to that of war nave fallen into a severer calami ty than ourselves? Does he mean to say that Sweden, or that Denmark, has suffered more by observing an imprudent neutrality, than England or Austria by wisely plunging themselves into a war? Or does he mean to insinuate that Prussia has been the victim of its impolicy, in getting be the interpretation of the right honorable gen. tleman's argument, I do not believe that he will get many persons to subscribe to the justice of his comparison. But probably he alludes to the fate of Holland. If this be the object to which he wishes to turn our eyes, he does it unjustly. Holland acted under the despotic mandate of that right honorable gentleman; and Holland, whatever she has suffered, whatever may be her present situation, lays her calamities to the charge of England. I can not, then, admit of the argument, that our situation is comparatively better than that of the nations who altogether kept out of the war; or, being drawn into it in the first instance, corrected their error, and restored to themselves the blessings of peace. every thing that was seen, they did provide; but | it did not enter into the contemplation of those who established the checks and barriers of our system, that they would ever have to stand against a revenue of twenty-three millions a year! The whole landed rental of the kingdom is not estimated at more than twenty-five millions a year, and this rental is divided and dis-out of the conflict on the first occasion? If this persed over a large body, who can not be supposed to act in concert, or to give to their power the force of combination and unity. But it is said, that though the government is in the receipt of a revenue of twenty-three millions a year, it has not the expenditure of that sum, and that its influence ought not to be calculated from what | it receives, but from what it has to pay away. I submit, however, to the good sense, and to the personal experience of gentlemen who hear me, if it be not a manifest truth that influence depends almost as much upon what they have to receive as upon what they have to pay? And if this be true of the influence which individuals derive from the rentals of their estates, and from the expenditure of that rental, how much more so is it true of government, who, both in the re- I come now to consider the specific proposition ceipt and expenditure of this enormous revenue, of my honorable friend, and the argu. Reform pro are actuated by one invariable principle-that ments that have been brought against posed by of extending or withholding favor in exact pro- it. Let me premise, that however portion to the submission or resistance to their averse gentlemen may be to any specific propomeasures, which the individuals make? Com-sition of reform, if they are friendly to the prinpare this revenue, then, with that against which our ancestors were so anxious to protect us, and compare this revenue with all the bulwarks of our Constitution in preceding times, and you must acknowledge that, though those bulwarks were sufficient to protect us in the days of King William and Queen Anne, they are not equal to the enemy we have now to resist. Benefits to But it is said, what will this reform do for us? Will it be a talisman sufficient to rese expected trieve all the misfortunes which we from reform. have incurred? I am free to say that it would not be sufficient, unless it led to reforms of substantial expense, and of all the abuses that have crept into our government. But at the same time, I think it would do this, I think it would give us the chance, as I said before, of recovery. It would give us, in the first place, a Parliament vigilant and scrupulous, and that would insure to us a government active and economical. It would prepare the way for every rational improvement, of which, without disturbing the parts, our Constitution is susceptible. It would do more; it would open the way for exertions infinitely more extensive than all that we have hitherto made. The right honorable gentleman says that we have made exertions. True. But what are they in comparison with our necessity? The right honorable gentleman says, that when we consider our situation compared with that of countries which have taken another line of conduct, we ought to rejoice. I confess, sir, that I am at a loss to conceive what country the right honorable gentleman has in view in this comparison. Does he mean to assert that the nations who preferred the line of neutrality Mr. Gray. ciple, they ought to vote for the present question, This, sir, was the opinion of Sergeant Glanville, and of one of the most celebrated committees of which our parliamentary history has to boast; and this, in my opinion, is the safest line of conduct you can adopt. But it is said that ple; it keeps every thing in its place; it neither | land. varies the number, nor changes the name, nor diverts the course of any part of our system; it corrects without change; it extends without destruction of any established right; it restores simply what has been injured by abuse, and re-extending the right of voting to housekeepers instates what time has moldered away; no man can have a right to complain of genuine property assailed; no habit even, no mode of thinking, no prejudice, will be wounded; it traces back the path of the Constitution from which we have wandered, but it runs out into no new direction. It leaves the A noble Lord says that the county representation must be good, that it must be county repre- approved of; be it so: this proposes to sentation, leave the county representation where it is; I wish so to leave it. I think that representation ought to be of a compound nature. The counties may be considered as territorial representation, as contradistinguished from popular; but, in order to embrace all that I think necessary, I certainly would not approve of any farther extension of this branch of the representation. It has been asked whether the rights of corporations ought not to be maintained. That is a matter for farther discussion. I have no hesitation in saying that my opinion leans the other way; but if it should be thought so, it may be so modified in the bill. There is no reasonable objection to its introduction on account of our not now agreeing with all its parts. My honorable friend, with all his abilities, and all the industry with which he has digested his proposition, does not presume to offer it as a perfect plan. He does not call upon you to adop all his notions, nor does he think that every part of his plan will be found to quadrate with the abstract principles of representation. He looks to what is practicable in the condition in which we are placed, not to what a new people might be tempted to hazard. My opinion, however unimportant it may be, goes with my honorable friend. I think there is enough of enterprise and vigor in the plan to restore us to health, and not enough to run us into disorder. I agree with him, because I am firmly of opinion, with all the philosophical writers on the subject, that when a country is sunk into a situation of apathy and abuse, it can only be recovered by recurring to first principles. and extends the Now, sir, I think that, acting on this footing, to extend the right of election to houseright of voting to keepers is the best and most advisaall householders. ble plan of reform. I think, also, that it is the most perfect recurrence to first principles-I do not mean to the first principles of society, nor the abstract principles of representation-but to the first known and recorded principles of our Constitution. According to the early history of England, and the highest authorities on our parliamentary Constitution, I find this to be the case. It is the opinion of the celebrated Glanville, that in all cases where no particular right intervenes, the common law right of paying scot and lot was the right of election in the versal suffrage, may, in some respects, be compared This does not to universal suffrage. I have always involve uni deprecated universal suffrage, not so which is to be much on account of the confusion deprecated. to which it would lead, as because I think that we should in reality lose the very object which we desire to obtain; because I think it would, in its nature, embarrass and prevent the delibera. tive voice of the country from being heard. I do not think that you augment the deliberative body of the people by counting all the heads; but that, in truth, you confer on individuals, by this means, the power of drawing forth numbers, who, without deliberation, would implicitly act upon their will. My opinion is, that the best plan of representation is that which shall bring into activity the greatest number of independent voters; and that that is defective which would bring forth those whose situation and condition take from them the power of deliberation. I can have no conception of that being a good plan of election which should enable individuals to bring regiments to the poll. I hope gentlemen will not smile if I endeavor to illustrate my position by referring to the example of the other sex. In all the theories and projects of the most absurd speculation, it has never been suggested that it would be advisable to extend the elective suffrage to the female sex. And yet, justly respecting, as we must do, the mental powers, the acquirements, the discrimination, and the talents, of the women of England, in the present improved state of society-knowing the opportuni ties which they have for acquiring knowledge— that they have interests as dear and as important as our own, it must be the genuine feeling of every gentleman who hears me, that all the sunerior classes of the female sex of England must be more capable of exercising the elective suffrage with deliberation and propriety than the uninformed individuals of the lowest class of men to whom the advocates of universal suffrage would extend it. And yet, why has it never been imagined that the right of election should be extended to women? Why! but because by the law of nations, and perhaps also by the law of nature, that sex is dependent on ours; and because, therefore, their voices would be governed by the relation in which they stand in society. Therefore it is, sir, that, with the exception of companies, in which the right of voting merely affects property, it has never been in the contemplation of the most absurd theorists to extend the elective franchise to the other sex. The desideratum to be obtained is independent voters; and that, I say, would be a defective system that should bring regiments of soldiers, of servants, Those who paid parish taxes according to their ability, were said to "pay scot and lot " and of persons whose low condition necessarily | be permitted, without dishonor, to act in opposi curbed the independence of their minds. That, tion to the sentiments of the city of London, of the then, I take to be the most perfect system which city of Westminster, or of the city of Bristol; out if shall include the greatest number of independent he dares to disagree with the Duke, or Lord, or electors, and exclude the greatest number of those Baronet, whose representative he is, must he be who are necessarily, by their condition, depend- considered as unfit for the society of men of honor? ent. I think that the plan of my honorable friend draws this line as discreetly as it can be drawn, and it by no means approaches to universal suffrage. It would neither admit, except in particular instances, soldiers nor servants. Universal suffrage would extend the right to three millions of men, but there are not more than seven hundred thousand houses that would come within the plan of my honorable friend; and when it is considered, that out of these some are the property of minors, and that some persons have two or more houses, it would fix the number of voters for Great Britain at about six hundred thousand; and I call upon gentlemen to say whether this would not be sufficiently extensive for deliberation on the one hand, and yet sufficiently limited for order on the other. This has no similarity to universal suffrage; and yet, taking the number of representatives as they now stand, it would give to every member about fifteen hundred constituents. boroughs, that of the proprie tors who send them. This, sir. is the chicane and tyranny of corruption; and this, at the same time, is called representation! In a very great degree the county members are held in the same sort of thraldom. A number of peers possess an overweening interest in the county, and a gentleman is no longer permitted to hold his situation than as he acts agreeably to the dictates of those powerful families. Let us see how the whole of this stream of corruption has been diverted from the side of the people to that of the Crown; with what con stant, persevering art every man who is possessed of influence in counties, corporations, or boroughs, that will yield to the solicitations of the court, is drawn over to that phalanx which is opposed to the small remnant of popular election. I have looked, sir, to the machinations of the present minister in this way, and I find that, including the number of additional titles, the right honora ble gentleman has made no fewer than one hund red and fifteen peers in the course of his admin. istration; that is to say, he has bestowed no fewer than one hundred and fifteen titles, including new creations and elevations from one rank to another. How many of these are to be ascribed to national services, and how many to parliamentary interest, I leave the House to inquire. The country is not blind to these arts of influence, and it is impossible that we can expect them to continue to endure them Reform nec avoidable. It has often been a question, both within and Objection to without these walls, how far repretheir represent- sentatives ought to be bound by the atives are com instructions of their constituents. It pelled to obey the instructions is a question upon which my mind is not altogether made up, though I own I lean to the opinion that, having to legislate for the empire, they ought not to be altogether guided by instructions that may be dictated by local interests. I can not, however, approve of the very ungracious manner in which I sometimes hear expressions of contempt for the opinion of constituents. They are made with a very bad grace in the first session of a septennial Parliament; particularly if they should come from individuals who, in the concluding session of a former Parliament, did not scruple to court the favor of the very same constituents by declaring that they voted against their conscience in compliance with their desire, as was the case of an honorable alderman of the city of London. But, sir, there is one class of constituents whose instructions it is considered as the implicit duty of members to obey. When gentlemen represent populous towns and cities, then it is a disputed point, whether they ought to obey their voice, or follow the dictates of their own conscience; but if they represent a noble Lord or a noble Duke, then it becomes no longer a question of doubt; and he is not considered as a man of honor who does not implicitly obey the orders of his single constituent! He is to have no conscience, no liberty, no discretion of his own; he is sent here by my Lord this or the Duke of that, and if he does not obey the instructions he receives, he is away a very large number of sinecure offices, which not to be considered as a man of honor and a gen-patronage and reward. Mr. Pitt therefore resorted tleman. Such is the mode of reasoning that pre-to the expedient of raising men to the peerage, as a vails in this House. Is this fair? Is there any means of influence, to an extent which was generalreciprocity in this conduct? Is a gentleman toly and justly complaine 1 of Now, sir, having shown this to be the state of our representation, I ask what remedy there can be other than reform. essary and un What can we expect, as the necessary result of a system so defective and vicious in all its parts, but increasing calamities, until we shall be driven to a convulsion that would overthrow every thing? If we do not apply this remedy in time, our fate is inevitable. Our most illustrious patriots-the men whose memories are the dearest to Englishmen, have long ago pointed out to us parliamentary reform as the only means of redressing national grievance. I need not inform you that Sir George Savile was its most strenuous advocate; I need not tell you that the venerable and illustrious Camden was through life a steady adviser of seasonable reform; nay, sir, to a certain degree we have the authority of Mr. Burke himself for the propriety of correcting the abuses of our system; for gentlemen will remember the memorable answer which he gave to the argument that was used for our right of taxing America, on the score of 9 Mr. Burke's Bill of Economical Reform took ministers had been accustomed to use as means of their being virtually represented, and that they were in the same situation as Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield. "What!" said Mr. Burke, "when the people of America look up to you with the eyes of filial love and affection, will you turn to them the shameful parts of the Constitution ?" With the concurring testimony of so many authorities for correcting our abuses, why do we hesitate? Can we do any harm by experiment? Can we possibly put ourselves into a worse condition than that in which we are? What advantages we shall gain I know not. I think we shall gain many. I think we shall gain at least the chance of warding off the evil of confusion, growing out of accumulated discontent. I think we shall save ourselves from the evil that has fallen upon Ireland. I think we shall satisfy the moderate, and take even from the violent (if any such there be) the power of increasing their numbers and of making converts to their schemes. This, sir, is my solemn opinion, and upon this ground it is that I recommend with earnestness and solicitude the proposition of my honorable friend. Intimation that ed to withdraw, The tendency to aggrandize the expense o. propose the remedy, and fatal will it Peroration, be for England if pride and prejudice of things, for much longer continue to oppose it. years, has bee The remedy which is proposed is sim- the Crown at ple, easy, and practicable; it does not the people. touch the vitals of the Constitution; and I sincerely believe it will restore us to peace and harmony. Do you not think that you must come to parliamentary reform soon? and is it not better to come to it now, when you have the power of deliberation, than when, perhaps, it may be extorted from you by convulsion? There is as yet time to frame it with freedom and discussion; i+ will even yet go to the people with the grace and favor of a spontaneous act. What will it be when it is extorted from you with indignation and violence? God forbid that this should be the case! but now is the moment to prevent it; and now, I say, wisdom and policy recommend it to you, when you may enter into all the considerations to which it leads, rather than to postpone it to a time when you will have nothing to consider but the number and the force of those who demand it. It is asked, whether liberty has not gained much of late years, and whether the popular branch ought not, therefore, to be content? To this I answer, that if liberty has gained much, power has gained more. Power has been indefatigable and unwearied in its encroachments. Every thing has run in that direction through the whole course of the present reign. This was the opinion of Sir George Savile, of the Marquis of Rockingham, and of all the virtuous men who, in their public life, proved themselves to be advocates for the rights of the people. They saw and deplored the tendency of the Court; they saw that there was a determ And now, sir, before I sit down, allow me to make a single observation with reMr Fox design spect to the character and conduct to some extent of those who have, in conjunction from the House. with myself, felt it their duty to oppose the progress of this disastrous war. I hear it said, "You do nothing but mischief when you are here; and yet we should be sorry to see you away." I do not know how we shall be able to satisfy the gentlemen who feel toward us in this way. If we can neither do our duty without mischief, nor please them with doing nothing, I know but of one way by which we can give them content, and that is by putting an end to our exist-ined spirit in the secret advisers of the Crown ence. With respect to myself, and I believe I can also speak for others, I do not feel it consistent with my duty totally to secede from this House. I have no such intention; but, sir, I have no hesitation in saying, that, after seeing the conduct of this House; after seeing them give to ministers their confidence and support, upon convicted failure, imposition, and incapacity; after seeing them deaf and blind to the consequences of a career that penetrates the hearts of all other men with alarm, and that neither reason, experience, nor duty, are sufficiently powerful to influence them to oppose the conduct of government; I certainly do think I may devote more of my time to my private pursuits, and to the retirement which I love, than I have hitherto done; I certainly think I need not devote much of it to fruitless exertions, and to idle talk, in this House. Whenever it shall appear that my efforts may contribute in any degree to restore us to the situation from which the confidence of this House in a desperate system and an incapable administration, has so suddenly reduced us, I shall be found ready to discharge my duty.10 to advance its power, and to encourage no administration that should not bend itself to that pursuit. Accordingly, through the whole reign, no administration which cherished notions of a different kind has been permitted to last; and nothing, therefore, or next to nothing, has been gained to the side of the people, but every thing to that of the Crown, in the course of this reign. During the whole of this period, we have had no more than three administrations, one for twelve months, one for nine, and one for three months that acted upon the popular principles of the early part of this century: nothing, therefore, I say, has been gained to the people, while the constant current has run toward the Crown; and God knows what is to be the consequence, both to the Crown and the country! I believe that we are come to the last moment of possible remedy. I believe that at this moment the enemies of both are few; but I firmly believe that what has been seen in Ireland will be experienced also here; and that if wo are to go on in the same career with convention bills and acts of exasperation of all kinds, the few will soon become the many, and that we shall have to pay a severe retribution for our present pride. What a noble Lord said some time ago of France may be applicable to this very subject—” "What!" said he, "negotiate with France? with men whose hands are reeking with the blood of thei: Sovereign? What, shall we degrade our selves by going to Paris, and there asking in humble, diplomatic language, to be on a good understanding with them?" Gentlemen will remember these lofty words; and yet we have come to this humiliation; we have negotiated with France; and I should not be surprised to see the noble Lord himself (Hawkesbury) going to Paris, not at the head of his regiment, but on a diplomatic mission to those very regicides, to pray to be upon a good understanding with them. Shall we, then, be blind to the lessons which the events of the world exhibit to our view? Pride, obstinacy, and insult, must end in concessions, and those concessions must be humble in proportion to our unbecoming pride. Now is the moment to prevent all these degradations; the monarchy, the aristocracy, the people themselves, may now be saved; it is only necessary, at this moment, to conquer our own passions. Let those ministers whose evil genius has brought us to our present condition retire from the post to which they are unequal. I have no hesitation in saying, that the present administration neither can nor ought | to remain in place. Let them retire from his Majesty's councils, and then let us, with an earn est desire of recovering the country, pursue this moderate scheme of reform, under the auspices of men who are likely to conciliate the opinion of the people. I do not speak this, sir, from per sonal ambition. A new administration ought to be formed: I have no desire, no wish to make a part of any such administration; and I am sure that such an arrangement is feasible, and that it is capable of being done without me. My first and chief desire is to see this great end accomplished. I have no wish to be the person, or to be one of the persons, to do it; but though my inclination is for retirement, I shall always be ready to give my free and firm support to any administration that shall restore to the country its outraged rights, and re-establish its strength upon the basis of free representation; and therefore, sir, I shall certainly give my vote for the proposition of my honorable friend. On a division, the numbers were, Yeas, 93; Noes, 253. Mr. Grey's motion was therefore rejected. SPEECH OF MR. FOX ON THE REJECTION OF BONAPARTE'S OVERTURES FOR PEACE, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 3, 1800. INTRODUCTION. NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, having usurped the government of France, became First Consul in December, 1799; and, as an air of moderation seemed appropriate under these circumstances, he made overtures of ocace to the King of England, in a letter written with his own hand. Mr. Pitt, who had no belief in the permanence of his power, rejected his offers in terms which were certainly rude, if not insulting. Some of them will be given hereafter in notes to this speech. The correspondence in question was laid before Parliament, and, on the 3d of February, 1800, a motion was made by Mr. Dundas approving of the course taken, and pledging the country for a vigorous prosecu tion of the war. After Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Erskine had spoken, Mr. Pitt rose, and held the House in fixed attention for nearly five hours by one of the most masterly orations he ever pronounced in Parliament. Mr. Fox then delivered the following speech in reply; and never were these two great srators brought into more direct competition, or the distinctive features of their eloquence exhibited in fner contrast. Mr. Pitt, instead of entering at once on the reasons for refusing at that time to negotiate, treated the rise of Napoleon as only a new stage of the French Revolution, and thus dextrously prepared the way for go. ing back to consider, I. The origin of the war, maintaining that France was the sole aggressor throughout the whole conflict. II. The atrocities of the French in overrunning and subjugating a large part of Europe during the preceding eight years. III. The genius and spirit of the Revolution, as "an insatiable love of aggrandizement, an implacable spirit of destruction against all the civil and religious institutions of every country." IV. The instability of the system, as marked from the first by sudden and great changes. V. The past history and character of Napoleon, whom he depicted in the darkest colors, as devoid of all faith, the inveterate enemy of England, and the cruel oppressor of every country he had overrun. His power he represented as wholly unstable, and insisted that England ought never to enter into a treaty with him until, "from experience and the evidence of facts, we are convinced that such a treaty is admissible." On these grounds he defended his refusal to negotiate. This speech should be taken up previous to the one before us, if the reader intends to enter fully into the merits of the case. Mr. Fox, in reply, without the exactness of Mr. Pitt's method, touches upon most of these points, and adverts to others with great pungency and force. He condemns Mr. Pitt for reviving the early animosities of the contest as a reason for refusing to treat since on this principle the war must be eternal. |