carrying any kind of goods as a neutral nation?-He would defy the wildest ministers that ever could exist, supposing it possible to have wilder ones than we had had, to prevent America from becoming the carrying country of Europe. He admitted, that it was unpleasant to lose the power once possessed; but what the land lost by the incroachments of the sea in one place, it gained by its receding in another. If we were obliged to forego the maritime code, it would be succeeded by other sources of wealth. If this country lost the power of making wars more bitter and more severe, there would be this advantage attending the loss that wars would be shorter. He thought the proposition for a committee a very fair one. By meeting such an inquiry we should show the world that we were not afraid to look at our situation. He thought the proposition, that the king should be entreated to give the House some consolatory advice or communication equally just. It meant that his majesty should give us an assurance of peace; that was the consolatory advice the House hoped for. Peace alone would raise our commerce; it was not to be done by the assertion of rights whose basis was power. Commerce was a vast organisation, which one nation could not violate without in juring the whole system. Let the great council of the nation decide for peace, and he cared not what or who was appointed minister afterwards. But, in his opinion, there was no time to be lost. The Lord Chancellor said, that the only effect of entertaining such a motion as the present was, to furnish a theatre for the introduction of every particular topic that could be urged, and to enable the mover to travel over all the scenes of public affairs, past, present, and to come; to touch upon all possible subjects, and abstain from inquiry upon every one. At one time the present motion introduced the subject of expeditions; at another, finance. What had been stated by the noble mover, respecting the deficiency of the excise and customs? Instead of the deficiency being 2,000,000l. it did not amount to 300,000l. Why not move for the accounts, which would convey every information? The greatest absurdities must ensue upon a desultory debate, in which every possible question might be introduced. The fabric of the constitution, supported by our navy, was shaking under their feet, while they were debating upon the law of nations. He was con vinced that the power of search, in time of war, was founded in the law as well as in the rights of nations. These laws and rights were antecedent to any of the modern treaties which had been alluded to; and our maritime law upon that subject went earlier than the time of Edward 3rd, consequently before we became a naval power. The maritime law which, for the benefit not of all civilised nations, England had for more than two centuries vigorously maintained, would admit of full examination as to its justice and validity. He should wish this question to become the subject of a specific motion, that there might no longer remain a doubt, with regard to the justice of those rights which the government had thought it their duty to assert. The Marquis of Buckingham said, that former committees had been productive of great good. It had been apprehended, that a committee would tend to create alarm in the minds of the people; so far, was he from entertaining any such appre hension; that he thought it would have the effect of calming the public mind. Lord Auckland, after defending the financial as well as commercial state of the country, said:-My lords, a noble baron has been pleased to say, that the retiring of the late ministers is, in his opinion, a fortunate event; but that censure and punishment should follow them. I dissent with my whole heart from both those propositions. I contem plate the late government, in its departure, with affectionate respect and unfeigned regret and let not this sentiment be attributed to the personal impression of a long friendship! let it be ascribed to the nobler motive of gratitude for public services;-for services which, in a period of sixteen years, have not only preserved the British empire from destruction and desolation, but have raised it beyond example in power, in dominion, in glory, and in prosperity. Allow me, in speaking of those services, to speak also of the energy, wisdom, vigilance, intrepidity, and resources of that mind, which alone could have enabled us to struggle against multiplied wars, repeated invasions, the danger of bankruptcy, impending famine, and, above all, the spirit of anarchy, insurrection and rebellion. Is it, then, to be wondered at, that I should feel with acuteness and with anguish, my separation from those, with whom and under whom, it was my in this business a mystery; and something difficult for one man to explain to another. There is a veil through which the eye cannot penetrate. Time and circumstances may remove that veil; it cannot be drawn aside by the committee which the present motion seeks to establish. At least, my lords, I have derived one consolation from the most painful debate that I have ever shared. I have observed the disposition of many persons to bring the consideration of the Catholic disqua pride and my happiness to act? The testimony thus submitted to your lordships is given without scruple, because it cannot now be subject to any possible suspicion of flattery. The separation to which I have alluded has been caused by a diversity of opinion too serious to be compromised, and such as cannot easily, if ever, be obliterated and done away. I am speaking, my lords, of a project which one of the noble lords thought proper to call "the oblation of all odious distinctions in matters of religion;" I am speak-lifications to a grave and temperate dising of the intention to give to the Irish and cussion. The question is set afloat; it is English Catholics (it is now impossible to unhappily become impossible not to separate their claims in any concession discuss it. I hope, therefore, that it may which may be proposed) every judicial, be possible to come at once to a right executive, and legislative privilege, that and permanent decision. It is a question we ourselves enjoy: a general right to which involves the essential interests of hold military commissions, to exercise the church and state, and the whole fajudicial functions, to be admitted into bric of our unparalleled system of civil his majesty's councils, and to sit and liberty and civil happiness. It is that vote in both Houses of Parliament. That system which alone could have enabled us such was the intention is now well known. to resist the great combinations formed But we are told that collateral safeguards for our destruction by the ambition and to our constitution and religion were envy, folly and fury, of so many other meant to be substituted in the place of countries. One farther effect would result what would have been taken away. I will from the opinion and decision of parlianot only express my concern and surprise ment: the question thus disposed of that a speculative proposition of such would no longer be a bar against the extent, not called for by any pledge, nor services of those who so long filled situaurged forwards by any pressure, could tions with such honour to themselves, and have been so entertained by those who such advantage to their country. Allow entertained it. I am obliged to consider me to say a few words respecting the it as a proposition of recent date, for cer- persons whom his majesty has recently tainly it was not foreseen or expected by called to his councils. We have been the parliaments of the two kingdoms; nor told to-night that they are untried men, taken as a corollary, or as a postscript to and as such, that they neither have nor the union, was it stated to some indi can have the confidence of parliament viduals who contributed essentially to that and of the public. My lords, it is a arduous transaction, and who certainly had strange objection to new ministers that a claim to the fullest previous confidence. they are untried men. But, in fact, the Considering the supposed intention in this individuals alluded to are not untried point of view, I am brought to a dilemma. they have filled great situations, though On the one hand I cannot discover a suf- not all of them as ministers, in the service ficient cause for the unhappy resignations of their country, and have been distinwhich took place in a moment of accu-guished by their talents and their virtues. mulating difficulties; on the other, it is I will not offer to them a blind confidence ; impossible that men of high spirit, and of confidence is the work of time; but such fair and well founded ambition, could they shall have my support, from atfor a moment be affected by a desire to tachment to my sovereign and to my have less fatigue or less responsibility. country; in the hope and expectation It is not in human nature, or in history, that they will prosecute the war, if it that generals, inured to great actions, must necessarily be prosecuted, with and born to achieve them, can, without energy and efect; and that they will seek motives of good and superior import, get pacification by means equally distant from into their post-chaise and quit their army national humiliation and national insoin the time of action. I am obliged then, lence; and on terms and conditions not to have recourse to the words of a noble inconsistent with the safety, honour, and earl (Carlisle), and to say, that there is interests of the British empire, [4 H] [VOL. XXXV.] ness, He adverted to the disgraceful circumstance of their being lately obliged to adjourn for four successive days for want of a sufficient number of members, and that too at a time when, from the impending call, no member could leave London, and when they were concerting measures to alleviate the distresses of the poor. It did not appear, from any Earl Spencer felt himself called upon to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from a noble ford respecting the resignation of himself and those with whom he had the honour to act. He most solemnly assured their lordships, he was alone actuated by what he conceived to be his duty. He was one of his majesty's ministers who considered the great question alluded to, as involving the hap-record that he had met with, that there piness of a large portion of his majesty's subjects. He was convinced it would be for the advantage of the empire at large, and that it would tend more to its strength and happiness than any measure which could be resorted to, to grant to the persons alluded to what they required; and it was because this measure could not be brought forward in the shape he wished it, that he had requested his majesty to receive his resignation. This, and this alone, was the cause. The House divided: Contents, 25: Proxies, 328. Non-contents, 107; Proxies, 8-115. Majority 87. Motion respecting the Number of Mem bers necessary to constitute a House.] March 18. Mr. Pierrepont rose to bring forward his motion respecting the number of members necessary to constitute a House. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that assembly, he had but too often come down and seen almost empty benches, and that too when questions of importance were before the House; and very frequently had he seen the House counted out for want of a sufficient number of members to put the Speaker in the chair. It was unnecessary for him to remind the House, how often debates had been interrupted by the departure of members, who seemed to think they had performed their duty when they had constituted a House competent to proceed upon busi was any express standing order upon this subject before the time of Charles 1st; but the history of the preceding reign afforded strong reason to think that there was some such regulation: for it appeared, that, on the 20th of April 1607, the House rose at ten o'clock, there not being above 60 members present; but on the 5th of January 1640, it was ordered that the Speaker should not take the chair until 40 members were present. Since that period, there had been very considerable additions to the number of members in that House. The number when the order he alluded to was made, was 489. There had been since an addition of 24 English members in consequence of new boroughs being erected, and of 45 members for Scotland; and now 100 members more were added; being altogether an increase of 169 members since the order was made. No addition, however, had been made to the number of members neces sary to constitute a House. The proposition he meant to make was, to increase the number of members necessary to make a House from 40 to 60; and he did not think such an augmentation could be considered as unreasonable; for then it would not exceed one-eleventh of all the members of the House. If the situation of the country was such as to require that every man should pay one-tenth of his income, he put it to the feelings of the House, had not the people a right to expect that a tenth part of their represen. tatives should attend their duty in parlia ment? He did not see any objection that could be urged against this measure; for surely, gentlemen were not prepared to argue about their own personal conve nience, when they recollected the solemn engagements by which they were bound to their constituents. He then moved, "That Mr. Speaker do not take the chair until, at least, sixty members are present in the House." Mr. James Martin said, it gave him great pleasure to second this motion, and he was sure it would be carried if the House had any regard to propriety or decorum. On the 9th of June last ten members passed 10 bills. On the 18th and 19th, there were only nine members present to legislate for the country. He had heard that nine taylors made a man, but he did not think nine members ought to make a House. Upon a division on a motion made by an hon. friend of his, there were 38 against it, and for it only his hon. friend and himself, for they had nobody to count. Gentlemen might laugh, but he did not consider it as a subject of ridicule. They were voting taxes, loans, and pensions; and he thought there ought to be a fuller attendance. He hoped his hon. friend would take the sense of the House upon this subject. Mr. Bragge said, that the motion was not at all calculated to remove the evil complained of. If he understood the hon. gentleman right, his complaint was, that, after a full attendance had taken place upon some subject of general importance, the same attendance had not continued when other questions of a less interesting nature came on. But how far was the motion likely to meet that evil? The motion was, that the Speaker should not take the chair till 60 members were present; but the hon. gentleman had proposed no means for compelling these 60 gentlemen to remain in the House. The whole 658 members might be compelled to come down to the House; but it was impossible to compel them to stop if they did not think proper. The hon. Yeas gentleman seemed to consider it as disgraceful that sometimes the attendance was rather thin, and had asked gentlemen how they could reconcile it to their duty not to attend regularly until the House rose? Now, this charge was not well founded, for no subject of great import ance ever passed that House without a full attendance in some stage or other of it. It was absurd to suppose that all the members could always attend. This motion only went to enforce the attendance of 60 members when the Speaker took the chair; but he supposed the hon. gentleman meant afterwards to propose that any gentleman might count out the House, if there were not 60 members present at any period. The reason why it was ordered that there should always be 40 members present was to prevent surprise; and 40 members were as effectual for that object as 60. He should therefore oppose this measure, because it had more of form than of substance, and because, though it might compel members to come down, it could not compel them to remain Mr. Jones said, he would state a few of the divisions which had lately taken place, to show the nature of the attendance in that House. The division on the Habeas Corpus Suspension act, was 113 for it, against it 14 only. On the Income Tax bill, the numbers were for it 45, against it 9, making altogether 54 members, to vote away the substance and vitals of the country. On the Treason Forfeiture bill, there were for it 57, against it 8. On the motion for a negotiation with France, the division was, against it 59, for it only 8. The House divided: Noes TELLERS. Mr. Bragge Debate on Mr. Jones's Motion respecting the Causes of the Breach of the Convention of El Arish.] March 27. Mr. Jones rose and said:-The government of the country being no longer (by the blessing of God) suspended, I rise, Sir, to bring forward a motion of which I gave notice on the first day of the session. Perhaps, in the opinion of some gentlemen, the subject of the evacution of Egypt may not require such perseverance on my part; but, Sir, it is a subject which unfortunately has grown with its growth and strengthened with its strength, and is of such infinite magnitude, and the consequences of it so pregnant with affliction to this country! that though I do proceed with fear and trembling-I cannot, I will not shrink from my duty; and it shall be my most earnest endeavour to sift this business to the bottom. To substantiate the points of argument, in order to establish the proposition I shall make this night, it will be necessary for me to crave the attention of the House to the sailing of the armament from Toulon, and from that to the convention of El-Arish, and from the breach of that convention to the present consequent state of Europe. On the sailing of that armament from Toulon, every gentleman must recollect the dreadful suspense which hung over men's minds as to its destination, until the glad tidings of the unparalleled victory of Aboukir arrived to chear up the hearts of all Englishmen. On that victory I will not dwell this day, but on the result of it I must. I refer gentlemen to the speeches, debates, thanks, king's speeches, and pensions on that occasion; but my object is, to prove to this House and the nation, that from that victory every man in England contemplated in joy, the destruction of the expedition to Egypt and the salvation of India-that was the glorious result which presented itself to the whole country. Then comes a very noticeable subject to the arguments I shall adduce in the course of this business-the "intercepted correspondence." This we all know was ushered into the world under the peculiar auspices of government, and with a very well written preface-but what was the object of that publication? Why, to imprint on men's minds the idea, that the naval part of that expedition being accomplished as to the military one, that part of the army which should escape the swords of the Ottomans, Arabs and Mamelukes, would inevitably fall a prey to famine, disease, and disorganization; and that thereby the salvation of our possessions in India would be accomplished. On the last correspondence I shall not here dwell, as hereafter I must notice it as particularly productive, I fear, of the breach of the convention of El Arish-that correspondence was fons et origo mali. In the mean time let it be observed, that in spite of this intercepted correspondence, we can unfortunately trace the progress of the French from battle to battle, and from victory to victory, to the possession of the capital of Cairo. Nor was their career of victory ever stopped but by the gallant and wonderful defender of Acre, the negotiator of the convention of El Arish, the saviour of the Ottoman and Indian empires, and the only man who has ever yet foiled the great Buona parté-For all which services, his majesty's ex-ministers, just before the curtain dropped, by way of their last act, recommended an inadequate and paltry reward of 1,000l. per annum. Let it be known, Mr. Speaker, that to all the plain interrogations I have put to the gentlemen over the way, I never have had one plain answer given. Let it further be known, no, I will return good for evil, and give them some documents which will throw a light on this hitherto mysterious subject. The questions I have put, and the papers I have solicited, are well known, I am told, in London, in Paris, and in Egypt; and as to the sentiments thereon of the ex-war-ministers, I mention it, not as a matter of triumph to myself, but as of serious regret, that part of the answer of the ex-war-minister to me, of the 8th July last, has been sent by Buonapartér to the army of the East: it has been print ed and emblazoned in the standards of Abdallah Menou; it has conciliated and fraternized with the French, the Jews, the Greeks, the Copts, the Syrians, the Smyrnites, and the Turks, and has ani mated them with one common zeal and thirst for glory; and has urged them, on the one hand, to threaten the Ottoman empire; and on the other, to accomplish the destruction of our territorial posses sions in India. I hope, Sir, that in common justice the ex-ministers will confront me this day, and I am sure, that if they can they will confound me.. This is a question of no light moment-it is not a mere temporary attack on his majesty's ex-ministers. The breach of the convention of El-Arish has afflicted England, and harassed all Europe-the existence of the Ottoman empire depends on itall Asia trembles at it. It has been agitated not only in this House, but in most of the courts of Europe: nay, it has convulsed most of the cabinets of Europe; and in one point of view, and one only, it has rendered essential service, by being the cause of the dismissal of Thugut from the councils of the emperor of Germany, and for having laid prostrate the most woeful and despotic, and yet unpunished ministers, that ever ruled in Great Britain; it has crippled, humbled, and nearly demolished our grand ally, Austria; it has subjugated Italy; acquired Egypt to the French: it has postponed the general peace [Here Mr. Jones held up M. Otto's correspondence]: witness this corres pondence between lord Grenville and M. Otto, with Egypt in every page almost; it has aggravated the universal and grind ing misery of millions, and it has confirmed (I hope not eternized) the bondevery paper I have asked for has been age of the whole human race. This subperemptorily refused-especially the "old ject, I repeat it, has most unfortunately letter," as the ex-minister called it-a "grown with its growth, and strengthen letter for which the world now bleeds.ed with its strength," and that will, I I mean not to ask for any papers this day; hope, be an excuse for my having ushered that |
