matory a manner. He must, however, notwithstanding his own disapprobation of such language, do the right hon. gentleman the justice to acknowledge, that he was convinced he must have had some public good in view in what he uttered, for he could not possibly conceive any personal motive for introducing certain topics which had been made use of; he had accordingly delivered his sentiments fully and clearly, notwithstanding the disagreeable feelings to which they must have given rise, and in defiance of that sharpest of all stings, his own invective. He had in the plainest and most unequivocal manner declared, that no enemy to the British empire could possibly accomplish his malicious designs against it in so effectual a manner as by impressing the sister kingdoms with an idea that their interests were incompatible, and that the advantage of one must naturally imply the detriment of the other. He must, on the present occasion, beg leave to bring back the recollection of the House to the origin of such a doctrine, and to point out, that during the discussion of the whole of the Irish business, while he and his friends uniformly endeavoured to argue on the grounds of mutual and reciprocal advantage to each kingdom, they were answered from the other side of the House by arguments which had for their backs nothing else but this now reprobated idea of the incompatibility of English and Irish interests, from whence it was inferred that an arrangement to benefit one country must proportionably injure the other. The right hon. gentleman had ventured reprehensibly far, indeed, by saying that the two countries were in a situation similar to that which precedes the commencement of war -one having made demands, with which the other had refused to comply. Mr. Pitt concluded by remarking, that no person could have lamented more sincerely than himself over the failure of the Irish negociation; expressing, at the same time, how fervently he had hoped that Great Britain might, upon the broad basis of mutual advantages, have transmitted to the sister kingdom a full share of her commercial felicities.

Mr. Fox replied, that he felt it difficult to avoid smiling at the absurdity of the right hon. gentleman's arguments respecting the accession of Hanover to the Germanic league; as it was obvious that the regency of Hanover ought neither to form laws nor enter into any treaties which

I:

ΓΕ

a

P

t

t

might prove injurious to Great Britain, consequently it behoved the ministers of this country to have prevented their en- 1: tering into any alliances which might in t volve serious consequences to the interests m of England. If Hanover, through this ti mistaken policy, should sustain a detri ment, it naturally followed that Great Britain must become her guarantee. Such was the drift of his argument; and he only had contended that ministers were not warranted, by any plea or pretended exigency whatever, to disable Great Britain from acting subsequently with the Emperor, provided a co-operation of this nature should appear the most likely to advance the interests of the former. And, surely, the right hon. gentleman would not presume to run lengths to which no former ministers had proceeded, and disavow the fullest responsibility for all the counsels which he might give his Royal Master in his character of Elector of Hanover. The right hon. gentleman seemed eager to meet his arguments with unjusti fiable misrepresentation; and therefore he must desire him to bear in mind, that when he said that he could speak more freely concerning our particular connexions with foreign powers than if he were a minister, he did not (in fact, he could not) mean, even in the most distant manner, to drop the slightest intimation that he was more entitled than the right hon. gentleman to utter words, including an unpardonable tendency to wound the interests of his country. The fullest scope of his allusion was, that he felt himself warranted to mention France as the natural enemy of Great Britain, in terms more open and unguarded than those consistent with the reserve which, upon principles of decent policy, a minister was under the necessity of maintaining.

Mr. Francis said, that some things, which had fallen from Mr. Pitt, compelled him to request the attention of the House for a few minutes. That Mr. Pitt, in speaking of our affairs in India, had advanced many favourable assertions concerning them, which he could assure the House were utterly groundless: that the reverse of every thing which Mr. Pitt had affirmed was the truth, and that he would prove it to be so from authority. That the House had often heard the same sort of language from Mr. Pitt: that, in former times, he might have been excusable in holding out hopes and promises, on which it was possible he himself might have de

C

ย

h

S

i

1

thought otherwise, his conduct would have been the same. That it was very remarkable that, while he had done his utmost to oppose the Bill, the persons who supported it most strenuously, and who in effect carried it into a law, were the friends, the relations, and the companions of those against whom the law was to operate; that it was shameful to see the same persons, who, if wealth implied guilt, were the most guilty, who had returned from India loaded with fortune, and now sat in parliament secure against all inquiry to see these very persons making laws to restrain and punish, with unheard-of severity, others, at least as meritorious as themselves, and certainly more innocent, that is, as far as poverty implies innocence. That the only persons upon whom the law would bear, and against whom it would operate, were those who had not acquired fortune enough to leave India before the time limited by the Act for the commencement of the inquisition; whereas to all those who had already acquired fortune enough to be able to come to England before January 1787, this boasted law held out indulgence, security, and protection; that is, it deferred the exertion and application of all its rigour, until those who ought to be the objects of its severity had put themselves under shelter, and out of the reach of in quiry. Mr. Francis said, that while the Bill was depending, he had spoken of it with a detestation and abhorrence which it might not be decent to apply to an existing law but he hoped, that before the end of the present session, he should see some attempt made to repeal this law entirely, or, if that could not be obtained, at least to repeal that part of it which invaded the rights and attacked the freedom of the nation at large: that he stood upon the viæ antiquæ of the constitution, the unalienable right of every Englishman to a trial by his peers; that Mr. Pitt had endeavoured to abolish the trial by jury in one instance, and defend it by arguments which would equally apply to other cases and other classes of men. That these were the steps by which the worst principles were gradually established, and the best political institutions sooner or later subverted. That the fact itself was dangerous, and the doctrines by which it was supported equally weak and profligate.

Mr. Dundas rose to contradict Mr. Francis's statement of the Bengal revenues, and pledged himself at a proper time

to enter into that discussion, and to prove that all he had said on that part of the subject was incorrect.

After some further conversation, the earl of Surrey's Amendment was nega tived, and the original Address agreed to.

Jan. 25. The report of the Address being brought up,

Mr. Fox said, that as the observations which he should beg leave to make, bore an affinity to his remarks on the preceding day, they would all lie within a narrow compass. Recent in the memory of the House were his two questions to a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Pitt). To one of these he had given a precise and clear answer; to the other he had not spoken in terms equally unambiguous; and, as that was a question of infinite importance to the interests of the country, it was his duty to endeavour, if possible, to obtain such an answer as should remove all doubt and difficulty. What he alluded to was, the particular degree in which ministers held Great Britain to be committed, as to any future consequences that might arise from the effect of the league entered into by the elector of Hanover with the elector of Saxony, the king of Prussia, and other Germanic princes. He was aware, that the right hon. gentleman at the head of his Majesty's councils had disclaimed all responsibility for the wisdom and policy of the measure, had stated it to be a separate and distinct transaction from any British concern, and had declared that Great Britain was not committed as to her future conduct, should the league be productive of disturbances in the empire, in which her interests might call her into action. If this was really and truly the case, and Great Britain was not affected at all by the league, the more clearly it was known to that House, to the public, and to all Europe, the better; because, however well we understood the distinction between Great Britain and the electorate of Hanover, as separate states, it was not a very easy matter to teach foreign Powers to understand the same discrimination. A variety of possible cases existed in which it would be almost out of the power of this country to adhere to any such distinction in practice, however clearly it might be defined in theory. It might, hereafter, happen that circumstances would make it an essential policy in Great Britain to join the Court of Vienna, and to proceed in counteraction of the league.

well as that House, might be certain that Great Britain was not committed as to any part which her policy might dictate to her as most advisable to pursue hereafter, in the case of a war in Germany, the right hon. gentleman, who had on the foregoing day disclaimed all responsibility for the wisdom and policy of the measure in question, might come down to the House, on a subsequent occasion, and make that very measure, respecting which the British Parliament was excluded from all inquiry and control, the ground of an application for additional supplies. Mr. Fox concluded, by observing, that he never spoke concerning a point of state with less reluctance, persuaded that, on the present occasion, he neither divulged a secret, nor gave the slightest wound to the security and interests of the nation.

In that case, as all treaties were offensive | in their effect, though nominally defensive, a war between the parties to the league and its opponents might probably arise. Granting the likelihood of such a war, could the British troops act against those of Hanover? Or, to make the case stronger, and yet to put a possible case, suppose the elector of Hanover were to head his troops in person, (and they were all aware that it was not a new thing for an elector of Hanover to take the command in the field) who would say that the British army could be directed to act hostilely against troops led by their sovereign in the character of elector of Hanover? The supposition teemed with the grossest absurdity, and it was to shew the extraordinary predicament into which the elector of Hanover's becoming a party to a league of the nature in question, and without the advice of a minister responsible for his conduct to that House, might draw Great Britain, and involve its interests, that he brought forward such unaccountable cases. One historical example would strengthen the argument which he had used, and prove beyond all doubt the mischiefs to which this country was liable to become exposed, by considering herself as wholly independent of the interests of Hanover. The case to which he alluded, was that of George 1, who, by his treaty with Denmark for the sale of Bremen and Verden, drew down upon him the vengeance of Sweden; and the consequence was, that this country had been threatened with an invasion, the most alarming, and the most dangerous to the liberties of Englishmen, of any it ever had occasion to expect. General Stanhope, at that time the minister of the Crown, had, when the treaty was first heard of, come down to that House, and used precisely the same sort of language as that uttered by the right hon. gentleman on the preceding day. He had talked of the separate and distinct interests of Great Britain and Hanover, and had said that the British Parliament had nothing to do with the conduct of his Majesty respecting his electoral dominions. But what was the consequence? The very next year, general Stanhope, who held this language, came down to the House, and urged the expenses which his Majesty had incurred on account of his purchase as a plea for calling for additional supplies. If the matter were not now fully and clearly ascertained, so that foreign powers, as [VOL. XXV.]

Mr. Pitt replied, that if he felt astonishment, on the preceding day, in discovering that the right hon. gentleman had used no arguments which he could have wished to coincide with, he was now overwhelmed by surprise to find his reasoning still more unworthy of an imitation. The right hon. gentleman had himself admitted, that there were subjects on which ministers could not with propriety be so explicit as indifferent members of the House. For his part, he conceived that, although a cautious delicacy in speaking on the subjects of foreign politics was one part of the duty of ministers, yet it was a duty which also belonged to every member of parliament, nay, to every good citizen; however in each it might differ in degree, its nature was the same in all. It was, notwithstanding, as he apprehended, peculiarly improper for a gentleman, who had possessed a high official situation, and by whom the foreign concerns of this country had been administered, to indulge in such a latitude. In the debate of the preceding day the right hon. gentleman had gone, in his opinion, to most improper lengths; but on this day he had discovered, that he had not gone far enough, and had therefore resumed the subject, in order, that as he had before displayed his ingenuity and acuteness, he might now prove equally distinguished for his information and his judgment. He had accordingly metho dized his argument, and had brought it to a specific point. He had first laid it down that it would be a prejudice to this country, should the princes of Europe consider her as bound by the treaty to which Hanover [3 U]

had acceded, and yet he had exercised the whole strength of his abilities to perplex the argument, and to prove that she was in fact thus absolutely bound. How he could justify his intentions in this acknowledgment, and in this endeavour, he could not foresee: for, surely if it were indeed prejudicial to this country, that it should be understood she was concluded by the act of the ministry of Hanover, that very circumstance ought to be a sufficient reason for every friend to Great Britain to endeavour, as much as possible, to enforce the doctrine, that she was not so concluded. It was difficult to reconcile the caution of the right hon. gentleman to prevent this country being on any occasion embroiled for Hanover, with his attempt to make the ministers of Great Britain responsible for the government and politics of that country. If that were done, it would become a limb and member of the British empire, and as such would be entitled to demand protection. Should the ministers of England interfere to prevent those of Hanover from forming such alliances and confederacies as they saw necessary for her safety, would they not have every right to demand, in case of future wars or dangers, the assistance of that country who had prevented them from arming themselves with allies and with friends, and would not this country be bound to assist them to the last extremity? And what could be more ridiculous than the idea of the right hon. gentleman, that the method of securing the friendship of the Imperial Court, was by putting ourselves into the necessity of interfering in German politics, and abandoning that option of neutrality, which, standing as we did now, detached from the government of Hanover, it was in our power to make?

Mr. Fox reprobated the uncandid misrepresentation which the right hon. gentleman had put upon his arguments, striving to prove his deviation from the character of a good citizen. Did the right hon. gentleman imagine, that the facts upon which he had reasoned were any secret, or that any of the European powers needed to send here for information respecting their nature? The contrary was notoriously the case; the circumstances to which he alluded in argument were well known. Let the right hon. gentleman recollect the style of the different letters sent from the Courts of London, Versailles, and Petersburgh, to the king

of Prussia, on the subject of the league, stating that the Court of Versailles had sent letter, couched in terms of civility, and implying something like an approbation of the league, and that the Court of Petersburg had sent one, full of civility, but expressing extreme regret that any such league had been entered into in conse quence of groundless doubts and ill. founded jealousies. Into how strange a situation must Great Britain fall, should a war in Germany be the consequence, and should she find it her interest to connect herself with the two Imperial Courts ! Could she, with any decency, charge the elector of Hanover with having joined in a league formed upon groundless doubts and ill-founded jealousies?

After some further conversation, the Address was agreed to by the House.

The King's Answer to the Commons' Address.] To the Address of the Commons, his Majesty returned this Answer: "Gentlemen;

"I thank you for this very loyal Address. I receive with great satisfaction the assurances of your disposition to enter with zeal and industry into the consideration of those important and salutary objects which I have recommended to your attention."

Debate in the Commons on the Bill for amending the Militia Laws.] Jan. 31. Mr. Marsham moved for leave to bring in a Bill for amending and reducing all the laws relative to the Militia into one Act. He flattered himself that it was scarcely necessary to declare how much he deemed the militia the natural and most constitutional defence of the kingdom. A friend to it in the strictest sense of the expression, he wished to find it equally the favourite of the whole House, and was persuaded that nothing could prove so prejudicial to the service as treating it with indifference. A set of gentlemen, who, like himself, had served in the militia, and were persuaded of its great con sequence, had, with him, directed their attention closely to the subject, and exerted their endeavours, towards discovering the best possible means of preserving it upon a respectable and useful footing; and with such views, and under such circumstances, should he bring forward his motion. On this occasion, candour obliged him to declare, that he did not believe it possible to find any minister who would receive a pro