treating this ques-
tion, treated that House and the people of this country with
so great contempt; for what was it but contempt to treat
with levity complaints against a war, the most calamitous in
which this country was ever engaged ?


Mr. Pitt answered Mr. Fox. He complained of having been
misrepresented, and insisted, that the misfortunes of the war did
not arise from the neglect or the incapacity of ministers, but front
causes which it was not in their power to obviate.


Mr. Fox said, that it was necessary for him, after what they
bad just heard, to enter into some explanation of what he
had formerly spoken, at least upon one or two points. The
right honourable gentleman complained much of having been
misrepresented. Whether there was most misrepresentation
in what he had said, or in what had fallen from the right
honourable gentleman, he would leave entirety to the House,
who had so many opportunities of knowil T.


how much he was
inclined to misrepresent objects of discussion there or other-
wise. Nothing could certainly be a greater perversion of
meaning, than the manner in which the right honourable
gentleman had explained the use he had made of the terms
" calamitous, disastrous, and disgraceful," as applied to the
war : as to the two first, he believed there was nobody in or
out of that House who could deny that they were applicable
to the whole of the Nvar, from its first beginning down to the
most unfortunate situation in which this country was now
placed ; and as to the word " dis grace," he had no hesitation
in declaring that he meant to apply it solely to the conduct
of administration, and not for a moment had he the most
distant idea of attaching it to the characters or the conduct
of either the generels, the officers, or the men, who had been
so dreadfully employed in those scenes of disappointment,
disaster, and calamity, which, notwithstanding their greatest
and best exertions, had uniformly followed the execution of
every one of the miserable plans which administration had
adopted for the prosecution of their favourite, though ruinous
war. As to the merits of the officers and men, it had often
been his happiness to have the honour of paying the tribute
of praise and admiration so justly due to their valour, gal•
lantry, and exertions; and though it might be thought in


6


3.795 ARMY ESTIMATES. 3611
some degree vanity in him to say it, there certainly was one
reason, which, independent of all others, must induce him to
be partial to their conduct; he was nearly related to many
who had been the most active and placed in the most arduous
situations in this war, and with others he was so much con-
nected by the ties; of friendship and good wishes, that he
certainly could derive no honour or satisfaction by publish-
ing their disgrace, even if any, which he would riot allow to
be the case, had fallen to their share. It was to ministers
only, therefore, that he attached those severe but justly-
earned epithets; they had fully shewn their imbecility, by
plunging the country into the war, and their incapacity ever
since to conduct it — a war which was, as far as the events
had shewn, on their part, the most calamitous, disastrous,
and disgraceful, that this country had ever seen.


As to the right honourable gentleman's observations about
the country not being at its last stake as to resources, he
'would only say, that whatever the country might now be
disposed to feel on that head, it was plain that the right
honourable gentleman, from his words and conduct, was near
being at 'an end, if not at the last stake, of his resources.
The right honourable gentleman had called upon him to move
an address to his majesty to dismiss his ministers; but that
motion, from whatever quaeter it might properly come, de-
pended more on time, and on circumstances, than on the
haughty suggestions of the right honourable gentleman.
Whether there would be policy in bringing forward such a
motion at this time, he was not to argue, but at this juncture
it became his duty, mid that of. the I-louse, to call upon mi-
nisters for an explanation of their conduct, before they voted
six millions more of their constituents money into hands that
had proved themselves so miserably inadequate to the con-
duct of the war, and so utterly unfit in every respect for the
trust and confidence so repeatedly asked by and reposed in
them. As a member of parliament, he had a right to fix
blame upon ministers, and to call upon them at least for
explanation. One thing, indeed, he was glad to hear from
the right honourable gentleman, and that was, that when that
House should think fit to address the king to dismiss his
present ministers, the right honourable gentleman would be
ready to comply with their wishes. His happiness at such a
removal he might fairly state, without the least idea of being
suspected that he wished to become his successor, in such a'
situation as his misconduct had placed the country. Every
one who knew him, must be convinced that he had no violent
desire of office; but they must indeed think him growing old,
even to dotage, who could possibly attribute to 'him the am-
bition of carrying on the war, upon the principles adopted




362 . ARMY ESTIMATES.
[.Tan. 2 I .


by the present administration; or who could imagine that he
could by any possibility envy the right honourable gentleman
his situation. We were now reduced to the absurd situation
of appearing to all Europe to be the only power which refused
to attempt a negociation with the government of France; every
other power had virtually recognized the republic. He had
not that vitiated taste for ambition to wish to proceed on the
foundation of the present ministry ; but ou the other hand,
he would not say, that if the public thought that no one was
more able or fitter to undertake the conduct of affairs, or if
abler men should refuse, that he would not undertake it, even
in the present desperate situation of affairs; lie should think
it his duty, and should not hesitate to say, that he imagined
that, from some little experience, he might undertake to
conduct the affairs with somewhat more of propriety than the
present administration had done. But till the public thought
with him, he could not be a useful servant, nor act in a manner
either agreeable or honourable to himself.


I-7e could not decide how far a. point of honour might lead
ministers to keep the troops in Holland ; but he could say
nothing on this subject, till he had had an opportunity of
examining how far good faith had been kept with that re-
public. He did not think much stress could be laid on the
argument on the frost, as he did not believe the case of
unusual severity could be made out to the extent to which it
had been with so much confidence stated. The exultation
which had been attributed to him on our misfortunes, was a
subject sp stale that it scarcely deserved notice. He had not
exaggerated our calamities; he had expressed himself strongly,
because he felt strongly ; and it would not be just or honour-
able in a statesman, if he did not endeavour to represent to
the people their actual situation. In the American war, the
same charge had been brought against him ; it was then said,
as now, that he must exult in our misfortunes, because he
had predicted them. This was not fair; how were men to use
their wisdom, or to apply their prudence, if not in pointing
out what are likely to be the consequences of the actions of
men entrusted with the guidance of state affairs ? He did not
wish to lower the spirit of the people, or to make them de-
spond ; but he would warn them to look at their situation, and
examine if proposals could not be made, which might produce
the blessings of peace. He had always been adverse to those
ministers who had increased the load of our national debt, and
the burdens of the taxes. He was not sorry that he had op-
posed administration, both in the American and present war ;
for this he had the consolation of having done his duty ac-
cording to his own conscience; and for all other sort of ap-
probation, he left it to the country to do him whatever justice


1 95.] BILL FOR THE CONTINUANCE, &c. 363


he was thought to merit. He believed that Holland might
have been with ease preserved, if we had shewn a disposition
to negociate at the beginning of the war. Though he was not
one of those visionaries who believed it possible to establish
universal peace, and though he had prepossessions in favour
of continental connections, yet, he thought it was an honour
to have been in the minority on the question of war, not only
on this but on many other occasions. He asked who were
the best friends to the country, those who attempted to con-
ceal from the people the dangers to which they were exposed,
or those who stated fully those dangers, without inculcating
despondence? With respect to the question before the House,
it was true that he was pledged to them to support an arma-
ment, but not the distribution of it; he was only pledged to
the support of the increase of the navy, even if it were neces-
sary that the army should be diminished.


BILL FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE HABEAS CORPUS
SUSPENSION Ace.


January 23.
BILL having been brought in to continue the act of last
session, " to impower his majesty to secure and detain such


persons as his majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his per-
son and government," the second reading was this day strongly
opposed by Mr. Lambton, Mr. Jekyll, Mr. Francis, Mr. Curwen,
Lord William Russell, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Grey. The
measure was supported by the attorney-general, the solicitor-
general, Mr. Hardinge, Mr. Serjeant Adair, and Mr. Pitt.


Mr. Fox said, he had come down to the House full of curi-
osity, to hear what case could be made out to justify the renewal
of the bill ; for although he had heard much declamation on
the subject, in the preceding debates, lie had found so little
argument, that lie conceived it must have been all reserved
for the present occasion. In one respect his curiosity had
been gratified. Some of the arguments were not only new,
but the most extravagant, perhaps, ever uttered in a House
of Parliament. The attorney-general had said, that the ob-
ject of the bill was, not to give a power of taking into custody
and prosecuting persons who might be guilty of treason, but
to give a power of arresting and confining persons in cases
of inchoate guilt, and preventing them from completing the
crimes they would otherwise commit. This was a principle as
inconsistent with English law, as it bore a near resemblance





364 BILL FOTt Tin CONTINUANCE OP
Pan. 2.73.


to what had been the former, and was too much the present
practice of a neighbouring • country, which for several years
had been paying the penalties, and expiating the crimes, of
an absolute monarchy. This argument was not even sup-
ported by the bill of last year ; for that went directly to the
taking up and prosecuting of persons supposed to have com-
mitted acts of treason. To adopt such a system of prevention
was to desert all the principles and policy of our ancestors,
in favour of the infernal policy upon which the bastiles and
dungeons of tyranny had been peopled. It was to say, " We




b -
will take up men out of mercy and kindness, because we think
them likely to commit crimes; hut this very mercy shall im-
mure them in prisons, and cut them off from society during
our will and pleasure." 111:emb er s of parliament were ex-
cepted; but might not any other man be deprived of his
liberty by the will or mistake of ministers, as much as in
any country where there existed a power of arbitrary impri-
sonment? It was said, that no man could he taken into cus-
tody on suspicion of a crime of which he had been previously
acquitted ; but ministers, upon their own arguments, must
consider the persons lately acquitted of treason as snore likely
than any other to commit acts of treason ; and what security
was there against our seeing that which had been declaimed
upon as the climax of' French injustice, viz. men who had
been acquitted, and imprisoned as suspected ? The whole
went upon the new French principles, which characterized
every fresh act of ministers, while they were holding them up
as the grand object of alarm. What but caprice could pre-
vent them from taking these men again into custody? They
would not take up Hardy — Why ? Because, when men
abandoned the plain road of the constitution, they were in-
volved in eternal contradictions. It was admitted that a
conspiracy to levy war was not treason, and then it was asked,.
" Shall we not prevent the mischief by taking the parties into
custody before war is actually levied ?" The law said distinctly,
Yon shall not take them into custody as guilty of treason ; this
was all the answer necessary to be given ; and to say other-
wise was to calumniate the statutes of Edward and
Charles II. He was the less surprised to hear the law ca-
lumniated, when he heard the same persons who did so, ca-
lumniate those who were charged with the administration of
the law. They talked of juries respectfully in words, but
what was their argument? " We will not try any of the per-
sons implicated in the charges against the persons lately ac-
quitted ; but if any shall be guilty of similar offences, them
we will prosecute, and take our chance of the verdict of
another jury." Thus they would reduce trial by jury to


THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.. 364


something of equal value with a trial by chance. Those who
In colourable words so talked of the effects of the institution,
he -could not but suspect of disliking the institution itself. His
learned friend (Mr. Serjeant Adair) had said, that the cross-
examination of witnesses on the trial had been permitted to a -
latitude beyond all precedent. By whose fault ? The fault of
the court undoubtedly, and if the court was to blame, let the
court be censured, or rather let his learned friend own fairly
the principles of those with whom he now acted, and say,
" When the court and the law are in our favour, they are
entitled to all possible deference, but when they happen to be
against us, we owe them no respect." The entire speechess,
and evidence of the learned gentlemen on the trials had not
convinced the juries, and parts of the one, with scraps of the
other, should not convince him. He would venture to as-
sume, that they who heard part. of the argument and evidence,
and that oni upon one side, could not form so good a judg-
ment of the case as the juries who heard the whole. All the
means of prosecution and of evidence were in their hands;
all the persons whom they thought fit to prosecute had been
acquitted; they acknowledged the acquittals to be so decisive,
that they did not think it adviseable to prosecute any more;
it was not, therefore, very fanciful to say, that every man and
woman in England had been acquitted of the alleged con-
spiracy; and, notwithstanding all he had heard, his ideas
were too gross and concrete to conceive a conspiracy without
conspirators. The arguments of those who opposed the bill
were said to be few. They had on their side the law and the
constitution, and were only called upon to refute the strange
arguments brought against them. If original arguments were
ever so abundant, he would disdain to use any, for he was not
so presumptuous as to set up any theory of his own in prefe-
rence to the law of Edward III. and of Charles II. To suppose
_that any number of the people of this country were disaffected
to the constitution was a calumny. The House was called
upon in 1795 to suspend the habeas corpus act, for corres-
pondence with France which had taken place in 1792, two
years before the first suspension was• proposed. Ministers
themselves owned that even in the suspected societies the
greater part were deluded by the few, who, under the mask
of parliamentary reform, wished to lead them to subvert the
government. What did this prove, but that the people were
so well affected to the constitution, that no man durst speak
openly against it? Had there been a period since the accession
of the house of Brunswick, when there were fewer persons in.
this country disaffected to his Majesty's person ? Was any
such period likely to cseett •. ? At what time, then, could they


1l




266 • BILL FOR THE CONTINUANCE, &C. [Jan. 23
hope for the restoration of the habeas corpus act ? Better.
would it be, to say at once, that they had taken their last leave
of it, and that the state of Europe was incompatible with a
limited monarchy in Great Britain. Were we to wait till the
London corresponding society dissolved themselves? Mini-
sters would say, that the dissolution was only a pretence.-
Were we to expect the death of all the members? Few as
they were, they would have successors ; for, till all govern-
ments were perfect, and all men wise and virtuous, there
would be discontented persons in every country. Under ar-
bitrary governments the discontented were more numerous,
though less active, and consequently apparent; but, when the
awful crisis came, then it was found, that curses had been ut-
tered, not loud but deep. In 1768, 1769, and 1780, there
had been popular tumults, which the authority of the civil
magistrate could not suppress ; but, since the epoch of the
French revolution, the source of all our alarms, had there
been a single instance of resistance to civil authority, except,
indeed, when the zeal of loyalty was exerted to burn the
houses of dissenters ?


Mr. Fox asked, how any man of sense or humanity could
talk of the persons lately acquitted, as having experienced the
mercy of their country ? Was it mercy to be torn from their
hiplines, to be imprisoned for six months, and then turned
out into the world again, their means of subsistence perhaps
cut off? They had experienced the justice of this country in
their acquittal; but to talk of mercy was an insult. He paid
a handsome compliment to the character, abilities, and public
services of the Earl of Mansfield, with respect to whom, he
understood an appeal had been made to him. He concluded
with observing, that the trial by jury, and the representation
of the people in the House of Commons, were the corner-
stones of the constitution. The latter, he had long been of
opinion, stood in need of some reform : for although it was
true, that the House was capable of receiving an impression
from the people, it had been most calamitously proved in the
American war, that it did not receive that impression soon.
enough ; and there were cases, such as the present war, still
more calamitous, in which time was every thing, and delay
might involve House, lords, king, and people in one common


The House divided on the question, that the bill be read a se-
cond time:


Tellers. Tellers.


t Mr. Serjt. Watson j
So it was resolved in the affirmative


r795.] MR. EIREY'S MOTION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 367


MR. GREY 'S MOTION FOR. PEACE WITH FRANCE.


January 26.


It. Grey moved, " That it is the opinion of this House, that
IVA- the existence of the present government of France ought not
-to be considered as precluding at this time a negociating for
peace." The motion was opposed by Mr. Pitt, who moved an
amendment thereon, by leaving out from the , first word " That,"
to the end of the motion, in order to insert these words, " under
the present circumstances, this House feels itself called upon to
declare its determination firmly and steadily to support his majesty
in the vigorous prosecution of the present just and necessary war, as
affording at this time the only reasonable expectation of permanent
security and peace to this country ; and that, for the attainment of
these objects, this House relies with equal confidence on his ma-
jesty's intention to employ vigorously the force and resources of the
country in support of its essential interests ; and on the desire,
uniformly manifested by his majesty, to effect a pacification on
just and honourable grounds, with any government in France, un-
der whatever form, which shall appear capable of maintaining the
accustomed relations of peace and amity with other countries."
Mr. Wilberforce not thinking the terms of the amendment suffi-
ciently explicit, proposed to leave out from the word " declare"
to the end of the amendment, in order to insert these words, " That
the existence of any particular form of government in France,
ought not to preclude such a peace between the two countries, as,
both in itself; and in the manner of effecting it, should be other-
wise consistent with the safety, honour, and interests of Great
Dritain."


Mr. Fox began by desiring the original motion and the two
amendments to be read ; and said, that before he proceeded




to give his reasons for preferring the original motion of his
honourable friend, to that which had been made by Mr. Wil-
berforce, though the difference between them was mit, very
essential, he must take notice of the amendment which had
been so unexpectedly made by the right honourable the chan-
cellor of the exchequer. He said unexpectedly made ; be-
cause, when the motion of his honourable friend was originally
announced, *Ilia was three weeks ago, the terms of it even
were settled; ibr his honourable friend, with more candour
than prudence, had stated the precise words upon which they
were to come to issue. The right honourable gentleman
pledged himself to come to issue upon these words : but, how-
ever, he did not now feel so bold as he did three weeks ago ;


YEAS f Solicitor General 1 Mr. Grey239.—NOES {Mr. Sheridan 53'




368 MR.. GREY'S MOTION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. [Jan. 26,
he did not choose to meet the question directly. In his con-
science, the right honourable gentleman had said, he believed
the majority of the people were still for the war. This was
his declaration : but the House and the public would infer
from his conduct, that he had not very great confidence in
the truth of his own declaration ; for, instead of meeting the
question, which he had pledged himself to do, he had pro-
posed an amendment, by which he was to avoid a direct de-
cision on it. In his speech, indeed, he still denied the pro-
position of his honourable friend. Then, why not fairly and
openly negative it by a vote ? After which, if he wished for
declaration, he might have moved his own amendment, as a
specific question. He took this course, he said, to avoid mis-
represention ; and but for his desire of avoiding a misrepre-
sentation which he had never incurred, he would have ne-
gatived the original question; when on the other side, the
honourable seconder of the amendment confessed, that, but
for that amendment, he would have voted for the original
question. What, then, was the true meaning and intention
of all this petty warfare, but that the amendment was designed
to evade the great and material question, upon which the
right honourable gentleman stood committed, and to delude
the House by a little temporary concession which meant no-
thing? Already the matter was loaded with contradictions ;
the mover and the seconder were at variance; the one affirmed,
the other denied, and the whole was done merely to draw us
from the clear specific question, that had been for so many
days in the contemplation of the House. The right honour-
able gentleman was undoubtedly a man of superior talents;
but those talents being directed to delusion and quibbling,
rather than to what was grand, manly, and open, he did not
shew himself possessed of a mind equal to the circumstances
in which he found himself: Instead of meeting the exigency
of our present situation with measures proportioned to our
critical condition, he seemed only anxious, by a little evasive
management for the day, to gain over a few votes of irresolute
members, as if a few votes more or less could alter the eternal
nature of truth and falsehood, or to baffle a few petitions
that might be coming to parliament, as if by lulling a few in-
dividuals into a continuance of their apathy for a time, he
could extricate the nation from the deplorable situation into
which he had plunged it. These were not the resources of a
great mind ; this was not the conduct er a statesman in a
moment like the present; it was as false to himself in policy,
as it was unworthy of the occasion; for it could serve only to
deaden the feelings of mankhid for the day, and would collect


'795.] MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 369


the public indignation to burst upon him with greater force
when the moment of delusion was past.


As to the amendment itself, which the right honourable
gentleman had moved, though be disliked it in many parti-
culars, yet in some things he did not dislike it. In so far as
it stated, that there was nothing in the present form of the
government of France, which prevented our negociating with
them, he must approve of the proposition. He had moved
an amendment both this year and the last, to the same effect.
Little did he think when he was making such proposition that
he was only speaking the sentiments of his majesty's ministers.
But these ministers, it seemed, were the victims of misrepre-
sentation. So powerful, it appeared, was the opposition, so
full of wealth, and so invested with the influence of bribes,
places, pensions, jobs, contracts, and emoluments of every
kind, and so much had they the means of circulating news-
papers, that they had it in their power successfblly to misre-
present his majesty's ministers; and to mislead and delude the
public, so as effectually to taint and abuse the public mind,
and to make them the unhappy objects of their misrepresent-
ation. Now what had they done ? They had for two years
successively moved an amendment to the address to his ma-
jesty on the first day of the session of parliament, that there
was nothing in the form of the government of France that
ought to prevent this country from negociating with them for
peace, and for this they had been- called the advocates of
France, jacobins, republicans, the enemies of their king and
country, who were desirous to lower the British govern-
ment and prostrate it at the feet of France, to introduce
French anarchy into England, and even to destroy the con-
stitution of England and to bring his majesty to the block.
Now, however, all this was over, and it was found, though
they did not know it, that in reality they were speaking only
the sentiments of ministers. We were now conic to a crisis
when all this shuffling would be found unavailing, when these
delusions would no longer succeed; their own contradiction
was a good omen for the country ; it proved that the unfor-
tunate speech of his majesty at the opening of the session had
made a serious impression on the public mind ; and the right
honourable gentleman therefore found, that he must soften
and lower his language; he must now attempt to do away the
effects of that absurd, impolitic, and he might say diabolical
speech which he had put into the mouth of his majesty, in
which our gracious sovereign had been made to stand between
heaven and the happiness of mankind; had been made to pro-
nounce the doom of millions, and to declare an almost
eternal war, for no possible purpose of rational benefit to his


VOL. V.


B B




7o MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. [Jail. 26.


species; and that, too, when all the other princes of Europe,
awakened from the delusion into, which they had been equally
led by their ministers, had seen their error, and had mani-
fested their disposition to peace.


He desired to know what was the meaning of the right ho-
nourable gentleman's present conduct? Was he to understand
that the right honourable gentleman meant to negative the
proposition of his honourable friend ? If he meant to negative
it, why not do so by a vote? Mr. Fox said, he knew that the
present administration was composed of various and dis-
cordant characters. He did not know whether they all agreed
in the present proposition ; it would soon be.seen whether they
did so or not; but he could say that it would not redound
Much to their honour. If he were to describe it he should
say, it went far enough to disgrace the new colleagues of the
right honourable gentleman, but not far enough to restore to
him the confidence of the country. On the argument that
had been used upon the occasion, he should have little to say.
There had been so much novelty in the right honourable gen-
It/ernan's conduct that day, that he had not thought it neces-
sary to introduce any novelty into his reasoning. The same
trite, hackneyed, and refuted arguments, with which they
had been fatigued so often, were again renewed. France was
declining fast in her resources, and this was a matter of re-
joicing to England ! How long were they to go on rejoicing
in this decline ? Their assignats were at a discount; there
were a number of royalists; and much ridicule was thrown
upon a simile of an honourable gentleman, who had truly said,
that all the same nonsense had been talked during the Ame-
rican war. But it seemed we had been successful in France.
The various revolutions that had been produced in France
had been effectuated through our means. This was a most
singular argument, and went perhaps farther than the right
honourable gentleman intended; for it so happened that those
revolutions had been good or bad, in proportion as we had
been beaten or prosperous. Whenever we bad made-the
slightest impression upon


. France, or had the appearance of
temporary good fortune, it was sure to be followed by, and
perhaps to have produced, some dreadful revolution, accom-
plished by the horrors of massacre and devastation. But, on
the contrary, whenever we had been defeated and forced to
fly from the territory of France, they had never failed to sub-
side into a comparative tranquillity, and to have their internal
condition meliorated. The argument of the right honourable
gentleman was, therefore, that if they would permit him to go
'on in a system of disasters and defeats, it was incalculable
what good it might do in France. Thus, when the Duke of


1795.] MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 371


Brunswick . had penetrated to within sixty miles of Paris, there
happened the revolution fatal to the monarchy, of the loth of
August. When we were in the possession of Toulon, there
happened the shocking and diabolical massacres at Lyons :
but no sooner had we evacuated the place, than they-began
to make atonement for the scandalous devastations. Imme-
diately after the battle of Fleurus, there happened the fall of
Robespierre ; and certainly it was true, that in proportion as
we had been discomfited and driven from the French terri-
tory, whenever the French felt themselves relieved from our at-
tack, theyhad exerted themselves for their own deliverance from
internal tyranny ; and nothing could be more natural than
this; for, animated by the enthusiasm of the cause of liberty,
when attacked, as they were, they gave up every consider-
ation, but that of preserving their independence; but when
relieved from this fear, they had as constantly rid themselves
of their domestic tyrant.


It was said that ministers never had proposed to themselves
the conquest of France. The conquest of France, never was
imputed to them; it was only said that they had proposed to
themselves an object, which nothing but the conquest of France
could obtain. He had long ago stated his opinion on the
•extravagance of that proposition, and his sentiments were in
print. Surely any man who ever did flatter himself with the
possibility of making any impression on France must now be
convinced of his error ! A remarkable expression used in
the course of the American war Was most applicable to the
present; it was said by a member of that House, so early as
the year 1777,or 1778, that "he had looked at the American
'army every way ; he had looked at their front, he had looked
at their rear, he had looked at their flank, and be could not
accommodate himself any where :" and yet, after this opinion
of a general officer, the war bad been continued for four or
five years. In the same manner, we might truly be said to
have tried France : we had tried the East, the North, the
South, and we could not accommodate ourselves any where.
He hoped in God we should not continue the experiment, as
we had done in the case of America. It was said, as an
argument against the proposition of his honourable friend,
that it would bind the hands of ministers in negociating.
would certainly be impossible for them, after such a resolution,
to say to the persons holding the government of France, that
they could not treat with them ; but so far would that be from
binding their hands, that it would remove an obstacle, and
surely it could not prevent them from stipulating the terms of
peace. In truth, without this declaration, there would be an




37 2 MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR PEACE WITH aitaNcg. Pan. 26.


obstacle in the way
of treating, since the persons holding


the government of France knew, that it had been uniformly
declared by our ministers, that they could not treat with
them.


But the consistency of the House of Commons stood in
the way ! He thought that there might now be an end of
such declamatory nonsense. In all questions of policy, nations
must yield to imperious necessity : it would be obstinacy, and
not honour, to persevere in an opinion, when you became
convinced that it was wrong; it was plain that men might at
first have thought the present war just and necessary, who
were now convinced of the contrary ; and surely they would
act more consistently with the rules of honour, to confess
their errors the moment they were convinced of them. But
there was nothing more curious than to hear the right hog
nourable gentleman talk of the consistency of the House of
Commons. What would become of his old steady friends,
" existing circumstances ?" In the case of Oczakow, he had
not hesitated to retract without a blush, when he found the
public opinion against him. He came forward and said, that
our means were not equal to the object : why could not he,
therefore, now compare the object with the means ? Surely
the disasters that had happened, and the change in the pre-
sent case, more than in the Russian armament, would justify
him for retracting his opinion. He would do it with great
advantage to himself; it would give vigour to England, and
take it from France.


But why, it was said, should we be the first to negociate?
It would be a humiliation forsooth, to propose to treat be-
cause we were unsuccessful. Upon this principle, it was al-
most hopeless that we could ever treat; for could it be expected
that the French government would be the first to propose to
negociate when they knew that our ministers had twenty times
said, that no possible peace could be made while they continued
in power ? Let Englishmen ask themselves what would be
their feelings, if the same language had been used to us that
we have used to the 'French? if; for instance, they had de-
clared in the convention that they never would treat for peace
with England until there should take place a reform in the
government'of England; — would not every Englishman die
before he would submit to ask to negociate under such a de.
claration ? Yet such a declaration we had made towards
France. We must, therefore, do away the effect of our
arrogant and impolitic expressions; and he had no hesitation
in saying, what he believed in his heart, that if we took away
that obstacle, we should have peace; or if not, we should


1 795.] MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE. 373


fight them upon equal terms ; we should take from them the
cause of their enthusiasm ; we should take from them that
which aroused every national feeling, which had carried them
to those unparalleled exertions that had astonished and con-
founded the world. They would then no longer feel that they
had to fight to extremity, or that they were besieged in their
own country, for daring to give to their own country such a
government as they liked.


Did he propose to unman one ship ? to disband one regi-
ment? No, on the contrary, his proposition was to add
vigour to the country; and surely we should fight as well after
we had made a declaration, that it was not our intention to
reduce any people to slavery. Nor should we treat for peace
upon worse terms, if we were to treat before we were reduced
to extremity. Mr. Fox referred to the history of the war of
King William, and his having had the wisdom to conceal
his design of altering the French government. The want of
security for the continuance of peace might be pleaded for
going on with any war. There was no positive security.
Certainly we should have as much securit y now as in any
former instance. If peace were to take place, the French
must disband their armies, and if the mighty machine, which
nothing but the diabolical confederacy of despots had erected,
were once stopped, it would be impossible again to put it in
motion. If this country had acted right, and had interfered
to prevent that diabolical confederacy, all might have been
well; France, though perhaps a more powerful neighbours
would have been less obnoxious ; the king might have been
now upon his throne, and all the horrors and massacres that
had desolated that unhappy country might have been pre-
vented. He ridiculed the idea of the influx of French prin-
ciples into this country, for our own constitution could only
flourish here; it had been more deeply rooted in our affections
by the fatal experiments that had been made in France. He
called to the recollection of Mr. Pitt, the memorable expresl.
sion of his venerable father, that they should die on the last
breach before they granted the independence of America, and
that the first act of his political life was to sign that very
independence which his father had deprecated. Necessity
dictated the act, and he must now retract in the same manner
his system with respect to France. Mr. Fox concluded by
saying, that he certainly preferred the motion of his honour-
able friend, which he had opened and supported with such
luminous argument and irresistible persuasion, to the amend-
ment of Mr. Wilberforce; but, at the same time, that amend-
ment should have his support, if the House thought fit to
prefer the one proposition to the other.


B E 3




374 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [Feb. 5.
The question being put on Mr. Grey's motion, the House


divided:
Tellers.
Tellers.


yEAs. 5. Mr. Sheridan 1 86. NOES f Mr. Neville 1
t Mr. Whitbread j
1Sir W. Young j 269.


So it passed in the negative. A second division took place on
Mr. Wilberforce's amendment, which was negatived' by 254
against yo. After which Mr. Pitt's resolution was put-and carried.


••••nn•n• •••n
••nn..lrina..1n•••n•,...n...


KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING A LOAN TO THE EMPEROR.


February 5.


0 N the 4th of February Mr. Pitt presented the following 'nes.sage from his majesty:
"G. R.


" His majesty thinks proper to acquaint the House of Commons,
that he has received from the emperor strong assurances of a dis-
position to make the greatest exertions for the common cause in
the course of the next campaign : but it is represented on the
part of his imperial majesty, that these efforts cannot. be made
without the assistance of a loan, which his imperial majesty is de-
sirous of raising on the credit of the revenues of his hereditary
dominions, under the guarantee of his majesty, with the concur-
rence of parliament, to the extent of four millions ; and it is
stated, that such a loan, in addition to his other resources, would
enable his imperial majesty to employ against the common enemy
the force of zoo,000


effective men. His majesty is of opinion
that, on these grounds such an arrangement would be beneficial
to the common cause ; but his majesty thinks that it would be still
more advantageous, if, by the means of a similar loan to a larger
extent, the emperor should be enabled to employ a force still
more considerable : and his majesty has directed his minister at
Vienna, to express his readiness to recommend to his parliament
an arrangement founded on that principle. — Some temporary
advances which his majesty was induced to make for the imme-
diate supply of the Austrian army, under the pressure of unfore-
seen circumstances in the latter part of the last campaign, will be
included in any arrangement of this nature. As soon as the ne-
gociation is concluded, his majesty will not fail to communicate
the result to parliament; but, as any measure of this sort is ne-
cessarily connected with the consideration of the provision to be
made for the current service of the year, his majesty has thought
it right not to delay making this communication; and he relies on
the zeal and public spirit of his faithful Commons, fir taking
such measures as, on full consideration of all the circumstances;
they may think most conducive to the immediate interests of this


79 A LOAN TO THE EMPEROR
375


country at the present conjuncture, and to the great object of
1 1 5: ]y


re-establishing, on secure and honourable grounds, the peace and
tranquillity of these kingdoms and of Europe."


On the following day Mr. Pitt 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 his condescen-
sion and goodness in having been pleased to communicate to us
the state of the negociation in which his majesty is engaged with
the emperor : To assure his majesty, that when his majesty shall
be enabled, according to his gracious intention, to lay before us
the result of that negociation, and the arrangement relative to
the temporary advances made by his majesty in the latter part of
the last campaign, we shall proceed to take the subject into our
further consideration with the serious attention which it will de-
serve : That, in the, mean time, we think it our duty to express
to his majesty the strong sense we entertain of the advantage
which might be derived to the common cause from the vigorous
co-operation of a powerful Austrian army in the next campaign ;
and to offer Our humble opinion to his majesty, that, if it should
appear likely that that advantage may be effectually secured by
enabling his majesty to guaranty, under proper conditions, a loan
to be raised by the emperor, to such an amount as may be
thought reasonable and proportioned to the extent of his efforts,
the adoption of such a measure may be essentially conducive to
the immediate interests of his majesty's subjects at this conjunc-
ture, and to the great object of re-establishing, on a secure and
permanent foundation, the peace and tranquillity of these king-
doms and of Europe."


Mr. Fox said that, after what had happened in that House
that evening, he hoped he should not now be considered as
exulting in the calamities of his country, if before he spoke
upon the subject of the message, he requested the House to
advert to what he bad said in the course of the last session of
parliament. He begged of the House also not to suppose
that he was now speaking the language of passion or 'peevish-
ness, as he had been told on a former occasion he was doing,
when he talked of the calamities of this country. He hoped
the House would give him credit for what he said, that we
were this day in a calamitous situation. This was what the
House ought to feel when they were called upon to vote away,
by millions at a time, the money of the people of this country,
He hoped and trusted that the House would do him the jus-
tice he deserved ; more he did riot ask: which was, to reflect
that less than twelve months ago, at that unfortunate period
when parliament agreed on granting a subsidy to the King of
Prussia, he called upon the House not to adopt such a mea-
sure; and he said, that large as the gum was which was then
asked for that subsidy, the consequence would be, if it Was.
granted, that applications would come from other quarters,.


n n
4




376 KING'S MESSAGE REStECTING
[Feb. s.


and to a still larger amount. Had not the event justified
what he had said ? He laid no claim to applause for what
he had said on that occasion ; there appeared to him no ex-
traordinary sagacity required to make the prediction, as it
was termed ; it appeared to him to be the natural result of


• what was then going on. The right honourable the chan-
cellor of the exchequer had commenced his speech upon the
subject now before the House, with sonic general observations
upon the policy ,


of this country having certain continental
alliances : he was ready to own, that in a view of general
policy, it was prudent with regard to the interest of this
country, and that especially in opposition to France, con-
tinental alliance for us was, generally, a good rule; but, like all
good rules, it was subject to modification by circumstances.
To be so bigoted to any rule as not to allow that circumstances
might alter it, was the highest absurdity in politics. The
eight honourable gentleman had expressed a great dislike to
the practice of pushing arguments to extremes, and yet be
himself had carried his argument to an extreme indeed : for
he had said, that it might as well be asserted that the em-


,


peror would break his engagement in the year 1895, as to say
that he would break it in the year 1795, and that any modern
power in Europe would be faithless to its treaty, because
Carthage had been so. Mr. Fox said, he never did push an
argument to that extent, nor had he any necessity for doing
so in making observations on the treaties into which this
country had entered since the present war : he thought he
could see a closer connexion between Prussia and Sardinia in
the way of treaty for subsidy from this country, than between
Carthage and the emperor. With regard to what the right
honourable gentleman had said that night, he asked the
House if they did not recollect that last year on the subject
of the Prussian treaty, it had been word for word the same,
This shewed us that the opinion of the right honourable gen-
tleman was never to be altered by events; and here he must
advert a little to what the right honourable gentleman had
said last year upon the subject of the Prussian treaty. He
had then said a great deal upon the faith of the King of
Prussia, his interest and his inclination; upon that occasion,
much was said on the fame of the King of Prussia, and the
security we had from his desire for military glory, and from
the interest he had in the contest. We all knew how the
event happened upon the subject of that unfortunate treaty ;
and he confessed he believed that arguments which had been
used then in favour of the King of Prussia, and those whichjhad been urged this night in favour of the emperor, wereust as applicable to the one as to the other of those two prince!:.


1795.] A LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. 377
The right honourable gentleman, in the beginning of his


speech, had said something touching the war ; now, what-
ever he said upon that subject naturally excited curiosity.
lefe had said, that the majority of the House thought with
him that peace was unattainable at present. That might be
the opinion of the majority of the House; but certain it was,
that the right honourable gentleman himself had, a few nights
ago, prevailed upon the House to evade that very question,
by the amendment which he had moved upon a motion made
with a view of settling that very question; and, therefore, it
was rather too much to say in that House what was the
opinion of the majority. The next thing to be considered,
was the right honourable gentleman's observations on the
speech of M. Tallien in the national convention of France.
By the way, lie did not think the right honourable gentleman's
information upon that subject was correct ; but supposing it
to be so, it amounted to nothing, for the whole of what was
said, in the way that Tallier' was alleged to have said it, was
only the assertion of a man who might speak upon a particu-
lar point any thing to answer a purpose which he had in view,
when he was, as it was well known he was, opposed on that
point, in that convention, by Cambon. The evidence of two
men, contending for power in the way they were contending,
he did not consider to be such as that House ought to rely on
in the discussion of the important subject which was now before
them: he therefore must intreat the House to be cautious as
to the credit they gave to any account of the decay of the re-
sources of the French : the resources of the French might fail,
but it was the great business of that House to take care that
the resourses of England should not fail in contending with
France; and would the right honourable gentleman say, that
if this loan were entered into, and should be eventually paid
by this country, it would be possible for us to carry on the
war for many years to come? It was said, that the money to
be advanced for the loan could not be applied with advantage
to the service of the navy. Possibly not for this year, but
could it not be kept in reserve for future years ? We ought
to look to the means of continuing the war for any number of
years that might be necessary. It was said, that with the
whole six millions we could not add a ship or a man to our
navy at present. This was a little difficult of proof; for he
doubted very much whether the application of some of that
money to the service of the navy might not be very efficacious
even for the present year; in future years it certainly might.
But let it be enquired whether the right honourable gentle-
man's doctrine upon this point, although probably false with
regard to our navy this year, was not strictly= true with re-




111
37 8 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [Feb. J.
gard to the navy of France. Did the right honourable gen-
tleman himself believe that. the naval exertions of France were
in any degree cramped, although in future it was to he hoped
they might be, for want of pecuniary resou rces? Did he
think that France would now have a greater naval force if she
had no continental armies to oppose the last campaign ? The
navy of France, notwithstanding all the exertions she had
been obliged to make by land, was as great as her compara-
tively small commerce, and perhaps want of naval stores,
(which she did not want because she could not pay for them)
would permit, and there was no ground whatever to suppose
but that in the course of the present year, it would be as


• great as money could make it.
With respect to the general policy of employing foreign


troops in this war, he could not help arguing, from experience,
that little reliance was to be placed upon them. The right
honourable gentleman knew how much of the money of this
country had been already squandered for such aid ; and every
body knew what had been the conduct of our allies. It had been
confessed that there were points in the conduct of the Austrians
difficult to explain. He believed it not only difficult, but im-
possible to explain those points in any satisfactory manner.
It was no wonder the right honourable gentleman declined
entering into a detail of conduct which involved every thing
that was suspicious. But ought he not, before the House
voted such an enormous sum of money, to give some account
of the conduct of the Austrians before Tournay Ought he
not to assign some reason for their precipitate evacuation of
the Netherlands, and that too, against every remonstrance of
the commander in chief of the


-British forces ? And after-
wards, when the British army had been obliged to retreat, and
by the apparent diminution of the French force there seemed
to be a favourable Opportunity for acting offensively, ought he
not to give some account of the surrender of the captured for-
tresses? Ought not a British House of Commons to have
these things explained before they reposed this unlimited con-
fidence in the House of Austria? In the latter part of the
campaign, it was said the Austrians acted better. Possibly
they might, for then they began to be paid for their trouble;
but was it not notorious, that the Duke of York was left at
only thirty miles distance, to judge of their intentions by
speculations on their movements, as he -might have done of
the intentions of the enemy ? 'Was not this recorded in the
London Gazette ; and did it not stand as a proof that there
was no amicable concert or co-operation between the Austrian
and the British army ? - Were these points to be explained
or were they not? Or was the House to be satisfied with


1795.] A LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. 379
being told that they were difficult? What was the ease at
Toulon? Five thousand Austrian troops were to sail from
Leghorn to reinforce the garrison, but when these troops came
to the place of embarkation, the commanding officer said he
had orders not to embark till he received farther directions
from Vienna. 'When this was mentioned last year, the right
honourable gentleman said it would be improper to enquire
too minutely into the conduct of our allies — a very insufficient
answer, as he then thought, and as it had since proved. But
were we not now to have some explanation with respect to the
conduct of Austria, when we were going to enter into new
engagements? We were not to reason, is was said, on theopresent occasion, from our recent experience of the King of
Prussia's conduct. The defence of that conduct, as well as all
hope of future aid from that quarter, was now given up. The
King of Prussia stood with the right honourable gentleman
now, as he long had stood with the public, and long ought to
have stood in the opinion of that House. It was now too
clear to be denied, that his real object had been the partition
of Poland, to aid him in the accomplishment of which, he ac-
cepted of a subsidy from this country. Might not this be
the case with the emperor, who had also views upon that de-
voted country? But the House of Austria, it seemed, must
be thought remarkable for consistency and good faith. Was
it so ? Read (said Mr. Fox) the two manifestoes issued by
the Prince of Saxe Cobourg, in the case of Dumourier, and
you will find nothing more iniquitous in all the reprobated
conduct of the French. In the first, he exhorts the French
people to co-operate with that virtuous man, Dumourier, in
the restoration of limited monarchy, with assurances of the
most disinterested aid and protection on the part of the em-
peror. Five days after, finding the "virtuous" Dumourier
not followed by his army, as had been expected, he issues a
second manifesto, recalling all the piomises made in the first.
Find an instance of greater perfidy in the history of the world
— perfidy not exceeded by the conduct of the King of Prussia
with regard to Poland. This was the ally to whose faith im-
plicit confidence was to begiven, according to the right honour-
able gentleman, who complained of putting extreme cases in
argument.- He was ready to say that he would trust neither
Prussia nor Austria, while their councils were directed by the
same persons. This prudence, the right honourable gentle-
man understood very well, when he was arguing on the affairs
of France, for then he frequently talked of faith, and con-
fidence, and security; and asked what faith could be re-
posed in Robespierre or Cambon, or any of the men who
directed the government. lie always insisted then on con-
sidering the character of the parties with whom we should


ii




380 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING [Feb. 5, 795] A LOAN TO THE EMPEROR.
38t


have to treat, although only on the broad question of peace or
war. Now, Mr. Fox said, he thought we ought to be more
attentive to the character of those with whom we were to
treat for alliance and co-operation in carrying on a war, than
of those with whom we were to treat simply for peace, for no-
thing could be clearer than that less security was necessary
for the purposes of making peace, than for making an alliance
to carry on a war. The right honourable gentleman was of-
fended at the expression of " German. Despots," which he had
endeavoured to turn, as if it had been meant to term every
monarch a despot. He hoped, nay he knew and felt, that
there was a monarch who had nothing in common with any
despot on earth, but the name of king. IIis honourable friend,
who made use of the expression (Mr. Whitbread) had stiled
these monarchs properly, for they had manifested to the world
that their uniform intention was to make the increase of their
power the rule of their conduct. He had called the King of
Prussia a despot, meaning always the character of his coun-
cils, on various grounds. He had called him a despot on ac-
emit of his treatment of that brave and meritorious man, La
Fayette; whom, contrary to every rule of civilized nations,
he had most shamefully and cruelly imprisoned. What was
La Fayette's situation now? 'When the Prussian cabinet
thought that they ought not to bear the whole of the odium,
he and his companions in misfortune were transferred to
Austrian prisons. What applications had been made in their
behalf he knew not ; but if report said true, the cabinet of
Vienna, unable to avow what they had done in the face of the
world, added to the infamy of their conduct by the falsehood
and cruelty of denying that they were their prisoners. He
hoped and trusted that the conduct of these despots of Germany
towards these men, would make a deep impression upon a
British House of Commons, and never be mentioned but with
abhorrence.


The right honourable gentleman had said, that the emperor
had various motives for maintaining the credit of his finances
by good faith, of which he gave several instances, speaking, as
he that night was, as chancellor of the exchequer for the emperor,
in which character he knew it was essential to deny his despo-
tism, for the finance and the power of a despot, with respect
to public credit, always ran in an inverse ratio. 'With respect
to his interest in the war as an independent prince, he never
could discover it; and with respect to his interest as head of
the Germanic body, was what they had all read in every news-
paper, true or not ? In concert with other members of the
diet he had agreed, that while preparations were making for
another campaign, serious endeavours should be made to open


a negociation -for peace. Such was, in substance, the reso-
lution adopted on the proposition of the Elector of Mentz.
Let it be supposed that the empire having done what we re-
fused to do, viz. declared a readiness to negociate with the
French republic, should conclude a peace : upon what side of
France was the emperor, as Duke of Austria, to make his at-
tack? If the empire were at peace with France, would it be
the interest of the emperor, or would it be in his power, to
fulfil his engagement with us for continuing the war? We
were now in a peculiar stage of the business, and it became us
to consider our situation very attentively. Four millions were
to be given to the emperor, for which he was to furnish
200,000 men, and perhaps two millions more for a propor-
tionate addition of men. Now, should it not be inquired,
should not the House be satisfied that this was in the emperor's
power? He knew many well-informed men who doubted it
exceedingly. He believed the emperor had it not in his
power ; but he was sure the House ought to know that lie had
both the power and the inclination, before they granted him
such a sum of money.


He now came to the emperor's resources, and his ability to
pay the interest, which the right honourable gentleman said
might be safely depended upon. To this the answer was short :
if' the right honourable gentleman were a better arguer if
every thing he had said were true — if even the emperor had
still greater resources, he would find it difficult to persuade
those who seldom judge amiss where their own interest is
concerned, namely, those who had money to lend, men who
were better judges of the solvency of a borrower than any
minister could be. These were the men the minister should
have convinced. of the stability and wealth of the bank of
Vienna. Had he done so ? By no means. The emperor
had already tried them upon better terms than were held out
by the present loan, and had completely failed. He would
say, completely failed ; if not, let the experiment be tried again.
It signified nothing to make panegyrics in that House upon
the good faith and honour of the emperor, and upon the sol-
vency of the bank of Vienna. Let the minister go into the
city and hear the opinion of monied men. The answer it was
easy to guess. It reminded him of what he bad said the other
day on the verdict of a jury : "The verdict is not guilty,'
and that satisfies me of the innocence of the accused." The
answer of monied men to the emperor would be, " I will not
lend you my money upon your own security." This would
satisfy him of the insolvency of the emperor. Now let it be
inquired what we must actually lose, even in the event of the
emperor fulfilling his engagement. He offered a high rate of




111
382 KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING


[Feb. s.
interest upon his own security. We enabled him by the pro-
posed loan to borrow at a low rate, and as money and credit
were both marketable, we lost precisely the difference. The
right honourable gentleman seemed to doubt this, but it could
easily be illustrated: suppose he had a ship of the value of
x o,o6o/. which was to sail to the West Indies without convoy :
suppose it to be taken, what would be the exact loss ?. Ask the
insurance broker the value-of the insurance, and that would
-be. the- amount of the loss. This loan was more objectionable
even than a subsidy. Subsidies in general were paid by
monthly instalments, and if the services stipulated for were
not performed, we could stop farther payments, as in the
case of the King of Prussia. But could we do so here ?
By no means; for if the emperor should fail at any time to
Rai his engagement, we should still be obliged to pay the
whole amount of the loan. If he should fail to pay the
interest, we should have to raise 450,0001. a year to make itgood,(rood while for the same sum we could borrow ten millions
on our own account. What security had we that the em-
peror would be able to fulfil his engagements? We all knew
that his subjects, as well as those of the King of Prussia, were
unanimous in their wishes for peace. Should he listen to
them, and withdraw entirely from the contest, could we with-
draw from the payment of the loan? No ;• the credit of this
country would be pledged for the whole sum, and it might
be impossible for us to recover a shilling of it. The right
honourable gentleman had said much on the revenue of the
emperor. He wished lie had stated the particulars, and the
surplus after defraying the charges upon it. The Austrian
Netherlands were the security offered for the former loan, but
'they were now gone. Did the minister himself really believe
the state of the emperor's revenue to be such as to enable
him to pay? If he was not able, we might pronounce as many
panegyrics on his honour as we pleased, but after all we must
pay for him. He instanced the case of the Silesian loan,
where the late King of Prussia refused to make good the
engagement to private lenders. If that monarch, for despot
he must not be called, could find a pretext for refusing to
pay private individuals, with how much more ease might a
pretext be found between - two nations? The situation of the
country was indeed calamitous, but not so calamitous as it
must soon become if this measure were adopted. This loan
was to enable the emperor to continue the war only for twelve
months. Would the minister say • that this war would be
terminated within that period, or that if it continued longer
the emperor must not come every year for a like or a larger
supply ?• We should remember the finances of the King of '


i6


1 795.] A LOAN TO THE EMPEROR.
383


Spain : he might, and probably would, come for our assis-
tance, if peace was not soon agreed upon between him and
the French. This was not, as he had been told on a former
occasion, the language of peevishness and passion ; what he
had already said had been verified by the event, and what he
was now saying he had too much reason to apprehend would
be verified in the same manner. Was the right honourable
gentleman confident that the war would terminate with the
next campaign? And was he sure that this war, which he had
undertaken for the sake of order, morality, and religion, and
with the concurrence and for the safety, of all Europe, would
not at last fall entirely upon us; that we shoukl not have to
pay all the expellee of it on the part of Vienna, Sardinia,
Naples, Spain, and ourselves? That we should not have, in
short, to pay. for the armies almost of the whole world? He
might be asked, it' we did not do this, what should we do?
He would answer, add this money to our naval strength,
and depend upon our own exertions, : instead of depending on
treacherous allies ; tbr then we might be able even yet to
sustain six or seven more campaigns; but by the present
system that would be impossible. The conduct of ministers
was highly censurable for their want of caution in this war.
He was of opinion, that the Dutch were not cordially with
us in this war, and the event had justified the opinion. How
stood the case with respect to the other powers? Were the
subjects of the different states attached to this cause againstthe enemy ? He feared that if we compared them together,
we should find they were not. He had reason to know that
the King of Prussia had actually refused to put his troops
under the command of a British general, for fear they would
revolt. He believed the same apprehension was entertained
LA. the Austrians. He wished his Royal Highness the Duke
of York could but take a chair in that House, and give them
the information he was possessed of upon that subject; for lie
was convinced that the effect of that information would be,
that we could have no rational hope of the co-operation of
the Prussians and the Austrians in the next campaign. This
being our situation, the. question was, whether it was prudent
in us to go on with such enormous loans, or to trust to our-
selves, to offer peace, but to prepare for war ? He was sure
he knew which was the wiser course, and it was not his fault
if that House did not adopt it; if we went on upon such
measures as that which was now proposed, we should -drive
ourselves rapidly to ruin, for, in point of extravagance and
folly, this measure was never equalled at any period of .the
existence of this country. The right honourable gentleman
had stated, that this loan was not to affect the supply of the




384 ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.
[Feb. 26.


year. So much the worse, for then the people would not
now feel the effects of it, and it might come upon them on
a sudden when they were unprepared for it, and the danger
of that sort of delusive hope of security was one of the greatest
evils that could happen to a people. He thought, therefore,
that if' this business was to go on, the better way would be
to provide for it at once, by raising taxes; then the people
would see the real situation they were in, and would know
what burdens they must bear; whereas, the other mode only
tended to deceive for the present, in order to make their
distress at a future day the more intolerable. There were
many other objections which he had to this measure, but
these he might perhaps submit at a future period. Mr. Fox
then moved as an amendment, that all the words after the
word " desire," should be left out of the address.


The question being put, " That the words proposed by Mr.
Fox to be left out, stand part of the question," the House divided:


Tellers.
Tellers.{ Mr. Rose
WhitreaYEA SargentMr. Sargent I73.--NoES Mr'1 Mr. W. S


b
mith


d
j


o


ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.


Februaly 26.


4R. WILBERFORCE recalled the attention of the House to
the subject of the slave trade. He reminded the House,


that a formal resolution had passed in the session of 1792, that
after the expiration of the month of January, 1796, it should no
longer be lawful to import African negroes into the British colonies
and plantations. He recapitulated the chief motives that had
led to this determination ; such as the barbarity of the practice,
and the excessive loss of seamen in the unwholesome climates
where that trade was carried on. He adverted to the reasonings
adduced to prove its impolicy, and to the acknowledgment of
nearly the whole House, that they were justly founded. He
strongly objected to the idea, that civilization first flourished on
sea coasts : some persons, he observed, had travelled three hun-
dred miles from Sierra Leone, into the interior parts of Africa,
and had discovered civilized people, inhabiting considerable towns,
possessed of the knowledge of reading and writing, and of many
more of the conveniences of life, than were known to the ina-
bitants on the sea shore. He took notice of the manifest
position of the newler imported negroes to rise against the


1795'3 ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.
385


people, and of the consequent necessity of maintaining a nu,
merous military force to keep them in awe and subjection. He
concluded by moving, " That leave be given to bring in a bill
for the abolition of the slave trade, at a time to he limited." He
was strongly supported by Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Fox, Mr. William
Smith, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Grey. Mr. Barham moved, " That the
debate be adjourned till this day six-months," and was supported
by Mr. Dent, Mr. East, Mr. Dundas, and others.


Mr. Fox said, that often as the present subject had been
agitated, be viewed it as of such importance, that he could
not content himself with giving merely a silent vote on a
question on which his heart was so much interested, and every
feeling of his mind engaged, He had distinctly said from
the beginning, that there was no regulation of the trade which
he could assent to, except with a view to its complete aboli-
tion ; and it was then he bad made use of the expression
alluded to in the course of the debate, " Would they consent
to regulate robbery and methodize murder ?" To confine
themselves merely to regulation, appeared to him to be a sort
of crooked policy, and a departure from the unalterable prin-
ciples of morality and justice. The case had been stated,
Would it not be better, if such an object could be effected,
to diminish by regulations the frequency of the crime of mur-
der, even than to prohibit its commission ? His answer was,
that no 'speculative advantage from such regulations could
outweigh the great moral disadvantage of any legislature
affordine: their countenance to murder. If there was a coun-
try in -Which cannibalism prevailed, ought we to bring men
from Africa for the purpose of being devoured, because, by
being in our hands, the trade might be attended with fewer
victims than would otherwise be sacrificed to the savage appe-
tites of those destroyers of men ? Ought the British legislature
to become the agents or protectors of so inhuman a traffic?
The greatest evil would be removed if' once the parliament
withdrew their sanction from the practice of the slave trade.
One good, at least, had resulted from the discussion : no one
was now found to defend the trade itself.


The honourable gentleman (Mr. Barham) who opposed the
original motion, had stated, that he was as great an enemy to
the trade, and as anxious for its abolition, as the honourable
mover himself'. The African trade, he should ever contend,
was a system of injustice and cruelty, which degraded every
man who practised, and every legislature which sanctioned
it. With respect to the question of the propriety of the time,
he could not help adverting to the delay that had taken place
in the House of Lords. Their Lordships might, no doubt,
have their reasons for the dilatory mode which they had


VOL. V. CC




386
ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. [Feb. 26.


adopted in treating the question : he did not know those
reasons, and till he knew what they were, he was bound to
respect them. But this was the very reason why the House
of Commons ought not to let the question alone, but to bring
it forward for fresh discussion, till something effectual should
be done in the business: The resolution of the House was
sent up to the Lords in the month of April, 17 92; during
the remainder of that session, their lordships had allotted six
days to the subject, and examined seven witnesses; the next
year they had allotted five days, and examined also seven
witnesses; but the year following, they had appropriated only
three days, and examined not more than two witnesses. It
was to be remarked, that during the small remainder of the
year 1792, they had done much more than in either of the
subsequent years; and, if they proceeded in the same way,
what day or part of a day they might devote to the subject in
the present session, was a matter of nice calculation. An
honourable gentleman had said, that the House had voted
their resolution for abolishing the slave trade in 17 96, at a
late hour; a circumstance which, surely, was not by any
means unusual in debates on important subjects. He had
said also, that it was voted by compromise: admitting the
fact to be so, the advocates for the abolition had, undoubtedly,
as great a right to an equal share of the benefit of that com-
promise as their opponents. But the House had not only
come to this resolution, but had come also to several others,
tending to the gradual abolition of the trade; such as putting
an end to the foreign trade. But all this the honourable
gentleman said the House had done, trusting that, previous
to the year 17 96, they might come to their senses. If they
were mad in coming to these resolutions, and trusted that,
previous to the period when they were to be carried into
execution, they would come to their senses, this was the most
singular species of insanity of which he had ever heard. But
there was another circumstance which deserved attention.
At that time the table of the House was covered with peti-
tions from all parts of the country. Was it, then, only to
get rid of the public pressure of the petitions that they had
come to these resolutions? If the House did not effec-
tually follow up their resolutions, their conduct would most
certainly admit of such an interpretation ; nor did he know
how he should be able to refute it. It was a serious thing,
that a body, subsisting upon public opinion, which be con-
tended to be particularly the case with the House of Com-
mons, should preserve the consistency of their character, and
the respect their proceedings ought at all times to be entitled
to. Had any thing been stated by the opponents of the


ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. 387


abolition to prove that the former calculations of the ho-
nourable gentleman, (Mr. Wilberforce,) with respect to the
possibility of keeping up the supply of slaves without any
additional importation, were fallacious, or to show that they
were not as solid as they appeared to be persuasive and con-
vincing? Another argument had been drawn from the ex-
istence of the war, and the danger apprehended from the
slaves. Do you wish then, said Mr. Fox, to increase the
number of those whom you dread? Thie most dangerous slaves
had always been described to be those who were newly im-
ported. When the importation should be abolished, the
condition of the existing slaves would be rendered better,
and the ground of their discontent removed. But an ho-
nourable gentleman had said, that they would be dissatisfied
if the importation from Africa was abolished; that the day
of the arrival of the new slaves was to the others a day of


joy and of triumph. He did not know the fact, nor was lie
disposed to envy the pleasures of any description of men ; but
he could not, upon any principle, account for such an infernal
joy, such a detestable jubilee, as the honourable gentleman
had described. In proportion as their numbers were few, it
was natural to suppose that they would be more likely to be
better treated. If, however, they were so extremely ignorant,
so miserably short-sighted, as to feel any satisfaction from
the arrival of other slaves, their infatuation and blindness
were no grounds why the House should not decide, by put-
ting an end to the slave trade, that the days of their jubilee,
arising from the accession of companions in wretchedness,
should be for ever terminated. But it bad been stated, that,
during the war, the trade had been suspended. If such was
the case, it was only necessary to pass a bill in order to pre-
vent its renewal. The effect of such a bill, it was contended,
would only be to revive the trade ; but this was pushing the
argument to a pitch of extravagance to which lie could not
assent. It was, indeed, saying, that even if the bill was
passed, it would not prevent the importation of slaves. He
was aware how exceedingly difficult it was to carry into
execution any measures that militated against the private
interests of individuals. But the same thing applied to all
prohibitory and revenue bills; such as those which imposed
restrictions on smuggling, &c. If they took so much pains
for the object of revenue, ought they not to do as much in
a cause on which the honour and reputation, and if the
honour and reputation, the existence, of the country de-
pended? Much had been said by the honourable mover which
had received no answer. If the French should succeed in
their plan of training, disciplining, and arming the negroes,


cc




3 88
ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.


[Feb. 26.
might it not be necessary for us to oppose them by the
same means ? In such a situation, we should surely have
much more to hope from having treated the negroes with
kindness and confidence, than from having adopted the con-
trary system. In that view of the subject, if we continued to
bring new slaves from Afrira, we were in fact importing not
so much wealth and strength, but so much weakness, discon-
tent, and rebellion. Mr. Long had mentioned, in his History
of Jamaica, that the newly-imported slaves were the most dan-
gerous. In proportion, then, as we increased the importa-
tion, we increased the danger. If all sense of humanity was
extinguished, if justice had lost its empire, the House ought
to pass a bill prohibiting the importation, in order to remove
the danger. Much had lately been urged of the danger
arising from the importation of French principles. The im-
portation of men smarting with a sense of recent wrongs and
injuries, and not taught to expect any milder treatment than
that which they had already experienced, was more dangerous
than the importation of any French principles whatever.
Every fresh importation of slaves from Africa was a new
ground of hope to the French, and of danger to the British
possessions. With respect to what had been urged of the
situation of the slaves being much better than that of the
lower orders in this country, he did not carry his philanthropy
quite so far as to be prepared to vindicate the continuance of
the trade upon any such reasoning. Why did not we send
our own countrymen to share in the blessings of a situation
which was stated to be so much better than their own ? Why
should we go so far as Africa to force the poor negroes from
their native soil, in order to place them in a situation pre- 111
&rabic to that of the. subjects of this country ? Why should
we be so wild in our beneficence, as to tear them from con-
tented misery, and obtrude upon them a happiness which they
disliked ? In short, he had heard no argument against the
abolition, that was founded on fair and ingenuous principles.
He had heard one argument, that the means now proposed
were not the most proper means to bring about an abolition.
To this he had only to answer, that when , they had an im-
portant object in view, it 11,,as natural for teift to take the
most plain and obvious rhealls of arriving at their end. He
thought that, even if they should not succeed in the object of
effecting a complete abolition, it was material to do away the
:greatest of all evils, that of a British parliament giving coun-
tenance to the existence of a crime the most atrocious in the
records of history. No moral evil could be greater than that
those who argued for injustice, violence, robbery, and num,
der, when they could not avail themselves of reasoning, should


.1;




1795.]
MOTION rOR A COMMITTEE, 389


be able to urge On their side the authority of parliament. On
this ground, he considered as highly meritorious the declar-
ations of the honourable mover and of his honourable friend,
that they would not let the subject sleep, but revive it by fresh
discussions, till they should 'succeed in effecting their object
of a complete abolition of this infamous and disgraceful
traffic.


The question being put on Mr. Barham's motion, That the de-
bate be adjourned till this day six months, the House divided :


Tellers.




YEAS Jenkinson
--NOES


f Mr. E. J. Elioti 6
1Mr. W. Smith A •Sir W. Young 5


Mr. 'Wilberforce's motion was consequently lost.


MR. Fox's MOTION ron A COMMITTEE ON THE STATE OF
THE NATIONr


March 24,


I
N pursuance of the notice lie had given,


Mr. Fox rose to move, that the House should resolve itself
into a committee of the whole House to consider the state of
the nation. Similar motions, he observed, had often been
made, though they seldom had been effectual; and undoubt-
edly some allowances ought to be granted, nor ought the
House ever, in truth, to agree to do it, without having reasons
stated to them of strong political necessity, arising from the
circumstances of the country, the relative situation of other
countries, strong instances of misconduct in ministers-, or such
other grounds as should justify the representatives of the
people in resorting to one of the most solemn modes of in-
quiry known to the constitution. There were some circum-
stances, he was aware, in which that House would not agree
with him in opinion ; but there were others in which he believed
there would be but one sentiment. Whatever opinion gen-
tlemen might have formed of the general state of Europe,
and of our prospects from the prosecution of the system in
which we were engaged, however they might clash as to the
measures to be pursued, there was one object in which they
Must all unite, namely, that such was the present state of this
country, that it was of the utmost importance that the House


cc 3




390 MIte rows IVIOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24,
of Commons sholild stand high with its constituents, and that
it should acquire their confidence by the attention and regard
which they paid to their essential interests.


With respect to the motion he was about to make, it wag
not a new one; he had made a similar one in the year 1777%-
a time which was then considered as critical and perilous ;
and though the House did not think it expedient to accede to
his motion, they could not resist the great truth of the danger
in which the country stood, and in which they felt themselves
by the surrender of our army at Saratoga. If the situation of
the country was considered as critical and perilous then, how
comparatively insignificant were the dangers of that moment
to those of the present 1 Misfortunes now threatened every
part of the empire. Though at that time the majority dif-
fered from him as to the cause of the misfortunes of the coun-
try, they did not think it becoming the dignity of the House
to decline going into an inquiry at so awful and momentous
a crisis; they thought that they could not discharge their
duty to their constituents, when great expellee was to be
incurred, and great risks to be run, by refusing to inquire
into the state of the nation, by which all the strength of our
means would be fairly compared with the justice and value
of the object to be obtained, and a retrospect would be had
of the conduct of those who were entrusted with our affairs.


It was obvious that there was now much dissatisfaction in
the country, not arising from the influence of French prin-
ciples, about which, undoubtedly, there was much difference
-of opinion, but from the natural effect of a system which
had produced so much misfortune and disgrace : a conse-
quence which all the events of the war had served to heighten,
as well as all the measures taken at home. There was not
a mere majority, he said, there was almost a unanimity in
favour of loyalty; but still there were some dissatisfied minds,
and their number was daily increasing. These dissatisfac-
tions had not manifested themselves by plots and conspiracies,
the existence of which he always had and still doubted; but
they did exist, and their origin was not affected to be eon-.
tealed. They arose from the idea that the House of Com-
mons was not the representative of the people—not even vir-
tually the representative of the people—for they did not take
upon themselves the guardianship of their rights, nor shew
the smallest alacrity in the superintendance of their interests.
If such an opinion had gone forth, what :better argument
could the persons who were desirous to gain proselytes have,


See vol. 5.. page 93.


ON THE STATE OF THE NATION. 39 II 7 9 5.]
than, to say, that even at such a moment as the present, the
House of Commons could sit still without bringing the exe:-
cutive government to account ; without even going into art
inquiry into the real state of the nation, anti into the measures
which bad uniformly produced. such calamity and dis-
aster ? This argument would be greatly strengthened by thegre tl
known fact, that the general wish of the people was for peace,
and that even those who were originally the most loud and
vehement declaimers for the justice and necessity of the war,
were now eager for opening the door to an immediate nego-
tiation, and for the return of peace, and no longer anxious to
catch at obstacles to treaty, but were truly and thelingly con-
vinced that peace, if it could be obtained, was an object to be
coveted above every advantage that could be gained by the
war. If, when the public opinion was so changed, the House
should maintain a blind and implicit confidence in ministers,
and should only show themselves desirous- of imposing burdens
on the people, and of supporting measures- which were to
induce new burdens, not only without driving ministers to ne-
gotiation, nor even to account for the millions of money and
oceans of blood which they had squandered, but resisting a
motion to inquire into the use that they had made of the con-
fidence already granted them, what must be the advantage
which was given to all the persons in the country, who were
desirous to spread the dissatisfaction which they felt, and to
prove their assertions, that that House was in reality lost to
all the functions for which it was designed? There were no
means by which their arguments could be so well counte-
nanced, and by which they could so effectually spread the dis-
satisfaction which they themselves felt. In what way, except
by invidious distinctions of declamations against the present
ministry, could men like himself; who loved the British con-
stitution, be able to defend it ? How could they say that the
constitution was essentially good, when the House of Com-
mons suffered such a train of'misfortunes to pass before them,
not merely without punishment, but without inquiry? They
might be asked what they had to say in excuse for their su-
pineness, or what possible answer they could give to the just
charge of relinquishing their duty, and of resisting the ge-
nerabl voice of the people? They might say, that the consti-
tution could not be essentially good, under which less atten-
tion was paid to the people even than in arbitrary govern-
ments. He had always thought that the best defence of the
constitution of England was, not that it tallied with the the-
ories of speculative men, not that in its letter there was more
appearance of regard to the abstract ideas of liberty than was
to be found in its spirit and practice ; but that its best defence


cc 4




39 2met. FOX'S MOTIO.N 'Olt A COMMITTEE [March 24.
'Was its essential uses, its best character was, that it bad pro-
duced substantial happiness to man. Take away this argu-
ment, and leave it to those who were dissatisfied with our
government to call upon its defenders to look at 118 practice,
and to say that our executive government had gone on for
two years in a system which involved an expellee of blood
and treasure beyond comparison, in an object which had been
never explained, by measures which had uniformly finial, in
which every one event had been marked either by disaster,
or disgrace, or by both ; and that at the end of this time the
House of Commons abetted the government in the continu-
ance of the same course, and it would be in vain to contend.
that the theoretical beauty of the constitution could be illus
trated by its practice. They would naturally say, If this
constitution be practically good, what constitution can be
practically bad? What was the true character of a bad go-
vernment ? That the measures of a prince, though wicked
and flagitious, might be persevered in for a time against the
interests of his people. This Was not always true; for the
most despotic princes had not always been able to keep their
ministers in defiance of the indignation of the country. If it
were possible for the ministers of Great Britain to persevere in
their measures, under such a series of disasters as we had suf-
fered, not only without responsibility, but even without in-
quiry, then the most just accusation against despotic govern-
ments would be applicable to this; and thus the advocates for
the British constitution would be deprived of their very best
arguments for its defences


Convinced of this, he thought, that if he did nothing but
state to the House, that we had been now two years engaged
in a war, in every part of which we had failed, in which all
our measures had been disastrous, in which we had lost the
object for which we at first pretended to undertake the war,


-and in which our enemy had gained more than the wildest
imaginations of those who drove us into it, ever ascribed
either to their ambition or to their principles, he should re-
quire no further inducements to prevail on a House of Com-
mons that was eager to discharge its duty, to go into a com-
mittee on the state of the nation. He would not, however,
content himself with this general argument. An inquiry into
the state of the nation would divide itself into various branches.
It would be impossible for him, in the course of the short
time that he could hope to engage their attention, to go
through the detail of all the circumstances which forcibly
called upon the House to go into this inquiry; he should state
only a few, hut these, in his mind, would be sufficient to induce
them, if they regarded their duty, to agree with him in his


1795;3
ON THE STATE OE THE NATION. 393


motion ; for he owned he did not think it possible for any
description of men to commit their reputation so far as to
assert that they had done their duty to their constituents, if
they refused the inquiry.


The state of the nation, (continued Mr. Fox,) as I have
just said, is undoubtedly to be considered in various lights.First of all, as to our own resources with respect to men;
with respect to money ; and with respect to the using of those
men and that money for the purposes of the war in which we
arc engaged. But these resources of men and money, and
the manner in which they are to be used, are not only to be
considered by themselves, but we are likewise to consider
from whence those resources flow — the state of population,
manufactures and commerce, and the general prosperity of
the country. When we have done this, we must go next
into a consideration of our connections abroad. "We must
take a survey of our allies, the dependence to be placed on
them, the situation of those allies, and the state not only of
their will, but their power to act, and to serve the common
cause. And even when these points are considered, there will
remain others of equal importance to be discussed; I mean
with respect to the principles on which we have hitherto car-
ried on the war, and on which we arc likely to continue it.
It is material when we are engaged in a war, particularly of
this kind, which has been qualified by so many different
epithets, and on which the eyes of mankind are so peculiarly
fixed; it is material, I say, that in such a war we should in-
variably maintain the character of moderation, humanity and
justice, without which it is impossible that we should also
support the character of vigour and exertion, of wisdom and
prudence. These are part, and not the least important, of
the resources of a country. They are important in another
view, because it is essential to . consicler whether we have car-
ried on the war with justice and vigour, with wisdom and.
prudence; and though I believe the contrary will turn out to
be the case; yet if it should appear that the war was not only
just in its origin, but that we have acted in the prosecution of
it vigorously and wisely, then I am afraid the result will he
complete despair. If our conduct in the management of the
war has been marked with vigour and wisdom, and we have
been more than two years exhausting our resources ineffec-
tually; I wish to know, if neither from a change of measures
nor a change of councils, I have any reason to look for better
success in the future operations of this war ; I wish to know,
I say, what other inference I can draw but that of absolute
irremediable despair ? If that be the case, the result of an
inquiry into the state of the nation will be, that confidence




394
MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24.


ought to be given to the king's ministers. For however ca-
lamitous the present state of the country may be, if it was
brought about without any fault of theirs, undoubtedly confi-
dence ought not to be withdrawn from them. But even in
this case an inquiry will be material, because it will lead to
a discovery of the true causes of our failure, and of the pre-
sent distresses of the country, and prove the necessity of
abandoning the pursuit of an object, which experience has
taught us cannot be obtained. The enquiry will be even ad-
vantageous to ministers, by sheaving that they have acted with
justice, wisdom and vigour, in the steps which they have


z taken, though they have been unfortunate in the result. But
if it should turn out, as I suspect it will, that ministers have
not acted according to any of the principles I have now stated ;
if it should appear that they have neither acted with justice
and humanity, nor with wisdom and vigour, then it is possible
that the object may still be obtained, though the means must
be varied. But, as I have already said, if ministers have
acted with justice and vigour, then the result must be perfect
despair; and it belongs to this House to force ministers, if
unwilling, to abandon an object, which a period of upwards
of two years has proved to be unattainable. For that object,
which experience has shewn cannot be accomplished by
ordinary means, must be bad, and ought no longer to be
pursued.


Now, Sir, with respect to the first branch, I have pre-
mised, that it is impossible for me to state with accuracy to
the House the loss of men in this contest; and if the House
goes with me into a committee, I should certainly wish to
have laid before them an accurate return of the loss of men
since the commencement of the present war. First, with re-
spect to the loss of the British as the most important part of
the subject, we have had a paper laid before us this session,
which, from what appears on the face of it, cannot possibly
be correct. I have compared it with other accounts, on which
I admit I have not the highest reliance, those detailed in the
London Gazette; and I find a considerable difference between
the loss of men as stated in the gazette, and that in the paper
which now lies on our table. The paper upon the table, by
giving a return of the privates only, and by omitting to give
any return of the officers, seijeants, drummers, &c. diminishes
our loss in appearance at least one tenth. There are also
losses mentioned, although perhaps not specified in the gazette,
of which no return is to be found in this paper. There is
one general item to which I wish to advert ; an account of a
considerable loss about the 9th of May, and of which no
notice whatever is taken in the paper upon the table. I have


ON THE STAIE or THE NATIONz 3951795i]
heard there was some loss of British at Nieuport : British
standards were taken at Valenciennes and Conde; and there-
fore there must have been a loss of British troops also in that
quarter. The loss at Bergem-op-Zoom is not enumerated in
this account. I mention these circumstances to show, that if
any gentleman imagine that there was no loss of men during
the last campaign, except what appears from the paper on the
table, they deceive themselves grossly ; and there is but too
much reason to suppose, that ministers have concerted among
themselves to make the loss of British appear less consider-
able than it really is. I have seen returns, which I believe to
be authentic, which make the number of British in the month
of September last 26,000 men. Now, are there any hopes,
When that army shall come home (and the sooner it comes
home the better,) that the loss out of that number will not
be much greater than we have been taught to believe ? Are
there any hopes that half of that number will return ? A list
of the wounded, killed and missing will not be sufficient, be-
cause undoubtedly in every army there is much mortality not
included under what is generally called the loss of men ;
therefore, instead of calculating the loss from the number of
killed, wounded, and missing, we must examine the general
state of the army. We must compare its numbers at dif-;
ferent periods, and include mortality of every kind. 'We must
not only look to the army in Flanders, but we must look to
our army wherever it is stationed, whether in the East or
West Indies, or on the continent. We must also attend to
the number of recruits that have been enlisted since the com-
mencement of the present war, and, by comparing the number
of these and the general state of the army at different times,
judge from a view of the whole circumstances what has beenthe real loss of men. If we follow this method, which I take
to be the only just mode of calculation, then I believe we
shall find that the loss of men sustained in this war has been
such as will make every thinking man, who knows any thing
of the state of the population of this country, reflect se-
riously whether we can afford to substitute new armies for
the old.


But we ought to ascertain not only the loss of men in the
British army and navy, but also the loss of all troops in
British pay. When that article comes to be stated, I believe
we shall find the loss to be even greater than that of the
British. That loss, it is evident, must likewise be taken into
the account. But this is not all. If we consider that this is
a war in which we cannot act but through the medium of
=Treat continental alliances, it becomes a most material part of
the consideration to state also the loss of our allies. Is it




396


MR: FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24. 1795.11 oN THE STATE OF THE NATION. 397
or is it not true, that in the course of the last campaign
only, the number of prisoners of war who surrendered to the
French republic amounted to more than 6o,000 men ? if
this be true, ought it not to induce a British House of Corn-
mons to go into this inquiry before we proceed further in a
'war which has brought so many calamities upon all who have
had any share in carrying it on, and which has occasioned so
dreadful an exhaustion of blood and treasure? Ought we not
to go into a committee of inquiry, to satisfy ourselves of the
real state of our population, and to ascertain whether the
country is able to bear such drains of men for the purposes of
war ? If we go into this inquiry, I will venture to assert,
that, during the last campaign only, more than 6o,000 men of
all descriptions surrendered to the French republic. It is sup-
posed, and I trust it is true, that this country has of late years
increased greatly in population. That increase, however, has
not been in proportion to its increase of wealth and prosperity.
From some documents which were recently laid before the
House, we find that the number of houses in Great Britain
now paying taxes to government, does not materially differ
from the number of houses paying taxes to government in
1777, a period of eighteen years, during which we are sup-
posed to have advanced considerably both in point of wealth
and splendour, I know that many persons reject this account,
and say it cannot be true, because it is contrary to general
observation. Now, with respect to houses paying taxes, it
most certainly is correct: and it may be asked, whether the
great increase of houses of late is of such as pay taxes, or of
cottages of the lower sort which are exempted ? I have one
more observation to make on this paper. In looking it over,
I immediately turned my eye to those places where I con-
ceived the population had most increased. I looked at Mid-
dlesex and Lancaster, and I found, according to this paper,
that the increase there has been considerable, and likewise in
some other places ; but that in other counties of Great Britain
this increase seems to be balanced by a general decrease ; and,
therefore, the paper on the table, though not wholly to be
relied on, is not wholly to be rejected. The increase in the
two counties of Middlesex and Lancaster, which I have just
mentioned, confirms the accuracy of the statement. The re-
sult, then, seems to be, that the population of Great Britain
has not increased in proportion to its apparent wealth and
prosperity; and that it cannot afford to repair the loss of blood
which it has already suffered by the war.


But it may be said that his majesty has other dominions
from which resources of men may be procured. I particu- ,
laxly allude to Ireland, to which, before I sit down, it may be


proper for me to advert. There is no one circumstance in
which our sister kingdom, from her happy connexion with
this country, is of more importance than in the number of
men which she furnishes to the army .and navy of Great Bri-
tain in time of war ; and if, by any strange and crooked
policy, that country should be alienated in affection from this,
and lose that zeal which has commonly distinguished her in
the public cause—I say, if any misguided policy should un-
fortunately produce such an effect, it is obvious that all the
observations I have made on the population of this country,
and its inadequacy to support such a ruinous war as that in
which we are now engaged, will be strengthened to a degree
which those who are not well acquainted with this subject can
scarcely conceive.


The next article of resource which I mentioned is that of
money. We have in the course of this war funded somewhat
above fifty millions, and when we add to that the increase of
unflinded debt, we shall find we have already incurred an ex-
pence of between sixty and seventy millions, and the perma-
nent taxes which have been imposed in consequence of the
present war, cannot at this moment be much less than three
millions sterling. Now it is said, that though the permanent
taxes of the country have been increased in order to supply
the exigences of the state, yet they are not such taxes as will
be felt by the people in general. How far some of them have
been well selected or not, is a question on which I shall not
take up the time of the House to discuss. I shall only observe,
that if they are necessary, they must be borne, unless better
can be substituted in their place. But to say that the taxes of
last year, and particularly those of the present, will not fall,
and fall with terrible weight, on the middling ranks of the
people, is to speak without any knowledge of the situation of
the country. It is true, that it is proper to-. tax luxuries in
preference to the necessaries of life : it is proper to tax hea-
vily the higher orders of society, because they are well able to
bear the burden. But it has been falsely supposed, that in
proportion as the rich are taxed the poor are relieved. In
the present state of this country, those taxes which ministers
call taxes on luxuries fall heavy indeed on the most numerous
class of society, and consequently must fall with peculiar pres-
sure on the poorest. The idea of imposing taxes which shall
fall upon one class only, and'shall in no degree be felt by the
others, however plausible in theory,. is in fact an idle dream.
We cannot lay a tax on the poor that will not fall on the rich;
and, I am sorry to say, it is not possible to impose a tax on
the rich which will not be felt by the poor.


!,*




393 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [Nardi 24,


But let us admit for a moment that these three millions are
not a burden too heavy for the people to bear — if this war is
to go on, let me ask the right honourable gentleman opposite, •
whether he has considered of the absolute necessity of im-
posing burdens for the next campaign to as great an amount,
and possibly to a much greater than any which this country
has yet experienced ? For, if the war goes on, our burdens
must necessarily increase in proportion to the length of its
duration. Let it not be said in answer to this, " Sufficient
for the day is the evil thereof." This is not an answer fit for
a statesman to make, nor is it the answer which a British
House of Commons ought to receive. This House ought to
calculate on the continuance of the war, and to consider what
are the resources by which it is to be supported. We ought
to consider how far the people are able to bear more taxes,
and the different branches of our trade and manufactures capa-
ble of supporting additional duties, for that more will be
necessary in the-course of the next year is what no man will
dispute. Do not all these circumstances incontestably prove
that it-is the bounden duty of this House to go into an exa-
mination of the present state of the country, and to prove to
our constituents and to the people at large, that, as we have
not spared their blood and treasure, so we will not spare our
own labour or responsibility ? It is only by entering into this
investigation, and by comparing the object with the means,
that we can determine whether we ought to renounce the object,
or change the means by which that object is to be obtained ;
or whether we are to continue the same hopeless object with
the same hopeless means ; whether with the same administra-
tion, with the same advisers, we are to persevere in a system
which has hitherto produced nothing but misfortune and
misery.


It is said, however, that our resources are supportrd by the
trade and manufactures of the kingdom, and that these are in a
most flourishing condition. In order to see how far this asser-
tion is well founded, let us a little examine the state of the trade
and manufactures of the kingdom; and first of its manufactures.
I wish to refer to those counties where the manufactures of
Great Britain have been carried to the greatest perfection,
and to know of gentlemen who are better acquainted with the
state of those counties than I can pretend to be, what effect
the present war has had upon them. I wish to know whether
the manufactures have not been most materially injured by the
war ; and whether the circumstance of their appearing to have
suffered less last year than in the year preceding, was not
owing to our gaining the possession of the French West-India


ON TILE STATE OF THE NATION. 3991795.]
islands. I wish to know whether this was not one of the for-
tunate circumstances which had the effect of affording a tem-
porary relief; but to the duration of which we cannot look
with any reasonable prospect. On a former day, when the
right honourable gentleman opened the ways and means of the
year, flourishing accounts were given of the amount of our
exports of British manufactures in the years 1792, 1793, and
1794. We were told that the exports in the year 1792,
amounted to upwards of eighteen millions sterling; that the
exports in the year 1793 were less than those of 1792, by four
millions ; and that the exports in the year 1794 exceeded those
of 1 793 by two millions, and consequently were only-two ndl-
lions short of 1792. NOW, the loss of the first year of the war
being two-ninths of the whole exports of British manufac-
tures, must strike at the very root of our commerce. This is
a loss which must impress every man, and must go to affect the
very basis of our prosperity. The circumstance of the ex-
ports of British manufactures last year being two millions
more than they were in 1793, is easily to be accounted for.
I appeal to those gentlemen who are best acquainted with the
commercial districts of the kingdom, whether it was not in a
great measure owing to the sanguine speculations of some
merchants in consequence of our lately acquired possessions in
the French West-India islands. I would ask those who are
acquainted with the county palatine of Lancaster, what has
been the diminution of population since the commencement
of the present war. I have seen papers myself, the contents
of which, if the proposed inquiry is entered upon, I shall state
to the House. According to those papers, the diminution of
population and of manufactures in Manchester and its neigh-
bourhood was truly alarming. .We have no very accurate
mode in Great Britain of ascertaining the population of the
country. We have no better method, I believe, than by
taking the number of marriages and baptisms. I have seen
papers with regard to a great number of parishes in the most
populous part of Lancashire ; and the diminution, taken from
a calculation of marriages and baptisms, is in some places one
half, in others one third, and in none less than one fourth.
In all there is a diminution, and in the largest parish of Man-
chester, it is estimated at one half'; and that to a number so
large, as to make the total diminution of the inhabitants
amount to about twelve thousand. That this should be the
consequence of the war, is exceedingly natural. But I
would ask the House whether, when the very existence of the
country is at stake, it does not become them to ascertain the
truth, which can only be done b y an inquiry into the state of
our population and of our manufactures, instead of trusting to




1


4


400 MR. Fox's MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24-
the absurd and idle expressions of the inexhaustible resources
of the country. The information we might receive from a
serious inquiry into the real state of our population, might
induce us to change our means, or perhaps to change our
object.


Now, Sir, another part of the resources of this country is
our trade and commerce, as distinguished from our manu-
factures. With respect to the trade of this country, when I
made a motion last year for an inquiry into the conduct of
the Admiralty, after taking considerable pains to state a
variety of instances, where, as I conceived, the Admiralty
were highly negligent of their duty in not protecting the trade
of the country, I received this short answer — " Look to the
low rate of insurance." Having found that to be an argil
ment so powerful with the House, I took some pains to
inquire into the state of insurance, and will state some cir-
cumstances on this subject, which appear to me to afford
sufficient ground for going into the proposed inquiry. It may
be supposed that the motion respecting the Admiralty might
give rise to an opinion among the underwriters, that it would
induce ministry to be a little more attentive to the protection
of our trade in future, so as to make the risk somewhat less.
I am not now deciding whether that be true or Use; but it
certainly was calculated to keep down the rate of insurance.
The fact, how-ever, is, that insurance from that time has been
uniformly rising, until it has come to its present most enor-
mous rate, a rate so enormous as the House may perhaps
find some difficulty to believe, till the fact shall be ascertained
by an inquiry. At present, insurance from this country to
Jamaica, and to the other parts of the West Indies, with all
the alliances we possess, is as high as it was in the late Arne-
rican war, when this country had to contend with France,
Spain, Holland, and America. With so many powers in
confederacy, and France now our single enemy, insurance to
the West Indies is as high as it was at that time when we had
so many powers leagued against us, and when the fleets of
France and Spain united were confessedly superior in number
to the fleets of Great Britain, With regard to the Mediter-
ranean trade, strange to tell ! at this period, after all that we
have expended on the fleet there, insurance to that quarter is
much in the same situation as it was during the last war.


With respect to the trade with Spain and Portugal, the
present rate of insurance will appear to be as high as I have
now stated it. With respect to the state of our trade with
Spain, I understand that it is totally stopped with some of the
ports of that country, on the ground that insurance is sp
high that the trade cannot be carried on. The insurance


1795-] ON THE STATE OF THE NATION. 405
from Great Britain to Bilboa„ or to Barcelona, is from twenty-
five to thirty guineas per cent., and to add to this, the
merchants are not only obliged to insure the cargo, but also
the premium on it, otherwise they would only receive 701. in
the hundred : admitting the premium to be from twenty-five
to thirty guineas, the real .rate of insurance must then be
from thirty-six to thirty-seven per cent. Now, whether it is
possible that the trade of this or of any other country can sup-
port such a rate of insurance, it is for those who are better
acquainted with this subject than I am, to explain. I believe
no trade whatever can go on with this rate of insurance, and
therefore another mode has, I understand, been adopted :
that a great part of our manufactures have been sent to Ham-
burgh, and from thence have been conveyed in neutral vessels
to Spain and Portugal. The same fatality that has accompa-
nied every part of the war has been felt here; the price of
insurance between this country and Hamburgh, which was
formerly only one or one and a half, has now increased to ten
per cent. When this subject was last before the House, facts
were adduced to shew that insurance was not only very low,
but extremely advantageous to the underwriters. But is not
the.fact now directly the reverse ? Has not the credit of the
underwriters been greatly diminished in consequence of the
losses they have lately sustained? Although individual under-
writers may be found, who will underwrite policies at seven
per cent., merchants prefer paying companies ten per cent. on
account of their superior security. So low is the credit of the
underwriters ! This clearly shews that, high as the premium
is, it has not been high enough to insure the underwriters. I
mention these facts, with respect to insurance, because with-
out them my argument would have been incomplete. I have
not stated the present rate of insurance, with any view to
shew how ill our naval force has been employed for the pro-
tection of our trade; but I have stated it merely to prove that,
from the high price of insurance, there is every reason to be-
lieve that trade and commerce, the great basis on which our
revenue stands, arc affected in a considerable degree, and
therefore, that it is of the utmost importance to consider the
real state in which atpresent we stand.


I now come, Sir, to the next point to which I alluded —
I mean our connection with other nations. It is hardly cre-
dible that a British House of Commons should so fin- forget
their duty, as to vote away sums never before heard of; and
persist in the prosecution of a war, without even knowing
whether we have allies, or if we have any, who they are;
what are their situation and circumstances; and what their
abilities and inclinations. It is material for this House to




402 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24.
know who the allies of this country are. I have frequently
asked the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer
questions with respect to the emperor and the King of Sar-
dinia, but I have never received any satisfactory answer. Is
the King of Prussia an ally of this country, at this moment,
or is he not? Am I to take it for granted, without giving my-
self the trouble to inquire, whether so material a personage is
or is not our ally ? I know he was our ally by treaty in 1788 ;
I know he was our ally by convention in 1793 ; and farther,
that he was our ally by subsidy in 17 94 : but I ask, whether
he is our ally at the present moment? Did the King of Prussia
fulfil the treaty for which the subsidy was granted'? If he did,
why was it discontinued ? If he did not, ought not this House
to be apprised of his breach of faith ? Ought not this House
to be informed of the moment in which he ceased to be our
ally ? It is indispensably necessary, for the honour of this
country, that this House should have a perfect knowledge of
the whole of this business ; for without that knowledge we
cannot pass a judgment on the conduct of the King of Prussia.
If, when we go into this inquiry, we find that he has
kept his engagements with this country, we shall be enabled
to do justice to that much injured monarch. But if, as I
suspect, he has not, is it not fit that this House should call to
account the king's ministers for having squandered away such
immense sums of the public money? An inquiry, in every
point of view, will be productive of advantage; for, by going
into a committee, we shall be enabled to see distinctly whether
the King of. Prussia has fulfilled his treaties; and if he has, I
am sure this House will be disposed to do ample justice to
50 good a prince. But if the contrary shall turn out ba'be the
Case, if it shall appear that he, has notoriously failed in the
performance of his engagements—is it not material that this
House should declare its indignation at such a conduct, and
show, that they will not tamely suffer themselves to be so duped
by any prince in future ? If the King of Prussia is no longer an
ally of ours, what becomes of his other treaties? Let me re-
mind the House, that the King of Prussia was to send into
the field 62,000 men, but that we were only to pay for 30,000.
In consequence of the treaty of 1788, he was to furnish us
with 32,000 men, without any additional subsidy ; what, then,
has become of that treaty ? We readily gave a subsidy to the
King of Prussia to furnish us with 30,000 men. He was
bound by a former treaty to furnish us with 3 2,000 men for
nothing; but it now turns out that we have not only lost the
30,000 men we subsidised, but also the 3 2,00o we were to
have for nothing in virtue of his previous engagements.
Now I ask, is such conduct to be borne? and are we to be'


ON THE STATE Or THE NATION. 4031795.]
told of the advantages to be derived from alliances with re-
gular governments, and of the dependence to be placed on
the regular government of Prussia ? France is not a regular
government, and we have heard much of the danger of treat-
ing in any shape with her : but Prussia, we were told, we may
rely on ; and the result has been, that instead of having what
we stipulated and paid for in the last instance, we lose what
we were entitled to by previous agreement. And, notwith-
standing this flagrant conduct of the King of Prussia, a British
House of Commons consents to squander away the wealth of
the country, to lose the whole army supposed to be purchased
by it, merely because the minister chases to say he is not in-
formed of the particulars of the breach of that treaty 1 The
question now is, whether this matter is to be inquired into or
not? The minister adds, that even admitting that the King
of Prussia has not sent into the field the armies he undertook
to send, it is not thence, in fairness of reasoning, to be inferred;
that our other allies will not be faithful to their engagements.
I have heard it asserted in this House;that the King of Prussia
continued to execute a part of his stipulation for a consider-
able time, and that the payment, on our part, was discontinued
when he failed in the performance of his engagement. It was
asserted by an honourable baronet, that the part he acted
was more beneficial to the common cause than if he had
strictly and literally conformed to the terms of the treaty.
Let this curious assertion be inquired into and ascertained.
If it shall be proved, let the House do their duty, and render
justice to that ill-treated monarch ; let them declare that mi-
nisters have acted towards him with treachery and injustice ;
or if not, let them do justice to ministers, and declare that
their conduct has been wise and upright.


But, Sir, I have at this moment no certain means of in-
formation as to what we have to look for from the prosecution
of the war. I have read in some of the newspapers that the
King of Prussia is sending a large army to the Rhine, and in
others, that he considers the Rhine as a proper boundary for
France ; it is said by some that he is marching towards West- .
phalia against the French, and by others, that he is marching
against the allies. Now, we ought to know precisely the truth.
I wish to ascertain what probability there is that he will be
our ally, that he will be our enemy, or that. he will remain in
a state of neutrality? %Vhat demands have been made from
this country with a view to an explanation, and in what man-
ner he has treated the applications of the British ministry for
that purpose? I want to know what communications have
passed, and what remonstrances have been made ; for re-
monstrances must have been made, or ministers must have


D 2




404 M. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 2.1
grossly neglected their duty. The treaty of 1788 was a de-
fensive treaty. France declared war against us; and there-
fore, say the gentlemen on the other side of the House, we
were forced into the war by their aggression. I confess I
shall doubt their sincerity, unless they have called upon the
King of Prussia to perform his treaty. Although his ma-
jesty's ministers might say to the King of Prussia, " We have
-been attacked by France, and therefore call upon you to assist
us, agreeably to your treaty," that monarch might have replied,
" No; I know better, though you have procured a confiding
.parliament to say so; you were the aggressors, and therefore
-I am not bound in consequence of my treaty, which was only
defensive, to furnish you with 30,000 men." I ask the House,
whether they can so far betray their constituents, as to go on
without inquiring what the conduct of the King of Prussia has
been towards this country, and what our conduct has been
towards him.


There is another answer which may possibly be made by
the King of Prussia, in vindication of his conduct, and which
would explain the assertion of the honourable baronet. He
may say, 44 The object of this war was not the saving or gain-
ing of this or that particular province, the capture of a town,
or the recovery of a fortress. The object of it was the sup-
pression of those jacobin principles that were subversive of
all regular governments." lie may say, (as has been stated
by an honourable baronet,) " I have done better for you than
you have done for yourselves. It was essential to crush jaco-
bin principles in Poland. You fought for morality, religion,
and social order. I fought to suppress those anarchical prin-
ciples which went to the destruction of all regular govern-
ments. Who was of the greatest service to the common
cause—he that took a town, a city, a fortress, or an island,
or he that prevented jacobin principles from taking root in
Poland, and dashed the cup of rising freedom from the lips
of that abominable people?" The destruction of even one man
—the destruction of Kosciuscko—who by his character gave
credit to the cause of liberty, and by the ardour of his zeal
animated the sacred flame in every congenial bosom through-
out Europe — what signified the recovery of Flanders, or the
preservation of Holland, to the capture of Kosciuscko ? The
destruction of this man, and with him of the seeds of growing
liberty, tended more to the success of the real cause of the
confederacy, than any co-operation with their troops _which
might have been the means of saving Holland or of recover-
ing Brabant. If so, the country should know, through the
medium of this House, that his majesty's ministers have ad-,
vanced twelve hundred thousand pounds to the King cif


1 795.] ON THE STATE OF THE NATION. 405
Prussia, to enable him to subdue Poland; for without Our
assistance, he could not have effected what he has done in
that country ; and if he had not been employed in that quar-
ter, he would have done as much for the common cause
against France as he has done —which is just nothing. Does
it not become us to inquire into this business, in order that
we may drive disgrace from ourselves to those on whom it
ought to attach ?


The King of Prussia, I suppose, is no longer to be con-
sidered as our ally; but if he is, let us look to his ability, and
consider how far he is to be depended upon. From an au-
thentic paper, I find him stating to the diet of the empire his
situation; in which he declares it is utterly impossible for him
to continue the war. He announced, about twelve months
ago, that he had actually begun to withdraw his troops from
the Rhine homewards On Se ground of his incapacity, in a
pecuniary point of view, to support such large armies; and
he continued to withdraw his troops until he received assist-
ance from us. It is therefore clear, that, without additional
pecuniary aid from this country, whether willing or unwilling,
he is totally incapable of prosecuting the war ; and therefore,
if we are to look upon him as an ally, he must be subsidized
or hired; nay, possibly, we may be obliged to purchase his
neutrality—and even in that case, I know not but he may
make us pay for every one of his troops. Considering,
therefore, the King of Prussia as much more likely to assist
the French than to co-operate with us, we must regard him
as a person gone off from the alliance.


I now come to our great friend, the emperor. I am told
that it is most unjust, indeed, to reason from Prussia to Austria,
or from Leopold to Francis ; that the present emperor is a
personage of unsullied integrity ; that we are not to judge of
him from the character of some of his predecessors; and that
we are to consider -the court of Vienna as completely unblem-
ished in point of honour. -We find that the emperor has made
declarations nearly to the same effect as those of Prussia.
In the declarations published by the Prince of Cobourg, he
says to the people of Germany, "You must take your plate
from your table—you must take your plate from your altars
— you must collect all your valuables, whether profime or
sacred—you must put all the property you possess in a state
of requisition ; for without such extraordinary exertions, the
emperor cannot carry on the war." But, it may be said, we
will enable him to come forward with a large force, by grant-
ing, in aid of his resources, a loan of four or six millions. Now
if the emperor, either from inclination or inability, should fail
in his engagements, and should, contrary to his character for


DI) 3




406 Fox's MOTION poi A COMMITTEE [March 24.
good fi►itia, neglect to perform his treaty, we have not even
that miserable tie on him which we had on the King of Prussia.
When the emperor ceases to perform his treaty, we cannot
stop our payments, because the emperor says, " Give me it all
at once." Our money, therefore, is absolutely necessary to
enable him to stir in the first instance; and if, either from
want of ability or any other circumstance, he should fail to
perform his treaty, it is obvious that the money we advance him
must be irrecoverably lost. And farther, if so large a sum is
necessary to enable his Imperial majesty to act in the present
campaign, will not an equal or a larger sum be wanted for the
next campaign, if the war should continue? And therefore
gentlemen must clearly see, that the whole of the burden of
the war will fall on this devoted country. When Great
Britain entered upon this war, she was promised the assistance
of all Europe; and in less than twenty-four months, the whole
burden of the war has devolved upon Great Britain !


But it is said, we have other allies. We have allies in Italy
and Spain. But alas ! although we pay great subsidies to the
Italian princes, we have scarcely heard of a movement in that
quarter. Indeed, to consult the London Gazette for 1794,
we might suppose Spain and Italy to be neutral powers, as no
notice is taken of their military operations during that period.
With respect to the King of Sardinia, our first ally in Italy,
whatever gentleman may have thought at different periods of
this war, it is possible, if he had enjoyed a real and bond fide
neutrality, it would have been much more beneficial to this coun-
try than any diversion which he has been able to make. With
regard to the diversions attempted in the south of France,
what advantage the cause of the allies has reaped there from
diversions I am at a loss to discover, and I believe this House
has yet to learn.


But we have another ally, the King of Spain. Now, what
is the real state of Spain ? It is of importance that we should
turn our view to the present situation of that country. A
great part of its north-eastern provinces has already been con-
quered by France: Bilboa and Barcelona are in a consider-
able degree of danger. Are we to look, then, to the Spanish
Monarchy as being possessed of force sufficient to act against
France with effect? Or is it not that part of the alliance which
is the most weak, and on 'which it is probable the French will
soon make an impression, thatvsill decide the fate of the war in
that kingdom ? Iwastold there wassucha store of vigou r in that
country, that the people would rise in a mass against France.
But when that came to the trial, there was nothing which ap-
parently so much contributed to the failure, as the individuai
treachery of the officers of the King of Spain ; in no quarter


ON TIIE STATE OF TILE NATION. 4071795.]
was there so much cause for jealousy, or of a want of dispo-
sition to resist the French. It may be asked, Was Figueres
taken by the French, or did it not surrender? It is extremely
probable that French intrigue upon this occasion operated
more than French force. It was, also imagined, that the
bigoted attachment of the Spaniards to the Roman catholic
religion would inspire them with vigour against the French,
who are supposed to have trampled upon all religion. But
was this the case ? We know the reverse to be the fact.


But what is the state of Spain in other respects? Of all
parts of Spain, there is none in which there is so much vigour
as in Catalonia ; into the heart of which the French have pe-
netrated. What was the history of that people? When the
French by their arms had made a considerable advance
into this province, the people of Barcelona determined to re-
sist their progress, and to undertake their owls defence. Ac-
cordingly, they sent a deputation to that effect to Madrid,
stating that they. wished to undertake the defence of the coun-
try, and that they would defend it to the last drop of their
blood, provided no Spanish troops were sent to their assistance,
except some particular regiments, which they specified, and
provided an assembly of the state was called. This depu-
tation received no answer; or rather, they received a direct
refusal ; and the French found but too easy a conquest in that
province. I mention this to skew, that Spain is not a country
to be depended upon, and that she is one of the weakest of
our allies. The King of Sardinia and the King of Spain
were to have made different diversions in aid of the confede-
racy. The King of Sardinia undertook to make a diversion
in Dauphiny, and at this moment the French are masters of
Nice and Savoy. Spain engaged to make a diversion in
Rousillon, and the French are now in possession of Navarre,
Biscay, and Catalonia. All these allies, therefore, upon whose
exertions so much dependance was placed by the ministers of
this country, are now so many dead weights upon our treasury.


Are the Spaniards in a much better situation in regard to
their finances? It is true they have not yet called upon this
country for a subsidy; but they must either soon make that
application, or, what will be much more beneficial for them-
selves, make a separate peace with France. They have had.
recourse to measures of finance of a very extraordinary na-
ture. I shall name one of them. Gentlemen will recollect
that ars honourable friend of mine, not long ago, made a
motion in this House for laying a moderate tax on all offices
and employments under government during the war. The
House will recollect with what ridicule that motion was re-
ceived. It was considered as a paltry resource, to which no


D 4


4.1




408 am. FOX'S MOTION roit A COMMITTEE [March 24:,


nation, that was not utterly exhausted in its finances, ought
to resort. But what has the King of Spain done? The.
Spanish .court has laid a- duty of four per cent. upon every
person enjoying any office in Spain above one hundred and
fifty pounds per annum, and a tax of twenty-five per cent.
upon the salaries of all the councillors of state, for the support
of the present war. I am not commending this expedient.
I am only stating it, to show what the situation of Spain is
with respect to her finances; and how little the allies can rely
on that country for support in the prosecution of the war..


Such, Sir, is the real situation of our allies, according to
the best information I have been able to procure. And is
not this an additional argument for going into an inquiry into
the state of the nation, in order to ascertain distinctly the pm-
cise dependance we ought to have on the exertions of our al-
lies ?


• I shall next proceed to the consideration of our own
continct, and to examine what strength we have derived fromjthe estimation which rectitude and dignity, moderation andustice have procured us in the eyes of Europe. I am one of
those who firmly believe, that the greatest resource a nation
can possess, the surest source of power, is a strict attention
to the principles ofjustice. I firmly believe that the common
proverb, of honesty being the best policy, is as applicable to
nations as to individuals; that this, which the conviction of
mankind has made an axiom, is universally true; and that
cases which may sometimes be supposed exceptions, arise from
our taking narrow views of the subject, and being unable at
Once to comprehend the whole. If; therefore, we have been
deficient in justice towards other states, we have been deficient
in wisdom, and have enfeebled our arm in our efibrts against
the enemy. Justice is fairly to be ranked among the number
of our resources; and it is the duty of the House to inquire
whether or .not our conduct, since the commencement of the
war, has been such as to entitle us to the good opinion of the
wise and observing part of mankind. I am not now going to
discuss the justice of entering into the war; but I wish to call
the attention of the House to the conduct of the king's mini-
sters in prosecuting it. For whatever may have been the mo-
tives which induced ministers to enter upon it, the means
they have employed in carrying it on are fit subjects for exami-
nation in this House. When we entered upon this war, we
were sanguine enough to suppose that all the civilized part of
the world would see it with the same eyes as we did. When
I represented in this House, that the plan of starving France
adopted by ministers was absurd and impracticable, for that
France would receive supplies from neutral nations; when I
stated the means by which neutral nations might supply


;795.] O'N THE STATE OF THE NATION. 409
France, I was answered, that in this war the neutral nations
would be very few, if any. But what is the case at the end
of two years? That neutral nations are many and increasing;
and that the great neutral. nation, America, has continued
neutral from the betrinning. It is of infinite importance to a
nation that respects its honour—that even respects its in-
terest, which is inseparable from its honour-to gain the
good opinion -of surrounding nations for justice, magnanimity,
and moderation. Has Great Britain done this, or the re-
verse? What has been your conduct to Sweden, to Denmark,
to Genoa, to Tuscany, to Switzerland—to America while
you durst? I do not speak of any particular minister at fo-
reign courts : for many of those ministers I feel great respect,
and• with some of them I am connected by friendship. Iam
ready to admit that, if they acted contrary to their instructions,
ministers at home are not responsible for their conduct; but
I am persuaded that they did act according to their in-
structions; for, if they did not, ministers here were bound to.
recal them, and disavow what they had done.


-


With respect to America I shall say nothing at present,
except that, after giving orders for taking her ships, we re-
called those orders, and have since entered into a treaty by
which we agree, properly I believe, justly, and if justly, wisely,
to pay for the rashness and folly of issuing them. Next, with
regard to Denmark and Sweden, which were • in this case so
intimately connected in point of interest, that whatever was
addressed to the one might be considered in fact, although
not in form, as addressed to the other. To the court of Co-
penhagen we presented memorial after memorial, couched in
the most peevish and offensive terms of remonstrance, on the
neutrality of his Danish majesty. These memorials were an-
swered by the minister, M. Bernstoff, with such temper,
firmness, and diplomatic knowledge, as obliged us at length
to desist, and raised his character higher than that of any
Danish minister ever was before. We engaged in a diplo-
matic contest upon the subject of neutrality, in which we
spewed our complete ignorance of the rights of neutral nations,
and were foiled accordingly.


What has been our conduct towards the Grand Duke of
Tuscany, a prince who, although belonging to one of the most
illustrious families of Europe, is known not to be possessed of
any great military power? Lord Hervey goes to the Grand
Duke of Tuscany —not to the emperor, the King of Prussia,
or any potent monarch—and says to him, " 4 Can you pretend
to maintain neutrality with such a government as that of
France ?"—calling the French government all the hard names
which " regular governments" think themselves authorised to




410 MR. Fox's MOTION FOR. A COMMITTEE [March 24,
bestow upon it; and not recollecting that one of the heaviest
accusations against the French was their having presumed to
intermeddle in the internal politics of other nations—" Can
you basely refuse joining the league against the murderers of
your aunt, the declared enemies of your whole family, and
the avowed subverters of all established government, order,
and religion ? I know to what cause your hesitation is Owing.
It is because you give credit to bad ministers; it is because
you lend too favourable an ear to the advice of your minister
Manfredini, a man who has gained a pernicious ascendancy
over your mind, but who ought no longer to have any share
in your councils." Lord Hervey, after thus telling an inde-
pendent prince that he was not to listen to the advice of his
own ministers, might with equal propriety have gone on
to tell him that he ought to be guided solely by the counsels
of the right honourable gentleman over against me. 44 Your
ministers," be might have said, " are ignorant and incapa-
ble ; the British ministers are wise and able. Observe into
what a situation they have brought their own country, and
you cannot doubt with what wisdom and vigour they will con-
sult for yours." This language of Lord Hervey has never
been disavowed by ministers. It has even been imitated by
his successor, and therefore I must consider itoae having been
the language of his instructions. And thus by menace and
insult was the Grand Duke of Tuscany compelled to renounce
his system of neutrality, contrary to his own inclination, to
the advice of his ministers, and the interests of his people.
Such was the conduct of ministers when we were powerful in
the Mediterranean. Lord Hervey was at length recalled,
and another gentleman whom I personally respect was ap-
pointed in his stead, and instructed to follow the same course.
At last, after we lose our power in the Mediterranean—when
events turn out against us—we submit, not only to the neu-
trality of the Duke of Tuscany, but to his concluding a treaty
of peace and amity with the French republic !


In Switzerland, Lord Robert Fitzgerald, for whose cha-
racter I have too high a respect; to suppose that he would ex-
ceed the letter of his instructions, in the name of the King of
Great Britain, tells the independent Swiss cantons, in the
language of insult and injustice, " That he will not decide,
whether justice and their true interest permit them to remain
neutral, against those who would again reduce them to bar-
barism, in a war of almost all the powers of Europe, in a war
where not only the existence of every established government,
but even that of all kind of property is at stake. He will
only observe, that neutrality itself will not authorise any core
respondence, directly or indirectly, with the fictions or their


1795.]


ON THE STATE OF THE NATION. 411


agents." He tells them, in effect, that although they may
call themselves neutral, they are not to allow their subjects to
reap the benefits of that neutrality by intercourse with France.
Who made you the arbiters how far intercourse ought to be
allowed by independent states between their respective sub-
jects? Where did you get the right? Or, if you have the
right, where is your power to enforce it ? The Swiss cantons
return a civil and dignified answer, 66 That a rigid and exact
neutrality was the invariable Maxim of their ancestors; and
having received it as a sacred inheritance, they conceive it
their duty to abide by it. That they trust his Britannic ma-
jesty, following the example of his illustrious ancestors, will
respect the independence of the Helvetic confederacy." In
the mean time, they carry on their intercourse with France
in as high a degree as it is their interest to do, regardless of
our menaces; and we have now the mortification to feel, that
the coarseness of our insult was equalled only by its impo-
tence. We have nothing to boast of, but the rashness of our
design, and the meanness of the attempt to carry it into exe-
cution.


What has been our conduct towards Genoa? Ministers
hold the same language towards that state, and tell them, " If
you continue in your neutrality, it must be offensive to the
combined powers, and may give occasion to revive claims
which must lead to disagreeable consequences :"—a meaner
threat never was employed. Who are the parties in this
mighty contest? Great Britain, taking upon herself to dictate
for all the combined powers, and the republic of Genoa—
this country not only admonishes the republic of Genoa against
observing a neutrality, but threatens her with war if she does.
Look at this, and see a picture of insolence, injustice, and
meanness, exceeded only by the feebleness of the attempt to
follow it up ! The fortune of war being against us, even the
little republic of Genoa is stout; and after blockading
her port, we are content to withdraw our ships, and force.
to submit to her neutrality with an ungracious apology for time
injustice we have done. By such conduct we have impaired
the character of the nation for justice and magnanimity, and
given to Great Britain a character of-meanness and insolence
which was never before imputed to her, a character which
has destroyed more countries than the loss of armies. To
put this in a stronger point of view, let us contrast it with
our conduct to America. Did we tell America that all
intercourse with France was disgraceful, until France should
restore her king? No ! It is only to the weak and defOnceless
that we talk big : to the great and powerful we apologize, and
agree to pay for all the injustice we have done them. If any




412 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24.


one principle in the law of nations be -clearer and' more ge-
nerally acknowledged than another-, it is that of a right in
every nation, which no treaty obliges to the contrary, to pre-
serve a complete neutrality. Let gentlemen consider the sa-
credness of this right, and the miserable condition of every
weak country, if whenever great powers go to war, for what
they may call the cause of justice, order, religion and regular.
government, but what others may think views of ambition
and aggrandizement, every weak prince, every petty republic,
were to be compelled to take a part in the contest. If such
were to be the condition of society ; if men were not allowed
to enjoy that neutrality which their independence entitles them
to, they would begin to doubt the benefits of society, and
listen to the paradoxes of those who maintain that all esta-
blished rules and principles are the bane of society.


If the House shall agree to go into the committee, it is my
intention to move for the correspondence between his majesty's
ministers and their agents at foreign courts; not for the pur-
pose of punishment, but to vindicate their and the national
honour. If it should turn out, as I believe it will, that our
ambassadors have acted consistently with the letter and spirit
of their instructions; that they have only used the words and
sentiments of the cabinet of Great Britain ; then it will be-
come this House to shew that ministers are not the nation,
and that whatever may be their principles, the principles of
the nation are justice and magnanimity. It will then become
us to shew to all Europe, that we would rather bold high lan-
guage to the strong and powerful than to the weak and de-
fenceless; that instead of insulting and injuring the weaker
states of Europe, our inclination is to protect them against
the greatest and most powerful.


I shall now, Sir, without considering whether this war was
justly or unjustly undertaken, proceed to examine with what
wisdom and upon what principles it has been conducted. I
shall pass by all the considerations that ought to have pre-
ceded our determination to go to war, great and important
as in my mind they were, and suppose 'War actually resolved
upon. When we had come to this resolution, was it not, I
ask, of the utmost consequence to our success, that the ob-
ject of it should be clear? No two things can be more distinct
from each other, than -fighting for a country and fighting..
against it. If ministers had acted up to the character of
statesman, they would have taken one or other side of the
alternative with all its advantages and disadvantages. Thq,
would have said, " We are going to war with France, oo.!
on account of her . form of government; we care not
form of •government is established in France. It is of no


1795') ON THE STATE OF THE NATION. 413


consequence to us whether that country be governed by a
monarch, a convention, or a jacobin club :—this is no cause
of war. But we go to war against France to protect our
allies the Dutch, and to avenge the insults she has offered to
the British nation :" or they might have taken a different
course, and have adopted the idea of a right honourable gen-
tleman, not now a member of this House, (Mr. Burke,) of
whose great genius and distinguished character, although I •
have lately had the misfortune to differ from him in opinion
I shall never speak but in terms of' the' highest respect and
admiration. They might have taken the, course pointed out
by that right honourable gentleman, who, by rather an odd
figure, said, " We are not fighting for the Scheldt; we are
fighting for the destruction of the greatest evil that ever threat-
ened the civilized world, the French revolution ; we are fight-
ing for the restoration of monarchy in France; we are fight-
ing for the re-establishment of regular government; to restore
the emigrants to their property : we are fighting for the French
nation against the French convention : we are fighting for
our constitution, our monarchy, our laws, our religion, our
property ; for unless monarchy be restored in France, mo-
narchy will not be safe in other parts of the world, his ma-
jesty will not be safe upon his throne; unless their property
be restored to the emigrants, the property of every man in
this country is insecure." When his majesty's ministers de-
termined on the prosecution of this war, they should have.
made choice of one or other of this alternative, each of which
would have had its inconvenience. If they had chosen the
former, and said, " In going to war with France, we wish to
have nothing to do with the nature of her government—we
are totally indifferent about her internal situation, and only
fight to compel her to make atonement for insults offered to
us :"—it would have been attended with this inconvenience;
we should have had no pretence for expecting the assistance
of any French emigrants, or of insurgents in any part of
France, except in as far as by resisting the convention, and
endeavouring to promote their own views, they might, with-
out intending it, facilitate the accomplishment of yours. We
should have had no claim upon the inhabitants of La Vendee,
Britany, Lyons, Marseilles, or any other place where hatred
of the convention provoked insurrection ; because neither with
them nor with the French emigrants should we have had
common cause. We should have had no right to look for
the co-operation of those powers, whose object was the restor-
ation of Louis XVII. to the throne of his ancestors. But, on
the other hand, we should have had, what, in my opinion,
would have fully compensated all these disadvantages: we




414 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24:
should have quarrelled with France on equal terms, and
fought with her upon known principles. France could not
then have made the efforts she has made. . If we had set out
with declaring that we wished to have no concern with her in-
ternal affairs, I ask, would it have been possible for France,
in consequence of enthusiasm or terror, or of both combined,
to have raised and supported those immense armies, whose
exertions have astonished Europe ? Would terror have com-
pelled such exertions and such sacrifices, when the people of
France knew that they were only fighting for the Scheldt, or
for a fortress on their frontier, or an island in the West
Indies? Is it probable, if such had been the object of the
war, that we should have had raised up against us what
has been emphatically called, and emphatically felt, an armed
nation ? Would the convention have been able to persuade
them that they were fighting for their liberties, their lives,
and for every thing that is dear to the heart of man ; that
they had nor


choice but victory or death, if they had been
clearly and distinctly told by us, that the whole contest was
about the navigation of the Scheldt, and the security of Hol-
land ? But when the whole people of France, in consequence
of the declarations of Great Britain, were convinced that their
very existence as an independent nation was attacked, then
they began to rouse themselves; then they began to unite in
defence of what they-conceived to be their just rights and liber-
ties; and under the influence of this conviction it was that
those effects were produced which have astonished the world,
and are unparalleled in the history of nations. If, on the other
hand, the aid of the French emigrants and insurgents -in
France had been thought an advantage superior to all this,
we should have taken the other part of the alternative, and
said, " Our object in going to war is to establish a regular
form of government in France." The inconvenience here
would have been, that from the very moment of making this
declaration, we should have had united against us every re-
publican in France, in that vigorous way in which we now
see them united. We should have persuaded them, as we
have done, that they had no other chance for liberty, than by
uniting as an armed nation, with activity and vigour. If we
had said at the outset, " We wish not to dismember France;
we wish not to partition her territory; we wish not to weaken
or diminish her power, or to aggrandize Great Britain at her.
expellee ; our sole object is, to restore to her the blessings of
a regular government, and to good citizens the enjoyment of
their rights and property"—in that .case, we should have had
this advantage— every emigrant from France in every part
of the world would have felt in common with the British


I 795.] ON THE STATE OF THE NATION. 415
cause. Every French loyalist would have gone hand and
heart with the British nation; even such republicans as
disliked the system of terror more than they disliked mo-
narchy, would have exerted themselves in our favour. "We
should then have had a fair opportunity of trying, what
were the sentiments of the people of France with respect to
the Revolution, and whether a majority of the nation wished
for a monarchy or a republic? We should have reared a
standard to which Frenchmen who loved their country might
have repaired. Now, by indul ging the childish hope of
grasping the advantages of each side of the alternative, we
have gained neither. How could it be otherwise ? When
we took Valenciennes, instead of taking it for Louis XVII.
we took possession of it in the name of the Emperor
Francis. When Conde surrendered, we did the same thing.
When Mentz surrendered, the garrison was dismissed to be
employed against the royalists of La Vendee. Was it possi-
ble for any man to be so ignorant, as to doubt what our in-
tentions were ? How, then, was it possible for us to sup-
pose that our conduct would produce on the inhabitants of
France an effect different from what it has clone? Wen Sir
Charles Grey and Sir John Jervis took Martinique, Guade-
loupe, and the rest of the French "West India islands, did
they take possession of them for Louis XVII. ? No ! but for
the King of Great Britain, not to he restored to France when
monarchy and regular government should be restored, but to
be retained as conquests, if the chance of war should leave
them in our hands.


While such was our conduct in all parts of the world, could
it be hoped that any French emigrant, whose situation was
not desperate indeed,- would join us; or that all who were
lovers of their country more than lovers of royalty, would not
be our enemies ? To attend to justice is, in all cases, pecu-
liarly important; and the love of country is a motive so pow-
erful, as to be often used as a pretext, even by those who do
not feel .it. The royalists of La Vendee, of Britany, and
other places, took the field and held out long and bravely ;
but what could they say to the people of France — what could
they put in their manifestoes, of equal weight with the ad-
dresses from the convention ? They might say, " If we con-
que•, the French monarchy will be restored ; but it will be
restored with the territory of France curtailed and diminished,
one third of it, perhaps, divided among rival powers." The
convention could say, " If we conquer, France will remain
entire, a great and independent nation, triumphant over all
the powers who have confederated against her liberties."
"With such discouragements on the one hand, and such flat-




4 r6 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24.
tering prospects on the other, was it to be expected that any
considerable number of Frenchmen would connect their own
cause with that of the allies? We have so shuffled and
trimmed in our professions, and been guilty of such duplicity,
that no description of Frenchmen will flock to our standard.


It was a fatal error that we did not, in the commencement
of the war, state clearly how far we meant to enter into the
cause of the French emigrants; and how far to connect our-
selves with powers who, from their previous conduct, might
well be suspected of other views than that of restoring monar-
chy in France. It -will be said, that we could not be certain
in the first instance how far it might be proper to interfere in
the internal affairs of France; that we must watch events, and
act accordingly. By this want of clearness with respect to our
ultimate intentions, we have lost more than any contingency
could ever promise. All, obscurity ought to have been re-
moved, and we ought to have distinctly adopted one or other
side of the alternative. Every place was not taken for the
allies. It was understood by those who surrendered Toulon to
Lord Hood, that he accepted it on this condition — that he
was to adhere to the constitution of 1789. Whether minis-
ters intended to observe that condition I know not ; but in
their subsequent publications they gave reason to hope that
they did. In their declarations they offered peace and pro-
tection to all well-disposed Frenchmen, who should join in
restoring monarchy, without specifying what kind of mo-
narchy ? Have they fulfilled that promise? What kind of
protection have they afforded to those who endeavoured to
restore monarchy ? Have not the royalists, for want of as-
sistance or encouragement, been obliged, however reluctantly,
to submit to the laws of the republic ? If the allies had been
fighting either for France, or against France, what should
have been their conduct towards La Fayette and Doumou-
rier ? The seizure of La Fayette, by the Austrians, was con-
trary to the law of nations.; and their treatment of him must
condemn their name to eternal infamy. They found him and
the companions of his misfortune, not at the head of an army,
nor in arms, and took them against all the laws of nations and of
war —not to be treated as prisoners of war, but as prisoners
to be consigned to a dungeon. If the allies were fighting
against France, surely they ought not to have treated as criminals
generals coming over to them from the enemy. Dumourier
came over when he thought he had great power with his army.-
That power turned out to be much less than he had imagined ;
but it was impossible that a man who had served his country
with so much reputation, with so much ability and success,
should not have had a considerable party in it. How was he'


1795.] ON THE STATE OF THE NATION'. 417
treated ? When they found that he could not bring along
with him so great a portion of his armY as they expected, after


°


havinfr extolled his virtue, at the moment when he had ren-
dered his virtue at least doubtful, they drove him from them
a wandering fugitive, as if they had passed a decree expressly
forbidding any French general to abandon the standard of
the republic in future. By acting in this manner, as is well
expressed in a French pamphlet I have recently read, " we
are more .


unaccountable in our political conduct than any of
the most bigoted religious sects, for we even exclude con-
verts ;" which I believe was never done by any sectarists.
Our conduct, therefore, in this respect, is perfectly new; for
after Dumourier becomes a convert to, and espouses the cause
of the allies, they refuse to receive him. But if we and our
allies were fighting for France against the convention, we ought
to have praised this general as a convert, we ought to have re-
ceived him with cordiality, and held him up as an example for
the conversion of others. If we werefighting against France, we
should have considered all Frenchmen as enemies, in the common
acceptation of the term, and not by denouncing vengeance for
crimes committed in France, as was d one by Lord Auckland, in a
paper published at the Hague, have (-riven ground for that enthu-
siasm of resistance, which inflamesthemindsof men who conceive
their lives to be attacked — an enthusiasm which has united for
common defence those who, in every moment of respite, were
tearing one another to pieces, and sending their opponents
to the scaffold, whenever they could supplant them in power.
If the allies were fighting for France, the restoration of
monarchy and regular government, I mean not to say that
they should have granted impunity to those who were more
immediately the cause of the murder of the king ; but they
ought not to have begun with thundering forth a manifesto,
threatening Paris with military execution, and even total
destruction; denouncing vengeance which necessarily alarmed
all men, as no man was named; a manifesto which we cannot
even now endure to read, but by contrasting the pride and
cruelty of the menace with the impotence of the attempt to
put it in execution. If we were fighting for France, we ought
to have assured the people of France that we had no views of
aggrandisement, much less of dismembering the kingdom,
or taking vengeance of the inhabitants. We ought to have
convinced them that we entered France, not to conquer, but
to restore ; and the very first step should have been to publish
a general amnesty, with some exceptions. A whole nation
may be misled, but cannot be alt guilty. As has been said
by the great man already mentioned, " .I know not how to
draw an indictment against a whole nation." Some excep-
- VOL. 'V. EE




4 18 mit. FOX'S :MOTION Fort A COMMITTEE [March 24.
tions to the general amnesty might have been necessary; but
these should have been mentioned by name, that others might
have had nothing to fear. By this mode of proceeding, many
persons deserving of punishment might have escaped ; but
this would not have been so bad as terrifying all the people
of France by indiscriminate threats. This I conceive to be
a fundamental error. I would therefore have the House go
into an inquiry, that we may declare this error to be funda-
mental, if so it shall appear to be; that we may take some
intelligible ground for our fliture conduct; define clearly and
distinctly the object of the war, and put the remaining quarrel
with France upon such a footing, as to shew whether we are
really fighting for France as a nation, or against her. Is
there a man who believes that, to define our object, and to
demand it of the French government, even at the price of
recognizing that government, (as far as to negotiate is a
recognition,) would render it more difficult to be obtained by
force of arms, if the French should refuse to grant it? Does
the right honourable gentleman himself believe that, if the con-
vention were to refuse reasonable terms of peace, they would
be able to call forth such extraordinary exertions on the part
of the people for continuing the war, as the general persuasion
of the people that they have no alternative but conquest or
subjugation has hitherto enabled them to call forth ?


Having mentioned these great and fundamental errors, it
is hardly necessary to enter into those that are more minute,
It is almost sufficient to name them. If we took possession
of Toulon, not with a view to conquest, but with the intention
of supporting the cause of monarchy in France, it was the
most important advantage we could have obtained, and to
the preservation and improvement of which all our attention
ought to have been directed. Yet we left Toulon with ar,
very small English force, trusting its defence to the aid of
allies, who were either unable or unwilling to defend it. This
was said to be done for the sake of an expedition against the
'French West India islands, an expedition of much less im-
portance than the defence of Toulon ; and that expedition
was again crippled by collecting troops under the Earl of
Moira for a descent upon the coast of France —"a descent
for which an opportunity has never yet been found ; and
therefore government has never been able in any way to
avail itself of the force so collected. In consequence of this,
Toulon was lost; and a number of troops were sent to the
West Indies, sufficient indeed, through the zeal and ability
of the commanders, to take the islands, but not sufficient to
keep them. Guadaloupe, we know, is gone; there is little
hope of our being now in possession of any part of St. Do-


795.] ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.


mingo; and we are far from being without well-grounded.
apprehensions for the safety of Martinico and the other
conquered islands.


With respect to the last campaign, our great and leading
error was, confidence in the King of Prussia, in the Bel-
aians9 and in the Dutch. We told the people of the Aus--
trian Netherlands that we were fighting for their religion,
and the people of the United Provinces, that we were fighting
for their liberties; but they did not believe us. We drew
the Dutch into a war, which they had no inclination to
undertake. So early as the beginning of the year 1793,
stated it as my opinion, that the Dutch would not demand
our assistance. I was answered, that they durst not demand
it, but that this was no reason for our withholding it, and
that, if it was offered, they would not refuse it. I replied,
that I believed the case to be exactly the reverse, and that
if we offered our assistance,,


although the Dutch did not
desire it, yet they durst not refuse it. I also find, at an early
period of the war, the people of Friezeland putting up their
prayers to Almighty God, to deliver them from this war,
into which they had been plunged by their allies. All that
has happened since has confirmed my opinion. While we
were fighting in the Austrian Netherlands, the Dutch gave
us but feeble and reluctant aid. When we were driven out
of the Austrian Netherlands, and the United Provinces were
to be defended, the Dutch, instead of rising in a mass to
defend them, joined in welcoming the French. We ought
to have known beforehand, that the people of the United
Provinces wished not to be defended by us, and therefore
were not to be confided in as allies. We ought to have
adopted one of two courses; we should either have withdrawn
our mischievous and oppressive protection, and said to the
Dutch, " Defend yourselves ;"- or we should have taken
possession of the country with an army, and defended it like
a conquered province.


When I look to the naval part . of the campaign, I find,
that the captures made by the enemy are greater than they
ever were known to be in any former war; but I do not find
that our trade has increased in the same proportion. By
documents, which I conceive to be tolerably correct, it
appears, that in the second year after France joined in the
American war, the number of ships captured by France,
Spain, and America, was 499. How many of these were
taken by Spain, I do not know; but it is probable that nearly
one half of them were taken by the Americans. In the second
year of this war, when we have France alone .to contend with,
the number of ships belonging to Great Britain which have


E E 2




4 20 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24.
been captured by France amounts to 86o. Until I hear this
extraordinary difference, under circumstances so much less
unfavourable than those of the period to which I have alluded,
accounted for, I must conclude that there has been a great
defect in the naval administration of this country ; either that
we have not had a sufficient naval force, or that ministers'
have not well applied it. His majesty's speech from the
throne, in January 1794, laid the ground of most forcible


n'arguments for inquiry. ' That speech, in recapitulating the
advantages obtained by the arms of the allied powers, as the.
pledge and earnest of still greater advantages, almost ex-
pressly assured us of the empire of the sea. Oh, the little
folesiglit of presumptuous man ! Oh, the fallacy of human
hope ! Every pledge of success, every topic of consolation,
held out to us in that speech, is now converted into a cir-
cumstance of defeat, into an argument for despair ! " The
United Provinces," we were told, " have been protected from
invasion ; the Austrian Netherlands have been recovered and
maintained, places of considerable importance have been
acquired on the frontiers of France; an important and de-
cisive blow has been given to their naval power; at sea our
superiority has been undisputed, and our commerce so effec-
tually protected, that the losses sustained have been incon-
siderable, in proportion to its extent, and to the captures
made on the contracted trade of the enemy." Yet in the
course of a year, ushered in with so much promise, our su-
periority at sea has been disputed; after a second more
important and decisive blow given to the enemy's naval
power, they have been masters of the sea for two months, and
86o of our ships have been taken ! Every hope and expect-
ation held out by that speech is now completely gone. 'We
have lost the fortresses on the French frontier. 'We have
lost the Austrian Netherlands. We have lost Holland; and
the trade of ,England has been greatly injured. It is not the
change of one man; it is not the change of the first lord of
the admiralty, that will afford satisfaction for the injury sus-
tained by our commerce. I observe likewise, that since the
commencement of' the war, the re-captures do not bear a
greater proportion to the ships taken than they did in the
American war, when Great Britain had so many different
nations against her. Are these, or are they not, good grounds
for inquiry? For what purpose do gentlemen think they
were sent to this House? Do they believe they were sent here
for the sole purpose of voting taxes, as was too often the case
with the parliaments of the ancient kings of this country?
-Or as a national council to see that the executive government
is not only incorrupt, but judicious ? It might have been


1795.] ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.. 421
supposed, that after the memorable first of June, we should
be masters of the sea ; but we have no reason to boast of the
manlier in which we have improved that victory. Our fleet
came into port in -November, and the French fleet put to sea;
no doubt because ours was returned. So little foresight or
exertion was displayed in preparing our fleet for sea again,
that it could not go out till late in January ; and thus for two
months the French were masters of the sea, and our fleets •
of merchantmen, and even troops embarked for important
foreign services, were blocked up in our ports. I shall, per-
haps, be told, that our fleet cannot be always out. I say,
that under proper management, a great part of it always
might be out. But will any man contend that it might not
have been ready in less than two months, during great part of
which time it was known that the French fleet was out?
There was even a rumour, that after the ships were ready for
sea, they were detained for want of biscuit and other pro-
visions, which it became necessary to send by land carriage.
How true these reports may be I know not; but they have
been generally circulated and believed, which is a sufficient
reason why the House should inquire. Every one of the
circumstances I have mentioned calls aloud for inquiry, unless
the members of this House are prepared to say, that the
present situation of the country is so happy and so pros-
perous, as to be prima facie evidence of the diligence and
ability of his majesty's. ministers; that they have steered us
so steadily, and piloted us so wisely, that we ought to repose
implicit confidence in them without inquiry. Can ministers
themselves state. any ground why this House ought to re-
pose in them any confidence whatever, much less such ex-
traordinary confidence as this? Will they say that their
administration of the war has been successful, or that the
state of the country is prosperous ? I am not, I hope, a man
to give to success more credit than is due to it. I hope 1 can
reverence unsuccessful wisdom; my own experience has not
been such as to lead me to think that success should be consi-
dered as the criterion of wisdom. Let the minister say that
the hand of God is upon us, when human prudence can
avail us nothing ; but let him not say that Great Britain is
declining in every quarter; that all her exertions and the
most lavish profusion of treasure and of blood avail her
nothing; and yet deny the propriety of an inquiry by the
House of Commons, to discover, if possible, the source of so
melancholy a reverse of fortune. In such a case its is the
duty of every member of this House, of the friends of minis-
ters themselves, to give up their private confidence, and
promote inquiry. Then, if they find that ministers have been


L E 3




422 DiR. Fox's MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24.
pursuing an impracticable object, or endeavouring to obtain
it by inadequate means, they will know how to apply the
remedy. If they find that ministers have been conducting
the affairs of the state with ability and wisdom, they will
be able to say with satisfaction to themselves and their
constituents, " We will continue our confidence in these
ministers."


Sir, exhausted as I 'feel myself; and long as I have already
trespassed on the patience of the House, I must pass over in
silence many points which are nearly connected with the ge-
neral statement, and which would call powerfully on this
House to enter into an enquiry on the state of the nation.
Bat although I conceive I have already stated sufficient grounds
for going into such an enquiry on all the questions more im-
mediately connected with the war, there is yet one subject so
closely connected with the prosecution of it in one point of
view, that before I sit down I must beg leave to make a few
observations upon it—I mean the present situation of the sister
kingdom. The House will do me the honour to recollect,
that, much against the inclination of my most intimate friends,
I formerly harassed this House with a variety of questions,
which they were unwilling to debate. I persevered obstinately, '
however, not because I had any satisfaction in doing so, when
the House was not disposed to listen to me, but because I
thought that at the outset of the war, it was my bounden
duty to lay before this House those circumstances which, as
appeared to me, ought to have discouraged us from entering
upon it. - I felt no pleasure in addressing these arguments to
unwilling ears, for I am not desirous of imitating the example
of Cardanus, an author now but little read, who says, "NUM-
quam libentius loquor quam cum quod loquor auditoribus dis-
filieet." I persevered because I thought it my duty to per-
severe ; and, among other things, I stated, as discouragements
for going on with the war, that the Austrian Netherlands
could not be retained, while the subjects of his imperial ma-
jesty were disaffected to his government; that Holland could
not be defended while the Dutch did not wish to defend it;
and that the King of Prussia had proved by his conduct in
the first campaign, that Great Britain and her allies ought
not to depend upon him. I was then told that my speech was
a libel upon all our actual and all our possible allies. But,
Sir, if it was a libel, experience has proved, that it had in it
that which has been held the strongest ingredient of libel,
truth; 'and as such, I hope that speech will go down to pos-
terity a convicted libel. I then also touched upon some
dangers -MIMI. I apprehended with respect to Ireland. I was
told, " touch not upon Ireland, that is a subject too delicate


1795.3 -oN THE STATE OF THE NATION. 423
for discussion in this House. This House", it was said, "has
nothing to do with Ireland, Ireland has a parliament of her
own, and will take care of herself." To that I then answered,
as I do now ; that when a British House of Commons is
advising the king upon a matter of so much importance as
peace or war, they ought to extend their consideration to all
the material parts of the empire ; and surely it is unnecessary
to state that Ireland is a most important part of his majesty's
dominions, as furnishing great resources of men for the army
and the navy in time of war. Without the assistance of
Ireland, we can never be secure in peace, nor successful in
war. The identity of her constitution, and her being under
the same executive government, make Ireland a constant ob-
ject of attention, from which we may derive information with
regard to the disposition of the king's ministers, to which we
may look for examples to be imitated, or errors to be avoided.
I saw formerly certain prejudices in that country which would
throw much difficulty in the way of the Roman catholics
getting all they asked, and all that justice required they
should have, as subjects of the same constitution, viz. equality
of rights with every other subject. There had sprung up in
that country a strange jargon of what is called a protestant
ascendancy, as if such a thing as a religious ascendancy
ought to take place in politics. Ministers, some time ago,
got over the difficulty in part, and, although not in a way
calculated to gain much respect, conciliated the affections of
the catholics for the time. This, however, was not the only
subject of complaint. There were other abuses in Ireland of
which the people bitterly complained ; and when the coalition
:took place in July last, however much I might lament that
event, I certainly did think it might produce this good eEct,
that the corrupt administration of Ireland would he radically
reformed, 'and that possibly as much might be gained to
liberty there as seemed to be lost to it here. And this was in
fact near being the case, when unhappily things took a dif-
ferent turn.


Without entering into the question, who is to blame ? I
ask whether Ireland is not at present in a state of irritation ?
whether she is not in a state of danger ? And if she is in
such a situation as to give just cause of alarm to every friend
of the country, whether this state has not been occasioned
solely by his majesty's ministers ? Some may say, it is owing
to the ministers here; others, to the ministers there; but I
defy any man to say, that the present state of that country is
not entirely owing to the improper conduct of the king's mi-
nisters. No matter whether to the right honourable gentle-
man, the Duke of Portland, or Earl Fitzwilliam; although I


EE 4


eii




4 24 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24.
have no doubt as to which of them it is not owing. Earl Fitz-
William is sent over as lord-lieutenant to Ireland, justly popular
from his personal character, and more so from his connection
with a part of the ministry here, supposed to he favourable to
the wishes and claims of Ireland. He arrives: he consults
with men to whom the people of Ireland have been long ac-
customed to look up with confidence; — he is adored,— he is
idolized to such a degree, that the people of Ireland join
with him in the absurd cry of war — nothing but Earl Fitz-
william's popularity could have induced them to join in that
cry — he states from the throne the general wishes of his ma-
jesty for carrying on the war ; that it is intended to give
emancipation to the catholics. [Mr. Pitt intimated across the
table that it was not so.] It was so understood, or, if you
please, it was so misunderstood in the Irish parliament. They
are told that abuses are to be reformed ; they see the most
respected men in the country daily rising up in the House of
Commons to propose the reform of abuses; they see those
measures attended with fewer dismissals from office undoubt-
edly than the people could have wished, but with the dismissal
of several persons known to be connected with the old abuses.
They consider all this as the omen of approaching liberty;
and that the people of Ireland, without distinction, are about
to enjoy those rights and privileges which they ought always
to have enjoyed. All this passes in the face of the world,
without the least opposition on the part of the cabinet of
Great Britain. What follows ? Great supplies are called for
by his majesty; and the Irish, in high expectation of the pro-
mised reform of abuses, with a degree of imprudence, not
adhering to the sober and cautious principle that reform and
supply should go hand in hand, (for it is the character of that
nation to be more generous than prudent,) granted the sup-
plies before the promise was fulfilled. Having given all, the
cup is dashed from their lips, their eager and excited hopes
are blasted, and they are told, " 'We have got your money;
you may now seek for your reform where you can." The mi-
nisters here then quarrel with this popular lord-lieutenant,
whose personal character did more for the coalition than the
characters of all the other ministers united, for it made the
administration popular, because, from his accession it was
supposed to be pure. They give up, however, this popular
friend, rather than Ireland should receive from this coun-
try the benefits to which she-is in common justice intitled,
and in the hopes of which she had voted for the service of his
majesty such large and liberal supplies.


Sir, I may be told, that this lord-lieutenant gave hopes find
promises which he was not authorised to give. To that I


1795.] ON THE STATE OF THE NATION. 425
answer, that front my knowledge of him, I do not believe it.
But suppose it were so, what is that to this House? Is it not
a matter of total indifference to us where the blame lies ? Is
not Ireland in danger ? No man will deny it; and that is
sufficient for my purpose. The blame attaches either on the
ministers in Ireland, or on the ministers here; and if this
House does not institute an inquiry, and explain clearly and
satisfitetorily to the public who has been the cause of this
alarming danger, we may be responsible for the dismember-
ment of the British empire. It may be supposed that this is
one of those questions on which I have strong personal par-
tialities. I admit it. I believe I shall never be able to divest
myself of them; and I am perfectly convinced that Earl
Fitzwilliam's conduct in this particular instance has been
agreeable to the uniform tenour of his whole life. I firmly be-
lieve that he has acted fairly and honourably, and agreeably
to what was understood between him and his colleagues in the
British cabinet : this conviction is matter of great private sa-
tisfaction to me; but it is no reason why the House should not
go into the inquiry.


The Roman catholics amount to three-fourths of the popu-
lation of Ireland. But the catholics are no longer a party.
The parties now to be dreaded in Ireland are, on the one
hand, a few people holding places of great emolument, and
supporting corruption and abuses; and on the other, the Irish
nation. The protestants are as much interested in this great
business of reform as the catholics. I no longer apprehend
any danger to Ireland from disputes between the catholics and.
the protestants; what I apprehend is, the alienation of the
whole Ieish people from the English government. Many
gentlemen who have not taken pains to examine into the
subject, imagine that the government of Ireland, because
consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, nearly resembles
that of Great Britain. This, however, is by no means the
case. I dare say also, that some gentlemen know so little of
what has passed in Ireland since the year 1793, as to imagine
that the Roman catholics are now nearly on the same footing
with the protestants; and that, since the above period, they
have suffered no persecutions or exclusions. If there is any
man who thus thinks, he grossly -deceives himself. But passing
over these circumstances, is it not self-evident, that the danger
arising from the present state of Ireland, has been created by
some of the king's ministers? Let the House go into an
inquiry, and they will see on whom punishment ought to fall.
If the ministers in Ireland are guilty, let them be punished:
or, if his majesty's ministers here (which is much more pro-
bable) have been the cause of this irritation, let punishment


.71




•26 MR. Fox's MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24.
fall upon them. If Earl Fitzwilliam, rashly and wantonly
running after popularity, has sacrificed the real interests of
.that country, he deserves the severest censure. But if it shall
appear, that he has been trifled with, and shuffled out of his
measures and situation by ministers here, in order to serve
their own base purposes; if it shall appear that he has acted
on the principles of prudence and patriotism, and that his
government was founded on principles which tended to pre-
serve the connection between the two countries, what punish-
ment can be too severe for those who have been the authors
of such double-dealing ?


I am aware that it is a common argument against such
motions as this to say, " Your final object is the removal of
ministers; why, then, do you not do so at once?" My answer
is, because I think we ought first to have an inquiry. At the
same time I candidly admit my opinion to be, that if an in-
quiry be gone into, the result must be the removal of his
majesty's present ministers. On what rational ground should
this induce any member to oppose inquiry ? Does any man
who approves of continuing the war, hope for better success
than we have hitherto experienced, while it is conducted with
the same weakness and folly ? Does any man who 'wishes for
an end to the war, hope that his majesty's present ministers
can obtain for this country a safe and honourable peace? If,
after an inquiry into their past conduct, it shall turn out that
they have acted justly and -wisely, then let us continue our
confidence in them: but if the contrary should appear, as I
strongly suspect it will, then it will become the duty of this
House to call them to an account, perhaps to punishment.
This inquiry, among other advantages attending it, will dis-
cover to the nation the true causes of all our late failures and
calamities. Wise men choose a wise object, and persist in
their efforts to obtain it by varying the means as occasion re-
quires, the object being still the same. The conduct of the
present administration has been quite the reverse with regard
to the war. Day after day, and motion after motion has
varied the object, but they uniformly insist on the same
means. Blood, war, and treasure are their means, however
they may vary their object. They have constantly avoided
making a choice between the two branches of the alternative
I have stated. They have never decided whether they were
.making war for France or against France.


The present state of Ireland shews, that there is no part of
the British empire in which the strongest traces of the
nister's misconduct are not to be found. There are some
occasions, one would imagine, upon which ministers must
wish to be clearly understood. But men never get the better


179.5-] ON THE STATE Or THE NATION. 427
of their nature; and whenever the right honourable gentleman
expresses himself, he is differently understood by every man
who hears him. It is not from any want of words, or choice
of expression, that the right honourable gentleman does not
speak intelligibly. He is misunderstood by the House; he
is misunderstood by his own particular friends. He employs
the gift of words not like other men, for the sake of being
more distinct, but for the purpose of being misunderstood:
even his new associates in the cabinet cannot understand him.
Of him it may be said, as of a great man of ancient times,
"Ira rebus cis, nihil simplex, nihil apertum, nilail honestum."
If the House should agree to go into the inquiry, they will
prove that they are really affected by the interests of their
constituents. If they should resolve to go on without know-
ing who are our allies, or whether we have any, there will
be too much reason for saying that our constitution is gone.
In either case I shall derive from having made the motion,
the satisfiiction of shewing, that there arc men in the House
who believe the situation of the country to be such as it
really is, and are anxious to do every thing in their power to
avert the consequences so much to be apprehended. Mr. Fox
concluded with moving, " That this House will resolve itself
into a committee of the whole House to consider of the state
of the nation."


Mr. Fox was ably supported by Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Pitt allowed
the subjects proposed for inquiry to be of the highest importance,
but said that this was not the season to discuss them. He con-
cluded by moving, "'That the House do now adjourn," after
strongly admonishing the House to wave all notice of the affairs of
Ireland, as improper at the present period, and likely to be produc-
tive of more perplexity than service to either of the two kingdoms.
The adjournment was supported by Mr Canning, and also by Mr.
Wilberforce, Who thought the discussion of the affairs of Ireland
at present might be attended with dangerous consequences.


Mr. Fox made a reply to the following effect: I feel it
necessary to say a few words in answer to what I have heard
this night, and chiefly from the•right honourable gentleman
who moved the adjournment. Gentlemen have partly mis-
understood my meaning, if they conceive that I have wished
for a committee to inquire into the state of the nation on any
one particular point; or that I wish particularly to agitate
topics of war or peace, which have• been already discussed in
this House, in which I have not had the good fortune to
agree with the majority. I meant, by moving for the com-
mittee, to inquire into the conduct of the war in general, in
order that we might see.4iow his majesty's ministers have




23 MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [Mal'Ch 24.


acted. Gentlemen on the other side say,. they do not wish to
turn out ministers. They say too, that they do not wish to
inquire into the conduct of the war. That is natural enough ;
the meaning of it is obvious. They do not wish for an in-
quiry; that is, they know that an inquiry is likely to influence
the opinion of this House upon the conduct of the ministers,
and that, after being compelled to censure them, we shall, in
justice to our own consistency, be obliged to vote for an ad-
dress to the throne for their removal. I said that this coun-
try was in a situation that, on the face of things, called for an
inquiry, and therefore I moved for it ; and I believe that the
result would be, that this House could not, consistently with
its own honour, refuse a vote of censure on ministers, and an
address for their removal; and therefore it is not mysterious
that some gentlemen should be unwilling to go into an in,
quiry. But are we indeed to go hand in hand with the mi-
nisters,


• and not to inquire into their conduct, lest the result
should be, that they must be removed ? Are we indeed so very
complaisant to administration, that rather than they should
lose their power, the country is to be lost?


The right honourable genleman has thrown out something
like a hint, that if he and his associates were dismissed to-
morrow, and others more able were appointed in their stead,
neither his majesty nor the public would look to those who
support the present motion for their assistance. Now, Sir, upon
that subject, I have no objection to say what I feel, and what,
indeed, I partly expressed on a former occasion. If this war
be to be carried on with more vigour than it has been on the
part of this country, and by men of greater capacity than the
present ministers, but on the same principles as have been
hitherto avowed, and for the same object — and I know that
there are many men who are friends enough to this war, to
carry it on upon such terms — all I can say is, that there is
not any thing that his majesty can offer to me—no, Sir,• nor
any thing that any potentate in Europe can offer to me, that
should induce me to take any share in it. But is that, or can
it be a reason why this House should not inquire into the con-
duct of ministers, who have brought upon the country such
calamities — calamities that have never been equalled in any
period of its history? Even those who were originally, and
who may be still, against any terms of negociation for peace,
should vote for an inquiry into the conduct of the war, and
follow it up, if necessary, with an address to his majesty, to
appoint some persons more likely to conduct it with success.
The right honourable gentleman has said, that he is not an-
swerable for what may be done by a minister abroad upon
some particular occasion— an expression that is unworthy


95.]


ON THE STATE OE THE NATION. 429


of any man who calls himself a minister. The declaration
of a minister abroad may create a war between two na-
tions. Is it to be endured in this House, that the right ho-
nourable gentleman should say, " such a declaration was not
mine, but was the declaration of Mr. Drake, or of any other
ambassador ?"


The right honourable gentleman has told the House to-
night, that ministers have acted with regard to neutral powers
according to the spirit of the law of nations, and that it will
appear evident when the subject comes to be inquired into ;
and-yet, with the same breath, he tells the House he will not
consent to inquire into it at all. Then he tells us, that this is
a business which ought to have been inquired into before, and
much stress is laid on the time in which I have made my
motion. Why, Sir, we have not been negligent on this side
of the House in bringing forward questions upon the war. A
motion was made early in the session, for a negociation for
peace, which was negatived. Then came public business, the
budget, and other subjects. But it is said, I have brought on
my motion on account of the critical situation of Ireland.
Now, Sir, with regard to that; I had formed a resolution of
bringing this motion forward before the affairs of the country
wore so serious an aspect as they do now, -and before I had
heard one word of what has lately happened there. I do not
recollect the particular day, but I am sure the fact is so; and
I believe I gave notice in this House of my intention to move
for a committee on the state of the nation, before the late ac-
counts from Ireland arrived.


I cannot help alluding to what one honourable gentleman
has said to-night with regard to Ireland ; he has said that he
should vote for this inquiry, had I not expressed my intention
of moving a resolution in the committee upon that subject.
If so, Sir, let him vote for the inquiry into the state of the
nation generally ; and let him vote against the resolution with
regard to Ireland when that comes to be proposed. With
respect to Ireland, I conceive that what has happened has
arisen out of the limit of ministers in this country. A
great mischief to this country has been produced by the mis-
conduct of ministers, and I say there should be an inquiry
into that business, for the particular purpose of knowing who
is really to blame; that we may proceed to censure, and, if
necessary, to punish. With respect to the conduct of the
lord-lieutenant, I can only say that I have a strong opinion,
that when this business is fully investigated, the result will be
to the honour of that nobleman, and to the shame and confu-
sion of the ministers in this country. That is my opinion ;
but this house has no business with the opinions of individuals.




43 0 • ME. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24-


It is their duty to inquire into the Ilia. But it seems there 19
a great delicacy upon this subject. Now, Sir, I am of opi-
nion there should be none, for what any minister does in
his official situation is fair matter of inquiry in this House,
whether it regards this country or Ireland. I have heard it
said, that we should not interfere with the parliament of Ire-
land, and that my motion has that tendency. I mean no such
thing. I only mean to inquire into the conduct of ministers.
These subjects are debated in the cabinet, and perhaps some-
times particulars respecting acts of parliament in Ireland arc
debated in the cabinet; now I want to know, although I would
not have this House interfere in the least degree, nor have we
the power of interfering with the parliament of Ireland ; but
I want to know upon what principle it is that the cabinet
should do more upon that topic than this House, or than the
parliament of this country. I see no such principle ; but I
know, that with regard to any recommendation from the
throne to the parliament of this or of that country, that is a
matter for which ministers are liable to be called to account;
for it is ministers who advise that recommendation. If it
were not so, let me ask, what might the consequence be ?
Ministers may so conduct themselves that the situation of the
two countries may be in imminent danger, and can that hap-
pen, and yet that we shall be told that we cannot interfere?
Sir, I do assert that we have the power, and that we ought to
exercise it, of calling for an inquiry ; yes, Sir, and of proceed-
ing to punish those who have been the cause of it. That such
has been the conduct of ministers is undeniable. I have been
told that I am putting Ireland in danger by what I have said
to-night. But, Sir, who has put Ireland in danger most; I
who have moved for an inquiry into the state of it ; or those
who, by their mischievous conduct, have made that inquiry
necessary —'I who respect both countries as much as any man
in this House ; or those who conduct themselves as if they
regarded the interest of neither, when held in competition
with their own power ?


Sir, I say I have a right to call ministers to account for
the danger in which they have involved the two countries.
I wish to know whether it is to be laid clown as a principle,
that the general failure of the army, and the general mischief
which the conduct of ministers has occasioned, are not to be
considered as prima facie evidence of the necessity of inquiring
into their misconduct. The right honourable gentleman says,
that my conduct, if not counteracted, would tend to lower the
dignity of this-country. That a man, who has himself so lowered
the dignity of this: country, who has brought it to the verga•
of ruin by the obstinacy and the madness of his conduct,


TO


,


7';) ON THE STATE OF THE NATION. 431^'


should presume even to think that any body else could lower
it more than he has done, is, I own, rather extraordinary.
I desire to know, and 1 ask the minister to inform me if he
Can, when it was that I endeavoured to lower the dignity of
this country ? He alluded to the present war; what has been
his conduct, and what did I advise this House upon that sub-
ject? I would have offered reasonable terms to France before
the war commenced, and for that purposelproposed a ne-
gociation ; he affected to disdain it. What . has been the
event? Will even he himself attempt-to say that there is a
chance of making so good a peace now, as we might have
had had then? Does he even hope he can ever negociate with
the French in a situation less dishonourable to us than the-
present? I would have negociated with them before a fight.
He must negociate after a light, and after a defeat too, if he
negociates at all. I would have negociated with them while
we were rich in our resources and our commerce Was entire.
He must negociate when both are desperately impaired. I
would have negociated before our allies were'-defeated, and
while they were yet supposed to be in -union. must nego'-
ciate after victory has been declared in favour of the 'enemy,
and the allies have been deserting us and one another. After
this, that such a man could possibly suppose he is supporting
the dignity of this country, and that he should put himself On
a footing with any gentleman, who has not the misfortune to
be in the present administration, is an extraordinary thing,
but it is an assumption of merit which is peculiar to his ma-jesty's present ministers.In the mean time, it is with heartfelt satisfaction I reflect,
that in every thing I ever proposed, I have supported the
dignity of this country. I regard it as a circumstance of good
fortune to me, that I never gave an opinion by which one drop
of British blood was shed, or any of its treasure-squandered.
It has been my fortune to oppose, perhaps unsuccessfully, that
which brought this country into a disastrous situation : I mean
the American war — a war disastrous indeed ; but after all
the calamity which it produced, we were happy then compared
with the situation of this country now. Good God, f-":is, k-hat
there should be a -moment when the American " Ni,7iir ' 114 be
a state of happiness when compared to it ! and ji6k .s. pji,r4 per--
son will find it to be on examining them both. The calami-
ties of the American war bear no resemblance to the present.
Does the minister deny the fact? He has never yet said it; and
I should be glad to hear him aver it now, for I am ready to
answer him if he does." The right honourable gentleman
has thought fit to insinuate that those with whom I act never
mention the glory of the British arms. The fact is notoriously




43 z MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE [March 24.
otherwise. There is not one instance in which we have with-
held praise from any of our gallant heroes; on the contrary,
we have been proud to praise them. The Tight honourable
gentleman was not a member of this House in the time of the
American war, but if he will take the trouble of inquiring, be
may be easily informed of the part I took in praising the gal-
lantry of the British troops. America, however, was lost.
We are now in alarm lest we should lose Ireland ; and I
own to you, Sir, that I tremble for the l'itte of Great Britain.
Is it then a thing to be endured, to hear a man accuse others
of endeavouring to lower the dignity of the country, when we
are doing all we can to save it, and are calling for an inquiry
into the conduct of that very man who has brought us to the
last stake, in which we are contending for our very ex-
istence ? And shall it be still a question who is the best friend
to the honour and interests of Great Britain ? This inquiry
may not take place, but I am glad the honourable gentleman
(Mr. 'Wilberforce) has intimated his intention of again bring-
ing the subject forward in some other shape. He can do it
with great propriety. But I wish to be informedrif this com-
mittee be not granted, what I am to say to my constituents if
they ask, Who are the allies of this country ? What is our
relative situation with the King of Prussia ? What with the
emperor? What has been the conduct of administration
with regard to the war ? What is the situation of Ireland ?
To all these questions I can only answer, " I cannot tell you
any thing of these matters. The House of Commons would
not grant me an inquiry; they went hand in hand with the
minister." I wish the House of Commons to have credit with
the people. I know there are enemies to this House; and if
you refuse this committee, you will furnish more arguments
against the House of Commons than any that ever were
written upon the subject.


The question being put, That the House do now adjourn, the
House divided :


Tellers. Tellers.
YEAS {Mr. Canning 0 NOES Mr. Grey 1 ,Mr. John Smith)
Mr. Sheridan


So it was resolved in the affirmative.




1795.] MONUMENT TO THE MEMORY, &C. 433


MONUMENT TO THE MEMORY OF CAPTAIN FAULKNOR.


April 1 4.


r ;7`, HIS day General Smith moved, " That an humble address
be presented to his majesty, That he will be graciously pleased


to give directions, that a monument be erected in the collegiate
church of Saint Peter, at Westminster, to the memory of Captain
Faulknor, who commanded his majesty's frigate Blanche, and
who fell gloriously on the 5 th of January 1795. , in an action with
the French frigate La Pique, which was captured ; and to assure
his majesty, that this House will make good the expense attend-
ing the same." The motion was seconded by Mr. Grey, and op-
posed by Mr. Windham. No man, he said, was more ready than
himself to allow, that no actions could-have been more brilliant,
and no life more illustrious, than those of Captain Faulknor. But
the rule hitherto in usage was in opposition to the motion now
proposed, and forbad them to give way to their feelings sin the pre-
sent occasion. What, lie asked, had formerly been the case, with
respect to Captain Gardener, and more recently with respect to
Captain Courtenay, who had both fallen gloriously in the service
of their country ? Neither of these officers had any public monu-
ment erected to their memory. The rule had been only to erect
monuments to those officers who fell in great and general actions,
though the merit of those who perished in separate actions
might be equally, and perhaps, even more distinguished. Honours
must go either by rule or by discretion. They became less valu-
able . by being lavishly bestowed. If the principle was to be ex-
tended, why should not lieutenants and midshipmen, who signa-
lized themseves, come in for a share of the same distinctions ? What
lie objected to in the present instance was, that the claims of indi-
viduals should be brought forward in that House for separate dis-
cussion. In order to get rid of the motion in the most respectful
way, lie should move that the other orders of the day be now read.


Mr. Fox said, that he should have thought it wise,
reasonable, and just, to have at once assented to a motion
founded on the ground of extraordinary merit. The right
honourable gentleman had, however, thought proper to
answer it by a long story of a rule which no where ap-
peared. The right honourable gentleman had laid down a


,
very true principle, that -honours did not become more
valuable in proportion as they were lavishly bestowed, and he
wished it had been more attended to in the distribution of the
votes of thanks last session. But, would the honour of any
of the British heroes. be tarnished by having the monument




yon, F




43_l MONUMENT TO THE MIEMORY [April 14,


of Captain Fri ulknor placed next to theirs? Would not the-
catalogue rather receive fresh splendour from the addition of so
illustrious a name? When the right bpi:thimble gentleman
laid so much stress on precedents, was he afraid that the pre-
cedents for conferring honours on such singular and extraordi-
nary merit might become too numerous ? He was sure that
there was no precedent in which such a motion as the present
had been brought forward and refused ; and he trusted that
the House on the present occasion would attend to the dictates
of their own feelings and the national honour, rather than the
:authority of the right honourable gentleman.


After a short conversation-, Mr. Windham professed his readi-
ness to withdraw his motion for the other orders of the day if some
mode could be found of adjourning the original motion, in order to,
search for precedents. The question was accordingly put and ne-
gatived. LIe then moved, "'That the debate on the original motion
be adjourned till Monday next."' As soon. as the motion had been
seconded,


Mr. Fox rose and declared, that after attending to all that
had been said of rule and precedent, he must reprobate in time
strongest terms the motion now made; a motion which he
would venture to say, was one of the most indecent, irregular,
and disgraceful, that could have been made in that House.
He wished to ask, on the subject of rules and precedents, by
what rule or by what precedent they were to estimate the
merits of officers who had distinguished themselves in an ex-
traordinary manner? How could similar services be corn-.
pared ? And how could rules be made to direct and regulate
the feelings of men upon such a subject ? In his opinion it
was impossible, and he hoped he should hear no more of that
sort of argument — a sort of argument which, he would ven-
ture to say, never had been used in that House before, and one
that he never imagined could have been urged against the mo-
tion of his honourable friend. But when the conduct of Captain
Faulknor was admitted and known to them all, to be as gal-
lant, as heroic, and as meritorious, as any that the page of
history could boast of; it must seem rather extraordinary, that
upon so extraordinary an occasion, a motion should be made
for a committtee to search for precedents, as if that committee
could search into the minds of the House and the minds of .
the public, for the degree of honour the country had reaped
from the conduct of a brave officer, the degree of gratitude which.
his country owed him for his services, or the degree of warmth
with which that House ought to express their feelings on such
a case. His honourable friend (Mr. Grey) had very properly


I


OF' CAPTAIN rAm..N0R.
43S1795.]


brought forward the instance of the Earl of Chatham. Did i t en-
ter the head of any man at thattime to talk ofrules and precedents
for granting rewards amid honours so justly merited ? Certainly
riot : and the case was somewhat similar, even upon the argu-
ments of the right honourable gentleman who wished to search
for precedents; for though there had been many able and good
ministers, whose services had passed unnoticed by monuments,
yet that sort of negative rule was not even started, nor did he
believe there was a man at the time that could have thought
of it. As to getting rid of the original motion, he was ex-
tremely sorry that any such idea had ever been entertained ;
but of all modes that could have been adopted, that of ap-
pointing a committee to search for precedents was the most
unworthy, and, he must add, disgraceful to the House, that
could have been suggested. This committee were to tell them,
he supposed, what their feelings ought to be with respect to
the merits of brave men, and what feelings were necessary to
constitute a wish to express a sense of gratitude, either by ho-
nours or rewards, for services performed to the public. To
decide upon the original motion, was the only way to do jus-
tice to such a case. And if they did not, and went into this
committee of'inquiry, he wished to know how the result would
affect the House. If upon this search no precedent was found,
which might be very likely, what would they do then ? Per-
haps they thought they enhanced the value of this tribute of
respect, by considering the case after inquiry, as one upon
which only such a testimony ofnational gratitude ought to be
bestowed. Again, upon the much-argued point of rule and
precedent, he would say once for all, that he knew of no such
rule as had been alluded to, and he even denied that any such
existed. If it did, it never had been stated. In the case of
the Earl of Chatham, time House had, much to their credit, in
his opinion, gone greatly farther than voting a monument to
his memory ; they amply and liberally provided for his fh-
mily, and, small as the share he had in that transaction, there
was no vote he had ever given that afforded him more satis-
faction. What was the conduct of the House upon that oc-
casion? Did any body think of searching for precedents?
No; the only precedent mentioned was that of the Duke of
Marlborough; but in his case it was because he had been a suc-
cessful general, and by his victories had essentially served his
country; the House of Commons, however, did not look to
this as a rule or precedent, but considering that the Earl of
Chatham had likewise rendered essential services to the
state, were unanimously of opinion, that all who equally
promoted the interests of the nation were equally intitled to
the honours and rewards which their services merited, Mr.


1' 2




436 ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE
[May I4.


Fox concluded by warmly exhorting the House to support
the original motion, and to resist the adjournment, for the
purpose of appointing a committee of inquiry, as derogatory
to the honour and character of a British House of Commons,
and highly unpopular and disgraceful in the eyes of the
nation.


The question being put, That the debate be adjourned tin
Monday, the House divided :


Tellers.
YEAS 1 Mr. Windham 77 Mr. Ryder


The motion for the monument was


KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE
PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES.


May 14.


MHE marriage of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the
11
Princess Caroline of Brunswick having taken place on the


8th of April, the following message from the king was delivered
to the House of Commons on the 27th :


" GEORGE
R.


" His majesty relies on the liberality and affection of his faithful
Commons, and on the cordial interest which they have manifested
in the happy event of the nuptials of the Prince and Princess
of Wales, that they will be ready to concur in such provision as
they may judge necessary, to enable his majesty to settle an esta-
blishment for the Prince and Princess, suited to their rank and
dignity. — On an occasion, in all other respects so satisfactory, his
majesty feels the deepest regret in being under the necessity of
.communicating to the House, that the benefit of any settle-
ment to be now made, cannot beeffectually secured to the Prince
of Wales, without providing the means of freeing him from incum-
brances to a large amount, to which he is now subject. — Anxious
as his majesty must necessarily be, particularly under the present.
circumstances, to relieve the Prince of Wales from these difficulties,
his majesty entertains no idea of proposing to his parliament to make
any provision for this object, otherwise than by the application of a
part of the income which•may be settled on the prince ; but he
earnestly recommends it to the House, to consider of the propriety
of thus providing for the gradual discharge of these incumbrances,
by appropriating and securing, for a given term, the revenue$:
arising from the duchy of Cornwall, together with a proportion


1795.] PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES. 431
of the prince's other annual income.: and his majesty will be ready
and desirous to concur in any provisions, which the wisdom of par-
liament may suggest, for the purpose of establishing a regular and
punctual order of payment in the prince's future expenditure, and
of guarding against the possibility of the prince being again involved
in so painful and embarrassing a situation."—The said message writ
taken into consideration on the 14th of May, when Mr. Hussey
proposed to have resource to the crown-lands, as a proper fund on
this occurrence : their annual produce did not exceed 60001. ; but
might with due management be carried to 400,0001. But his pro-
posal was negatived ; and Mr. Pitt proceeded to call the attention
of the House to the propriety of making, without delay, a settle-
ment of an adequate income for the prince, and of a jointure for
the princess : too,00c.d., eighty years ago, constituted, lie said,
the whole revenue of his great grandfather, George II. then Prince
of Wales ; and the income of his grandfather, thirty years after,
amounted to the like, sum, exclusive of the duchy of Cornwall,
computed at 13,000/. annually. The -diminished value of money
required a larger allowance ; and the least that the prince had a
right to expect was 1 40,0001. including the duchy of Cornwall.
The marriage expences; he stated at 28,000/., the completing of
Carlton-house at 26,0001., and the jointure of the princess at
50,0001. a year. He would leave it to the House to decide on the
best manner of liquidating the prince's debts, which he calculated
at 630,0001., advising, at the same time, to consult on the busi-
ness in a secret committee, as being the most expeditious method.
His opinion was, that 25,0001. ought yearly to be appropriated to
the extinguishing of the debts, and set apart. from the prince's in-
come for that sole purpose : by such a regulation, they would be
paid off in the course of twenty-seven years. In case of his de-
mise before the expiration of that period, that sum would be an-
nually charged on the succession ; but were a demise of the crown
and of the prince to happen within that period, the charge would
he laid on the consolidated fund. In order to obviate the incurring
of further debts, no arrearsshould be suffered to go beyond the quar-
ter, and no claims, after its expiration admitted. Mr. Pitt con-
cluded with moving, " That his majesty be enabled to grant a yearly
sum or sums of money, out of the consolidated fund, not exceeding
in the whole the sum of 65,0001., to take place, and be computed,
from the loth of October 1794, towards providing for the esta-
blishment of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of
Wales."—Mr. Grey said that he would not oppose the granting of
an establishment to the prince, equal to that of his ancestors ; but
neither would he consent to the payment of his debts by parliament.
Other means ought to be resorted to than the liberality of the na-
tion, which would be very ill-timed in a season of so much diffi-
culty and pressure, and no less ill-applied, when the manner of
contracting the debts was duly considered. A refusal to liberate
the prince from his embarrassments would certainly prove a morti-
fication; but it would, at the same tune, awaken a just sense of
his imprudence. He would, therefore, move as an amendment,
" That in lieu of 65,00d., the sum of 40,0001. be inserted."


F r 3


2g. NOES


Tellers.
S General Smith 1


Mr. Grey j 29.
consequently carried.




438 ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE
[May 14.


Mr. Fox said, that conscious that what heshould feel it his duty
to say would be acceptable neither to the crown, the Prince of
Wales, nor the majority of the House or of the country, he
could have no particular inducement to be very forward in
troubling the committee with his opinion. It was undoubt-
edly necessary to support the splendour of the crown as an
essential part of the constitution ; but he did not understand
calling it,. as it had been called, the center of the constitution.
The crown was dear to every man who loved the constitution,
but not dearer than other parts of it, than the House of Com-
mons, the popular branch of the constitution. To the chief
magistrate in all governments, republics as well as monarchies,
a certain degree of splendour was necessary. This was a point
clear from the history and practice of all governments, but
subject to modification, as circumstances might require.
There were cases in which the dignity of the crown might be
better upheld by relinquishing part of its accustomed splen-
dour than by a strict adherence to it. Much had been said
of the establishments of former princes of Wales as precedents.
Sorry he was that he could not look to those precedents as the
most creditable parts of the history of the house of Brunswick.
The establishment of George when Prince of Wales, had
been a mere matter of party; how much more that of his
son, Frederick Prince of Wales ! The establishment of
Frederick Prince of Wales had been at one time 6o,000t. at
another I oo,000l. a year ; 6o,ocol. a year when he happened
to differ in political opinion from his majesty's ministers, and
oo,occl. when he afterwards agreed with them. He had too


much respect for the memory of that prince, to impute to him
motives inconsistent with the honour of his high station, in-
consistent with the honour of any private gentleman, but the
circumstance gave room to suspicions in the country, as inju-
rious in their tendency to the prince as to the people, for mutual
respect and confidence were necessary to the interests of both.


What he now deprecated was a conduct on the part of the
House that might expose any prince of Wales to such sus-
picions. Let all men see that they meant to be guided only
by the actual principles of the case, and not by regard to the
individual. And here he must lament the whole conduct of
government with respect to the establishment of his royal
highness. When an allowance of 5 o,000/. a year in addition
to the duchy of Cornwall was proposed, he thought it insuf-
ficient. Why, then, it would be asked, being one of his ma-
jesty's ministers at the time, did he concur in that allowance?
He concurred, declaring his opinion of its insufficiency, be-
cause it was then an experiment, and great deference was due
to the opinion of his majesty, who gave the whole sum out of


/


1795.] PRINCE AND PRINCESS OP WALES. 439
the civil list, without calling for the aid of parliament, and
thought that it would be sufficient. A. few years after, other
ministers advised his majesty to apply to parliament to ex-
onerate the civil list from this allowance to the prince. In
1787 an honourable magistrate (Mr. Alderman Newnham)
brought forward the subject again before parliament, when
provision was made for paying the debts of his royal high-
ness, and io,00d. a year was lidded to his income. This was
no new experiment, but the result of an experiment already
made. He then thought 6o,0001. a year in addition to the
duchy of Cornwall an insufficient allowance; but his mouth
was stopped by the terms of the king's message, conveying
very clearly both the king's opinion and the prince's, that it
would be sufficient. The declaration of his royal highness,
that he would give no occasion for any future application to
parliament on a similar account, surprised him riot a little.
He knew not who had advised him to make such a declar-
ation; but if his royal highness at any subsequent period had
consulted him upon the subject, he would have said, that,
being made, it was a promise which, for his honour, he was
bound to keep. It was, however, the opinion of ministers,
and of the chancellor of the exchequer in particular, whose
duty it more immediately was to form a correct opinion, that
6o,000l. a year, in addition to the duchy of Cornwall, was
sufficient for the splendour of the Prince of Wales at twen-
ty-five, and for reinstating his household, which he had
dismissed.


Upon what principle, then, did they now pretend to say
that /25,0001. a year was necessary? Marriage, in the lower
classes of life made a great difference in point of expellee, but


-


did it in any thing like the same proportion among the higher
ranks ? His royal highness, before his marriage, had a
house and a household. Did his marriage require two houses
and two households ? How, then, was it possible for those
who in 1787 said that 73.0001. a year was sufficient for his
expellees, to say that 138,0001. must he necessary now ? He
could not but lament that the same conduct seemed to be
adopted with respect to the establishment of his royal high-
ness as had taken place with respect to that of Frederick
Prince of Wales ; that ministers measured the extent of his
allowance by the degree of approbation he bestowed upon
their system of government; and that the House, following
them, was to be guided, not by principle, but by circum-
stances of a very different nature. It might be asked, whe-
ther he did not feel such a difference as he supposed ministers
to feel ? He would answer, that he did not; that he had
never considered his royal highness in any other point of


F F 4




I
y 14.4 4 0 ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE L-Ma


view than as the heir apparent to the throne; that he had
never looked to his opinions, but to his station. He might
then be asked, whether he, who had always thought the for-
mer allowances to his royal highness insufficient, would .not
now vote for the larger sum, in preference to the amendment
moved by his honourable friend ? Undoubtedly he would,
and for the reasons he had stated on former occasions, but not
without some provision for preventing such applications to
parliament in future. The difference between the present
value of money, and the value of sit when roo,000l. was an
adequate provision for princes of Wales, required at least an
addition of one fourth. He should be answered, that the in-
crease of public debts and public burdens made the country
less able to bear large establishments. He admitted and la-
mented the increased and increasing burdens of the country ;
but with increase of public debts, let the increase of public
means to provide for them be taken into consideration. .Let
gentlemen look to what he wished ministers had looked to
in 1787, the increased habits of expence in all ranks, and the
difference of one fourth would certainly not appear to keep
pace with it.


Ills honourable friend who moved the amendment, had
spoken of the evil tendency of such habits ; but, was the
Prince of Wales the first example they would choose to select
fin• reform, and, in some sort, for punishment ? He remem--
bered to have heard a lady, as weak and as frail as the frailest
of her sex, say, not ludicrously but seriously, "I am con-
scious of my faults ; but I hope I atone for them by my marked
disapprobation of such faults in others." It would ill become
him to be very pointed in his disapprobation of imprudent ex-
pence in others ; but be would say to the city, to Westmin-
ster, to the public at large, " If you complain of increased
habits of expellee, begin the reformation by reforming your-
selves." Reference might be made to the liberality of parlia-
ment to other princes, to the crown itself. Whatever they might
Say about the separation of the three branches of the legisla-
ture and their independence of one another, it could not be
dissembled, that the crown, having the disposal of all offices
civil and military, with the collection of near twenty millions
of revenue, must possess great influence in that House.
Would it, then, be seemly to yield to every extravagance of
the crown, but act harshly and austerely towards a prince who
;lad no such influence ? Something on this occasion might have
been expected from the civil list. Queen Anne, from a civil
list of Goo,000/. gave roo,000l. towards the support of a war.
George I. out of 700,0001. a year, gave roo,000l. for the esta-
-blishment of his heir ; and George II. the same sum for the


1.795.]


PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES. 441


establishment of Frederick Prince of Wales. During the
American war, when the country was not certainly in a state
of prosperity, parliaMent paid a large debt for the civil list,
and added to it r oo,000l. a year. The sum appropriated to the
privy purse had been gradually increased from 3 6,0001. to
6o,000t. a year. Wh y, then, refuse a proportional increase
to the establishment of the Prince of Wales ? These argu-
ments he had formerly stated to the House without much
effect ; and if they produced any effect now, it would be from
being enforced by eloquence superior to his.


But with the establishment, unfortunately, the business did
not end. There were debts, as stated, of his royal highness,
to the amount of 620,0001. and several other debts for which
he was bound. The latter, lie understood, much to the ho-
nour of those who had contracted them, were already in a
course of payment. But supposing the creditors to think the
mode of payment too slow, they might call upon the prince
itbr payment, as well as his own creditors, and therefore, to
relieve hint from his embarrassments, if to do so was intended,
these debts must be put upon the same footing as his own.
Hence arose two questions, — Was the prince well advised in
applying to that House on the subject of his debts, after the
promise made in 1787? or the minister justified in making
zmy proposal for liquidating them, without some engagement
on the part of his royal highness, which might be relied
upon as a security against future calls of the same kind ? To
both these questions he must give a decided negative; and
therefore he would consider only what was a proper establish-
ment for the prince, without noticing his debts. Here again,
a new consideration interposed, viz. that of the Princess of
Wales, who had been invited over by the unanimous consent
of parliament and the country, and for whom the House, by
its addresses, stood pledged to make a suitable provision. It
.was in vain to pretend, that the House was not aware of the
-embarrassments of his royal highness at the time they gave
that pledge ; not one of them but knew the fact although not
regularly informed of it by a message from his majesty. For
this reason only he would assent to a plan for relieving his
royal highness from those embarrassments, but not without
an absolute sinking fund, for liquidating the debt within a
reasonable time. The right honourable gentleman proposed
appropriating 25,0001. a year for payment of the interest, at
four per cent., although interest was at five per cent., and the
income of the duchy of Cornwall to liquidate the principal,
which, according to this plan, would be discharged in about
twenty-seven years.. Was this a plan that any man could
propose seriously ? Rather let the House own that they did




442 ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE
NV 14.


not mean to pay off the debt, than hold Out such a mockery.
Their duty to the prince and to the public was the same, for
in consulting his dignity, they consulted the public interest.
But in what way would his dignity be best preserved? By
retaining all the splendour of his establishment, his creditors
unpaid, or by setting apart such a portion of it as would
liquidate his debts, and atone for past indiscretion by future
economy ? 'Po do this would be his advice to his royal
highness, were he to condescend to ask it in his closet. He
gave it not, as he then must give it, for the sake of popularity,
of which he was no courter, except as it followed an honest
discharge of duty, and which he was never less likely to obtain
than by the course he was taking on the present occasion.


If only 25,0001. were applied to the liquidation of his debts,
his- carriages, horses, servants, every article of his state, would
remind the public of what it was much better the public
should forget; but let such a reduction as he proposed be
made, and men's feelings -would soon take a contrary turn ;
they would pant for the moment that should restore the
prince to the enjoyment of his full income; and when it
arrived, view his splendour with pride and satisfaction ;
6,0007. with the income of the duchy of Cornwall, would
form an adequate fund for the payment of his debts within a
reasonable time. It might be 'asked, if the prince could live
in a way becoming his state upon 60,0001. a year? He would
answer, No; nor upon 00,000/. a year; for if lie could,
ministers, upon their own principle, would not be for giv-
ing him 525,0004 a year. But for a time he might spare
his great officers of state, and other expensive appendages
of his rank, and the public would gain a beloved and re-
spected Prince of Wales. Upon I00,0001. a year he would
be expected to maintain his full establishment with an in-
adequate income, and would neither be able to clear away
his old incumbranees, nor to avoid new. Upon 60,0004
he would be expected to consult nothing but his domestic
satisfaction, and the honourable discharge of his just debts;
and when he had once experienced the public esteem and
affection that would soon follow such a plan, his future years
must be prosperous indeed, if he counted the years of his
probation the least happy of his life. All this might be done
much sooner, and without expellee to the public.


It had ever been his opinion that a land estate was the
least proper of any for the crown, the most objectionable on
account of the undue influence it .was calculated to create,
and the least likely to be profitably managed. The duchy
of Cornwall, as he was informed by persons well acquainted
with it, might be sold for 800,0001.; he would suppose for


PRINCE AND PRINCESS Or WALES. 4435795.]
only 600,0001. The prince's life-interest in it might be.
valued at 300,000/. and that sum applied to the payment of
his debts. The remaining 3 00,0001. might be applied as
parliament should think fit : to the future provision for
Princes of Wales, if they were so attached to customs, merely
because they were old, as to think it worth while to continue
that whimsical sort of provision. There would remain 320,0001.
of debt, which the fund he had mentioned would pay off in_
three or four years, when his royal highness might resume
his state, with the satisfaction that his indiscretions had not
cost a penny to any one of those whose fellow-subject he was
at present, and whose sovereign he was one day to be. The
middle course proposed by the right honourable gentleman
would neither give splendour to the prince nor comfort to the
private gentleman; but above all, the people would see in
it no atonement for past imprudence.


tie approved of taking measures to prevent future debts
being contracted, provided the plan was to be general. If
it were to apply to the Prince of Wales individually, it would
not be a mark of respect but of degradation ; if applied to
all future kings and princes it should have his hearty support.
It would relieve parliament from the difficulty which always
occurred when debts were contracted by the royal family,
that unless provision was made for the payment at the public
expellee, the creditors must lose the money. In making the
officers of a prince responsible for all debts in their several
departments, there appeared to be such inconveniences as
he. thought could not be obviated. Why had not his ma-
jesty been advised to do something upon this occasion him-
self? Was it for the interest of regular governments that
monarchs should never appear to their subjects to feel any
portion of the public adversity; that they should grow rich,
as the people were growing poor ? In private families the
indiscretion of a son was a misfortune which his family felt,
and must make sacrifices to repair. The imprudence they
all lamented was partly of this nature, and something might
have been expected towards repairing it : 100,0001. would
not have gone far in money, but it would have gone far in
sentiment. It was not wise in those who talked of the dan-
gers that threatened monarchy, to suffer kings and princes to
be known only to the people by expellees and taxes.


A more unpleasant duty, Mr. Fox declared,le;sohne lviNahclopsiuelbeiecr:
performed in parliament. The illustrious i
nour and interest, in conjunction with those of the
he was anxious to promote, would not perhaps much relish
what he had said, if it should be reported to him ; but, grate-
-Hs as he was for the personal notice and kindness with which




444 EaTA33LISHMENT FOR TILE [June I.
his royal highness had sometimes honoured him, he never
had spoken, nor would speak of him in that House, but re-
latively to his station, not to his own private feelings. The
smallness of his income palliated his debts, and, had it not
been for the promise in 178 7, might have excused them.
All who knew him knew this to have been his constant opi-
nion upon that point. The prince had not been fairly dealt
with, as to the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall during
his minority. What the act of parliament gave to him from
his birth, had been applied by successive ministers to the
purposes of the civil list. It was a miserable plea to say,
that they had been expended on his education. 'Would any
man of fortune, whose son had a distinct income, charge him
with the expellees of his education? Mr. Fox concluded with
repeating that he would vote for 125,0001. to the Prince of
Wales, but that he would oppose taking any notice of his
debts, unless a large fund for liquidating them were appro-
priated in some such way as be had suggested.


- The committee divided on Mr. Grey's amendment : Yeas 99:
Noes 26o. After which a second division took place on the main
iitestion : Yeas 241 : Noes ice.


June 1.


Mr. Anstruther, solicitor-general to his royal highness the
Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, acquainted the House,
" That the. Prince of Wales, while the question relative to his
establishment was under the consideration of the House of Corn-
Mons, had thought the proper conduct for him to observe was to
avoid expressing any opinion or wish upon the subject ; fully sen-
sible that the liberality and wisdom of parliament would make
such arrangements as should be best suited to the situation of his
affairs, the dignity of the royal family, and the interest of the
public: but having understood, that it was the desire of many
respectable persons, that his wishes and opinions upon the subject
should be known, his royal highness had authorized him to assure
the House, that lie is extremely desirous that such regulations
may be adopted, as to the wisdom of parliament shall seem most
expedient and advisable, for the purpose of establishing order
and regularity in the expenditure of his income, and to prevent
the incurring of debt in future.— And, at the same time, his
royal highness had authorized him farther to express his earnest
desire, that the House will appropriate such part of the income,
which they may intend to allot to him, to the liquidation of the
debts with which he is embarrassed, as, under all time present cir-
cumstances, shall seem to the wisdom and prudence of the House
Most expedient and advisable; fully sensible that, however large'
that appropriation may be, the House will he guided solely by the


795.]


PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES. 445


consideration of what shall appear to them the most conducive to
his honour, and the interest of the public." In consequence of
this communication, Mr. Pitt moved, " That it be an instruction
to the gentlemen who are appointed to prepare and bring in a bill
for enabling his majesty to grant a yearly sum or sums of money,
out of' the consolidated fund, towards providing for the establish-
ment of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales,
that they do make provision in the said bill for establishing a
regular and punctual order of payment in the prince's future ex-t
penditure, and for guarding against his incurring debts in future ;
and also, for appropriating a proportion of the prince's annual
income towards the gradual discharge of the incumbrances to
which his royal highness is now subject."


Mr. Yox declared it to be his wish to separate the different
parts of this subject, and to keep them as distinct from each
other as possible. The House was now in rather an ad-
vanced stage of this proceeding; and here he could not help
congratulating the House and the public, that his royal high-
ness, by his communication, had acted in a manner that did
him honour; and he trusted he would finish a plan which
he had so worthily begun. With regard to the motion now
before the House, he confessed lie did . not know upon what
principle opposition was made to it. He did not understand
the motion to be that of calling on the public to pay the debt
in any degree. It was only simply the setting apart some of
the income of his royal highness for the purpose of discharg-
ing his debt. He wished, however, the House and the pub-
lic- not to be deceived upon this business, for although there
was not a shilling to be voted in this stage of the business out
of the pockets of the public, yet it was clear that a request
would come to call on the public for security against the
contingent event of the demise of his royal highness. That
was a thing not to be dissembled. But with regard to what
was now before the House, he should vote for it, even if he
had thought that the smaller sum proposed as the income
of the prince had been better, under all the circumstances,
than the larger, because it was nothing more than to enable
his royal highness to set apart some of his income to the
discharge of his incumbrances. It might be said, that the
prince could do this himself: he * certainly could not effec-
tually, nor could he without the aid of parliament at all adopt
a plan that would satisfy his creditors. In this stage of the
business, therefore, Mr. Fox said, he must have voted for
this motion, even without any idea of inquiring whether any
contingent burdens would be laid on the public, because that
question was not be governed by the present decision; when
thatuestion came it would be time enough to discuss it,




446 ESTABLISHMENT TOR THE [June T.
And here, he said, he might finiiih his observations on the
part of the subject now before them ; but it had been often
thought, if not strictly regular, rather convenient, sometimes
to make some general observations on the topics which might
be expected to be brought forward hereafter upon the matter.
He had not seen, any reason for altering the opinion which
he gave upon this subject on a former occasion. The cir-
cumstance of his royal highness's happy marriage, which we
all knew took place with the approbation of parliament long
after it was well known that his royal highness was deeply
involved in debt, certainly made part of the deliberation of
the House. He owned there was a point on which he could
not help touching, as being extremely applicable to this case.
He thought he might look for some resources upon this occa-
sion from his majesty. It might be said, he ought not to
give any thing very considerable; this was a point into which
he could not enter until his majesty had notified his royal
disposition to give something. He most egregiously mis-
took the sentiments of the public, if something of this nature
would not be very well received by them. He did not say
that the whole 600,00d. should be paid by his majesty; but
he would say, because he felt, that it appeared a little un-
seemly, that at a time of such general calamity, his majesty
should be the only person in the kingdom who did not con-
tribute a single farthing towards the discharge of the in-
cumbrances of the Prince of Wales. This, he could not
help repeating, was unseemly. He hoped his majesty would
be better advised upon this subject. A glorious opportunity
offered itself for the display of royal munificence, and liberal
conduct upon such an occasion as this would do more even
for the constitution than the most vigorous exertion of the
arm of power. It was with this view that he had contended,
and sorry he was that he had contended unsuccessfully,
against the additional foo,00d. a year to the income of his
majesty himself during the continuance of the American war,
because, when all the subjects of his majesty felt so much
during that war, he thought that his majesty would do well
to shew them a lesson of frugality and economy.. If this
principle was correct, and the application of it just, at that
time, how much more so was it now, when the question
is — " What burdens are to be laid upon the public to
relieve the Prince of Wales from debt?" He would say
again, it was unfortunate that some person had not advised
his majesty to lead the way, and shew the public an example
of liberality upon this occasion, and to convince them that
he felt himself the necessity there was of indulging a ge-
nerous temper. What this subject. should come to be dis-


179.5•] PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES.


cussed, happy should he be if the House, by a gracious com-
munication, should be given to understand that the illustrious
personage to whom he alluded intended to take some share
of the contingent burden which might be felt from this situation
of his royal highness. He trusted also that the whole of the
additional income of his royal highness, together with the
duchy of Cornwall, would be appropriated solely to the liqui-
dation of the debts. It would take ten years even then to
discharge them. But he still adhered to his original idea of
making a very different disposition of the duchy of Cornwall
from what had been proposed by the minister. According to
his idea of the thing, the public would have a consider-
able advantage by the sale of the duchy of Cornwall, in a pe-
cuniary_ sense, as also from the diminution of the patronage of
the crown, already much too extensive; and it would also
place many gentlemen, now interested there, in a situation
much less dependant than they are at present. It would also
relieve his royal highness himself from dependence on the
crown, and on the minister of the day, a thing in itself ex-
tremely desirable, as well for the heir apparent of the throne
as for the interests of the public; for a prince-ought to be an
opulent and independent nobleman, before he became a wise,
virtuous, and illustrious monarch; and in proportion to the
elevation of his rank-, must a state of dependence be painful
to his feelings, and dangerous to the public. He concluded
with giving his assent to the present unction.


June 5.


Mr. Pitt moved, " That this House will, upon Monday next, re-
solve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of
providing. for the appropriation of an annual sum out of the eon-




solidated fund, for the liquidation of such of the debts, now owing
by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, as, may remain un-
paid, in the event of the decease of his royal hi ghness." He said,
that in proposing this motion, the question was whether, by re-
fusing their countenance to this provision, the House would render
all their other liberality ineffectual. All other provisions, except
that which he was now to propose, would be inefficient both as to
the security of the creditors, and the comfort.and ease of his royal
highness. It was certainly attended with some degree of risk to
the public, but it was one of the unfortunate considerations, which
could not be separated from the present discussion, and except
some other mode could be found consistent with justice, propriety,
and policy, they were driven to that option. Sir William Young
said, that because he was attached to the royal family he did not
wish that the debts should be taken notice of at all. The mode of
procedure adopted by the right honourable gentleman tended to




448ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE [June 5.
degrade the Prince of Wales : it put him, as it were, in leading
strings, arid held him out as unworthy of confidence.


Mr. Fox said, that he conceived no such construction
could apply to any measures taken to regulate the expendi-
ture of his royal highness. When the House voted for Mr.
Burke's bill, they had acted in the same spirit. He then
conceived that the elevated situation of his majesty gave a
right to that House to lay him under the restrictions which
they then imposed ; because, proud as his situation was, he
owned no greater station than that of servant of the people.
Before, in the present instance, he consented to burden the
people, he wished to know, whether what lie should grant
-would be effectual for the purpose for which it was demanded.
As far as lie understood, there was no compulsion upon the
creditors to accept of the terms now offered. He did not
wish to impose an additional burden upon the public without
some reasonable certainty that it would really be effectual.
The whole of the business had been conducted unfortunately.
There ought first to have taken place some arrangement be-
tween the prince and his creditors, that it might be known
what terms would be accepted, if a certain security was given.
The right honourable gentleman had intimated his intention
to fill up the blank in the committee with the whole additional
sum of 65,000l. and the revenue of the duchy of Cornwall,
He certainly did not think the sum of 7 8,0001.. a year too
large for the purpose of liquidating the debt. But how was
the right honourable gentleman to get at the revenue of the
duchy of Cornwall, as lie understood that the present income
of his royal highness was conveyed in trust for the benefit of
his creditors? It was very unfortunate that the House should
be called to impose a contingent burden upon the public,
without either the certainty of relieving the Prince of Wales,
or of satisfying his just creditors.


He was now called upon to perform the last disagreeable
task which had fallen to his share in the present discussions.
He had not flattered the people, because lie had voted for the
larger sum; he had not flattered the prince, because he had
pretty plainly explained his sense of the manner in which that
sum ought to be appropriated ; nor would he, in what lie had
now to say, flatter that other party, whose immediate favour
might be deemed still more important. He sincerely lamented
that, as a ground of proceeding, parliament had received no
intimation from his majesty, that in any possible contingency
he should take upon himself the charge of the debts. They
might then have had the consolation to say that it was a trans-.
action which had been equall y unfortunate for all parties;.


1795.1 PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES. 449


that the public had suffered from the imposition of an ad-
ditional burden, that the prince had suffered from a diminution
of splendour, and that his majesty had suffered in common with
his family and his people. If the bill went forward, he cer-
tainly should vote for the appropriation of the 78,00o1. which
the right honourable gentleman had stated would extinguish
the debt in about nine years. The risk of the public in that
case was certainly not great ; but why, he asked, should the
public he subjected in this instance to any contingent risk ?
He adverted to the case of Frederick Prince of Wales, whose
income had been increased from fifty thousand to one hundred
thousand pounds, and had still been charged upon the civil
list. Ile proposed to move, thatein case of the demise of the
Prince of Wales, the portion of his debts, which should then
remain unpaid, should be defrayed. out of the civil list. It
might be said, would not so large a defalcation oblige parlia-
ment to grant an additional supply to the civil list ? To this
he would only answer, that it would then remain for parlia-
ment to consider what were the peculiar circumstances of the
time, and whether the state of the civil list was such as called
upon them for an additional sum. When the civil list was
increased by accidents; he did not mean to an inconsiderable
amount;— he particularly alluded to the death of the Princess
Amelia; —he never had heard of any message stating to the
House that it had been freed from such incuMbrance. Ifthe
civil list likewise was lightened of some of the burdens with
which it was at present charged, it might then be adequate to
undertake the debts; if not, it would be for parliament to
consider, according to the circumstances of the time, what
supply it would be proper to grant.


There was another material argument, which must make
every man sincerely lament that any question with respect to
his royal highness's debts, was ever moved in that House at
all, but more particularly after what passed in the year 1787.
He was sure he was one, when that promise was given, who
doubted the propriety of giving it. Ile should not have ad-
vised his royal highness to have made it. The misfortune
was, that promise: whether justly made or not he should not
determine, but that House, in their address on the subject,
did receive that promise, and therefore, from the moment his
royal highness knew that event, he had deliberately bound
himself by it. After such a promise, it was extremely to be
lamented that the prince's debts should be brought under
the consideration of that House. He felt so much for the
prince's situation, that he thought his debts should have been
arranged, as they ought to have been, as a family concern.
With regard to the marriage of his royal highness, he found


VOL. V.
G G




450 ESTABLISHMENT Fpn THE
[.lane 5.,


a difficulty
. He had formerly thought, and was still of that


opinion, that that House knowing of the marriage, which was
a public matter, did, by their approbation of that marriage,
seem to give something of a pledge to his royal highness, and
to his illustrious consort, that they would place them in a
situation becoming their rank and dignity. He admitted an
answer had been given to this point by an honourable gen-
tleman, when he observed, that the marriage had been ac-
tually agreed on, and had the winds and waves permitted,
would have been celebrated before the meeting of parliament,
If that House could in any remote degree be considered as
parties to that marriage, they were bound


.
to that illustrious


and. amiable princess, whom they had invited over to this
country, to make a provision befitting her rank and station.
But if that could be considered in any degree as an obligation
on that House, how much stronger was that obligation on his
majesty, who was not remotely, who was not contingently, a
party to that marriage, but was the direct, immediate con-
tracting party? If that House was bound, by the remote share•
they had in the marriage, to rescue the prince from his in-
volved situation, how much more was his majesty bound, who
had advised him to it? How much more were those bound
who were parties to the marriage, not by remote constructions
but who were the direct and immediate parties? How much.
more were they bound to bear their share, either of the im-
mediate burdens or contingent risk, which . were rendered
necessary in consequence of that marriage ! He had no diffi-
culty at that moment to negative the motion ; first, because
they were not ready for it; and secondly and principally, be-
cause that House ought not to vote for contingent burdens
on the public, when the civil list might be able to bear it.
But he requested them to consider the necessary and imme-
diate effect of that event against which the motion was intend-
ed to provide; 6o,000/. would be saved to the public, at the
same time so,000/. of that would go for the jointure of her
royal highness; but there was no more certainty in her life
than in that of the prince. It might be said, on the other
hand, in case of both these unfortunate events, there might
be another Prince of Wales. Certainly, if their royal high-
nesses should have issue.


In the mean time, as all these contingencies were possibili-
ties Which might or might not happen, was it not safest, was.
it not wisest, to lay the burden where it ought to fall, on his
majesty's civil list? And if at the time the burden. was such
as was inconsistent with the circumstances of the country,
then that House might take it into .its consideration.
That civil list might be exonerated from the payment of a


1795.] PRINCE AND PRINCEtS OF WALES. 45 1


jointure, 'and from certain allowances that were now paid to
several branches of the royal family; and though they had a.
Prince or Princess of Wales that was an infant, that circum-
stance would not occasion great expence. He would only
subject the nation to a contingent risk, when it appeared to
be a matter of absolute necessity. Nothing but political ne-
cessity should induce him to do so unfair a thing to the public,
and to the Prince of Wales himself; as that it should be un-
derstood throughout the country and the world, that the
public were suffering burdens on account of the indiscretions
of his royal highness. The interest of the prince and of the
public were not distinct, but one and the same.


He said he had stated some difficulties on this subject which
had occurred to him, and which gentlemen on the other side
of the House would do well to consider. It would be a most
fortunate circumstance, in his apprehension, that the memory
of these transactions should be obliterated as soon as possible.
The Prince of Wales's debentures in the floating stock of the
country, and the name of the prince as connected with those
debts, was not a very pleasing circumstance. He hoped such
a mode of proceeding would be avoided. It had been ob-
served by the right


ding


the chancellor of the ex-
chequer, that the exchange of the hereditary revenues of the
crown for the civil list, was the effect of an engagement be-
tween the king and his parliament. He took that not to
be the case, or it was the most improvident bargain the
public ever made : the English princes preserved their
hereditary revenues, and parliament gave them what made it
amount to 6, 7, or 800,000/. Ile believed these hereditary
dominions never amounted to 300,0001. a-year, and the only
difference of the arrangement between the parliament and the
present king and of former kings, was this, that to former
kings they left the hereditary revenues, and gave them a very
large income instead of a civil list. With regard to the pre-
sent king, instead of making up the hereditary revenue, they
gave him 9oo,000l. per annum, and took the hereditary re-
venues of the crown into their own hands. They gave him
that sum, not as an equivalent for the hereditary revenues of
the crown, but as a sum that was necessary to support the
dignity and splendour of such a magistrate. He would never
agree to lay the smallest contingent burden on the nation,
when probably at the very moment the burden began to be
felt, the civil list might be in a prosperous state, and fully
able to bear this expence. Some gentlemen thought the coun-
try were bound to submit to that expence, because they had
been parties to the marriage. If that obligation operated at
all on that House, it was ten thousand times stronger on hie


G G 2




45 2 ESTABLISHMENT FOR THIS' [.t une 5+


majesty, who was the only man in his dominions who was to-.
contribute nothing towards this burden. On these grounds
he should give his negative to the present motion.


Mr. Sheridan opposed the motion, and moved an amendment,
by inserting after the words " consolidated fund" these words,
" provided it shall appear to this House, upon due investigation of"
the subject, that the means of paying the said annuity, or part
thereof, or of his royal highness's debts, cannot be derived either
from his majesty's civil list or from the suppression of sinecure
offices and useless places now paid by the-public."


Mr. Fox Said, lie certainly could not agree to the•amend-
nient moved by his honourable friend ; but he must say, that
in the speech which prefaced that motion, he had heard as
much good and strong sense spoken as ever was uttered in
that House, and particularly upon that point which seemed
so obnoxious to the right honourable gentleman over the way
— the propriety of granting any assistance from the civil list.
He thought, with the right honourable gentleman, (Mr. Dun=
das,) that it was better to give the civil list to the king lo r life,
than annually, as his honourable friend had wished it. But
he could not agree with the right honourable gentleman, that
the king should not come forward upon this occasion, because
file debts were contracted without his knowledge, and out of
the reach of his control. For if this reason applied to the
king, it surely applied more forcibly to the public, who
certainly had no sort of control over the prince's expences,
nor any knowledge how they were contracted. With regard
to the message from the king on


• this subject, was there any
man in the- House who did not know that if his royal high-
ness's marriage had not taken place, no such message would
have been heard of? It was, therefore, obvious that ministers
,approved of that marriage, which he had not the least doubt
would eventually prove a most happy event for the country ;
and was it not, then, their duty to have prevented any such ap-
plication as this coming to the House? The prince ought not to
be accused of breach of promise ; he did not believe that he had
got into this dilemma intentionally, but ministers were much
to blame for the bad advice they had given both to his ma-
jesty and to the prince. It must always be an unpleasant
thing to lay new burdens on the people for the royal family.
What had happened in a former


. reign had shewn the in/-
policy of such steps ; and they must be particularly obnoxious
now. Ile denied that the doctrines of his honourable friend
were new. They were the same as he had held, and had
often before mentioned in that House. He knew that there


1795.] PRINCE AND PRINCESS 'OF WILES.
were some who did not advise any reduction of expellee in
the prince's establishment; but they were not his friends :
and as to the king's expences, he always bad thought they
ought to be accommodated to the civil list, instead of the
civil list being accommodated to them. He contended, that
the opinion of the country was with him in asserting, that,
if the king had honest ministers about him, they would have
advised him, for his -own sake, for the prince's sake, and for
the sake of the country, to have come forward. At an
early period the creditors ought to have been called together,
and some means attempted to satisfy them : if it could not
have been done, then it was time to come to parliament. Mr.
Fox touched upon the allusions made at different times to the
prince's being connected with party politics, in opposition, as
it was called, to government, because he happened, for the
time, to agree with those who generally opposed minister:.
He thought the new advisers of the prince had not increased
his popularity ; and believed, that his own wish and inclina-
tion three years ago was, to have retrenched his expellees, in
order to get into some probable train of .paying his debts; but
it was suspected, and he, for one, was now certain of it, that
very different -advice had been given to him.; and that the ex-
ample of M. EgalitC: was held out, as a warning, that, to take
any steps such as were proposed, would be dangerous to the
cause of monarchy. He stated his grounds for voting on a
former night for granting an income of 12 5n000/. pee annum.
to the prince, which were, because be thought that he, or any
Prince of Wales, required it; and he would have so voted if
Ells royal highness had not beep a sixpence in debt. He
thought his honourable friend had done well in,proposing
that the civil list should contribute towards the payment of
the debts, and insisted that it was much more consistent with
those old fashions which the right honourable gentleman pro-
fessed himself attached to, than the mode now proposed by an
application to parliament.


Mr. Sheridan having consented -to withdraw his motion, the
House divided on the main question :


.erslle Tellers.


I Mr. Anstruther
T


YEAS Mr. John Smyth} i48.—"S°Es I M
Mr.


r.
Jekyll
Whitbread} 93.


.So it was resolved in the affirmative:.


G O 3




I
454 - ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE [June ft,


r795•1 PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES.
455


June 8.


On the motion for going into a committee on the Prince of
Wales's annuity bill,


Mr. Fox said, that if he voted for the Speaker's leaving the
chair, he ought to state the ground upon which he did so ;
for he confessed there were doubts and difficulties in this busi-
ness. If the question were now put that the -bill be put off
for two months, he should certainly give his negative to such
a proposition, because he thought that this business ought to
be discussed ; but he was of opinion also that time ought to
be gii'en to examine into the different parts of it. There
were, in his opinion, many arrangements to he made by his
royal highness, and many arrangements also to be made by
'his majesty's advisers, with regard to the duchy of Cornwall,
before the subject was matured for the decision of that House.,
Much of this bill, he confessed, he considered as proper. He
thought that making up the income of the Prince of Wales
125,0001. a-year, was proper ; he thought it becoming the
dignity and the wisdom of parliament. With respect to the
provision in the bill, to prevent his royal highness from in-
curring any debt in future, that had also his complete appro-
bation. • But what epperaed to him objectionable was, that
by this bill they gave to his royal highness that which they
did not give him the management of: The whole matter, he
feared, would be under the management and approbation of
the minister. It was placing the prince in a state of depend-
ance on the king's treasury, which was, in other words, sub-
jecting the prince to the power of the minister. He was
dissatisfied with regard to the regulation of Carlton-house.
The property there was added to the debts of the Prince of
-Wales. To whom should the furniture there belong ? To
the Prince of Wales, who paid for it, certainly. And yet
they were to be made heir looms — so that parliament might
say to the prince— " You have furnished Carlton-house more
expensively than you ought to have done, but we shall have
it." This was a little unfair with regard to the prince : it was
very unfair with regard to the creditors; because the furni- ,
ture, if this provision were not in the bill, would be moveable
assets, subject to the payment of the debts; and perhaps this
would operate to the prejudice of those very creditors who had
provided this very furniture. Now, if he voted for the Speaker
leaving the chair, it must be under an understanding that
these difficulties shot* be removed; because, without a better


understanding of ninny of the topics, he would venture to
say, that the House might be now doing what would neither
effectually relieve the prince, nor secure the public property.
As to the duchy of Cornwall, he confessed he was exceed-
ingly anxious that it should be wholly sold. He confessed there
would be some difficulty in ascertaining precisely the value of
the interest which his royal highness had in that duchy, be-
cause it was not a life estate that lie had in it, it was only
while he continued Prince of Wales; but in any event the
sale would produce more than it could produce to his royal


. highness in its present state. He thought it would produce
6eo,00c.q. He was far below the value he believed, but he
would take it at that sum. The sum to be appropriated out
of that -for this debt would be very considerable; instead of
the 13,0001. a-year, it would amount to 330,0001. if the money
from the sale was put into the hands of commissioners, in the
name and for the use of his royal highness. If this was called
bargaining with the prince, and therefore unworthy of the
House of Commons, he should answer, that it was a perfectly
constitutional proceeding, and that this country never had
better security for its liberty than when it made these kinds
-of bargains with its princes. He should wish that something
of this kind should be moved, and lie had rather that any
other person should move it than himself: If nobody did;
perhaps he might ; this, however, he did not pledge himself
to do ; the session was far advanced, and tile House might.,
not like to have a new subject to discuss ; but he should be
sorry if this business was suffered to pass without due cell-
eideration. The annihilation of the duchy would, to. be
sure, diminish the overgrown influence of the crown; -and
here was the insuperable objection ; so that the real interests
of the country were sacrificed to ministerial jobbing.. His
opinion was, that the House was at liberty now to bring in a
bill for this purpose, and lie believed that his majesty would
readily accede to it. He wished that the House should pro-
ceeed in this business as became the representatives of the
people, neither conciliating the favour, nor dreading the
resentment of any individual, however illustrious for his rank
4.ir dignity.


The Bill was committed, and passed the Commons on the r 7th.


G G 4


4




45 6


EARL FITZWILLIAM'S REGAL FROM' [May c9.


EARL FITZWILLIAM'S RECAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT
OF IRELAND.


19.


THIS day Mr. Jekyll moved, " That an humble address be pre-
sented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to


direct that there be laid before this House such part of the cor-
respondence between his majesty's ministers and Earl Fitzwilliam,
late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as relates to the motives and
grounds of his lordship's recal from .


the government of the said
kingdom, during a session, in which the two Houses of Parliament
had voted their confidence in him,,and their approbation of his con-
duct, and had granted supplies for the general exigences of the state,
with a munificence unparalleled in the annals of that country."
Mr. Jekyll introduced his motion by observing, that the House
had an unquestionable right to examine the use made of the royal
prerogatives, and to limit them if necessary. He reminded the
minister of his solemn promise, that whenever the period came for
investigation, he would undertake to prove that no blame was hn-
putable to the ministers of this country. Mr. Jekyll vindicated
the conduct of Earl Fitzwilliam from his letters. According to
these lie had acted in strict conformity to his instructions, which
'went to the emancipation of the Catholics, a condition without
which he would not.have undertaken the commission entrusted to
him. After the motion had been seconded by Sir William Milner,
Mr. Powys for the sake of getting rid of it moved the other
orders of the day.


Mr. Fox said, he certainly could not, like his honourable
and learned friend, who made the present motion, allege that
he had no particular acquaintance or intimacy with the noble
earl ; he could not possibly deny, that, through the whole of
his political life, he had a friendship for the noble earl, a friend-
ship and an .intimacy in private, and, until lately, a connection
in political affairs ; a friendship formed on such a basis that no
difference of opinion upon any subject could entirely do away.


Ie thought he had a right to say, and he expected to be be-
,


lieved when he said, that however great such friendship might
be, it could not warp his political opinion, nor affect his poli-
tical conduct; for, however pleasing the preservation of that
friendship and connection might be, he had never so regarded
them, as not to consider them inferior to the consideration of
his public duty, with which he never had nor should place


THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
45717/95.]


any thing in competition ; therefore, this good he hoped would
result to him, that as he had been so unfortunate as to differ
from that noble earl upon political topics, the public would
have no doubt that he was actuated by pure principles in en-
deavouring to promote the inquiry which was now proposed.


This inquiry was called for upon two grounds which were
distinct from each other : first, with regard to Earl Fitzwilliam
personally ; secondly, with regard to the interest which the
public had in the inquiry. The first of these was certainly the
least important ; but even supposing that the first was the only
ground, he was of opinion it would have been sufficient to
call upon the justice of the House to accede to the present
motion. He confessed he could not go the length of agreeing
entirely with his honourable and learned friend, that a dismis-
sion by administration of any individual must he regarded as
a personal censure ; but he agreed entirely that in this case an
attempt had been made by his majesty's ministers to convey
some censure on the character of the noble earl. He allowed
that the prerogative of the crown to dismiss its officers, was
such as was not upon all occasions to be questioned; but when
exercised in an extraordinary manner it became the duty of
that House to inquire into that exercise; and although he did
not allow that every dismissal conveyed a censure upon an in-
dividual dismissed, yet he could not go the length of saying,
that no circumstances under which a person may be dismissed
could convey a stigma. In this case, he believed, the common
sense of mankind was, that ministers bad, in the manner in
which the noble earl had been recalled, attempted to cast a
stigma upon his character. There must be one of two reasons
for the dismissal of the -noble earl; either that he exercised
his power as Lord Lieutenant very improperly, or that he
misunderstood his instructions. Some strong reason the pub-
lic must expect to have occasioned his recal, since it was a cir-
cumstance attended by great public inconvenience, great pub-
lic risque, and many very strong remonstrances. Earl Fitz-
william told us that he was dismissed, not for misunderstand-
ing his instructions, not for making improper use of his power,
but for acting, as he lied been taught to think, in the manner
which was the most agreeable to his employers. He told us,
that he had been dismissed for acting in direct conformity to
the instructions he received from the cabinet of Great Britain.
But, if what had been declared in the parliament of Ireland
was true, he acted not only contrary to the intentions of those
who employed him, but withgreat imprudence and impropriety.
If this be true, he was guilty of a great crime, for imprudence
m a character of such eminence was a great crime. Here,
therefore, Earl Fitzwilliam and ministers were at issue. The




45 8 EARL FITZWILL/AM'S REGAL FROM [may


parties differed upon the fact, and it was right the public should
know the real truth between them. Earl Fitzwilliam under-
stood his recal as a stigma on his character. It was true, that
the act itself might or might not be a bstioana because that de-
pended on the circumstances that created it. But surely, in
the common sense of the thing, the recal must be deemed a
disapprobation expressed by the censure of his majesty's mi-
nisters with respect to the conduct of the noble earl, and that
too of the most extraordinary kind.


Here Mr. Fox proceeded to read some parts of the letters
of the noble earl upon the subject, wherein he states the under-
standing between him and the cabinet upon the question of
the emancipation of the Catholics; and wherein he justifies
himself for the part he had taken upon that subject. Mini-
sters alleged, there was no such understanding between them.
The question, then, for the House to inquire into was this :
Was the statement of Earl Fitzwilliam true or false? To as-
certain this was the object of the present motion : and it was
an important object. The character of the noble Earl had
been said to be unsullied. He hoped, he trusted, and he be-
lieved it was. But why was it so ? It was from the impo-
tence of his enemies, for, if their conduct had been right, the
character of the noble earl, instead of being unsullied, must
have been highly criminal, as they had given to the public
more than insinuation upon that subject. It had been alleged
also, that this motion tended to excite animosities ; particu-
larly by the honourable gentleman who moved the other orders
of the day. He disclaimed all ideas of exciting animosity.
Some of the parties in this dispute had been old friends, mid
while he was a friend of theirs, he saw them always-as brothers.




In their old friendship and connection he witnessed nothing
but honour, confidence, friendship, and attachment. It was
only after they had got into their new company, that they
found discord, distrust, and animosit y. Such was the fate of
their new connections. Had the noble earl continued united
with his old friends, he would not have been brought into
his present disagreeable situation. But when he formed .his
new connections, he found he had got into a family compact,
with whose principles it was impossible for him to agree. The
consequence was, that the parties quarrelled, and bitterly ac-
cused each other. He remembered the time when it was
fashionable to accuse certain gentlemen of having formed a po-
litical connection, which was supposed to be a species of aris-
tocracy, hostile both to the prerogative of the crown and the
interests of the people. Be always thought that observation
a ridiculous one ; but if the chancellor of the exchequer had
ever any real apprehensions of the danger of such a coalition,


flit GOVERNMEN'F OF .IRELAND. 459


he had acted wisely in the last step 'he had taken upon that
subject ; fbr by entering into a coalition himself with some
branches of all parties, he had completely destro yed any
danger from them all.


With respect to the other part of thesubject, which he owned
appeared to him to be the most important namely, the
interest which the public had in this inquiry, he must observe,
in answer to the question, For what purpose was this subject
to be discussed ? that the public had a right to complete in-
formation as to who the persons were whose conduct had
created such public inconvenience. If mischief had been done,


danger had been occasioned, it was fitting the public should.
know to whom it was owing ; it must be owing to his ma-
jesty's ministers or the noble earl. Nothing could clear up
that point but the inquiry proposed in the motion now before
the House. Then, certain gentlemen came with a covering
to the whole subject; they objected to this inquiry because
they did not know that the result might not be the removal
of his majesty's ministers. Now, he owned it did not appear
to him that if ministers should, upon this inquiry, deserve
the censure of the House they should therefore necessarily be
removed. The honourable gentleman who spoke last had gone
so fhr as to say, that even if it appeared to him that ministers
had mis-conducted themselves, he should not vote fbr this en-
quiry, for the cause in which they were engaged was more
important than even the union of the empire. Now, he wished
the House to mark the end of this ; for under such a principle
110 enquiry could ever take place : the cause in which we were
engaged, according to this doctrine, must supersede every
other subject. Let the public know that this was the sort of
answer that was to be given to all questions, when the conduct
of his majesty's ministers was proposed to be discussed. If
this was to be really the practice of that House, he thought it
was but fair for the House at once to say so, instead of be-
traying their constituents, by pretending to hold a power of in-
quiring into any circumstances relative to the conduct of the
servants of the crown. It would be better and more honest, at
once to say, that the functions of parliament should be sus-
pended until the end of the war, than to sit there day after
day, to act mockery after mockery, and to pretend to have
any idea of enquiring into any thing, the possible result of
which might be the removal of the king's ministers.


Much had been said of the dangers of such inquiries as
these. He was of opinion that the greatest of all dangers that
could possibly threaten a free state, was that of ministers being
enabled to go on, without censure, with any plan which their
ambition, folly, or madness might suggest; this was the danger




460 EARL FITZWILLIAM'S RECAL FROM [May 19;


which threatened this country `it was from this we had suffered,
were now suffering, and he feared were still doomed to suffer
much calamity. He would say, that the imagination of man
could not conceive any thing more injurious to the true in-
terests of this country, than that of refusing an inquiry into the
conduct of the ministers of the crown, merely because such in-
quiry might lead to their removal. It was this, as he had be-
tore stated, that had brought on all our disasters. He would
ask the House to look at the situation of this country
in the year ,17 9 2, and to compare it with our situation now,
and then to tell him whether they thought it possible for dis-
tress to have been more dreadfully accumulated upon us by
any combination of misfortunes. Let us, therefore, reflect
upon our situation, and let the House adopt the old practice
of a good House of Commons, entertain its constitutional
jealousy, and institute inquiries independent of all consider-
ations as to the result leading to a removal of an y adminis-
tration.. Here Mr. Fox compared the dismissal of Earl Fitz-
william with the resignation and dismission of Lord Carlisle,
Lord Temple, Lord Northington, and others, and pointed out
the difference between this and all of them. In the cases of
all those noble persons, the dismissals and resignations arose
in consequence of the change of administration, and therefore,
they differed entirely from the present.


Some persons might, perhaps, object to this motion, as the
very words of it conveyed an idea, that it was dangerous to
suffer any inquiry whatever to take place, as it stated circum-
stances, which went to infer that Ireland was in danger. The
conduct of Earl Fitzwilliam was certainly very dangerous.
But to whom was it dangerous ? To the people of Ireland ?
By no means. It was dangerous only to the few individuals
whose plan it was to govern Ireland by corruption : it was
dangerous to those who held the interest and the sentiments of
the people of that country in contempt, and therefore the
cause of the removal of the noble earl upon that principle was
easily perceived. The noble earl was, he believed, the only
person who had the good fortune to obtain the applauscs of
all the catholics and dissenters of Ireland ; the only person
who, since the accession of the house of Brunswick, had been
able to unite all parties in that kingdom ; and that, perhaps,
to his majesty's present advisers, was a sufficient reason f'or his
recal. Here Mr. Fox entered into a short history of facts
with regard to the administration of Earl Fitzwilliam in Ire-
land ; as also of the applications which were made to the
throne by delegates from that country on behalf of the catho-
lies, and maintained the right which the House of Commons,
of Great Britain had to institute inquiries into pubic matters


THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
4611795.3


which related to the interests of both. He was of opinion,
that what had been allowed to the catholics in that country
and in this, so far as it went, was highly proper; but that
while there was any distinction made between them and the
protestants with regard to political rights, they would still
continue to have claims upon the justice of the legislature.
His opinion, indeed, was well known to those who had done
him the honour to attend to him ; it was, that at all times,
in all countries, and upon all occasions, there should be no
distinctions in political rights, on account of religious opi-
nions. He thought that the prejudices of the people were,
generally speaking, worthy of attention. But when preju-
dices bent against the general principles of toleration, he did
not think them entlitled to much respect. What was the case
in Ireland when Earl Fitzwilliam became lord lieutenant?
When he arrived in Ireland, he found that the protestants,
so far from having any alarm at the idea of the emancipation
of the catholics, all wished for it : when his recal was known
to be about to take place, there was only one place in the
whole kingdom where alarm was affected to be felt, in conse-
quence of the plan proposed in favour of the catholics ; and
even there the vote upon that occasion was carried by a small
majority, and therefore it was demonstrable, that the almost
unanimous wish of the people of Ireland was for the entire
emancipation of the catholics. Nor was this wonderful, for
the people of Ireland had sense enough to distinguish between_
the effects of slavery and emancipation.


It was said that no man could wish to see, under the pre-
sent circumstances, Earl Fitzwilliam restored to the govern-
ment of Ireland. That the noble earl, considering his recent
experience, would be very willing again to hazard his com-
fort, his character, his reputation, under the controul of
those who had already betrayed him, was extremely doubtful;.
but, from what he knew of the disposition of that nobleman,
he believed he would be as ready to sacrifice every thing that
related to his own case for the public good, as any man in the
kingdom ; but yet he thought, after what had already hap-
pened, he must hesitate a good deal before he would say, "
am ready to go to Ireland during the continuance of the pre-
sent administration." Such an event would certainly be desir-
able, for the noble earl was popular throughout the whole king-
dom, as was evident from the addresses of all considerable
towns, from Belthst to Cork, and also from what had passed
in the .


city of Dublin, To please every man was impossible,
but Earl Fitzwilliam had pleased the House of Lords of Ire-
laud, and the House of Commons, who had granted, during
his administration, supplies that were unparalleled in extent.




462


EARL FITZWILLIAM'S RECAL FROM
[May 19.•


He had pleased the catholics of Ireland and the protestants of
Ireland. He had appointed a learned, reverend, and pious
prelate (to whose character Mr. Fox bore testimony of esteem
in the most handsome terms) to the primacy of the country
in the most disinterested manner. The noble earl, in short,
had pleased the mass of the people in Ireland, but he had
displeased a few individuals, Mr. Beresford and two or three
more. Thus, when the people of Ireland were put into one
scale, and Mr. Beresford and a few individuals into the other
—the people, with all their weight, flew up, and the interest
of Mr. Beresford preponderated.


When this subject had been mentioned by him on a former
occasion, and when he had given it as his opinion that an in-
quiry should be instituted, the chancellor of the exchequer as-
serted that his majesty's ministers had clone nothing in the
affairs of Ireland for which blame was imputable to them,
and that it would so a ppear when an inquiry should take place.
This, Mr. Fox said, convinced him the moment he heard it
uttered, that no inquiry would ever be consented to on the
part of his majesty's ministers ; for it was their constant prac-
tice, whenever charged boldly, to assert they were not guilty,
that they were ready to prove it whenever an inquiry should
take place, .and when afterwards that inquiry was proposed,
to refuse to grant it. Of this they gave a specimen, when the
secretary to the treasury (Mr. Hose) had been called upon to
account for his conduct, in a case which had been investigated
in a court of justice. He therefore would continue to say,
that if this inquiry was entered into, to use a phrase which
had been applied by a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Wind-
ham) upon another occasion, the minister and his troops
would be found to be covered with nothing but filthy dowlas
He owned it appeared to him impossible, upon any principle
of integrity, to refuse entering into this inquiry. Facts were
alleged on one side, and, if not contradicted, were certainly
not admitted on the other ; and therefore, as the subject was
important, that was sufficient ground for an inquiry. Earl
Fitzwilliain alleged, that administration had deceived him ;
he said so in plain words. There might be some passion
mixed with his narrative — how could it be otherwise ?
Where was the man, who, under such circumstances, would-
he totally free from passion ? But, after making all allow-
ances upon that head, it must be admitted, that the facts al•
leged by the noble earl, and not admitted by his opponents,
were of such a nature as to demand inquiry in that House. The
noble earl alleged, that in reality his dismissal of Mr. Beresford
was not the cause of his disagreement with his majesty's minis,
ters-; that the real cause of his recal was, the determination of


1 7951 . THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. 463


the chancellor of the exchequer to ruin his reputation as a
politician, and, with it, to ruin the reputation, and finally to
get rid of, the whole of his new federates, whose character
might stand in the way of any of his measures.


Mr. Fox said, he did not pretend to say what were the mo-
tives of the minister which led to the conduct he observed
upon that occasion. He should not enter into a minute detail
of the facts ; but this he would say, that it was essential for
the public to know the whole truth upon the subject. He
had heard, as had been alleged that night by his learned
friend who made the present motion, that, in another place,
there had been a very fair and frank declaration, that upon
application being made to the chancellor of the exchequer, to
know his sentiments on the conduct of Earl Fitzwilliam, he
explicitly disavowed the whole of it. Earl Fitzwilliam, on the
contrary, insisted, that with that very minister he had con-
versed upon that subject, that he had communicated his sen-
timents to that minister, had stated his intentions to him, all
of which he expressly approved. Upon such a difference of
assertion, he would ask that House, was it or was it not
fitting that they should inquire, and be satisfied how the facts
stood ? He might think that the removal of Mr. Beresford
was not an event in itself of great importance ; but when such
a man as Mr. Beresford was put in competition with the united
wishes and the common interests of the whole people of Ire-
land, Mr. Beresford rose into great and striking importance,
and in that view the circumstances became worthy of the
inquiry of that House.


Here Mr. Fox took notice of some disputes which com-
menced in October last, between the two parties of adminis-
tration ; he spoke, he said, from public rumour only, having
no specific knowledge on the fact. From that rumour he
understood a plan was in agitation to sever the whole of the
new administration from the old, and he did not think there
were any persons qualified to form an opinion upon the sub-ject, who doubted the truth of that rumour. He certainly
lamented that any of his old friends had joined the present
administration, or had formed any connection with them;
but he was ready still to regard their characters with tender-
ness, and therefore he wished to support every inquiry that
was necessary to vindicate their honour. That Earl Fitz-
william should have pursued the measures he did in Ireland,
was perfectly natural. Long before that nobleman became the
lord lieutenant of that country, he had ceased to converse with
him upon political subjects, because he knew they differed,
but yet he was perfectly satisfied of the course which the noble
earl would take during his administration in Ireland. It was




464 EARL FITZWILLIAM'S RECAL FROST [May s9,
as natural to expect that he should have pursued the plan he
did, as if he (Mr. Fox) were to be minister to-morrow it
would be natural to expect he would make some attempt to
negotiate with France. It was said when Earl Fitzwilliam was
appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, there would be an
end of the old system of government, of the influence of the
Beresfords, and there would of course be a complete emanci-
pation of the catholics. Therefore, it was extraordinary to
affect surprise at the part which Earl Fitzwilliam took upon
that occasion. There was something extremely singular in the
manner in which some gentlemen affected to say that the recal
of Earl Fitzwilliam from the office of Lord Lieutenant. of Ire-
land was no insinuation by ministers against his character; and
yet that these gentlemen should insist upon it that the dis-
missal of Mr. Beresford by the noble earl was a direct attack
upon his character. Now, he wished to know which of the
two events was the more important ? Had Mr. Beresford been
dismissed for ever, did the House believe that there would
have been an address and remonstrance from the catholics in
consequence of that event ? The truth was, that facts spoke
for themselves too plainly in this case. Earl Fitzwilliam was
popular in Ireland ; but popularity with the people was one
thing— popularity in the king's cabinet another.


Atter having exhausted all their shifts upon this subject,
the king's ministers found out by accident, that to give com-
plete emancipation to the catholics was a thing dangerous in
some degree to the king's coronation oath. This was a sort
of objection which it was very difficult to state gravely ; and
when he saw men of sense attempting to make use of it as an
-argument, he was led to. conclude that it was adopted merely
as. an evasion ; for surely, when men capable of forming a
just opinion upon things, assigned a reason which could not be
stated to children without exciting their ridicule, the real reason
must he such as it did not suit their characters to disclose.
-The learned and the pious prelate to whom he had already al-
luded, (Archbishop Newcombe,) and whose province it was to
guard against any dangerous innovation in religion, had been
able to discover none of this .alarming hostility to the king's
coronaticn oath, nor had any of the people of Ireland or of.
England in the measure of the catholic emancipation. But the
chancellor of the exchequer and the secretary of state, in the
plenitude of their piety, and their zeal for the due observance
of religious rites and ceremonies, forsooth, had lately made
this discovery !


The next point to be considered, was the opinion which
the mass of the people of a country entertained of the govern-,
ment under which they lived. He knew there were some who.


1795J THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. 465


affected to despise that idea ; but they were weak, shallow
miserable politicians. He knew that Ireland was in that re-
spect in a very dangerous condition. It was essential to the
welfare of a Country that the common people should have a
veneration for its laws. This was by no means the case in
Ireland ; and why ? Because the law was there regarded as an
instrument of oppression, and as having been made upon a
principle of pitiful Monopoly, and not for the general protec-
tion, welfare, and happiness of the mass of the people. It
was too common there for the lower class of the people to re-
sist the execution of the laws. Theft itself was not regarded
by them with the same abhorrence as with us. Indeed, if we
would have the mass of mankind regard our laws with venera-
tion, we must make them feel the benefits of them; shew them
that they are equal, and alike administered to all without dis-
tinction. It was this principle which made the laws of Eng-
land so much the object of onr admiration ; it was this which
made the people parties, as it were, in the execution of the
laws ; for when any one infringed them, a prosecution against
him was generally a popular measure. What he said with re-
gard to laws, was also applicable to religion. He would have
religious toleration as equal as the laws of England, and that
all men should be estimated in society by their morals, and
not by the mode of religious worship. To root out preju-
dices altogether Was not a thing to be accomplished at. once;
but it was a thing to. be attempted, and every step towards it
would be an advantage to the country. Such was the plan of
Earl Fitzwilliam, which, instead of being aided, as it ought,
was thwarted by the measures of our ministers. They had
renewed the old plan of corruption, which had made the go-
vernment of that country odious ; this was too well authenti-
cated to be doubted : it had been stated publicly in the House
of Commons there, by a gentleman whose talents were highly
eminent, and for whom, notwithstanding some little differences
upon political subjects, he had a high esteem, (he meant
Mr. Grattan); that gentleman had stated that peerages in Ire-
land, instead of being a matter of honour, were an article of
sale : that they were purchased from the corruption of seats in
the House of Commons. He had heard much of the influ-
ence of the crown in this country. He believed it to be as
great as - it was ever stated to be. But in Ireland corruption
had been publicly avowed and acted upon. Such a govern-
ment must certainly be in a very decrepit' state, and therefore
any plan for the relief of the people was highly necessary.
What, then, were we to think of ministers, who held out an
encouragement at one time for such a plan, and afterwards


VOL. V. II II




1795-7 MOTION RESPECTING PEACE WITH PRANCE. 467


happiness of this and the sister kingdom were so deeply
involved.


The motion was also supported by Mr. Grey and Lord Milton,
and opposed by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Orde, Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Ser-
jeant Adair. The House then divided on the question, that the:
other orders of the day be now read :


Tellers. • Tellers.
.YEAS f Mr. Powys N Mr Jekyllioo. -NOES Is .4Mr. J. Smyth Mr. Whitbread } 49°
Mr. Jekyll's motion was consequently rejected.


MR. WILBERFORCE'S MOTION RESPECTING PEACE WITH
FRANCE.


May 27.


THIS day Mr. Wilberforce moved, " That it is the opinion ofthis House, that the present circumstances of France ought
not to preclude the government of this country from entertaining
proposals for a general pacification, and that it is for the interest
of Great Britain to make peace with France, provided it can be
effected on fair terms, and in an honourable manner." 111r.Wilber-
force's speech upon this occasion was warmly replied to by Mr.
Windham, who contended, that it was nugatory to talk of the
willingness of the French government to listen to overtures from
this country, after the explicit manner in which they had deter-
mined to reduce its power and influence throughout Europe.
France was at the present hour in a state of universal agitation :
jealousies and mistrusts of each other distracted its rulers, and
irritation at their conduct pervaded the mass of the people, who
had never been so prone to shake off the usurpations of their go-
vernors, as they appeared of late. Motions to treat for peace
were, he said, totally unseasonable for those reasons : they tended
to dishearten the public from the prosecution of a war which pro-
mised to terminate so favourably to the cause of this country and
its allies : they promoted disaffection, and placed government in
an odious light. He would therefore oppose the present motion,
by moving the other orders of the day.


Mr. Fox began by observing, that the right honourable
gentleman (Mr. Windham) had introduced so much person-
ality into his speech that it was not easy to answer him. He
did not think that he had behaved perfectly ingenuous towards
him ; and he was of opinion, that the remark that had been
made, that the motion being supported by him, and those


H H 2


466 EARL PITZWILLIAM'S RECAL FROM IRELAND. [May 19.
recalled a lord lieutenant for attempting to carry it into


• execution ?
The question, therefore, rested upon the cause and the


manner of the recal of Earl Fitzwillitun; and upon that sub-
ject it was impossible fairly to pass by the conduct of his ma-
jesty's ministers, without inquiry. He had heard much said
of the danger of investigating this business : danger, he ad-
mitted, there was, not from an inquiry, but from abstaining
from investigation. He had heard also a good deal said about


• the honour of his majesty's ministers. Upon that topic he
was not concerned ; they would defend their own honour, and
deal with it as they might think best. Earl Fitzwilliam desired
only an investigation of facts ; in which, he said, his honour
was concerned, and also the interest of the nation ; and there-
fore he thought it imported the House to institute the inquiry.
He knew, indeed, that if Earl Fitzwilliam had adopted the
plan which others had set for him, he might long since have
•been very easy; he might have had an opportunity of accept-


- ing a good place; ministers would have said, " It is true you
have uttered some hard sentences against us, but now we arc
(rood friends, every thing is understood between us." But
the truth was, that Earl Fitzwilliam did not enter into what
was called the spirit of the present administration, that was to
say, lie did not sacrifice his character for the purpose of put-
ting himself upon an equality with them. He had, thank
God, not entered into that spirit: he said, thank God ! for
no political difference of opinion ever had, or ever should,
destroy his friendship for that noble person. Earl Fitzwilliam
had acted honourably; he called for inquiry; he stated his
claim to it; he had a right to demand it of the justice of that
•House; his honour was in their hands, and therefore they
ought to grant him an inquiry. Should the House refuse it,
-Mr. Fox declared he knew not, among the various names
that had been given to various parliaments, what name to
give to the present parliament; it certainly was not an inqui-
sitive parliament. They had seen large subsidies granted,
and they had not inquired into the services performed ; they
had known alliances entered into, and our allies afterwards
desert us, and they bad riot inquired for what reason ; they
had seen our armies defeated, and they had not inquired into
the causes of such failures ; they had seen this empire nearly
ruined by the conduct of the king's ministers, and they had
continued their confidence in such ministers. It was for want
of inquiry we had been brought into our present calamitous
situation. Knowing this, he must leave it to the wisdom of
the House to reflect on the consequences of continuing to
refuse inquiries into subjects


which the prosperity dud




46S
1U-114 W ILBERFORCE'S MOTION RESPECTING [May 27,


with whom he acted, was a prinz4 facie argument against it, did
not appear to him to be quite candid. He should have thought
that it would have been more fair to have left the subject to
the common course of debate, and he owned that there did
appear some degree of cunning in reducing himself and his
friends to the necesaity of speaking, when it had been
asserted, that their support could not be beneficial to the
motion. Extraordinary as the treatment had been that he
had experienced of late years, he confessed that he had never
been so surprised as at that part of the right honourable gen-
tleman's speech which was more immediately personal. He had
said to the honourable mover of the present question, 64 What,
will you differ with him with whom you have always agreed?"
Had the right honourable gentleman, in puttin !! this question,
forgotten some recent transactions? Nay, he


utting
gone fur-


ther, and had said,. 64 Will you be so bold as to agree with
the persons opposite to you when you look round on the
persons near you ?" Now, there was something so singular in
this, that he could not avoid being extremely astonished at
it. He observed, however, that in putting these questions
the right honourable gentleman had looked straight forward,
as if he had been afraid to look towards his colleagues. Of
the majority that the right honourable gentleman expected
would support his motion, how many members were there,
he would ask, with whom that right honourable gentleman
had formerly agreed on great political topics ? Why was
he so destitute of fair reciprocity as to be unwilling to allow
the same liberty to one side of the House as to the other ?
The right honourable gentleman had then gone on to ask,
for what purpose the present motion had been made ? And.
whether the honourable mover expected to carry the House
with him ? With respect to the latter question, he believed
that the honourable mover entertained no such expectation.;
but the purpose of the motion was to discuss that, which
ought frequently to be discussed during a period of war ; and
to shew the people of this country that there were persons in.
parliament ready to defend the rights of the people, and to
avert the calamities with which the nation was threatened by
an obstinate perseverance in a disastrous and hopeless system.
Ministers, it was now urged, had possessed a better know-
ledge of La Vendee, than he did, and a most useless piece of
knowledge, be must confess it had been to them. Was it
expected, it had been asked, to convince those ministers?
To attempt to convince those whom nothing seemed to con-
vince, was a task, in his opinion, which no man would be
hardy enough to undertake. No one who knew their temper,


17951 PEACE WITH FRANCE. 469


would suspect that they would become suicides of their places
from any principle of conviction . ;


For Plato's fancies, what care I?
I hope you do not think I die
For Plato's fancies in the play,
Or any thing that he can say.


The House was again called upon to repose.conlidence in
ministers, in the third year of the war, when ministers had
completely failed in their promised protection of Holland, of
the West Indies, of the friends of royalty in France —
every profession or promise upon which they had demanded
confidence. They talked of the glory of our arms under
their direction. He wondered they had not read our history,
and taken the trouble of comparing any period of it with the
losses, disasters, and retreats of the last campaign — retreats
not imputable to our officers or soldiers, but to a miserable
system which rendered their skill unavailing, and their valour
or no effect. Ministers still talked of discontents in France,
and appealed to what had happened in La Vendee, Mar-
seilles, Lyons, and Toulon. As far as appeared, the dis-
contents in the three last-mentioned places were the conse-
quence of one party in the convention being overpowered by
another ; but if they were not, what advantage had ministers
derived from them? They got possession of Toulon, which
they were soon after compelled to abandon ; Marseilles, Lyons,
and, last of all, La Vendee, were compelled, or induced, to
submit to the Convention. If they meant to adduce, as an
argument in their fityour, every opportunity of which they
had made no advantage, it was impossible to say where they
would stop. It had been said by the right honourable gen-
tleman, that the opposers of the war asserted the discontent
in La Vendee to be trifling. He had said no such thing.
He had taken the subject on the minister's own shewing.
He had said, that if discontent existed, the ministers had
proved that they could make nothing of it, and that there-
Tore he bad a right to take it for granted that no discontent
did exist. But, were the House to hear ministers confess, at
length, that the insurrection in La Vendee was formidable ?
Where was the ancient spirit of the House, if they suffered
ministers to acknowledge that they knew of the extent of the
discontent in La Vendee, and that they had not made use of
it? He wished the right honourable gentleman, when he
talked of the motion as tending to remove ministers from
their situations, had recollected the debates in that House
about Oczakow, of which the right honourable gentleman
might say, 46 Quorum pars magna fiti." Had the right ho-
nourable gentleman been always so alarmed at such an idea?


H H 3


1_1




0


47 0 Tilt. WILBERFORCE'S MOTION TtESPECTINt [May ale
And yet he had said with some asperity to the honourable
mover: 44 You approve of the abilities, and have a high opinion 45
of the judgment, of the present ministers, and yet you wish to
take the government from them." With this subject he had
nothing to do; but then it had been asked, " Do you think
the minister will consent to stay in office after his measures
have been abandoned ?" The House from this might be -
tempted to think that measures had always been the object of
the minister's care, and that he had been totally indifferent to
place and power. Was this the case ? Had the House no
example in the Irish propositions, or in the more recent case
of Oczakow ? Did not a minority make a minister abandon
a measure to which a majority acceded? This, therefore,
was sufficient to chew that it was impossible to drive the mi-
nister






out of his measures without driving him from his place.
The present question had not yet been disposed of, and the
motion of the right honourable gentleman for the other
orders of the day, seemed to say that the House ought never
to dispose of it.


At the commencement of the war, the argument was, that
if we did not engage in it, other powers would withdraw, and
we should have to sustain the whole force of France alone.
This argument was now destroyed as far as Prussia was con,
corned, and nearly so with respect to the Emperor of Ger-
many. Ministers thought proper to pass by the emperor's
rescript to the diet; but did they mean to contend that his
declaration of his being ready to enter into negociations with
the French republic, was such a declaration as his ministers
would have made, such a declaration as a British minister
would make to parliament, while the direct contrary was
meant? If the emperor was ready to negociate with the
French republic, what could be our objection to negociate?
On looking to the rescript, the House would see that the
emperor was willing to treat, not with such a government
as was capable of preserving the accustomed relationi. of
peace and amity, but with the republic of France. Was this
a fair rescript? Or did it resemble some declarations made
by British ministers to the parliament to deceive and delude
them ? Was the rescript considered only as acting in the true
spirit of the alliance? Of the candour and humanity of kings
and princes he had heard much— not in his opinion very
discreetly —said; but he hoped that the rescript was not
issued for the purposes to which he had alluded. Did there
remain now, he would ask, one of those objections that had
been formerly urged, and urged with such triumph ? Not
one. But Prussia, it had been said, had stolen out of the
coalition. Of the court of Berlin he was not certainly in.!


1795.] 'PEACE WITH TRANCE. 471
dined to be the panegyrist; but the least objectionable part
of the conduct of that. court was, in his opinion, the conclusion
of a treaty of peace with the French republic. But was it
fair and manly in a British minister to talk of Tuscany steal-
ing out of the alliance? Was not Tuscany neutral at the
commencement of the war? Had . not her neutrality been
approved by the emperor and Great Britain, and did not the
grand duke hold his dukedom by his neutrality ? Had not
this country acted with the most monstrous injustice towards
him? Was it, therefore, decent to talk of his slinkineout.
of the war ? — a mode of conduct that had made him the
darling of his subjects, and had produced the most beneficial
consequences to him. Butewere these the only powers that
had or would make peace? Had not the Landgrave of Hesse
and the Elector of Saxony made peace? Whether the King
of Naples had, he knew not; but of this he was certain —
that he would as soon as he was able. Were not these strong
arguments for the recognition of the republic of France? it
had already been proved, that none of those formalities had
been required of acknowledging the republic on the prin-
ciples of liberty and equality. That the French were desirous
of peace, was generally believed; that they had no objection
to treat with a monarchy had, it was understood, been &-
dared to Sir Frederick Eden ; but. what was more important
than any declaration was, that they had actually concluded
a treaty with a monarchy, and with a monarchy to the form
of which they could not be supposed to be very partial.


It had been asked, what Holland had gained by her dis-
position to negociate early in the war ? What,„ he would ask,
had Holland gained by the protection of the allies? The
spectacle of the retreat of the British troops through her
provinces, and the necessity of being obliged to treat with
a French army in possession of her country. Of the con-
quests which we had made in the West Indies, nothing now
remained but a single post in St. Domingo, another in St.
Lucia, and the island of Martinico. It was for the House
to determine, whether these precarious acquisitions were
worth the hazard to which -we had put all our other posses-
sions-in that quarter. 'With respect to the recent intelligence
of insurrections in Paris, it ought to have no effect on the de-
cision of that House. The fall of Robespierre, the rise of
'Palen, the massacre of the Girondists, and the triumph of
their successors only led to this salutary lesson, that the in-
ternal schisms of France bore no relation to their foreign.
contests. The system of terror was destroyed on the 27th
of July ; and mark what had been the progress of the French
arms since that period. Were not their successes in every.


H 11 4


0




472 :^,111.\WILBEIZFORCE7S MOTION RESPECTING. [May 27.


quarter more than sufficient to counterbalance any hopes to
oe conceived from a late insurrection in Paris ? Ought not
what we had seen to teach us, that unstable and convulsed
as the French government was within, its power of exertion
outwards remained, and that whether terror triumphed over
moderation, or moderation over terror, we had nothing to
gain by the change?


He was accused of having approved of the French re-
volution, as if, by necessary consequence, he had approved
of the cruelties of which it had been made the pretext. Ile
approved of overturning the despotism of the Bourbons, which
had long been the oppression of France and the disquiet of
Europe. The accursed confedcraty of despots, for by no other
name could it ever pass his lips, had given birth in the first
instance to all the suspicion and consequent massacres which
had taken place. Six years had now elapsed since the me-
morable xra of the French revolution. He had, in the first
instance, given his commendation to that event, which had
overthrown the tyranny of the Bourbons. That tyranny had
stifled the industry, and suppressed all the energies of a great
nation. Be was therefore entitled to speak of its subversion
as of a glorious event. But his approbation of French prin.,
ciples thus far, did not include his sanction of French acts.
I-Ie approved of the resistance made by the parliament of
1645 to Charles I. ; of the conduct even of Cromwell in the
first instance; but although it was impossible to compare that
great man with the men who had raised themselves to power
in the French revolution, was it to be inferred that he ap-
proved of Cromwell's usurpation any more than of their
cruelties? He had never said that the French, if left to them-
selves, would destroy one another; but this he had said, that
if there was any prospect of restoring royalty in France,
(whether or not that was now an advisable thing he-would
not then argue,) it must be when the French were left to
decide for themselves. What was the period in which parties
in France were abandoning themselves to domestic contests?
Was it when the Duke of Brunswick was in the plains of
Champagne? Was it when the allies were in the plains of
Cambray ? No : it was when every foreign enemy was re-
moved to a great distance, and their arms were triumphant
on every part of their frontier. When the allies talked of
giving them a constitution, royalty had the odium of being
supposed to aid the foreign enemy; when they had no foreign
enemy, that would be done away. 'We were not to give them
a constitution, but to restore their old constitution —in other
words, their old despotism, the very thing they detested.
To attempt giving to any country a constitution, was detek-


1795.]473PEACE WITH FRANCE.
able; every country had a right to frame its own. We were
not making war for any interests of our own, it was pompously
asserted, but on motives of beneficence and justice, for the
interests of Europe. There might be chivalry in succouring
those who called for succour, but the chivalry of succouring.
those who said they did not want it, was madness. Who
called upon us to continue the war? Did Prussia, or any
other of our allies? No. But we had got a new ally, the
Empress of Russia. She, however, was one of our earliest
allies in this business, and instead of her not doing any thing
in consequence of a new alliance the novelty would be, her
doing any thing in consequence of the old. If lie were her
advocate, as he had once been called, he should say that she
had contributed more than her share to the purposes of the
grand confederacy. She had completely extinguished ja-
cobinism in Poland, which, but for the arms of Great Britain,
she could not have done ; and this was all she would do.


Instead of appearing in an honourable, we exhibited our-
selves in an odious point of view, by continuing the war.
France was inclined to peace; the allies were inclined to
peace; neutral powers wished for the restoration of peace;
and Great Britain alone was shaking the torch of discord.
It was said to be a boldness on the part of the honourable
gentleman who made this motion, to take the reins of go-
vernment from the hands of ministers. It was, in his opi-
nion, a more dazing boldness in those ministers, who, for the
purpose of suppressing a few speculative opinions, would
deluge all Europe with blood, involve the whole world in war,
and extinguish the social happiness of the human race. The
right honourable gentleman had said, that none but jacobins
cried out for peace. The fact was widely different. The
industrious manufacturer, overloaded with taxes, cried aloud
for peace. The jacobins, as those men were termed who
wished for a radical reform, looked on ministers as their best
friends, and relied only on a continuance of the war, for a
full attainment of their favourite object. Such jacobins were
not numerous, but even in the city which the right honour-
able gentleman represented (Norwich), as many as there were
refused to sign a petition for peace, because they said that
the continuance of the war and of the present ministers in
office, tended most effectually to promote their views. But
supposing the contrary to be the filet, and that every disaffected
person wished for peace, was that a reason why this country
bliould continue to make war? 'Was it. to be continued, he
would ask, in another point of view, —in full reliance on the
judgment of ministers, on a confidence to be given to men,




474 3IOTION RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. [May 27.
whose conduct, in his opinion, was the weakest and the most
contemptible that had ever disgraced a falling country.


The right honourable gentleman had alluded to America.
Did not gentlemen see similar features in these two unfor-
tunate contests? There was a loyal party in America, as well
as La Vendee. The loyalists and the royalists, Mr. Fox
observed, tallied even to the thinnest point, and hence hopes
had been fostered by ministers. In the last year of that war,
it was debated, whether or not the American republic should
be recognized; and it was urged, that if this were done, the
:sun of Britain was set for ever. Was not all this conduct the
same on both questions, the American war and the present
war ? But suppose our present objects, if fixed objects we
had, to be fully attained. Suppose Louis :VII. seated on
the throne, and the emigrants restored —was it to be ex-
pected that France would be quiet? No. The smallest
knowledge of history forbad such a supposition. Could we,
under the restored race of the Bourbons, expect a better
faith ? No. The present government of France, however
unstable it might seem, offered more security from the pub-
licity of its councils, than could be expected from the dark
secrecy of any despotism. In this it bore a near relation to
the British constitution; and hence a reason arose in his mind
for liking it. At all events, he contended, that there was as
much cause to expect fidelity from the French as from any
of the princes of Europe. The terms of the Austrian con-
vention, he observed, were to be debated the next day, and
therefore he forbore saying any thing on that head at present ;
but when the emperor declared his readiness to negotiate with
France, ought we not to hesitate? "What evil could result
from our recognition of the republic, now that it had been
recognized by the emperor? Were we to refuse merely
because Holland was at this time in the hands of the French
republic? Those who had used this argument with respect
to the Netherlands, should say, when that peace was to be
expected, which must be preceded by the re-conquest of those
countries. He would quote the sentiment of Mr. Burke in
the case of America — G0 Try peace and conciliation, and if
that fail, then pursue war." The evils of war we had felt;
the evils of peace were only matter of some men's speculation.
Was it fit, then, tb advance speculation against experience?


Mr. Fox concluded an able speech by saying, that he felt
indebted to the honourable gentleman who had introduced
this motion, because the oftener the subject was discussed, the
more he was convinced•the war would be disapproved. He
thought that peace and conciliation could never be suggested


1795.] LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. 473
too frequently. If these failed, war was still within our reach,
but the latter might possibly he continued until the proffer
of conciliation was made in vain.


The question being put on Mr. Windham's motion. " That the
other orders of the day be now read," the House divided :
T Tellers.


Mr. John Smyth "IY Mr. Jenkinson CJ 201.
NOES / Mr. Banker 6.


M J k ll 8
Mr. Wilberforce's motion . was consequently rejected. n


LOAN TO THE EMPEROR.


illuy 2S.


IN a committee of the whole House, to consider of the conven-
I don between his majesty and the emperor, signed at Vienna,
May 4th, 17 95, Mr. Pitt moved, " That it is the opinion of this
committee, that provision he made for guaranteeing the payment
of the dividends on a loan of four millions six hundred thousand
pounds, on account of the Emperor of Germany, conformably to
the said convention."


Mr. Fox said, that when this business was before the House
on a former day, they were told that four millions were to be
granted to the emperor, on condition of his providing 200,00o
men for the common cause, as it was termed, but that if he
should provide a larger army, there should be no objection
on our part to granting him the sum of six millions; and it
was added, that the emperor had received some of this money
in part of the whole loan ; and at that time it was not known
how the proposals would be accepted at Vienna. The fact
now was, that he was to receive four millions six hundred
thousand pounds over and above the sums which had been
already advanced to him. What was the consequence of
this? Did the emperor undertake to furnish more than the
200,000 men? No such thing; and it now appeared that the
emperor had never agreed to what had been stated to the
House by the minister. Perhaps it was not criminal on the
part of our government to advance the money which the
emperor had actually received : but he was sure that the
House of Commons ought to have more and. better inform-
ation than the minister had been pleased to give them, before
they agreed to a proposition which was both dangerous and


*




47 6 LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. [May 28,
alarming. There was a rumour that this faithful ally of ours
had acted in a manner not very consistent with the character
which had been given him; 'if that rumour was true, we were
about to proceed upon very important business indeed, without
the least security that we should not be deceived. It had
been said, that when the British and allied armies were in a
situation of the greatest peril, and when a delay of only
twenty-four hours of the Austrians would have been essential,
that delay had been refused by his imperial majesty ; and the
silence of the minister upon that subject made Mr. Fox think
that this rumour was well founded. We had continued to
pay the emperor ioo,00d. a month after he had deserted us.
When an inquiry was proposed to be made into this business,
we were told there were some difficulties in the way of an
explanation. He would ask, was that an answer to a House
of Commons called upon to vote away by millions the public
money ? It was objected to by many, and by him particularly,
on the discussion of the Prussian treaty, that we should pay
our money in such large sums without having an opportunity
of knowing correctly how former engagements had been
fulfilled. The House were told they could not have any pre-
cise information, because the regular returns of the operations
of the armies had not been made. This was, in his opinion,
a scandalous omission. He disapproved of the Prussian
treaty; but that treaty contained an article, by which we were
entitled to call for an account, but which we never had,
because no inquiry had been instituted. But in this treaty
there was no such power in point of fact, and yet we had
been careful to preserve the appearance of it. If, in one
month, the emperor should fail in the performance of his
engagement, we might have correct information, but we had
no means to prevent that failure. It had been stated, that
we were not answerable for the whole amount of the loan, if
the emperor should fail ; that we were answerable only for
the dividends from time to time as the failure should occur.
He really thought this curious. He could not help smiling
at it, although he had heard that ignorance was apt to smile.
He was really too stupid to see the distinction between being
answerable for the whole sum, and paying for ever the divi-
dends that shall become clue upon it. The distinction between
that and paying a sum of money he did not comprehend.
He wished to know upon what our security rested with regard
to this loan. He should be answered, no doubt, on the
punctuality of the payments of the emperor : now, upon this
he wished for some explanation before the House proceeded
farther. There were some persons, and he confessed he was
one of the number, who had doubts concerning this pun:c-


F;95 . ] LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. 477
tuality, as well as respecting the fulfilment - of the military
engagements of his imperial majesty ; and these were points
which required a good deal of explanation. Here Mr. Fox
read an extract of a letter from a person at Vienna to his
correspondent here, stating that the court of Vienna had come
to a resolution not to pay dividends of old loans to any per-
sons resident in France; and to another resolution, not to
pay any persons who had not emigrated from France; that
was to say, the emperor would not pay except where emi-
gration was proved. Sums of money were clue to a religious
order in France, and the emperor said he would not pay them
unless they proved they had emigrated from France :„ and by
the second resolution, he said he would not pay them,"because
they happened to be in the Austrian Netherlands, at the time
the French over-ran that quarter. In answer to the minister's
assertion, that we had made good use of our credit, by the
terms of the loan, be observed there were two arguments
against such a mode of proceeding: first, it was not honour-
able for the British House of Commons to sell the interest of
the public credit ; and, secondly, if it was to be sold, it should
be sold for what it was really worth. As to the idea that
the emperor intended to keep his engagements, he hoped he
did ; but then the House ought to inquire whether he was
able as well as willing.


It was not the time now to go at large into the general
question of the policy of this loan. But there was another
point extremely important indeed, and which ought to be
attended to. He saw in this convention no stipulation that
the emperor should not make a separate peace. On the con-
trary, it was carefully avoided; and it was to be observed,
that this convention was signed at Vienna at the very time
that the emperor published the rescript to the diet of Ra-
tisbon, the substance of which was pretty well known. The
minister insisted that this matter was discussed yesterday,
and the decision of the House made it unnecessary to discuss
that business again. Now, he saw it in the direct contrary
view. What was the question last night? It was this — Whe-
ther it was wise and judicious for one of the confederates
against France, viz. Great Britain, to negociate with France
at this time? What was the determination of tho House upon
that subject ? It was this — That it would be unwise in us to
do any thing that could tend to weaken that confederacy : a
decision which he by no means applauded, but such was
the decision. And yet it had been that moment proposed,
by the resolution before the Committee, that we should em-
bark our credit with one of the members of that confederacy,
who had done the very Thing which the decision of the House




4 7 8 LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. [May 28.


last night pronounced to be'so dangerous He thought the
rescript authentic. Ministers might think it was not authentic.
He wished to know, whether it was authentic or not. II . it
was, we were going to embark with an ally who, according
to the language of the minister, and the determination of the
House last night, was going to annul the whole plan of our
future operations, and for which we were now to vote away
millions of the public money, by weakening the confederacy
and strengthening the enemy. If there was a doubt as to
the authenticity of this rescript, (and he confessed, from what
he heard the minister say last night, he feared there was a
doubt,) it \yaks a very alarming thing, and ought to be ex-
plained immediately : for the emperor had given us no in-
telligence upon the subject. He certainly had had time
enough, for the subject of this loan had been under his con-
sideration for some months. If the emperor pursued the
principle of this rescript, and endeavoured to make peace,
it might still be said that peace might not be had immediately.
He thought so too : but then, if France was, as ministers
stated it to be, at its last gasp, that wish for peace could not
be long delayed. Under these impressions, he hoped that
the House, accustomed even as they had been to the insin-
cerity and falsehood of ministers, throughout the whole pro-
gress of this war, would see the necessity of an inquiry into
the conduct of these our faithful allies. If peace should be
soon concluded between the French and the emperor, he
wished the House to reflect that we should have given the whole
of four millions six hundred thousand pounds absolutely for
nothing. There had been something said upon the distinc-
tion between the character of the emperor as such, and that
of King of Hungary and Bohemia; that, as emperor, he
might agree to a peace with France, but as king and arch-
duke, he might pursue the war with vigour. This was per-
fectly ridiculous, for whenever peace was agreed upon, one
of the leading articles of the treaty must be, that he should
not suffer troops destined against France to pass through any
of his dominions, and therefore he would forbid such troops
from going through Bohemia against France. But he was
afraid that all the hopes of the majority who supported this
war, were now in the insincerity of the emperor, as to this
rescript. Exclusive of the infamy of such a principle, he
advised the House to be cautious in trusting to such a security,
for he knew of no real security in the conduct of any man,
if that conduct was not founded on the principles of fair
dealing. What security had we that what the emperor was
doing in London was sincere, and that what he was doing in
Vienna wa not all duplicity? He should like to know 'with


1795.] LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. 479
what face of sincerity the emperor could come to the diet
with his rescript in favour of peace, and at the same, moment
open a loan with this country for carrying on the war. The
truth was, the diet were unacquainted with his determination
to accept our loan when he published this rescript, and by
the step which we were about to take, we were to become
parties to the delusion; and whatever were the real intentions
of the emperor, this was a duplicity of a nature so detestable,
that we ought to be ashamed of being parties to it. Mr.
Fox concluded with saying, that he NI;ished to discuss this
subject on a future occasion, but he thought it his duty to
take the sense of the committee upon it, even in the present
sta ge.


The committee divided on the resolution : Yeas 77 : Noes 43,


June 3.


The said resolution being reported to the House,


Mr. Fox said, he wished the House to consider very seri-
ously the step they were now taking, and how totally destitute
they were of any defence of their conduct to their constituents.
He alluded to a fact, which he had stated when this subject
was last discussed. The fact he had stated was not strictly
correct ; but the difference made considerably in favour of the
conclusion he had drawn, as to the fidelity of the emperor, in
the fulfilment of his pecuniary engagements. He had said,
that certain religious houses in France had lent the emperor
large sums of money, to be repaid at the bank of Vienna, and
that the emperor had first issued an order that the interest
should not be paid to any but to those who could prove their
emigration, and afterwards had issued another order that no
interest should be paid at all. In consequence of this state-
ment, lie had received a letter from a friend, in which he had
informed him, " that the religious houses were situated not in
France, but in the Austrian Netherlands. The bonds for
the money lent -belonged to English convents of nuns in the
emperor's own dominions; and it was to his own subjects that
the emperor had been guilty of a breach of faith." such was
the purport of the letter. The fact, therefore, was, that this
was an aggravated circumstance in the conduct of the perfidi-
ous emperor, and an additional proof of the solvency, as it
was called, of this bankrupt bank of Vienna. With respect to
the political principle of the measure, the country was to
give money for assistance, which was not stipulated, and which.


II




480 LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. [J ane 3r


the country could not enforce. His imperial majesty did not
say that he would not make peace, in his convention with
this country ; whereas in his rescript to the diet of Ratisbon,
he had said, that he would make peace. The House, there-
fore, were called upon to grant the loan, without any decided
assurance, that the emperor would continue the war ; and with
a direct assertion of his readiness to make peace. With re-
spect to the power of the emperor to repay the money, he
should be glad to know what arguments could be adduced in
proof of his capacity to keep his engagements on that head.
It ought to be shown that the revenues of his imperial majesty
were sufficient to repay the money, independantly of the ordi-
nary. expenditure of the Imperial dominions. It had been
said, that a stipulation had been made, that the payments to
this country were to be made before any other payments.
Could any person give credit to this ; or suppose that his im-
perial majesty would consent to curtail the necessary expen-
diture in his own dominions, for the purpose of satisfying the
claims of Great Britain ? The fact, therefore, was, that a
loan was to be granted, without any assurance being made by
the emperor, that he would afford effectual aid. He had, it
was true, agreed to raise 200,000 men. Where were those
men ? And how did the country know that they would, if
such a number could be raised, co-operate with this country ?
It appeared, then, that if the emperor did not choose to keep
his engagement, Great Britain could not force him ; and that
if he did keep his engagement, he might still make peace with-
out any inconsistency. By the way, was there any man sure
that his co-operation would not cease altogether, as soon as the
royal assent should be given to the bill for the loan? Thus,
after we - had been deceived by Prussia, in an engagement in
which we had the power to stop the issuing of our money, and
which, upon his failure, we did stop after a great loss, we.
were again to enter into an engagement which might cost us
many millions, in which we had no power to stop. The
House. was at liberty to decide as it pleased, but if it took upon
itself to guarantee this loan, and should afterwards be deceived,
he wished it to remember that it could not deny but it had
been warned properly.


The House divided on the question that the said resolution be
read a second time :


Tellers.Tellers.
Mr. E J Eliot Mr. Hussey 1} 6o. — NOES -YEAS {kr. Sargent Gen. Tarleton 3••


179$.]


LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. 481


June ma.


On the motion for the second reading of the bill for guaraatee-
ing the payment of the dividends, on a loan of four millions
six hundred pounds to the Emperor of Germany,


Mr. Fox rose for the purpose of moving an amendment.
The House, lie said, had been told that the French were in
great distress, and so he believed they were. The House had
also been told that much might be done by standing aloof:
His own idea of standing aloof, was to stand aloof at a peace, or
at an expence not much above the ordinary peace establish-
ment, and not at an annual oxpence of thirty millions. France,
it had been said, was falling to pieces, and yet she made
treaties of peace. Why was, therefore, a treaty with this
country to prevent her from continuing to fall to pieces? The
present was altogether a new system, of which the ministers
were the authors: they had sufficient experience of the con-
duct of Prussia, and they were now going to try the emperor.
He understood that there were to be some new allies; not new
allies in point of principle, but in point of performance, and
that Russia was to co-operate with this country. He wished
to know why the empress was more to be trusted now than the
King of Prussia, and how historians were to distinguish be-
tween Prussia and the other powRrs who had participated in
the dismemberment of Poland? But did the minister, of; did
any man, expect cordial co-operation from the Austrians ? He
had frequently challenged the minister to produce one general
officer who would say, that any co-operation could be ex..'
pected from them. He had had reason to know that there
had been times in which the assistance of the Austrians might
have been productive of the most important effects, and where
the delay of a few hours would have been of material conse-
quence, aid yet this delay had been refused, unless it was paid
for. It had been said-by the minister, that to be sure there
were some circumstances in the case which ,it was difficult to
explain, and therefore, very wisely, lie had not made any at-
tempt to explain them. Of the Austrians, it would not be
deemed too much to say, that they were as much to be trusted
as the Prussians, and the Prussians as the Austrians. He
concluded by moving, as an amendment to the motion, to
leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to
add the words "upon this day two months."


VOL. V.
T:




0•


482 LOAN TO THE EMPEROR. [June s.
The question being put, That the word" now" stand part of the


question, the IIousc divided:




Tellers. Tellers.


YEAS




.1 Mr. Rolle 5 Gem Tarleton 1
Mr. J. Gordon } 5 5 * —N°Es Mr. W. Smith 5 29'


June s.


On. the order of the day for the third reading of the bill.,


Mr. Fox observed, that this measure had always been in
his mind a profligate waste of the money of the people of this
country; and what had lately confirmed him in that opinion
was the surrender of Luxembourg. It became the House now
to consider very seriously, whether, after the emperor had
lost one of the most important fortresses in Europe, every
nerve which he could employ, could, in any material degree,




be serviceable to us against the French in the present contest?
Whether, after the taking of that fortress on the 7th of this
month, a season which, in other times, we had been used to
call the middle, but now hardly the beginning of a campaign,
there were any rational hope of successful operations on the
part of the emperor against the French ? But this was not all:
there were reports of the cessation of hostilities, which might
be proper to be inquired into ; and also a report that there
was a new alliance between this country, Austria, and Russia.
He knew he might be told, that this subject was not now be-
fore the House. He hoped, however, if it existed, it would
be laid before them immediately, or not until the next session ;
not like the subsidy to the King of Sardinia, brought forward
at the rising of parliament, and hurried through the House.
This was, in his mind, a serious and an alarming thing ; there
were persons who believed that the consequence of such an
alliance would be a war between the two imperial powers and
Prussia. Whether such an alliance were right or wrong, he
would not presume to determine ; he should only say, he was
sorry to believe that there were some persons, who called them-
selves politicians, who were so short-sighted as to think such
a connection advantageous, at all events, to this country. But,
or his own part, he entertained a very different opinion, for
he could not help ,


believing, that such a war as this alliance
might produce must involve one half of Europe ; and he could
not help looking with great anxiety at the condition of so large
a part of mankind, if the horrors •and calamities of war were
to be thus extended, and the prospect of peace to be placed at
so great a distance. He knew, he said, that these points were


179$.] RELIEF TO THE MERCHANTS OF GRENADA, &C. 483


not now immediately before the House ; but the reflections
were so natural, that he could not help alluding to them, even
in this stage of the present bill ; for, from the events which we
had just beard of, it was impossible for any man who did not
deceive himself with sanguine views, to think that Austria
could be equal to France in this contest. If this war was to
be carried on, we must have some farther support than merely
that of the emperor against France; and this must put that
peace•which was so desirable to all, far off indeed. We were
told, every day, of the great distresses of France ; and he be-
lieved that they existed to a certain degree: but he never
could look with pleasure on the prosecution of a war, when.
the question between the parties was, Who could hold out
under severe pressure, and bear great distress the longest ?
Such a determination was too dreadful even to think of. He
had heard, that, respect to our own prospect of distress, the
accounts were exaggerated. He wished to hear a statement
of facts that would lead him to believe that such was really the
case. But he had no grounds for believing that the dis-
tress of France from the scarcity and high price of provisions
was not likely to be felt also in this country, and that for a
considerable time, even although the evil should not in reality
be equal to the accounts of it. He could not let pass this op-
portunity of delivering his sentiments. He wished at all
times that we should avoid, as much as possible, the calami-
ties of war, always dreadful, but now much more so, if every
part of Europe was likely soon to feel the want of provisions.
From these serious and, to him, alarming apprehensions, he
found it his duty to oppose this bill in its last stage.


The bill was then read a third time and passed.


RELIEF TO THE MERCHANTS OF GRENADA AND •
ST. VINCENTS•


June I I.


A PETITION was presented by Lord Sheffield, from the mer-
chants connected with and trading to the islands of Grenada


and St.Vineents, setting forth, " That the recent calamities which
have befallen the said islands, and the consequences with which they
have been, and will be, attended, compel the petitioners to apply to
the House for such aid as may, in some degree, alleviate their mis-
fortune : that these calamities have been occasioned by insurrec-
tions of the French inhabitants, and free people of colour, in both


I I 2,




484 RELIEF TO THE M gRCHANTS OF [June
the said islands, joined in St. Vincent by the Carribs, and al-
though it is to be hoped, that every quarter bath not suffered in
an equal degree, yet every estate must be materially injured by
the necessary absence of the managers and overseers, who, in
the very season of the crop, assembled as militia for the defence
of the sovereignty of the islands; and that the petitioners had
reason to expect an importation of produce to a very large amount,
which would have enabled them to have fulfilled various engage-
men ts,wh ich, from the nature of their concerns in business, they had
entered into, and, as a great supply of different articles from this
country will be required for re-settling and restoring the estates,
the petitioners will be unable, without the aid of the Ilouse,
either to fulfil such engagements, or furnish such supplies ; and
that the petitioners compute, that the clear value of the produce
from Grenada and St. Vincent has been equal to one million an-
nually, and, as but a small proportion of such produce can now
be expected, they already begin to feel the pressure of so serious
a defalcation, by the effect which it hath produced upon their
credit in the commercial world; and therefore praying the House
to take their case into immediate consideration, and to grant such
relief as to the House may seem proper." After the petition had
been supported by Mr. Pitt,


Mr. Fox said, that among the many and various calamities
which this war had already heaped upon us, beyond any thing
of which the'whole history of the country furnished an ex-
ample, this was a striking instance. In former wars the West
Indies had experienced many disasters. We had lost islands;
we had gained them: we had also seen the same chance
happen in this war ; but to it was particularly reserved the
consequence of making necessary such extraordinary expe-
dients as the present. When the bill for the relief of our
commercial credit was proposed, he doubted the expediency
of it, because, if reliefs of this kind were to be granted when-
ever they were asked, every one must see what the influence
of the minister must be with all persons connected with com-
mercial dealings. The present application proved to him the
truth of this observation, for he could not forget how often
he had been told in private by persons of considerable im-
portance in public affairs, " We have West India property,
-and we must support administration." Here was at once an
explanation of the cause of the support given by commercial
men to the measures of the king's ministers ; they apprehended
that their own credit might be in danger, and therefore in
order to have parliamentary aid in their embarrassment, they
sanctioned with their voices what they disapproved in their
hearts. If this system was continued to be acted upon, he
would venture to say, that we may indeed have the form and
name of a free constitution, but the spirit of it would be
gone, and there would not remain among us even the vestigen •


79S.] GRENADA AND ST. VINCENTS. 485


of liberty, for there would not be a man remaining, who had
any commercial dealings, who would venture to speak his
mind upon public affairs, for fear of disobliging the mi-
nister, whose favour he was like to stand in need of: Every
war in its nature tended to increase the influence of the mi-
nisters of this country ; but this in a greater degree than all
former wars, for day after day it introduced innovation upon
innovation, such as the boldest man, who had any regard for
liberty, could not behold, without the most alarming appre-
hensions : for of all 'innovations on the principles of liberty,
those were the most dangerous which were silent in their
effect, and gradual in their progress. Such measures as the
present were, in his apprehension, much more dangerous to
the constitution of this country, than any abuse of the elec-
tion of members to serve in parliament, great even as that
evil might be. If, in the common course of war, the West
India islands should fall into the 'hands of the enemy, he
wished to know in what respect that case could be dis-
tinguished in point of principle from the present application ;
and what ground there was for us to be assured, that even
that misfortune might not befit]. us. The minister had said,
there was no blame to be attached to the merchants who made
this application. He would dare to say not, except in the
circumstance of not having opposed that which brought on
their misfortune; and he hinted too, that no blame would
attach to ministers if the subject was inquired into ; and yet
this very inquiry the minister had always refused to grant.
He would say again, what he had often said, that there was
much to blame : that ministers had been grossly negligent in
that quarter, as well as in many other parts of the world;
and he trusted that a new House of Commons, or perhaps,
even this House of Commons, would be of that way of think-
ing, for he believed such long to have been the opinion of
the public. Such was the opinion in the -West Indies; such he
verily believed to be the opinion of the very men who signed
this petition — an opinion which they would have expressed
long ago, had they not foreseen that they might be under the
necessity of asking such a boon as this of government. Mr.
Fox then desired the House to consider the nature of West
India property, and to pause before they proceeded upon
this business. Above all, he hoped that the House would
recollect its own resolution with regard -to the abolition of
the slave trade; and he trusted that no measure would
be adopted by parliament, to give aid to the purchase of
slaves ; for that would be in the last degree disgraceful to the
House. He saw a crowd of difficulties in this business.
He lamented that the lateness of the session made it impos-


II




436
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. {OCt. 29,


sible that it should be discussed in a House properly attended.
He was afraid it would succeed in parliament, if countenanced
by the minister ; but it was his intention to give it his
negative.


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING or
THE SESSION.


October 29.


T
HE king opened the session with the following speech :


" My Lords, end Gentlemen ;
" It is a great satisfaction to me to reflect, that, notwithstand-


ing the many events unfavourable to the common cause, the
prospect resulting from the general situation of affairs has, in
many important respects, been materially improved in the course
of the present year. — In Italy, the threatened invasion of the
French has been prevented ; and they have been driven back from
a considerable part of the line of coast which they had occupied :
there is also reason to hope that the recent operations of the Aus-
trian armies have checked the progress which they have made on
the side of Germany, and frustrated the offensive projects which
they were pursuing in that quarter. — The successes which have
attended their military operations in other parts of the campaign,
and the advantages which they have derived from the conclusion
of separate treaties with some of the powers who were engaged in
the war, are far from compensating the evils which they experience
from its continuance. The destruction or their commerce, the
diminution of their maritime power, and the unparalleled em-
barrassment and distress of their internal situation, have produced
the impression which was naturally to be expected ; and a general
sense appears to prevail throughout France, that the only relief
from the increasing pressure of these difficulties must arise from
the restoration of peace, and the establishment of some settled
system of government.—The distraction and anarchy which have
so long prevailed in that country, have led to a crisis, of which it
is as yet impossible to foresee the issue ; but which must, in all
human probability, produce consequences highly important to the
interests of Europe. Should this crisis terminate in any order of
things compatible with the tranquillity of other countries, and
affording a reasonable expectation of security and permanence in
any treaty which might be concluded, the appearance of a dis-
position to negotiate for general peace on just and suitable terms,
will not fail to be met, on my part, with an earnest desire to give
it the fullest and speediest effect. But I am persuaded you will
agree with me, that nothing is so likely to ensure and accelerato


r 795 .] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 487
this desirable end, as to show that we are prepared for either
alternative, and are determined to prosecute the war with the
utmost energy and vigour, until we have the means of concluding,
in conjunction with our allies, such a peace as the justice of our
cause, and the situation of the enemy may entitle us to expect.—
With this view I am continuing to make the greatest exertions for
maintaining and improving our naval superiority, and for carrying
on active and vigorous operations in the West Indies, in order to
secure and extend the advantages which we have gained in that
quarter, and which are so nearly connected with our commercial
resources and maritime strength.— I rely with full confidence on
the continuance of your firm and zealous support, on the uniform
bravery of my fleets and armies, and on the fortitude, perseverance,
and public spirit of all ranks of my people. — The acts of hostility
committed by the United Provinces, under the influence and eon.
trohl of France, have obliged me to treat them as in a state of
war with this country. — The fleet which 1 have employed in the
North Seas has received the most cordial and active assistance
from the naval force furnished by the Empress of Russia, and has
been enabled effectually to check the operations of the enemy ill
that quarter. — I have concluded engagements of defensive al-
liance with the two imperial courts : and the ratifications of the
treaty of commerce with the United States o4' America, which I
announced to you last year, have now been exchanged. I have
directed copies of these treaties to be laid before you.


" Gentlemen of the House of Commons ; it is matter of deep
concern to me, that the exigencies of the public service will re-
quire further additions to the heavy burdens which have been un-
avoidably imposed on my people. I trust that their pressure will,
in some degree, be alleviated by the flourishing state of our com-
merce and manufactures, and that our expenses, though neces-
sarily great in their amount, will, under the actual circumstances
of the war, admit of considerable diminution in comparison with
those of the present year.


" My Lords, and Gentlemen ; I have observed for some time
past, with the greatest anxiety, the very high price of grain, and
that anxiety is increased by the apprehension that the produce of
the wheat harvest in the present year may not have been such as
effectually to relieve my people from the difficulties with which
they have had to contend. The spirit of order and submission
to the laws which, with very few exceptions, has manifested itself
under this severe pressure, will, I am sure, be felt by you as an
additional incentive to apply yourselves with the utmost diligence
to the consideration of such measures as may tend to alleviate the
present distress, and to prevent, as far as poseible, the renewal of
similar embarrassments in future. Nothing has been omitted on
my part, that appeared likely to contribute to this end ; and you
may be assured of my hearty concurrence in whatever regulations
the wisdom of parliament may adopt, on a subject so peculiarly
interesting to my people, whose welfare will ever be the object
nearest my heart. '


An Address of Thanks in answer to the speech was proposed by
Iz 4




4i 8 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.
[Oct. 29.


Lord Dalkeith, and seconded by the honourable Robert Stewart,
(afterwards Lord Castlereagh). After it had been supported by
Mr. Jenkinson, and opposed by Mr. Sheridan and General
'Carleton,


Mr. Fox said, that after hearing his majesty's speech, as
read to them by the Speaker from the chair, and after hear-
ing the arguments which had been advanced for the address
which had been moved upon the speech, he should not feel
that he did his duty to his constituents and his country, if he
were to give a silent vote. Fie had little to add to what his
honourable friend (Mr. Sheridan) had said on the surprise
which the first insulting paragraph of his majesty's speech must
excite in the bosom of every man ; and which, in the old
times of spirit and energy that distinguished the people of
this country, would have drawn upon the ministers who were
the authors of it, indignation and punishment. He said,
" insulting paragraph," for it was not enough, it seemed,
that they should with impunity persist for three years together
in the prosecution of a war for miserable speculations — it
was not enough to acid one hundred millions of debt to the
capital, to load the people with five millions per annum of
permanent taxes — it was not enough to grind tile poor and
unhappy people of this country in such a manner as to make
almost every man of them feel the misfortune of scarcity
and want, but they must also be insulted, by putting into
his majesty's mouth, in the very first paragraph of his speech,
the impudent falsehood, that their situation was " materially
improved !" How was their situation improved? In what
circumstances were the affairs of this country bettered since
the last year ? Were they improved from the recent success
of the Austrian army ? This success, whatever it might be,
and of which he believed ministers had not themselves any
very perfect account, was not an improvement in comparison
with the last year, but the last week ; and surely it could not
he called an improvement of our situation, since last year the
French were not in possession of a foot of territory beyond
the Rhine. That they might now he forced to retreat was
possible, and perhaps it was possible, that in comparison with
the disasters which were expected from the continuance of
their successful career, this retreat might be construed into
an improvement; but that it should come from his majesty's
ministers, who had prevailed on parliament to guarantee to
Austria a loan of four millions and a halt, which was to pro-
cure positive conquests on the part of Austria, was somewhat
curious. They bad told parliament that, from the various
points of contact 'between .


the Austrian dominions and France,


1 795.]


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 489


the emperor was calCable of seriously wounding her, if assisted
by this country ; and upon these representations, the House
was prevailed upon to become the guarantee of this enormous
loan. Now, what was the issue of these representations?
Instead of Austria having been able to penetrate into any
part of the French dominions, or to wound them in any one
point, they were told that it was an improvement of their
situation, that the French had recently been forced to retreat
from posts of which they were not in possession at the time
of the guarantee. Was it an improvement in our situation,
that they had extended their dominion beyond the Rhine ;
that Manheim had Wien into their hands, and that the greater
part of the palatinate had also been over-run? Itwas an insult
on the understandings of Englishmen, to say that in this
quarter of the war there was an improvement in our situation.
The check given to the French in Italy was also introduced
as a matter of triumph; that was because the French had not
succeeded in all their extent of operations, and because they
were not masters of every part of the countries they had in-
vaded, the situation of Great Britain was improved. Or did
ministers mean to insinuate, that, in a general comparison of
the situation of the two countries, our state was better than
last year ?


It bad been alleged by himself and others, in the course of
last session, that there was great reason to 41,pprehend a scar-
city of grain in the kingdom, and that it was worthy the con-
sideration of ministers, before they pressed for a continuance
of a system that necessarily increased the consumption, to see
that the country was plentifully supplied with the necessaries
of life. This observation was treated with the most lofty
disdain, and in a tone of insolent and haughty indignation,
the suggestion .was imputed to a factious spirit, which sought
to raise an unnecessary alarm in the minds of men ; and at a
later period of the session, when his honourable and respected
friend (Mr. Hussey) urged the same forcible persuasive against
war, upon information as to the quantity of grain in the coun-
try, which he had obtained with care, he was rebuked for
throwing out the suggestion, as being utterly unfounded in
fact. But how had the event turned out? That these warn-
ings had been most lamentably verified, it was not necessary
for him, he believed, now to state ; nor would it be alleged,
that in this particular our internal situation was " materially
improved." Improved !—Good God, when we were reduced
to such a point of misery, that, looking into the situation of
the common labourer from one end of the country to the
other, it was a melancholy and a heart-breaking fact, that not
one man out of ten was able by his labour to earn sufficient




490 ADDRESS ON THE RING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 29.
bread for himself and his family ! Oh, but it seemed that
France was reduced to a situation of " unparalleled distress !"
And this was held out to the people of Great Britain as a
matter of consolation to them ! He would not quarrel about
the words " unparalleled distress ;" it might be so; but lie
must animadvert on the strange logic which was used upon
the occasion ; for the people of this country were to be told,
that this unparalleled distress of the French was owing en-
tirely to the war ; whereas the distresses of England had
nothing on earth to do with it ! How such a difference could
exist in the operation of the war it was not for him to divine
— that in France all their scarcity, all their calamities were to
be imputed to it, but that in England the war had no effect
whatever on our internal situation. If the people of this
country had so thoroughly surrendered their understandings
to the eloquence of ministers as to believe, this kind of logic,
he had no more to say ; it was impossible to add any thing
that could expose so gross an absurdity.


The depreciation of assignats was the everlasting burden of
all their harangues. " France was utterly undone France
was incapable of all exertion ! France was completely ex-
hausted in consequi-nce of the depreciation of her assignats !"
This had been the incessant story with which the parliament
and people of this country bad been deluded from the begin-
ning of the war. Last year they were that France could
not go on, for her assignats were at discount of eighty per
cent. Some gentleman said in a whisper, that it was not last
year, but the year before that this was said.] Last year, or the
year before, said Mr. Fox, it is little matter which ; it is hardly
possible for any memory to state the precise time of these
assertions, they have been so incessantly made, so incessantly
repeated, so incessantly held forth to the people of this country
as grounds of hope, and have so constantly ended in disap-
pomtment, that whether it was last year, or the year before,
was precisely the same to the argument. When he was told
that the assignats were at a discount of eighty per cent. he
ceased to think upon the subject : from the moment that they
were eighty per cent. discount; it was no longer of come-


' quence to speculate upon them. All theories of mere arithme-
ticians on the subject were from that instant at an end ; when
a paper currency was at eighty per cent. discount, it would be
said, upon the mere calculations of theory, to be tantamount
to extinction. But when they looked to experience and prac-
tice, when they referred to the example of America, a reflect-
ing statesman would hesitate before he pronounced upon the
subject, and before he presumed to delude his country, by
building. on such an hypothesis. And, accordingly, as if


II


/ 795'1 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 491


the instance of America had not been sufficient to correct the
fallacy of mere calculation on such a subject, France had given
another lesson on the point— France, that was reduced to
such a state of weakness, as, from her deplorable situation, to
be held out as an easy prey— France, who, in the month of
June last, was said to be gasping in her last agonies, and when,
on account of her deplorable situation, it was said to be im-
politic for us to give her peace— France has, since the date
of her expiring agony, made the most brilliant campaign, he
would venture to say, that the history of mankind almost ex-
hibited, in which her arms had every where been triumphant,
and where, by the mere force of conquest, she had reduced
almost every one of our allies to sue for peace, and secure their
safety by negotiation. Such was the issue of their calculations
upon her distress ! He was afraid, lie said, of such agonies;
and surely no man of common sense, after such a result,
would again calculate upon success from the depreciation of
their paper.


But it was not their paper only which was adduced as a
proof of their distress; they were utterly destitute of pro-
visions, it seemed ; and as an argument for continuing the
war, the House were told, that the French government had
been obliged to unload the ships at Brest in order to supply
Paris with bread. This was said to have been their condi-
tion. Be it so. What must be their feeling of the cause in
which they had engaged, that under such a gtessure of scar-
city, could rouze them to such exertions? Those who had
last year held out this argument of their distress as a ground
of hope, and who put into his majesty's speech the memorable
expression, " that the internal situation of the enemy should.
make us indulge a hope that they were hastening to such a
state of order and regular government, as might be capable of
maintaining the accustomed relations of peace and amity with
other powers," would now explain upon what better grounds
they held out the less precise and less intelligible hope of the
present speech. They then said, that the distresses were
likely to produce a return of a state of order and regular
government, so as to enable us to treat with them with con-
fidence and security. What do they say now? 'It was most
material to attend to the words which they had put in his
majesty's month. 44 The distraction and anarchy which have
so long prevailed in that country have led to a crisis." When
I heard these words, said Mr. Fox, I took it for granted that
N‘v'ieeliNvere to be told the exact nature of the crisis, and the good
which our ministers were about to extract from it. But mark
the words : " have led to a crisis of which it is, as yet, im-
possible to foresee the issue." Here is a piece of information




49 2 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 29
for the parliament and people of Great Britain ! It goes
on, however " but which must in all human probability
produce"— Ay, now we come, I hope, to the desirable point
— produce peace, I hope — no such thing ! — " pro-
duce consequences highly important to the interests of
Europe !" Good God ! Mr. Speaker, is this a proof of the
improvement of our situation since last year? Does this hold
out to the impoverished, oppressed, and starving people of
England a nearer prospect of the termination of this unfor-


,


tunate war ? Last year their distress was likely to produce
such an order of things as would give us a secure peace ; and
now, all that we are to look for from the distraction and
anarchy that reign in France, are consequences that may be
" important to the interests of Europe !" What period of
the eventful histor y of this wonderful revolution has not been
productive of consequences materially important to Europe ?
Of what change that has taken place might not the same thing
be said ? When the revolution, as it is called; of the 3 I st of
May took place, might it not have been said, that a crisis was
approached that might have produced consequences important
to the interests of Europe ? When Robespierre's tyranny was
extinguished, might not the same thing have been said ? Upon
the insurrections that have happened from time to time, and
particularly on the late insurrection, in short, on every great
event that has arisen in France, the same equivocal words
might have been used by his majesty's ministers.


What, then, were the people of England. to understand
from these words now ? What prospect did they hold forth
that his majesty's ministers were to seize on the first favour-
able moment in which they might negociate beneficially for
peace ? If they were to argue from their past conduct, they
surely could draw no favourable conclusion, nor any rational
ground of hope from these unintelligible words. In Decem-
ber 1792, Mr. Fox said, he had made a motion to which
he certainly could not, without a degree of egotism, recur,
because he could not recur to it without pride and satisfac-
tion to himself. He asked, whether a negotiation might not
have been entered upon at that moment with a greater proba-
bility of securing a beneficial peace to England than now ? He
had sometime in every session since that period, renewed, in
one way or another, the same motion ; and he desired to know,
whether our perverse continuance in the proud denial of its
being the proper moment to negociate, had bettered our con-
dition, or opened to us the prospect of a more honourable


See vol. iv. p, 473.


ADDRESS ON THE RING'S SPEECH. 4931793.]
termination of the war ? On the contrary, had we not from
year to year entangled ourselves deeper, and rendered the
practicability of peace upon safe and honourable terms more
hopeless? But, there was one point of view in which our pre-
sent situation had been viewed by an honourable gentleman,
very much connected with ministers, and who, he hoped,
spoke on the present occasion authoritatively. The honour-
ablegentleman (Mr. -Jenkins* had said, that he was now will-
ing to admit, that all prospect of restoring the emigrants to
their estates, and the Bourbon family to the throne of France
was hopeless; that it was a matter of prudence to calculate
the value of an object, together with the chance of procuring
it, and not to pursue any object, liowever desirable, beyond
the rational hope of obtaining it. If the disasters of the war
had produced this conviction in the minds of his majesty's
ministers, he, who thought that wisdom was the first of human
acquisitions, and that prudence in the governors of a state was
not merely a most valuable but a most necessary virtue, would
be willing to allow that our situation was improved. It was
improved, because our ministers were brought at length to a
conviction of their error ; because they had returned to their
senses. lint, good God, what a . series of calamity and disaster
had been required to produce this restoration of their rea-
son ! What a state of degradation must that House and the
country be come to, that it should be held out as a matter of
exultation, and as a proof of our situation being improved,
that ministers had been at length corrected, not by the indig-
nation and energy of the people, but by the consequences of
their own imbecility and guilt ! What a contrast .lid this ex-
hibit between the present and the ancient state of England,-
when the power of control which belonged to the vigorous
understanding and the manly spirit of Englishmen was ex-
tinct, and the people were supinely content to wait until obsti-
nate fury should, by its natural course, correct itself ! Oh,
fniserable England, to what a state are you fallen, when such
is the wretched consolation in which you indulge !


The expedition to Quiberon, Mr. Fox said, was one of the
grand sources by which this conviction was produced in mini-
sters. He knew not by whom that expedition was planned ; he
knew not in whose desperate bosom the idea of the horrid ex-
pedition was engendered, but it was a scene over which the
heart of every manly Briton shed tears of blood ; and which had
donemore mischij-to the British character, had sunk it lower
in the eyes of observant Europe, and would stain it more in the
estimation of posterity, than all the rest of the operations of
this war, frantic, base, and inhuman as many of its projects
had been. Good God ! to think that so many brave and




494
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [OCI. 29.


honourable men, among whom there were gentlemen of the
purest feelings and of the most honourable principles, should
be led to massacre in the way in which they were ! That one of
the most gallant among them* should be denied the slender
consolation which he requested in his expiring moments of
having his letter made public, was such an act of savage bar-
barity as would leave an eternal stain upon England, if par-
liament and the people did not testify their indignation by
fixing a strong mark of censure upon its authors. Yet even
this lesson —even the dreadful issue of this abominable
scheme — did not produce the effect upon the minds of his
majesty's ministers which might have been expected ; an-
other expedition was framed, in which the emigrants were
to be employed in a descent upon the coast of France. The
second expedition was concerted, perhaps, with somewhat less
indiscretion, and somewhat less barbarity, than the first ; but
it seemed to have its origin in the same principles, and to owe
its birth to the same parent. It was owing. only to its utter
failure that it had not been equally disastrous; for, if the ex-
pedition to L'Isle Dieu had been carried into effect in the
same manner as the first, the unfortunate persons must have
been equally abandoned. And yet, though not attended with
the same fatal effects as the first, the expedition had been at-
tended with misfortune. Our fleet had been exposed to great
risque on a dangerous coast; and even now we must either
land the stores upon L'Isle Dieu, for the maintenance of the
unhappy persons still there, or abandon them to the certain,
though lingering death of famine, or to vthe more merciful
doom of the guillotine.-


It was impossible to animadvert upon the conduce of mini-
sters in these expeditions without being astonished at the in-
sanity with which they were planned. It must now be a mat-
ter of secret congratulation to themselves that every one of
their projects had failed; their success would have made it
impossible for them to have maintained the argument which
they had held that day. What did they do? They sent an
officer to summon Belle Isle in the name of Louis XVIII.
the rightful king of France, and thus they made their officer
declare a falsehood, a direct falsehood, as great a falsehood as
if he were traitor enough to declare that Cardinal York was
the rightful king of Great Britain. But what must have been
the consequence if, upon this summons, Belle Isle or Noir-
moutier had yielded ? We must have landed and taken pos-
session of them in the name of Louis XVIII., and the unfor-


The Count de Sombreuil,


1795.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. '495'
tunate prince, just landed in the place under our auspices,
would have been identified with our cause, and we should have
been pledged to the restoration of this legal monarch in his
rights. Could we then have had the blessing which was this
day held up, of abandoning a course, which could no longer
be pursued with rational hopes ? We should then have been
reduced to the melancholy alternative of abandoning the
prince and his followers with infamy, or of prosecuting his
cause under the most desperate circumstances. Fortunately
for ministers, however, their project had failed, and they
were thus relieved by the want of success from the folly of
their act. It was by this sort of reasoning alone that he could
resolve the strange paradox of the seconder of the motion,


-


who had said, that the very failure of the war had produced
good consequences. If it were applied to our expeditions
to the coast of France, it perhaps might hold true, as the
consequence was a conviction in the breasts of ministers,
that it was impracticable to pursue the restoration of Louis
any more.


Mr. Fox said, that it was with pain that he took up the
time of the House, with any observations upon this kind of
reasoning. He was confident that the natural plain sense and
understandings of Englishmen, who had always been distill-
(ruished for their love of direct and plain dealing, would soon
be disgusted, and reject with indignation and nausea a cause
that required such refinement of reasoning to support it. An
honourable gentleman had said, that the opinions of the
French were certainly specious in themselves, and calculated
to intoxicate the minds of the lower ranks of men ; but that,
in their own nature, they would, sooner or later, generate
such a tyranny as that which Robespierrg exhibited, which
again, in its own nature, would correct the impression which
the specious opinions had originally made. The war, then,
with all its disasters had been so far useful, that. it had acce-
lerated the conviction which Robespierre's tyranny would of
itself have more slowly produced. The war was a sort of
yeast that fermented this tyranny : and thus, in this idle train
of reasoning, was the House presented with another theory in
excuse of the war. If men were to play with such theories as
matter of amusement, he should certainly not contend about
them. He should then be extremely wilting to leave them as
a very good theme for school-boys, as the honourable se-
conder of the motion had said; but it was a dreadful thing
when such theories were taken up by statesmen, and gravely
acted upon as legitimate causes for plunging their country
into the horrors of war. Such theories might suit well for a
literary or a political disputant, and might be made very




496 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 29,


amusing either in a club-room or in a pamphlet; but for a
man to undertake the office of a statesman, and to bring such
theories into practice, was such an outrage not merely upon
common sense, but upon moral duty, as must shock the heart
of every considerate, and of every feeling mind. What a
picture of human wantonness did it not exhibit, that in order
to ascertain the question, whether a certain set of opinions
might be brought so much more speedily into disrepute, it
was a good and right thing that a hundred millions of money
should be squandered, and hundreds of thousands of our fel-
low-creatures be put to death ! In his mind, a war against
opinions was in no one instance, and could not be, eitherj ust or pardonable. A war of self-defence against acts he
could understand, he could explain, and he could justify :
but no war against opinions could be supported by reason or
by justice : it was drawing the sword of the inquisition. How
could we blame all those abominable acts of bloodshed and
torture, which had been committed from time to time under
the specious name of religion, when we oursetves'had the pre-
sumption to wage a simiiar war ? Who would say, that all
the blood that had been spilt from the fury of religious enthu-
siasm, might not have been made to flow from the pure but
misguided motive of correcting opinions, when we ourselves
thus dared to dip our hands in the blood of our fellow-crea-
tures, on the mere pretext of correcting the errors of opi-
nion? We must change all the doctrines that we had been
taught to cherish about religious persecution and intolerance ;
we must begin to venerate the authors of the ljoly inquisition,
and consider them as pious- and pure men, who committed
their murders for the beneficent purpose of correcting the he-
resies which they considered as so abominable, and restoring
the blessings of what they conceived to be the only true system
of christianity. In the same manner, the present war against
opinions was to be entitled to our esteem, and its authors to
be venerated for their morality. In this war they also were
great conquerors ; they had lost towns, cities, nay kingdoms,
they had squandered a hundred millions of money, they had
lost a hundred thousand men, they had lost their allies, they
had lost the cause of the emigrants, they had lost the throne•
to the family of the Bourbons, — but they had gained a set of
rather better opinions to France !


Mr. Fox contended, that at every moment from the com-
mencement of the war to the present instant, our ministers
might have negotiated with the French upon better terms than
they could at this time; and that our relative situation had
been gradually growing worse. The famous decree of the
i9th of November, 1792, was the first great pretext foil


ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 497179
ing to war. That decree, he had always said, we might have
got rid of by negociation. But, if that decree was an obsta-
cle to negociation, it was well known that the disgusting tyrant
Robespierre himself not only formally repealed it, but made it
the pretext for murdering Brissot and about one hundred per-
sons more, whom he called its authors. Why not negociate
after that decree was repealed ? Oh ! they were afraid of the
fascination of French principles on the minds of the people of
this country. But, surely, they could not say that these prin-
ciples continued to be fascinating and tempting after the reign
of Robespierre. If ever they had any attraction for the po-
pular mind, they surely must have lost it, and become, on
the contrary, the detestation and horror of every human being,
as exhibited under the implacable tyranny of that despicable
miscreant. Did they make overtures of peace when these
principles had lost their temptation ? What ! it would be said,
would you have treated with Robespierre ? Why not with
Robespierre ? Do we not daily treat with tyrants ? He
would have treated with Robespierre ; not because he did not
think his government the most disgusting tyranny that ever
existed, but because England had nothing to do with his ty-
ranny. On the 27th of July, Robespierre was cut off, and
his principles were declared to be infamous. Why did not
ministers then make overtures of peace ? There was nothing
in their former conduct that• could give that House or tile
nation confidence in their intentions of making peace when-
ever the favourable opportunity should arrive. On the con-
trary, they stood convicted of fraud ; for when an honour-
able friend of his (Mr: Grey) made a motion on the 26th of
January last, which it was not found convenient directly to
oppose, an amendment was moved, declaring that they were
ready to enter into a negociation, whenever there should be a
government established in France, capable of maintaining the.
customary relations of amity and peace. Did they offer ne-
gociation when it was proved by experience that France had
such a government ? It had been proved that France did
maintain such relations of peace and amity, for Prussia had
made peace with her, Spain had made peace with her, many of
the states of Germany had made peace with her, and among
others, the Elector of Hanover bad made peace. The honourable
seconder of the motion had said, that any one who made an
argument on the conduct of the Elector of Hanover, and rea-
soned on it as an example for England, would deserve to be
treated as a school-boy. He must submit to incur the impu-
tation; for he confessed, with deference to the honourable
gentleman, that it was worthy to be discussed. He was ready
to own that there might be situations in which the conduct of


VOL. V. K K




1795.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 499


of terms. There was no doubt of one important fact, and minis-


would you leave them the Low Countries and Holland ? That.


ters might go to a negociation with a confidence of that fact,
namely, that if France on account of her successes, exacted
high terms, such as were inconsistent with the honour and


you can have for the continuance of peace.


offer to treat, would not do more to bring the people of that
country to an amicable disposition to treat than all our failures


had been guilty of the indiscretion of coining to declarations
that stood in the way of negociation. These must be done
away in order to bring us to an even footing. It was said,


House was not the place, nor was the present the time, to talk


done to meliorate and soften down the opinions of France.


ought first to come from France. He said, that the offer
ought to come from us, because we had made resolutions, and.


government which have happened since, have with uni-


tained. It is idle to talk of the theory of a constitution being
a ground of dependence for the observance of a treaty. If a
rational treaty is made, and it is the interest of the parties to
keep it, that is the only true and wise dependance which


He asked, whether a recognition of their independence and an


had hitherto done ? But it was urged, that the offer to treat,


overthrew Robespierre, and all the shades and changes of


form fidelity observed the treaty with Sweden, and maintained


with Prussia, and it has nevertheless been regularly main-
In like manner, some changes have happened since the treaty


party of Brissot, the party of the Mountain which succeeded


pierre, into which the Mountain subsided, the party which


the relations of peace and amity which subsisted between them.


the party of the Girondists, the individual tyranny of Robes-


It had been said, continued Mr. Fox, that much had been


interests of this country, they would be supported in the dire,
but then necessary, alternative of continuing the war. The


4 terms at the same time in every negociation must depend on
the relative situation of the parties. But he would not admit
of that eternal evasion that the time was improper. One year
WC were too high to treat, another year we were too low; and
thus the continuance of the war was prolonged, without any
calculation being made whether the expellee of continuing it
for one year, was not more than the difference of terms we
might expect between a good and a bad relative situation.
In his mind, every time was the proper time for treating;
and it would not be denied but that we had suffered more fa-
vourable periods to escape than we were likely again to possess.
When we were masters of Valenciennes and Conde, and
France was beset on every side, with insurrections raging in
her bowels, that was the favourable time to treat. But no, we


I




K K


498
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [OCI. 29.


the Elector of Hanover in a negociation might not be a mo-
del for England ; but what was the case here ? The right
honourable gentleman opposite, in speaking of the state of
France, said, that if a peace was concluded with her, in her
then condition, he should at least have to exclaim,


Potuit qua plurima virtus
Esse, fuit; toto certatum est corpore regal.


Her situation had not changed when the Hanoverian minister
thought it his duty to negotiate with them for peace. Would
the right honourable gentleman say on the occasion,


Potuit qu e plurima virtus
Esse, fuit; toto certatum est corpore regni ?


He did not believe that he would venture to make any such
assertion.


They had heard that night much panegyric on the new
constitution of France. 'They might almost have supposed
themselves sitting in the Convention, and -to have heard
Louvet, or some other author of the new constitution, deli-
vering a panegyric on it. All our hopes were now to be
fixed upon this new constitution. He confessed, for one, he
was not willing to place much dependence upon a constitution,
of which he knew nothing, and which had not been tried ;
but this was the new theory of the day ; this constitution was
to be capable of maintaining the accustomed relations of peace
and amity. Mark the conclusion of this argument, that the;
proper time for treating together for peace, was to be put off
until we had experience of this new constitution. What was
to be the term of probation he knew not ; one thing only was
certain, that on this new pretext, the war was to be continued.
What if this constitution, like all their former constitutions,
should fail ? Why, then our hopes of peace must fail too,
and we must begin again. What a miserable series of subter-
fuge and expedient was all this ! But, say they, would you
make peace with a country that changes its constitution so
often ? To which, said Mr. Fox, I answer yes, I would ; if
they changed their constitution every week, nay every day, if
they had seven constitutions a week, I would treat with
them. What have I to do with their changes of constitution ?
Experience has shewn that neither the changes of men, nor
the changes of constitution, have had any effect on the en-
gagements which they have formed with foreign countries. I
will not speak of the recent treaties they have entered into ;
but let us look how all the successive parties have acted to-


- wards Sweden in the neutrality which she established. ' The




5 CO ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 29. a
were then too high. What ! treat when she almost lay ex-:
pining at our fett ? We suffered that moment to pass. Last
year, again, we had great success in the. West Indies ; Gua-
deloupe and St. Lucia were ours, in addition to Martinique;
and France was obviously desirous of peace. No, then again
we were too high, and we were asked in a lofty strain, in the
month of June last, What, shall we treat with her when she
lies in her last agony ? Nothing, they said, could save her,
and it was our interest to withhold from her . the peace of
which she was desirous. The event has proved that the pre
diction was not well founded ; and here we are, after three
years war, reduced to a state in which we are said to be too
low to treat, with nothing left us but the hopes that some
day or another a favourable opportunity will arise for nego-
ciation. In the mean time we have only one of all our allies left
to us, and that . ally must, by the principle on which she has
acted for the last year, he hired to continue her alliance.


All our hopes were to be founded on our conquests in the
West Indies. Let us look with an impartial eye at the state
of our West Indies. Was there any thing very consoling in
that quarter of the world ? He dreaded to encounter the ex-
amination. The French commerce, it was said, was utterly
annihilated ; and the French navy, too, was reduced. We
had certainly had many brilliant naval achievements, which
did immortal honour to the British flag; but, at the same
time, it would not be said that our own trade was entirely
protected. Insurance to Jamaica had risen from four to eight
per cent. ; and he did not think that even our internal situa-
tion was improved. His majesty's speech had held out a
melancholy picture with respect to the quantity of grain in the
kingdom, and the subject was recommended to their most
serious consideration. Whenever it came before them, he
should give it certainly the most careful and the most impar-
tial examination. It was not his opinion that it was greatly
within the province of human legislation to do much on such
a topic ; but what could be done in the way of regulation, he
trusted they should with one voice steadily and expeditiously
pursue. Nothing, he • believed, would do so much towards
preventing the evil of a scarcity, as to give to the people
the restoration of peace, which would be likely to bring with
it its usual companion, plenty. It was an insult on common
sense to say that war and military expeditions did not, in their
very nature, aggravate scarcity, by increasing consumption.
Putting the whole country into the military state which Eng-
land was at this time at home, necessarily increased the con-
sumption of grain; and if this was the case, how flinch more
did the argument hold good with respect to expeditions to


1 795.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. SOX
distant parts ? The quantity of increased consumption, with-
out taking into the account the quantities damaged and lost,
was hfiluense, and he would be bold to say, that if govern-
ment, instead of interfering with regular merchants, and
putting an end to all the active competition of men .more
expert in trade than themselves, had followed the example of
the government of France, with respect to the ships at Brest,
and had unloaded the transports that were sent to Quiberon
Bay, they would have done more towards alleviating the late
scarcity, than by all the corn which their agents imported.


He could not leave that miserable expedition to Quiberon
Bay, without again expressing his indignation at it. The
House would do him the justice to recollect how much beyond
his usual pertinacity ha had urged them to avoid the indis-
cretion and cruelty of employing the emigrants on. any such
expedition. He had said, that they could not be employed.
so as to stand on the same terms with our own troops; that
their condition would be desperate in regard to France; that
therefore it was neither politic with respect to ourselves, nor
kind and considerate with regard to them ; that if we em-
ployed them on any such expedition, we identified their
cause with ours, and made it impossible for us to retract
with honour, whatever might be the events of the war. 'What
was the answer to this reasoning? That, in fact, their cause
and ours was the same, and that the crown of George III. was
not safe upon his head if they were not reinstated in their
country. Thus the die was cast ; they were thus invited to
join the fatal standard; they embarked in our cause, which
they were thus told was the same as their own, and they were
sent on that fatal expedition which every feeling heart must
deplore. Though he could not entertain the idea which some
coarse and vulgar minds had taken up, that certain ministers
in the cabinet, reflecting on the indiscretion they had committed
in thus charging themselves with so ninny of these emigrants,
had sent them on this forlorn enterprise as a happy riddance,
yet he must repeat, that if the justice and indignation of the
country did not fix a censure upon the authors of that expe-
dition, the disgrace of it would eternally rest upon the charac-
ter of the nation. 'When he first moved for entering into ane-
gociation with France, it was said, What ! would you neao-e,
ciate with men about to stain their hands with the blood of their
sovereign ? Yet now, if the present speech from the throne
meant to say any thing honestly, it meant, that with these very
men ministers would have no objection to negociate at a cer-
tain crisis. The nature of this murder, then, was such as to
be washed away after a two or three years purification. And
even with Tallien, who, among others, dipped his hands


K K 3




502 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 29.


royal blood, they would have no objection to treat ; though
whatever was the conduct of that person on other occasions,
the boldness with which he came forward to destroy the tyran-
ny of Robespierre did him great honour. It had always been
his opinion, that if we could not get men of pure morals, and
men of personal esteem to treat with, we must take the men
we could find ; taking care that our treaty should be founded
on such principles of moderation and justice, as should not be
likely to vary with times or patties, and which it should be
the interest of both countries to maintain. Instead of this,
we-had acted upon a set of unprincipled delicacies, by which
this country had been reduced to such a state of distress, as
for the last six months to make almost every common man de-
pendant upon charity for subsistence. Was not such a state
more likely to undermine the loyalty and obedience they were
desirous to cherish than all the fascination of French principles?
Was it not likely, that under such a pressure, undisciplined.
minds might be led to cherish the idea, that that government
could not be perfectly sound nor practically happy, which in-
flicted on so large a proportion of its people si5 much misery?
It must be a matter of great consolation to hear from his ma-jesty's speech, that instead of any such refractory sentiment,
a very general spirit of order and submission to the laws had
been manifested by his people; and their pleasure ought to be
increased when they recollected the dreadful and dark conspi-
racies which raged in the country a twelvemonth ago. These
conspiracies had been quashed in a most extraordinary way;
they had been quashed by the full, clear, and honourable ac-
quittal of all the conspirators : and now this " order and sub-
mission to the laws" was a matter of exultation to his majesty;
when the habeas corpus suspension act was in full force !


Another most extraordinary argument had been adduced
for the war by an honourable gentleman opposite to him (Mr.
Jenkinson); the war, lie said, was quite necessary, in order to
enable men of rank to inveigh with becoming spirit against
French principles, and the diabolical doctrines of jacobinism.
He was very ready to allow, that the philippics against
French principles, in which gentlemen in that House and else-
where so. liberally indulged themselves, (Ed require some means


-t0 give them currency : but that they wanted a war to give
them force, that nothing less than an army of 200,000 men,
and a navy of ito,000 men, could make these philippics go
down, he did not know till now. He remembered it was an
accusation against Roland, that in order to corrupt the public
mind, by propagating his opinions, he had squandered much
of the public money. Roland, in his defence, said, he had
certainly not squandered much of the public money ; he had


1795.] ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. 5Q3
only spent 3 0,000 livres Tournois, and that in assignats,
printing; whereas it had cost our ministers one hundred mil-
lions sterling to circulate and support their harangues against
the French ! A more extraordinary means of publishing their
invectives could not have been thought of. One would have
thought, that having their civil list, their patronage, their
places, their pensions, and their newspapers, by which to
spread and give currency to their abuse against the French,
it was strange that they should hit upon a war as the only
means to recommend their invectives to the taste of the country.
If he could not entirely agree with the honourable gentleman
as to the war being begun only in aid of the intemperate
language and violent epithets which were thrown out upon the
French, yet nothing was so certain, as that the inflamed pas-
sions which gave rise to that language, gave rise also to the
war ; and that the good sense and manly feelings which would
have avoided the one, would also have directed us to the
rational course which would have prevented the other. The
honourable gentleman spoke of the rights of man, among the
reprobated French principles. That all men had equal rights,
he would not stop to argue; it was a truth which the ho-
nourable gentleman himself must feel. It was not the fallacy
of the principles that had made the French Revolution disgust-
ing, but its atrocities; it was the misapplication and misuse that
had produced so much turpitude and ruin. Of those principles
he was ready to defend the greater part; the abuse of princi-
ples had, indeed, caused the mischief in France; but the prin-
ciples themselves remained still pure and unalterable. Mr. Fox
concluded with saying, that for these reasons he could not con-.
sent to vote for the address which had been moved; he held in
his hand an amendment, expressing in short terms the facts he
had enumerated, and 'drawing from them the practical use
that_ _ought to be made of them. He then read the amend-
ment, as follows:


" We beg leave humbly to entreat your majesty to review the
events of the three last years, and to compare the situation and cir-
cumstances of the belligerent powers at the period when hostilities
commenced, and at the present moment ; to consider that a great
majority of the numerous allies, on whose co-operation your ma-
jesty chiefly relied for success, have abandoned the common cause,
and sought for security in peace, while others have been unfortu-
nately thrown into alliance with the enemy : that our foreign pos--
sessions in the West Indies have, in many instances, been over-
run, pillaged, and destroyed, and the security of all of them
put in imminent hazard : that the expeditions to the coast of France
have proved either disgraceful or abortive ; tending, without any
rational prospect of public benefit, to tarnish the British name, by
a shameful sacrifice of those to whom your majesty's ministers had


KR 4





AI,


504 ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH. [Oct. 29.
held.out the hope of public protection : that amidst all these ad-
verse and disgraceful events, there has been an expenditure of
blood and treasure unparalleled in the history of former wars.


we cannot honestly discharge our duty to your majesty, the country,
Such being the result of the measures which have been pursued,


and ourselves, without fervently imploring your majesty to reflect
what have hitherto been considered as the objects of it.
upon the opinion, that the governing powers of France are inca-


upon the evident impracticability of attaining, in the present contest,


pable of maintaining the accustomed relations of peace and amity_
An opinion formerlyproved to be unfounded by the situation of


.
the


States of America, and of those nations of Europe who have through-


pleased to take decided and immediate measures for bringing about


out maintained a safe and dignified neutrality ; and recently by the
conduct and present condition of Prussia and Spain, and the
princes of the empire. But that your majesty will be ,


graciously


indemnity is to be found ; in the restoration of industry, plenty,
and tranquillity at home.


a peace with France, whatever may be the present or future form
of her internal government, and look for indemnity where alone


" 'We therefore humbly entreat your majesty no longer to act


While we thus earnestly implore your majesty to consider,
in your royal wisdom, how fruitless the pursuit of the war is be-
come, and hot idle and imaginary the supposed obstacle to peace,
we declare, that if the existing powers in France were to reject a
pacific negociation proposed by your majesty upon suitable terms,
and to persevere in hostilities for their own aggrandisement, or
with a view to the establishment of their system of government
in other countries, we would strenuously support a vigorous prose-
cution of the war, confident that the spirit of the nation, when
roused in such a cause, will still be abler-tf accomplish what is
just and necessary, however exhausted and weakened by the ill-
concerted projects of those who have directed your majesty's
councils."


After Mr. Pitt had replied to Mr. Fox, the House divided on
Mr. Fox's amendment :


Tellers. Tellers. ,
Mr. Grey


1 Mr. Whitbread15 59.—No
Mr. Jenkinson 7


Mr. J. Smyth 5 240'
It was consequently negatived. On the motion, that the


original address be agreed to,


Mr. Fox took an opportunity of justifying his former ex-
pressions respecting the French revolution, and which, in the
course of the debate, had been imputed to him as applicable
to a reform in the constitution of this country. He said, that
he had asserted, at the time of the French revolution, that
the subversion of the monarchy in the Bourbon family of
France, was an event favourable to the liberty of Europe, and
that the fall of that family would be looked on by posterity
With-admiration, because with it fell the reign of despotism.


1795.]


HIGH PRICE. OP CORN. 505


.But at no one time had he given an unqualified opinion of
the governments which succeeded that event; much less would
he stand pledged to give the least countenance to the scenes
of blood and cruelty which had been the almost inseparable
attendants on the varied and successive governments that
followed one another. He formed his opinion of government
by the test of practice, and no* by theory and on paper. He
disclaimed experiments and innovations, and he did not know
on what principle innovation could be imputed to him. He
had, it was true, supported -the projects of a right honourable
gentleman (Mr. Pitt) as to a reform in parliament, because
he believed those projects to be good; and if the insinuations
went to this point, he readily acknowledged them to be just.
On no other account could such insinuations be justified ; and


they went to any other object of his opinions or practice, he
did not comprehend them. He loved the constitution of this
country, because in practice he found it to be good, and this,
with him, was the only criterion of a good government.


HIGH PRICE OF CORN.


November 3.


R. PITT having this day moved, " That a select committee
I. be appointed to take into consideration the present high


price of corn,"


Mr. Fox said, that he did not mean to make any objection
to the mode of proceeding that had been proposed by the
right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer. He thought
it the most -proper that could be adopted, under all the cir-
cumstances of the case. He rose only to make some general
observations on the points that had been stated by the right
honourable gentleman; and first, as to the proposition re-
specting the assize of bread. The means of information
which the right honourable gentleman had, and the authority
from which he spoke on that subject, were such as no doubt
proved that some regulation was proper; but he himself did
not conceive that such regulation would be attended with
great effect ; nor did he wish the idea to be entertained that
much benefit could be derived from its operation. He did
not understand that the price of bread, considered in com-
parison with the price of grain, was higher than it ought to
be. On the contrary, he had always understood that the




5o6 nioat PRICE or com [Nov. 3.
bakers were very far from gaining by the present prices. He
wished, therefore, the impression to be held out, that what-
ever might be the consequences of this proposed regulation,
it ought not to be looked to as likely to produce any very
great or immediate benefit to the country.


When the right honourable gentleman talked of diminish-
ing the consumption of wheat, by introducing other ingre-
dients into the composition of bread, he ought to have in
view, that whatever bread was made for the use of the poor,
ought to be not only wholesome and palatable, but above all,
nutritive. Let me remind gentlemen, said Mr. Fox, that
when they are talking of bread for the people, they ought not
to judge from any experiment made with respect to themselves.
I have myself tasted bread of different sorts, I have found it
highly pleasant, and I have no doubt, it is exceedingly whole-
some. But, it ought to be recollected how very small a part
the article of bread forms of the provisions consumed by the
more opulent class of the community. To the poor it con-
stitutes the chief; if not the sole article of subsistence. If;
therefore, the bread for their use be made of ingredients less
nutritive, it is a matter of question how far this mixture may
tend to diminish the real consumption, since a greater quan-
tity will be necessary for their support.


But there is another point, as to the nature of the scarcity,
which deserves attention. There are two sorts of scarcity,
the one arising from a defective produce, and the other from
an increased consumption ; and it is extremely interesting to
ascertain which of these has the most influence in producing
the present scarcity. If this scarcity, and the consequent high
price, were confined merely to the article of bread, it would
then appear, with sufficient certainty, that it originated with
the cause which had so much been insisted on, namely, the
defective produce of the two last harvests. e


But, is bread the
only article eminently dear? Has not the same advance of
price taken place with respect to meat; and likewise with
respect to the produce of dairy farms, on which the season
cannot be supposed to have had any unfavourable influence?
The price of butter is very nearly, on the average, as high
as that of wheat: instead of nine-pence 'or ten-pence, as
formerly, it is now sold at thirteen-pence per pound. But
what affords the most striking preol; that the high price does
not arise merely from the deficiency of the harvest, is, that
with respect to barley, the produce of which is admitted, this
season, to have been plentiful beyond example, a similar
advance of price has taken p]ace.


It is not, therefore, to one cause that we are to look as the
sole source of the present evil. It proceeds from a variety


1795.]


IIIGH PRICE OF CORN. 507


of causes, complicated in their nature, and extensive in their
operations. I do not, continued Mr. Fox, ascribe this scar-
city solely to the war, pernicious as it has been in its effects.
I admit, even, that part of the causes to which it may be
traced, may be connected with a certain state of prosperity
of the country. The war certainly has had a most decided
effect, so far as it has tended to increase the consumption,
to diminish the production, and to preclude the possibility of
obtaining supplies, which might have been drawn from other
quarters. But if there are other circumstances which have
operated along with those arising from the war, if the evil has
proceeded from many and complicated causes, nothing can
be more mischievous than to ascribe it solely to one cause,
and to proceed as if that were the fact. It is against this
error that I most particularly wish to warn the committee in.
the course of their inquiries. If, from a mistaken view of the
subject, they should he led to apply a remedy merely to a
single cause, instead of producing that good which is the
object of the discussion, they may thereby only give additional
weight and force to the other causes, which have been in-
strumental in bringirg about the evil.


There are some other particulars, On which the right ho-
nourable gentleman touched, to which I shall shortly advert.
He admitted, that the declaration of an intention to con-
tinue the prohibition on the distilleries, beyond the period
now fixed by the act, might have some effect in lowering the
price of provisions; but seemed to have some hesitation,
whether it would be expedient or necessary, to adopt such a
measure. Undoubtedly, if the measure is not intended to be
adopted, no declaration ought to be made. But the objection
of the right honourable gentleman seemed to be, that the
continuance of the prohibition would have the effect of
lessening the revenue. I certainly should consider, whatever
was so lost to the revenue, as well gained to the country, in
point of the industry and morals of its inhabitants. Besides,
if this prohibition should occasion an increased importation
of foreign spirits, the revenue would gain from the additional
duty on these, with less danger to that class of the community,
whose labours' and whose virtues form the strength and se-
curity of the state. To protect their industry, and to guard
their morals, is the first duty of a statesman, and the best
interest of a nation. Narrow-sighted, indeed, and pernicious
would be the policy of the minister, who sought to draw the
sources of his revenue from their dissipation and intem-
perance, from the relaxation of their habits, and the debase-
ment of their character. I therefore C411 see no reason why




5 o 8 HIGH PRICE OF CORN. [Nov. "3-
the prohibition on the distilleries ought not to be continued,
and, thinking as I do on the subject, the-policy is obvious,
of announcing that intention as speedily as possible.


An honourable gentleman (Mr. Lechmere) threw out some
ideas with respect to the state of agriculture. I do not ques-
tion the accuracy of his information ; much of what he said
I highly approve. But though I admit the facts which he
has stated, as well as the exigence of the crisis, I cannot agree
with him as to the propriety of resorting to any system of
coercion by way of remedy. I doubt whether such a remedy
could be effectual ; I fear it might increase the evil. Scope
must always be left to the exertions of industry : attempt to
fetter, and you always destroy them. The proprietor must
be allowed to let his land, the fanner to conduct his business,
and to bring his grain to market, in the way which they find
most convenient for their own interest. I must confess, that
in the course of investigating the subject, I have found some
of my own friends, to whose authority I pay great deference,
who thought that the state of the country required coercive
measures to be adopted. I, however, have not been able to
coincide with them in this opinion. And, first, I would re-
mark, that the state of a country which calls for such measures,
must be one nearly approaching to that of a famine. Even
then, their effect could only be temporary, and extorted by
the exigence of the moment : they might -last perhaps for a
week or a fortnight, or perhaps a month, but then they must
necessarily cease. But I object to them, not merely because
they arc inefficient, but because they are in themselves wrong,
inconsistent with that just and liberal protection which ought
to be afforded to industry, and with that wise and sound
policy which best secures the interests of the public, by keep-
ing up a spirit of competition in the market.


I have said thus much, not for the purpose of marking any
disagreement of opinion with the right honon\rable gentleman,
but in order to shew the spirit with which I wish to enter
into the cause, and the necessity I feel of putting our shoulders
to the task imposed upon us, of attending to the alarming
call of the present crisis, and devising the best measures to
afford the most speedy relief to this national calamity. Above
all, I wish again to call the attention of the House to what
I before urged — that it is not to any single cause that we
are to look for the source of an evil so gradual in its‘progress,
so extensive in its operation, which has now been growing
up for a.considerable length of time, and has at last arrived
at such a height, as no longer to brook any delay in the dis-
cussion. The gradual progress of this evil has given rise to.


1795.] HIGH PRICE OF CORN. 509
a variety of speculations. There are some who think that the
price of labour has not kept pace with the increased rate of
provisions. I am afraid that this disproportion too much
takes place in almost all the counties of England, and that
while provisions have been rapidly rising to an enormous and
unexampled height, labour has by no means advanced in pro-
portion. It is, indeed, a melancholy and alarming fact, that
the great majority of the people of England — an enormous
and dreadful majority — are no longer in a situation in which
they can boast that they live by the produce of their labour;
and that it does regularly happen, during the pressure of
every inclement season, that the industrious poor are obliged
to depend for subsistence on the supplies afforded by the cha-
rity.of the rich ; a charity, I have no doubt, actuated by a
proper spirit of generosity, but of which, in times like the
present, even prudence may render the exercise adviseable.
I agree in opinion with those, who, from this view of the
subject, think that the price of labour ought to be advanced,
and the great majority of the people of England, freed from
a precarious and degrading dependence. But I much ques-
tion whether any compulsory measures ought to be adopted
for this purpose. Disapproving, as I do, in every instance,
of coercion, excepting where it is called for by the last neces-
sity, and justified by the occasion which gives it birth, I wish
this necessary and salutary measure, of advancing the wages,
to proceed, rather from the justice and humanity of the gen-
tlemen in the different counties, than from the obligation of
a legislative act. I recommend all those who have influence
from their situation in the country, to countenance it by their
example. At the same time I greatly fear that no alteration
can take place in the present circumstances so material as com-
pletely to do away the evil. The disproportion is so immense,
that I fear it will be found impossible either to raise the price
of labour to the rate of provisions, or to lower the rate of
provisions, so as to meet the price of labour. In this point.
of view, I deeply regret the continuance of those hardships,
which are already but too sensibly felt by the lower classes of
the community. At the same time, I anticipate the most
_beneficial consequences from the investigation about to be
instituted in the committee. I trust that the information col-
•lected by them from different quarters will be found applicable
to much practical utility, and productive of the most season-
able relief. I have purposely avoided introducing politics
into the present discussion, whatever opinions I may have as
to the influence which political events, or the conduct of
ministers may have had in producing the evil we deplore,




310 HIGH PRICE OF CORN. [Nov. 18.


from my anxiety to confine my remarks to that one object,
which so forcibly presses upon our attention. There is no
one point on which I materially differ from the right honour-
able gentleman, except as to the continuance of the prohibition
on the distilleries, a measure to which I see no one solid ob-
jection; and which, in every point of view, I regard as highly
adviseable. I have only again to repeat my admonition to
the committee, that they will not suffer themselves to be mis-
led as to the object of their inquiries, by an attempt to trace
to any single cause, an evil so complicated and extensive ;
that they will divest themselves of previous opinions, and
petty partialities, that they will go into the investigation, im-
pressed with the magnitude of the objects, disposed to sift it
to the bottom and to collect information from every quarter,
and disposed to provide a remedy, not from the suggestions
of a paltry expediency, or a temporary policy, but from a
broad, enlarged, and comprehensive view of the principles
connected with the discussion.


November 18.


The House having again resolved itself into a committee on the
high price of corn, Mr. Pitt proposed certain resolutions for grant-
ing a bounty on the importation of corn.


Mr. Fox agreed with the right honourable the chancellor
of the exchequer on some parts of this subject, but he owned,
that on the other hand, the question became important, as to
the probable effect the bounty would have with regard to im-
portation of corn from America; he did not see why the
bounty should be higher for the importation from the Medi-
terranean than from America. Let gentlemen recollect, that
there were important points connected with this — Whether
the supply ought to be trusted entirely to individual merchants,
or whether any thing should be done by government in that
respect was an important thing. In his opinion, it was
proper to trust to merchants ; but lie must also observe, that
it would have been better if government had left this subject
last year, as it was proposed to be done now. He did not
state this as a matter of reproach to ministers for what they
did; he would dare to say they did what appeared to them to
be the best for the public; nevertheless, he thought there
was a reasonable probability that this bounty would produce
a considerable degree of assistance to this country with respect
to corn, and, therefore, he felt disposed to adopt the opinion


6


HIGH PRICE OF CORN. II79.5.]
of the committee, and the resolutions proposed by the right
honourable gentleman, which were founded upon that opinion.
At the same time he must confess, that when he adopted that
Opinion, he felt he did it with a considerable degree of hazard.
He wished some mode might be thought of, in order to make
an experiment, by which we might judge of the probable
effect of this measure. He should be very glad to be informed,
whether if this bounty was to last for a short period. it would
have the effect proposed to a considerable, or to any extent;
The exertions of individual merchants might not be so ef-
fectual now as they might have been on former occasions. He
also wished to know whether this measure might not be
adopted to a more limited extent; and if that should be
found defective, government ought to take up the subject ;
that if one measure failed, the other might be tried. lie. •
thought it would have been very fortunate indeed for this
country, if there had been such a committee as this last year.
He repeated it, that he did not blame government for the
part they had taken upon the subject. The question had some
delicacy and some danger in it, and therefore if the step the
ministers took last year happened to be a bad one, he did not
think it fair to blame them for it. But here he must observe,
that if, upon all occasions, as he believed the case to be, the
functions of the House of Commons were better adapted for
promoting the public good than those of the Board of Trade,
he wished to see them oftener exerted. He meant to say no-
thing disrespectful of that board, which was appointed by his
majesty. Nor did he mean to say any thing against those
who composed it. But he could not help wishing that the
functions of the House of Commons were oftener exerted
upon these occasions. He must further observe, that if that
had been the case last year, the public might have derived
the advantages long ago which we now have in expectation ;
and perhaps more than we could hope for at the present ;
because the exertions of individual merchants would have
been more important to the public then, than they can be
at this period; and we could not conceal from ourselves, that
there was not a certainty of merchants speculating on the
importation of corn to a sufficient amount. He thought there
should be a conversation in the House upon the subject, for
it did not seem to him that there was a well-founded hope
that the supply of corn from abroad would amount to thirteen
thousand quarters within the time specified. As to what part
of this scarcity was owing to the war, he owned that was a
great cause, although there were also other causes. The war




1


5 T 2 'HIGH PRICE OF CORN. [Nov. 18.


tended to create this high price of corn by enhancing the value
of every article of life, not with us only, but also over almost
every other part of the globe with which we had any trade or
connection. If this was true upon confined points, it was
true also on the larger scale, and must affect, generally, the
price of all commodities.


THE END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME.


Strahan and Preston,
Printers-Street, London.