under the vague and deceitful name of peace. They would not, I am persuaded, purchase a relief from the distresses of the moment, by the sacrifice of their country's honour. They would not consent to become tributaries to France, even if France should undertake to dole out to them a daily allowance of bread for the remainder of their lives. Propose that relief to them, on those terms, and, I am certain, they would refuse to sell, for a mess of pottage, the birth-right of their independence. Need I say, that, instead of obtaining relief by such a disgraceful sacrifice, they would entail upon themselves evils without number and without remedy? Need I point out to them the disastrous fate of every country which France has either seduced by fraud, or subdued by arms? No. To dissuade Englishmen from surrendering their independence, it is not necessary to detail to them the effects of its loss. It can require no effort of reasoning to induce us to spurn at the thought of bondage and subjection. Does any man say we ought to entertain the deliberation-will any man propose it as a questionforconsideration and debate, whether it were better to resist France, or quietly to submit to her domination? And yet, in a place where no man would bear to hear the question stated, we find representations made, and arguments employed, which tend to disable us from making that united and vigorous resistance, by which alone our existence, as a free and inde pendent people, can be preserved. Far different is the conduct which enlightened patriotism would call upon us to pursue. What a true patriot would most apprehend, in any crisis of his country's affairs, would be, that the people might not be inspired with the ardour necessary for their own deliverance. His fear would be, that they might not have the firmness to support, with the perseverance necessary for success, a conflict of heavy expense and of long duration. This, I say, would be the fear uppermost in the mind of a real patriot; and he would exert the whole resources of his genius, to animate the courage, to sustain the fortitude, to stimulate the efforts of his countrymen. He would not bring forward and dwell upon every circumstance that could indispose them to honourable exertions, and reconcile them to disgraceful com promise. He would not exaggerate the difficulties they had to encounter, nor under of forming it. What confidence can [VOL. XXXV.] undervalue the importance of the objects for which they were to contend. He would not, indeed, embark them in useless dangers, or incite them to contend for objects of no importance; but, being thoroughly convinced of the value of the objects, and of the sufficiency of his country's means, he would not suggest excuses to the people for leaving those means unemployed, and yielding up those objects without a struggle for their preservation. Let the House decide which system of conduct is most wise, most manly, and most likely to effect the salvation of a country. According to the opinion which it shall form on that subject, will it estimate the merits of the hon. gentleman's speech, and determine whether it be best to adopt the firm and energetic sentiments of the Address, or the timid and hesitating language of the amendment. into discussion. The House was called Mr. Tierney said, that had the learned gentleman abstained from the latter part of his speech, he should not have troubled the House with a single observation; but he could not remain silent after hearing the long train of misrepresentations in which that learned gentleman had indulged, and the artful arguments by which he had attempted to inflame the minds of the House and of the country against his hon. friend, by imputing to him sentiments which he never uttered. He would here appeal to the candor of the House, and to the amendment of his hon. friend, and then defy the learned gentleman to point out a single word in it which had any tendency to excite despondency, or to sacrifice the just rights and liberties of Englishmen. Were gentlemen on his side of the House to be told treasure ; that they depressed the spirit of the people while they increased the hopes of the enemy, because, after being deceived during eight years by every promise made, and disappointed in every enterprise undertaken by ministers, they, at the close of those eight years refused, without previous inquiry, to entrust the remaining resources of the country to the same hands? As to the question of the maritime rights which we claimed, and which the confederacy seemed determined to dispute, he only wished that the House might pause and examine whether these rights might be surrendered without vitally affecting the interests of the country, or whether the question concerning them was not now. prematurely brought § no man had ever wasted so much English valour in useless expedi- the port in Europe that respected them, or the enemy that feared them? The only rational motive for carrying on the war, was, to procure a peace. Was it, then, to be accounted strange, that he should ask that the millions raised to defray its expenses should be put in the hands of those who knew how to expend them to advantage? Mr. Secretary Dundas said, that conscious that in every measure he had had the honour to advise or conduct, he had acted to the best of his judgment, he felt callous to all that the hon. gentleman had said. He defended his conduct during the American war, and observed, that if any gentleman thought that any misconduct had been committed, he certainly had a right to inquire into it; but of all times he thought the present the worst suited for such inquiry. Mr. Sheridan said :-I should not have spoken at all, had it not been for the last part of the learned gentleman's speech. It was in fact a charge against my hon. friend, that, with mock lamentations he was endeavouring to encourage despondency. But the learned gentleman's argument is a curious one. Is it not, he says, encouraging despondency, when our situation is so desperate? We contended that we could not succeed in the objects of the war, and it was then said that we were encouraging despondency. The event turned out as we predicted. Again we said, pause! for your allies will fall off if you go on with the war. Again we were told that our difficulties had become greater, and that we were only encouraging despondency by our advice. Again we asserted, that if the war was continued, we should at length bring the rest of the powers of Europe against us. That day has arrived. Our allies have fallen off, and we have all Europe against us. It is then, suggested, that we ought not to take the assertions of ministers for granted, and that we ought now to pause. comes the eloquent speech of the learned gentleman, asserting, that all who made use of such language ought to be considered as almost in league with the enemy. This he illustrated by a simile, which he thought to be unanswerable. What, says he, would you say to a general who should harangue his army, and tell them that their resources were unequal to the conflict? Why, Sir, let me suppose that any general had used this lan Then guage; and that a colonel should say to him, You have often told us before, that our resources were more than equal to the contest, that we should find allies in every nation, and friends wherever we went; but we have discovered, that in all these promises you have deceived us-we have found ambuscades where we expected support, famine where we expected plenty, and a host of enemies, where we looked for none but friends! But the learned gentleman proceeds to contrast the conduct of the lower orders of the people with the language held in this House. Sir, I have always thought it dangerous to endeavour to make a dif ference between the lower orders and those above them. But I scarcely ever heard any doctrine of that nature more dangerously urged, than I have heard it this night. We talk of quiet: Sir, I am more alarmed at this dira quies, than I should be if I heard complaints accompanied even, with some tendency to dis order. But why do you not hear complaints? You have gagged the people, and bound them hand and foot; and then you say, look how quiet they are. Sir, I ask, is there any place but this where a men may speak his sentiments freely? If that be the case, is it not idle to talk of this quiet of the people? But, says the learned gentleman, is there any man ca-' pable of the meanness of making submissions to France? Yes, Sir, his majesty's ministers; for they have done it. We have heard it asked, whether we could make peace with regicides, and whether a man could be found that would be the bearer of such a proposal? Sir, ministers have done it; they have done it three times, after as lofty boasts as those which the learned gentleman has been making for them this day, by proxy. The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question;" the House divided : Tellers. Feb. 3. The Address being reported to the House, Mr. Jones said, that the most prominent feature in his majesty's speech was the union. There was no man who more sincerely wished, that that union might conduce to the safety and happiness of the empire; but he entertained great doubt whether such an effect was likely to be expected from it. He had heard that a division had existed in the cabinet upon the subject of the emancipation of the Catholics. The next question referred to in the speech from the throne, was that which related to the controversy between this country and the powers of the north, upon certain points of maritime law. He thought the House ought to know the justice and utility of going to war on this question before it pledged itself to do so. The other subject was the scarcity. He was sorry to observe, that, in addition to the scarcity of bread, the people were obliged to eat what had never been the common food of the country. He believed the Speech would have the effect of re-creating the French marine, as the answer to the overtures of Buonaparté had had the effect of raising him up an army. For these reasons he protested against the Address. Mr. Martin, of Galway, said:-Sir, I rise to thank the hon. gentleman for having wished that the union may turn out to the mutual advantage of the two countries. I can only thank him for the fervency of his prayer; for the speech which accompanied his prayer was very little likely to produce the consummation of it. I have often heard that a prophecy generally tends to its own accomplishment. I am at a loss to suppose that he can be sincere, further than from the reliance I have upon his veracity, when he accompanies his prayer with a prophecy that it is not likely to be fulfilled. If he had given notice of a motion to have dis solved the union, such a speech would have been relevant; because, if he would undo what has been done, it might be of use to demonstrate that what had been done ought not to have been done. But if the union between the two countries is intended to operate as a marriage be. tween individuals during the lives of the contracting parties, what use can there, possibly be in stating, that this union would not tend to the good of the countries? There is another subject to which he has alluded; namely, the Roman Ca. tholics of Ireland. I assure the hon. gentleman, that whatever invitations may come from gentlemen on that side of the House to the Roman Catholics, they will find that the Catholics of Ireland will be little inclined to enlist under any banner of the kind. They are willing to abide by whatever the wisdom of the govern ment shall think it expedient to do. Mr. Bankes said, he had carefully listened to the debate of last night, and, in some respects, held sentiments different from the speakers on both sides. With regard to the hon. mover of the Amendment, he was surprised that he should have entertained any doubts on the subject of our maritime right; and if he allowed the right, that he should bave questioned whether it ought to be maintained. The revival of this disputed claim, on the part of the neutral powers, loudly called upon this country to establish what we had always considered as our right. The armed neutrality now set on foot was evidently directed against this country. But he must at the same time say, that since such various disappointments, had taken place, he did expect that the Speech would have announced some attempt to enter upon a direct negotiation with France. Austria having been obliged to enter upon a separate treaty, this country seemed to | be called on to enter upon overtures for peace. An alarming storm was gathering in the North, and sound policy required us to get rid of our old enemy, before we attempted to grapple with new ones. It might be said, this was not the moment for making such an attempt; for that the pretensions of the enemy would rise in proportion to the additional force directed against this country. This might be so far true; yet, as our danger increased, was it not to be expected that greater sacrifices must be made when we saw additional armaments fitting out against us? But upon what ground did gentlemen assume that France would not now come into reasonable terms of accommodation? In the last letter of M. Otto there was an express declaration, that the chief consul would be ready, at any future time, to enter upon a separate treaty with this country. Not that he placed implicit reliance on the declarations of France, but why not hear from France herself, whether she would or would not adhere to her own pacific declarations? No other object could now be had in view, but that of coming out of the contest upon fair terms. How could we be sure that the disposition of the first consul might not now be in favour of a general peace? We had but little hope of bettering our condition by continuing the war, with a fresh host of enemies raised up against us. But though he wished no delay in making an attempt at peace, he confessed he was not sanguine in his expectations of success. France might rise in her pretensions, in proportion to the increase of our difficulties, but still he considered it desirable to know on what terms she was disposed to treat. Should the attempt prove impracticable, from the inordinate ambition of the enemy, we should then stand excused in the sight of Europe for continuing the contest, and refute the insinuations that it was British gold and British obstinacy that kept the flames of war alive. Mr. Windham (secretary at war) said, it would be naturally expected that he should say something on the subject now before the House, and yet he was afraid he had hardly any thing to say that might be deemed satisfactory; not because the subject was not important, but because the speech of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down did not oppose the Address, and yet contained some points which na turally called for answer. That speech had proceeded on a state of things, and the opinion he entertained of the conduct which he supposed administration to have pursued; and also on the judgment which that hon. gentleman had formed of that conduct, and his sentiment as to what that conduct ought to be. Now, said Mr. Windham, that hon. gentleman must see that it is impossible for me to say any thing on that subject, one way or the other. I beg leave to say, I neither mean to convey any opinion or information on what has been the conduct of administration on the subject he alludes to, or what is their conduct now, or what ought to have been their conduct; because, if there is any one thing which more than another requires delicacy, care, and caution, as to what should be said, or what should not be said, or that requires more judgment than any other; if there be any one thing which requires peculiarly more secrecy than that of any other subject, it is the steps taken by government for a negotiation for peace. Motions have been made upon that subject, calling for the interposition of parliament; and whenever such a motion is likely to be useful, I think the best shape in which it can come is that of an address to the throne for the dismissal of ministers; be cause to that object they all tend. Ge nerally speaking, however, there is no subject which requires more extent of information, delicacy of touching, or more variety of means, than that of negotiation for peace; nor is it only necessary that these advantages should be possessed by those who would act, but even those who would talk to purpose on that subject. Who should take the first step towards negotiation? What particular circumstances of one country should make it either take the first step, or wait for another to do so, and many other points better alluded to than descanted upon, are most delicate, and require the application of the best talents that a state has in its service. The hon gentleman, when he wishes to provoke a discussion upon that subject, must be aware that he is calling for that on which he can possess at best but very imperfect materials for consideration; he must be aware also, that the subject is one on which ministers must necessarily be silent: he is therefore combating, in a great degree, upon a very difficult point, although he is without an adversary. I must be allowed to protest against any inference that he can |
