How easy should I feel concerning the issue of this discussion!

66

and

the subject; that if the common law were silent, and that legal analogies gave no light upon the subject, even upon the grounds of common sense and expediency, the law is clear and intelligible. But when all these concur to define and to decide the law; when positive statutes, when prac tice and precedents, when the analogies of law, and the arguments of expediency, founded upon the immutable principles of wisdom, reason, and sound policy, ALL combine and unite to establish and to assert it, can I have any fear to say that this motion ought to pass, and that the High Bailiff of Westminster, instead of being permitted to proceed with this scrutiny, should instant

Some gentlemen have argued that this motion does not agree with the prayer of the petition [previously presented by Mr. Fox]. Let it be recollected, sir, that the petition was presented by me with a view of its being referred to a committee. Really, sir, if there is not enough of candor to admit this assertion without being explained, there seems but little chance of a fair hearing, or of a fair construction, upon points much more material. I again declare it was presented for the purpose I have described. A majority of this House decided that the petition was not cognizable by Mr. Grenville's bill; and it was upon a suggestion from the other side of the House that I presented it the same day, to save time, and prayed that counsel might be heard at the bar in favor of it. The sole object of that petition was, that this House might order such a return as would come under the jurisdiction of a committee; the motion before you goes precisely to the same point, and to no other.

In addition to all these arguments, will the House reflect that this scrutiny is not final in deciding the right of sitting here ?22 Will they reflect that, after all the waste of time, after all the expense, all the labor, all the fatigue, which are indispensable upon it, its termination (whenever it may happen) is but the commencement of another process before a judicature, capable and competent to administer justice, with a new series of expense, and labor, and fatigue? And who can tell us when this scrutiny shall conclude? The granting it is not more illegal and oppressive than the duration is uncertain and in-ly make a return of members for Westminster? definite. Who can promise when such a conscience as Corbett's will be quieted? And who will venture to say that, after one, two, three, or ten years' investigation, the High Bailiff's conscience may not be as unsatisfied, even upon the scrutiny, as it appears at this moment, after a seven weeks' poll? But," say the supporters of the High Bailiff, "this House will take care that there is no vexatious delay in the business, and will from time to time call upon him for a return, or for the cause that may prevent his making one." I understand that argument perfectly well, sir; it is of itself sufficient to show the grossness of this proceeding. When the bailiff will be called on to make a return, and when he will obey that call, can be very easily conceived, indeed. If it were possible for this man, in the course of this scrutiny, to strike off from my numbers so many as would place Sir Cecil Wray on the head of the poll, I have not the smallest doubt that all delays, subsequent to such an event, would appear just as frivolous, as vexatious and oppressive to the gentlemen on the opposite bench [the Ministry], and to the High Bailiff's conscience, as the whole proceeding now appears to me, and to the injured electors of Westminster. Upon all the considerations, therefore, that I have mentioned the inordinate expense; the inefficacy of the tribunal; the obvious necessity of afterward resorting to a more adequate and competent judicature; the certainty that this precedent will be the source of future oppressions; the dangerous example of it to other returning officers, who, under the sanction of this case, can give full scope to their partialities, their caprices, and corruptions; the circumstance of depriving so great and respectable a body of men of their representation in this House; the recognizing that dreadful doctrine, that a King may be without a Parliament, and the people without representation, at the mere will and bare discretion of any low, mean, ignorant, base, and wretched being, who may happen to be a returning officer -from all these considerations, therefore, I am convinced, and I hope I have convinced this House, that if no statute could be found upon

22 The question could be brought up again after the return was made, and tried before a committee of the House under Mr. Grenville's bill.

To that argument, if it deserves the name of argument, that we are inconsistent in desiring the High Bailiff to make a return, when we contend that all his authority under that writ is completely defunct, it is almost unnecessary to reply, because it evidently defeats itself. In contending that the High Bailiff was functus officio on the 18th of May, we are fortified by law; and, in desiring he would make some return, we are justified by precedent.

We contend, and contend with truth, that the writ under which the High Bailiff carried on the election, being returnable on the 18th of May, on that very day deprived the bailiff of all judicial authority, and devested him of all legal power under that writ. To proceed with a scrutiny is a great act of authority; to tell us who have, in his opinion, the majority of legal votes, is not. That this House should order a returning officer to commence a scrutiny several days after the positive day on which his writ was returnable. can not be paralleled by a single case in all the history of Parliament. That it should order a returning officer, who tells you he proceeded to an election, carried on a poll for a sufficient time. and that he then closed that poll of his own au

23 Here the minister shook his head, as if to deny the fact. 24 Discharged from further duty.

1784.]

THE WESTMINSTER SCRUTINY.

facility of a collusion in a case of this sort, to keep
a candidate from his seat, whose right to it is
clear, unquestioned, and unquestionable. Sup-
pose that not one single bad vote had been giv-
en for Lord Hood in the late election, and that
the noble Lord were not (he best knows why)
resigned and easy under this proceeding, what
could be more hard and cruel than his situation?
Does not the House see that ministers will be en-
abled by this precedent to exclude an obnoxious
candidate for an indefinite space of time, even
though his majority be the most undoubted pos-

thority, to make a return, has happened again and again. We do not desire him to exercise any jurisdiction under that writ now; we only desire him to acquaint us with the fruits of the jurisdiction which he has exercised under it. I have done so and so, says the High Bailiff. "Tell us what you mean," is all we say. "I have, on such a day, proceeded to an election," says he; "I have carried on a poll for forty days; I have, on the day before the return of the writ, closed that poll, of my own authority." All this we understand. In all this you did your duty. Only tell us who are the candi-sible, and his election the fairest in the world? dates chosen upon this long poll? We do not mean to say you have at present any authority to do any thing under that writ; all we want to know is, what you did when you had authority under it? Let the House reflect upon this fair and reasonable distinction, and they will see the paltriness of those quibbles, the misery of those low subterfuges, which imply that we would bring "a dead man to life;" and which imply an inconsistency between the motion and the arguments advanced in support of it.

What, I beg leave to ask, has appeared to the House extraordinary or uncommon in the election for Westminster, that justifies this matchless violence? In all the variety of evidence they have heard at the bar, has there been a proof of But one single bad vote of my side? Not one. there was much hearsay that I had bad votes. Sir Cecil Wray and his agents told the High Good God, sir, am I Bailiff they heard I had. Did any of addressing men of common sense? you ever yet hear of an election wherein the losing candidate did not charge bad votes and bad pracPeevishtices upon the fortunate candidate? ness upon miscarriage is perhaps an error, but it is the habit of human nature; and was the High Bailiff of Westminster so unhackneyed in the ways of men, as to be unapprized of this frailty; or are the discontents of Sir Cecil Wray, and the loose accusations of his agents, the extraordinary things which the House sees in the Westminster election, to justify this proceeding? Is the length of the election one of these uncommon incidents? By no means. The same thing happened at Bristol, where, without doubt, a scrutiny would have been granted, if the returning officer had thought The same the law would bear him out in it. thing happened at Lancaster, where a scrutiny was demanded and refused, and where, when the connections of one of the candidates are considered, no doubt can be entertained that every stratagem to procrastinate, every scheme to perplex, every expedient to harass, all that a disposition not the mildest when victorious, nor the most patient when vanquished, all that wealth, all that the wantonness of wealth could do, would have been exerted; and where a plan so admirably calculated for litigation, for vexation, for expense, for oppression, as a scrutiny, would not have been admitted, were it found legal or practicable. Let the House reflect for a moment upon the

25 Mr. Lowther, the nephew of Sir James Lowther.

It is only for the losing candidate to demand, and
for the returning officer to grant, a scrutiny.
These are some of the evils that present them-
selves upon the recognition of this practice as
right and legal. For my part, I see nothing in
the late election for Westminster peculiar and
distinct from many other elections, but this sin-
gly, that I was one of the candidates. In that
light it is already seen by every cool, dispassion-
ate, and sensible man; and that the whole nation
will contemplate and construe the business of this
night as an act of personal oppression, I am thor-
oughly convinced; nor can they think otherwise,
when they learn that in all the law books of this
country, in all your journals, in all the histories
of Parliament, in all the annals of elections, in
this great land of elections, where, from time to
time, all that power, all that ingenuity, all that
opulence could devise or execute, has been tried
in elections-where, in the vast mass of cases
that have happened, in all the multiplied variety
of singular and curious contests we read and hear
of, nothing is found that assimilates with, or au-
thorizes this scrutiny, under these circumstances—
not even by the worst of men, in the worst of
times.

Remarks of a

nature.

III. (1.) I will acquit the honorable gentleman over against me [Mr. Pitt] of being the author, or being a voluntary more general instrument in this vile affair; and in that concession, sir, I do not give him much. It is but crediting him for a little common sense, indeed, when I suppose that, from a regard to that government of which he is the nominal leader, from a regard to his own character with the world at this time, and his reputation with posterity, he acts his part in this business not without concern.

That he may be accusable of too servile a compliance is probable enough; but of a free agency in it I believe he is guiltless. Not to him, sir, but to its true cause, do I attribute this shameful attack-to that black, that obstinate, that stupid spirit which, by some strange infatuation, pervades, and has pervaded the councils of this country throughout the whole course of this unfortunate and calamitous reign-to that weak, that fatal, that damnable system, which has been the cause of all our disgraces and all our rancor and revenge with cruelty-to those mamiseries-to those secret advisers, who hate with lignant men, whose character it is to harass the object of their enmity with a relentless and insatiate spirit of revenge; to those, sir, and not to

the honorable gentleman, do I impute this unex- its lenity it might adopt the latter method, but ampled persecution.26

(2.) Having said so much as to the real authors of this measure, there remains another consideration with which I am desirous to impress the House. It is a consideration, however, which in policy I ought to conceal, because it will be an additional incitement to my enemies to proceed in their career with vigor; but it will nevertheless show the extreme oppression and glaring impolicy of this scrutiny-I mean the consideration of expense.

I have had a variety of calculations made upon the subject of this scrutiny, and the lowest of all the estimates is £18,000. This, sir, is a serious and an alarming consideration. But I know it may be said (and with a pitiful triumph it perhaps will be said) that this is no injury to me, inasmuch as I shall bear but a small portion of the burden; but this, sir, to me, is the bitterest of all reflections!

Affluence is, on many accounts, an enviable state; but if ever my mind languished for and sought that situation, it is upon this occasion; it is to find that, when I can bear but a small part of this enormous load of wanton expenditure, the misfortune of my being obnoxious to bad men in nigh authority should extend beyond myself; it is when I find that those friends whom I respect for their generosity, whom I value for their virtues, whom I love for their attachment to me, and those spirited constituents to whom I am bound by every tie of obligation, by every feeling of gratitude, should, besides the great and important injury they receive in having no representation in the popular Legislature of this country, be forced into a wicked waste of idle and fruitJess costs, only because they are too kind, too partial to me. This, sir, is their crime; and for their adherence to their political principles, and their personal predilection for me, they are to be punished with these complicated hardships.

These, sir, are sad and severe reflections; and although I am convinced they will infuse fresh courage into my enemies, and animate them the more to carry every enmity to the most vexatious and vindictive extremity, still it shows the wickedness of this scrutiny, and the fatality of its effects as an example for future ministers.

(3.) Little remains for me now to say upon this subject; and I am sure I am unwilling to trespass more upon the House than is barely necessary. I can not, however, omit to make an observation upon an argument of two learned gentlemen, ,27 who concluded two very singular speeches with this very singular position, that the House had only to choose between issuing a new writ or ordering the scrutiny; that in

26 This refers to that system of secret influence with the King, supposed to have commenced with Lord Bute, which was so much complained of at the beginning of this reign. Here Mr. Fox alludes particularly to Lord Temple's communications with the King, respecting the East India Bill, and the events dependent thereon.

27 The Lord Advocate and Mr. Hardinge.

that their opinion was for issuing a new writ.
Now, sir, if I, who think the old writ totally an-
nihilated-who think that its powers and author-
ities have been completely extinct since the 18th
of May-had delivered such an opinion, there
would have been nothing in it inconsistent. And
I should certainly be for issuing a new writ in
preference to a scrutiny, if the law, the reason
of the thing, and the practice of Parliament, did
not convince me that the High Bailiff, having fin-
ished the election on the 17th, might make a re-
turn as of that day. But for the learned gentle-
men who contend that the old writ is still in full
vigor and force; who think that the High Bailiff
has acted constitutionally and legally, and that a
scrutiny may go on after the return of the writ—
for those gentlemen to assert that the issuing a
new one would be the fitter measure, is indeed
extraordinary. But, sir, against that position,
that the House might order the scrutiny to pro-
ceed, as a measure of lenity, I beg leave directly
to oppose myself! I beg leave to deprecate such
lenity, such oppressive, such cruel lenity!

To issue a new writ is a severe injustice, and
a great hardship; but if I am forced to the altern-
ative, if I am driven to the necessity of choosing
between two evils, I do implore the House rather
to issue a new writ than to order this scrutiny.
Nothing can possibly be half so injurious, half so
burdensome, half so vexatious to me and to my
friends, as this scrutiny; and it is evidently inef-
fectual, as it can not be supposed that I should
finally submit to the decision of a tribunal from
which I have so little justice to expect. There
is nothing, I assure the House, to which I should
not rather resort than to the conscience of Mr.
Thomas Corbett; upon whom I do not expect
that the translation of the scene from Covent
Garden to St. Ann's, or proceeding upon a sera-
tiny instead of a poll, will operate such conver-
sions as to give me any hope of his displaying
any other character, or appearing in any other
light than that in which I have seen him upon
many occasions in his official capacity. There-
fore, sir, if it be only the alternative, I beg that
the issuing a new writ may be the alternative
you will adopt. In that case, I assure the hon-
orable gentleman [Mr. Pitt] that I shall immedi-
ately apply to him for one of the Chiltern Hund-
reds to vacate my seat for Kirkwall, and instant-
ly throw myself, as my only chance for the honor
of sitting in this House, upon the good opinion
of the electors of Westminster-who, in a season
of frenzy and general delusion; who, when arti-
fice, fallacy, and imposture prevailed but too suc-
cessfully in other parts of the country, discovered
a sagacity, a firmness, and a steadiness superior
to the effects of a vulgar and silly clamor; and
who, upon the very spot, the very scene of action
manifested that they understood and despised the
hypocrisy, the fraud, and falsehood which guiled
and duped their fellow-subjects in other places.
In the event of a new election, I do anticipate
future triumphs more brilliant, more splendid, if
possible, than those I had lately the honor of en-

joying. Little fear do I feel of success with the electors of Westminster, who will not, I am sure, abandon me until I desert those principles which first recommended me to their favor!

of those by whom I am supported-when I consider that all that artifice could dictate and pow | er could execute have been exerted upon this occasion, I can have no doubt that the hand of a revengeful government pervades it all. The opposition of such a government upon an election is a discouraging circumstance; and the likelihood of renewing again those events which I have witnessed within the last two months, is indeed a formidable and terrific prospect.

(4.) A person of great rank in this House [Mr. Pitt] has thrown out a hint or threat, I know not which to call it, in a former debate, “that I should not again disturb the peace of the city of Westminster." Good God, sir! did any man ever hear such aggravating, such insulting insinuations? I disturb the peace of Westminster! When I look back, sir, to all the shameful and Is that honorable gentleman not contented with shocking scenes of the Westminster electionbreaking every law, with violating every stat- when I consider that my enemies practiced all ute, with overturning every analogy and every that was possible of injustice, indecency, and precedent, to accomplish this business; but must irreverence in their efforts to overwhelm mehe, at the very moment he thus makes a deep when I consider the gross, the frontless prostibreach in the English Constitution, complete the tution of names too sacred to be mentioned catalogue of injury, by adding pertness and per- when I consider that all the influence of all the sonal contumely to every species of rash and in- various branches of government was employed considerate violence! I, I disturb the peace of against me, in contempt of propriety and defithis city, who have three times had the honor of ance of law-when I consider that a body of representing it in this House! I, who was fa- men was brought, in the appearance of constavored with the free suffrages of its electors, long, bles, to the place of election, under the command long before any of those who lately opposed me of a magistrate, and against the express opinion were ever talked of, ever thought of for such a of all the other magistrates of Westminsterdistinction! Every man qualified to sit in Par-that these constables broke that peace they were liament has a right to offer himself wherever he bound to preserve, and created a riot which thinks proper; and it is indecent, daring, and proved fatal to one of their own body-when I audacious in any man, to insinuate that he ought consider that this was made the pretense of a not to disturb the peace of the place. I there- wanton, and indecent, and unconstitutional introfore hope, sir, that a language so peculiarly false duction of the military, in violation of all that has and unbecoming toward me, and so directly re- been done by our ancestors to keep sacred the pugnant to the genius and spirit of the Constitu- freedom of election-when I consider that the tion, will meet with the disapprobation it de- lives of innocent men were deemed light and serves in this House, as it certainly will be re-trivial impediments to the gratification of that ceived with merited odium and execration out of this House.

implacable spirit of revenge, which appears through the whole of this business-when I consider that several men of the lower order of life, whose only crime was appearing in my interest, were confined for many weeks in a prison, and obliged to stand trial,29 and that others, of the higher rank, ingenious and amiable men, valuable for their qualities, respectable for their characters, distinguished for their abilities, and every way meriting the esteem of mankind, were also attacked without the show of a pretense, and obliged to undergo the ceremony of a public acquittal from the foul crime of murder-when I consider that palpable perjury, and subornation of perjury were employed to accomplish the sanguinary object of this base conspiracy-when I consider that the malignity of my enemies has stopped at nothing, however gross and wicked, to ruin me and all that appeared in my interestwhen I consider all this, sir, I can not, indeed, but look with some anxiety to the circumstance of a new election.

Upon the generous protection of the electors of this city I shall certainly throw myself, in case of a new writ; and, in doing so, sir, well I am aware what a series of various difficulties I have to encounter. Expenses at elections, in despite of every effort to reduce them, still continue most exorbitant; and how ill matched in funds and certain inexhaustible resources I stand with my opponents, is indeed very unnecessary to explain. But, sir, it is not in the article of expenses that I should most dread the operation of that power that sustains my adversaries-that power which discovers itself in characters that can not be mistaken, through every part of this transaction. I must be blind not to see that the hand of government appears throughout this matter. When I consider the extreme care employed in preparing it for the measures which have been taken in this House in consequence of it-when I consider the evident determination not to let it rest here-when I consider the extraordinary zeal and anxiety of particular persons in this House to shelter and to sanctify this High Bailiff when I consider the situation of those who take the lead, and are most active in his vindication-when I consider the indifference 29 They were acquitted on that trial. Mr. O'Bryof my adversaries to the expenses which resulten, who is next referred to, was indicted for murder, from this scrutiny, but which expenses must be but no evidence whatever was produced against a severe stroke upon the spirit and independence him, and he was of course discharged.

I am not, it is well known, sir, of a melancholy complexion, or of a desponding turn of 28 Reference is here made to the use of the King's name by Lord Temple and others, to defeat Mr. Fox.

SPEECH

OF MR. FOX ON THE RUSSIAN ARMAMENT, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 1,

1792.

INTRODUCTION.

THIS was the most galling attack ever made by Mr. Fox on his great antagonist. The circumstances of the case were these. Turkey having commenced war against Russia in 1788, Joseph, Emperor of Austria, espoused the cause of the Russians, and attacked the Turks. At the end of two years, how ever, Joseph died, and his successor, Leopold, being unwilling to continue the contest, resolved on peace. He therefore called in the mediation of England and Prussia at the Congress of Reichenbach; and the three allied powers demanded of the Empress of Russia to unite in making peace on the principle of the status quo, that is, of giving up all the conquests she had gained during the war. To this Catharine strongly objected, and urged the formation of a new Christian kingdom out of the Turkish provinces of Bessarabia, Moldavia, and Wallachia, over which her grandson Constantine was expected to be ruler. This the allied powers refused, on the ground of its giving too great a preponderance to Russia: and the Empress, being unable to resist so strong an alliance, consented finally to relinquish all her cunquests, with the exception of the fortress of Oczakow (pronounced Otchakoff“), at the mouth of the Dnie