this language are now supposed to take to themselves, and the anxiety which it is apprehended they must feel to retract and disavow all that they then so rashly and illiberally uttered. Now, Sir, as Now, Sir, as I feel no sort of shame, and entertain not the smallest disposition to retract any thing that was then said, I wish to explain the principles upon which I spoke, and upon which I now maintain whatever I did then say. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman will quite understand me, because I do not know that we set out to argue this matter from the same principle; and if not, there is no hope of our coming to any understanding. My principle, Sir, is simply this: there is but one thing, which I never wish to forbear speaking when called upon, and which, having spoken, I can at no time feel ashamed of, nor consent to disavow, retract, or qualify; and that is the truth. If what was said of Buonaparte was untrue, that is an accusation of which I know the meaning, and which, if need be, I am prepared to argue. But if it was true, I confess I am at a loss to conceive where the shame lies, or where the necessity for contradicting it. If, indeed, the nature and essence of truth were capable of being altered by subsequent events, there might be some call for caution in uttering it, and there might be some room for qualification afterwards, But, if this be not the case, I really do not comprehend what is meant by desiring us, who said what we thought of Buonaparte's past actions at the time when we were called upon to examine them, and who still think precisely what we said of them, to take any shame to ourselves for our language. I at least still think as I then thought; and I do not see what ground the events of the last campaign can furnish for changing my opinion. If, for instance, in Buonaparte's invasion of Egypt there was treachery and fraud; if, in his conduct towards its inhabitants, there was unprovoked cruelty; if, in his assumption of the turban, there was impious bypocrisy; I called these qualities by their name: I call them so still; and I say that this hypocrisy, this cruelty, and this fraud, have left indelible stains upon his character, which all the laurels of Marengo cannot cover, nor all its blood wash away. I know, Sir, there is a cautious, cowardly, bastard, morality, which assumes the garb and tone of wisdom, and which prescribes to you to live with an enemy as if he were one day to [VOL. XXXV.] become your friend; I distrust this doctrine for one reason, because I fear the same mind, which could pride itself on adopting it, would be capable of entertaining the doctrine which is the converse of it, and would prescribe living with a friend as if he were one day to become an enemy. If this be wisdom, I do not boast it; I can only say, Heaven grant me a host of such enemies, rather than one such friend! So much, Sir, as to the moral question upon this point. But then, as to the practical result, what is it that gentlemen are afraid of? Do they seriously apprehend, that with such declared opinions of Buonaparte's personal character, ministers can never treat with him? Nothing surely can be more visionary than such an apprehension. If the nation with whom we are at war, thinking (I suppose) for reasons of its own, more favourably of his character, or for whatever other reason, choose to make this man the depositary of the power of the state, and the organ of its intercourse with foreign powers, ministers may lament-they may be surprised at such a choice; but where did gentlemen learn, that between these ministers, and a government whose character and principles they disapproved, there could be no treaty? Not from the experience of the present war; for in the time of the good old Directory, what floods of abuse were poured upon our ministers from the reading-desks of the assemblies! and yet I never heard this urged as an impediment to treaty, either on the part of France or of this country. Not from the history of former wars; for in the wars against Louis 14th, the addresses carried up from this and the other house of parliament, nay the sacred lips which spoke from the throne of this kingdom, breathed stronger invectives against that monarch than are to be found in any of the state papers so much complained of for the harshness of their language towards Buonaparté; and yet I never heard that these just invectives were considered as throwing any obstacle in the way of negotiation; or that, when the time of negotiation came, the conclusion of peace was in fact retarded by them. But perhaps there may be some distinction to be taken; perhaps the dignity of a lawful sovereign will bear without wincing rougher language than that with which it is decent or delicate to tickle the ears of an usurper. [2 G] steps have already been taken in this House to advertise for the succession to them. The usual and approved method on these occasions is, I believe for a gen. tleman to contend with all his might for the necessity of a change; and, while he argues that fitter men must be found to replace the present ministers, to disclaim for himself any pretension or wish to be selected for that purpose. Hereupon, the House is expected to express, by some token of acquiescence, its approbation of the change, and its dissent from the selfdisqualification of the proposer. And "upon this hint he speaks;" but this hint, I am told, the House unluckily did not give on the occasion to which I allude. The change was proposed; the expediency of speedy new appointments suggested; the self-disqualification stated; but, all this while, the House did not appear to be at all moved; and so the thing fell flat; and, for the present at least, no change of ministers seems to be required. But neither, Sir, was the attack upon the character of Buonaparte a wanton and unprovoked attack, as the hon. gentleman would represent it. When Buona. parté challenged us to acknowledge and act upon the stability of his government before it was three days old, we doubted, as well we might, the stability of such a government, and thought all probabilities against it. To clear up our doubts, he referred us to his personal character, as the pledge both for the permanency of his power, and for the use which he would make of it. What were we to do? to acquiesce, without examination, in what we heartily and in our consciences disbelieved? or to examine the value of the pledge which was offered us, and to give our reasons for not being willing to accept it? We preferred the latter alternative, as in fairness and in common sense we were compelled to do. What ground, then, had we to estimate Buonaparte's personal character, but his past actions? These, therefore, we were obliged to scrutinize; in scrutinizing them we were struck with their deformity; and that deformity we were obliged to expose to the world as a justification of our own conduct. If the event has contradicted the expectations which it was natural to form under the circumstances of the time; if the extraordinary, and certainly unlooked-for, successes of the campaign have given stability to Buonaparte's power (for the present, at least, whatever may and must, in all human probability, be the ultimate fate of a power so acquired, and resting on such foundations); if the battle of Marengo, though it did not overthrow Austria, has subjugated France; un-moted, its character best maintained, and doubtedly, this change of circumstances may authorize and warrant a change of policy; and supposing the time to arrive when negotiation may be in other respects proper, undoubtedly (speaking my own individual opinion) I should say, that the question of Buonaparte's power would not now stand, as it before did most necessarily stand, in the way of negotiation. It is indeed not surprising, that some gentlemen should wish to inculcate the apprehension, that an insurmountable obstacle to peace exists in the personal resentment and personal antipathy between Buonaparté and the present ministers of this country; as the obvious cure for such an incompetency on the part of ministers here would be to remove them. And I have been told that the proper The one plain question now before the House is, whether or no they will enable those ministers, while they have the conduct of affairs, to conduct them in such a manner as may make either war vigorous, or peace attainable? or whether, by the refusal to sanction the engagements which they have entered into with our ally, who has certainly fought the battle manfully during this campaign, and who declares himself still ready to persevere in our alliance, ministers are to be disabled from either continuing the war with effect, or negotiating with credit or advantage? It is for this House to consider whether the interests of the country will be best pro an honourable peace ultimately best secured, by breaking our engagements, by slackening our exertions; by giving proofs ofbad faith, cowardice, and pusillanimity; by turning our back upon our ally, and resigning ourselves to a blind and stupid admiration of the prowess and fortunes of our enemy; or by fulfilling our engagements in the same spirit in which they were contracted; by furnishing the means of carrying on the war with vigour, in order that we may meet the hour of negotiation with dignity and confidence in ourselves; and by determining that, in whatever event, we will have nothing to lay to our own charge; that we will secure under all circumstances the consolation that we have not been wanting to ourselves or to others; and thai, sessed of a great and penetrating mind, could see that France possessed of every object for which she had fought, at length sighed for peace; he was therefore ready to meet the first offers of this country to that effect. The resolutions were agreed to. Debates in the Commons on the London Flour Company Bill.] June 6. Leave was given to bring in a bill to incorporate certain persons by the name of "The London Company for the Manufacture of Flour, Meal, and Bread." The said bill was brought in on the 9th, and read a first time. On the 10th and 11th, sundry petitions were presented against it. while we have provided most effectually for our own safety and honour, we have at the same time done all in our power to afford to the other states of Europe the means of maintaining their security and independence?-One word, and only one word more. The hon. gentleman tells us that Great Britain is become, by the folly of her present ministers, the dupe of most of the powers on the continent, and the laughing stock of them all. I would answer this from another part of the hon. gentleman's speech, in which he also tells us (and it was some comfort to hear it), that such is the envy which the situation of this country has excited throughout Europe, that we are in imminent danger from a confederacy, formed for the express purpose of reducing our exorbitant power and greatness. Now, Sir, how both these things can be true, I am at a loss to conceive. Contempt and envy do not usually exist together with respect to the same object. But if they be both true, and if the effect of the misgovernment of ministers has been only to increase the power and prosperity of the country; if, through their blunders, we have been duped into wealth, and deceived into aggrandizement; if we have been deluded and misled into a degree of greatness and power which excites the jealousy of our deluders; happy is that country whose misconduct turns out so fortunately for itself; and long may such misconduct, if such be its consequences continue."Velim, mehercule, cum istis errare, quam cum aliis rectè sentire!" June 16. On the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, Lord Hawkesbury said, he felt himself called upon to say something on the principle of the bill, and also to state the real object of it. The bill provided, first, for the manufacturing of flour, which concerned the interests of millers; next, for the baking of bread, which interested the bakers. The bill had in view a reduction of the high price of flour. He would wish to extend to the baker every protection; and would propose, that the company should be limited in the number of the loaves they should bake, and in the quality of them. And lest the bill should be thought to bear hard upon the millers, the quantity of flour, as well as the capital of the society could be restricted. The plan proposed was not new; the experiment had been tried; and, for the five years that the Albion mills existed, had proved successful. He would wish that counsel should not be called in until the bill had gone through the committee. Mr. Nicholls approved of the subsidy, conceiving as he did, that the present juncture of affairs tended entirely to peace. It was true the minister had said nothing of negotiation, and this he thought wise; but he had sense to see that no- Mr. Plumer thought the calling in of thing but peace would save the country. counsel in this stage of the bill highly neThe hon. member did not see why the cessary. The gentlemen who had associminister could not make peace; no objec- ated in 1784, for the manufacturing of tion, on the part of France, to treat with flour at the Albion mills, had applied for him had been evinced. All his majesty's a charter of incorporation; counsel were ministers were, he thought, desirous of heard before the attorney and solicitor peace, except those who were the disci-general, and they opposed it. This, he ples of Burke. "Bellum internecinum," thought, was a good argument why counwas their cry, till the restoration of the sel should be heard immediately. On ancient regime and noblesse of France. the destruction of the Albion mills, the This, he was assured, was not the object price of flour fell; from this he inferred, of the chancellor of the Exchequer. He that the idea of those mills keeping down had the penetration to see, that nothing the price was not correct. but peace would save the country; and on this occasion, therefore, he ought to be supported. Buonaparté also, a man pos Mr. Hobhouse thought, that counsel should instantly be called in. Should they be now heard, they might establish such a case as would go to the principle | formed that counsel attended; a motion of the bill, and prevent all further evil was made, and the question being put, from it. that the counsel be now called in; the House divided: Mr. Tierney thought it would be more convenient to hear counsel against the bill now. Such a bill could not be necessary but on the ground of improper prac tices on the part of the millers; and no argument had been advanced to show any such practices. It was a very unfair measure, as it regarded the millers. These incorporated gentlemen could only lose their share of 251. each a man, while their competitors might lose their all. He contended, that a tenth of the consumption of the metropolis was a very large monopoly, and might be turned to the most mischievous purposes. He had no doubt but there would be considerable speculation as to these shares of 251. each, and that speculative men would buy up the shares of others, till so many got into few hands as to enable them to set their own price on their commodity. The prejudice against the millers and bakers were ill founded. Their profits were very small. The bill had for its object the reducing the price of bread; but he could see no such consequence likely to result from it. Mr. Nicholls said, that the bill was bad in its principle. It gave to the persons so incorporated an unfair advantage. As the law now stood, monopoly was impossible. The art of man could not devise a better mode of supplying the metropolis than that at present adopted. Sir. W. Pulteney said, that gentlemen proposed by the bill to cheapen bread; and so they might for a time; but the objection was, that it might render bread so cheap as to hinder bakers from going on; and after the company had so done, they might take the profits of those they had ruined into their own hands. This would lower it at first, but afterwards the price would rise. He wished to hear counsel. Mr. Alderman Curtis said, he was an enemy to all charters, and could not bring his mind to vote for the bill. The question being put, That the said bill be now read a second time, the House divided: YEAS NOES Tellers. Mr. Pierrepont } 28 Mr. John Smyth NOES Mr. Bragge . 47 So it passed in the negative. The bill was then committed. On the 23rd, the bill was reported. Counsel were heard against the bill, on the 24th, 25th, and on the 1st of July. July 5. On the order of the day for the third reading of the bill, Mr. Tierney said, he understood that several members of the House were petitioners for the bill, and that a still greater number were engaged in the speculation. He therefore suggested, whether they could vote upon this bill? In the case of the loyalty loan of 1797,* the law on this point was most ably and clearly laid down, and it was then stated, that no gentlemen could vote on a question in which his interest was immediately concerned. He knew that gentlemen frequently sat in committees, and voted upon canal and turnpike bills in which they were personally interested; but this was an exception, not the rule of the House. Now, by the provision of this bill, gentlemen were allowed to have 10 per cent for their money; if this did not imply an interest in those who were engaged in the speculation, he did not know what would constitute it. The Speaker said, that the suggestion could only apply to those whose names were mentioned in the bill; other gentlemen might be concerned, but there was no evidence to establish their interest. The case of the loyalty loan in 1797, was, that when the House was in a committee of supply, it was proposed to vote some remuneration to the sufferers by that loan: some gentlemen at that time suggested to him a doubt how far those gentlemen, who, being personally concerned in the loan, were of course immediately interested in the resolution before the committee, had the right of voting. The substance of what he stated in answer, he believed to be, that in questions which immediately concerned the interest of gentlemen, they * See vol. 33, p. 792. decided, those immediately interested had no right of voting. It made no difference whether the advantage was great or small, whether it was certain or contingent. The interest remained, and with that the disqualification to vote. On the question that the bill do pass, he would move, that the profits should be reduced from 10 to 5 per cent. If the petitioners for the bill were really actuated by patriotic views, they would have no objection to being restrained to legal interest for their money. ought not to vote; but when the question related only to some part of a bill, or to the general tenor of a bill, which in some way or other might affect their interests, they were entitled to vote; and the instance by which he illustrated this opinion was, that gentlemen might vote on the general question of a loan being granted to government, and upon all the questions which might arise out of this, except that which went to fix the specific interest to be granted on the loan, though they themselves were the loan contractors. To apply this principle to the present case of the bill before the House: upon the single question fixing the amount of the interest to be allowed to the sharers of the proposed company on their money, such sharers ought not to vote; but on the second reading, or any other stage of the bill, or upon any other question arising out of the discussion, they were entitled to vote. This opinion he still held. He therefore conceived, that there could be no objection to any gentleman voting on the third reading, or even on the question of the passing of this bill, though he might be personally concerned in the establishment; and their votes could only be excluded upon this ground-in case any gentleman should move, after the third reading, an amendment relative to the interest to be allowed on the money advanced on the establishment. Mr. Ryder perfectly coincided in the opinion just stated by the Speaker; but he conceived that there was an essential difference between the case of the loan in 1797, and the present bill. The resolution moved in the committee of supply at that time went to grant a certain advantage to those concerned in the loan; but, in this case, the advantage was perfectly contingent. This was a mere mercantile speculation, from which no ultimate profit might arise; and therefore, even upon the question of interest, he thought that gentlemen who had engaged in the speculation might vote. Mr. Sheridan agreed in every point which had been stated by the Speaker; but he could by no means agree that the difference which Mr. Ryder had stated between the certain interest in the case of the loan of 1797, and the contingent interest in the present case, affected the general principle of immediate interest taking away the right of voting. The rule was absolute and certain, and in cases where a question of interest was to be The Speaker said, that if the hon. gentleman moved the amendment he had mentioned, it would then be for the House to determine whether those members who were interested had a right to vote. Even then the mode of proceeding would be to divide the House, to allow every gentleman to vote, and then, if the hon. gentleman objected to the vote of any member being received, he might move the House that it should not be counted. Mr. Plumer said, that the object of the bill was, to contribute to the supply of the metropolis with bread, which was alleged to be affected by a combination among the millers. No evidence whatever had been adduced by the existence of this combination; but even if such a combination had really existed, the establishing of this company would increase the evil tenfold; because there would then be removed from the competition of the market a great number of individuals, and the market would be commanded by one large incorporated body, who would engross great part of the trade. A learned gentleman near him had, when the Albion mill company applied for a charter, given it as his opinion, as well as that of the then solicitor general, that no such charter ought to be granted. The Master of the Rolls said, that as he had just been alluded to, he would offer a few words. It was true, that when the Albion mill company applied for a charter in 1784, the opinion of the then attorney and solicitor generals, the former of which offices he had the honour to hold, was taken as to the propriety of granting it. Their opinion was never formally given in to the crown; but he had signified to the agents of the company, that if they persevered in their applica tion, he would give an opinion adverse to it. Upon this it was withdrawn. The principal objection in his mind to the granting of that charter was, that granting a charter to a company employing a vast |
