sertion had any foundation he could never tention. The expressions he alluded to were these:" The object of government in proposing to vote the present force, has two purposes in view, viz. to repel national insult and hostile aggression. He did not object to this use of the force. What he disliked was, that these expressions narrowed too much the effect which might be otherwise expected from it. Were we to vote 130,000 men merely for the purpose of sitting still till the French armies had actually invaded us? Too many of those who spoke on this subject seemed to be of that opinion. Such, however, has rarely been the mode of arguing adopted by that House, nor could he believe that the force now proposed would be limited to the simple purpose of resisting the invasion of the enemy-[a cry of hear! hear! from the treasury bench]. The hon. gentleman professed himself happy in hearing that expression of approbation. He hoped ministers would avail themselves Lord Hawkesbury contended, that every of the force placed at their disposal, to part of the conduct of government had speak a language to France, which should fully explained the system they had have its due impression. The present go- adopted, as far as had been usual, with vernment of France, if such language was regard to foreign affairs. It was not conheld out to them, would see the necessity sistent with the general practice of the of avoiding what might be fatal to them. constitution, to bring the details of such To forbear holding a firm and determined discussions before parliament, unless milanguage, was only encouraging the first nisters called for some vote or opinion consul to persist in his present wild career founded upon those details. It had been of conquest and aggrandizement. He felt maintained, that even when a general much struck with the language held of late case had been made out by ministers, upon the subject of continental alliances. without the production of the details, they Were it our intention to look for an alli- had a right to call for the support of par ance with any great power on the conti- liament. This was the case at the period nent, it was no doubt our duty to examine of the Russian armament, and it was how far such a power might be able or afterwards said, on the other side of the willing to co-operate with us effectually; House, that while the question was in and when the continental powers saw that discussion they had not inquired, but we intended to concentre the whole of our that when ministers called for a direct force within our own island, and merely vote, they had a right to give the House for our own defence, what encouragement full information upon the subject. With could they feel to form an alliance with respect to the general system adopted by us? But his surprise was raised to an ex-ministers, it had been asserted, that it was traordinary_degree, when he observed a man (Mr. Fox) whose opinion must always have so much weight in the country, broach doctrines so novel on this topic, and so inconsistent with his former sentiments. When the fate of the king of Sardinia was introduced into a late debate, that hon. gentleman had asked whose fault it was that the king of Sardinia was not restored? Was it the fault of France? no; he had said, it was the fault of Austria, that opposed his restoration, lest it should be purchased at the expense of her Venetian territories. That such an as impossible to understand what that system was; as if ministers had never explained themselves upon the general principle of their conduct to France and other powers. He ought, perhaps, upon this subject, to refer to authentic documents, such as the speeches from the throne, and the addresses of that House; but from the nature of those records, they must be taken subject to the explanation of his majesty's confidential servants. It was impossible, in a speech or message from the throne, to enter into such a minute detail as would be necessary for the full explanation of the refer to the king's speech at the opening of the present session. This speech was conformable to the address to which he had before alluded; it maintained the same principles, and held the same language. As far, therefore, as language went, the system of the king's government had been explicitly avowed. The right hon. gentleman might assert, that ministers had not acted upon that system, that they had gone beyond, or had fallen short of it; but he had no right to say that they had not laid down any system. He should have thought, that upon the general principle of continental alliances subject; but he admitted, that in those documents the general principle of the measure proposed ought always to be found. He was ready to contend, that it was impossible to conceive (as far as the circumstance would admit) a more complete explanation of the system which government had adopted, than was to be found in an amendinent which he had moved to an address proposed last session by an hon. friend of his. He wished to ask any gentleman the meaning he would put upon the words of that amend ment. It contained two propositions, which he did not mean to say could be separated entirely, but which were, how-it was almost unnecessary for him to make ever, in some degree distinct. The right hon. gentleman complained, that ministers had not explained whether they would interfere with the continental powers; his answer was, that that point was completely explained in the amendment he had read. He begged shortly to call the attention of the House to the late treaty, and to the address to which he had alluded. When other treaties of peace were concluded, the country negotiated for peace in conjunction with other powers; but when the late treaty was concluded, every power on the continent had been induced or compelled to make separate treaties of peace. We were by those circumstances insulated, and forced to make a separate peace, unconnected with any of the continental powers. His majesty's ministers rested the defence of that treaty upon the circumstances under which it had been proposed and concluded. They stated the line of conduct they had adopted in consequence of the unfortunate events which had happened on the continent; but they at the same time stated, that, so far from abandoning all continental connexions, it must always form a part of the system of this country. If he was asked for the application of that principle, his answer would be, that the application of it must depend upon circumstances and events; they had therefore engrafted that principle into the address to which he had alluded. That address, therefore, contained the system which the king's ministers had adopted, viz. that they would defend our own empire against all encroachments, and look with vigilance to the state of the continent. They had not attempted to define minutely what that line of conduct would be, because it must always be governed by circumstances. If this record wanted any confirmation, he might any profession. Whenever he had spoken was able, according to circumstances, circumscribed by prudence and wisdom. Insinuations had been thrown out, that this country had met with nothing but treachery and breach of faith from our allies, and that assertion had been particularly exemplified in the case of Austria. If we were to look at that country throughout the whole course of the war, there were periods when that power not only displayed the most inflexible fidelity to her engagements, but the most heroic resolution. She did not conclude the treaties of Leoben or Luneville, till the very last extremity; and when she was prevented by the pressure of circumstances from sending a minister for the purpose of obtaining our consent, which consent, if she had asked, we could not for a moment have refused. Before the conclusion of the last treaty, she showed a degree of fidelity to her engagements with us that never was surpassed; for after the battle of Marengo, she was strongly and repeatedly urged by France to conclude a separate treaty, and terms were offered much more favourable than she afterwards obtained. Notwithstanding every effort on the part of France, Austria would not make peace till she was compelled by the fatal battle of Hohenlinden. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Fox) seemed to think that no change which had taken place in the situation of Europe required an increase in our establishment. could not be denied that the great extent of coast which France had now obtained, and the number of harbours which she had acquired, must make a great difference in our relative situation. It had been said, that the House of Bourbon were actuated by the same motives of ambition with the revolutionary governments of France, and were as much disposed to violate treaties as any government whatever. This was true to a certain extent; and he was as ready as any man to condemn this part of the policy of the House of Bourbon. But it was necessary to consider not only their will, but their power to do mischief. The present government of France had the power of doing things which the House of Bourbon, whatever its disposition might be, had not the means to accomplish. A great deal had been said, about persons looking only at measures and not at men : he confessed he was very much inclined to consider this as mere cant and hypocrisy, or at least as proceeding from he looked into the examples contained in history upon this point, he was compelled to draw a very different inference from that which had been drawn by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Canning) on a former occasion. It had been asserted, that we had often been involved in wars by continental alliances; but it remained to be proved, that any of the wars in which we had been engaged had arisen from these alliances. The fact was directly the reverse. In no war which we had undertaken since the Revolution, had we engaged in it in consequence of continental alliances. It might perhaps be said, that we entered into the late war in consequence of an engagement with Holland respecting the opening of the Scheldt; but it must be admitted, that that only formed a part of the general question. He therefore thought it important, that we should not suffer ourselves to be carried away by any general cry that might be raised upon the subject, without ascertaining the facts.-But there was another point to consider, and that was a material one. He wished the House to recollect in what wars we had continental connexions, and in what wars we had not, and to compare the result. The only war in which we had been engaged since the Revolution, in which we had not had any continental alliances was the American war, and that was the only war in which we were not successful. It was true, that in other wars we had sometimes failed, as far as they related to continental objects; but as far as British interests were concerned, we had been constantly successful, except only in the case of the American war. With this view of the subject, he was not disposed to renounce the opinion he had formerly entertained upon it; at the same time he was ready to admit, that there ought to be great prudence used in entering into continental alliances, not only with respect to the connexions themselves, but to the engagements we entered into. We ought not to enter into engagements so loose and so generally worded, as might, in the application of them, defeat their own object; and he also thought, that care ought to be taken not to pledge the country too deeply, because circumstances were frequently liable to change. He had no difficulty in saying, that he should not think he should do his duty, if, maintaining the general principle, he should not endeavour to give it effect whenever he t It in the constitution, while they maintained their own privileges; and to the opinion of parliament his majesty's ministers would always submit themselves whenever it was expressed. ignorance. In one sense, and to a certain degree, they must go together. If any gentleman brought a charge against ministers, it was absurd to suppose that a man could condemn measures, and not wish to remove the men by whom they were adopted. If that House were to agree in a resolution to censure the conduct of ministers, it ought to be followed up with a motion for the removal of those ministers. Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose, that the system of ministers could be disapproved of, and yet that they ought to be kept in office, in hopes that they would adopt a line of conduct contrary to that of which they were known to approve. But this principle had been pushed a little farther, and to an extent to which he could not assent. If a gentleman said he disapproved of the measures of administration, and therefore he would, if possible, remove the ministers, he could understand him; it was fair, constitutional language. The right of that House to address his majesty to remove his ministers, on proper grounds, was incontestable; but to suppose that the House had a right to remove ministers without assigning any public ground whatever, was inconsistent with every principle of the constitution. It would take from the crown the right of choosing its own servants, and make the office of minister the subject of personal canvass. It is true, that in 1784, there was an address to remove ministers, without any charge against their public conduct; but even in that case there was an allegation of their having come improperly into office, though that was found by no means to be the public opinion. He wished merely to be tried by his public conduct; and he could answer for himself, and he believed for his colleagues, that if parliament disapproved of their measures, they would not wish to continue one moment longer in office. If their measures were not found to be consistent with the honour and interests of the country, they would not attempt to set up prerogative against privilege, in any case where the exercise of the latter was really constitutional. If the king had the nomination of his ministers, parliament ought to control them, to watch over them, and to examine their measures, and upon this principal the safety of the constitution depended. He hoped that parliament would always endeavour to preserve to the crown its proper place [VOL. XXXVI.] Sir Francis Burdett said, he agreed with Mr. Grenville, that when, in answer to the just objections which had been urged to this unprecedented military establishment, ministers stated, that the unprecedented situation of the country called for it, they ought to have brought down some communication from the throne as to the nature of that situation. In reference to the hon. gen tleman's arguments on the subject of the balance of power, that hon. gentleman had thought proper to denominate that a new doctrine which was very old indeed, namely, that which had been maintained on a former evening by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce), and in which he most perfectly concurred. It had been mentioned that that hon. gentleman had argued that we should not at all interfere with the affairs of the continent, but confine ourselves entirely to our insular situation. That opinion he believed to be overstated. That hon. gentleman had argued thus-that we should not be forward to provoke continental quarrels ; that we should not form such connexions as would be likely to involve us in such quarrels; and that, though policy or interest might urge us to take a share in their disputes, we should never be the first to attack. Such had been the decided opinion of some of our ablest statesmen, by whon. it was uniformly held, that if we should have any thing to do in continental contests, it should never be as principals; that we might become rather arbiters if necessary; that if we interfered, it should be for the purpose of throwing weight into the scale, but not to exhaust our strength. For his part, he had no objection to the principle of the balance of power, subject to these modifications, but he had the strongest objections to the use which had been generally made of that principle. It was too generally the apology which ministers had resorted to for going to war. It was the pretence for throwing dust in the eyes of the country, for it appeared to him impossible to make such a war, a war of the people; the object of it could not be made intelligible to their comprehension, as being materially connected with their interests. Much had been said in the course of the debate [4 B] of the talents of the right hon. gentleman at the head of the late administration. However unpleasant it might be to censure any man in his absence, he must observe, that the whole of the consequences of which the hon. gentleman and his friends were so fond of drawing such gloomy descriptions, arose from the measures of the late ministers, assisted by their active cooperation. This part of their language was not less inconsistent than that of recommending the return of the same man to office who supported the "disastrous peace they so vehemently reprobated, and they had also the confidence to assert; that this return was desired by the country. Now, if public opinion was to be attended to, he had no hesitation in maintaining that that opinion was decidedly adverse to such a change. From all he could learn, no minister was ever more completely covered with public indignation and hatred, than the right hon. gentleman alluded to.-A vote for 60,000 soldiers would not alarm him so much, if it were not accompanied by barracks and all those other appendages of a standing army; if it formed not a part of that system which, fatally for the interests of the crown itself, tended to break those constitutional springs which kept up the spirit of the people, which would attach them warmly to their government, and render them ready to defend them from any attack. He had heard much of the economy of ministers; but in his judgment they were beginning the work of reform at the wrong end. In looking over the pension-list, and perusing the number of marriage settlements for earls' daughters, and annuities for the wives of treasury clerks, which it contained,it was enough to make the eyes of any plain Englishman ache. If there really was a necessity for this increased establishment, that necessity was among the legacies which the late ministers left the country. They reduced it to such a situation, that according to the confession of their active friends, a state of war would be dangerous, and yet peace is unattended by security. No state of society could be imagined more discouraging, and such was the consequence of the mischievous system so long and so obstinately persisted in by the late ministers! It had been well observed by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce), that without the affections of the people, no establishment could protect the country; no degree of talents could conciliate that affection, or could excite a proper spirit. No. That could only be done by abolishing solitary cells, barracks, and useless pensions-but above all, the people must be adequately represented in parliament. Policy and interest should urge that at the present crisis, which honesty and justice would recommend in any circumstances. To restore our ancient institutions, to replace those old land-marks which the violence of the late ministers removed, was the way to recover that public spirit which is the only sure defence of a country. With regard to the remarks which have been made on measures and men, and the illustration adduced respecting horses and harness, he should say, that if the harness were good, even though the horses were bad, the carriage would be drawn in safety; but if the latter were ever so good and the former bad, the safe movement of the carriage would be endangered. However, it would be much better that both should be good. He should like good men and good measures; and he really did not think either the late or present ministers fit to govern the country. To the present he was not disposed to say any thing harsh, [because it was neither provoked nor justified; but he could not help saying, that they did not possess the confidence of the country. Perhaps the colossal power of France, now so much dreaded, might ere long fall to pieces; but, as an Englishman, he did not feel it right to rely on that calculation. Supposing that power solid and secure, he would wish to provide for the protection of this country, and its best protection would consist in strong measures of defence. Those measures, in his judgment, should be, a strong parliament (including a fair representation of the country), strong councils, and above all, a strong and united people. Mr. I. H. Browne combated the arguments of the hon. baronet, respecting the late and present ministers; and gave it as his decided opinion, that Mr. Pitt had been the means, by his great talents and wise measures, of saving both the constitution and the country from utter ruin; and that but for him the Speaker would not now be sitting in the chair of that House. He defended the present establishment, and said it should have his support; and he felt no check to his confidence in voting such a force, to strengthen the hands of those ministers |