thens to support this debt had been so laid on as to affect in a slight degree only the commerce, the prosperity, the comfort, and the domestic happiness of the people of this country. With regard to the sinking fund, he was surprised that the hon. gentleman should have detracted from the merit of his right hon. friend in that particular. The plan for that purpose was wise; but it was not the wisdom of the plan that he so much admired, although that was great, as the determination to persevere in it under all the circumstances of the most extraordinary war. His right hon. friend had the merit of adopting, and of adhering to, the system by which the whole debt now standing against us would be annihilated in half the time that it had been accumulating, from its commencement to the present time. Whether the war was necessary or not, was a question which he need not now argue; it had been often decided by that House; and he believed that at this moment nine-tenths of the country were not only of opinion that the war was just and necessary, but that the internal peace of the country would not have been preserved, nor could we have been able to contend with the difficulties which the French revolution imposed on us, if these measures had not been adopted. The noble lord then proceeded to take a view of the union between Great Britain and Ireland, which made an important feature of the administration of his right hon. friend, and for which he deserved the highest commendations; which had already produced many good effects, but which posterity would regard with admiration, astonishment, and gratitude to its authors. Under these circumstances, he felt himself called upon to agree to the amendment proposed by his noble friend.

Mr. Wellesley Pole supported the amendment, and praised the conduct adopted by the late minister with respect to Ireland, which he maintained had been freed from her foreign and domestic enemies by his vigilance and wisdom. He descanted on the vast commercial advantages accumulated by the prudent measures of the late administration, and concluded with stating that they were justly entitled to the thanks of the House.

Mr. Fox said:-Sir, I confess I had some reasons for wishing to delay offering myself to your notice till a late period of the debate: not that I might enter upon

| the discussion with more advantage after hearing the arguments of those who might precede me, but that, by rising at an advanced period of the debate, I might know with more correctness and certainty what line I had to pursue. Sir, the grounds that have been laid down are of three kinds; and first, though the orders of the House admit of such an amendment as the present being entertained, yet I conceive it to be one of the most irregular, unfair, extraordinary, and unjustifiable proceedings that ever was adopted. Why did not the noble lord follow the usual mode of giving a direct negative to the motion? Has he evinced much dexterity by a contrary line of conduct? The object was, to persuade the House to approve of the late administration. To do that directly and boldly, after the events that have occurred, and the situation in which the country has been placed, was felt to be something too strong. The noble lord was first induced by the observations that were made a short time ago by a worthy baronet (sir F. Burdett). That the House had not been famous for acceding to inquiries he well knew; but he thought of a better mode. An hon. gentleman had given notice of a motion for a vote of censure upon Mr. Pitt by name. This was an opportunity which the noble lord availed himself of to make a motion of a diametrically contrary tendency. Yet still he felt that direct praise might not be agreeable. When, therefore, it was proposed to censure Mr. Pitt by name, then does the noble lord propose to pass a vote of praise upon his majesty's councils. The motion, however, is more general still: he connects with his approbation of his majesty's councils, approbation of the conduct of this House, and of the army and navy. Now, Sir, upon the conduct both of the army and navy, we have passed many a specific vote, and the noble lord knew he was treading upon popular ground. But he goes farther yet, and includes in his mo tion, applause of the conduct of the people of Great Britain. This is the most unusual proceeding I ever heard of. He says, you, the army have done your duty; you, the navy; and you, the Commons; and you, the people of England, are above all praise in supporting us. Now, Sir, it has been usual, when we have moved to thank any particular person, that that person should retire; whether it

would not, in the present case, be decent for us all to retire, I know not,

ciding whether this was the real cause of Mr. Pitt's resignation or only the pretext; but I think I have sufficient foundation for believing, that the principle had not taken very deep root in his mind. I therefore, for one, should be against voting an address to his majesty upon the subject.

but really, the noble lord has made a general lumping dish of praise, of which we have no example. The original motion introduced by an hon. gentleman near me, very ably, certainly, in many of its points; but I own I am not tempted to agree with him in all. First of all, Sir, I should not consent to thank his majesty for dismissing Mr. Pitt, before I knew whether he did dismiss him or not. Again, I should not consent to thank him, before I was informed upon what grounds he dismissed him. What those grounds were I certainly have not the means of knowing; but we have reason to believe, that he and his colleagues retiring was occasioned by their wishes to do something that had a tendency to emancipate, and assimilate the situation of the Catholics of Ireland more to that of the Protestants, than it is at present. I use the word emancipation, because it has been generally used in speaking upon this subject. These wishes were opposed, and they took the honourable part of resigning their situations. Sir, if that was the real cause of the right hon. gentleman's resignation, it has my unqualified approbation. I should say, that "nothing in his administration became him like the leaving it." Sir, I think I know myself well enough to say, that I am not influenced by any spirit of ancient rivalship; but I must add, that whatever praise the right hon. gentleman deserved for the cause of his resignation, he has forfeited it all by subsequent events. If he thought that it was a great cause, agreeable to the principles of humanity, and necessary to the prosperity of the country, why then I am of opinion, that when he retired upon such an occasion he ought to have come to parliament and have declared his motives. If any strong bias existed, as we have been told, against the question of Catholic emancipation, we should have seen and known it after the subject had been stated to both Houses. If I am answered, that, though the object desired to be attained was a good one, it could only be good if done by government, I reply, that that was no reason for its not being tried. Had the minister come openly and honourably to this House, and said, "such and such is my opinion and my motives," and have said also, "whoever succeeds me must be responsible for the consequences that ensue," I think we should have carried the question; but at least we should have known the fact. Sir, I have no grounds for de[VOL. XXXVI.]

We come now to the second point. That the present ministers have done a great service to the country by giving us peace, I admit: but, however we may approve of the peace generally, still the terms upon which it was made must be defended by the state of the country as it was left by their predecessors; and, vice versa, the defence of the former ministers must be derived from a condemnation of the terms of the peace, and of their successors. I say, that the present ministers must defend themselves upon the situation to which their predecessors had reduced the country, the late ministers must defend themselves by condemning the measures and the peace made by the present ones; and to do them justice, they have all, except Mr. Pitt, adopted this manly ground. The late secretary for foreign affairs, lord Grenville, is a man of whose conduct I grievously disapprove, particularly that part of it which related to the answer returned to the first overture of Buonaparte; but no one will say that that noble lord is not a man of great abilities and a manly character. Lord Grenville, I repeat, takes his stand upon this point. He says, not as the Jacobins state, that the peace was rendered necessary by the situation in which the country was left by the late ministers, nor as the half Jacobins assert, that the peace was suitable to circumstances; but he says, "we would not have made peace upon such terms; the country was not reduced to such a state as to render it necessary to accede to them; we would have continued the war, and we are confident that our resources would have accomplished the objects we had in view." Lord Grenville, then, has taken the only manly ground. It is on this principle that that noble lord, Mr. Windham, and earl Spencer, have justified themselves. I have heard that the late lord chancellor has done something like it. With respect to the right hon. gentleman to whom the conduct of the war

more immediately entrusted (Mr. Dundas), he has so seldom favoured us with his company this session (a reproach that, to be sure, comes whimsically enough from me), that we are not ac[2 T]

quainted with his opinion. These gentlemen adopt at least a manly style of proceeding. Yet the vote of praise now moved applies to them as well as to Mr. Pitt. The noble lord seems to pass over them in a general way. He says, there were others certainly in very responsible situations, but Mr. Pitt must be considered as the principal. Now, Sir, however that may be, the names of lord Grenville, Mr. Windham, and lord Spencer, can never be considered as mere stop-gaps. Such a doctrine would be strange upon any occasion, but it would be particularly so in the present case. We cannot guess what the opinions of lord Grenville are from Mr. Pitt, nor what Mr. Pitt's are from lord Grenville. Nay we know now that they must have been at constant variance. These are the true grounds; but are they political grounds for saying that it is desirable to lump them all together in one general vote of praise? There is indeed great generosity in the proceeding. These gentlemen come, day after day, and move for papers; they produce daily discussions, and they are complained of as going farther than ever we did, though it is not meant to be said that their opposition is factious. Now, Sir, we think it a little hard that we should not be put under the same cover as they are, and that we should have that epithet applied to us which is not imputed to them, though they are accused of going farther than ever we did. At length, however, comes this whimsical interruption. You say to them, only desist from accusing us for a few minutes, while we are thanking you [A laugh]. Sir, what are we to take into our consideration? We are to view the late administration in the aggregate; we are to ascertain the result and the effects of their measures-to contemplate the country as they found it, and as they left it. In 1792, France, says the noble lord, was the aggressor. This position I shall always deny. France declared war first, but it does not follow, that that power which declares war first must of necessity be the aggressor. If the anecdotes mentioned by the noble lord be true, still I contend that you were the aggressors, because you did not adopt the regular means enforced by the law of nations, of putting an end to your differences by negotiation. But, grant that France was the aggressor. Well, Sir, in 1792, war was declared. It is a long period to go back to;

but let us consider a little the circumstances of those times. The same dextrous attempts were made then as have been made this night, to reconcile principles and people of the most opposite description. Now, Sir, how has the war been conducted as a war intended to destroy the French government? We say to the French, if you take Holland we shall take Martinique, and so on in the way of capture for capture; but how will this destroy the French government? You might have had for the attainment of that object the assistance of Frenchmen themselves. I do not mean merely of emigrants, but of Vendeans and royalists; but how could you expect their assistance, when you took such pains to show them that your object was not their interest, but to rob and destroy the French territory, and to parcel it out among you and your friends? In the first campaign you took Valenciennes for the emperor. You took Dunkirk for yourselves. That, you said, was a British object, and therefore it was taken possession of in the name of Great Britain. But is this all? No. Lest there should be a doubt with respect to your views, when you take Valenciennes, the garrison of which, it is known, as well as that of Dunkirk, surrendered by capitulation, you stipulate, that they shall not serve against yourselves, Prussia, or Austria; but you do not stipulate that they shall not serve against the Vendeans. Here you give up your friends in La Vendee, and show yourselves perfectly indifferent to their fate; and the result actually is, that these garrisons are sent into La Vendée, and the troops previously serving there are withdrawn, But the noble lord says, that though Jacobinism be not destroyed in France, yet the war has had the effect of substituting a better government in its stead. Was it, then, the English arms that destroyed the Brissotines, the Robespierres, and the various other successive factions of France, and introduced the government of Buonaparté upon the extinction of the directories? I contend, on the contrary, that the reign of that horrible monster Robespierre, was prolonged by the war. when you so plainly showed your designs against France, you cooled the ardour of every Frenchman in your cause, you made him resign himself blindly to his fate, and rally round the government of his country, rather than assist those whose sole object was so plainly avowed to be its de

For

struction. We are told that the ways of Providence are inscrutable, and that it is vain to attempt to penetrate the mysteries of fortune. No man, it must be confessed, ever enjoyed a greater share of fortune than Buonaparte, so much indeed, that there have been times when he would have been called the favourite of the Gods; but, wonderful as his fortune is allowed to be, what should we think of it, if he should show that, for nine years past, the English have been fighting for his government, and spending their blood and treasure for its promotion; that it is not their blindness and obstinacy that have served him, but that they are the willing instruments of his power, and that they take credit for their intentions and successful endeavours to raise him to his throne. The noble lord has said, that no peace with France of any description could be had by any possibility before the year 1800. Now, it is well known, that so early as 1793, Maret was here endeavouring to negociate a peace, which would have included Holland, Belgium, and Savoy. What is our situation now? As to Belgium, so far from saving it, I do not believe that any attempt even to mention its name has been made in any late Begotiation. Holland and Spain are both dependent upon France; the Cisalpine republic is more closely connected with her; Switzerland and Genoa still closer; Etruria is nearly in the same state; and she has obtained the complete boundary of the Rhine. It was reckoned scarcely a pardonable extravagance in a young prince, flushed with victory and in his first conquest, to boast that he would have no boundaries for France, except the Mediterranean and the Pyrenees. It was very true, these were not her precise boundaries at present, but, looking to what she had gained on the side of the Baltic, it could not be said that they were less comprehensive. Now, on the head of security, are we to be told, that, by the single difference of the person, we are in less danger at present than we were at any previous period of the war? I should certainly prefer Robespierre to Buonaparte, as a person less formidable from his talents; but if, in addition to the superior talents of Buonaparté I am also to take into account all the other differences between them arising from the great extent of his power, and the increased influence and dominions of the republic. I contend that at no period

have we been less secure against the power of France. Next comes the question of Jacobin principles. Upon this subject an hon. member says that Jacobin principles not having taken deep root in England, they have been cured here by the war; but that in Ireland, where they were inveterate, they have been cured by the peace. Now, the reason, I believe, is this: I believe that they existed in Ire. land, and, therefore, were cured by the peace; but here, they did not exist at all, and, therefore, here the war could not cure them. But admitting that they did exist in England in some degree, and in Ireland in the extreme, what is the inference to be drawn from the hon. gentleman's statement? Why, that peace is the fit remedy; for if it cured the greater, surely it must be an adequate remedy for the lesser evil? I desire to know how war will prevent Jacobin principles ? People sitting under easy taxes and living in comfort, are not likely to be seduced into resistance to the government. But war neither produces domestic comfort nor light taxes. The noble lord talks also of the resignation of the people; it is a phrase of very ambiguous meaning. If by the resignation of the people it is to be understood that they are resigned to the will of of God, and those accidents and calamities to which human nature is liable, I admire this disposition of their minds; but if I am to understand, that they have quietly resigned themselves to all the calamities of a war during its continuance, and rejoice the moment that they have got rid of it, that is not the character I wish of my countrymen. The noble lord then goes on to say, that they have not only acted with resignation, but with disinterestedness. This is another phrase that may admit of many interpretations. If by disinterestedness be meant a total neglect of their own interest, I do not commend it; if it mean the preference of the interest of others to their own, it may be laudable, according to the circumstances; but what has been the disinterestedness of the people in the late war? They have reduced themselves to want, and stripped themselves of their comforts, for no object. If it be for this conduct that they are commended, I do not much approve the epithet. If they have been, under such circumstances, so disinterested as not to listen to a Jacobin seducer, surely they would listen still less to him if they were free from heavy taxes,

and in the full enjoyments of those comforts which the war abridged. How war prevents Jacobins, then, is beyond my comprehension. But this, we are told, was a war in defence of the constitution, and, therefore, not an ordinary war. Now, I want to know, what war, since that concluded by the peace at Ryswick, down to the present day, except the seven years war, has not been directed against the English government? This was the case in the duke of Marlborough's war. It was so in the war accompanying the rebellion in 1745. In short, that has been the nature of all the wars with France. To this it is answered, that those wars were mere trifles, compared with the war which is just terminated. This is the way in which orators and statesmen always talk of the present time. Were then tyranny, popery, and the destruction of the constitution, as carried on in the system which prevailed in the four reigns of the Stuarts, were these mere trifles? The fact is, they are all the same. The evil of the present time is always considered the greatest, and every minister resists it by all the means in his power. Now, with respect to any who may have acted upon French principles, though I doubt whether there really be such persons, the number, it seems, is very elastic. Mr. Burke has stated them at so many thousands, I believe 80,000. and again I find, when it answers the purpose, they are represented only as a few, without credit, influence, or zeal. Admitting, however, that there are such persons, I have a right to presume that they are few, as the number taken up is exceedingly small, and those who have been legally charged as such have been fewer. To this it may be objected, that the number is nothing: and that there are other things more material to be taken into the account. I admit that the duke of Monmouth, and one or two persons of great consequence, would, by their great influence outweigh numbers; but of what description are the persons who have been taken up as Jacobins in this country during the late war? So far from being persons of influence, it has been made matter of ridicule to suppose that they could be affected by the new taxes, considering them as a set of people totally destitute of property. You have among them Mr. Jones, Mr. Bonner, and others; and for these Mr. Pitt is to have a civic crown, as if he had destroyed so many

Catilines. It is surely absurd to attach such importance to such individuals, and to say that the conduct of such men as the duke of Ormond and sir W. Windham, a man of the greatest talents and influence of his time, when acting in concert with the Pretender to overthrow the constitution and government, was a slight danger.-Again it was said, that the more poor, the more dangerous; because, the more destitute of property themselves, the more ready to destroy it. But it was well known, that influence accompanies property, and that it was thus the duke of Orleans had so great an influence in bringing about the revolution in France.If the numbers were very great, if they amounted to half of the population of the country, Mr. Fox said, he would be ready to admit them to be dangerous, however destitute of property; but when we were told from judicial authority, that they were few in number, and without zeal or ardour in the cause, he could not consider them as formidable. So far, then, for the great merit of the late ministers, in resisting the force and power of Jacobins. We are told next, that, under their direction, we have withstood the torrent of jacobinism, which has destroyed every other country in Europe. Now look at Holland; the revolution was produced there by the aristocratic party, in opposition to the Stadtholder. I shall not, however, dwell upon Holland; you may take it; Switzerland, and Italy also. But look at the king of Prussia; has Prussia been revolutionized? Is there a Directory at Berlin, or Magdebourg; or have the kingdoms of Austria and Russia been changed into republics?-Mr. Fox proceeded to shew that thanks could not be given to the late ministers jointly, as Mr. Pitt and lord Grenville now maintained such opposite opinions respecting the peace. The one or the other must have been acting wrong with regard to the war when they were in the cabinet. Who would thank lord Grenville for his answer to Buonaparte's first overtures? No one had justified it, and he would venture to say it had been read all over Europe with disgust. If the House went into a committee, these points must be decided; but the present general vote avoided this difficulty, by voting thanks, without inquiry, in the lump. Should they be thanked for expelling the French from Egypt? They shut the French up in Egypt, and compelled them to keep