Book.dgJUSl 
 
SELECT SPEECHES 
 
 
 RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE CANNING; 
 
 A PRELIMINARY BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH, 
 
 AN APPENDIX, 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM HIS WRITINGS AND SPEECHES. 
 
 EDITED BY ROBERT WAtSH. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 PUBLISHED BY KEY AND BIDDLE. 
 1835. 
 
^v 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 i'^ 
 
 Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1835, by 
 
 Key and Biddle, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON, 
 PHILADKLFHiA. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 All the Speeches in this collection were revised by- 
 Mr. Canning. The London edition of his Speeches 
 consists of six octavo volumes, the first of which contains 
 a copious and authentic memoir of his life. It was 
 originally the design of the American editor to furnish an 
 entirely new biography, more minute and comprehensive, 
 with critical notes on the oratory and political career of 
 Mr. Canning. But he has found the proper execution of 
 this plan impracticable, consistently with the limits of 
 this publication, and the paramount object of including 
 all the master-pieces of the orator, and the specimens 
 which form the Appendix. He has added to the 
 speeches adopted, some of Canning's early writings, and 
 remarkable passages of the other principal speeches. 
 The matter preferred is thought to be that which, from 
 various considerations, is most eligible for the American 
 meridian. Mr. Canning frequently took part in the 
 debates on the Catholic question, and always with signal 
 superiority of eloquence and liberality of sentiment. 
 A sufficient specimen is given in this volume of his 
 powers and feelings on that subject. A consummate 
 lawyer might be proud of his argument on the Roman 
 
 Catholic Peers' bill, which is indeed admirable through- 
 
 3 
 
4 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 out for dialectics and style ; but an extract from it has 
 been deemed enough. He treated the questions of free 
 trade, the corn laws, and currency, and others merely 
 economical, with unsurpassed abihty and effect ; in all 
 discussions of strict party and personal politics, he was 
 without an equal. His election and dinner speeches, 
 which are separated in our volume from his parliament- 
 ary efforts, possess as much merit of every kind as any 
 of his productions, and transcend altogether any similar 
 effusions extant in print. The void which he left as an 
 orator and debater has not been supplied. 
 
 A principal object with the American editor and pub- 
 lishers is to put within the reach of the youth of this coun- 
 try, who must or may become public speakers, the best 
 models of oratory which Great Britain has furnished 
 within the last half century. The same models include 
 so much of the political history of the period, and possess 
 a literary excellence so rare, that they will be deemed an 
 important acquisition by all Americans of general and 
 refined studies. Canning's Speeches hold the first 
 rank among them, and are therefore first given. Those 
 of Wyndham, Huskisson, Mackintosh, Brougham, Peel, 
 and others, alike distinguished, will be issued in the 
 same form and upon the same plan, in case the present 
 volume should win that diffusive favour and patronage 
 to which it would seem to be entitled. 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 George Canning was born in London, on the 11th of April, 
 1770. His family was ancient and respectable. It was origin- 
 ally from Warwickshire in England, but his branch of it had 
 been long settled in Ireland, where the manor of Garvagh, in 
 Londonderry, had been granted by James I. to an ancestor. His 
 father was a gentleman of considerable literary acquirements, and 
 had been called to the bar after studying in the Middle Temple, 
 but his marriage with a dowerless beauty so displeased his parents 
 that he was cut off from the property of which he was the right- 
 ful heir. A bare allowance of £ 1 50 a year was all that was given 
 him, and this he was unable to increase sufficiently to render him- 
 self comfortable. He was unsuccessful in his profession, his tastes 
 and talents rather inclining him to poetry and polite literature 
 than to the unattractive studies of the law. He abandoned 
 it, and became a wine-merchant, but died in April 1771, a year 
 precisely after the birth of his son, before he had effected his ex- 
 trication from the difficulties in which he was involved. Mrs. 
 Canning being thus left destitute, was obliged to exert her talents 
 and accomplishments for the maintenance of herself and child, and 
 went upon the stage. Her success was not brilliant, but it was 
 adequate to give her an independent support. She married a second 
 time, Mr. Hunn, an actor, and soon became again a widow. 
 
 The early education of Mr. Canning was superintended by his 
 guardian and uncle, Mr. Stratford Canning, an eminent London 
 merchant, who died a short time before Mr. Canning went to the 
 university. His scholastic and collegiate expenses, however, were 
 defrayed from a small estate in Ireland, bequeathed to him by his 
 grandfather, who, at the urgent request of his grandmother, was 
 induced to make a settlement upon him, which, although insuffi- 
 cient as a provision for life, was ample as a fund for education. His 
 first academic instruction was received at Hyde Abbey, whence he 
 
 A 2 5 
 
VI BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 was sent to Eton, between twelve and thirteen years of age, and 
 placed in the remove at once as an oppidan. There he soon 
 became conspicuous for the elegance of his Latin and English 
 poetry, as well as for the easy flow and propriety which distin- 
 guished his prose compositions. His contemporaries at Eton de- 
 scribe him as a boy possessed of great quickness in apprehending 
 whatever he undertook to learn ; of a frank, generous, and con- 
 ciliatory disposition ; and of a bold, manly, unflinching spirit: 
 qualities admirably calculated to render him popular in a public 
 school. Although he evinced a superiority of intelligence over 
 his companions, there was nothing precocious in his ascendency, 
 or fallacious and forced in his talent. He possessed great natural 
 capabilities, and these he improved by the most sedulous and suc- 
 cessful cultivation. He laboured hard, sensible that with faculties 
 such as his, nothing would be denied to labour. His assiduity 
 was rather increased and stimulated than diminished, by the con- 
 sciousness of his power; and the success which crowned him was 
 not more the triumph of genius than the patient result of perse- 
 vering industry. The lead which he took when a boy, he main- 
 tained throughout the intellectual emulations of youth, and through 
 the sterner struggles of ambitious and unyielding manhood. At 
 fifteen years of age, he was one of the most distinguished scholars 
 at Eton, and joined with others of his school-fellows in producing 
 a literary work of high classical repute, entitled the Microcosm, 
 the publication of which commenced in 1786. Its appearance 
 forms an epoch in the history of the school. It introduced an 
 improved taste for classical composition, and kept alive the spirit 
 of a generous rivalry, which led to the formation of permanent and 
 worthy friendships. Mr. Canning was its avowed editor, as well 
 as its ablest and most popular supporter. The essays which he 
 contributed were signed "B," and evince a remarkable facility 
 and happiness of expression, together with a vein of sprightly and 
 well-tempered satire. 
 
 In 1788, when in his eighteenth year, Mr. Canning left Eton, 
 and was entered at Christ Church College, Oxford. The fame of 
 his talents had preceded him to the University. There he fully 
 sustained, and even enhanced, his high reputation. Continued 
 habits of persevering industry imparted solidity to the elegance 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL, SKETCH. VII 
 
 of his atttalnments. He won several prizes by compositions, the 
 pure Latinity of which received high and merited commendation 
 from the heads of the University, Here also he contracted some 
 intimacies with eminent men, which endured as long as he lived, 
 and were productive of the greatest advantage to him. Of these, 
 perhaps the most important, so far as relates to his subsequent 
 destiny as a public man, was the friendship which he formed with 
 the late Earl of Liverpool, then Mr. Jenkinson. 
 
 On obtaining a bachelor's degree, Mr. Canning entered himself 
 a Student of Lincoln's Inn, and took chambers there; but he 
 studied the law rather with a view of understanding the principles 
 of the Constitution, than of practising it as a profession. It was 
 whilst he was a student that his acquaintance with Mr. Sheridan, 
 who had previously noticed him as a promising school-boy, ripen- 
 ed into intimacy. The assertion, however, that this distinguished 
 personage was related to him, seems to be entirely a mistake. 
 During the same period also, he greatly augmented the reputation 
 as a speaker which he had acquired at Oxford, by frequenting 
 several private debating societies. It was to the celebrity which 
 he thus obtained, that he owed his introduction to Mr. Pitt. The 
 minister having heard of his talents, communicated to him through 
 a private channel, a desire to see him — a summons with which 
 Mr. Canning readily complied. Mr. Pitt proceeded immediately 
 on their meeting to declare to Mr. Canning the object of his 
 request of an interview with him; which was, to state that he 
 had heard of Mr. Canning's reputation as a scholar and a 
 speaker, and that, if he concurred in the policy which Govern- 
 ment was then pursuing, arrangements would be made to facili- 
 tate his introduction into Parliament. After a full explanation 
 between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Canning, of the feelings of each on all 
 the important public questions of the moment, the result was, on 
 Mr. Canning's part, the determination to connect himself politi- 
 cally with Mr. Pitt; and on the part of Mr. Pitt, the offer of a 
 seat in Parliament. He may have confided this to Mr. Sheridan, 
 or possibly may have consulted him; but even the assertion, so 
 frequently made, that Sheridan's advice mainly influenced him in 
 this important step, is sustained by no competent authority. This 
 acquiescence in the proposal of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Canning's friends 
 
VIII BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 knew to be consistent with his previously avowed and conscien- 
 tious conviction, as, when he had no motives of interest to sway 
 him in adopting that conviction, and very strong ones to dissuade 
 him from it, he had uncompromisingly expressed it in the Whig 
 circle in which he principally moved, and by which, in the ordi- 
 nary course of events, it was natural he should expect to be intro- 
 duced into Parliament. 
 
 It is alike important for the truth of history, and due in justice 
 to the fame of Mr. Canning, to state, that his opinions respecting 
 the French Revolution were formed, and his principles determin- 
 ed, long before a prospect presented itself of his becoming ac- 
 quainted with Mr. Pitt. It is true that his early associates were, 
 for the most part, persons of Whig principles; his uncle, who 
 superintended his education, was an avowed Whig; and his own 
 writings and speeches at the University, breathe warm sentiments 
 in favour of those liberal principles with which the name of that 
 important political party in the state has been identified. The 
 French Revolution, however, was a prodigious event in the his- 
 tory of the world, and was not to be dealt with according to any 
 settled principles, by which Whigs and Tories had hitherto been 
 discriminated in this country. By the leaders of both parties, at 
 its commencement, it was approved; for it is an historical truth, 
 that favourable sentiments towards the French Revolution were 
 at first expressed, not only by Mr. Fox (whose generous nature 
 expanded into a love of freedom in every clime, and prompted him 
 to hail, with enthusiastic ardour, the first efforts of a mighty people, 
 rising in the just assertion of their invaded liberties,) but by Mr. 
 Pitt, whom few persons will suspect of a too sanguine tempera- 
 ment, or of any dangerous ebullition of feeling in favour of free- 
 dom — he too hailed the French Revolution in its origin; and 
 declared his conviction, " that the present convulsions in France 
 must, sooner or later, terminate in general harmony and regular 
 order. Whenever the situation of France should become restored, 
 it would prove freedom rightly understood — freedom resulting 
 from good order and good government; and, thus circumstanced, 
 France would stand forward as one of the most brilliant powers 
 in Europe; she would enjoy that just kind of liberty which he 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. IX 
 
 venerated, and the invaluable existence of which it was his duty, 
 as an Englishman, particularly to cherish." 
 
 In the general exultation which the French Revolution, at its 
 first burst, awakened, even among the temperate advocates of well 
 regulated freedom, throughout Europe, Mr. Canning, with a mind 
 fresh from the contemplation of those heroic achievements in the 
 cause of freedom, which " raised up the Greek and Roman name 
 with such a lustre," sanguinely participated. This admiration, 
 however, was limited to the principle of the necessity of adjusting 
 the inequalities of the political condition of France — of correcting 
 its abuses — and of remodelling and invigorating the institutions 
 which a long series of acts of misgovernment had enfeebled. Mr. 
 Canning's opinions respecting the French Revolution, however, 
 had undergone a change previous to his acquaintance with Mr. 
 Pitt, and it was that change which led to his connexion with Mr. 
 Pitt, and to his determination not to connect himself politically 
 with the Whig party. This determination was strengthened by 
 the course which Mr. Fox and others of the Whigs took about 
 this time, and which produced the separation between Mr. Fox 
 and JNIr. Grey, on the one side, and Mr. Burke and Mr. Wind- 
 ham, on the other; and perhaps the most intelligible and most 
 correct explanation of Mr. Canning's determination not to con- 
 nect himself with the Whig party, but to attach himself to Mr. 
 Pitt, is to state, that his decision was formed upon the same 
 grounds which induced the Duke of Portland, Lord Spencer, Mr. 
 Windham, Mr. Grenville, and those who acted with them, to 
 separate from Mr. Fox, and take oflBce under Mr. Pitt, and at the 
 same period of time, though independently of them, and without 
 any concert. 
 
 "It is questionable," says Mr. Moore, in his Life of Sheridan, 
 " whether, in thus resolving to join the ascendant side, Mr. Can- 
 ning has not conferred a greater benefit on the country, than he 
 ever would have been able to effect in the ranks of his original 
 friends. That party, which has now so long been the sole depos- 
 itary of the power of the state, had, in addition to the original 
 narrowness of its principles, contracted all that proud obstinacy 
 in antiquated error, which is the invariable characteristic of such 
 monopolies ; and which, however consonant with its vocation, as 
 h 
 
X BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 the chosen instrument of the Crown, should have long since in- 
 validattd it in the service of a free and enlightened people. Some 
 infusion of the spirit of the times into this body had become ne- 
 cessary even for its preservation, in the same manner as the in- 
 halement of youthful breath has been recommended by some phy- 
 sicians to the infirm and superannuated. This renovating inspira- 
 tion the genius of Mr. Canning has supplied. His first political 
 lessons were derived from sources too sacred to his young admi- 
 ration to be forgotten. He has carried the spirit of these lessons 
 with him into the councils which he joined, and, by the vigour of 
 the graft, which already, indeed, shows itself in the fruits, bids 
 fair to change altogether the nature of toryism." 
 
 Thus Mr. Canning entered into public life, the avowed pupil 
 of Mr. Pitt. He was returned to Parliament, in 1793, for the 
 borough of Newport in the Isle of Wight. During his first ses- 
 sion, however, he preferred being a mere listener and learner, to 
 making any effort to display his eloquence. It was not until the 
 3 1st of January, 1794, that he ventured to open his lips. The 
 subsidy proposed to be granted to the King of Sardinia was the 
 subject of his maiden speech, which sustained, without materially 
 enhancing, the reputation that he had acquired. 
 
 The Address on the King's Speech, at the opening of the Par- 
 liament, in 1795, was seconded by Mr. Canning, the mover being 
 Sir E. Knatchbull. His speech on this occasion, contains some 
 specimens of eloquence. Mr. Pitt, it is said, spoke of it in the 
 circle of his private friends, and of the admirable address with 
 which it was delivered, as an indication of even greater abilities 
 than fame had awarded to him. 
 
 A short time previous to the dissolution of Parliament in the 
 spring of 1796, Mr. Canning accepted the office of Under Secre- 
 tary for Foreign Affairs to Lord Grenville. The next session he 
 was returned for Wendover, During the session of 1796 and 
 1797, he chiefly confined his attention to the immediate and 
 laborious duties of his office. 
 
 On the 20th of November, 1797, the first number of the Anti- 
 Jacobin Review, or Weekly Examiner, appeared. Of this work 
 Mr. Giffbrd was the Editor, and Mr. Canning the most popular 
 contributor; Lord Seaford, Mr. G. Ellis, Mr. Frere, were also 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH XI 
 
 understood to be powerful supporters of it. The object of the 
 Review was to attack, by ridicule, the principles which were 
 then so disastrously predominant in France, and which active 
 efforts were making to introduce into England. To this the 
 Anti-Jacobin served as a successful check. The pieces attributed 
 to Mr. Canning were characterized by a vein of light, sportive, 
 and satirical humour. " The Knife Grinder," the more elaborate 
 and serious satire of " New Morality," and " The Elegy on the 
 Death of Jean Bon St. Andre," are among the most admired 
 poetical contributions. The exclusive merit of them, however, 
 does not belong to Mr. Canning; indeed it is almost impossible 
 to distinguish the portions which appertain to each author, as most 
 of the poems were joint compositions; and as Mr. Canning avow- 
 ed none of them, none of them can properly be cited as his. Al- 
 though he did not authorize the assertion of his claim to any par- 
 ticular piece, he did not disavow his connexion with the work, 
 nor did he show a disposition at any time to retract any of the 
 sentiments contained in it. He adhered constantly to a declara- 
 tion which he made in Parliament in 1807, " that he felt no shame 
 for the character or principles of the Anti-Jacobin; nor any other 
 sorrow for the share he had had in it, than that which the imper- 
 fection of his pieces was calculated to inspire." 
 
 From his entrance into Parliament, and even before it, Mr. 
 Canning contributed his most assiduous and earnest endeavours to 
 the glorious effort of redeeming humanity from the disgrace, and 
 the British nation from the deep dishonour of the Slave Trade. 
 He was one of the " fearless and faithful few," who resisted the 
 powerful interests opposed to the abolition of this nefarious traffic, 
 at a period when there was the greatest merit — because there was 
 then the greatest difficulty — in resistance. At the outset of Mr. 
 Canning's public life, the Slave Trade was openly and boldly up- 
 held as a source of social strength — as a legitimate and necessary 
 means of national wealth. The abolitionists were libelled as fan- 
 atical enthusiasts; amid misrepresentations of motives, and cal- 
 umnies of conduct, however, he fought the good fight, side by 
 side of the benevolent Wilberforce, and lived to rejoice with him, 
 and with the other good men engaged in the same cause, at the 
 triumoh they had achieved in the cause of afflicted humanity 
 
XII BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 The consummation of this great work of comprehensive benevo 
 lence did not take place until 1824, when, under Mr. Canning's 
 auspices, the Slave Trade Piracy Bill was passed, which made 
 this horrible system of man-stealing a capital felony. Not con- 
 tented with the abolition of the Slave Trade, Mr. Canning was 
 engaged — and it was among the last of his legislative efforts — in 
 devising safe, politic, and efficient measures for the gradual aboli- 
 tion of slavery itself. To no cause was he more anxiously and 
 usefully devoted. 
 
 The union of Great Britain and Ireland was propounded to the 
 English Parliament in 1799. In the discussions upon this most 
 important subject, Mr. Canning took a prominent part. His 
 speeches manifest his conviction that great and substantial advan- 
 tages would accrue to both Ireland and England from the measure, 
 and show, also, as do those of Mr. Pitt, that Catholic Emancipa- 
 tion was held out in terms too plain to be mistaken as an induce- 
 ment to the Irish. Many long years elapsed before the promise 
 thus made was performed, and imputations of the most discredit- 
 able kind have been cast, in consequence, upon the two statesmen; 
 but, although they may not have acted with sufficient energy af- 
 terwards, there is no evidence that they were insincere in their 
 conduct. Mr. Canning was a constant advocate of the claim, and 
 its ultimate triumph was doubtless owing greatly to his exertions. 
 The ground on which he supported it was that of expediency, and 
 not of abstract right. 
 
 In July, 1800, Mr. Canning was married to Miss Joan Scott, 
 daughter and co-heiress of General Scott, the elder sister having 
 married a short time previously the Marquis of Titchfield, now 
 Duke of Portland. This alliance was highly advantageous to him. 
 The society of the lady rendered him happy; her fortune made 
 him independent, gave weight and authority to his talents, and 
 facilitated his advancement to those high stations in the Govern- 
 ment of the countr}'^, to which, by the exercise of those talents, 
 he had vindicated his qualifications. 
 
 Early in 1801, the disappointment of Mr. Pitt, in all his efforts 
 to induce the King to confirm the expectation which had been 
 held out to the Catholics of Ireland at the era of the union, led 
 to the resignation of that minister and the dissolution of his 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. XIII 
 
 administration. Several poetic effusions, decrying the administra- 
 tion of Mr. Addington, who succeeded Mr. Pitt as Premier, were 
 erroneously attributed to Mr. Canning. With the exception of 
 the song " The Pilot that Weather'd the Storm," which he wrote 
 for the first meeting of the Pitt Club — an association which he 
 was mainly instrumental in forming — none of the poetical pieces 
 on political subjects that appeared at this period, are ascribable to 
 his pen. 
 
 Until the dissolution of Parliament in 1802, Mr. Canning pur- 
 sued a sort of neutral course. He abstained altogether from par- 
 liamentary effort, with the exception of his motion concerning 
 Trinidad. He could not reconcile it to his opinion, to support 
 Mr. Addington, although Mr. Pitt gave him his aid, and wished 
 his friends to do so likewise. But on the other hand, having 
 obtained his seat through Mr. Pitt's influence, he did not think it 
 right to oppose Mr. Addington in Parliament. After the disso- 
 lution, however, when he acquired a seat by his own means, he 
 engaged in an active opposition. On the renewal of hostilities 
 with France, he supported Mr. Pitt's policy of vigorously prose- 
 cuting the war; but even in reference to this policy, he carefully 
 distinguished between the measures and the men who recom- 
 mended them to Parliament, and more than once pretty intelligi- 
 bly suggested that, to give due efficacy to these measures, it was 
 expedient that the execution of them should be entrusted to other 
 hands. 
 
 On the 12th of October, 1801, the ratifications of the prelimi- 
 naries of peace which were the basis of the definitive treaty of 
 Amiens, were exchanged in London between Lord Hawkesbury 
 and M. Otto. In the discussions which took place in reference 
 to those measures, Mr. Canning interfered no further than by a 
 slight allusion to the preliminaries, in the exordium of a speech on 
 the cultivation of the island of Trinidad, a subject to which he had 
 devoted his early attention, with a view of promoting his favourite 
 measure, the abolition of the Slave trade. 
 
 In 1803, Mr. Canning supported a series of resolutions, moved 
 by Mr. Patton, containing aggravated charges of misconduct 
 against ministers. In his speech on this occasion, he declared, in 
 no equivocal terms, that the ministers were unworthy the confi- 
 
 B 
 
XIV BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 dence of the country, and incapable of administering its affairs. 
 This speech is also remarkable, as being the only one pronounced 
 by him in opposition to Mr. Pitt. It was calculated, however, 
 rather to conciliate than to displease his friend, by the deference 
 with which he differed from him, and the manner in which he 
 pointed him out as the person best qualified at that crisis, to oc- 
 cupy the place of Mr. Addington, 
 
 The part which Mr. Canning took in the ensuing session of 
 Parliament, on the motion for inquiring into the conduct of the 
 Irish government, evinces the same deep interest that pervades 
 all his speeches in questions connected with the misguided policy 
 pursued towards that country. 
 
 The conduct of France, in the early part of the year 1803, 
 threatened the immediate end of hostilities. His apprehension 
 was excited by the military and naval preparations carried on in 
 the ports of Holland, which led to the adoption of additional pre- 
 cautions on the part of England. The posture of European poli- 
 tics at this period, is fully exhibited in Mr. Canning's speech on 
 the negotiations with France. The opposition to the existing 
 administration, and the public distrust in their measures, increased 
 with the increasing difficulties of the country. On the 3d of May, 
 1804, Mr. Addington resigned. Consequent upon his resignation, 
 an ineffectual negotiation was carried on to form an administration 
 including the chiefs of the three political parties, Mr. Pitt, Mr. 
 Fox, and Lord Grenville. At length an administration was 
 formed, in which Mr. Pitt resumed the premiership, and Mr. 
 Canning was appointed Treasurer of the Navy. As such, he was 
 obliged to vindicate his own conduct in some transactions refer- 
 red to in the tenth report of the Navy Commissioners, during the 
 impeachment of Lord Melville for misconduct whilst holding 
 that office. Throughout, the inquiry proved that he was free from 
 stain. 
 
 The death of Mr. Pitt on the 23d of January, 1805, was soon 
 followed by the dissolution of the administration of which he was 
 the head. In the changes incident to the introduction of the Whig 
 party into power, Mr. Canning was succeeded by Mr. Sheridan 
 in the office of Treasurer of the Navy. After the death of Mr. 
 Pitt, Mr. Canning acknowledged no leader, as he stated in his 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. XV 
 
 speech, in 1812, to his constituents at Liverpool, when he took 
 occasion to express the veneration in which he held the memory 
 of that statesman, and the emulous fidelity with which he was de- 
 termined to imitate his conduct and abide by his principles. 
 
 To the Whig administration, — of which Mr. Fox was the real 
 head, although he had chosen the post of Secretary for Foreign 
 Afifairs, on account of the facilities with which, he presumed, it 
 would present him in bringing the negotiations with France to 
 to an amicable conclusion, Mr. Canning became the most active 
 and leading opponent. He commenced a series of severe attacks 
 upon their conduct and measures, in his opposition to the appoint- 
 ment of Lord Ellenborough, the Lord Chief Justice of the King's 
 Bench, to a seat in the Cabinet. Of the expediency and impro- 
 priety of this appointment there can be no doubt; and indeed it 
 was excused at the time at which it took place, on no better plea 
 than the necessity of making the great talents of that nobleman 
 available for the defence of the administration. Mr. Canning also 
 gave a very earnest and effective opposition to Mr. Windham's 
 celebrated Limited Service Bill. 
 
 In April 1807, on the dissolution of the Whig ministry, in 
 consequence of the difference between the King and the principal 
 members of it upon the bill introduced into Parliament by the 
 latter " For securing to all His Majesty's Subjects the privilege 
 of serving in the Army and Navy," the Duke of Portland was 
 entrusted with the formation of a new administration, and to Mr, 
 Canning were given the seals of the Foreign Office. He thus^ 
 for the first time, became a Cabinet Minister. In a speech deliv- 
 ered soon afterwards upon Mr. Brand's motion relative to the 
 changes of administration, he made a full explanation of the mo- 
 tives of his conduct, and of the circumstances under which he ac- 
 cepted office at this period. 
 
 The season in which the new ministry came into power, was 
 one of unexampled difficulty. Just after the battles of Austrelitz 
 and Jena, Buonaparte may be said to have arrived at the summit 
 of his power. Sweden was then the only ally of England. Den- 
 mark professed neutrality; but the overgrown power of France, 
 and the subserviency which Denmark might feel it her interest to 
 pay to a power whose victorious arms she could not resist, ren- 
 
XVI BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 dered her neutrality, if not insincere in its profession, at least 
 doubtful as to its continuance. The apprehension of this, or rather 
 the assurance which the English Government obtained, that Den- 
 mark was included in a confederacy formed by Napoleon of all 
 the naval powers of Europe against England, was the motive as- 
 signed for the expedition against Copenhagen, which was under- 
 taken with Mr. Canning's sanction, and is supposed to have been 
 projected by him. His speeches on this subject are mentioned in 
 terms of the highest commendation by those who heard them, but 
 they are reported less satisfactorily than his discourses on any 
 other important question. 
 
 On Mr. Canning also, as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, devolved 
 the most active, important, and responsible portion of the duties 
 connected with the glorious eruption of a spirit of national inde- 
 pendence in Spain. For his services, at this all-important crisis 
 in the mighty struggle, for the deliverance of the nations of Eu- 
 rope from the dominion of France, Great Britain and Spain, all 
 Europe, indeed, owe him a debt of lasting gratitude. To him 
 belongs the merit of the policy that aimed and directed the blow 
 which Lord Wellington so efficaciously struck, and the credit 
 of having supplied by the vigour of his measures in the cabinet, 
 the means which enabled that distinguished Captain to complete 
 the series of achievements which have immortalized his name. 
 To this portion of his career. Mr. Canning ever afterwards refer- 
 red with sentiments of pride and exultation. In allusion to it on 
 one occasion in Parliament, he declared, that " if there was any 
 part of his political life in which he gloried, it was, that in the 
 face of every difficulty, of every discouragement and prophecy of 
 failure, his had been the hand which had committed England to 
 an alliance with Spain, to an alliance with a country robbed of 
 her Government, and writhing, for the time, under the fangs of the 
 Conqueror." 
 
 During the long course of diplomatic negotiation which the 
 state of the relations of England with the Continent, in the years 
 1807 and 1808, imposed on that Government, Mr, Canning was 
 the official organ by whose pen the communications were made. 
 His state papers furnish the most unequivocal proofs of the solid- 
 ity, clearness, and high culture of his mind. His answer, espe- 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. XVII 
 
 cially, to the joint application of the Emperors Alexander and Na- 
 poleon, at Erfurth, to England, to put an end to the horrors of 
 war, was written with superior talent. 
 
 His letters, also, to our minister, at the Court of St. James, Mr. 
 Pinckney, and his despatches to Mr. Erskine, the English min- 
 ister at Washington, in relation to the difficulties between the two 
 countries which grew out of the affair of the Chesapeake, and the 
 restrictions upon neutral trade which England had enacted, are 
 cited as master pieces of diplomatic correspondence. But, what- 
 ever the mere ability of the writer, the tone of them was too harsh. 
 The sarcasm and rebuke which he seemed to have studied, were 
 fitted to excite an angry and resentful spirit in the American 
 Government and people. 
 
 In the inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York, which 
 engrossed the attention of Parliament and of the public, in the 
 early part of the session of 1809, Mr. Canning concluded the de- 
 bates by a speech of great length and ability, in defence of the 
 Duke. The ingenuity and acuteness with which he commented 
 on various parts of the evidence, indicated how successful he 
 might have been, had he pursued the profession of the law. 
 
 The descent upon the island of Walcheren, which soon after- 
 wards-engaged the attention of Parliament, and was the olyect of 
 such severe animadversion, is understood to have been planned 
 and projected by Lord Castlereagh; but as the matter was sub- 
 mitted to the cabinet, and approved of by it, Mr. Canning shared 
 in the responsibility of the measures connected with that unfortu- 
 nate enterprise. He disclaimed, however, all participation in the 
 responsibility of having approved of the retention of the island. 
 The decision, indeed, respecting this point, was taken after Mr. 
 Canning and Lord Castlereagh had resigned. 
 
 The cause of the resignations of those ministers was a misun- 
 derstanding between them which occasioned a duel on the 21 st 
 of September, 1809, in which, after two shots, Mr. Canning was 
 slightly wounded in the thigh. He was confined to his house for 
 a time, but was sufficiently recovered to attend the levee on the 
 11th of October, and resign the seals of the Foreign Office. At 
 the same time Lord Castlereagh resigned those of the War De= 
 partment. 
 
 c B2 
 
xvni BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 The Duke of Portland, the Premier, having resigned as well 
 as Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh, a new Cabinet was formed, 
 at the head of which was placed Mr. Percival, who united in him- 
 self, as Mr. Pitt and Mr. Addington had done before him, the 
 offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer. To this administration Mr. Canning gave no active op- 
 position, but he steadfastly adhered to the principles of which his 
 political conduct had hitherto been regulated respecting the policy 
 of England in vigorously prosecuting the mighty struggle in 
 which she had been engaged with France. In the year after his 
 resignation, public attention was principally occupied by the dis- 
 cussion of the Regency Resolutions, occasioned by the alienation 
 of the mind of the King; and in this he took a very earnest part. 
 In the course of the ensuing session, 1811, Mr. Canning made 
 his celebrated speech on the report of the Bullion Committee, one 
 of the most powerful specimens on record of chaste and argumenta- 
 tive eloquence. That portion of it which is intended to prove the 
 depreciation of the Bank of England notes — a position broadly and 
 pertinaciously denied at the time by men of the highest public 
 stations — is practical, perspicuous, and unanswerable. The sub- 
 ject of finance was one on which it was not customary with 
 Mr. Canning to make any particular effort, as he had not devoted 
 much attention to it; but determining to make himself master of 
 it, he succeeded in a manner to justify a common remark amongst 
 those of his friends who had the advantage of familiar access to 
 him, that no man so promptly, and with so much effect, directed 
 the powers of his mind to any new subject foreign to his pursuits. 
 The speech contains most of what has ever been urged in Parlia- 
 ment by speakers who take the side of the Bullionists, stated in 
 the best manner, and recommended by all the captivating attrac- 
 tions of just sentiment, polished style, and copious and cogent 
 illustration. 
 
 The assassination of Mr. Percival in the Lobby of the House of 
 Commons, on the 11th of May, 1812, by a fanatic named Belling- 
 ham, broke up the ministry of which he was the chief; and 
 Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning were commanded by the Prince 
 Regent to form a cabinet. Their negotiation to do so, however, 
 failed, as did also that of Lord Moira, who was next directed to 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL. SKETCH. XIX 
 
 make the attempt. The task was then entrusted to Lord Liver- 
 pool, who made an offer to Mr. Canning, accompanied with an 
 intimation that he was at liberty to retain and express his well- 
 known sentiments on the Catholic Question; but he deemed him- 
 self bound to refuse, because the Earl's government then professed 
 to oppose, as a Government, the removal of the Roman Catholic 
 disabilities. Highly creditable as was this conduct to his consis- 
 tency, it is yet to be regretted that, by declining office in IS 12, 
 he lost one of the most glorious opportunities ever presented to a 
 minister of England, the opportunity of presiding over the foreign 
 relations of the country during the period wherein all those im- 
 portant and momentous events occurred, which crowded into a 
 few years the revolutions and changes of an age. 
 
 In the discussion of the renewal of the East Lidia Company's 
 Charter, which took place in the year 1812, the conduct of Mr. 
 Canning was highly gratifying to the merchants of Liverpool. 
 His services to the public interests on this occasion, were chiefly 
 rendered out of Parliament — in communications with the parties 
 most interested in and conversant with the subject, and in a close 
 attendance in the Select Committee, which went into an examina- 
 tion of evidence at great length. He approved of proffering such 
 a renewed Charter to the company as would at once secure to them 
 part of their exclusive privileges, and give them time and oppor- 
 tunity to prepare themselves for the loss of the whole. 
 
 At the close of the session of 1812, Parliament was dissolved, 
 and at the general election which ensued, Mr. Canning was invited 
 to become a candidate for the representation of Liverpool. The 
 manner of the invitation, the success which crowned him in the first 
 arduous contest, in which the pride of victory was enhanced by 
 being obtained over so formidable an opponent as Mr. Brougham, 
 and the connexion which he at this time formed with Liverpool, 
 and which continued for many years to be a source of reciprocal 
 pride and honour to the constituent body and their representative, 
 Mr. Canning always regarded as among the most glorious events 
 of his public life. Not the least gratifying circumstance in the 
 transaction was the similitude between it and the inanner in which 
 Mr. Burke became the representative of Bristol. The history of 
 Mr. Canning's connexion with Liverpool, consists of a series of 
 
XX BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 successive and increasing triumpJis. He stood four times as a 
 candidate, and was each time elected with an opposition that pro- 
 gressively diminished at each contest. On the first occasion he 
 had four antagonists, and his majority over the one nearest to him, 
 Mr. Brougham, was 500. The second election took place after 
 his appointment to the Presidentship of the Board of Controul, in 
 1816; he was returned after a struggle of three days, by the 
 retirement of his opponent, Mr. Leyland, whose name, indeed, 
 had been set up by the hostile party in spite of his declaration 
 that he was not desirous to serve. At the third, in 1818, some 
 curious electioneering manoeuvres were resorted to by his oppo- 
 nents, but they were signally defeated ; and at the fourth, in 1820, 
 there was scarcely the shadow of opposition. On every occasion 
 on which he visited Liverpool, the most flattering marks of atten- 
 tion were lavished on him. Pulilic dinners, aquatic excursions, 
 and costly entertainments were given to welcome him. A club 
 was instituted in honour of him called "The Canning Club." This 
 friendly intercouse between the parties, subsisted without inter- 
 ruption from the commencement of their connexion in 1812, until 
 its close in 1822. On his expected departure from England, to 
 assume the Government of India, in the latter year, ' > valuable 
 piece of plate was presented to him by his constituents; ^ud a 
 deputation from the associated commercial bodies of the port, 
 waited on and presented him an address, expressive of the high 
 sense they entertained of the services which he had rendered to 
 them, during the period that he had been their representatiA^e in 
 Parliament. After his death, the inhabitants of Liverpool further 
 testified their admiration of him, by a liberal subscription for 
 erecting a monument to his memory. 
 
 In 1814, Mr. Canning was appointed Ambassador to the Court 
 of Lisbon. The last speech which he made before repairing 
 thither, was on " Foreign Treaties," It contains a proud retro- 
 spect of the events of the great struggle which, by the entrance of 
 the British army into the south of France, and that of the com- 
 bined forces into the north, after the decisive battle of Leipsic, 
 seemed about to be brought to the most triumphant conclusion, as 
 well as an eloquent and exulting congratulation of the House and 
 the country on the glorious results of the perseverance and spirit 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. XXI 
 
 of the British people. The main cause of Mr. Canning's going 
 to Lisbon was the dangerous illness of his eldest son, for the 
 preservation of whose life a trial of the climate of that city was 
 recommended by the physicians. To his acceptance of the em- 
 bassy, however, objections were made on the ground, in the first 
 place, of his consenting to receive a situation subordinate to Lord 
 Castlereagh, and, in the second, because the salary and allowances 
 were, it was asserted, far beyond the requisite expenses. It was 
 even contended that the contingent event, the return of the Royal 
 Family of Portugal from the Brazils, for which the embassy was 
 provided, was in reality never contemplated, and that the whole 
 transaction was " a job," instituted to provide a comfortable retreat 
 for him, and conciliate his support of the existing Government. 
 These charges were preferred in no qualified terms by Mr. Lamb- 
 ton, in a speech introductory to a motion on the subject. To these 
 Mr. Canning made an eloquent and indignant reply, in which he 
 repelled the unworthy imputations thrown upon him, in a manner 
 that brought conviction to every mind. He was also accused of 
 prolonging his sojourn there beyond the period that there was any 
 ascertained ground for his continuing it. This he answered in a 
 speech to his constituents at Liverpool, in 1816, by stating the 
 fact that he did not continue in a public capacity up to the period 
 of his leaving Lisbon, but had, six months previously, resigned, on 
 learning the Prince Regent's determination not to return imme- 
 diately to his European dominions. 
 
 Mr. Canning's return to England was in the early part of the 
 year 1816. During his absense, the battle of Waterloo had put an 
 end to the career of Napoleon. He stopped a few days at Bour- 
 deaux on his way home, and received a splendid public entertain- 
 ment from the merchants of that place. Shortly after his arrival 
 in England, a vacancy occurred in the Presidency of the Board 
 of Controul, by the death of the Earl of Buckinghamshire, to 
 which, on the intimation of the Prince Regent, Mr. Canning 
 succeeded. 
 
 In the session of the Parliament of 1817, the Habeas Corpus 
 Suspension Bill and the Seditious Meetings' Bill were passed, in 
 consequence of the agitation and disaffection that pervaded the 
 country, growing out of the distress which was the natural result 
 
XXII BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 of the long protracted war just concluded. The prominent part 
 which Mr. Canning took in effecting the passage of those bills, 
 rendered him very unpopular with the Opposition, who deemed 
 such extraordinary measures stronger than the case demanded; 
 and on several occasions attacks were made upon him in conse- 
 quence, the severest of which was put forth in the shape of an 
 anonymous pamphlet shortly after his speech on the Indemnity 
 Bill in 1818. Some remarks also of Sir Francis Burdett in rela- 
 tion to him, in a letter addressed to the Chairman of a Reform 
 dinner, had nearly occasioned a duel; but the matter, fortunately, 
 was satisfactorily adjusted. — The speech of Mr. Canning at the 
 opening of the session of 1819, contains a powerful commentary 
 on the proceedings and character of the violent meetings which 
 were held throughout the country, particularly the one at Man- 
 chester, which was dispersed by the yeomanry with the loss of 
 several lives. During the session six bills, having for their object 
 the repression of the prevalent disaffection, were earnestly sup- 
 ported by Mr. Canning, and passed, though with great opposition. 
 
 In January, 1820, George III. died ; and George IV. had 
 scarcely ascended the throne, when a fresh subject of agitation 
 was created by the arrival of Queen Caroline in England. Mr. 
 Canning was indebted to her for many acts of civility and kind- 
 ness, and he had been a party to the advice given to her by her 
 friends in 1814, which she had followed, of residing abroad. 
 When, therefore, it was resolved to institute an inquiry into her 
 conduct, he resigned his place as President of the Board of Con- 
 ti'oul, deeming himself bound both by gratitude and the circum- 
 stance of his having been her adviser on a somewhat similar 
 inquiry in 1805, to abstain from bearing the share which his 
 ministerial duty would have assigned him in promoting the pro- 
 secution. His conduct on this occasion, according to universal 
 consent, was marked by the most perfect correctness and delicacy 
 of feeling. 
 
 On his retirement, a letter was addressed to him by the Direct- 
 ors of the East India Company, which furnished a flattering tri- 
 bute to his talents and integrity; and at a meeting of the Court of 
 Proprietors of the Company, a resolution was unanimously passed, 
 concurring in the sentiments conveyed by the Directors to him, 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. XXIII 
 
 and emphatically expressive of their high admiration for his abili- 
 ties, and their grateful sense of his services. 
 
 Early in the Spring of this year, Mr. Canning sustained a severe 
 domestic calamity in the loss of his eldest son, George Charles 
 Canning, in the nineteenth year of his age. The following beauti- 
 ful epitaph was written by the afflicted father, and inscribed upon 
 an elegant monument in the burying ground of Kensington: 
 
 « EPITAPH. 
 
 "GEORGE CHARLES CANNING, 
 
 " Eldest Son of 
 
 "The Right Honourable GEORGE CANNING, and JOAN SCOTT, 
 
 his Wife; 
 
 " Born April 25, 1801.— Died March 31, 1820, 
 
 "Though short thy span, God's unimpeach'd decrees, 
 Which made that shorten'd span one long disease. 
 Yet, merciful in chastening, gave thee scope 
 For mild, redeeming virtues, Faith and Hope; 
 Meek Resignation ; pious Charity ; 
 And, since this world was not the world for thee. 
 Far from thy path removed, with partial care. 
 Strife, Glory, Gahi, and Pleasure's flowery snare. 
 Bade Earth's temptations pass thee harmless by, 
 And fix'd on Heaven thine unaverted eye ! 
 Oh ! mark'd from birth, and nurtured for the skies ! 
 In youth, with more than learning's wisdom, wise ! 
 As sainted martyrs, patient to endure ! 
 Simple as unwean'd infancy, and pure? 
 Pure from all stain, (save that of human clay. 
 Which Christ's atoning blood has washed away!) 
 By mortal sufferings now no more oppress'd, 
 Mount, sinless Spirit, to thy destined rest ! 
 While I — reversed our nature's kindlier doom — 
 Pour forth a father's sorrow on thy tomb." 
 
 During the two subsequent years (1821-22) Mr. Canning took 
 little part in public affairs. He visited France and Italy with his 
 family, but resided principally at Paris, where, free from the 
 tumult of party, he moved in the chief circles of literary and 
 polished society which that capital contains. At this time, he 
 saw much of Chateaubriand, with whom he formed a friendship. 
 
XXIV BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 which some differences of a political nature afterwards interrupted. 
 He left Paris in 1821, expressly for the purpose of attending Par- 
 liament, in order to support the Bill for the Removal of Roman 
 Catholic Disabilities. His speeches in the year 1822, on Lord 
 John Russell's motion for Reform, and on his own measure for 
 the relief of the Catholic Peers, are among the most finished spe- 
 cimens of his eloquence. At the time of their delivery, he was 
 on the eve of his departure for a foreign destination, and they 
 were manifestly elaborate efforts, intended to be parting admoni- 
 tions to his country on the two great questions of which they 
 treat. 
 
 In the early part of 1822, the Directors of the East India Com- 
 pany had chosen Mr. Canning to fill the situation of Governor 
 General of Fort William, in the Presidency of Bengal, the seat 
 of the Supreme Government of British India. Previous to his 
 intended departure, he paid a farewell visit to Liverpool, where 
 public entertainm.euts on a scale of the most munificent hospitality 
 were given to him, besides a valuable piece of plate. Just, how- 
 ever, as he was about to embark, the death of the Marquis of 
 Londonderry created a vacancy in the office of Secretary of 
 Foreign Affairs; and the public eye was immediately turned to- 
 wards Mr. Canning as the person best qualified to fill it. The 
 expression of public sentiment was responded to by the King; 
 and, early in September, on the return of the latter from Scotland, 
 where he had been on a visit at the time of Lord Londonderry's 
 death, the Seals of the Foreign Office were presented to Mr. 
 Canning. 
 
 The war subsequently waged by France against Spain, for the 
 purpose of re-establishing the throne of Ferdinand on the ruins 
 of the Cortes, was meditated by her at this period, and urged by 
 her representative, M. de Montmorency, in the Congress of Verona 
 then just assembled, upon the different Powers. England was 
 the only one which objected to the proposed interference, the 
 instructions communicated by Mr, Canning to the Duke of Wel- 
 lington being, to declare "that to any such interference, come 
 what may. His Majesty will not be a party." The speeches which 
 Mr. Canning made in the session of 1823, the first in laying before 
 Parliament the diplomatic papers relative to the negotiation on 
 d C 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. xxv 
 
 the state of affairs between France and Spain, and the second at 
 the close of a debate on the same subject, are alike remarkable for 
 the clearness with which he explains all the intricacies of a very 
 complicated subject, and the ability with which he applies to in- 
 dividual cases the great principles of national law, and the eternal 
 ones of public justice. There has rarely been an occasion on 
 which the anxiety of the English public for a full justification of 
 a great measure, involving the national interests and honour, was 
 so completely satisfied and allayed, as on the propriety of the 
 policy pursued by Mr. Canning in reference to this subject. 
 
 In this year, also, the recognition of Spanish American Inde- 
 pendence by England, a movement which was planned and effect- 
 ed by Mr. Canning, shed a lustre upon his name which the friends 
 of freedom will never allow to be extinguished. A formal com- 
 munication, however, of the circumstance, was not sent to the 
 foreign ministers accredited at the Court of St. James, until 1825. 
 In it he stated, "that in consequence of the repeated failures of the 
 applications of His Majesty's Government to the Court of Spain, 
 relative to the recognition of the independent States of Spanish 
 America, His Majesty had come to a determination to appoint 
 Charges des Affaires to the States of Colombia, Mexico, and 
 Buenos Ayres; and to enter into treaties of commerce with those 
 respective States on the basis of the recognition of their indepen- 
 dence." 
 
 It was in the course of the session of 1823, that Mr. Canning, 
 in his answer to Mr. Brougham, evinced an irascible temperament, 
 and betrayed the little control which he had in forbearing from 
 the most vehement expression when exasperatedby a disreputable 
 imputation being cast upon him. The circumstances out of which it 
 arose were these: On one of the frequent discussions which took 
 place relative to the affairs of Spain, Lord Folkestone, in a speech, 
 of unqualified condemnation of Mr. Canning's policy on this ques- 
 tion, accused the Foreign Secretary of "truckling to France." 
 Mr. Canning replied to him in the debate of the same evening, 
 and, after assuring the noble Lord that he would never truckle to 
 him, pronounced upon the speech of Lord Folkestone, and the 
 manner of its delivery, a sentence of the bitterest invective that 
 perhaps ever escaped him in Parliament. " The Lacedaemonians," 
 d C 
 
XXVI BIOGRAPHICAL. SKETCH. 
 
 said he, " were in the habit of deterring their children from the 
 vice of intoxication, by occasionally exhibiting their slaves in a 
 state of disgusting inebriety. But, Sir, there is a moral as well as 
 a physical intoxication. Never before did I behold so perfect a 
 personification of the character which I have somewhere seen 
 described as ' exhibiting the contortions of the Sybil without her 
 inspiration.' Such was the nature of the noble lord's speech." 
 
 On a subsequent evening, 17th April, 1823, during a conversa- 
 tion in the House of Commons, which preceded the discussion of 
 the Catholic Question, Mr. Brougham pronounced a severe philip- 
 pic against the Foreign Secretary, in which, after insinuating very 
 intelligibly that Mr. Canning, on accepting office, had entered into 
 a compromise with Lord Eldon to postpone and waive the con- 
 sideration of the Catholic Question, he added, "And is it the Right 
 Hon. Gentleman then who talks of not truckling to my Noble 
 Friend (Lord Folkestone) — he — who has himself exhibited the 
 most incredible specimen of monstrous truckling, for the purpose 
 of obtaining office, which the whole history of political tergiver- 
 sation can furnish." At this moment, Mr. Canning, whose chang- 
 ing features for the few preceding minutes were developing the 
 deep agitation of his mind, rose, and said emphatically, " Sir, that 
 is false." This abrupt and most unexpected interruption entranced 
 the House for some moments in amazement. Mr. Brougham 
 was restrained by his friends from leaving the House immediately. 
 The Sergeant-at-Arms was summoned to attend — a motion w^as 
 made and withdrawn, that Mr. Canning and Mr. Brougham should 
 be taken into custody — explanation succeeded to explanation — but 
 all that followed the interruption by the Right Honourable Secre- 
 tary — the moment of intense interest — was but as " the pattering 
 of rain after a thunder storm." The fury of the bolt was spent — 
 and with its exhausted rage expired the awe and the interest 
 awakened by the shock. The result was, that, after mutual and 
 suitable explanations on both sides, Mr. Canning and Mr. Brough- 
 am, with perfect propriety and honour to themselves, in the esti- 
 mation of the House and of the country, agreed "to think no more 
 about the matter." 
 
 One excuse, and one only, may be suggested for the conduct 
 of Mr. Canning on this occasion — namely, the spirit-stirring pro- 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. XXVII 
 
 vocation to intemperate retort which was conveyed in the lan- 
 guage — and even less in the language than in the manner of Mr. 
 Brougham. The sarcastic tone — the vehement gesture — the deep 
 and disdainful denouncement expressed in the whole of his deliv- 
 ery of this passage of his speech, cannot be contained within the 
 limits of any description. 
 
 During the sessions of 1823, 1824, 1825, and 1826, the consid- 
 eration of the Abolition of Slavery came under frequent discussion 
 in Parliament. On this question, Mr. Canning advocated a mid- 
 dle and mediatorial course between contending parties — the advo- 
 cates of the extreme principles of immediate abolition on the one 
 side, and of perpetual slavery on the other. He pledged the House 
 of Commons to resolutions for the gradual Amelioration of the 
 Condition of the Slave Population in the West Indies; and in sev- 
 eral speeches, especially in a most eloquent one on the 16th of 
 March, 1824, he developed his own views and those of the Gov- 
 ernment on this momentous measure. 
 
 The embarrassed state into which the currency of England was 
 put in 1825 by the failure of numerous and extravagant speculations 
 in which a vast capital had been embarked, engaged the attention of 
 Parliament at its meeting. Mr. Canning with his wonted ability, 
 pursued the course of its variation, exposed the nature of the em- 
 barrassments, and propounded the expediency of the measure 
 adopted by Parliament for relieving them. The session of 1826 
 passed over without any business of momentous interest to call 
 forth the powers of Mr. Canning, with the exception of the ques- 
 tion of the currency, and the discussion on the Silk trade. His 
 speech in support of Mr. Huskisson's measure relative to that 
 important branch of our manufactures, though short, was remark- 
 ably effective. To the above exception should be added an im- 
 portant speech of Mr. Canning on a motion of Mr. Brougham, 
 pledging the House early in the ensuing session to take into its 
 most serious consideration, such measures as might be calculated 
 to carry into effect the recommendation of the Government and of 
 the House of Commons to the Colonial Legislatures, to ameliorate 
 the condition of the Slaves in the Colonies. 
 
 At the close of the summer of this year, Mr. Canning paid a 
 visit to his friend, T^ord Grenville, at Paris. He was received in 
 
XXVIII BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 that capital with all the demonstrations of respect due to his great 
 talents, his lofty fame, and eminent station. The French minis- 
 ters, the most distinguished members of the nobility and of the 
 higher classes of society in Paris, invited him to sumptuous enter- 
 tainments; even the court rules of etiquette, which forbade a sub- 
 ject to dine in company with the royal tenant of the Thuilleries, 
 were dispensed with in his favour, and Mr. Canning had the hon- 
 our, to use the technical phrase, of dining with the King and 
 Royal Family of France. The daily press of Paris noticed his 
 movements, and the unassuming and frank affability of his address 
 conciliated towards him marked respect wherever he went. 
 
 In the Parliament of 1826 Mr. Canning made the speech on 
 the affairs of Portugal, which is deemed the master-piece of his 
 eloquence. It was occasioned by the circumstance of the Portu- 
 guese Ambassador in London, the Marquis de Palmella, making 
 a formal application to the English Government for military as- 
 sistance to repel from Portugal the elements of strife with which 
 Spain was menacing that kingdom, in consequence of her hatred 
 of the constitutional form which then subsisted. The lEnglish 
 Government being pledged both by ancient and modern treaties 
 to the defence of Portugal, a message from the King was presented 
 to both Houses of Parliament, expressing his confidence that they 
 would enable him to maintain good faith with his ancient ally. 
 It was in moving the Address in reply to this message, that Mr. 
 Canning made his celebrated speech, in which he clearly describ- 
 ed the various obligations by treaty into which England had en- 
 tered with Portugal, and enforced their observance. Its eloquence 
 and power elicited a high eulogy from Mr. Brougham, in which 
 he declared his reliance "on those sound, enlightened, liberal, 
 and truly English principles; principles worthy of our best times, 
 and of our most distinguished statesmen, which now govern the 
 Councils of this Country in her foreign policy, and inspire the 
 eloquence of the Right Honourable Secretary with a decree of 
 fervour, energy, and effect, extraordinary and unprecedented in 
 this House — unprecedented (I can give it no higher praise) even in 
 the eloquence of the Right Honourable Gentleman." Troops 
 were sent to Portugal, and the result of the measure fully vindi- 
 cated its propriety and wisdom. 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. XXIX 
 
 This was almost the last important measure which Mr. Canning 
 originated during the time that he presided over the foreign policy 
 of his country. But, besides the measures which he may be said 
 to have accomplished by the influence of his personal authority, 
 as falling within the sphere of his immediate duties, many impor- 
 tant changes and improvements, during the period that he was 
 leading minister in the House of Commons, were introduced into 
 various branches of the commercial policy, as well as into the 
 practice and structure of the judicial system of England. These 
 measures, as far as regarded the commerce of the country, were 
 recommended to Parliament by Mr. Huskisson, to whom Mr. 
 Canning conceded "the undivided glory" of them, whilst he avow- 
 ed his readiness to share the responsibility of sanctioning and 
 approving them. The principle of all these measures was the 
 change from the restrictive system of former times, to one of an 
 enlarged, liberal, and comprehensive character. 
 
 On the 17th of February, Lord Liverpool experienced an 
 attack of apoplexy so severe as to preclude all hope that he would 
 ever recover strength for the efficient discharge of his ministerial 
 functions. The public eye in consequence was directed towards 
 a successor to him in his high office; but as long as a possible hope 
 of his recovery remained, the King's personal regard for him, as 
 well as that of all his colleagues, induced a postponement of any 
 new appointment. The utmost anxiety prevailed in the public 
 mind in reference to the subject. Rumours and speculations of all 
 kinds were rife; but amid the contending influences and claims of 
 persons, the most prevalent and popular expression of feeling was 
 decidedly in favour of Mr. Canning. His political experience, 
 his talents, the dominant influence which he had exercised for 
 some time in the Cabinet, all pointed him out as the person whose 
 pretensions were the most potent. The public expectation was 
 not disappointed. On the 12th of April, suspense was terminated 
 by the motion of Mr. Wynn in the House of Commons, " that a 
 new writ be issued for the Borough of Newport, (Isle of Wight,) 
 in consequence of Mr. Canning having accepted the office of First 
 Commissioner of the Treasury." The announcement was received 
 with loud cheers by the House. 
 
 When the King first laid his commands upon Mr. Canning to 
 
XXX BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 form an administration, he enjoined upon him the placing of some 
 one in Lord Liverpool's situation, professing that statesman's 
 opinions on the Catholic Question — a requisition with which he 
 thought that a due regard to his own claims to the Premiership, 
 and to the ascendency of those councils in matters of policy to 
 which he was pledged, would not permit him to comply. He 
 accordingly declined the royal invitation, and tendered his own 
 resignation of office, to afford the King an opportunity of con- 
 structing a Cabinet united in opposition to the Catholic Question. 
 After several interviews, however, between the monarch and the 
 minister, the condition which prevented the latter from under- 
 taking the task of forming an administration was removed, and its 
 construction was left to his own unfettered action. 
 
 His difficulties, however, did not end here. Within twenty- 
 four hours after his appointment to be First Lord of the Treasury, 
 seven of his colleagues — the Duke of Wellington, Lord Eldon, 
 Lord Bathurst, Lord Melville, Lord Bexley, Lord Westmoreland, 
 and Mr. Peel — resigned their respective offices. The reason 
 which they gave for this proceeding, was the policy which Mr. 
 Canning would introduce into the administration in reference to 
 the Catholic Question, of which they had always been the oppo- 
 nents; but allegations were thrown out that motives of rivalry 
 and ambition had also actuated their conduct, at least that of the 
 Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel, the two most prominent se- 
 ceders. The members of the former Cabinet who remained with 
 Mr. Canning, were Lord Harrowby, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Robin- 
 son, and Mr. Wynn. It was a fortunate circumstance for the new 
 minister, that the embarrassment in which he was placed occurred 
 on the eve of the Easter recess, so that the interval of a fortnight 
 was afforded him, to supply the places that had been vacated, and 
 to complete the necessary arrangements for the formation of an 
 Executive Government. Of this period of customary suspension 
 from public business, ample and advantageous use was made. 
 Negotiations were opened with the leading members of the oppo- 
 sition, between whom and Mr. Canning a daily approximation in 
 principle in almost all measures relating to the commercial, in- 
 ternal, and foreign policy of the country, rendered the formation 
 of a league of friendship and co-operation a task of easy perform- 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL, SKETCH. XXXI 
 
 ance. At the meeting of Parliament most of the vacancies were 
 filled up, though some of them, it was understood, were only 
 occupied provisionally. The explanations of Mr. Peel and Mr. 
 Cannino" on the breaking up of the former ministry, and the diffi- 
 culties w^hich had obstructed the formation of a new one, excited 
 great attention throughout the House, and throughout the country; 
 and both were generally deemed full, explicit, and satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Canning was now placed upon the loftiest eminence to 
 which his ambition could aspire ; but never was there a more 
 affecting and impressive verification of the old poet's melancholy 
 ejaculation — ' Oh curas hominumP — than his fate afforded. He 
 had reached the pinnacle, but his strength was exhausted in 
 climbing to it — and he reached it but to die. The only political 
 act which signalized his administration, of which he was the chief 
 promoter, was the treaty of London, signed on the 6th of July, 
 combining England, France, and Russia, in a determination to 
 protect the Christians of Greece from the merciless oppression of 
 the Ottoman Porte — an act not unworthy to close the glorious 
 drama of his career. He had also given notice of an intention to 
 move for a Committee of Finance in the next session of Parlia- 
 ment, to be formed on the most liberal and extensive basis, in- 
 cluding members of all parties; and had introduced a Bill for 
 amending the Corn Laws, which was defeated in the House of 
 Lords. 
 
 Before his appointment to the Premiership, Mr. Camiing's 
 constitution had been shattered by illness; his countenance was 
 sicklied o'er with a pallid hue, and his form bent as if under 
 premature old age. The duties and anxieties, therefore, incident 
 to his station, were of themselves sufficient to increase in a serious 
 degree the weakness of his frame; but to these were added the 
 irritation occasioned by perhaps the most disgraceful opposition 
 on record. A character of personal hostility and rancour was 
 given to it, which was well calculated, in his debilitated state, to 
 excite his natural sensitiveness to a dangerous pitch; and the effect 
 which it had upon him was greater than from its intrinsic force, 
 either in intelligence or power of any description, it was entitled 
 to produce. In vain he boldly and repeatedly challenged his 
 adversaries to bring forward some specific proposition on which 
 
XXXII BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 the sense of Parliament might be unequivocally pronounced, as to 
 the efficiency of his administration. Open conflict they declined, 
 preferring to persevere in a species of Guerilla warfare — teazing 
 attacks, sudden sallies, and quick retreats. 
 
 Little of interesting information can be communicated with 
 regard to the last moments of Mr. Canning, as his fatal illness, 
 from its very commencement almost, was so acute and severe as 
 to overpower the vigour of his understanding. 
 
 On Wednesday, the 11th of July, Mr. Canning went to Wim- 
 bleton to a Cabinet dinner, at the Lord Chancellor's, where, having 
 made himself warm with exercise, he sat some time under a tree 
 in the open air. The next day he complained of a slight feeling 
 of rheumatism; but it was not till the following Saturday, that it 
 became so serious as to make him keep his bed. He was confined 
 there for nearly a week; but on Friday, the 20th, was sufficiently 
 recovered to be enabled to go to the Duke of Devonshire's villa at 
 Chiswick, which the duke had lent to him for change of air. From 
 that time to the 1st of August, though he was well enough to come 
 occasionally to his residence in London, and to ride out, yet he 
 made little progress towards recovery. On the 30th of July, he 
 paid his last visit to His Majesty, and on the 31st, he came, for the 
 last time, to town, and transacted business for a few hours with 
 several official gentlemen. On his return to Chiswick that even- 
 ing, he dined in company with some friends, and retired early to 
 bed, from which he was destined never again to rise. On the 2d 
 and 3d he was in very cheerful spirits, and on the evening of the 
 latter day he transacted business with Mr. Herries for three hours. 
 It was about two hours after that gentleman had left him, that he 
 was seized with excruciating pains in the side, which gave the 
 first striking indications to those around him of his alarming 
 condition. Two hours afterwards the medical gentlemen arrived, 
 and he was bled largely. From that time till his death his suffer- 
 ings were, with few intermissions, so acute, that he could hardly 
 be said to be in the full possession of his faculties. He was, 
 however, at times, tolerably, if not entirely collected; and at those 
 times, as well as in his wanderings, he expressed concern at the 
 inconvenience his illness might occasion to the business of Gov- 
 ernment, and gave frequent indications that his King and country 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. xxxill 
 
 anxiously occupied his thoughts. On the Sunday before his death, 
 he remembered the day, and expressed a wish that his daughter 
 should read prayers to him — a duty which he himself, in his 
 busiest moments, never omitted to perform to his whole household, 
 whenever he was prevented from going to church: but a few 
 minutes after he had expressed this wish, the pain, which had for 
 a time subsided, returned with great violence, and with it return- 
 ed likewise the wanderings of his mind. In the course of the 
 evening of this day, on some religious observation being made by 
 one of the attendants, he declared " his hope of salvation through 
 the merits of his Redeemer, Jesus Christ." The two last days, his 
 strength and his pains diminished in like proportion, and, having 
 been senseless for some hours, he breathed his last, without a 
 groan, a little before four o'clock, on the morning of the 8th of 
 August. 
 
 The family which Mr. Canning left, to deplore a loss in which 
 their sorrows shared the sympathy of the nation, consisted of his 
 widow,* to whom he had been united in most affectionate en- 
 dearment for twenty-eight years; a daughter, married to the Mar- 
 quis of Clanricarde in 1825; and two sons, one a commander in 
 the navy, and the other a student at Eton. 
 
 The funeral obsequies of Mr. Canning, which took place on the 
 16th of August, were assimilated to those of a private gentleman. 
 The day was peculiarly unfavourable, yet the crowd of persons, 
 anxious to demonstrate their respect for the departed Statesman, 
 was immense. The streets leading from Downing Street, from 
 the late residence of Mr. Canning, were thronged by a dense 
 assemblage of persons, habited suitably to the melancholy occa- 
 sion. At one o'clock, the funeral procession departed from Down- 
 ing Street. The hearse, drawn by six horses, and preceded by a 
 marshal, mutes, and pursuivants, were followed by nine mourning 
 coaches, each drawn by four horses; the private carriages of the 
 Cabinet ministers, and the friends of the deceased Premier, closed 
 the cortege. Mr. Charles Canning, a youth of fourteen years of 
 age, was the chief mourner. Their Royal Highnesses, the Dukes 
 of Clarence and Sussex, attended to pay their last mark of mourn- 
 
 * Mrs. Canning has been recently raised to the peerage, by the title ot 
 Viscountess Canning. 
 
XXXIV BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 ful respect to the minister. The Cabinet ministers, who princi- 
 pally occupied the mourning coaches, also attended as mourners — 
 with the exception of his attached friend, Mr. Huskisson, who was 
 absent at the time in a distant part of the Continent, and Lord 
 Harrowby, who was in Devonshire, and sent an apology for his 
 absence. The other mourners were, the Marquis of Clarincarde, 
 Captain Hunn, Mr. Stapleton, (Mr. Canning's Private Secretary,) 
 the Duke of Devonshire, the Marquis of Conyngham, Lord Sea- 
 ford, Lord Morley, Lord Howard de Walden, Lord George Ben- 
 tinck, Mr. Planta, Mr. Denison, Mr. Backhouse, Sir M. Tierney, 
 Dr. Holland, and the other medical attendants of Mr. Canning. 
 The funeral train was received at the entrance to the Abbey, by 
 Dr. Ireland, the Dean of Westminster; a numerous body of polit- 
 ical and private friends, who were provided with tickets, formed 
 into two lines along the great aisle, through which the procession 
 passed on its way to the north transept. As soon as the proces- 
 sion reached the place of sepulture, the Foreign ambassadors, the 
 Cabinet ministers, and other mourners, formed a circle round the 
 coffin, whilst the Reverend Dean of Westminster read impressively 
 the burial service. 
 
 That Mr. Canning's professions of devoted ness to the cause of 
 benevolence were perfectly sincere, his whole life bore ample 
 testimony. He was eminently distinguished by the charities of 
 human nature, and was perpetually diffusing happiness around 
 the circle in which he moved. No man could be more alive to 
 appeals made to his compassion. By his humane interference, he 
 saved the life of one of the Cato-Street conspirators. It is said 
 that, being on a visit at his friend's house, Mr. Ellis, now Lord 
 Seaford, at Seaford, in taking one of his early morning walks, he 
 was caught in a very violent squall, when he was invited into the 
 signal-house on Beachy Head, occupied by a lieutenant in the navy, 
 where every civility was paid him as a stranger, then wholly un- 
 known to the inmates. Mr. Canning, while taking his homely 
 breakfast under this hospitable roof, amused himself with noticing 
 the younger branches of the family, which were numerous. Mr. 
 Canning said to the veteran, " Why do you not send the boy to 
 sea?" How can I afford that?" replied the lieutenant; "I assure 
 you, Sir, it is with difficulty I find the means of filling out their 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. XXXV 
 
 jackets; would to God I could get him to sea!" "And then," 
 said Mr. Canning, " of what profession are your daughters, how 
 do they employ themselves? — one, I see, is grown up." "Why, 
 Sir, this eldest is astonishingly clever at her needle, and I should 
 like to have her sent to some dress-maker." The stranger guest 
 departed; but in a few days the boy was sent for, fitted out as a 
 midshipman, and is now a lieutenant. The girl was provided with 
 the situation suited to her talents, with a lady in Pall Mall, and is 
 since respectably married. The whole expense was defrayed by 
 their generous morning guest, and the tears of this veteran's fam- 
 ily followed him to the grave. 
 
 Mr. Canning was the consummate orator of his country and 
 age. He had cultivated eloquence, as a liberal art, with the zeal 
 of a student, and became one of its classic masters. Some may 
 have exceeded him in particular qualities or powers; but he pos- 
 sessed an assemblage of endowments and acquirements which left 
 all rivalry at a distance. He combined the free movement, spirit, 
 and reality of British parliamentary debate, with the elaborate 
 perfection of \h& forum, and the agora — and the accessary accom- 
 plishments and graces of ancient and modern literature. 
 
 He had studied, with a quick and congenial feeling, those severe 
 and eternal models — the remains of ancient eloquence. His ele- 
 gance of expression was fastidious, without weakening its force — 
 his wit was not so elaborately, concentratedly brilliant, as Sheri- 
 dan's — but it was more prompt, redundant, aud disposable — and, 
 if it may be so said, more logical — whilst his ridicule, inimitably 
 poignant, was ever governed by high breeding and his good taste. 
 Mr. Canning's reading was extensiA^e and various, and his fancy 
 flitted over history, fiction, and external nature, with quickness 
 and felicity — for illustration, citation, or metaphor. He had the 
 tact to discern, and the dexterity to expose, what was weak or 
 ridiculous on the adverse side — the art to push an opponent's 
 simile, or analogy, ad absurdum — or to discover grandeur in what 
 was meant for reproach (as in his retort that Porteus, with all the 
 versatility of his shapes, was in every shape the god) — and, in fine, 
 to lay bare, by rigorous syllogism, a fallacy in the envelope of a 
 sophism, or loose phrase. — Who has ever reached him in those 
 
XXXVI BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 
 
 adroit movements, and happy inspirations, which stamp the talent 
 of debate ? 
 
 Mr, Canning not only meditated his speeches, but composed 
 carefully (whether on paper or in his memory matters not) the 
 passages of effect. His exquisite sense of the elegance of style — 
 of the precise value of words — and of oratorical collation and 
 cadence — will be felt and admired in the speeches revised by him 
 — and discerned in those that remain in a state less perfect. His 
 printed speeches, present the orator with more interest and fidelity, 
 than any other published speeches, excepting Burke's, who wrote 
 his for the press — fortunately for posterity and his own fame. Mr. 
 Canning, however, will not be found always equal to himself; but 
 as it is the condition of mediocrity not to exceed, and its privi- 
 lege not to descend below itself — so inequality is the attribute of 
 genius, from the father of poetry and eloquence down to this day. 
 
 Person and delivery are considerable parts of the orator. Mr. 
 Canning's height was of the heroic standard — his form united 
 elegance and strength — his dress was modern, without pomp or 
 foppery — his motions and pace firm and elastic — with a charac- 
 teristic, individualising disregard of all. studied grace. His coun- 
 tenance was moulded in the happiest English style — comely, 
 elegant, and simple — the profile gracefully, rather than strongly 
 defined — the face expressive, and mantling, as he spoke, with the 
 changes of sentiment and emotion — the eye large and full, and if 
 not charged with the lightning's flash, yet beaming with intelli- 
 gence — the voice strong, flexible, and slightly muffled, so as to 
 impart a softer melody, without affecting its clearness. His port, 
 as he spoke, was sometimes negligent — often admirable — evincing 
 a proud consciousness of the superiority of his cause, or the power 
 of his eloquence. His action, in one respect was objectionable — 
 he wielded his arms alternately and vehemently, without variety 
 or grace, and spoke occasionally with his arms crossed. The first 
 of recent portrait-painters* has represented him in a frock coat, 
 with his arms crossed, on the floor of Parliament. But though 
 the likeness is perfect, the portrait wants historic attitude, aspect, 
 and expression. The artist took the orator who could launch an 
 epigram or a retort — when he might have gone so much higher. 
 
 * Sir Thomas Lawrence. 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. XXXVII 
 
 Possibly, this negligent action of Mr. Canning was indulged in 
 to avoid the theatricalism of manner with which Lord Chatham 
 was reproached — and which betrayed, too palpably, art and pre- 
 paration in Sheridan. It had the effect, too, of giving an air of 
 unpremeditated inspiration to his most calculated strokes, and 
 passages of most elaborate splendour. But his delivery, on the 
 whole, was at all times effective, and, with the occasion, impas- 
 sioned and electrical. 
 
 With the sensibility of his temperament, and his order of mind, 
 Mr. Canning must have possessed pathetic power. But the exer- 
 cise of this is scarcely within the range of the eloquence of Par- 
 liament. His sensibility, joined with his delicate sense of per- 
 sonal honour, rendered him impatient, sometimes, of petty out- 
 rages in debate — and so gross in their injustice, as to recoil upon 
 their authors — but let them be forgotten. 
 
 Had Mr. Canning devoted himself to literature, that of his 
 country must have been adorned by him. In prose, his early 
 compositions, and some unavowed pieces in the maturity of his 
 talent, are worthy of his fame; his state papers remain models in 
 their kind. — His pieces in verse, indicate a resemblance to the 
 genius of Pope. He would have excelled, like that illustrious 
 poet, in polished diction, keen satire, and strong traits of ridicule 
 and character. 
 
SELECT SPEECHES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE CANNING 
 
SPEECHES, 
 
 TREATY WITH THE KING OF SAR- 
 DINIA. 
 
 JANUARY 31st, 1794. 
 
 The first, or (as it is usually termed) the maiden speech, of Mr. Canning, in 
 the House of Commons, was delivered in the debate on the motion of Mr. Pitt, 
 " that the copy of the treaty with the King of Sardinia, be referred to the 
 committee of supply." By this treaty, the King of Sardinia engaged to keep 
 on foot, during the whole course of the present war with France, an army of 
 fifty thousand men, to be employed for the defence of his dominions, as well 
 as to act against the common enemy. On the part of His Britannic Majesty, 
 it was stipulated that he should furnish to the King of Sardinia, during the 
 whole course of the war, a subsidy of two hundred thousand pounds sterling 
 per annum. The treaty further bound the King of England, not to conclude a 
 peace with the common enemy, without comprehending in it the entire restitu- 
 tion to His Sardinian Majesty, of all the parts of his dominions, which belonged 
 to him at the commencement of the war. In return, the King of Sardinia 
 was bound to continue firmly and inseparably attached to the common cause, 
 and to the interests of the King of England in this war, until the conclusion of 
 peace between Great Britain and France. 
 
 Mr. Fox opposed the motion. He conceived it to be very unwise to enter 
 into such a treaty, by which we were to receive nothing, and give every thing. 
 The engagement was a hazardous one, and we had nothing stipulated in our 
 favour, that might be considered as an equivalent. By this treaty, the King 
 of Sardinia was only bound to maintain fifty thousand men, for the defence of 
 his own territories. That the King of Sardinia should keep up such a force, 
 what did we engage to perform "! Not only to pay a subsidy of two hundred 
 thousand pounds a year, in aid of maintaining this force, but to restore to him 
 all those territories which the French had wrested from him whilst we were 
 sitting quietly by, boasting of our neutrality. This engagement miglit reduce 
 us to purchase peace at great sacrifices on our part, in order to make good our 
 engagements with the King of Sardinia, or to subject ourselves to the reproach 
 of a breach of faith, by making peace without obtaining the restoration of his 
 territories. He must peremptorily deny the doctrine, that the treaty being con- 
 cluded by His Majesty, the proper representative of the country, in all trans- 
 actions with foreign powers, the House could not refuse to ratify it, without 
 subjecting themselves to the imputation of a breach of faith. If the House 
 was considered as bound to make good every treaty, wliich by the advice of his 
 ministers he might think proper to conclude, there was a complete surrender 
 of the public purse to the executive power. 
 1 B 
 
^ SARDINIAN TREATY. 
 
 Mr. Powys replied to Mr. Fox. He said it was natural for the right ho- 
 nourable gentleman, and those who, like him, opposed the principle of the war, 
 to oppose every measure that could contribute to its success. 
 
 Mr. Ryder supported the motion. 
 
 Mr. Grey did not consider the treaty, as one calculated to give energy to 
 the war. No former treaty had been entered into, under circumstances nearly 
 similar ; and, in liis opinion, the epitliet " unprecedented," as well as the epi- 
 thets, " absurd and iniquitous," might be justly applied to it. At least, he must 
 hear many more circumstances than had as yet been stated, before he could 
 think that they might not. 
 
 Mr. Canning rose, and spoke to the following effect: 
 Sir, 
 
 If I could agree with the honourable gentleman who has just sat 
 down, in considering the question before the House as an insu- 
 lated and independent question, standing on its own grounds, and 
 to be argued solely on its own principles, I should have sat by 
 contented, while gentlemen, more qualified for such a task, by 
 their opportunities of official information, and by their ability 
 every way greater than mine, had given their answer to the ob- 
 jections urged against the treaty. 
 
 I should have sat by, contented with what has already been 
 said by a right honourable gentleman below me, (Mr. Ryder,) who 
 has given to all the objections which have yet been urged, an am- 
 ple, an able, and, to my mind, satisfactory answer. 
 
 But I do much rather agree with the honourable gentleman who 
 has spoken second in the debate, that the question now agitating, 
 is not to be argued on the narrow principle of mercantile precision: 
 that it is not simply an accurate tradesman-like inquiry into the 
 goodness or badness of the bargain which we have made; an inquiry 
 whether we have actually received a fair quid pro quo; whether 
 or not we have not been somewhat extravagant in our payment, and 
 suffered ourselves to be over-reached in the transaction; but that it 
 is a great and important question, growing out of, and inseparable 
 from, a great connected, and comprehensive system — the system 
 of general union among the powers of Europe, which has for its 
 ultimate object to prevent the aggrandizement of the French Re- 
 public, and to check the principles by which that aggrandizement 
 is sought to be effectuated: and as upon the whole of that system, 
 and upon the treaty before the House, as part of that system, I 
 cannot conceive how any gentleman should have found much diffi- 
 culty in forming his opinion; so, I trust, that if I attempt to deliver 
 that which I have formed, I shall stand excused from the charge 
 of presumption. 
 
 I know but two points, in which the propriety of this, or in- 
 deed of an)?^ other treaty, can be attacked or need to be defended. 
 1st, It might be argued, that no such treaty ought to have been 
 
SARDINIAN TREATY. J 
 
 made at all. 2ndly, Being acknowledged to have been proper to 
 be made, it may be contended to be more disadvantageous than 
 any other treaty that had ever been made between the same par- 
 ties; and that in one of two ways, — either by showing that we 
 had paid a greater price for the alliance, having only an equal 
 necessity for it; or by showing that we paid an equal price for it, 
 having a less necessity. The question is thus to be argued in two 
 different points in view. It is to be first shown that some treaty 
 with the King of Sardinia was proper; and if that inquiry should 
 terminate in the affirmative, it will then be my business to con- 
 tend, in the second place, that this treaty is equally advantageous, 
 as well as beyond comparison more necessary, than any that has 
 been heretofore concluded between the two states. The discus- 
 sion of the first general question is easy, as there can be no 
 doubt of the propriety of an alliance bet:ween two powers en- 
 gaged in the same interest, provoked by the same enormities, and 
 contending with the same enemy. Without longer dwelling upon 
 this branch of the subject, I shall therefore proceed to the next 
 topic of investigation. 
 
 The honourable gentlemen who has preceded me, has endea- 
 voured to show, that the precedents cited by the gentlemen on this 
 side of the House, differed both in their nature and circumstances 
 from the present treaty. This part of the subject has been al- 
 ready so amply discussed, that I will add nothing to it; and, 
 therefore, without staying to examine the validity of his remarks, 
 I will produce an instance of an alliance with another continental 
 power, which will be found to tally in almost every particular. I 
 mean the subsidy-treaty with the late King of Prussia in 1759. The 
 objections brought by the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Fox) 
 against the present treaty; the points wherein he states it to differ 
 for the worse, from every other treaty, which we have ever form- 
 ed with the same, or any other power, are these: — that the King 
 of Sardinia, at the time of our giving him the sul)sidy, was ac- 
 tually engaged in a war with France; and that there was no ne- 
 cessity, therefore, for us to have subsidized him, to make him go 
 to war; that the only condition that we expected from him in re- 
 turn for our subsidy was, the defence of his own dominions; and 
 that for this, in addition to the subsidy, we guaranteed to him, not 
 the possession only of that part of his dominions of which he 
 was still possessed, but the restitution of Savoy, the possession of 
 which had actually been taken from him. With every one of 
 these circumstances, do the circumstances of the subsidy-treaty 
 with the King of Prussia, in 1758, exactly tally. The King of 
 Prussia was then in a state of actual war with all the great conti- 
 nental powers: he was actually out of possession of considerable 
 part of his dominions, and nearly overwhelmed by the immense 
 
4 SARDINIAN TREATY. 
 
 force employed against him. And did this country treat him as 
 the right honourable gentleman would now wish us to treat the 
 King of Sardinia? No! it was precisely on these principles, stated 
 clearly and at large in the preamble of that treaty, because he was 
 oppressed by powerful enemies, because he was out of possession 
 of part of his dominions, and because he was so exhausted as to 
 be incapable, by himself, of defending the remainder, that we 
 were induced to aid him; an annual subsidy of £670,000 was 
 cheerfully and unanimously voted him; was carried triumphantly 
 through this House, with the loudest approbation of the country. 
 
 And to him, too, as now to the King of Sardinia, we guaran- 
 teed the restitution of those dominions, of which he had been de- 
 prived. The difference, therefore, between these two cases, lay 
 only in this: that the subsidy granted to the King of Prussia was 
 £400,000 larger than that now granted to the King of Sardinia; and 
 that the necessity for subsidizing the King of Sardinia now, is (in 
 my mind, at least,) ten thousand times more urgent than that for 
 granting the subsidy to the King of Prussia. For, on what prin- 
 ciple could that vote be justified to the people, who were to pay 
 it.-* On the wish which the then servants of the crown entertained 
 to preserve the balance of power in Europe. But how much 
 stronger are the I'easons which the ministry of this day might 
 urge in defence of the present measure! They might with confi- 
 dence tell the nation, " We require this money, not to support a 
 precarious or ideal balance of power, but to enable us to defend 
 your government, your property, and your lives, against an ene- 
 my who is waging a war for your utter extermination! A nation 
 already too powerful, has, by what some are pleased to call a po- 
 litical regeneration, attained to a degree of strength which threat- 
 ens the subversion of all the existing forms of social union. To 
 avert this catastrophe, the accession of Sardinia is requisite; and 
 she can give effectual aid in so doing." 
 
 A noble lord (Wycomb), on the first night of the session, 
 avowed, that he conceived the opinions and practices now preva- 
 lent in France to be the beginning of a new system of political 
 principles and conduct throughout Europe. If it be true, indeed, 
 that old principles are giving way so fast, I confess that the notion 
 of the balance of power, does not appear to me to have been so 
 very clearly explained, or so generally understood, as that the 
 people of England would cling by it after abandoning all their 
 other prejudices and prepossessions; or that the poor peasantry, 
 who have been represented this night as having their hard-earned 
 pittance cruelly wrung from them, to furnish the subsidy for the 
 King of Sardinia, would be better pleased to part with it for the 
 support of the balance of power, than in aid of an ally, engaged 
 in common with themselves for the safety, the laws, the religion, 
 
SARDINIAN TREATY. o 
 
 and the liberty of mankind. 1 cannot, therefore, conceive on 
 what principle any gentleman can argue the present treaty to be 
 disadvantageous, in comparison with that of 1758-9, unless, in- 
 deed, it be, that, as it seems to be, the opinion of gentlemen 
 opposite, that the Earl of Yarmouth discharged his embassy to 
 the court of Prussia, so much better for being unpaid, so they 
 might possibly think that the King of Sardinia would fight better 
 if we refused to pay him. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman opposite,* (and here I beg to 
 be understood, that when I presume to notice such arguments as 
 I think exceptionable, when they come even from such authority, 
 I do not do so with any intention of behaving to that right honour- 
 able gentleman in any other manner than such as might evince 
 what I really feel, the sincerest admiration for his talents, and 
 respect and esteem for his person) — that right honourable gentle- 
 man does indeed seem to entertain some such opinion; for he has 
 argued almost as if he thought that the subsidy was a drawback 
 upon the exertions of the King of Sardinia; that he had been well 
 enough disposed at first, both by interest and inclination, to carry 
 on the war with vigour; but that, impose upon him a subsidy, and 
 all his vigour was instantly overwhelmed and extinguished. Nay, 
 the right honourable gentleman went still farther, and proposed 
 that the King of Sardinia, not only should have received nothing 
 at our hands, but that because he happens to be the sovereign of 
 a territory, whose revenues are insufficient to support an adequate 
 military force, we who are wealthy ought to insist upon his sub- 
 sidizing us; that he should not only fight on by himself, but pay 
 us for looking at him. Till I can subscribe to this doctrine, I 
 shall continue to think that, under the circumstances in which 
 the King of Sardinia stands, it is essentially necessary that we 
 should assist him; and that it is not proposed that our assistance 
 should be afforded to him in a more ample manner than the 
 necessity requires. 
 
 With regard to the question which I have at first passed over, 
 the objections to the treaty in toio, as if it ought never to have 
 been made, all these objections would ultimately resolve them- 
 selves into such as have been urged against the war in general. 
 As I have not yet enjoyed any opportunity of declaring my sen- 
 timents upon this subject, I will, if consistent with the rules of 
 the House, offer a few remarks upon it before I sit down, con- 
 ceiving it to be natural and necessary that I should declare my 
 reasons for approving the commencement of a war which I am 
 supporting in detail, and of which I applaud the continuance and 
 vigorous prosecution. 
 
 The war, then, Sir, 1 cannot consider in any other light, than 
 * Mr. Fox. 
 
6 SARDINIAN TREATY. 
 
 as a war into which w^e have been forced by unprovoked aggres- 
 sions on the part of France; nor can I see, as some gentlemen are 
 disposed to do, that these aggressions are the less to be resisted 
 and repelled, on account of the principles by which they are 
 sought to be justified. Distinctions, indeed, have been taken by 
 gentlemen on the other side of the House, between the progress 
 of the arms of France and the progress of her principles. The 
 progress of her arms, it is admitted, it has been, and will always 
 be, our right and our policy to oppose; but we need not, and we 
 ought not, it seems, to go to war against her principles. I, for my 
 part, cannot see such nice distinctions. Admitting that the ag- 
 grandizement and aggression of France, must naturally be the 
 objects of our jealousy and resistance, I cannot understand that 
 they become less so, in proportion as they are accompanied and 
 promoted by principles destructive of civil society. I can con- 
 ceive no reason why the sword, which, if it had been attempted 
 to be drawn by the ancient monarchy of France would have been 
 represented as threatening our prosperity, our rights, our very ex- 
 istence, may be wielded with tenfold force by the arm of republi- 
 canism ; may be pointed even at our breasts, without endangering 
 our safety or our honour. 
 
 But not only is this a war against principles, but against the 
 very best of principles, a war against freedom. This is loudly 
 and confidently asserted, and is to be proved, we are told, from 
 the circumstance of ministers having neglected to interfere con- 
 cerning the partition of Poland. Had not ministers been actu- 
 ated by a hatred of liberty on the one hand, and restrained by a 
 love of despotism on the other, they could never have chosen to 
 make war against France, rather than against the powers who had 
 partitioned Poland. The authors of this assertion affect to disre- 
 gard, or disdain to consider, the comparative distance of France 
 or Poland, the relative importance of the two countries to us, the 
 strength of the confederacy by which the latter was oppressed, 
 and every other circumstance which should guide the discretion 
 or regulate the conduct of every sober politician. 
 
 Well, I will put all these considerations out of the question: I 
 will not urge the obvious absurdity of going in search of distant 
 dangers, and overlooking that which knocked at our door; I will 
 say nothing of the comparative disadvantages of going to war 
 with Austria, Prussia, and Russia, without an ally, and going to 
 war against France, with all those mighty powers to aid us; I 
 will even forego the use of the argument to which I have before 
 adverted, the different degrees of urgency and of popularity which 
 there must always be between a war, such as that for Poland 
 would have been, for the sake of the balance of power, and one 
 like that in which we are engaged with France, for our own de- 
 
SARDINIAN TREATY. 7 
 
 fence and preservation. I shall pass over all this; I will admit, 
 for a moment, that there was equal necessity, equal call, for our 
 exertions in hoth cases; and then I will put the argument simply 
 and solely on this ground: if there be two powers, who have 
 equally offended you, and from whom, by war or by negotiation, 
 you must seek redress; if one of those powers, however in other 
 respects odious and wicked in your eyes, cannot, however, be 
 denied to have a settled, a responsible government, with which a 
 negociation may be easily and prudently carried on — while, in 
 the other, however otherwise amiable and admirable, it must be 
 admitted, that there is no such thing, no safe or tangible means 
 of negotiation — does it not seem a most unaccountable perverse- 
 ness of judgment, which shall say, " Negotiate with that party 
 with which negotiation is impracticable; go to war with that 
 where negotiation would equally avail; negotiate with France; 
 go to war with Austria, Russia, Prussia; take the bond of the 
 beggar, and throw the solvent debtor into jail!" 
 
 We have been told that this is a war, into which we have been 
 hurried by clamour and prejudice; in short, that it is a war of pas- 
 sion. If, by a war of passion, gentlemen mean, that it is one con- 
 trary to humanity, justice, and sound policy, — that it is a war 
 which oAves its origin and support to the indulgence of some 
 blameable propensity in our nature, gentlemen, in establishing this, 
 have undertaken a harder task than they seem to be aware of. They 
 must arraign nature, and confute instinct; for they must prove that 
 self-preservation is a passion, which it is criminal to indulge. But 
 if, by a war of passion, gentlemen understand no more, than that 
 in addition to all the legitimate and cogent causes of war; in ad- 
 dition to the necessity of repelling unprovoked aggression, of suc- 
 couring our distressed allies, of saving Europe, of preserving our- 
 selves; that, in addition to all this, there are circumstances in this 
 war, which engage and interest the best feelings and sensibilities 
 of our nature: in this sense we might be proud to own, that it is 
 fairly to be called a war of passion; and if from that dignified char- 
 acter it were to be degraded into a war of ambition and interest, 
 it would cease to have in me a warm and zealous defender. 
 
 An appeal is made to our prudence; and we are asked, with an 
 air of triumph, what are we to get by this war ? Before I attempt 
 to answer that question, I will take the liberty to ask, whether or 
 not that question properly and particularly applies to a war, such 
 as we contend this to be, a war of aggrandizement and specu- 
 lation? If, indeed, ministers had come down to this House, and 
 said, " We have an opportunity of procuring great and advanta- 
 geous acquisitions for the country; we may wrest from France 
 some fertile province, or extort from her some valuable branch of 
 her commerce, if you will but support us in a war;" — and if, upon 
 
8 SARDINIAN TREATY. 
 
 these grounds, the House had consented to support them; then I 
 grant the whole matter at issue between the House and ministers, 
 — ^the question which might be most fairly put, as conclusive upon 
 the merits of the war, would be, — Well, what after all, are we 
 likely to get by this war ? But, in the present case, it was widely 
 different. We might be proud to say, that in this war, that is not 
 the first question that we asked. I, for one, should be ashamed 
 to defend a war, in which it was the only question that could be 
 satisfactorily answered. Yet, Sir, let not gentlemen run away 
 with the idea that we have gained nothing. Sir, that we have 
 still a government; that the functions of this House have not been 
 usurped by a corresponding society, or a Scotch Convention; that 
 instead of sitting in debate here, whether or not we shall subsi- 
 dize the King of Sardinia, we are not rather employed in devising 
 how to raise a forced loan for some proconsular deputy, whom 
 the banditti of Paris might have sent to receive our contributions; 
 Sir, that we sit here at all — These are the fruits of the war. 
 
 But when neither our reason nor our prudence can be set 
 against the war, an attempt is made to alarm our apprehensions. 
 The French are stated to be an invincible people: inflamed to a 
 degree of madness with the holy enthusiasm of freedom, there is 
 nothing that they will not undertake, there is nothing that they 
 cannot accomplish. I am as ready as any man to allow, tliat the 
 French are enthusiastically animated, be it how it may, to a state 
 of absolute insanity. I desire no better proof of their being mad, 
 than to see them hugging themselves in a system of slavery so 
 gross and grinding as their present, and calling at the same time 
 aloud upon all Europe to admire and envy their freedom. But 
 before their plea of madness can be admitted as conclusive against 
 our right to be at war with them, gentlem.en would do well to re- 
 collect that of madness there are several kinds. If theirs had 
 been a harmless idiot lunacy, which had contented itself with 
 playing its tricks, and practising its fooleries at home; with dress- 
 ing up strumpets in oak leaves, and inventing nick names for the 
 calendar, I should have been far from desiring to interrupt their 
 innocent amusements; we might have looked on with hearty con- 
 tempt, indeed, but with a contempt not wholly unmixed with 
 commisseration. 
 
 But if theirs be a madness of a different kind, a moody, mis- 
 chievous insanity, — if, not contented with tearing and wounding 
 themselves, they proceed to exert their unnatural strength for the 
 annoyance of their neighbours, — if, not satisfied with weaving 
 straws, and wearing fetters at home, they attempt to carry their 
 systems and their slavery abroad, and to impose them on the na- 
 tions of Europe; it becomes necessary tlicn, tliat those nations 
 should be roused to resistance. Such a disposition must, for the 
 
SARDINIAN TREATY. 9 
 
 safety and peace of the world, be repelled, and, if possible, era- 
 dicated. 
 
 When it is found that we are not to be daunted by the effects 
 of their madness, we are called upon to compassionate its cause. 
 It has arisen, as we are told, partly from the oppression of their an- 
 cient government, and partly from their being inflamed and exas- 
 perated by the present powerful confederacy formed against them. 
 What, if I were to be attacked by an individual madman — is it 
 my business to proceed to an investigation of the origin of his 
 disease, before I guard against its consequences? And if I find, 
 upon examination, that there was reasonable and just cause for his 
 running mad, if a stander-by shall say to me, " that poor man lost 
 his wits from love, or was driven out of them by the cruelty of 
 relations — if you were to know by what a melancholy train of 
 accidents that unhappy maniac was reduced to his present despe- 
 rate condition, you would be above resisting him!" — Is this sort 
 of reasoning to operate with me against the adoption of any meas- 
 ures of self-defence ? I can hardly think so — nor can I agree that, 
 with regard to the French nation, it would merit much more at- 
 tention — no matter how they came to be what they are; if wild 
 beasts I find them, as against wild beasts, I must defend myself. 
 
 I do not envy gentlemen the task which they have imposed on 
 themselves of poisoning the fair hopes of the country, and re- 
 ducing the minds of the people, otherwise not inclined to a want 
 of confidence in the successes of the war, to a state of depression 
 and despair. I do not much envy their industry; neither, I con- 
 fess, do I much fear their success. But when gentlemen have 
 once undertaken that ungrateful task (for unpleasing I am sure it 
 must be, and nothing but a strong and imperious sense of their 
 duty could induce them to undertake it at all) — when they have 
 once done so, I think they are bound to go through with it. And 
 then, if all that they have said be true; if our situation be indeed 
 as deplorable as they represent it — if we have failed in all our 
 plans — and been baffled in every exertion — if such have been the 
 nature and extent of our misfortunes, that we have neither satis- 
 faction in what is past, nor resources for the present, nor hopes 
 for the future — and if for all these reasons, it is become necessary, 
 as they state, to sue for peace — let not gentlemen stop here — let 
 them finish the picture — let them show us the extent of our 
 calamities — and describe all the horrors of our situation. If for 
 these reasons, peace must be asked, let them tell us, for these 
 same reasons, what sort of a peace we are likely to obtain. It 
 would not be a common peace, to be obtained by common con- 
 cessions, or preserved with common security. On our part, as- 
 suredly, we must insist on the disbanding of the great standing 
 army, which is the instrument of the revolutionary government 
 
10 SARDINIAN TREATY. 
 
 of our enemy; and can it be thought that the potent Republic, 
 which has, according to some gentlemen, baffled all our schemes, 
 and withstood all our efforts, would submit to so degrading and 
 humiliating a concession? Our only reliance then must be on the 
 public faith and responsibility of the present rulers of France — 
 men, whose characters are so familiar to this House, that I shall 
 not think it worth while to delineate them — but will ask gentle- 
 men, whether or not they recollect an argument, which some of 
 them brought forward on a former night — that it was by the dis- 
 traction of that unhappy country within, and the pressure of hos- ■ 
 tile force from without, that these monsters had been raised to 
 power? If they avow that argument, I would farther ask, whether 
 they must not acknowledge, that the power of these men would 
 cease with the cessation of the cause that produced it — that those 
 causes would cease with the war — and that the very act of making 
 ])eace, therefore, on the responsibility of the present rulers of 
 France, would, by destroying their power, destroy the only se- 
 curity of its continuance? 
 
 So much for our security, and on the other hand — what terms 
 could we offer? In vain might we propose all the usual securities 
 of pacification on our part — the recalling our troops — the dis- 
 mantling our navy — the cession of the islands and provinces 
 which we have taken — the abandonment of our allies, and the relin- 
 quishment of this same Savoy, of which so much had been said: 
 the answer of France would be, " No — that is not enough from 
 you — it is idle mockery to talk of those things as pledges for 
 your peaceable disposition towards us. It is not enough, that you 
 relinquish all that you have gained, or indemnify us for all we 
 have expended, that you expose your commerce to our rapine, 
 and your coasts to our invasion. You have among you what must 
 keep alive an internal disposition to enmity against us, and a 
 power that will give effect to that disposition; you have your 
 Constitution, surrender us that. It is against that, that we origi- 
 nally declared war; — by the submission of that alone can the war 
 be determined. AVe ask no more of you, our enemies, as a pledge 
 of peace, than we have before demanded of our friends, the Bel- 
 gians, as a memorial of amity. But, while your Constitution re- 
 mains, whatever other show of friendship you may hold out to 
 us, never can true reconcilement grow between sentiments and 
 systems so opposite — while that continues to give vigour to your 
 government, and generosity to your people, never can you sit 
 tamely by, spectators of the fantastic pranks which we mean to 
 play throughout Europe." 
 
 But neither does it appear to me, that the call for peace is so 
 pressing and immediate. I have heard it asserted, indeed, that 
 the people were awakening from what was called their delusion, 
 
SARDINIAN TREATY. H 
 
 and were oecome clamorous for the speedy conclusion of the war. 
 I heard it asserted on a former night, that even among those gen- 
 tlemen who support ministers in this House, there was not one 
 who would stand up to say, that in his heart he was satisfied with 
 the prosecution of the war, I, for my part, cannot boast of such 
 various and extensive communications out of doors, as many gen- 
 tlemen might have — nor have I long enough had the honour of a 
 seat in this House, to be able to judge by any other criterion than 
 its votes, of the touch and temper of its inclinations. But so 
 far as my own limited communication and short experience ena- 
 bles me to speak to this point, I can fairly say — I come from 
 among the people, whom I have left, not disheartened and des- 
 ponding, anxious, indeed, (as which of us is not?) for the happy 
 and honourable termination of the war — but resolved to persevere 
 with vigour, till a termination, such as they approve, not disgrace- 
 ful, nor calamitous, shall be obtained. I come among the repre- 
 sentatives of the people, whom I find as they ought to be, in 
 unison with the sentiments of their constituents, to continue to 
 prosecute with firmness a war begun through necessity; — sup- 
 porting it with unremitted ardour, and sanctioning it with unex- 
 ampled majorities. 
 
 For all these reasons, because I conceive the war, of which this 
 treaty is a natural and necessary part, to have begun in necessity, 
 and to be continued in justice; because I cannot think that in its 
 progress it has been so deplorably and disgracefully unsuccessful 
 as some gentlemen are willing to represent it; because I do not 
 see how our acquisitions in the West Indies can fairly be stated 
 as a loss; because I do not see, how our conquests in the East can 
 properly be characterized as disgraces and defeats; because I do 
 not see, how the destruction of the maritime force of our only 
 maritime rival, can reasonably be calculated as a fatal blow to our 
 commercial and naval superiority; — but, because I do in my 
 heart believe, the very reverse of all these propositions to be 
 true: because, to conduct the war to a successful and glorious 
 termination, I conceive that the system of alliances, which we 
 have formed, should be scrupulously maintained; — that they 
 should be maintained, not only with those powers, which were 
 of themselves strong enough to perform a part adequate to the 
 assistance which they might receive from us, but, if there should 
 appear in any of the allied powers, a want of ability to perform 
 such a part, — if there should appear to be weakness in their coun- 
 cils, or slackness in their spirit, or inadequacy in their force; that 
 they ought to derive from us the ability which they wanted, they 
 ought to be counselled by our wisdom, and animated with our 
 ardour, and recruited with our strength; because, among all the 
 allied powers, I know none to whom it is more necessary that 
 
12 SARDINIAN TREATY. 
 
 such support should be liberally furnished, than to the King of 
 .Sardinia, I shall cheerfully give my vote for referring the treaty 
 to a committee. 
 
 Mr. Stanley followed Mr. Canning' in the debate. After having highly 
 eulogized the eloquence of the honourable gentleman who preceded him, 
 (whose speech was listened to throughout with the deepest attention,) he ex- 
 pressed his approval of the treaty, and should have done so, if the subsidy had 
 been doubled. Peace was at present -impossible, and for his part, he thought 
 the war had not been conducted with sufficient vigour. These were his senti- 
 ments as a country gentleman. 
 
 Mr. Fox replied ; after which the motion was agreed to. 
 
13 
 
 ON MR. TIERNEY'S MOTION RESPECTING PEACE 
 WITH THE FRENCH REPUBLIC. 
 
 DECEMBER 11 ,1798. 
 
 Mr. TiERNEY felt himself impelled to make the present luotion, from a com- 
 parison of the situation of our affairs at tiiis moment with that whicli it exhi- 
 bited some time since. He brought it forward principally to enter his protest 
 against the new spirit that had begun to rise up. The spirit lie alluded to, was 
 that which led to an extensive continental connexion. He regretted that the 
 pacific disposition which was manifested in His Majesty's declaration, soon af- 
 ter the conferences at Lisle, had been since abandoned. The first objection 
 he anticipated to his motion, loas, that it broke in upon the undoubted power 
 lohic.h the crown had of making war or peace ; but this was a point which 
 would not be much insisted upon, when it was considered that the power of tiiat 
 House was unquestionable with respect to granting supplies. It might also 
 be said, that this motion had a tendency to damp the spirit which loas rising 
 in Europe. He disclaimed a wish to discourage such a spirit, and had no 
 idea that his motion, if assented to, would have such an operation. Indeed, 
 he was led to think there loas no symptom of any spirit rising from principle 
 in any quarter. Look at Prussia ; that power had been at peace for three 
 years with the French Republic, and its minister was treated there with all 
 the respect which nations usually show towards those with whom they wished 
 to continue a good understanding. If we looked at the Emperor, we could not 
 say there was any dispute actually between him and the French : there was, 
 indeed, a congress held at Radstadt, but that he believed was a trial to make 
 the best of a mere squabble for the riglit and left bank of a river. If we looked 
 to Russia, we could not see any thing interesting : he saw nothing from that 
 quarter but professions; neither did he see any thing in the conduct of tlie Ot- 
 toman Porte, which led him lo think that the resentment shown in that quarter 
 was a resentment arising from any principle on which we could rest for a per- 
 manency. He did not mean to say that the enemy had not been guilty of the 
 most scandalous injustice, but he did not see any thing like a systematic course 
 of opposition to the projects of the enemy. The spirit of opposition in Turkey 
 would cease when she got what she wanted for herself — she would have no 
 share in the deliverance of Europe. It would be granted to him, he presumed, 
 that unless the confederacy were general, it could not be attended with any ex- 
 tensive advantages. Now, with respect to a confederacy, it existed in greatest 
 force when the unfortunate monarch was under trial, and at the time of his 
 death, and when France had not the advantage of a settled government; when 
 her troops were undisciplined — when she had nothing to oppose to her difficul- 
 ties, but the energy of her people. Compare the extended boundaries of France 
 now, with her situation at the time of the former general confederacy. , That 
 confederacy failed — its discomfiture was produced either by the skill of the 
 French, or by the jealousy of the confederates; whichever of these two causes 
 the House took, the conclusion was the same; and in neither did he see any 
 new ground for hope from a general confederacy. The French were not less 
 skilful — their generals not less able, nor their armies less powerful : and as to 
 the allies, he did not see any greater probability of their adhering to each other 
 than formerly. Could we have more confidence in Austria or Prussia now than 
 at a former period, after we had the experience of being deserted by both ? 
 Could any of the powers expect much from the co-operation of Russia? Be- 
 
 c 
 
14 ON MR. TIERNEY's MOTION 
 
 sides, what was the real advantage to be derived to Great Britain from her 
 combination with these powers! It may be said, however, that nations feel 
 what tlieir interests are now better than formerly. For his part he could not 
 conceive that any thing could be done to inflame the resentment of the confed- 
 erates, than what had been done already by the French Republic ! Could any 
 thing be done to excite deeper hatred in monarchy against French principles, 
 than the conduct held towards that monarch ! Could the nobility of a country 
 have deeper anger against any thing, than against that conduct which abolish- 
 ed their whole order at once 1 Would any thing make the prayers of the church 
 more fervent against anarchy, than the overthrowing all church establishments'? 
 Could any thing more enrage lords of manors, and such persons, than the total 
 extinction of feudal rights ? Yet these were the men who united against France, 
 and it was from an union of these again we looked for the deliverance of Eu- 
 rope. He would be glad to see France driven within her ancient limits; but 
 let us not say we would bring about the deliverance of Europe — we could not 
 accomplish it — and he, therefore, did not wish that we should make so extrava- 
 gant an attempt. He would remind the House, that ministers put into His Ma- 
 jesty's mouth, after the breaking up the conferences at Lisle, words tantamount 
 to tlie spirit of his motion. 
 
 The honourable gentleman here read a passage* from His Majesty's declara- 
 tion, respecting the negotiation for peace with France. The passage was ex- 
 pressive of His Majesty's disposition to conclude peace on moderate and equi- 
 table principles. If this motion were to be negatived, it would be incumbent 
 on those who opposed it, to show what had altered the course we ought to take. 
 There were but two reasons that he knew of, which could be made applicable 
 to this case — one was the aggression of the French in Switzerland — no man 
 looked upon that event with more horror than he did; but the House should re- 
 member it was the same in the case of Venice, before the declaration he al- 
 luded to. The next reason was the victory of Admiral Nelson; it was unques- 
 tionably great and glorious; but it should be recollected, the declaration was 
 made after the brilliant victory of Lord Duncan. The last objection to this 
 motion, he believed, was that it might operate as a notice to France, that we 
 could not longer co-operate with our allies — he thought we certainly should, in 
 the first instance, seek an honourable peace ; but if we were to co-operate, we 
 should co-operate only as we hitherto had done, most effectually l)y our naval 
 exertions. He protested against the sending of troops to the continent, and 
 against sending to any of the powers any pecuniary assistance whatever, either 
 under the title of loan, subsidy, or otherwise. He differed from those gentle- 
 men who might think this an unfavourable moment to proclaim our pacific dis- 
 positions. Our finances were in a state to excite the deepest anxiety. In six 
 years we added one hundred and fifty millions to our debt, by which we had 
 created the necessity of adding to our annual burdens eight millions — a sum 
 equal to the whole of our expenditure when the present monarch ascended the 
 throne. Let us consider also our situation at home — the Habeas Corpus Act 
 was suspended ; besides, notwithstanding all the efforts to curb and repress re- 
 bellion in Ireland, further exertions were necessary for that purpose. If we 
 looked to our establishments in the East, we would see these very large and 
 expensive. Then look at the West Indies: and here the first thing that pre- 
 sented itself was the evacuation of St Domingo; within a few hours sail of our 
 West India colonics, there was a force of no less than fifty thousand Blacks, 
 disciplined and trained to arms. The enemy had, if not the first, certainly the 
 most successful general in Europe. Under these circumstances, and consider- 
 ing that we had been engaged in what was called the common cause, for no 
 determinate object that he could see, it was time for us to have some separate 
 care of ourselves. The honourable gentleman concluded with moving: — 
 
 ♦See vol. 33, Pari, Hist, page 90S.— Up looks with anxious expccJation. 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 15 
 
 "That it is the duty of His Majesty's ministers to advise His Majesty, in the 
 present crisis, against entering into engagements which may j)revent or impede 
 a netrotiation tor peace, whenever a disposition shall he shown, on the part ot" the 
 French Republic, to treat on terms consistent with the security and interests of 
 the British empire.' 
 
 Mr. Canning: — If I might judge, Sir, of the impression made 
 by the honourable gentleman's speech, from the manner in which 
 it has been received, and particularly from the unusual degree of 
 apathy and languor which has prevailed on that side of the House 
 on which he sits, I should be led to believe, that the ardour man- 
 ifested on this side of the House by my noble and honourable 
 friends who rose at the same time with me, was, perhaps, more 
 than the occasion required: — and I assure you, Sir, I should not 
 have pressed myself upon your attention, if I had thought the oc- 
 casion one which demanded abilities like theirs; — if I had not felt, 
 that what arguments I have to state in opposition to the honoura- 
 ble gentleman's motion, are so clear and plain in themselves, as 
 to require little aid from any talents in the person who states 
 them. The motion of the honourable gentleman cannot be de- 
 nied to be of an extraordinary nature; and he has certainly 
 treated it in a very extraordinary manner. I conceive it to be 
 consonant as well to the rules of the House, as the reason of the 
 thing, that the House should not be urged to the adoption of a 
 new and unusual measure, without its being, in the first place, es- 
 tablished, that there exists some necessity for adopting it, or that 
 some advantage may be gained by doing so. I did expect, there- 
 fore, from the honourable gentleman, rather some solid reasons for 
 the measure which he has proposed, than an anticipation of the 
 objections which he thought might be urged against it. He has 
 contented himself, however, with endeavouring to destroy the va- 
 lidity of several arguments which he has heard out of doors, and 
 which he expects to hear to-night against the motion he has made; 
 but he has omitted, what seemed to me to be more peculiarly in- 
 cumbent upon him, an explanation of the motives which induced 
 him to make it. I admit that the honourable gentleman has been 
 not unsuccessful in anticipating several of the most obvious and 
 prominent objections against his motion; I cannot think that he 
 has been equally fortunate in removing them. I shall certainly 
 have occasion, in the course of what I have to say, to re-state 
 many or most of those which he has anticipated, and not without 
 the hope of establishing them to the conviction of the House. I 
 shall follow him through these objections, as nearly as I can in 
 the same order in which he has brought them forward. 
 
 The first objection which he expects to hear, but upon which I 
 am certainly not inclined to lay the greatest stress, is the point of 
 constitutional form. It is by no means my intention to contend, 
 
16 ON MR. TIERNEY's MOTION 
 
 that the nature of the honourable gentleman's motion, though ex- 
 traordinary, is wholly unprecedented, — much less to deny the 
 power and the right of the House of Commons, to offer its ad- 
 vice to His Majesty, on any subject, either of negotiation, or of 
 war. I know they have at several times interfered in both. It 
 is, indeed, somewhat singular, that the honourable gentleman 
 should not himself have cited any of the former instances of such 
 an exercise of the right of parliament. Perhaps he has some re- 
 collection, that a peculiar sort of fatality has, in almost every in- 
 stance, seemed to attend interferences of this nature; that in almost 
 every instance, from the Revolution to our own time, they have 
 been either nugatory or mischievous. I will mention two only, 
 out of the few that have occurred during this period: the first, 
 — that which was nearest, in point of time, to the Revolution; the 
 other, — that which is nearest to our own time; the first, an inter- 
 ference tending to prolong the war; the other, intended to acceler- 
 ate a peace. The first, the warlike measure, was the famous 
 vote of the House of Lords in 1707, " That no peace could be 
 safe or honourable which would leave Spain and the Spanish 
 West Indies in the possession of the House of Bourbon." It is 
 hardly necessary to remind gentlemen, that this vote, carried by 
 the heat and violence of party, had no effect whatever; that no 
 manner of regard was paid to it, in the peace which was after- 
 wards negotiated. — And, whatever might be the faults of that 
 peace, or however loud the cry against the ministers who made 
 it, I do not think that any man, who looks fairly and impartially 
 at that peace now, will say, that it was any very great crime in 
 those ministers, that they did omit to carry this vote into execu- 
 tion. The second example to which I refer, is, the resolution 
 voted by the House of Commons, respecting the " Independence 
 of America." Of a transaction so recent it is hardly possible to 
 speak with the freedom of history. I speak, probably, in the 
 presence of many who took part in favour of that resolution — 
 of some certainly, who opposed it. Who were right, or who were 
 wrong, I do not presume to determine. But in one thing, I be- 
 lieve, those who opposed and those who promoted it will equally 
 concur, — that the vote which carried that resolution was an un- 
 fortunate vote; and that it had an influence fatal to the interest 
 of this country, on the peace which concluded the American war. 
 This was a proposition which those who had to make that peace 
 must, I am sure, contend to be true; and which those who con- 
 demned that peace Avould find it difiicult to deny. 
 
 But whatever might be the force of precedents, they would not 
 of themselves, — even if their bearing was as much in favour of 
 motions of this kind, as unfortunately it has been against them, — 
 thev wonl^' "^^^ -^ ^^'^'^mselves be sufficient to justify the honour- 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 17 
 
 able gentleman's motion. It would, I presume, be farther neces- 
 sary for him to show (as was shown, or attempted to be shown, 
 in all former instances,) that some necessity at present exists, 
 which calls for such an interference of the House of Commons. 
 I can conceive such a necessity to arise only from one of two cir- 
 cumstances: either from the circumstance of some opening for 
 peace now presenting itself, of which ministers do not show 
 themselves enough disposed to take advantage; — or from minis- 
 ters having at former periods evinced a disposition generally hos- 
 tile to peace, which this motion is intended to censure or to control. 
 That any such opening now exists, the honourable gentleman has 
 not attempted to argue. I must, therefore, naturally have attri- 
 buted his motion to a false impression remaining on his mind of 
 the conduct of ministers in former negotiations: — I must have 
 conceived, that he retained a confused and perplexed recollection 
 of what had passed at Lisle, — that he remembered something in- 
 distinctly of an embarrassment having been thrown in the way of 
 the negotiation by a question about allies, — but utterly forgot that 
 the allies who created this embarrassment were the allies of 
 France and not of Great Britain; — and that, under this mistake, 
 he was bringing forward the restriction in the wrong place, and 
 applying to this country, a cure for the misconduct of the enemy. 
 But I am prevented from admitting even this foundation for his 
 proceeding, by the approbation which the honourable gentleman 
 has expressed of the manifesto published by this government, af- 
 ter the breaking off of the negotiations at Lisle. The honourable 
 gentleman distinctly and fairly acknowledges that manifesto to 
 have exhibited undoubted proofs of the pacific dispositions of His 
 Majesty's ministers. 
 
 And here give me leave to observe rather a singular argument, 
 which grows out of the honourable gentleman's peculiar conduct 
 and situation. He tells you that he brings forward this motion 
 as an "unconnected and unsupported individual," acting with no 
 party or set of men whatever. By agreeing to the motion, there- 
 fore, the advantage which we are to gain is his individual co-ope- 
 ration. It is hardly to be supposed that he will be more con- 
 vinced of the pacific disposition of ministers after this resolution 
 shall have been adopted, than he was after the publication of the 
 manifesto, which he has so warmly commended. What was the 
 first step that he took by way of co-operation after that manifesto 
 was published? He voted against the siipply. — Convinced, that 
 His Majesty had done all in his power to obtain peace; — that he 
 had gone almost beyond what could have been expected of him, 
 in forbearance and moderation; — that he had shown, even after 
 the victory of Lord Duncan, the most decided disposition to make 
 peace, upon fair and reasonable terms; — convinced, that the ab- 
 4 c * 
 
18 ON MR. TIERNEY's MOTION 
 
 rupt conclusion of the negotiation at Lisle had been the act of the 
 enemy exclusively: — that the continuance of the calamities of 
 war was to be attributed to the arrogance, and wickedness, and 
 pride, of the enemy alone; — ^that His Majesty had no choice; — 
 that he must of necessity continue to carry on a war, which the 
 mad ambition of that enemy would not allow him to terminate; — 
 in this conviction, to enable His Majesty to carry on the war, the 
 honourable gentleman, " unconnected and unsupported," indi- 
 vidually voted against the supply. I do not mean to impeach 
 the honourable gentleman's conduct in this instance. He had no 
 doubt his reasons for it. But I do mean to put it to the judg- 
 ment of the House, whether, if it should be evident (as I trust it 
 will be) that no solid and general advantage is to be derived to 
 the country from our agreeing to the honourable gentleman's re- 
 solution, — there is much temptation held out to us to do so, by 
 the prospect of his future individual co-operation; whether it is 
 worth while to adopt an unusual, unnecessary, and much more, a 
 mischievous measure, to evince our desire for peace, — in order 
 to secure the honourable gentleman's vote against the supply for 
 carrying on the war. This, however, would certainly be a very 
 inferior consideration, if there were any utility or advantage to 
 be deriTed from the measure proposed. I have not heard the 
 honourable gentleman state any advantage as likely to arise from 
 it to the country. As he has affirmed nothing of this kind, I 
 have nothing of the kind to deny. But there is one way of con- 
 sidering what is advantageous to this country, to which I confess 
 I am very partial; and the rather, perhaps, because it does not 
 fall in with the new and fashionable philosophy of the day. I 
 know it is a doctrine of that large and liberal system of ethics 
 which has of late been introduced into the world, and which has 
 superseded all the narrow prejudices of the ancient school, — that 
 we are to consider not so much what is good for our country, as 
 what is good for the human race; that we are all children of one 
 large family; — and I know not what other fancies and philanthro- 
 pies, which I must take shame to myself for not being able to 
 comprehend. I, for my part, still conceive it to be the paramount 
 duty of a British member of parliament, to consider what is good 
 for Great Britain: and where no immediate advantage is pointed 
 out as obviously arising from any new measure that is proposed 
 for our adoption, — I hold it no bad test to examine in what way 
 it bears upon the interests of France, and to conclude, however 
 unphilosophically, or illiberally, that what is good for the enemy, 
 cannot be very good for us. 
 
 Now, Sir, I beg to have it understood, — and I assure the hon- 
 oural)le gentleman, that I am very f;ir from meaning any thing 
 personally disrespectful to him; — that I give him full credit for 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 19 
 
 feeling, as strongly as any man. every thing that he owes to his 
 country, for being as ready as any man to devote his talents and 
 exertions to her service. I appeal, therefore, not to his feelings, 
 but to his judgment and ingenuity, — when I desire him to con- 
 sider, whether he could possibly devise any measure (capable, at 
 the present moment, of being patiently entertained by this House, 
 or by the public,) which should have a more direct and manifest 
 tendency to benefit France, than the motion which he has now 
 brought forward? What could any man — any member of this 
 House (if it were possible to suppose that there should be such a 
 member in this House), most perversely devoted to the views of 
 the enemy, and bent upon exalting France at the expense of Great 
 Britain, — what more effectual measure could such a man take for 
 such a purpose, than by a motion like the present? For what is 
 it that the French Directory appear, by all their conduct, by all 
 their publications, to dread and deprecate more than any other 
 thing in the world? What is it that all their oflicial and unofficial 
 papers most labour to discredit? What — but the revival of a great 
 and general confederacy in Europe, of which England should be 
 the animating soul? Why should we co-operate with the French 
 Directory? What interest can we have in common with them, 
 that should induce us to take their work out of their hands, and 
 complete it for them? What advantage can it be to us to daunt 
 and dispirit Europe; and to relieve the Directory from the appre- 
 hension of any powerful resistance, or the necessity of any ex- 
 tensive preparation; to maintain their influence abroad, and their 
 authority at home? 
 
 I will put the question in another way. I will suppose that we 
 were now in the last year of the monarchy of France, instead of 
 the sixth or seventh year, or whatever it may be, of the French 
 republic, one and indivisible. By the monarchy, I mean, of 
 course, that cruel, wicked, profligate, abominai)le despotism, of 
 which we have heard so many, and, no doubt, so just complaints, 
 — which oppressed France with I know not what unheard-of 
 cruelties, — which insulted England, and desolated Europe, by 
 crimes and calamities such as can never be imputed to the French 
 republic. I will suppose that this monarchy had received so for- 
 midable a blow as has been given to the Directory by the victory 
 of the Nile; — that its fleets had been disgraced and defeated, in 
 different expeditions against the British Empire — that its fairest 
 provinces were in revolt; — that its subjects were universally dis- 
 contented; — that its commerce was extinguished; — its revenue 
 destroyed; — and its finances, by the confessions of its ablest 
 financiers, in a state of utter and irrecoverable ruin and bank- 
 ruptcy; — that against the monarchy, thus situated, a general spirit 
 was rising in Europe: — I will suppose that under these circum- 
 
20 ON MR. TIERNEY's MOTION 
 
 stances, the ministers of this country had come down to this 
 House, and suggested the propriety of such a measure of abjura- 
 tion and self-denial as is now under consideration: and I will ask, 
 — what would have been the clamour raised on the other side of 
 the House? — how pointedly would the question have been put to 
 ministers, " What are you doing? Why do you interfere to ar- 
 rest the downfall of this detestable tyranny? Look on only — do 
 nothing — and it will fall of itself What business is it of yours 
 to rescue from destruction a power, so inordinate in its ambition, 
 and so hostile to the happiness of Europe!" 
 
 Such would have been the language that we should have heard, 
 if the monarchy of France had been the object of forbearance, 
 and if ministers had been the persons to advise us to forbear. I 
 will not press similar interrogations in such a way as to impute to 
 any gentleman improper and unjustifiable partialities: — but I can- 
 not help asking, whether the present gevernment of France be 
 indeed one, which has deserved so well of this country, — which, 
 to take the question more candidly, has deserved so well of 
 France, — which, in the still more large and liberal cant of the 
 day, has deserved so well of hiivianity — as that we should feel 
 ourselves called upon to take so extraordinary a step in its behalf? 
 And I would farther ask, whether, — whatever be the present de- 
 gree of weakness or stability in the government of France (upon 
 which I give no opinion) — whether the effect of this motion 
 must not be to prop its power, and to come to the aid of its un- 
 popularity? whether, with this vote of security in one hand, the 
 Directory might not boldly hold out the Gazette of Lord Nel- 
 son's victory in the other, and call upon the people of France to 
 balance what had been lost with what had been gained? 
 
 But admitting, for the argument's sake, the object of the hon- 
 ourable gentleman's motion to be advantageous to this country; 
 it would remain to be seen how far that object is clearly express- 
 ed or understood, and how far the means which he suggests are 
 calculated for attaining it. The honourable gentleman takes credit 
 to himself for not limiting or defining in any degree, the nature 
 or terms of the peace which it is the duty of His Majesty's min- 
 isters to conclude. If he had not mentioned this omission as a 
 point on which he takes credit to himself, it is that which I should 
 have been tempted to select for peculiar disapprobation. It seems 
 to me at least a new and unusual course of policy, instead of de- 
 fining the end, to contract the means of action. It would have 
 seemed more natural and more fair, to say beforehand, " Such or 
 such is the peace with which the country would be contented, 
 and which would be consistent with its security and interests; 
 but the mode of arriving at that peace, is what must be left for 
 HLs Majesty's ministers to devise:" — this surely would be fairer 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 21 
 
 than to say, in the language of the present motion, " I will not 
 tell you what peace you ought to make; — but I will take from 
 you one great instrument for making any peace at all." 
 
 By this motion what advice do you give to ministers, or what 
 control do you impose on them? Your advice is certainly not 
 worth much, — when you only tell them how they shall not pro- 
 ceed; but say nothing of how they shall proceed, or whither they 
 shall go. Your control cannot be very effectual, — since it is they, it 
 seems, after all, who are to remain the judges of what is " con- 
 sistent with the security and interests" of Great Britain. These 
 interests and this security must necessarily be considered with re- 
 lation to the different circumstances of the enemy and of Europe. 
 What might be a secure peace for Great Britain with France re- 
 duced in power, and Europe at liberty, — would no doubt be 
 highly unsafe against France in her present state of force and ag- 
 grandizement, with great part of Europe at her feet, and the re- 
 sources of other nations at her disposal. It is equally clear, that 
 it would be more difficult for us, single and unassisted, to extort 
 from France such terms as would be consistent with our interests, 
 than to obtain the same terms, if backed by a powerful confede- 
 racy in Europe. The declaration conveyed to France by this 
 motion, that we are determined, at all events, to treat singly, 
 Avould naturally inflame her pride, and increase her demands. 
 The declaration that we make no common cause with other na- 
 tions, would necessarily place those nations at her mercy, or on 
 her side. The effect of the motion must, therefore, be to dimin- 
 ish alike the probable advantages of the peace to be obtained, and 
 our power of obtaining it. It prescribes a more difficult end to 
 be accomplished, with less efficacious means. At the same time, 
 it does not tend to hasten the conclusion of even such a peace, as 
 with such means might possibly be obtained; for it leaves minis- 
 ters at liberty to conclude no peace, which they do not think 
 "consistent with the security and interests" of the country: — 
 and if they should choose to think, (which they very probably 
 and very laudably might), that no peace would deserve this char- 
 acter, which should not provide for the safety of Europe; — what 
 assurance does this motion give you against a hopeless prolonga- 
 tion of the war? 
 
 Sir, the hon. gentleman's purpose, if I at all comprehend it, re- 
 quired that he should have made the latter part of his motion as 
 distinct as the beginning. If he had done so, — if he had fairly 
 stated the idea which he has in his own mind, — I apprehend that, 
 instead of the circumlocution of a peace " consistent with security 
 and interests," &c., we should have heard of a separate peace. 
 I confess, that this was what I was prepared to expect. I expect- 
 ed it the rather, from comparing the general reasoning of the hon. 
 
22 ON MR. TIERNEy's MOTION 
 
 gentleman with respect to separate war, — with what is reported 
 to have been said upon the same topic in another place by a noble 
 statesman of great consideration and celebrity — a statesman, who 
 to a life of political activity has had the advantage of adding an 
 age of retirement and reflection. This great authority, (I under- 
 stand) recommended, as the only sort of war that suited the cir- 
 cumstances of this country, — a tight, snug, little, domestic war; 
 in which our exertions should be confined at home; in which we 
 should not stretch an arm beyond the circumference of our own 
 dominions, but should sit down with our navy collected about us, 
 and turn round upon our own axis, without reference to the rest 
 of the world. The main advantage stated as likely to result from 
 this system was, that our sailors luould spend their wages at 
 home: — the noble statesman ought to have added, to heighten the 
 glowing picture, that they would spend them in exciseable com- 
 modities. This system of separate war was evidently calculated 
 to lead ultimately to separate peace: as, indeed, its illustrious pro- 
 mulgator avowed. I imagined that the hon. gentleman, in adopt- 
 ing the premises of the noble statesman, must be prepared like- 
 wise to adopt his conclusion. I should certainly disapprove of 
 both — because I cannot but apprehend that a war so very like 
 peace, would lead to a peace that would be very like war — that a 
 contest (if contest it might be called) in which we should be 
 afraid to employ our forces, would lead to a pacification at which 
 we should be afraid to disband them. And this opinion I venture 
 to entertain, in opposition to such high authority; because I think 
 I have on my side the eternal and immutable truth, — that the ob- 
 jects of human desire are attainable only by human exertion; — 
 ithat never yet did inaction beget repose, or a want of energy and 
 spirit secure permanent and unmolested tranquillity. 
 
 The system of separation, however, is defended upon another 
 ground. It is conceded with great candour, that the conduct of 
 France is very bad; but it is at the same time contended, that the 
 other powers of Europe are very bad, too; and that the less we 
 have to do with either of them, the better. I must take leave, 
 Sir, in the first place, to observe upon the afiectation which has 
 grown up among those who argue against the war, of pairing off 
 the enormities of France against the imputed crimes of regular 
 governments. No sooner is any fresh act of atrocity, cruelty, 
 perfidy, or injustice, on the part of the French Republic, brought 
 forward in argument, than recourse is had to some stale trite topic 
 of declamation, which has been used a hundred and a hundred 
 times against Russia, Prussia, Austria, or the old government of 
 France. During Robespierre's reign, the favourite pair for every 
 one of his noyades, and fusillades, his crowded dungeons, and 
 sweeping executions, — was the imprisonment of Lafayette! The 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 23 
 
 partition of Poland, too! — (a measure which I have no thoughts 
 of justifying,) against how many detestable, impious, and tyranni- 
 cal outrages, invasions, confiscations, rapines, and massacres of the 
 French government, has not the partition of Poland been cited as 
 a parallel! It has really, Sir, been called into service so often, that 
 it ought no longer to be considered as d. pair. It is time to agree, 
 that, at least, in any future enormities of France, she shall not 
 have a set-off in the partition of Poland, 
 
 But, after all, to what does this argument at best amount? The 
 world is a bad world, and we are, therefore, to withdraw our- 
 selves from it. Good: — if this were, indeed, practicable; if it re- 
 mained for us to choose whether we would make a part of this 
 world or no; 
 
 " If Heav'n would make us such another world 
 
 Of one entire and perfect chrysolite," 
 
 where all should be pure, and perfect, and without a flaw. But 
 if we are, in spite of ourselves, compelled to belong to the world 
 in which we are placed, I know not whether it be not more manly, 
 more statesman-like, and more virtuous, too, to make the best of 
 it; — to do what we can with the materials which we have; and to 
 endeavour to work out our own happiness, even though we should 
 not be able to separate and disconnect it from the happiness of our 
 fellow creatures. 
 
 I think this Is a more rational conduct than the sort of national 
 secession which the hon. gentleman's motion goes to recommend. 
 I know of no justifiable reason for such a secession, — I can con- 
 ceive no motive for It, consistent with true sense of right, and 
 just dignity of character. I know not how we could reconcile It 
 to ourselves (if It were practicable) to withdraw into gloomy sol- 
 itude, and "grim repose:" while w^e have talents which God has 
 given us for the benefit of our fellow creatures, and' while we 
 have a station which affords us an opportunity of employing those 
 talents to that purpose. It Is not under such circumstances that I 
 can conceive It to be excusable, to indulge a whim, and fretful- 
 ness, and peevishness of temper, from personal spleen and petty 
 resentment, because every thing does not go exactly as we would 
 have it. I can conceive no cause, except sullen discontent, and 
 disappointed ambition, which could lead us to abjure communion 
 with mankind. For discontent, as a nation, God be thanked, we 
 have no ground! Ours has been a generous ambition, and it has 
 not been disappointed, so far as we are ourselves concerned; but 
 it looks to larger and more elevated objects, — to the peace and 
 prosperity of the world. If, indeed, a full gratification of ambi- 
 tious views were a sufficient reason for retirement, we might fair- 
 ly and proudly retire, and say, with truth and confidence, that we 
 have acted our part. If we had undertaken the war for territoriaJ 
 
24 ON MR. TIERNEy's MOTION 
 
 aggrandizement, — if we had been impelled to it by a thirst of 
 naval glory, — we might, indeed, sit down contented with our 
 conquests, when there is scarcely any thing left us to acquire; we 
 might pause, satiated with victory, when we have no longer an 
 enemy to subdue. But we did not undertake the war for these 
 objects. Undertake it, indeed we did in no sense: it was forced 
 upon us by the aggression and ambition of our enemy: we were 
 compelled to engage in it for our safety and defence, — not in lo- 
 cal, partial, and insulated points, but in those points in which our 
 safety is connected and bound up with the safety, honour, and in- 
 terests of Europe. 
 
 " But what," say the gentlemen on the other side of the House, 
 " is the distinct object for which we are engaged?" — Gentlemen 
 put this question, as if an object were a corporeal substance; as 
 if it was something tangible, something that could be taken in the 
 hand and laid upon your table, and turned round and round be- 
 fore them for accurate, ocular examination. In this sense I pro- 
 fess myself perfectly unable to satisfy them. But do they mean 
 something less precise than this, (though scarcely less so) — the 
 statement of some one distinct term, the obtaining of which is to 
 be settled beforehand as a sine qua non condition of peace? If 
 they do mean this, are they really prepared to argue that such a 
 statement, supposing it could be made, would be politic, would 
 be prudent, — particularly with a view to the facilitating or accel- 
 erating a pacification? Do they not believe — is it not evident — 
 that if it had any effect, it would have an effect exactly the con- 
 trary? Do they think the resolution of 1707, for instance, to 
 which I have already referred, had a tendency to promote, or to 
 retard peace ? That resolution, indeed, we know was not adhered 
 to. Was it then politic to have passed it? Or, would the gentle- 
 men be contented with the statement of an object to which we 
 did not mean to adhere? Would they gain any thing by this? 
 Would this give facility to peace, or vigour to war? Would it 
 contribute to any possible purpose that could be in any way ben- 
 eficial to the country ? 
 
 That we have objects, great and momentous objects, in our 
 view, there is no man that must not feel. I can have no difficulty 
 in declaring, that the most complete and desirable termination of 
 the contest would be the deliverance of Europe. I am told, in- 
 deed, that there are persons who affect not to understand this 
 phrase; who think there is something confused, something in- 
 volved, something of studied ambiguity and concealment in it. I 
 cannot undertake to answer for other gentlemen's powers of com- 
 prehension. The map of Europe is before them. I can only 
 say, that I do not admire that man's intellects, and I do not envy 
 that man's feelings, who can look over that map without gather- 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 25 
 
 ing some notion of what is meant by the deliverance of Europe. 
 I do not envy that man's feelings, who can behold the sufferings 
 of Switzerland, and who derives from that sight no idea of what 
 is meant by the deliverance of Europe. I do not envy the feel- 
 ings of that man, who can look without emotion at Italy, — plun- 
 dered, insulted, trampled upon, exhausted, covered with ridicule, 
 and horror, and devastation; — who can look at all this, and be at 
 a loss to guess what is meant by the deliverance of Europe ? As 
 little do I envy the feelings of that man, who can view the people 
 of the Netherlands driven into insurrection, and struggling for 
 their freedom against the heavy hand of a merciless tyranny, 
 without entertaining any suspicion of what may be the sense of 
 the word deliverance. Does such a man contemplate Holland 
 groaning under arbitrary oppressions and exactions ? Does he turn 
 his eyes to Spain trembling at the nod of a foreign master? And 
 does the word deliverance still sound unintelligibly in his ear? 
 Has he heard of the rescue and salvation of Naples, by the ap- 
 pearance and the triumphs of the British fleet? Does he know 
 that the monarchy of Naples maintains its existence at the sword's 
 point? And is his understanding, and is his heart, still impenetra- 
 ble to the sense and meaning of the deliverance of Europe ? 
 
 Sir, that we shall succeed in effecting this general deliverance, 
 I do not pretend to affirm. That in no possible case we should 
 lay down our arms and conclude a peace before it is fully effect- 
 ed, I do not mean to argue. But that this is the object which we 
 ought to have in view, even if we look to our own safety only, — 
 that of this we ought to accomplish as much as our means, our 
 power, our exertions, our opportunities will allow, — I do most 
 anxiously contend. If circumstances should unhappily arise to 
 make the attainment of the object hopeless, it will be time enough 
 when they do arise, to give up the hopes of attaining it: — but do 
 not let us run before misfortune, do not let us presume disappoint- 
 ment, and anticipate the necessity of disgrace! 
 
 But it is contended and justly contended, that the deliverance 
 of Europe cannot be effected by our exertions alone: and that, 
 unless other powers are sincerely disposed to co-operate, we 
 are setting out on a romantic and absurd and impracticable enter- 
 prise, which we have neither any chance of accomplishing, nor 
 any duty or call to undertake. I perfectly agree, that if other 
 powers are not disposed to co-operate, we have no reasonable 
 chance of succeeding to the extent of our wishes. But I cannot 
 help asking, at the same time — If there be no such disposition on 
 the part of other powers, where is the use, or what is the neces- 
 sity for the hon. gentleman's motion ? Why need parliament in- 
 terfere to prevent His Majesty's ministers from taking advantage 
 of dispositions which do not exist, and from accepting co-opera- 
 5 D 
 
26 ON MR. TIERNEy's MOTION 
 
 tion which will not be offered ? But if, on the other hand, the 
 powers of Europe, or any of them, are ready to do their part to- 
 wards the common salvation, and want but our countenance and 
 encouragement to begin; if the train is laid, — if the sparks of en- 
 mity and resentment, ^vhich the aggressions of France have kin- 
 dled in every nation throughout Europe, want but our breath to 
 blow them into conflagration; is it the dictate of our duty, our in- 
 terest, or our feelings, to save France from destruction, — and by 
 a coarse and hasty proceeding, like that which is now recom- 
 mended to us, to throw a wet blanket on the flames ? 
 
 If, however, the co-operation of allies should be offered, we 
 are called upon to receive them with suspicion and distrust; and 
 to be assured, from the fate of former confedei'acies, from the 
 manner in which we have been duped and deceived heretofore, 
 that no fidelity to engagements, and no consistency of conduct, is 
 to be expected from the continental powers. It seems to me that 
 this is rather a hard, unfair, and hasty judgment. When it is 
 contended, that because Austria and Prussia have been unfaithful 
 to our alliance, and have made peace at different times in a man- 
 ner equally inconsistent with their engagements and their inter- 
 ests, — Russia and the Porte must, therefore, be considered as 
 equally faithless, equally worthless allies, as powers on whom no 
 reliance can be placed, and from whose exertions no advantage 
 can be expected; — when the errors of the guilty are thus made to 
 furnish a ground of presumption against the innocent; — I have 
 too much respect for the hon. gentleman, to say, that he reasons 
 falsely, or feebly; but I must say, that if I had ever happened to 
 meet with such a train of reasoning, upon any other subject, in 
 any other place, I should have had little hesitation in condemning 
 it as illogical and inconclusive. Of the treatment, indeed, which 
 the Ottoman Porte receives, I think we have some reason to com- 
 plain. Gentlemen seem to think that when they have quoted the 
 words of His Majesty's speech, '■ the vigour and decision of the 
 Ottoman Porte," they have entirely settled the question; that 
 they have stated something obviously and palpably absurd and ri- 
 diculous: — and the smile with which this quotation is received by 
 those who surround them, must very much encourage them in 
 that idea. They seem to think, that because the Grand Seignior 
 wears a long beard and a long gown, and is altogether a figure 
 such as we are not accustomed every day to contemplate, — to ex- 
 pect vigour and decision, or good sense or sound policy from him, 
 is an expectation in the highest degree wild and fantastical. 
 
 I cannot, for my life, bring myself to understand where all this 
 ridicule lies. I know not why the Grand Seignior should not 
 take as correct a view of his interests, as any other power whose 
 customs may be more conformable to our own. I am sure that 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 27 
 
 the Declaration (which we have all seen) of the motives which 
 have guided the conduct of the Porte, is as able and masterly a 
 composition, as correct in principles of justice, and as sound in 
 principles of policy, as any state paper that ever was pul^lished 
 by any cabinet of Europe. And if the dress and decorations of 
 the Turk be all that strikes the hon. gentleman as ridiculous: — I 
 know not why I should forbear to take the benefit that might re- 
 sult to my arguments, from calling your attention to the antic 
 mummeries and tri-coloured trumpery of the enlightened Execu- 
 tive Directory of France. But I know, if I were to do so. Sir, I 
 should be censured as illiberal, unphilosophical, and — (there is an- 
 other word in fashion, which I had almost forgotten) — iincandid. 
 Allow me, Sir, only to claim the same candour and liberality for 
 the Turk. 
 
 But your Turk is a Mahometan, it seems, and, therefore, an 
 ally not fi.t for a Christian! — I do not know, Sir, but an alliance 
 with a Mahometan may be as good as a peace with an Atheist; 
 the sanction of its engagements may, perhaps, be as sacred, and 
 its stipulations as likely to be fulfilled. 
 
 But he is a sluggish Turk; slow to anger, and hard to be driven 
 into action. If that be his character, what must be the provoca- 
 tions which have roused him! 
 
 But then comes the worst of all: — the Turks and Russians are 
 naturally enemies; and yet here we find them most unnaturally al- 
 lied together against a common enemy. In the first place. Sir, it is 
 a little hard, that, when in favour of France, all notions of received 
 and establshed policy, and of the balance of power in Europe, are 
 to be utterly disregarded, and put out of the question — there is 
 yet to be no combination against France, but upon principles 
 strictly conformable to them. But, after all, what is there in this 
 argument? What does it prove, — but that the aggressions of 
 France have been so multiplied, so various, and so extraordinary, 
 as to unite against her powers the most opposite in nature and in 
 interest, as to make the necessity of resistance, and the duty of 
 self-preservation supersede every narrower consideration, every 
 motive of more particular and contracted policy. 
 
 Did gentlemen suppose, then, that there is such a magic force 
 in the hostility of France, that if she attacks, at the same time, 
 two powers, naturally enemies to each other, the recollection of 
 their previous hostility shall deprive each of them of the capacity 
 of self-defence ? Did any body ever see, or hear, or read of an in- 
 stance of such rooted, and unconquerable, and unreasonable antip- 
 athy? Can they conceive this in individual instances? If a man 
 comes against me with a sword stained with the blood of my ene- 
 my, am I, therefore, to make no resistance to his attack ? 
 
 For our old allies, however, it is taken for granted, that no 
 
28 ON MR. TIERNEY's MOTION 
 
 apology can be made. No good reason (it is contended) can be 
 given, why they should not be more worthy of our confidence, 
 more steady to our interests and their own, than they have proved 
 themselves in the former confederacy. The honourable gentle- 
 man has anticipated an argument which he is apprehensive may 
 be drawn from the change of circumstances in Europe, and from 
 the conviction which is grown up within this last year, respecting 
 the real views and intentions of France. This argument the ho- 
 nourable gentleman has anticipated, and declares he sees nothing 
 in it. The honourable gentleman is right in his anticipation. I 
 certainly am disposed to use this argument; and I certainly am 
 equally disposed to differ from the honourable gentleman as to 
 its force and validity. 
 
 I would ask the honourable gentleman, I would ask every man 
 in the House, whether he does not know — personally and inti- 
 mately know — many individuals in this country, the whole course 
 and current of whose ideas, with respect to France, have of late 
 been entirely changed ? Does he not believe that the invasion of 
 Switzerland, for instance, that the profligate, swindling transaction 
 with America, that the event of the negotiation at Lisle, worked 
 a great change in the public mind in this country? Is not the ho- 
 nourable gentleman acquainted with great and illustrious converts 
 among what some persons have deemed the most able, the most 
 enlightened, and most respectable characters of the age ? And by 
 what rule, either of justice or of reason, does the honourable gen- 
 tleman propose to limit the benefits of experience to his own 
 countrymen alone ? Is it not possible that the statesmen of Aus- 
 tria or of Prussia may have caught some light from what has 
 passed upon the continent of Europe ? May not Baron Thugut or 
 Count Haugwitz have declared (thougli not, perhaps, in a public 
 tavern,) at Berlin or Vienna, that " France has thrown off the 
 mask, if ever she wore it?" Would not they be to be believed if 
 they had made such a declaration? Is there any thing that should 
 make their profession incredible, and their conviction suspicious? 
 Or is it to the enlightened wisdom, to the penetrating and perspi- 
 cacious sagacity, to the firm and inflexible virtue of our patriot 
 statesmen alone, that we would confine the plea of credulity, and 
 restrict the privilege of recantation ? 
 
 I, Sir, do not see the justice of such a restriction and limita- 
 tion: and I confess I should try the sincerity of such a recanta- 
 tion by one test alone; by observing Avhether or not it were fol- 
 lowed by any act that corresponded with its spirit and its meaning. 
 It has been observed by ancient philosophers, that if virtue could 
 be brought to perfection and consummation in any human mind, 
 the possessor of it would still be an imperfect creature, inasmuch 
 as llie consciousness of his own excellence would weaken in him 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 29 
 
 one of the first and most amiable qualities of human nature — the 
 indulgence for the frailties of his fellow creatures. It is, I sup- 
 pose, from, some such cause as this, that the gentlemen on the 
 other side of the House show themselves so little indulgent to 
 the failings and errors of our allies. Conscious that nothing of 
 French artifice, or French wickedness, could deceive or impose 
 upon them, they cannot forgive the folly and stupidity of those 
 who have suffered themselves for a moment to be so deluded: 
 nay, they are hardly content to ascribe the delusion to folly ; but 
 are forward to insinuate a suspicion of sympathy and fellow-feeling 
 with France. 
 
 AVe, Sir, who have not the same consciousness of infiillibility in 
 ourselves, are naturally averse from such suspicion, and more dis- 
 posed to make good-natured allowances. And I protest, for one, 
 that if the ministers whom I have mentioned, Baron Thugut, and 
 Count Haugwitz, — nay, if even their masters, the Emperor of 
 Germany, and the King of Prussia, had pledged themselves yet 
 deeper to a mistaken opinion of France; — if the forms of the 
 House had admitted of their being brought to your bar, and there, 
 Sir, before God and the country, swearing upon their oaths and 
 upon their honour, that they believed — nay, swearing that they 
 always would continue to believe, — that the government of France 
 was the gentlest, quietest, purest, noblest, faithfullest, best of go- 
 vernments; — that it abhorred and detested, above all things, the 
 idea of foreign interference with the government of other coun- 
 tries; — that the character of the Directory had something in it 
 of peculiar candour, ingenuity and openness; — that they (the wit- 
 nesses) spoke to these facts from their own certain knowledge, — 
 for that they had lived upon terms of the most confidential inter- 
 course with the Directory, and their communications had been al- 
 most entirely upon subjects of a political nature: — If, I say. Sir, 
 such had been the testimony in favour of France, given with all 
 the solemnity of an oath, by the great personages to whom I have 
 referred; — I should yet be willing to allow some credit to their 
 asservation, if they were now to come forward and tell us, that 
 the circumstances of the conduct of France since the time when 
 this testimony was given, that, above all, the declarations and con- 
 fessions of France herself had completely changed their opinion; 
 had detected the fraud which had been practised upon their 
 judgment, and had convinced them of the profligacy, the atrocity, 
 and the hypocrisy of the Directory. I say. Sir, I should be wil- 
 ling to give full credit to this penitent retraction, I should 
 be willing even to profit by their offers of future co-operation 
 against France. Nor do I well see on what ground the honoura- 
 ble gentlemen could reject such offers, unless they are prepared 
 to argue (which if they are, on their own judgments be the re- 
 
 D * 
 
30 ON MR. TIERNEY's MOTION 
 
 sponsibility, — I do not presume to give any opinion for or against 
 such a proposition,) that " no man who has once been contami- 
 nated by the communion of French principles, — who has been 
 drawn, however innocently or mistakenly, into an approbation 
 and encouragement of persons acting upon these principles, — can 
 ever again be a sound man." 1, for my part, should in such a 
 case incline to believe the recantation sincere, and to act upon it 
 as such; — unless, indeed, at the moment of making it, the same 
 person were to say to me, " I do not, however, so much disap- 
 prove of French principles in themselves: I only doubt the pro- 
 priety of their application." — Then, indeed, I admit, that I should 
 distrust him again as much as ever. 
 
 So much. Sir, as to the particular argument, that the past con- 
 duct of our former allies ought to lead us to withhold all credit 
 from their future professions. There is, however, another and a 
 more general argument, comprehending alike these and the other 
 powers of Europe; which, but that it has been stated by the hon- 
 ourable gentleman, I should really have thought scarcely worth 
 confutation. We, it seems — a wise, prudent, reflecting people — 
 are much struck with all the outrages that France has committed 
 upon the continent; but on the powers of the continent itself, no 
 lasting impression has been made. Is this probable ? Is it possi- 
 ble ? Is it in the nature of things, that the contemplation of the 
 wrongs and miseries which others have endured, should have 
 worked a deeper impression upon our minds, than the suffering 
 of those miseries and wrongs has left on the minds of those upon 
 whom they were actually inflicted ? 
 
 " Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures, 
 Quam quffi sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus." 
 
 Yet the echo and report of the blows by which other countries 
 have fallen, are supposed to have had more effect upon us, than 
 the blows themselves produced upon the miserable victims who 
 sunk beneath them. 
 
 The pillage and bloody devastation of Italy strike us with hor- 
 ror; — but Italy, we are to believe, is contented with what has be- 
 fallen her. The insults which are hurled by the French garrison 
 from the walls of the citadel of Turin rouse resentment in our 
 breasts; but have no effect on the feelings of the Piedmontese. 
 We read with indignation of the flag of Bernadotte displayed in 
 mockery and insult to the Emperor and his subjects; but it 
 flaunted in the eyes of the people of Vienna without exciting 
 any emotions of hatred or resentment. The invasion of a prov- 
 ince of a friendly power, with whom they had no cause nor pre- 
 text for hostility, has created in iis a decided detestation for the 
 unprincipled hypocrisy and ambition of the Directory; but the 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 31 
 
 Ottoman Porte sits down contented with the loss of Egypt; feels 
 no injury, and desires neither reparation nor revenge. 
 
 And then, Sir, the wrongs of Switzerland ! They, too, are cal- 
 culated to excite an interest here; but the Swiss no doubt endure 
 them with quiet resignation, and contented humility. If, after 
 the taking of Soleure, the venerable magistrates of that place 
 were first paraded round the town in barbarous triumph, and af- 
 terwards, contrary to all the laws of war, of nations, and of na- 
 ture, were inhumanly put to death; if, when the unoffending town 
 of Sion capitulated to the French, the troops were let loose to 
 revel in every species of licentiousness and cruelty; — if the 
 women, after having been brutally violated, were thrown alive 
 into the flames; if, more recently, when Stantz was carried, after 
 a short but vigorous and honourable resistance, such as would 
 have conciliated the esteem of any but a French conqueror, the 
 whole town was burnt to the ground, and the ashes quenched 
 with the blood of the inhabitants: — the bare recital of these hor- 
 rors and atrocities awakens in British bosoms, I trust it does 
 awaken, I trust it will long keep alive, an abhorrence of the na- 
 tion and name of that people by whom such execrable cruelties 
 have been practised, and such terrible calamities inflicted: but on 
 the Swiss (we are to understand), these cruelties and calamities 
 have left no lasting impression: the inhabitants of Soleure, who 
 followed, with tears of anguish and indignation, their venerated 
 magistrates to a death of terror and ignominy; the husbands and 
 fathers and sons of those wretched victims who expired in tor- 
 ture and in shame, beneath the brutality of a savage soldiery at 
 Sion; the wretched survivors of those who perished in the ruins 
 of their country at Stantz: they all felt but a transient pang: 
 their tears by this time are dried; their rage is hushed; their re- 
 sentment silenced: there is nothing in their feelings which can 
 be stimulated into honourable and effectual action; there is no 
 motive for their exertions, upon which we can safely and perma- 
 nently rely! Sir, I should be ashamed to waste your time by ar- 
 guing such a question. 
 
 If, however, with such allies as there is a probability of obtain- 
 ing, with such a chance for the fidelity and stability of those alli- 
 ances, as the circumstances which I have mentioned appear to 
 furnish, we are yet to be told that there is no safety in such a 
 system; it may be worth while to consider very shortly, whether 
 a greater degree of security would belong to a separate treaty of 
 peace with France concluded at the present moment, if at the 
 present moment it were possible to conclude it, I certainly have 
 no thoughts of troubling you at length upon this part of the sub- 
 ject, because there is not one word in the honourable gentleman's 
 speech which implies the belief (it would be strange indeed if he 
 
32 ON MR. TIERNEY'S MOTION 
 
 could believe) that any peace, on any terms, is at present within 
 our power. 
 
 But if the faith of other powers be doubtful, the perfidy of 
 France is certain: need I enumerate the several instances of direct 
 and profligate breach of faith which have distinguished, or rather 
 which have marked in almost equal degree, every diplomatic act 
 of the French Repulilic ? Need I recall to your memory how the 
 preliminaries of Leoben (first granted to the Emperor to extricate 
 Buonaparte from the difficulties of the situation into which his 
 rashness had precipitated him) were withdrawn and cancelled by 
 the French government, under the pretence that to claim the ex- 
 ecution of them was to impose on the generosity of the Repub- 
 lic ? How in their room was substituted the treaty of Campo 
 Formio ? And how the treaty of Campo Formio, after being vio- 
 lated in innumerable instances, has been almost distinctly abro- 
 gated and renounced in the confederacies at Radstadt? Need I 
 desire you to recollect the fraud and violence by which the 
 French took possession of Venice, and the shameless injustice 
 with which they the next day transferred that possession to the 
 Emperor? Need I return again to Switzerland to remind you, 
 that the invasion of that devoted country was the work not of 
 arms so much, as of treaty ; that the way for pillage and devasta- 
 tion was opened by the pretext of superintending and guarantee- 
 ing a few parliainentary reforms ? Can we remember these 
 things, and yet pretend to doubt if we shall have as good security 
 for the fidelity of our allies in the prosecution of the contest, as 
 we could build on the faith of France for its safe and honourable 
 termination ? 
 
 There is yet another point of view, in which this argument may 
 be considered. Let us compare the expectations which we may 
 be allowed to form of our allies, with the character and situation 
 of the several allies of France. If we, in renewing the great 
 confederacy of the powers of the continent, are weaving a rope 
 of sand; — let us examine whether the connexions of France are 
 bound to her by a chain which nothing can loosen. If the ground 
 upon which we stand is false and hollow, let us see whether the 
 alliances of France rest upon a more stable and solid foundation. 
 If the only sure foundation of permanent alliance between nations 
 must be laid in community of interest and of sentiment, in the sense 
 of mutual benefits, or in the interchange of protection on the one 
 side, and attachment on the other: — let us look round. Sir, among 
 the states which are immediately connected with France: let us 
 examine the benefits which they derive from her friendship, and 
 it will not be difficult to estimate the affection which they must 
 owe to her in return. Is it in the Cisalpine, the Roman, the 
 Ligurian republics, those deformed and ricketty children, upon 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 33 
 
 whom the mother republic has lavished so much of her care, — is 
 it in these, however they may hear the precious resemblance of 
 their parent, that we are to look for the fondness of filial duty and 
 attachment? Are we to look for it in the Cisalpine Republic, 
 whom, in preference to the others, she appears to have selected 
 as a living subject for her experiments in political anatomy; 
 whom she has delivered up tied and bound to a series of butch- 
 ering, bungling philosophical professors, to distort, and mangle, 
 and lop, and stretch its limbs into all sorts of fantastical shapes, 
 and to hunt through its palpitating frame the vital principle of re- 
 publicanism ? Is the infant Roman republic so gratified by the 
 present which France has made to it of five consuls instead of 
 two, as to forget all the miseries, the robbery, the confiscation, 
 and the blood, by which this invaluable acquisition has been pur- 
 chased ? Does the protection which she has afforded to the Ligu- 
 rian Republic, entitle her to their affectionate acknowledgment 
 and pious devotion ? Observe, I beg of you, in what a situation 
 those unfortunate Ligurians have been placed by her. They are 
 forced into acts of outrage and hostility against England. We 
 declare war against them; — and such is their confidence in the 
 protection of France, that no sooner has that war been declared, 
 than they come crawling upon their knees to implore our pity 
 and forbearance! Unnatural Ligurians! if they are not thankful 
 for such an instance of the parental solicitude of France for their 
 welfare ! 
 
 Look next at that unfortunate Prince, whose dominions border 
 upon these wretched republics: and ask, by what ties of gratitude 
 is the King of Sardinia bound to his ally! The King of Sardinia, 
 it is true, has not yet been precipitated from his throne; but he 
 sits there with the sword of a French garrison suspended above 
 his head. He retains, indeed, the style and title of King: but 
 there is a French General to be viceroy over him. A prisoner in 
 his own capital, surrounded by the spies and agents, and hemmed 
 in by the arms of the Direotory, compelled to dismiss from his 
 councils and his presence all those of his servants who were most 
 attached to his person, and most zealous for his interests; compel- 
 led to preach daily to his people, the mortifying and degrading 
 lesson of that patience and humility, of which he is himself a me- 
 lancholy example, to excuse and extenuate the insults offered by 
 his allies to his subjects; to repress, even by force, the resentment 
 of his subjects against his allies: — is this a situation in which the 
 King of Sardinia can be supposed to derive comfort from the al- 
 liance of France, and repay it with thankfulness ? Would he not, 
 even if this were to be the extent of his suffering and degrada- 
 tion; would he not, if he inherits the spirit of his great ancestors, 
 if their blood flows in his veins; would he not seize, even at the 
 6 
 
34 ON MR. TIERNE'YS MOTION 
 
 risk of his crown and of his life, any opportunity that might be 
 afforded him, to emancipate himself from a connexion so burthen- 
 some, to shake off the weight of a friendship so intolerable ? 
 
 But he well knows that he has not yet suffered all that is pre- 
 pared for him. He knows full well that he is allowed to occupy 
 even this shadowy and tottering throne, to grasp the " unreal 
 mockery" of a sceptre, only so long as he shall be necessary as 
 purveyor for the French army in Italy; or until it shall please the 
 capricious cruelty of his tyrants to end his disgrace by annihila- 
 tion. Perhaps the supplies for a campaign may be more readily 
 procured by the operations of a regular government, than they 
 could be by any new upstart revolutionary power, in a country 
 agitated by the ferment of political change. Perhaps the lust of 
 destroying may overbear this prudential consideration. But, at 
 all events, the war in Italy once over, whether it be in the tide 
 of victory, or in the ebb and reflux of defeat, that the French ar- 
 mies return through Piedmont, their passage will alike be fatal to 
 this unhappy monarch and to his people; they will equally sweep 
 away with them, in a torrent, whatever remains of royalty and 
 of established government; and will leave behind them the same 
 wreck, the same shapeless ruins, with which the fair face of the 
 neighbouring countries is already encumbered and deformed. 
 
 But, perhaps, with more powerful and more respected allies, 
 with those whose names were brought forward with such a dis- 
 play and ostentation in the negotiation at Lisle, as inseparably 
 connected with the honour and interests of the French Republic; 
 perhaps with Holland and with Spain a greater degree of forbear- 
 ance has been observed; a more friendly and liberal intercourse 
 has been established; a more honourable and independent system 
 of communication has been maintained. 
 
 The friendship of Holland! The independence of Spain! Is 
 there a man so besotted as to suppose, that there is one hour of 
 peace with France preserved by either of these unhappy coun- 
 tries; that there is one syllable of friendship uttered by them to- 
 wards France, but what is extorted by the immediate pressure, or 
 by the dread and terror of French arms ? — 
 
 " mouth-honour, breath, 
 
 Which the poor heart would fain refuse, but dare not!" 
 
 Have the regenerated republic of Holland, or the degraded 
 monarchy of Spain, such reason to rejoice in the protection of the 
 French Republic, that they would voluntarily throw themselves 
 between her and any blow which might menace her existence? 
 Holland once had wealth, had industry, had commerce. Where 
 are they now? Gone; swallowed up in the all-devouring gulf of 
 French bankruptcy. Holland once had flourishing colonies; 
 them, perhaps, France has preserved for her. The flag of the 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 35 
 
 enemies of France is flying at Ceylon, and at the Cape of Good 
 Hope. Holland had once a navy, a navy of strength and gallan- 
 try and reputation, a navy which has often contended even with 
 our own, and contended with no mean exertion, for the mastery 
 of the sea? Where is it now ? Where is the skill which directed, 
 the promptness, courage, and vigour, which manned it? All ut- 
 terly destroyed and gone. The baneful touch of French frater- 
 nity has blasted the reputation, has unmanned the strength, has 
 bowed the spirit, of the people, in the same proportion as it has 
 exhausted the resources of the country. The spirit of the people 
 is bowed, it is true; but let us trust that it is not broken; let us 
 hope that, if an opening should be presented, it may yet spring 
 up with sudden and irresistible violence, to the astonishment and 
 overthrow of its oppressors. 
 
 Spain, however, it may be said, is still powerful, and still a 
 monarchy; to Spain, therefore, the friendship of France must 
 have been offered on more equal and durable terms. An alliance 
 with a Bourbon, cemented with Bourbon blood, cannot but be 
 lasting. I look at Spain, Sir, and it must be owned I find her 
 still a monarchy: she has not yet received the blessings of a Di- 
 rectory and two councils. But, I confess, I perceive no one of 
 those features by which the monarchy of Spain has heretofore 
 been distinguished. I see nothing of power; I can discover noth- 
 ing of policy. I know, that to be engaged in an impolitic war, 
 is not of itself an unheard of, or an unaccountable novelty. Spain 
 has, no doubt, been often engaged, as well as other powers, in 
 wars of pride, in wars of ambition, in wars of doubtful or mis- 
 taken interest. In an absolute monarchy, too, like Spain, it must 
 often have happened, that, in matters of war, or alliance, as well 
 as of internal regulation and domestic policy, the will of the 
 prince, guided either by shallow favouritism, or by crooked in- 
 trigue, has at times adopted measures prejudicial to the welfare of 
 his subjects. A powerful and haughty nobility, a numerous and 
 highly privileged clergy, may, at other times, have given an im- 
 pulse to the direction of affairs, agreeable only to their own preju- 
 dices and partial interests. At other times, again, the tempest of 
 popular fury has overborne, both the will of the prince and the 
 power of the aristocracy, and driven the machine of government 
 wholly out of its natural course and direction. But a situation 
 of things, in which the crown is enthralled, the aristocracy hum- 
 bled, and the nation in general degraded and impoverished, not 
 by the effects of internal struggle, or the perverse preponderance 
 of any one party or member of the state, but by the palpable, undis- 
 guised, and oppressive agency of a foreign power: this is, indeed, 
 an unusual situation for an independent kingdom. Such is, how- 
 ever, the situation of Spain. The power of the monarch, the 
 
36 ON MR. TIERNEY'S MOTION 
 
 prejudices and privileges of the higher orders, the comfort, hap- 
 piness, and ahiiost subsistence of the mass of people, are all em- 
 barked together in a war, of which the success or failure must be 
 equally fatal to them all: a war which has committed that coun- 
 try with an enemy whom it dares not idce, and has linked it to 
 the fortunes, and subjected it to the will of an ally, whose friend- 
 ship is more formidable than hostility: a war which has brought 
 into contempt the authority of the government, and the character 
 of the nation; which has exhausted their commercial and annihi- 
 lated their military marine: which, in precluding their intercourse 
 with their colonies, has cut off the springs of wealth that fed 
 the state, and the streams of commerce that enriched the country; 
 a war, which has done more in two short years, under the auspices 
 of France, to carry into execution that vote of the British parlia- 
 ment in 1707, to wrest the monarchy of Spain and the Spanish 
 West Indies from the possession of the house of Bourbon, than 
 all the exertions of this country could ever have effected, than all 
 its enmity could ever have desired. 
 
 So fatal has been to Spain already the friendship of the French 
 Republic; and such are the obligations by which she is bound to 
 it in perpetual allegiance and fidelity! But this is not yet all: the 
 King of Spain has yet to drink the bitter dregs of misery and 
 degradation. 
 
 Sir, when Louis XlVth broke up the conferences of Gertruy- 
 denberg, rather than submit to the proposal of turning his arms 
 against his grandson; whatever our dislike of his former inso- 
 lence, or our detestation of his ambition may be, we cannot refuse 
 our approbation to this just display of spirit and of feeling. Fal- 
 len as he then was from the splendour of his high fortunes, and, 
 in some measure, at the mercy of his enemies; we cannot but ap- 
 plaud the honourable pride with which, while conceding territory 
 and dominion as the price of peace, he yet rejected peace itself, 
 when it was to be purchased with ignominy. I think, too, we 
 cannot but condemn the cruel and ungenerous policy which dic- 
 tated the demand of such a sacrifice. But this, we are to recol- 
 lect, was the demand of a triumphant enemy. Mark now the ex- 
 tortion of a protecting friend! The King of Spain, exhausted in 
 his resources, and disgraced in his arms, by a war carried on at 
 the instigation, and for the exclusive interests of the French Di- 
 rectory, is, in return for these exertions, commanded by that Di- 
 rectory to employ what remains of the strength and power of his 
 kingdom, for the conquest of Portugal, for the subversion of the 
 throne to which his daughter is heir. Have we the feelings of 
 men, and do we doubt what sentiments of indignation and disgust 
 this outrageous command must have excited in the bosom of a 
 father and a king ? 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 37 
 
 Now, Sir, there is a story, and it was a good one until the 
 French got hold of it — the story of William Tell. I think I 
 need hardly make the application. Would it appear to us a sur- 
 prising or an unnatural thing, if the King of Spain, urged, and 
 finally compelled to point his last weapon at the crown of his 
 daughter, should turn round, in the fury of despair, and aim it 
 at the bosom of the tyrant who dictated the blow ? 
 
 I have not troubled the House with this enumeration, as con- 
 ceiving it to hold out in itself inducements and temptations for 
 the continuance of the war; supposing that we had any choice as 
 to continuing or concluding it. But forced as we are to persevere 
 in the contest, and expedient as it appears, that we should furnish 
 ourselves with whatever means we can procure for conducting it 
 to a termination consistent with our safety and our honour, and 
 convinced, as I think every man must be, that the co-operation of 
 other powers affords, at least, one great instrument for such an ex- 
 ertion; it does, I think, seem material, when against the system 
 of alliances no argument is so loudly urged as the probability of 
 those alliances proving unfaithful and unsound. It does, I think, 
 seem material, to ascertain, whether this hazard is peculiar to our 
 situation alone; or whether, if, on the one hand, we have but fee- 
 ble assistance, we are likely, on the other hand, to have any thing 
 but feebleness to oppose. Committed with our enemy single 
 handed, France to England, what should we fear? But if the ac- 
 cession of allies is to us an accession of weakness, is it not some- 
 thing to be assured that to France it is not an accession of perma- 
 nent and formidable strength ? — that if France has the means of 
 seducing our allies, we have the satisfaction of feeling that our 
 interests cannot be indifferent to the allies of France ? — that men 
 called on her side, and fighting under her banners, cannot fail in 
 their secret hearts to pray that the victory may be on our side ? 
 
 Is not this the case ? Do we not know it to be so ? Who is 
 there that has not heard, and heard with heartfelt delight, that the 
 glorious victory of the first of August communicated a sensation 
 of triumph and of joy, not only to the heart of England ; not 
 only to the bosoms of those nations whose deliverance it more 
 immediately effected; not only to nations neutral in name, but 
 who feel, in spite of their neutrality, that their independent ex- 
 istence is involved in the issue of the contest; but even to nations 
 nominally hostile to Great Britain, to governments, the slaves of 
 the power, or creatures of the caprice of France? The presence 
 of a French ambassador could scarce repress the burst of exulta- 
 tion in courts that trembled at his frown. The whispered satis- 
 faction went round in circles, where an open manifestation of joy 
 would have been treason; and even the vassal republics leaped in 
 their chains. 
 
38 ON MR. TIERNEY's MOTION 
 
 Oh! but, however willing the allies of France might be to 
 seize a favourable opportunity for shaking off the yoke of her 
 protection, were we even able to rally them on our side in the 
 outset of the contest, their assistance would be nothing worth. 
 Exhausted and dispirited as they are, they have neither the heart 
 nor strength to fight the battle of independence! True, Sir, they 
 have been cruelly reduced and broken down. It is true, that 
 many of them have been moulded and distorted into shapes so 
 strange and unnatural, that they scarce have limbs to use, or the 
 power of self-motion remaining; but yet, even so, they are not 
 wholly without vigour and vitality, — 
 
 " Spoliatis arma supersunt. 
 The arms which they have remaining, are the arms most terrible 
 to tyrants: their wrongs, their desperation, their desire of re- 
 venge. Let France appeal to the bad passions of our allies; let 
 her cajole their fears, or inflame their appetite for aggrandizement. 
 The foundations of our tacit but intimate alliance with the allies 
 of France, are already laid, in their just resentment, in their 
 proud indignation, in every virtuous and every honourable feel- 
 ing. When did such a contest terminate in giving ultimate and 
 permanent preponderance to evil ? If I do not venture to antici- 
 pate a fortunate result amounting to the full completion of our 
 sanguine and justifiable expectations, I may surely ask, what has 
 France done to deserve that the ordinary course of human events 
 should be reversed in her favour? 
 
 But then, Sir, another and a graver doubt is stated. It is 
 doubted whether, with half the world in arms on our side, the ob- 
 jects which we might hope to obtain, would be, in any just and 
 politic sense, British objects. I, Sir, have not sat long enough in 
 this House to remember the time, but a time I am told there was, 
 when if I had ventured to hesitate a doubt whether or not the 
 situation of the powers of the continent, relatively to us or to 
 each other, and the general balance of Europe (as it is called) 
 were objects of British concern, I should have been scouted and 
 laughed at as a driveller and an idiot, or reviled as a presumptu- 
 ous arraigner of the wisdom and policy of our ancestors. I un- 
 derstand that all this is now changed. I understand that the 
 great authorities, from whom I should more particularly have ex- 
 pected such a censure, if I had ventured such an opinion, have 
 entirely thrown away and abandoned their favourite system; and 
 are now more strenuous in decrying those who maintain it, than 
 they were before in propagating it themselves. I cannot account 
 for these eccentricities; but I do not presume to blame them. 
 They at least teach me to proceed with caution; and rather to 
 inquire with great humility from the honourable gentlemen on 
 the other side of the House, whether or no such and such things 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 39 
 
 are objects of interest to our country, than to state any affirma- 
 tive opinion of my own upon the subject. 
 
 The honourable gentleman mentioned the East Indies, and 
 alluded to the expedition to Egypt as having threatened our pos- 
 sessions in that quarter. Is then the deliverance of Egypt from a 
 French army a British object? Does the honourable gentleman, 
 or does any man, believe, that if peace had been concluded at 
 Lisle, this expedition would at all the less have been undertaken ? 
 Does he believe that, in that case to defeat the expedition would 
 have been equally a British object? And does he think that, af- 
 ter the peace made at Lisle, we should have been equally in a 
 condition to defeat it? Would not the co-operation of the Turk 
 have been then desirable, to enable us to effect that purpose ? Is 
 it less desirable now? If, by his co-operation, we are enabled to 
 confound and expel that horde of robbers, and buccaneers, who 
 have taken possession of his Egyptian territory; or (what I should 
 like much better), to shut them up on all sides, and leave them 
 there to be quietly and gradually exterminated — is this no advan- 
 tage to Great Britain ? Was the purpose of the honourable gen- 
 tleman's motion to preclude the possibility of this event? If, by 
 the joint assistance of Russia and the Porte, we could sweep the 
 Levant and the Mediterranean of the scattered remnants of this 
 piratical armament; if the coasts of Italy were thus rendered un- 
 assailable by the enemy, and the southern coasts of France thus 
 laid open to our attack, and the ports and commerce of the Medi- 
 terranean and Levant secured to us; are these British objects? 
 Are the Netherlands a B^ntish object? I have heard that the de- 
 pendence of the Netherlands on France, has in former times been 
 considered as so prejudicial to this country, that there was no 
 case in which that object alone would not have been a sufficient 
 cause for prolonging or for even engaging in a war. I do not as- 
 sert that this is so. But if there be any truth in this opinion, and 
 if, by a vigorous co-operation on the part of Austria or Prussia, 
 or both, we might have a chance of wresting this possession from 
 France, — will the honourable gentleman, will any other man in 
 the House, be the person to get up and say, " This you might ef- 
 fect, but I will prevent you?" If by the help of Prussia, we 
 might hope to rescue Holland from her present state of servitude 
 and degradation, to raise her head once more among the indepen- 
 dent powers of Europe, a rich, a flourishing and a happy country, 
 connected with us by old habits, common interest, and the recip- 
 rocation of commercial advantages; will any man say that this 
 would not be a British object? will any man lay in his claim 
 now, would any man be proud hereafter to have entitled himself, 
 to the credit of having thrown an insuperable impediment in tlie 
 way of the rescue and restoration of Holland ? 
 
40 ON MR. TIERNEy's MOTION 
 
 And yet, Sir, Holland has heretofore been thought to be so in- 
 timately interesting to this country, especially by gentlemen who 
 used to sit on that side of the House, and to whose former opinions 
 on foreign politics I have been accustomed to attach no small de- 
 gree of respect and consideration, that, if I am rightly informed, 
 (for it is much beyond my memory in parliament) the only act 
 of my right honourable friend's administration which has had the 
 good fortune to receive the approbation and applause of those gen- 
 tlemen, and upon which they lavished as large and unqualified 
 praise as his warmest supporters could have afforded him, was a 
 spirited and judicious exertion by which, in the year 1787, the 
 designs of France in Holland were defeated (at the risk of a war), 
 and the ascendancy of this country secured. 
 
 I cannot believe that if we were now debating, if it possibly 
 could be fit matter for this House to debate, " whether or no, 
 having an opportunity to conclude a peace in all other respects 
 desirable, we should continue the war for the single purpose of 
 the deliverance of Holland alone?" I cannot believe that those 
 persons to whom I have referred, holding the principles which 
 they have heretofore professed, could hesitate to give their vote 
 in the affirmative. If I am wrong in this supposition, I desire 
 only to be informed, where, and when, and how, the change in 
 the policy of the country took place ? Is the ambition of France 
 less formidable now ? Is her desire of aggrandizement less noto- 
 rious ? Is her power less terrible ? Is her hostility to this coun- 
 try less acrimonious? than when, in the year 1786, the commer- 
 cial treaty with France was arrianged, by the same persons whose 
 maxims of foreign policy I have already quoted, not as unfavour- 
 able to Great Britain, hut as likely to take off the edge of our na- 
 tional antipathy against France? AVhen my right honourable 
 friend was attacked and reviled for having, in a paltry search af- 
 ter mercantile profit, wholly abandoned the doctrines of our an- 
 cestors, and improvidently thrown away the safety of posterity, 
 by admitting the possibility of any relations between this country 
 and France, except those of jealous rivalry or open contest; for 
 having attempted to lull England into the belief that the ambition 
 of France, because not active at the moment, was extinguished; 
 that her power, because not exerted, had ceased to be formidable: 
 that her professions of friendship could mean any thing, but to 
 gain time and strength; that her apparent pacific disposition could 
 be any thing but a drawing of breath against the renewal of hos- 
 tilities ? 
 
 If all this is changed, allow me to inquire of those who can in- 
 struct me, by what process the change has been wrought? and at 
 what period? What is its origin and date? Did it come in with 
 the new style ? Was it on jnimidi^ diiodi or decadi, in what 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 41 
 
 month, and in what year, of the new repuhlican calendar? Did 
 the okl system expire in Septemher, and the new one begin witli 
 Fructidor? 1 really ask for information. I do not mean to ques- 
 tion the propriety of the alteration, but to get at the reason of it. 
 I am not too old to learn. But I cannot take it upon authority 
 alone: and that, too, an authority which has always hitherto been 
 on the other side. I must continue to repeat my old catechism, 
 until I am sufficiently illuminated to understand the articles of the 
 new. 
 
 Till then, I must continue to ask, with some degree of earnest- 
 ness, if any one of the objects which I have enumerated, may 
 possibly be obtained by an alliance with the powers of the conti- 
 nent, much more if we could be sanguine enough to suppose that 
 such an opening might arise as would lead to the attainment of 
 them all, as would lead to the reduction of France within her an- 
 cient limits, and to the replacing Europe nearly in the situation in 
 which it stood before the commencement of the war; whether or 
 no it is possible for a meml^er of the British parliament to enter- 
 tain so extraordinary and perverse an ambition as to be desirous 
 of having it to say hereafter, " All this might, perhaps, have been 
 accomplished, but, by a single motion, I prevented it all ?" 
 
 Understand me, Sir, however, that I do not mean to undertake 
 that if the honourable gentleman's motion should not pass, all 
 this will, therefore, be accomplished. We are debating now, not 
 whether or no such and such exertions will lead to such and such 
 results, but whether or no we shall gratuitously throw away the 
 only chance which we have for the exertions being made. The 
 honourable gentleman does not affirm that Europe cannot be saved; 
 he only desii'es that we may have no share, that we may give no 
 encouragement for saving it. In answer to such a proposition, it 
 is not necessary for me to argue (what is not denied) that the suc- 
 cess of the experiment is probable: it is only necessary for me to 
 ask, whether its success is so improbable, and its nature so unin- 
 teresting, that you will determine beforehand that it ought not to 
 be tried ? 
 
 The honourable gentleman, however, for his part declares, that 
 he " washes his hands of the whole business." The honourable 
 gentleman has a habit. Sir, (which I do not mention to disapprove 
 it) of appealing to the testimony of his conscience, and of hold- 
 ing out to his opponents the miseries which must accrue from 
 " pillows stuft with thorns." Has the honourable gentleman ever 
 considered the present situation of Switzerland in this point of 
 view? And is he so eager to " wash his hands " of any share in 
 her possible emancipation ? Is it necessary as a balm to his con- 
 science ? Will it strew his pillow with roses, to be able to say to 
 himself, " If the people of Switzerland succeed in breaking the 
 
 7 E* 
 
42 ON MR. TIERNEY'S MOTION 
 
 galling fetters of an intolerable and bloody tyranny, thank God, 
 I have given no aid to their efforts! I can lay my hand upon my 
 heart and declare, that for aught I would have done for them, or 
 would have encouraged them to do for themselves, the Swiss 
 should have continued to groan in bitterness of sorrow, in abase- 
 ment and despair. Fight your own battles, miserable Swiss! — 
 England has no sympathy with your sufferings! — Bind tighter 
 their fetters, sanguinary Directory! — You have nothing to dread 
 from English interference! 
 
 " Bleed, bleed, poor country ! 
 
 Great tyranny, lay thou thy basis sure, 
 
 For goodness dares not check thee !" 
 
 Such, Sir, is the language of the honourable gentleman's mo- 
 tion. But such, I trust, is not the sense of those who have heard 
 it. I, too, will appeal to the conscientious feelings of individuals. 
 I might appeal to their recorded professions in the almost unani- 
 mous vote upon the address to His Majesty, at the beginning of 
 the session ; but, I confess, when I can reach the heart and spirit, 
 I prefer a direct appeal to them, to any argument that rests on 
 mere formal ties or technical obligations. I might remind every 
 gentleman who hears me, that he has concurred in an address to 
 the throne, expressing his hearty hope that the opening afforded 
 by the glorious successes of His Majesty's arms, may lead to " the 
 general deliverance of Europe;" and pledging himself, in no 
 equivocal manner, to assist with his voice and counsel in the pro- 
 secution of this important object. I might require them to re- 
 concile, if they can, the pledge there taken with a motion which 
 contradicts both its letter and its meaning. But I prefer going 
 home with every man to his own bosom, and desiring him to re- 
 member, what were his first individual impressions upon receiving 
 the account of Lord Nelson's stupendous achievement? What 
 was the language of every society in which he happened to be 
 conversant? The first sentiment, undoubtedly, was that of thanks, 
 and praise to the heroes who had thus exalted the name, the pow- 
 er, and the glory, of their country, and of humble gratitude to 
 that Providence which had so signally prospered their exertions. 
 But next — what occurred to every man's feelings and understand- 
 ing? what was the question which immediately succeeded to the 
 first burst of wonder, the first transport of thankfulness, the first 
 emotions of rapture and delight? I see I am anticipated, "What 
 effect will this have upon the powers of the continent?" This 
 was the question asked and echoed by a thousand tongues. What 
 then was the meaning of this question? Was it the offspring of 
 cold speculation ? of idle curiosity ? No. It sprung from the in- 
 stantaneous, and almost instinctive, conviction, that, in spite of all 
 the sophisticated argument that may be urged to dissuade us from 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 43 
 
 a generous sympathy with the fates and fortunes of other nations, 
 we have an interest in the liberties of the continent; that our 
 "assurance is doubly sure," when those around us are preserved 
 from destruction; that ive can be but precariously safe, so long as 
 there is no safety for the rest of Europe. 
 
 Depend upon it, .Sir, in all questions which partake equally of 
 reason and of feeling, the first impressions of a good heart and 
 sound mind are rarely to be distrusted. They may be sanguine; 
 they may be romantic; they may represent the object desired as 
 much nearer, than in the practical pursuit it turns out to be; but 
 as to the object itself, they are seldom misdirected. And I be- 
 lieve that any man of honest and liberal feelings, who can recol- 
 lect what were his first impressions upon any subject, in the con- 
 sideration of which the heart, as well as the understanding, was 
 engaged, will find that, in consulting those impressions, he has 
 not been led astray. How stands the case in the present instance ? 
 Have we any reason to repent or to be ashamed of the wishes 
 that sprung up in our bosoms upon this occasion ? Was the im- 
 pulse too generous, and must it be restrained ? Was the benevo- 
 lence too large, and must it be contracted ? What new circum- 
 stances have arisen to vary our original view of the subject? Has 
 England become less powerful to interfere? Has the slavery of 
 the continent been lightened ? or the tyranny of France softened 
 or subdued? Or has some disposition for peace been manifested 
 by the enemy? such as throws difficulty in the way of any hos- 
 tile and offensive operations against them; and requires that we 
 should rest on our arms until their intentions shall be more clear- 
 ly explained ? I have heard of nothing of tliis sort — Has the hon- 
 ourable gentleman ? He has mentioned nothing of it. He has not 
 pretended that France is willing to negotiate. He has not ad- 
 vised that loe should propose a negotiation. He has, indeed, given 
 it as his opinion that peace is desirable; and he has drawn some 
 arguments to this effect from Ireland, from the East Indies, and 
 from St. Domingo. I shall not follow him into these arguments; 
 both because I think that they may, all of them, with much 
 greater propriety, be reserved for a separate discussion in their 
 due time; and because, unless this motion were to be understood 
 distinctly as a motion for peace, I do not see how they can be 
 made to bear upon the present discussion. 
 
 But does the honourable gentleman intend his motion, as a mo- 
 tion for peace ? Then, indeed, I should have a worse opinion of 
 it than I had before. For is this the way to go about such a busi- 
 ness, with any prospect, or with any serious appearance of a de- 
 sire of success? If the honourable gentleman really thinks this 
 a moment for opening a negotiation — why has he not the candour 
 and manliness to say so? Let him bring the matter distinctly to 
 
44 ON MR. TIERNEY's MOTION 
 
 a question; and let us argue it. I have no hesitation in saying 
 that it is my decided opinion that this is not the moment. But 
 my opinion is more decided still, that, if this were the moment, 
 the honourable gentleman has chosen the very worst possible 
 way for availing ourselves of the opening. 
 
 Is it dignity, and etiquette, and national honour, that stands in 
 the way of a more direct attempt at negotiation ? Is it necessary, 
 in the honourable gentleman's judgment, that France should 
 make the first overtures? I confess, Sir, I have no such delicacy; 
 and if the moment seemed to me proper for any overtures at all, 
 I should not raise much squabble about who should offer, or who 
 should receive them. But if the honourable gentleman has this 
 delicacy, mark, I entreat you, how delicately he manages it. He 
 will not speak to France, but he would speak at her. He will 
 not propose — not he — that we should say to the Directory, "Will 
 you make peace?" No, Sir, we are merely to say to ourselves, 
 loud enough for the Directory to overhear us, " I wish these 
 French gentlemen would make an overture to us.'. Now, Sir, 
 does this save the dignity of the country ? or is it only a sneak- 
 ing, shabby way of doing what, if fit to be done at all, must, to 
 have any serious effect, be done openly, unequivocally, and di- 
 rectly? But I beg the honourable gentleman's pardon: I misre- 
 present him; I certainly do. His motion does not amount even 
 to so much as I have stated. He begins farther off. The solilo- 
 quy which he prompts us by his motion is no more than this — 
 " We must continue to make war against France, to be sure — and 
 we are sorry for it, but we will not do it as if we bore malice. 
 We will not make an ill-natured, hostile kind of war any longer 
 — that we won't. And who knows, but, if they should happen 
 to overhear this resolution, as the Directory are good-natured at 
 bottom, their hearts may soften and grow kind towards us — and 
 then they will offer to make a peace!" And thus. Sir, and thus 
 only, is the motion a motion for peace. 
 
 But the honourable gentleman reproaches His Majesty's minis- 
 ters that they have lost all their pacific dispositions; that they are 
 become inveteratcly and incurably warlike; that the spirit of 
 moderation, which he so much commended in the manifesto of 
 last year, is evaporated; and that, however they may have stood 
 out against Lord Duncan's victory, that of Lord Nelson has in- 
 toxicated and inflamed them to madness. 
 
 That the confidence of the country is indeed high, I am happy 
 to acknowledge; and that the government partakes the spirit of 
 the people, I am equally willing to believe. But that this spirit 
 has started suddenly out of the late victory, and is exclusively to 
 be attributed to it, I cannot agree. It was confirmed, indeed, by 
 that victory, a victory which would have created a spirit if it had 
 
RESPECTING PEACE WITH FRANCE. 45 
 
 not found one. But that the spirit existed before the event of 
 the first of August, is no derogation to the glory of that daj^, and 
 is a proud accession of dignity to the character of the country. It 
 adds new lustre to the character of the country; it places in a more 
 conspicuous light the talents and reputation of Lord Nelson, that 
 before we were in possession of the confidence which grew out 
 of his victory, we had the confidence to presume it. 
 
 Let us recollect only the days and months of anxiety which we 
 passed, before the intelligence of that memorable event had reach- 
 ed us. It was an anxiety, not of apprehension, but of impatience. 
 Our prayers were put up, not for success, but for an opportunity 
 of deserving it: we asked, not that Nelson might conquer Buona- 
 parte, but that Buonaparte might not have the triumph of deceiv- 
 ing and escaping him; not that we might gain the battle, but that 
 we might find the enemy: for the rest we had nothing to fear — 
 
 " Concurrant pariter cum ratibus rates ; 
 Spectent Numina Ponti, et 
 Palmam, qui meruit, ferat !" 
 
 Standing, then, in our present proud and exalted situation, for- 
 tified by that confidence which has its foundation in the good 
 sense, the spirit, the unexampled prosperity of the nation, and 
 which, by the blessing of Providence, the signal and glorious 
 successes of our arms have been established and confirmed, what is 
 the best advantage that can be made of such a situation? " Hoard 
 up your safety for your own use," says the motion of the honour- 
 able gentleman. " Lend a portion of it to other nations, that it 
 may be returned to you tenfold, in the preservation and security 
 of the world," — is the dictate of a larger, and, I think, a sounder 
 policy. 
 
 But the nations of the continent, the honourable gentleman 
 will tell us, stood by, while we were engaged in a struggle in 
 which our very existence was at stake, without offering any as- 
 sistance, or manifesting any interest in our preservation: un- 
 doubtedly, so they did: and undoubtedly, as the honourable gen- 
 tleman insinuates, our revenge is now in our power. We may 
 tell those, who abandoned us at that moment of peril, that it is 
 now our turn to take breath, while they are contending; that to 
 us is now the respite, and to them the toil; that as they left us 
 contentedly to our fate, we consign them unpityingly to theirs. 
 We may do this in strict retalliation: but I think a British House 
 of Commons will feel that we have a nobler vengeance in our 
 power. We have it in our power to say to the nations of Europe: 
 "You deserted us at our utmost need; but the first use that we 
 make of our prosperity is, to invite you to partake of it. We 
 disdained to call you in, reluctant as you appeared, to share our 
 
46 ON MR. TIERNEY's MOTION, CiLC- 
 
 danger; but, we arc now, by our own exertions, secure; come, 
 now, and take shelter under our security." 
 
 Sir, they were wise words that were spoken by a great states- 
 man and orator of ancient times, under circumstances not wholly 
 unlike the present circumstances of the world. " If by any su- 
 perliuman testimony, for to such a paradox no testimony merely 
 human could possibly obtain belief, if by an angel from Heaven 
 I were to be assured, that the farther the enemy pushed his con- 
 quests over other countries, the more territory he acquired — the 
 more governments he subverted — the more nations he subdued, 
 — by so much the more quiet, the more harmless, the more friend- 
 ly neighbour he would be to this country: I protest that I would 
 not, even with this view, and under these conditions, consent to 
 give my vote for the slavery of Europe. But if there be no man 
 upon earth who will venture to assert so monstrous a proposition; 
 if the very reverse of all this be demonstrably true; if every 
 step that the enemy takes upon the continent be a step to the ac- 
 complishment of our destruction; if every city that he ransacks, 
 every district that he acquires, be a fund of wealth and a levy of 
 soldiers, to be employed hereafter in an exterminating war against 
 us: then, in God's name, to what do we look? or wherefore are 
 we hesitating?" 
 
 Since, then, Sir, this motion appears to me to be founded on 
 no principle of policy or necessity; since, if it be intended for a 
 censure on ministers, — it is unjust; if for a control, — it is *iuga- 
 tory: as its tendency is to impair the power of prosecuting war 
 with vigour, and to diminish the chance of negotiating peace 
 with dignity, or concluding it with safety; as it contradicts, with- 
 out reason, and without advantage, the established policy of our 
 ancestors; as it must degrade in the eyes of the world the char- 
 racter of this country; as it must carry dismay and terror through- 
 out Europe; and, above all, as it must administer consolation, and 
 hope, and power, and confidence to France; I shall give it my 
 most hearty and decided negative. 
 
 Mr. Jekyll supported tlie motion. Tliat g-lorious achievement, the victory 
 of the Nile, as his honourable friend (Mr. Canning) had stated, produced a 
 sensation of joy ; but the sensation of joy it occasioned, was combined with the 
 hope that it might tend to tlie restoration of peace. He protested against the 
 propriety of this country embarking upon the ocean of continental politics, and 
 of its entering the lists in foreign warfare, without our knowing the purposes 
 for which we were engaged, or the extent to which we may be involved. The 
 motion was negatived. 
 
47 
 
 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 FEBRUARY 3d, 1808. 
 
 Mr. Ponsonby this day made the motion, of which lie had given notice, re- 
 lative to the Expedition to Copenhagen. The object he had in view, was prin- 
 cipally to ascertain how far His Majesty's Ministers had been justified in ad- 
 vising His Majesty to employ his naval and military forces in tlie Expedition 
 against Copenhagen. The topics necessary for the mature consideration of the 
 subject were to inquire, first, what the disposition of Denmark had been; next, 
 what the conduct of Russia had been; and lastly, what means France possessed 
 of executing any project hostile to this country in the Baltic. 
 
 At the close of a former war, an apology was stated to have been received 
 from Denmark for having entered into a hostile confederacy against Great 
 Britain, which apology "was founded on the avowed inability of Denmark to 
 resist the operation of external influence and the threats of a formidable neigh- 
 bouring power." He had inquired into this subject, and had been told that 
 Denmark never did send such an apology for the abandonment of its neutrality. 
 He was desirous to know the truth of the fact, and he could not conceive what 
 objection could be made to the production of the papers necessary to elucidate 
 it, if they really existed. 
 
 He had shaped another resolution, for the purpose of ascertaining what in- 
 formation had been received by His Majesty's Ministers respecting the conduct 
 of Denmark with respect to its naval force. He contended that no steps had 
 been taken by Denmark to awaken jealousy or rouse suspicion on our part. 
 He had made it his business to inquire what had been the conduct of Denmark 
 with regard to their own ships, and their valuable cargoes, which were in ihe 
 ports of Great Britain, at the very time that the Expedition against Copenhagen 
 was fitting out. When Admiral Gambler was preparing to sail, many of the 
 Danish captains hearing, amongst other rumours, that it was as likely that the 
 British force was destined against Denmark as against any other place, con- 
 sulted the Danish Consul on the subject. The Consul applied to the Chamber 
 of Commerce in Copenhagen, a branch of the public administration of Govern- 
 ment. He received for answer, that there was not the smallest ground for 
 anxiety or alarm on the part of the Danish mercantile interest, for tliat no 
 such circumstances existed which tended to disturb the neutrality of Denmark, 
 or to place her in a state of hostility with Great Britain. At the time that this 
 answer was received, there were three hundred and fifty Danish ships in British 
 ports, with cargoes amounting to two millions sterling. Was it possible to 
 suppose, that under these circumstances, when the Danish Government de- 
 clared to her commercial interest that they need not hurry themselves — that 
 there was no fear of an interruption of the good understanding with Great 
 Britain! Was it possible to suppose, that when a third of the commercial 
 property of Denmark was in our hands, the Danish Government meditated 
 hostility against us? Such a thing was incredible. 
 
 But it was said, that though Denmark herself might entertain no hostile dis- 
 position against Great Britain, she was likely soon to be forced into a state of 
 hostility, and that, therefore, we were justified in seizing her marine, without 
 any previous notice to Denmark, and without any previous behaviour on her 
 part to provoke us to that seizure. If our conduct could be at all justified on 
 this ground, it must be on the necessity of anticipating the views of the enemy 
 with regard to the Danish fleet. No writer on the law of nations, or on any 
 
48 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 other law, or on common justice, had ever maintained that one Power could be 
 justified in taking from another Power what belonged to it, unless a third 
 Power meant, and was able to take, the same thing. The justification of this 
 step, therefore, must rest on the necessity of it, which would depend on these 
 circumstances — the weakness of Denmark, or her indisposition to resist com- 
 pulsion; the strength of her enemy, and the certainty that she must yield to 
 its force. Every shadow of proof that Denmark must have yielded to a hostile 
 confederacy was out of the case. It was necessary to inquire what were the 
 means whicli France possessed of accomplishing her object. One of his resolu- 
 tions went to ascertain what information His Majesty's Minsters had received 
 respecting the power that France possessed of seizing the Danish navy. If 
 His Majesty's Ministers knew the intentions of France on this subject, surely 
 they were not so negligent as to omit informing tliemselves of her power to 
 carry those intentions into excution. What was the relative situation of the 
 two countries? At the time that Admiral Gambler sailed, a great part of the 
 Danish army was encamped in Holstein; a considerable French force was also 
 in the same place. This disposition of the two armies showed no intention in 
 Denmark to yield to France. Had she entertained such an intention, she would 
 not have advanced a force against a French force. The question then came to 
 be, was the French force sufficient " to induce or compel" (such were the terms 
 of His Majesty's Declaration), Denmark to yield to the views of France J In 
 his opinion, it was utterly insufficient. Let the House consider the situation 
 of Denmark. She possessed considerable countries on the main continent of 
 Europe, but she had still more valuable possessions in Norway, the Danish 
 islands, (on one of which her capital was situated), and considerable foreign 
 colonies. Had France, therefore, required Denmark to give up her fleet that 
 it might be employed against Great Britain, what would Denmark have an- 
 swered'? "No, you have no right to make such a demand; it is a manifest 
 usurpation on your part. If you make me choose between hostility with Eng- 
 land and hostility with France, I prefer the latter : for if I quarrel ivith Eng- 
 land, England can take from me all my foreign possessions; she can injure my 
 marine, and employ Sweden to attack me in Norway. It is, therefore, better 
 for me to keep that v/hich you cannot take from me, than to sacrifice it by a 
 war with England." This would have been the conduct of Denmark, if the 
 rashness and precipitation of His Majesty's Ministers had not forced her into 
 hostility against Great Britain. 
 
 The next consideration v/as, how far France was to receive assistance in the 
 execution of her projects from Russia? Immediately after the conclusion of 
 peace at Tilsit, it had been argued by many that Russia had thrown herself 
 into the arms of France, and thereby had given preponderance to that power 
 in the north of Europe. To those who believed this, it must have been strange 
 to see the Danish marine taken possession of by this country, and the Russian 
 marine permitted to rove about at pleasure. In one of Lord Leveson Gower's 
 despatches, dated the 2d of September, (p. 191), his lordship stated, that in a 
 conference with General Budberg, the General allowed the existence of secret 
 articles in the Treaty of Tilsit, but declared that those articles had no reference 
 to England. Now, it had been insisted in His Majesty's Declaration relative 
 to Russia and Denmark, that it was a knowledge of those secret articles that 
 liad induced His Majesty to take the steps that he had done for the purpose of 
 securing the Danish fleet. It therefore became material to know when His 
 Majesty's Ministers became acquainted with those secret articles, liow far they 
 related to Denmark, and how far by those articles France approached her pur- 
 pose, with regard to the marine of that country. 
 
 ^ * t -f; * * 
 
 There were two or three most material paragraphs in the despatches of 
 Lord L. Gower, which he should notice. The case which his Majesty's Minis- 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 49 
 
 ters wished to make out was, that Russia had been all tliis while secretly in- 
 stigating Denmark to join the confederacy against us; and yet on the 4th of 
 November, His Majesty's Minister at St. Petersbugh, after detaiUng the dith- 
 culties which he had experienced in obtaining an interview with Count Roman- 
 zow, says, that "he had been informed that some members of the Councd, who 
 had been consulted in the present very critical state of afliiirs, had advised the 
 Emperor not to reject the present opportunity of re-establishing the tranquillity 
 of the North of Europe, and that their opinion had been adopted." So tiien, 
 down to the 4th of November the Emperor of Russia entertained tiiis favour- 
 able disposition towards England ! In the next despatch, enclosing the Russian 
 Declaration, Lord Gower observes, that General Savary and liie other members 
 of the French mission, "boasted, that they had gained a complete triumpli, and 
 had carried not only this act of hostility against England, but also every other 
 point essential to the success of Buonaparte's views." What! had they been 
 labouring from the conclusion of the Treaty of Tilsit down to the beginning 
 of November, before they could succeed in carrying these " points so essential 
 to the success of Buonaparte's views !" and was that conduct of Russia to be 
 assigned as a reason for our breaking in upon a neutral nation and robbing her 
 of her fleet! In no period of the history of any country could a similar trans- 
 action be found. But, suppose he were to concede in argument, that which 
 was completely contradicted by tlie despatches on the table, that Russia had 
 been active in forming a confederacy against Great Britain, was there the 
 smallest proof that Denmark would have been disposed to join it^ And what 
 means had Russia to compel her? She could not march an army down tiie 
 Baltic; and what fleet had she to oppose against the united fleets of England, 
 Denmark, and Sweden ! The power of protecting the neutrality of Denmark 
 was all on the side of England, not on France. Was it probable that Denmark 
 would have sacrificed her East and West India possessions, her own Islands, 
 and Norway, because France might have threatened her with the loss of Jut- 
 land and Holstein 1 He defied the right honourable Secretary to show on the 
 table one syllable of evidence, that Denmark entertained such an intention. 
 He had shaped other Resolutions, for the purpose of inquiring what had been 
 the conduct of His Majesty's Ministers with respect to Denmark herself; and 
 whether, having determined to pursue a course hostile to her interests, they 
 had pursued a course advantageous to ours. 
 
 By what Ministers had done, they had provoked hostility without depriving 
 the enemy of the power of revenge. If our army had been able to beat the 
 Danes, as asserted the other evening by a noble lord, might we not have kept 
 Zealand] With the assistance of Sweden and of our own reinforcements, 
 what chance would France and Denmark, united, have had, to get back this 
 important possession ] To abandon it was the height of weakness. But even 
 if we had not kept Zealand, could we not have dismantled the arsenal and de- 
 stroyed the docks? Could we not have blown up the Crown Batteries and 
 Cronenberg Castle, and secured to ourselves the quiet passage of the Sound"? 
 Why so shabby in our iniquities? When we imitated the atrocities of the 
 ruler of France, why not imitate the grandeur and magnitude of his designs? 
 Would Buonaparte, under similar circumstances, have given up Zealand? The 
 conduct of Ministers showed how weak it was to do ill by halves. If it was 
 necessary to attack Denmark at all, then it was their duty to render her as in- 
 eflicient as possible. The same motives that justified the one would justify 
 the other. He presumed that it was not want of will in the right honourable 
 gentlemen opposite, but want of knowledge. He trusted at least that they 
 would not talk of scruples, or morality, or law: these, according to the modern 
 tenets, were considerations fit only for fools and pliilosopheis, not for statesmen. 
 Would they venture to contend, that it was no disadvantage to Great Britain 
 to have the Sound shut against her commerce, to liave Zealand created, what 
 8 P 
 
50 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 it certainly would be, a strong depository of force against her arms? Having 
 begun the work of destruction, they neglected their duty by not completing it. 
 Let them not say that he gave counsel so atrocious, so monstrous, that their 
 delicacy and sensibility would not allow them to accept it. 
 
 Were Ministers, he would ask, disposed to put Ireland in a state of greater dis- 
 contentment than tiiat in which she was at present"! If not, why leave Denmark 
 so much power ! Having alienated Denmark from England, France would con- 
 struct in Copenhagen fleets much faster, better and cheaper, than in any other 
 port of Europe. His Majesty's Ministers had expressed great solicitude for 
 Sweden. A subsidiary treaty with Sweden was soon to be laid on the table 
 of the House. France had long been the enemy of Sweden ; Russia probably 
 liad become so. Denmark was rendered the ally of France, and thus by re- 
 fraining from dismantling Zealand, Sweden was exposed to the greatest danger. 
 All these considerations pressed with the greatest urgency for the fullest in- 
 formation on the subject. There did not appear to him the slightest justifica- 
 tion of the conduct of Ministers with regard to Denmark. If they could justify 
 themselves for the acts that they had committed, then they could not justify 
 themselves for the acts tliat they had not committed. In commencing the war, 
 in carrying on the war, in tiie mode of seeking for peace, in all, he thought 
 them completely wrong, and on all, he demanded the fullest information. 
 
 He was anxious the character of the country should stand as fair as it always 
 had done, and that it should not be made a reproach to us, that at the very time 
 we were most vehement in condeming the atrocity of France, we went far be- 
 yond it. The right honourable gentleman concluded with moving his first 
 Resolution : viz. " That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, pray- 
 ing that he would be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid 
 before the House, the substance and dates of all information transmitted by 
 His Majesty's Minister at the Court of Copenhagen, during the last year, re- 
 specting the Naval Force of Denmark; and particularly respecting any mea- 
 sures taken for augmenting the same, or putting it in a state of better prepara- 
 tion, or for collecting seamen for the purpose of manning the same, or any 
 part thereof." 
 
 Mr. Secretary Canning then rose. He commenced his reply 
 by observing, that the moment was at length arrived, when the 
 gentlemen opposite, so peculiarly qualified by their own splendid 
 achievements, to inquire into the conduct of their successors, had, 
 by a worthy selection of the right honourable gentleman who had 
 just sat down, put His Majesty's Ministers on their trial for that, 
 which, until questioned by them, had been considerecf as the sal- 
 vation of the country. In the greatness of his apprehension, lest 
 all moral impressions should be effaced from the minds of the 
 House, the right honourable gentleman had taken a course which 
 afforded a brilliant example of a morality, not only out of the or- 
 dinary track, Ijut more severe even than that Roman morality, 
 which he knew had its admirers on the opposite bench. His 
 Majesty's Ministers were called — not to account for disaster and 
 disgrace; but to answer an accusation of success, and justify the 
 motives of an eminent service. Whatever might be the decision 
 Qf the House, he, for one, should always feel the highest satisfac- 
 tion in having been so accused. It was also a source of peculiar 
 gratification, that no imputation could rest on those gentlemen by 
 wliona this motion was brought forward, of being actuated by 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 51 
 
 party feelings, as had sometimes happened, when the successors 
 of an administration had heen left in possession of a glory, which 
 they had tarnished. Envious feelings of comparison could not 
 have instigated the present motion; as when nothing had been 
 done by one set of men, it was impossible to find actions of theirs 
 to compare with what had been done by another. 
 
 There was another feature in this transaction honourable to the 
 character of the House, they were not then debating how to ward 
 off impending danger, but, in comparative security, were discuss- 
 ing by what mode that security could be continued. According 
 to the sentiments of the right honourable gentleman opposite, the 
 restoration of the Danish fleet would be the best mode of contin- 
 uing that security; for, certainly, if it were decided that the taking 
 of them was unjust, the justice of retaining them could not pos- 
 sibly be maintained. The House could not blame the spoilers, 
 and yet keep the spoil. Though he could not agree with the 
 right honourable gantleman in his conclusion, he agreed with him 
 ia his premises, that if injustice had been done, it should be not 
 only marked but repaired. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman had fairly stated, that the dis- 
 position of Denmark and Russia, and the means of France, con- 
 stituted the question before the House. He had admitted the de- 
 signs of France, without any other evidence than that contained 
 in His Majesty's speech. With respect to the disposition of Den- 
 mark, he begged the right honourable gentleman to recollect, at 
 the outset, that it was not asserted by His Majesty's Ministers, 
 that wilfully, knowingly, and of choice, Denmark had been desi- 
 rous of war with Great Britain rather than of peace. This had 
 neither been maintained, nor was it necessary to be so: — indeed, 
 a right honourable friend of his, on the opposite side of the House, 
 (Mr. Sheridan,) had said, on a late evening, that a case of weak- 
 ness on the part of Denmark, and of a determination to avail her- 
 self of that weakness on the part of France, would alone be a jus- 
 tification of the conduct of the British Government. But though 
 he did not impute to Denmark a disposition to go to war with 
 this country, he protested against the advantage which was taken 
 of this admission, when it was asserted, that we had the hearts of 
 the Danes, and that we had forfeited them. He did not like talk- 
 ing of national dislikes; but such an observation evinced a most 
 complete blindness to the fact, that from the moment of the Armed 
 Neutrality, in 1780, there had been a feeling towards this coun- 
 try, on the part of Denmark, if not of direct hostility, certainly 
 not of very cordial friendship. 
 
 Every body knew what had been the conduct of Denmark at 
 the end of two former wars. In inciting the Armed Neutrality 
 of 1780, Denmark had been an active agent; and at the end of 
 
52 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 1800, but a few months after Denmark had declared her abandon- 
 ment of the principles on which the Armed Neutrality was 
 formed, she again entered into a league confederated against Great 
 Britain. Did this testify the good intentions of Denmark? Or, 
 on the other hand, did it testify her means of resisting the influ- 
 ence of superior powers ? Let whichever part of the alternative 
 the House chose be adopted, he would not hesitate to say, that 
 any Government would be lost to a due sense of the interests of 
 the country, if, with a recollection of former occurrences, they 
 had not looked with vigilance and suspicion to see how Denmark 
 would conduct herself at a period of so much greater danger to 
 Great Britain. Was it not probable that a league of much more 
 force, and knit with much greater vigour than any preceding one, 
 would be formed against this country ? Was it not probable, from 
 the experience of the past, that Denmark would be induced by 
 inclination, or compelled by force, to join that league? The fa- 
 vourite project of Buonaparte, since he had desisted from his 
 threat of immediate invasion, was to destroy our commerce, and 
 to collect a naval force which should run down the navy of Great 
 Britain. Not a treaty did he conclude in which the exclusion of 
 British merchandise and shipping, did not form a leading article. 
 In terms too plain to be mistaken, he had avowed his intention to 
 bring every power of the Continent to act against Great Britain. 
 Was there any thing in the situation of Denmark which rendered 
 it probable that she was out of his view in this avowal? To all 
 these presumptions the right honourable gentleman had thought 
 it sufficient to answer, that Denmark had prepared against any at- 
 tempt, on the part of France, to control her conduct, by station- 
 ing a military force in Holstein. What was the history of that 
 force ? The greatest danger to which Denmark was exposed from 
 France was in 1803, when France occupied Hanover with a large 
 force. Then not a man was in Holstein beyond the peace garri- 
 son. Did the boasted cordon of Holstein remain in this state un- 
 til the period when France seemed disposed to molest Denmark? 
 No — only until the armies of England and Sweden were in force 
 in Hanover; then, and not till then, the Danes increased their 
 military power in Holstein. He must be an ingenious arguer 
 who could deduce from this circumstance that England had been 
 the object of the sympathy of Denmark, and France of her ap- 
 prehension. After the battle of Jena, the territory of Denmark 
 had been violated by a French detachment in pursuit of a Prus- 
 sian corps, and a slight skirmish took place with the Danish 
 troops, in which a Danish general was taken, and conveyed to the 
 head-quarters of the French general, where, in place of being 
 treated with the distinction to be expected from an officer of a 
 friendly Power, he met with no very flattering reception; and was 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 53 
 
 sent back, after his horse had been stolen, and his pockets picked, 
 under every species of injury which a licentious soldiery could in- 
 flict. This had been done whilst the Danish army, collected to 
 cover the neutrality of Holstein, was stationed in the neighbour- 
 hood. Was this event followed by the advance of that army ? 
 No such thing; the insult was immediately succeeded by the re- 
 treat of the Danish army; and this circumstance produced a re- 
 monstrance on the part of the British Government, against the 
 conduct of the Danish Government, in neglecting to vindicate its 
 neutrality. The mention of this circumstance led him to con- 
 tradict a misrepresentation which had been charged against the 
 British Government, namely, that the Danish army had been sta- 
 tioned in Holstein at its desire, in order that its designs against 
 Copenhagen might be more easily accomplished. This stateinent 
 was so wholly unfounded, that it was not till the retreat of the 
 Danish army, before a handful of French troops, that the British 
 Government had made a representation, complaining that that 
 was not the way for Denmark to enforce its neutrality. 
 
 The conduct of France to Sweden was very different. When 
 the French division, commanded by General Murat, entered Lu- 
 beck, two thousand Swedish troops were made prisoners, after 
 the storming of the town, and the general who commanded them, 
 was not only treated with every distinction due to his rank and 
 character, but sent back with a message to the King of Sweden 
 from the French General, the brother-in-law of Buonaparte, in- 
 viting him to make common cause with France, intimating that 
 it would be for his advantage to do so, and hinting that it was un- 
 natural for Denmark to possess Norway, which ought to be an- 
 nexed to Sweden. This had been the conduct of France towards 
 Sweden, at a period cotemporary with the assertion of the Danish 
 neutrality; and when afterwards a negotiation was entered into at 
 Hamburgh, for the release of the Swedish prisoners, the same 
 communication was made to the Swedish charge d'' affaires there. 
 What was the conduct of the King of Sweden upon this occasion ? 
 He sent immediately to acquaint the Crown Prince with the offer 
 that had been made to him, and proffered the assistance of twenty 
 thousand Swedish troops for the defence of Denmark, an assist- 
 ance which the British Government also had strongly recom- 
 mended to the acceptance of the Government of Denmark. This 
 offer, thus recommended on our part, had been rejected by the 
 Danish Government, which, in communicating the terms of the 
 offer, concealed entirely the proposal of France respecting Nor- 
 way. Could the right honourable gentlemen then contend, that, 
 after such conduct, we had a right to rely on the frank and full 
 declaration of Denmark ? Shortly after, Hamburgh was evacuated 
 by the French, but re-occupied on the 1 9th of November, only 
 
 F * 
 
54 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 two days before the famous Decree of the 21st November. This 
 Decree was communicated to the Danish Government, and no re- 
 monstrance was made against it; yet, when the mitigated measure 
 of retaliation was afterwards resorted to by the British Govern- 
 ment, then the rage of the Danish Government was excited, and 
 a determination to resist its execution declared. It was due, how- 
 ever, in justice to the noble lord who preceded him in office, 
 (Lord Howick,) to state, that this determination had been man- 
 fully met; which led to its abandonment. He did not mean to 
 insist on this as conclusive, though it amounted to a strong pre- 
 sumption that, whether from predilection or necessity, the Danish 
 Government had no power of election between England and 
 France; there was no choice, no discussion, no reasoning upon the 
 subject. 
 
 The magistrates of Hamburgh had remonstrated against the 
 decree of the 21st of November, and sent a deputation to wait 
 upon Buonaparte with it. In the conference which the deputies 
 had with Buonaparte, they represented to him the ruin of com- 
 merce that would be the consequence of pursuing his wild plan 
 of restrictions; to which his answer was, "that he would anni- 
 hilate all commerce; for, as commerce and England were identi- 
 fied, and he was determined that England should fall, it was ne- 
 cessary that commerce should fall also." But he did not stop 
 there; he added, "that he would make others co-operate with 
 him;" and then adverting to this mighty neutral, this powerful 
 independent state, he said, " let that little Prince take care, or I 
 shall teach him how to act." This was not a private communica- 
 tion, but a statement in a conference which had since been pub- 
 lished. What was it that Buonaparte was to teach the Crowi> 
 Prince of Denmark, to whom he directed such an insulting ob- 
 servation as no one individual could address to another without 
 offence, except the manner of making his means subservient to 
 the views of the French Government? When the French shut 
 the Elbe and the Weser, the Danish Governtment consented to 
 the measure without a murmur, but remonstrated strongly against 
 our blockade of those rivers, though the remonstrance was after- 
 wards given up, when it was found that it would be injurious to 
 their own commerce to press their objections to the measure. 
 That it was not the determination of the Danish Government to 
 defend Holstein agaiust the French, appeared evident from a va- 
 riety of opinions, which he found recorded in his office. The 
 right honouraljle gentleman had called for copies of correspond- 
 ence to show what was the immediate intention of Denmark; but 
 he must contend, that the concurrent opinions of several Minis- 
 ters at different times, and under similar circumstances, were 
 more to be depended upon as a ground of decision, than the opin- 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 55 
 
 ion of any individual, however qualified he might be to form a 
 correct judgment. [The right honourable secretary here read ex- 
 tracts from several despatches from Mr. Garlicke, dated Copenha- 
 gen, December 1806, stating, that, after the French Decree of the 
 21st November had been communicated to the Danish Govern- 
 ment, a demand was made that the Danish army should be with- 
 drawn from Holstein; that no English or Swedish troops should 
 be allowed to enter the Danish territory, nor any measures taken 
 demonstrative of distrust of France; that on receipt of this intel- 
 ligence at Kiel, relays of horses had been provided, not for the 
 advance, but to secure the retreat of the Crown Prince, He also 
 read from a subsequent despatch, dated 28th December, 1806, 
 that no preparations for defence had been made, nor any inclina- 
 tion shown to resort to the aid of the natural allies of Denmark; 
 that several persons employed in the offices of state, though not 
 in the highest department, acted in collusion with France, and 
 were attached to the French interests; that these persons would 
 have considerable influence on the opinions respecting the defence 
 of the country; and that, viewing the indolence of some, and the 
 activity of others, at the Danish Court, he (Mr. Garlicke) thought 
 it his duty to state the truth, that there was reason to conclude 
 that when France was in an attitude to enforce her demand, she 
 would insist upon the exclusion of British vessels from the ports 
 of Denmark, and probably afterwards upon the surrender of the 
 dock yards of Copenhagen; and that it was therefore the more 
 necessary for the British Government to use every means of vigi- 
 lance and precaution, to defeat the designs of the enemy in that 
 quarter.] 
 
 These had been the opinions of that Minister upon the policy 
 and temper of the Danish Government: and yet that was the 
 Power upon whose determination they were required implicitly 
 to rely. It would not be just for him, in stating these facts, to- 
 withhold his tribute of applause from those who had preceded 
 him in the office he had now the honour to fill, and who had met 
 with firmness the remonstrances and demonstrations of the Danish 
 Government. The noble lord who had immediately preceded 
 him had instructed Mr. Garlicke to declare to the Danish Govern- 
 ment, that His Majesty could never, in the event of that Power 
 submitting to the control of France, suffer either the whole or a 
 part of its navy to be placed at the disposal of France. (Loud 
 cries of hear, hear!) The honourable gentlemen opposite might 
 continue their acclamations, but the opinion was entitled to respect. 
 Perhaps, however, the noble lord had not considered the means 
 adequate to the end, and did not look upon the capture of Hol- 
 stein as more likely to secure the possession of the Danish fleet, 
 than the conquest of Alexandria that of the Turks. But the in- 
 
56 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 structions of the noble lord went on to say, that if the Danes 
 should suffer the French to occupy Holstein, His Majesty could 
 not abstain from those measures which would be necessary to 
 maintain the honour of his crown and assert the interest of his 
 subjects. (Loud cries of hear, hear! from the opposition.) 
 
 He presumed, from their acclamations, that the gentlemen op- 
 posite inferred, that these measures should not be resorted to un- 
 til the Danish navy should be actually taken, or until the agree- 
 ment should be entered into for its surrender, or until a commu- 
 nication of such agreement should be made by a government, 
 which had entered into a convention with this country in August, 
 and in the December following had violated that convention. The 
 whole conduct of that court showed, that, either from necessity 
 or inclination, it would have taken a part against this country, 
 and it was no weak presumption of such an event, that all the of- 
 fers of France had been kept back from this country, whilst they 
 were amusing us with the assurance, that they placed an implicit 
 reliance upon the declarations of France. 
 
 He had been hitherto speaking of the state of Denmark in De- 
 cem.ber 1807, and January 1808, when Buonaparte was employed 
 at a distance in Poland, against armies, certainly not equal to his 
 own, but which kept him at bay, and by a small assistance might 
 have been rendered equal to his armies. By what means could 
 Denmark defend herself against the French, when Buonaparte 
 should return with his whole force triumphant from Poland, after 
 she had refused the assistance that had been offered to her? Of 
 all persons he did not think that His Majesty's Ministers should 
 be accused of injustice by the captors of Alexandria; of misman- 
 agement by the attackers of the Dardanelles; as inglorious by the 
 conquerors of Constantinople ? But though he should admit that 
 the demand of the Danish navy was a strong measure, yet there 
 was some extenuation in that case, which did not apply to the de- 
 mand of the Turkish fleet. He did not mean to argue here the 
 difference of the necessity in either instance. There was this cir- 
 cumstance which bore upon the case of the Danish navy, that the 
 Danish Government, contemplating the dangers that were gather- 
 ing round it, had entertained the project of reducing its navy by 
 sale, and he had it upon authority to state, that the Russian Min- 
 istSf had actually entered into a treaty for the purchase of part of 
 the Danish navy. As to the influence of national pride, there- 
 fore, it could not be very active, for he could not conceive any 
 situation that this country could be placed in, in which she could 
 entertain a proposal for the disposal, by sale, of any part of the 
 British navy. This would not certainly justify the demand of 
 the Danish fleet; but it Certainly did strip the right honourable 
 gentleman's speech of part of its gorgeous eloquence. The ex- 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 57 
 
 perience of the past had enahled His Mnjcsty's Ministers to judge 
 of the conduct that would he pursued hy Denmark. Had she 
 not received intimation of the dangers that impended over her? 
 Had not the bulletin, published by Buonaparte after the battle of 
 Friedland, given her notice of her approaching fate, when it 
 stated, " that the blockade of the British islands would then cease 
 to be a vain word." What ports but those of Denmark could 
 this prospective threat apply to, for what others were neutral? 
 The conferences, too, at Tilsit, and the immediate execution of 
 some of the arrangements entered into there, by the restoration 
 of the Dukes of Mecklenburg and Oldenburg, for whom the Em- 
 peror of Russia had particularly interested himself, on the condi- 
 tion of shutting their ports against Great Britain, showed the de- 
 signs of Buonaparte, and pointed to Denmai'k as the next state 
 that would be called upon to .submit to his laws of blockade. To 
 Denmark alone this intimation of the bulletin referred, and ac- 
 cordingly she was found shrinking into her shell as France ap- 
 proached, and neglecting to make any addition to her means of 
 defence. She had declared the French Decree of the 21st No- 
 vember innocent, whilst she remonstrated strongly against the 
 British mild retaliation in the Order of the 7th of January as un- 
 just; and yet this was the Power which they were told was capa- 
 ble of defending itself against France! The proposition was not 
 maintainable, and if His Majesty's Ministers had not acted upon 
 the impressions they received from the experience of the past, 
 and their knowledge of the state and sentiments of the court of 
 Denmark, they would not have done their duty. If they had not 
 taken the very steps which were now censured, the eloquence of 
 the right honourable gentleman was cold and dead, compared 
 with the thunder that would have then rolled over their heads. 
 But these were distant warnings. Had not Denmark more im- 
 mediate intimation of its danger? General Bernadotte, on coming 
 to take the command at Hamburgh, directed the assembled 
 burghers to prepare quarters for fifteen thousand men, which he 
 represented as only the advanced guard of a much greater force, 
 that was to be employed on an expedition which would not re- 
 quire him to be long absent from Hamburgh. Whither could this 
 expedition be directed but against Holstein ? Bernadotte had also 
 been charged with a mission to the Crown Prince at Kiel; and, 
 though he should state as a fact, a thing which he did not know 
 upon official authority, that officer, he was assured, had had an 
 interview with the Crown Prince at Kiel, on the night of the 21st 
 of July. He believed the fact, though he could not state it posi- 
 tively, and he knew also, that it was believed at Kiel, in Holstein, 
 at Hamburgh, and at St. Petersburgh, at the time. Bernadotte, 
 too, had made no secret of the object of his mission, being to 
 9 
 
5S EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 procure the exclusion of the English from the ports of Denmark, 
 Was this a state of things, in which His Majesty's Ministers 
 were to go on confiding in the sincerity and means of the Danish 
 Government, till they should be called on for assistance? He 
 wished to know, why they should have waited for the Declara- 
 tion of Denmark, when fully apprised of the disposition of France 
 towards that Power, of the inability of Russia to control that 
 disposition, and the want of means, or of inclination, on the part 
 of Denmark, to resist the force of France? 
 
 But the right honourable gentleman had argued that though 
 there had been enough in the circumstances and conduct of Den- 
 mark to excite suspicion, or call for measures of precaution, yet 
 there was not sufficient to justify the length to which the meas- 
 ures of His Majesty's Government had been carried. For himself, 
 he did not know what other measures could have been resorted to; 
 and he would defy the ingenuity of the gentlemen opposite, to 
 show what otiiers could have been adopted, that would have in- 
 sured the accomplishment of the object. It was not necessary for 
 him, in this instance, to say that the whole of the force employed 
 on this occasion, had not been provided for this expedition origi- 
 nally. A very large part of it had been employed to assist the 
 King of Sweden, the remainder had been provided on princi- 
 ples of precaution; and, as the influx of intelligence demonstrated 
 the critical nature of the emergency, or, as the views of France 
 developed themselves, it became the more necessary to employ 
 the whole upon this important service. As to the demand of the 
 fleet, he was at issue with the right honourable gentleman; but as 
 he meant to object to the production of the papers he called for, 
 he thought it right to state, that the proposition intended to have 
 been made in the first instance to the court of Denmark, was to 
 surrender its fleet in deposit, to be returned on the conclusion of 
 peace. This proposition had not been submitted to the Danish 
 Government, because the gentleman who was the bearer of it, on 
 his arrival at Kiel, felt confident that he should see the Prince on 
 the following inorning, but found in the morning that the Prince 
 had set out for Copenhagen; on following the Prince to Copenha- 
 gen he found he had returned to Kiel. The Danish Minister 
 whom he met at Copenhagen, had orders not to treat upon the terms 
 he was authorized to propose: the Minister at Kiel could not treat 
 till the return of a courier from Copenhagen; the Minister at Co- 
 penhagen could not open a negotiation till the return of a mes- 
 senger from Kiel. Under these circumstances, it was impossible 
 to enter into any negotiation that could hold out any prospect of 
 a speedy or satisfactory result, and thus it was that the original 
 proposition had never been submitted to the Danish Government. 
 A sufficient force had been sent to justify the court of Denmark 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 59 
 
 to France in conceding to our demand, or, if it did not concede, 
 to accomplish the object for which it had been despatched. 
 
 As to the violated dignity of the Danish nation, the very dis- 
 play of our force before Copenhagen might be considered a vio- 
 lation of that dignity. If one of our cruisers had searched a sin- 
 gle Danish ship, or stopped a corporal's guard going to Zealand, 
 this might also be called an attack upon that nation; and upon this 
 subject he should quote a great authority upon the law of nations, 
 which he held in his hand. That great modern expositor of the 
 law of nations, whom the right honourable gentleman, in the re- 
 ligious part of his speech, seemed to consider as a special instru- 
 ment in the hands of Providence — Buonaparte — who, in his ten- 
 der concern for the interests of this country, always took care to 
 give an exposition of his sentiments at a time when it would bear 
 on a parliamentary debate — had given, in a Moniteur which ar- 
 rived this very day, a suificient proof of what would have made 
 him consider Denmark as in a state of hostility with France. 
 When the Austrian Minister, Stahremberg, was recalled, he was 
 particularly ordered to leave London by the 20th, as Parliament 
 were to meet on the 21st: and a Moniteur which had arrived this 
 very day, had given an exposition of Buonaparte's sentiments 
 with respect to neutrals. In the justification of the conduct of 
 France towards Portugal, one of ]3uonaparte's Ministers says in 
 his official report, " If any sovereign in Europe should allow his 
 territory to be violated by the English, the act would clearly place 
 that sovereign in hostility with your Majesty; and, therefore, if 
 the Portuguese have suffered their vessels to be violated by the 
 cruisers of that Power, they, too, were in hostility with your Ma- 
 jesty." Now, those who thought so much of the wounded pride 
 of Denmark, should consider, that upon this principle, the search 
 of the smallest vessel, in crossing the Belt, would be sufficient to 
 place Denmark in a state of war with France. With a French 
 army on the frontiers of Holstein, and no English fleet or force 
 off Copenhagen, it would be an idle waste of words, a mere 
 mockery of negotiation, to enter into any discussions. Humanity, 
 as well as policy, required a force large enough for the ultimate 
 accomplishment of the object under any circumstances. No man 
 could blame His Majesty's Ministers for having made the force 
 much larger than was necessary for either object, in order to in- 
 vite the surrender of the fleet which was required; but, when no 
 proposition would be listened to, it was satisfactory that the means 
 employed were sufficient for the accomplishment of the object 
 with the least possible loss. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman had said that the case could 
 only be justified by necessity; but he was sure the right honour- 
 able gentleman must carry his principle further, and admit, that the 
 
<^0 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 measure ought not to be carried beyond the necessity of the case. 
 He was, therefore, surprised to hear the right honourable gentle- 
 man say, at the conclusion of his speech, that the measure ought to 
 have been pushed to extremity. By other premises he might ar- 
 rive at that conclusion, but certainly not from those he had that 
 night stated. The right honourable gentleman had said, that the 
 Danish Government could defend the islands against France, 
 though France should be in possession of Holstein. But if the 
 Danish navy was not prepared against England, neither could it 
 be prepared against France. However, the fact was, and it was 
 notorious, that after Zealand had surrendered, many Danish troops 
 had succeeded in getting into that island, notwithstanding the ju- 
 dicious distribution of the British naval force in the Belts, by the 
 very able officer who commanded in that quarter. On the au- 
 thority of his predecessor he could state, that the pressure in Hol- 
 stein was considered as likely to lead to the surrender of Zealand. 
 The right honourable gentleman had asketl, why they had not put 
 their questions directly to Russia, respecting her conduct? He 
 would answer, that they had flattered themselves, that by pur- 
 suing a course rather conciliatory, they might bring back Rus- 
 sia to the line of her true policy, and, therefore, they abstained 
 from any conduct that might drive her irrecoverably into the 
 arms of France. But the right honourable gentleman asked why, 
 if Russia were a i)arty against us, w^e ought not to have selected 
 Russia for our attack ? To this question, wliich had been so often 
 put, the answer was so obvious, that he was surprised to hear it 
 repeated. If they had had certain information of the hostile in- 
 tentions of Russia, and the object which they had in view were 
 not attainable by any other means, he agreed that Russia should 
 have been attacked. It had been shown, that the object sought 
 from Denmark could not have been obtained without a prompt 
 and peremptory force, and that that object was of the highest mo- 
 ment to the security of this country. An attack upon Cronstadt 
 might have been productive of glory, but would not have dimin- 
 ished the maritime means that could be employed against us, and 
 which constituted our danger. Would it then have been wise, or 
 politic, or safe, to have passed the harbour of Copenhagen, which 
 contained twenty sail of the line, that would instantly become 
 the instruments of the enemy's vengeance against us, in order to 
 execute a barren bravado against Cronstadt, where wc could ob- 
 tain but three or four rotten hulks? It was true, he admitted, that 
 Russian ships of the line had passed through our fleets, and we 
 had the choice of attacking them; but, aware of the circumstances 
 by wliich tlie Emperor had been rendered the friend of Fi-ance, 
 of the disgusting humiliations to which he had been subjected at 
 the conferences of Tilsit, and hoping that his magnanimous spirit 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 61 
 
 might still be driven to resistance and aggression, His Majesty's 
 Ministers had still cherished the hope that the Emperor Alexander 
 would retrace his steps, not for the purpose of a renewal of war 
 with France — God forbid! — but in order to consult the true inter- 
 ests of his empire. In the present circumstances of the world, a 
 war with France would be hopeless; but it was not hopeless that 
 the spirit and disposition of his people might bring him back to 
 better councils. They had strong grounds to know that the in- 
 tentions of Russia were hostile, but, in the most inauspicious mo- 
 ment, they were not without expectations of altering them. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman had contended that this pros- 
 pect was not improved by calling upon Russia to sanction the busi- 
 ness of Copenhagen; but it was somewhat strange, that such an 
 opinion should be entertained by those who held that it was of no 
 consequence whether a mediator was friendly or not. He could 
 assure the right honourable gentleman, that the note of Baron 
 Budberg, which he imputed to some French intelligence respect- 
 ing the transactions at Copenhagen, was not produced by any 
 such cause. The business at Copenhagen had been known at St. 
 Petersburgh on the 22d July, a week before that note was writ- 
 ten; and if gentlemen reflected that General Savary dictated to 
 the Emperor of Russia in his capital, they might easily account 
 for the asperity of any note which might have been submitted to 
 his inspection. All accounts agreed in representing, that the mind 
 of the court of Russia was alienated from this country, and one 
 might easily conceive a reason for that alienation. The expecta- 
 tion of assistance from this country, no matter whether well or 
 ill founded, was the cause, not of the peace of Tilsit, but of the 
 temper in which it was conducted, when the military disasters 
 had rendered that peace necessary. Out of twenty despatches re- 
 ceived from our Ambassador with the Emperor, there was not one 
 in which he did not say, " Send assistance, or Russia will fail 
 you; make a diversion, which will take part of the weight of war 
 ofi" Russia, or she will withdraw from it." 
 
 As to the charge, that the expedition to Copenhagen was the 
 cause of the hostility of Russia, he contended, on the authority of 
 our Ambassador at Petersburgh, that the fact was not so; but he 
 could also refer to the authority of another noble person, who had 
 an ample opportunity of knowing the truth of what he here ad- 
 vanced, and he should do this with the more satisfaction, because 
 of some rumours he had heard, that that noble person (Lord 
 Hutchinson) had declared an opinion since his return to this coun- 
 try, that the Expedition to Copenhagen was the cause of the hos- 
 tility of Russia. The right honourable secretary here read an ex- 
 tract from a despatch from Lord Hutchinson, dated Memel, 20th 
 of July, and stating that there were many secret articles in the 
 
 a 
 
62 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 treaty of Tilsit; that the predominant party in the Russian court 
 was French, but that the rational part of the nation was against a 
 war with England; and it was probable the secret articles to Tur- 
 key, and to the shutting of the Russian ports against England, in 
 the event of the failure of a negotiation within a limited time. 
 This extract would be sufficient to do away any impression that 
 the rumours to which he alluded might have made, as if the noble 
 writer of the despatch really attributed the hostility of Russia to 
 the business at Copenhagen. Hoping for a change of circum- 
 stances, they had thought it better to afford to the Russian Gov- 
 ernment an opportunity of releasing itself from the embarrassing 
 engagements into which it had unfortunately entered at Tilsit; 
 and when he considered the nature of the policy and practice of 
 that court, when he contemplated the anxiety which it had always 
 manifested to maintain its rank as Protector of the North of Eu- 
 rope, and the tenacity with which it still fondly wished to cling 
 to that character, he could not suppose a case in which every feel- 
 ing of its pride and ambition could be so completely gratified as 
 in the submission of our differences with Denmark to the media- 
 tion of Russia as arbitress of the North. She could thus say to 
 herself, the sea of which I am protectress has been violated; but 
 those who have violated it are placed in my hands, subject to my 
 mediation. This was the light in which he was confident the ap- 
 plication to Russia to mediate, would be considered by every per- 
 son who was a friend to the true interests of Russia, and it was 
 so considered, until the overbearing influence of General Savary 
 altered the tone of the Russian Cabinet. But it had been said, 
 why not attack Cronstadt, and insult the Emperor in his own cap- 
 ital ? There was a great party, or rather the majority of the bet- 
 termost people in Russia, who were anxious for British connexion; 
 but whatever might be the partialities of such persons, they must 
 all feel for the honour and glory of their country, and, therefore, 
 it could not be desirable to destroy, by an unprofitable attack upon 
 the national feelings, the nascent popularity of this country. We 
 had the right, unquestionably; but it was a different question, 
 whether, under the circumstances of the case, we ought to exer- 
 cise it: besides, the object was not worth the cost and pain of the 
 undertaking, and the execution of it would have infallibly dis- 
 gusted those who would be likely to bring back Russia to her real 
 interests. Those gentlemen who admitted that a knowledge of 
 the designs of France, and of the weakness of Denmark, would 
 justify the expedition, seemed to forget the inadmission, and to 
 urge the broad principles applicable to a different state of things. 
 It was undoubtedly just, that if there were a community of states 
 in Europe, the weaker states ought to be as secure from aggression, 
 as the more powerful ones. This was a principle which had 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 63 
 
 never been denied. But gentlemen wrongly applied to the exist- 
 ing state of Europe this principle, which properly belonged to 
 that state of Europe, in which the rights of all were secured by 
 the sanctity of public law; and even the weakest were preserved 
 from aggression or insult — if not by immediate protection, at least, 
 by conflicting interests. 
 
 In the enthusiasm of the right honourable gentleman's morality, 
 it was rather strange, that he should have forgotten the moralities 
 of the French revolution. In the present state of the world, 
 whatever miseries might be produced, whatever calamities en- 
 dured, whatever atrocities committed, by the permission of that 
 Providence in whom we live, breathe, and have our being, the 
 whole responsibility must rest upon him, who is the sole author 
 of them. There was not now a community of states in Europe, 
 connected by the solemnity and sanction of public law, protect- 
 ing and protected by the influence of the principles of equal 
 justice, and a mutual sense of reciprocal rights; there was but one 
 devouring state, that swallowed up every one that it could bring 
 within its grasp, and that, so far from respecting the rights and 
 independence of other nations, reduced all to indiscriminate sub- 
 jection, rendering them alike subservient to the designs of its 
 Ruler against this country. Buonaparte now dictated to all the 
 nations of the continent, and had erased every vestige of public 
 law in Europe. He could not but be surprised then, to find gen- 
 tleman censuring a measure, which had proved the salvation of 
 the country, and comparing it with antiquated crimes in which 
 we had no share, and for which we had incurred no responsi- 
 bility. 
 
 Was it to be contended, that, in a moment of imminent danger, 
 we should have abstained from that course which prudence and 
 policy dictated, in order to meet and avert those calamities that 
 threatened our security and existence, because if we sunk under 
 the pressure, we should have the consolation of having the au- 
 thority of Pufiendorf to plead ? But the conduct that had been 
 adopted on this occasion, was not without precedent or example. 
 In the year ISOl, the island of Madeira had been taken possession 
 of, by our Government, for fear it should fall into the hands of the 
 French. Yet Portugal was a neutral nation, and had always, by 
 way of pre-eminence, been styled the old and ancient ally of 
 England. The capture of Madeira had been effected without any 
 previous communication to the Court of Lisbon. Undoubtedly, 
 instructions had been sent to our Minister at the Court of Lisbon, 
 to request that an order should be sent to the Governor to surren- 
 der the island in good will. The instructions arrived at Lisbon 
 about the time that the troops arrived at Madeira, and the island 
 was, consequently, taken by force, before any orders could have 
 
64 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 been sent out to surrender it. Wliere had Portugal, at that time, 
 a fleet that could convey troops for the invasion of these islands, 
 or if she had that fleet, what expedition could be sent by her that 
 would not be defeated by the valour and intrepidity of our sea- 
 men ? He did not mean to condemn the capture of that island, 
 because he knew that it might be, and he had no doubt that it 
 was, justifiable upon the grounds of probable necessity; he ad- 
 verted to the transaction only as a defence against the generality 
 of the charge. But this was not the only instance in which such 
 conduct had been practised to neutral states, in which it had been 
 used towards neutral and friendly Powers; nay, even there was an 
 instance in which it had been adopted by morality itself towards 
 a friendly state. In the year ISOG, there had been reports of its 
 being the intention of the French Government to invade Portu- 
 gal. He had himself no doubt of the perpetual intention of the 
 French Government to prosecute that purpose, and he did not 
 question that the design might have been in contemplation at that 
 time; but it did not appear that any army was assembled for the 
 purpose at Bayonne. He admired the conduct which had been 
 adopted by the late Ministers on the occasion, he applauded their 
 spirit, and he felt gratitude for the manner in which their proceed- 
 ing enabled him to meet the general question on this charge. 
 [Here the right honourable Secretary read an extract from the 
 Instructions given by the late Board of Admiralty to Earl St. 
 Vincent, when despatched to Lisbon. The Instructions directed 
 the noble Admiral's attention to three objects; first, if the Por- 
 tuguese Government should, by itself, or in conjunction with 
 Spain, be disposed to defend the country against the French, to 
 promise all the assistance that Great Britain could afford, and the 
 presence of a respectable naval force in the Tagus would contrib- 
 ute to that object; secondly, if that should not be the determina- 
 tion of the Court, and the Government should embrace the reso- 
 lution of emigrating to the Brazils, as it had once proposed during 
 the late war, to offer them the assistance of a British naval force, 
 under the protection of which alone, that determination could be 
 carried into effect; and, lastly, if there should not be vigour enough 
 in the Government to adopt either of these resolutions, he was to 
 prevent, if possible, the port of Lisbon from falling into the hands 
 of the French, and, at all events, the Portuguese navy was to be se- 
 cured; every vessel of which, that was serviceable, was to be 
 brought off, together with the ships, goods, and persons of the 
 British factory at Lisbon, and also the court, if it should be so 
 disposed: for the execution of these instructions, the troops that 
 were then embarking were to be sent to him with all convenient 
 expedition; but he was not to give any intimation of the circum- 
 stance to the Portuguese Government, nor to hold any language 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 65 
 
 that might excite the suspicion of the French Minister, or lead to 
 any measures of precaution; and, as it might he necessary to em- 
 ploy the troops immediately on their arrival, in order to secure a 
 strong position, he was to have the marines and hoats of the fleet 
 constantly in readiness for that service.] These instructions were 
 clear in their tenor, precise in their object, and conclusive as to 
 the question then under consideration. If any gentleman wished 
 for the document, it would be laid on the table, and the only shy- 
 ness that had been felt in producing it before was, that it would 
 place him and his colleagues in the situation of convicted plagiar- 
 ists. (Hear, hear!) These were the instructions that had been 
 given by morality itself, and the only difference between them 
 and the instructions that had been given by the present Govern- 
 ment was, that the latter did not desire that the army should be 
 introduced in disguise. 
 
 But there might yet be one qualification that the right honour- 
 able gentleman would apply to Denmark, namely, that her con- 
 duct, when she was relatively strong to weaker neutral states, did 
 not merit such a measure against her. What had that conduct 
 been? When, in 1801, the maritime confederacy held out a pros- 
 pect that this country would not be able to protect its allies, Den- 
 mark treated the unprotected neutral state of Hamburgh with the 
 most violent oppression, and did so for the purpose of excluding 
 the English from that port. The same conduct had been pursued 
 towards Ratzburg. This conduct proved that Denmark had no 
 very strong claims for forbearance. But it was rather strange, that 
 those gentlemen who blamed Government for not having accept- 
 ed the mediation of Russia, should now impute it as the ground 
 of charge that they had not passed by Copenhagen in order to at- 
 tack Cronstadt. We had a right to attack Russia, but had we no 
 interest in forbearing to exercise that right? There were, at the 
 time, in the ports of Russia, five hundred British ships, and six 
 thousand British seamen; and gentlemen would perceive, that 
 these formed too important an object to be hazarded for the sake 
 of the few hulks that might be obtained at Cronstadt: besides, the 
 fleet which Russia had in the Mediterranean was a security to us 
 for her good behaviour. And here he would take occasion to con- 
 tradict a misrepresentation that had taken place upon the subject 
 of this fleet. The Russian squadron did not enter the Tagus by 
 order from the Government, but from sheer distress, and because 
 all the ports of the enemy were so closely blockaded by our 
 squadrons, that they could not enter any one of them. This 
 squadron was first directed to touch at a British port, and even 
 the Russian Ambassador was so deceived with respect to it, that 
 he had kept here a frigate with specie on board, for the payment 
 
 10 G* 
 
66 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 of that very fleet. But, if that fleet had been attacked, what an 
 argument might yet be drawn against the precipitancy of such a 
 measure, from the circumstance of the squadron having been di- 
 rected to touch at a British port, and the Russian Ambassador 
 having detained the frigate with the specie for the pay of the 
 crews ! 
 
 He had intentionally avoided referring to any thing in this de- 
 bate but what was notorious; and if they were to ask why they 
 had rested their defence upon precise information, when the events 
 and facts that had since taken place, had amply justified their 
 measure, he would answer, that they had stated that precise 
 ground because it was true, and not because they thought it ne- 
 cessary to their justification in judging of the case before the 
 House. If any more evidence should be thought necessary, let 
 them be condemned, for nothing should ever extort from them 
 the source whence they had derived their information. If gen- 
 tlemen should say, that this course was contrary to the practice 
 of Parliament, he would go the Journals, to prove that it was not 
 out of the usual course of parliamentary proceedings. Having 
 rescued the country from a great and imminent danger, he would 
 trust to the case as it stood, and he had no doubt but that the con- 
 duct of Ministers would be judged deserving of approbation. 
 The House might judge of the extent of the service performed 
 by contemplating the distribution of our naval force, that might 
 be necessary if the Danish fleet were not now in our possession. 
 
 As to what the right honourable gentleman had said of the in- 
 crease of the danger of Sweden by the Expedition, he could as- 
 sure him, that that danger was greatly diminished by that event, 
 and so the Government of Sweden felt it. As the right honour- 
 able gentleman had alluded to a communication made by him to 
 Mr. Rist, the Danish charge d'affaires, he would briefly state the 
 fact to the House. He had been commanded by His Majesty, 
 after the Danish fleet had been surrendered, to make an official 
 communication to that gentleman, desiring that he might procure 
 powers from the Crown Prince to negotiate an accommodation, 
 or to procure passports for a Minister to go to Keil for that pur- 
 pose. This was all the official communication; he had, however, 
 thought it right to inform Mr. Rist of the terms upon which the 
 accommodation might be effected. He had mentioned then the 
 period of three years, as that which might, after the conclusion 
 of peace, enable us to form a judgment of the stability of the 
 peace; and certainly, those who had witnessed the last peace must 
 be sensible, that the period was not too long; for in eighteen 
 months after that peace, we were as much at war as before. Con- 
 sidering that we had gained possession of the fleet by force, he 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 67 
 
 did not think the stipulation of such a term any insult, and he 
 had proposed either to keep the fleet in deposit, or to take it in 
 purchase. When he communicated this fact to the House, he 
 thought it necessary to state why he did not produce the papers. 
 As all negotiations were resumed on the terms upon which they 
 had been last broken off, and though he and his colleagues had 
 thought it right to make such offers in that instance, it would not 
 follow that they should be disposed to grant the same conditions 
 at a future period. In the hope of some such accommodation, 
 His Majesty had even been induced to delay directing the con- 
 demnation of the Danish shipping, as well as his declaration of 
 war. He had no hesitation to add, that every stipulation had 
 been required that could be necessary for the security of the 
 Swedish territory. But now that war had taken place, it could 
 not be contended that the capture of the Danish Navy, did not, 
 pro tanto, diminish the means of the enemy, whilst it added to 
 our means of security. Buonaparte well knew, that the maritime 
 power of Great Britain was the only impediment to his universal 
 aggrandizement. He would not cease, therefore, to exhaust all 
 the means he possessed to accomplish the grand object of his am- 
 bition. The trial he would make; and it was only by making it, 
 and its failure, that he was to be convinced of the inefficiency and 
 fruitlessness of all his designs. He would destroy all commerce 
 in order to injure this country, which he identified with it: 
 
 "Cedet et ipse marl vector: nee nautica pinus 
 Mutabit merces." — 
 
 But though he should direct the whole accumulated force of his 
 vast territories to this purpose, he would find all his projects frus- 
 trated, until he could make all nations independent of commerce, 
 in consequence of their own productions: 
 
 " Omnis feret omnia tellus." 
 
 By the expedition to Copenhagen, the means of the enemy had 
 been reduced, and the security of the country augmented. Those 
 who thought the policy of that measure weak, and its execution 
 unjust, would certainly vote against him. But he could not con- 
 sider it a manly way to take the division upon the motion for pa- 
 pers, and not on the merits of the question, merely because some 
 few would vote for the papers, who would not support a motion 
 for censure. Conscious of the principles upon which he and his 
 colleagues had acted, and of the advantages resulting to the coun- 
 try therefrom, trusting to the justice and the good sense of the 
 House, for a confirmation of the universal sentiment of the coun- 
 try with regard to the conduct of His Majesty's Ministers upon 
 the present transaction, he should submit to its decision, and meet 
 the motion with a direct negative. 
 
68 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 Mr. Wyndham supported the motion of Mr. Ponsonby; and after a very 
 lengthened discussion, the House divided at half-past five on Thursday morning — 
 For Mr. Ponsonby 's motion - . . . 108 
 Against it 253 
 
 Majority • - 145 
 
 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 FEBRUARY 25th, 1808. 
 
 Mr. Sheridan concluded a speech, possessing the usual characteristics of his 
 style of speaking — great eloquence and great humour — by moving the follow- 
 ing resolutions: — 
 
 1. " That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be 
 graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, as far 
 as the same can be done without prejudice to the public service, copies or ex- 
 tracts of any correspondence which passed between His Majesty's Ministers and 
 the Danish Charge d'Aftaires, or his Secretary, resident at the Court of Lon- 
 don, from the date of the capitulation of Copenhagen, to their departure, to- 
 gether with the minutes of any verbal communications between the same. 
 
 2. "Copies or extracts of all correspondence which passed, after the capitu- 
 lation of Copenhagen, between His Majesty's Ministers and the Court of Stock- 
 holm, relative to the retaining possession of the Island of Zealand by a Swedish 
 army, or in concert with His Majesty's forces; and also copies of any corres- 
 pondence which may have passed between the Courts of Copenhagen and 
 Stockholm relating to the same, and communicated to His Majesty's Minister 
 residing at the Court of Stockholm." 
 
 Mr. Secretary Canning was not ashamed to confess, that he 
 at all times felt considerable difficulty in disagreeing from his right 
 honourable friend (Mr. Sheridan); and that in this instance, his 
 difficulty was much increased, not by the line of argument adopt- 
 ed by his right honourable friend, but by the humour with which 
 he had treated subjects stated to be atrocious, and the gravity 
 with which he had dwelt upon things trifling and unimportant. 
 His right honourable friend had set out with a discussion of the 
 particular benefits of the British Constitution, which he contrast- 
 ed with the practice of despotic governments. But he had pushed 
 this contrast to a greater extent than any writer or speaker with 
 whom he was acquainted. His right honourable friend had said, 
 that His Majesty's Ministers were preserving the gloom of des- 
 potism upon every transaction, upon which they did not, shortly 
 after the transaction took place, or whilst the consequences were 
 yet flowing from it, give the fullest information to the House, and 
 through that House to the public, and through the public to the 
 enemy, by which the enemy might be enabled to defeat the ob- 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 69 
 
 jects of them. He had always thought that the Constitution had 
 solved that problem which his right honourable friend seemed to 
 think insoluble, by enabling that House to steer between difficul- 
 ties, and by uniting the promptness of the executive with the 
 salutary corrective of its popular branch. But the extremity to 
 which his right honourable friend had pushed his proposition was 
 not to be maintained in argument or in fact, and the former of his 
 motions allowed the principle which the whole tenor of his 
 speech went to invalidate. His right honourable friend had com- 
 plained of the sparingness with which His Majesty's Ministers 
 granted papers; but he was sure his right honourable friend must 
 be convinced that papers had been laid upon the table this session 
 in greater masses than upon any former occasion. It began to be 
 the feeling of the House, that he and his colleagues had granted 
 too many papers, and that the few which remained in the public 
 offices should be retained there, if not for the guidance of future 
 ministers, at least for the service of future oppositions. His right 
 honourable friend had asserted, that because only extracts had 
 been laid before the House, they were not entitled to credit; and 
 that the remainder of the documents, if produced, would contradict 
 the tenor of the parts given to the public; as well as that, because 
 chasms existed in the chain of papers, those which were forth- 
 coming were not to be credited. The instance which his right 
 honourable friend had selected to prove a deception in the case of 
 the three despatches from Lord G. L. Gower, and upon which he 
 dwelt with so much earnestness, as if they might have been written 
 at intervals of some weeks, was rather an unfortunate one for his 
 argument; because he had antecedently proved in his speech that 
 they must all have been written between the 30th of August and 
 the 2d of September. The clerical error of the copying clerk, 
 In dating one of these despatches the 2d instead of the 1st of 
 September, was the ground upon which his right honourable 
 friend built his argument, to prove the deception which he im- 
 puted to His Majesty's Ministers. 
 
 But in contending that these despatches were framed with a 
 view to justify His Majesty's Declaration of December 19th, 
 which was issued in answer to the Emperor of Russia's Declara- 
 tion of October 26th, which had been received in this country 
 on the 3d of December, his right honourable friend gave credit 
 to him and his colleagues for a portion of political sagacity which 
 he was not, on other occasions, disposed to allow them. But as 
 the observation had been applied not only to the despatches from 
 Lord G. L. Gower, but to his answer to these despatches, dated 
 September 17th, his right honourable friend cut him short a fort- 
 night of the allowance of political sagacity. The view which his 
 right honourable friend had taken of the statement in Lord G. L. 
 
70 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 Gower's despatch, relative to the amicable tone assumed by Gen- 
 eral Budberg, was not maintainable in argument, or by the fact. 
 Did his right honourable friend mean to say that General Bud- 
 berg, at the time of adopting that tone, was not acquainted with 
 the transactions at Copenhagen? If he did, he was mistaken; 
 because these transactions had been known at St. Petersburg, 
 either on, or shortly after, the 20th of August. If that were so, 
 he would ask his right honourable friend whether, under such 
 circumstances, he would not think it proper to take advantage of 
 such a disposition, in order, if possible, to preserve the relations 
 of amity and alliance which had previously subsisted between 
 the two countries? The note demanding an explanation of the 
 attack upon Copenhagen, had been communicated under the in- 
 fluence of a Power which had since acquired and exerted an as- 
 cendency in the Russian councils. Though the depatches com- 
 municating this note had been received with the other, they did 
 not seem to His Majesty's Ministers sufficient to alter the view 
 which they had of turning to advantage, if possible, the friendly 
 disposition which had appeared on the part of Russia. If this had 
 been the use which his right honourable friend made of the papers 
 produced at the desire of his own friend, what credit would he 
 have given to the despatches if they had been voluntarily laid upon 
 the table by His Majesty's Ministers? Would he not have said, 
 that Ministers had produced them in order to make out their own 
 case? But he should not then enter into the general question, 
 until it should be regularly brought before the House, by the mo- 
 tion of the learned gentleman on Wednesday. 
 
 If his right honourable friend was prepared to contend that the 
 question ought to be answered because it was put; or that, accord- 
 ing to the daily practice of that House, it ought to be answered 
 without any reference whatever to any particular course to be 
 grounded upon it; he was of opinion that it would require some- 
 what more than the ingenuity of his right honourable friend to es- 
 tablish that point. If he understood his right honourable friend 
 right, he had adverted to certain misconstructions which had been 
 put upon what had fallen from him on a former occasion, as if he 
 had made statements from documents in order to misrepresent the 
 general tenor of their contents. Upon this particular point he 
 should observe, that if other reasons did not interfere with the 
 production of these documents, he could, for his part, have no ob- 
 jection to produce them; and, on this occasion, he trusted he 
 should meet with the indulgence of the House, in adding a few 
 words upon a subject so immediately personal to himself. If he 
 were to look to himself alone, he should have no difficulty in pro- 
 ducing the papers, which would take away all misconstructions 
 upon the subject, and leave the learned gentleman, when he came 
 
EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 71 
 
 to bring; forward his motion, to discuss it upon the mere naked 
 principle. His right honourable friend had mis-stated the view 
 in which he had used one of those papers which he had read. 
 He had stated, that he (Mr. Canning) from Lord Howick's des- 
 patch, had imputed that the Danish Court was in collusion with 
 France; but this was a mistake: he had only stated, that from all 
 the circumstances of Denmark's having retreated as the French 
 advanced towards Holstein, there was reason to apprehend, if they 
 got possession of Holstein, Denmark might dread their proceed- 
 ing to do the same by Zealand, and that might be a means of 
 drawing the Danish fleet into the hands of France; and he thought 
 the noble lord had good cause for fearing that might be the case. 
 
 His right honourable friend, in one part of his speech, admit- 
 ted, and, in the wording of his motion, had more strongly con- 
 firmed the admission, that it must be left to His Majesty's Minis- 
 ters to say what particular papers ought to be laid before the 
 House, and what would be inconvenient or dangerous so to do, 
 and then called on him to say whether there would be any incon- 
 venience in the production of the papers now moved for? To 
 this he distinctly answered, yes, there would be the highest in- 
 convenience. His right honourable friend had told them that we 
 had but one ally in Europe, and that he was in the greatest dan- 
 ger. He argued that this danger would arise to Sweden, from 
 having entered into a compact with this country relative to taking 
 possession of Norway, and, in return, asked for the whole corres- 
 pondence relating to that transaction. 
 
 His right honourable friend's belief with respect to that, was 
 founded on a few paragraphs in the Moniteur, which he brought 
 down, threw on the table, and then called on Ministers for all the 
 correspondence between them and their only ally; he thought, 
 however. Ministers knew too well how to show their value for 
 their only ally, to comply with so unreasonable a request. He 
 did not know how it was, but it seemed to him that the Moniteur 
 had been strangely favourable to the views of the honourable gen- 
 tlemen opposite; for they no sooner began to be exhausted in 
 topics of declamation against Ministers, and to show symptoms of 
 being languid and flat, than over popped a Moniteur with some 
 agreeable information to cheer their drooping spirits, and to give 
 them a fresh opportunity of calling for more papers, in doing 
 which, he thought his right honourable friend had, on the present 
 occasion, shown a voracious curiosity. If he would limit it to 
 any information that could safely be laid before the House, he 
 would be glad to oblige him as far as possible, to give him an op- 
 portunity of joining more effectually in the motion which the 
 honourable and learned gentleman soon meant to move on the ca- 
 pitulation of Copenhagen. He assured the House, that in every 
 
72 EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN. 
 
 respect that treaty had been complied with on our part. There 
 had been a conference as to British property seized and detained 
 prior to our taking possession of Zealand. A doubt having arisen 
 whether the capitulation meant to confine it to Zealand only, or 
 to the rest of the Danish territory, it was agreed to be submitted 
 to the officers on both sides, who made the capitulation, and was 
 determined against the English, and implicitly complied with. 
 The same, as to hostilities by the declaration of war, w^hich were 
 not known at the time of the capitulation: every thing had been 
 abided by, that was stipulated by the capitulation. His right hon- 
 ourable friend was also mistaken as to the offer of Norway to 
 Sweden by France. It was Prince Murat, and not General Brune, 
 that made the offer which Sweden communicated to Denmark, 
 but which Denmark concealed from us. His right honourable 
 friend seemed to think, that France might do as she pleased — 
 might give away Norway with impunity, whilst we should be 
 highly criminal in any such intention, let the state of warfare be- 
 tween us and Denmark be what it might. His last point, how- 
 ever, was, that we should not follow the example of the enemy. 
 In that respect His Majesty had hitherto carried on a system of 
 scrupulous forbearance. If his right honourable friend meant 
 that wc should not imitate his cruelties, oppressions, and unbound- 
 ed aggressions, he would coincide with him; but if he meant that 
 we should not follow him in every measure which might tend 
 to put us on a perfect equality with him in carrying on the war, 
 he must differ with him entirely. His right honourable friend 
 had indulged the exuberant fancy of his classic mind, by giving 
 garbled extracts from Latin poets by way of quotation, such as — 
 " Ridlculum acri quid veictt.'^ If he was inclined to retort a 
 quotation on his right honourable friend, it would, he thought, be 
 strictly allowable to him to say, — 
 
 " Arma virumque cano." " Fas est et ab hoste doceri." 
 
 Buonaparte, whatever might be his cruelties, his oppressions, or 
 his aggressions, had on all occasions scrupulouly adhered to and 
 protected those who had entered into alliance with him; he had 
 never sacrificed an ally to any consideration, however pressing 
 or important. Ministers were that night called on to give up the 
 correspondence of our only ally, which could not fail of being at- 
 tended with great inconvenience; and he would, therefore, so far 
 follow the example of the enemy, as to adhere to our ally, and to 
 refuse his assent to his right honourable friend's motion. 
 
 The House divided — 
 
 For the motion ... - 85 
 
 Against it - - • - - - 184 
 
 Majority - - 99 
 
73 
 
 CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 
 
 MARCH 8th, 1809. 
 
 Mr. Wardle moved the order of the day for taking into consideration the 
 Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee who were appointed to in- 
 vestigate the Conduct of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, the Com- 
 mander-in-Chief, with regard to Promotions, Exchanges, and Appointments to 
 Commissions in the Army and Staff of the Army. The honourable member 
 proceeded to offer what he had to say upon the evidence, on the several promi- 
 nent parts of which he commented at considerable length. He concluded by 
 moving the following Address: — 
 
 " That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, humbly stating to 
 His Majesty that information has been communicated to this House, and evi- 
 dence produced to support it, of various corrupt practices and other abuses having 
 prevailed for some years past, in the disposal of commissions and promotions in 
 His Majesty's land forces; that His Majesty's faithful Commons, accordmg to 
 the duty by which they are bound to His Majesty and to their constituents, 
 have carefully examined into the truth of sundry transactions which have been 
 brought before them, in proof of such corrupt practices and abuses; and that it 
 is with the utmost concern and astonishment His Majesty's faithful Commons 
 find themselves obliged, most humbly, to inform His Majesty that the result 
 of their diligent inquiries into the facts, by the examination of persons con- 
 cerned, together with other witnesses, and a variety of documents, has been 
 such as to satisfy his faithful Commons that the existence of such corrupt prac- 
 tices and abuses is substantially true. That His Majesty's faithful Commons 
 are restrained by motives of personal respect and attachment to His Majesty, 
 from entering into a detail of these transactions, being convinced that they 
 could not be stated without exciting the most painful sensations of grief and in- 
 dignation in the breast of His Majesty. That the proceedings of His Majesty's 
 faithful Commons upon this important subject have been public, and the evi- 
 dence brought before them is recorded in the proceedings of Parliament; and 
 that they trust His Majesty will give them credit when they assure His Ma- 
 jesty, that, in the execution of this painful duty, they have proceeded with all 
 due deliberation. That, without entering into any other of the many obvious 
 consequences which may be expected to follow, from the belief once generally 
 established, of the prevalence of such abuses in the military department, there 
 is one great and essential consideration inseparable from the present subject, 
 which they humbly beg leave, in a more particular manner, to submit to His 
 Majesty's gracious consideration; namely, that if an opinion should prevail 
 amongst His Majesty's land forces, that promotion may be obtained by other 
 means than by merit and service — by means at once unjust to the army, and 
 disgraceful to the authority placed over it— the effect of such an opinion must 
 necessarily be, to wound the feelings and abate the zeal of all ranks and de- 
 scriptions of His Majesty's army. That it is the opinion of this House that 
 the abuses which they have most humbly represented to His Majesty, could 
 not have prevailed to the extent in which they had been proved to exist, with- 
 out the knowledge of the Commander-in-Chief; and that even if, upon any 
 principle of reason or probability, it could be presumed that abuses so various 
 and so long continued, could, in fact, have prevailed without his knowledge, 
 such a presumption in his favour would not warrant the conclusion that the 
 
 11 H 
 
74 CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 
 
 command of the army could, with safety, or ought, in prudence, to be contin- 
 ued in his hands. That on these grounds and principles, His Majesty's faith- 
 ful Commons most humbly submit their opinion to His Majesty's gracious con- 
 sideration, that His Royal Highness tiie Duke of York ought to be deprived of 
 the command of the army." 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, as an amendment to the 
 honourable gentleman's Address, to leave out all of it but the word " that," for 
 the purpose of converting his motion for an Address mto a Resolution. He 
 thought it absolutely and indispensably necessary that the House should decide 
 the question of guilt or innocence, and, therefore, he should submit a question 
 expressive of the sense of the House, that they should decide the question as 
 follows. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman then read two resolutions, acquitting the 
 Duke of York of any personal corruption or connivance at the infamous and 
 corrupt practices disclosed in the evidence taken on the inquiry. 
 
 These Resolutions he proposed to introduce into an Address, the substance 
 of which is contained in the following extract: — 
 
 " His Majesty's faithful Commons think it their duty to state to His Majesty, 
 that whilst this House has seen with satisfaction, in the course of this inquiry, 
 the exemplary regularity and method with which the business of the Com- 
 mander-in-Chief has been conducted under the direction of His Royal High- 
 ness; and also the many salutary and efficient regulations which have been in- 
 troduced into the army, during liis command of it — some of which regulations 
 have been specially directed to prevent those very abuses, which have, in this 
 inquiry, been brought under the notice of the House of Commons — they could 
 not but feel the most serious regret and concern, that a connexion should ever 
 have existed, under the cover of which, transactions of a highly criminal and 
 disgraceful nature have been carried on, and that an opportunity has been af- 
 forded, of falsely and injuriously coupling with such transactions the name of 
 His Royal Highness, whereby the integrity of his conduct in the discharge of 
 the duties of his high office, has been brought into question ; that it is, how- 
 ever, a great consolation to this House, to observe the deep regret and concern 
 which His Royal Highness has himself expressed on the subject of that con- 
 nexion; as from the expression of that regret on the part of His Royal High- 
 ness, this House derives the confident assurance that His Royal Highness will 
 liencetbrth invariably keep in view that bright example of virtuous conduct, 
 which the uniform tenor of His Majesty's life, during the course of his whole 
 reign, has afforded to all his subjects, and which has so much endeared His 
 Majesty to the affection of every rank and description of his people." 
 
 Mr. Bankes moved another amendment, which varied slightly from the 
 original one. It contained the additional expression, " That the abuses which 
 had been disclosed during the progress of the examination, had unveiled a 
 course of conduct of the worst example to public morals, and highly injurious 
 to the cause of religion." 
 
 On the sixth night of the adjourned debate on the original Address, and the 
 two amendments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Bankes, 
 
 Mr, Secretary Canning, in a speech of great length and 
 ability, commented on the evidence in all its details. A few ex- 
 tracts from the speech will suffice as a record of the part that Mr. 
 Canning took in the discussions that arose on the inquiry into the 
 Duke of York's conduct : — 
 
 Sir, — There are two Addresses before the House. For the 
 Address of the honourable member who brougrht forward the 
 question, I cannot vote, because I do not agree with the aver- 
 
CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 75 
 
 ments of it; but certainly I should have less difficulty in voting 
 for that Address than for the Address supported by my honoura- 
 ble friend (Mr. Wilberforce, who supported the Address moved 
 by Mr. Bankes). 
 
 Is it wise or fair when you have before you questions, all in- 
 deed of misconduct, but differing in their degrees: some calling 
 for punishment, some for animadversion, and some inore fitly per- 
 haps the subject of silent regret, than either of punishment or of 
 animadversion: is it wise or fair to take an indistinct view of all 
 these questions at once, and give, as it were, an average decision 
 upon them? Is it just to the person who is the subject of this 
 inquiry ? Is it respectful, is it kind, is it humane to that other 
 personage to whom those Addresses are to be carried, deeply in- 
 terested as he must be in the result, both as a Sovereign and as a 
 Father? Is a decision of such a nature consonant to the justice, 
 or creditable to the character of Parliament ? 
 
 First, as to what is due to the illustrious person whose conduct 
 is the subject of this inquiry. 
 
 And here let me guard against an insinuation which is too often 
 thrown out, as if there were intended to be some claim set up 
 for particular forbearance towards this illustrious person, on ac- 
 count of his station; as if it were intended or attempted to pre- 
 vent the House of Commons from inquiring into his conduct. I 
 have seen no such thing attempted. I believe no such thing to have 
 been intended in any quarter. And I trust, that whatever the deci- 
 sion of the House may be, there will not be fastened on the House 
 itself, or on any member of it, a suspicion of having acted upon 
 such views. 
 
 But when we are cautioned not to take into consideration the 
 rank of the Commander-in-Chief in the course of the inquiry, or 
 in mitigation of punishment, let us be sure that these considera- 
 tions, so cautiously to be abstained from in favour of the Duke of 
 York, be not suffered to operate the other way. 
 
 My honourable friend has spoken of the times in which we 
 live; my honourable friend is in the habit of viewing these 
 times with a philosophical eye, of comparing the present with the 
 past. Let him tell me whether upon comparison with any times 
 of which he has ever read, he will say that the peculiar bent of 
 the disposition of the present times is to exalt the high at the 
 expense of the low ? Will he tell me that the current of public 
 prejudice does not run precisely the other way ? I think my 
 honourable friend will agree with me, that if there are any who 
 allow weight to the consideration of the rank of His Royal High- 
 ness as exempting him from punishment, there are many, many 
 more, whose feelings are the more acrimonious against him on 
 
76 CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 
 
 that account, and who consider him as, on that account, the more 
 desirable victim. 
 
 I must entreat the House therefore to look not to one side of 
 this question only — that is all that I desire. All that it is right 
 to ask on behalf of the Duke of York is, that he should have no 
 favour, but no prejudice; that he shall be considered on a par 
 with the meanest subject of his father; that he shall not be ex- 
 cluded by his rank from all those protecting presumptions which 
 the ordinary course of law affords to every person under ac- 
 cusation. 
 
 What then is the situation of His Royal Highness? Charges 
 have been preferred against him: — no, not charges, I am told, 
 because not reduced into writing. To whom that is attributed, 
 as a fault, if to any one, I do not know; charges, however, it is 
 said, there are none, they are only accusations. 
 
 These charges, then, in the shape of accusations, not reduced 
 to writing, but preferred in the manner in which they have been 
 preferred, impute to His Royal Highness the Commander-in- 
 Chief, the foul and degrading imputation of direct personal cor- 
 ruption, and of wilful and criminal connivance at the corrupt 
 practices of others. 
 
 True it is, that in searching for evidence of these graver mat- 
 ters, you find evidence of matters of comparatively lighter mo- 
 ment; not free from blame, God knows, but blame of a very dif- 
 ferent description. You have developed scenes of misconduct, 
 of the existence of which there can be no doubt, and which I 
 neither can, nor would attempt to justify. But if, in endeavour- 
 ing to obtain the proof of the facts alleged against His Royal 
 Highness, you have not been able to prove those facts, but have 
 proved something different, something less, does it follow that if 
 he is innocent of the great offence, the lesser ones are to preclude 
 him from acquittal ? 
 
 It is said, however, that there is no record of this inquiry; no 
 specific entry on our journals which renders a specific sentence 
 of acquittal or condemnation necessary. Posterity, it is said, will 
 know nothing of our proceedings but from our journals; and 
 there is, therefore, no injustice done to the Duke of York in 
 leaving such a charge without an answer. Is it possible to urge 
 this argument vseriously ? If it might be true in former times that 
 the formal acts, the recorded transactions of Parliament, and those 
 alone, would go abroad to the world, or descend to posterity, 
 blasting the name and character of a man accused, — are we there- 
 fore to be told that the case is the same now ? That now, when 
 by those modes of dissemination of which we are all aware, the 
 knowledge of all that passes in this House is extended in a few 
 hours to every corner of the kingdom, and, by degrees, to the re- 
 
CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF AORK. 77 
 
 motest parts of the world; that there is now no unfairness, no cru- 
 elty, in leaving such charges unrefuted, because not formally en- 
 tered upon record? Is there any man who can satisfy himself, in 
 the present times, to set up this technical plea in defence of such 
 substantial injustice ? 
 
 So much for the record, even if the fact which is taken as the 
 basis of the argument were true. But is there not, after all, a re- 
 cord? — is there not that record which, when in the most distant 
 time or country our proceedings shall be read, will plainly indi- 
 cate the nature of the charge, at the same time that there will be 
 to be collected from our proceedings that condemnation, which, 
 if we intend to pronounce it, surely we cannot intend to conceal? 
 
 What appears on the record? It appears that the House referred 
 to a committee of the whole House, " to investigate the conduct 
 of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, with regard to 
 promotions, exchanges, and appointments to commissions in the 
 army, and the staff of the army, and in raising levies for the army." 
 
 What further will appear, if this Address, if either of the two 
 proposed Addresses shall be voted by the House ? Why, that the 
 House, after receiving the report of their committee, are of opin- 
 ion that " corrupt practices have prevailed " in the disposal of 
 promotions, exchanges, &c. &c., in the army. 
 
 With whom is that disposal ? Why, with the Commander-in- 
 Chief. Whose conduct were the committee to investigate in re- 
 spect to this disposal ? Why, the Commander-in-Chief's, the Duke 
 of York's. 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that the Duke of York loill appear, on the 
 face of these proceedings, if we shall vote either of the Addresses 
 proposed, to be found guilty of corruption; and yet, gentlemen 
 who are prepared to vote for these Addresses, professed them- 
 selves, at the same time, ready to allow that there is nothing of 
 corruption in His Royal Highness's conduct. Are they, or are 
 they not, ready to allow this? They must come to this averment 
 or this denial. But to say that there can stand upon the journals 
 of Parliament such a reference to a committee, followed by such 
 an averment of the existence of corrupt practices, and that, never- 
 theless, you have not framed any distinct charge, and, therefore, 
 are not bound to give any distinct decision, is a course of proceed- 
 ing as contrary to common sense as to common justice. A vote 
 founded on these pretences will produce all the effect, without 
 plainly pronouncing the sentence of condemnation. If you pass 
 this Address, it is impossible that your country and posterity 
 should consider His Royal Highness otherwise than as having 
 been judged guilty of these charges, of charges the most criminal 
 and degrading. 
 
 But it is admitted that these charges are false — (some member 
 
78 CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 
 
 said No!) — I am glad to hear that it is not so admitted; I am glad 
 to find that there is in some quarters, at least, an impatience of 
 being supposed to admit what this Address is, by its supporters, 
 pretended to imply; because I presume that those who feel that 
 impatience will insist upon having their real meaning fairly and 
 unequivocally explained by their vote. They will agree with me, 
 not in their decision undoubtedly, but at least as to the manner 
 in which alone their decision can be properly taken. They will 
 call for a plain, intelligible question. They will not be contented 
 with a speech of charge and a vote of compromise; a speech 
 which insinuates guilt, and a vote which only avoids affirming in- 
 nocence, and leaves the guilt to be collected and inferred. They 
 will be for an " aye " or a " no " upon the questions of " corrup- 
 tion " or " connivance." 
 
 ******* 
 
 The Address of my honourable friend (Mr. Bankes) submits 
 to His Majesty, " whether, even if it can be presumed that abuses 
 so various and so long- continued, could have prevailed without 
 the knowledge of His Royal Highness, the command of the army 
 can, with propriety, or ought, in prude7ice, to remain any longer 
 in his hands. "What should we say of a judge, who, in summing 
 up the evidence on the trial of a culprit, should state to the jury 
 this? "The evidence before you does not appear to prove the 
 guilt alleged in the indictment; but it may not he prudent to say 
 so. If, for other reasons not before you in evidence, you are 
 of opinion that it is expedient the man should be hanged, you 
 will take into account those prudential reasons for getting him 
 out of the way, and frame your verdict accordingly." This is, 
 in substance, the language of the Address: this is, almost without 
 disguise, the language of those who support it. They have told 
 us plainly that they do not think it expedient to come to a vote, 
 a direct affirmative or negative vote, upon the plain question, 
 *' Guilty or not guilty of corruption ?" Even my honourable friend 
 who spoke last, in that part of his speech where he alluded to 
 parliamentary tricks, seemed to think that this call for a direct 
 vote upon the principal charge, was one of those tricks: a trick 
 which he was determined to defeat. A trick, to call for decision 
 upon a charge! A trick, to put an accused man on his trial! In 
 what vocabulary shall we find words to describe the other func- 
 tions of Parliament, if the performance of this, one of our highest 
 duties, the ascertainment of guilt or innocence upon a grave crim- 
 inal accusation — if the endeavour to perform this duty strictly and 
 conscientiously, is to be branded as a trick and a delusion ? 
 
 The Duke of York has been accused of personal corruption, of 
 wilful connivance. True it is, that he is assailed by minor 
 charges; but will any one say, who loves justice, who thinks rever- 
 
CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 79 
 
 ently of the laws of the land in which he lives, who remembers 
 that in this land " no man is to be found guilty but by the judg- 
 ment of his peers," and that even a person accused of the most 
 heinous crimes, has the right " to be presumed not to be guilty, till 
 he is proved and pronounced guilty" — will any man, who knows 
 that he has these for his birthrights, and who prizes them as they 
 deserve, will any such man be induced by any eloquence, by any 
 ingenuity, or by the weight of any authority whatsoever, to con- 
 sider a call for decision upon a charge, before punishment is 
 inflicted, as nothing but a trick of Parliament, nothing but the 
 tactics of party ? 
 
 It is on these principles that I do call upon you for a decision: 
 principles, the fair operation of which were never denied to any 
 man before. I ask for no partial favour for the Duke of York, 
 beyond that which is due to any other subject in the kingdom: 
 but let it not be said, that in the first case of the sort which the 
 House of Commons has had to decide, it has made a precedent 
 unfavourable to the party accused, for no better reason than be- 
 cause the party accused was of the highest rank, and because jus- 
 tice done to him might, therefore, have been misrepresented as 
 partiality! How any gentleman can have made up his mind to 
 consent to a general lumjjing Address, condemning, by a com- 
 prehensive censure, without sentence, without reference to the 
 proof of facts, to the gradations and degrees of blame, or to any 
 just apportionment of punishment; and how, in agreeing to such 
 an Address, any man can fancy that he is discharging conscien- 
 tiously the duty imposed upon him on this occasion, does pass my 
 
 understanding. 
 
 ^ ^ ^ ^ -^ -^ ^ 
 
 But, in any case, in all cases, in any or in all modes of proceed- 
 ing, this question of acquittal or condemnation upon the greater 
 charges must take place, and must, in justice, precede even the 
 examination of the less criminal matter of inquiry. To this jus- 
 tice, I say, the Duke of York, in common with every accused 
 person, is entitled. 
 
 " Oh, (but it is said,) those only are entitled to this justice, who 
 have not, by their own act, disinherited themselves of the rights 
 and privileges of the British constitution." The Commander-in- 
 Chief, it seems, has done this: he has written a letter. Sir, through 
 you, to this House, in which he has presumed to dictate to the 
 House the mode of proceeding, and contumaciously to assert his in- 
 nocence, and call for trial. True, Sir, he has written a letter: he 
 has, in that letter, not dictated but taken for granted, the same 
 course of justice, in his own case, which is applicable, and is uni- 
 formly applied, to all his fellow subjects. He has asserted his in- 
 nocence. If that be denied, he has called for trial. What is 
 
80 CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 
 
 there in all this to deprive him of the right of being tried, to jus- 
 tify the condemning him unheard? Look at the meanest prisoner 
 at a bar, who waits the decision of his jury on an accusation of 
 the foulest felonies; what is the course with respect to him? His 
 crime is stated to him: he says he is " not guilty." If he omits 
 this plea himself, it is pleaded for him. In him this plea is not 
 considered as contumacious; it is not considered as abdicating his 
 right to a trial. On the contrary, the felon is then asked how he 
 will be tried ? He replies, " by God, and his country." In the 
 felon, this is not considered as dictating to his judge. But, in the 
 Prince, to call for a trial, is, it seems, a species of contempt of 
 court, a rebellion against the supremacy of the tribunal before 
 which he is arraigned, such as not only subjects him to punish- 
 ment, but deprives him of the right of being tried. Is this equal 
 justice? AVill an honourable gentlemen (Mr. Whitbread,) who 
 spoke the other day with great ability and great warmth on this 
 very topic, of the equality of the rights of princes with those of 
 ordinary men, will he suffer patiently, will he consent to, and con- 
 cur in effecting the gross inequality which this argument would 
 establish, to the prejudice of the person now under consideration, 
 only because he is a prince? But the "honour of a prince," ap- 
 peared to that honourable gentleman a most offensive expression. 
 Why so? The " honour" of ?i peer is a regular and purely tech- 
 nical form of affirmation; why not the "honour" of a prince? 
 But the honourable gentleman told us that the honour of a prince 
 had thus been put in competition with the word of a prostitute, 
 and that, being compelled to decide between them, he had felt 
 himself obliged to believe the latter. " The Duke of York," 
 said the honourable gentleman, " has aggravated his case, because 
 I am thus put in a situation of the greatest difficulty and delicacy. 
 I cannot condemn him of the crime with which he is charged, 
 without condemning him, at the same time, of falsehood, vouched 
 upon his honour." This was the substance of the honourable 
 gentleman's argument. Was the like ever heard ? A man is ac- 
 cused of a crime; he protests his innocence; and his protestation 
 is contended to be an aggravation of his offence, because you can- 
 not afterwards affirm his guilt, without contradicting his plea of 
 innocence! And this is a case of difficulty and delicacy, forsooth, 
 to the honourable gentleman and his friends! 0, this delicacy! it 
 stands much in their way. 
 
 ^ ^ ^ -Jf: ve: Vf: ^ 
 
 Upon the view of the evidence suggested by the speech of my 
 right honourable friend, what appears most incontrovertible and 
 most important, is this — the only link that connects the foul trans- 
 actions which have been developed to the House with His Royal 
 Highness the Commander-in-Chief, is the testimony of the offend- 
 
CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 81 
 
 er herself. That this testimony has received partial confirmation 
 from collateral and circumstantial evidence, that many statements 
 which were at first sight thought incredihie, have been confirmed, 
 either by the testimony of others whose veracity is not question- 
 ed, or by letters produced by herself, or accidentally discovered, 
 I readily allow; but nothing, independent of her own testimony, 
 has proved the privity of the Duke of York. 
 
 My honourable friend (Mr. Wilberforce) dwelt much on this 
 part of the subject, and particularly on the almost providential de- 
 tection (as he would have it to be) of the letters in possession of 
 Captain Sandon; which letters, he says (rather incorrectly,) have 
 been carefully evaded by all those who have spoken in defence 
 of His Royal Highness. Does he know how many there were of 
 those letters ? Let him refer to the printed volume of evidence. 
 There are forty-two. Does he know how many of these were 
 commented upon yesterday, in great detail, with laborious particu 
 larity, and with convincing clearness, by my honourable friend 
 (Mr. Croker,) the effect of whose commentary was so completely 
 satisfactory as to make it worse than useless to follow him ? Why, 
 exactly thirty-one. This is surely a complete answer to the 
 charge, that these letters have been studiously left unnoticed. But 
 neither is it true that these letters, or any accidentally discovered 
 evidence, has gone to confirm the testimony of the principal wit- 
 ness and criminal, in respect to the privity of the Duke of York. It 
 is incontrovertibly true that the cliarge of the Duke of York's privi- 
 ty to Mrs. Clarke's corrupt practices rests on the testimony of Mrs. 
 Clarke alone. I say her "corrupt practices;" for with respect to 
 her interference, without rebuke I cannot deny, and have no wish 
 to excuse, the fact, that the letter respecting General Clavering, af- 
 fords a decisive proof: but of corruption, or of the knowledge or 
 suspicion of corruption, there is no proof at all; nor any thing 
 that can, by the most uncharitable inference, be taken for proof. 
 
 The other piece of evidence which is thought to corroborate 
 the testimony of the accusing witness, on this point, is the note 
 respecting Tonyn; and this is the particular, with respect to which 
 (as I have said) I entertain a different opinion from that declared 
 by my right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) 
 He thinks that note a forgery. I certainly believe that note to be 
 genuine. After the most impartial consideration of what has been 
 said for and against its authenticity, I am convinced (in my own 
 judgment) that it is the Duke of York's note. But I think, at 
 the same time, that a most exaggerated importance has been given 
 to this note. The doubts of its authenticity, and the attempts to 
 disprove it, may, perhaps, have contributed to this exaggeration. 
 
 If I am asked, how I can explain this note innocently, I an- 
 swer frankly, that I cannot explain it at all. I do not pretend to un- 
 
 12 
 
82 CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 
 
 derstand to what it refers. It is without date; it is an answer to 
 a question, or a letter, which is not forthcoming; it contains three 
 hurried lines: and in this total obscurity, and absence of any 
 grounds of reasoning, or even of conjecture, I see nothing extraor- 
 dinary in the not being able satisfactorily to explain it The wit- 
 ness herself did not pretend to know any thing about it; nor, I 
 dare say, would His Royal Highness, 
 
 But, Sir, I must protest on behalf of all who are, or may be, 
 public men, against an inference of guilt from such want of ex- 
 planation. Any man who knows what it is to be in a situation to 
 receive twenty, and write perhaps a dozen letters in a day, many 
 of them from and to persons of whom they have no personal 
 knowledge, will feel with me, that if a note, of which they may 
 have neglected to keep a copy, is to be produced against them, 
 years after it was written, and they are to be called upon either to 
 deny their hand-writing, or, acknowledging it, to account for the 
 contents, they may any day in the year most innocently and inad- 
 vertently write their own condemnation. 
 
 Why, Sir, it happened to me to find among my papers, a very 
 few days ago, the copy of a letter addressed by me to a lady in 
 these words: — "Madam, I have received your valuable present, 
 and have only to assure you, that you may depend on my discre- 
 tion." — This letter was written not long ago — since this inquiry 
 began; but at the moment of finding it, I was so utterly uncon- 
 scious to what it related, and to whom, that I am very sure, if it 
 had been to be used against me ten years hence, it might (if ina- 
 bility to explain it were a sufficient evidence of guilt) have been 
 absolutely conclusive against my honour, or perhaps my life. I 
 could not help fancying to myself the process by which I should 
 thus have been proved guilty. My honourable friend (Mr. Wilber- 
 force) has told you that Buonaparte keeps ladies in his pay to cor- 
 rupt the ministers of other courts. Well; here is a letter from 
 the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, written on such a day 
 to a lady, acknowledging a "valuable present;" i. e. a bribe — a 
 manifest bribe — and assuring her that she may "depend on his 
 discretion." The very language of crime and confederacy! Now 
 what could this be for? The treasonable intention is plain enough, 
 but to what was it applied ? Why, about that time peace was 
 concluded with the Ottoman Porte, as much against the expecta- 
 tion as against the interests of Buonaparte. Buonaparte was 
 naturally anxious to learn the contents of the treaty; and, "see 
 here," would my honourable friend (Mr. Wilberforce,) or those 
 who reason like him, exclaim, "See here, the letter to the Lord 
 Mayor, announcing this Turkish peace, just two days before the 
 date of this most providentially discovered letter." According 
 to the reasoning applied to this note against Tonyn, here would 
 
CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 83 
 
 be my condemnation complete. "A bribe was offered to tbe 
 Secretary of State, of £10,000, to betray the articles of the Turk- 
 ish treaty to Buonaparte. The lady avows she offered it; and 
 here is the copy of a letter found in the Secretary of State's 
 drawer, which proves his acceptance!" Here then would be con- 
 viction, and punishment of course would follow. 
 
 Now, Sir, what was the real history of this letter ? and who 
 was this lady? This lady, Sir, was a poetess, who did me the 
 honour to send to me, but upon condition of my keeping her se- 
 cret, her poem — "an ode to vaccination." This was the "pre- 
 sent" which I acknowledged; and this was the "discretion" on 
 which I assured her she might depend. But ten years hence I 
 should not have recollected this. In ten, or five, or two years, in 
 all probability, I should have forgotten both the ode and the lady: 
 and if so, there would not have been wanting those who, according 
 to this new mode of reasoning upon evidence, would have voted 
 me guilty of high treason, and carried up an Address to the Throne 
 for my removal. 
 
 Sir, I trust, if that note respecting Tonyn, because unexplained 
 and unexplainable, is to operate the weight of a hair in judgment 
 against the Duke of York, inferior courts of justice will not learn 
 their rules and construction of evidence from us, the Commons of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Again then, I say, Sir, there is nothing in these hidden treas- 
 ures, the letters discovered in Sandon's possession, which, like the 
 talisman in the Arabian Nights, were supposed to shed light 
 around them, and open to view the darkest recesses of iniquity; I 
 say there is nothing that goes to supply the link which is wanting, 
 in the whole concatenation of evidence, to fasten the knowledge 
 of the corrupt practices of Mrs. Clarke upon the Duke of York. 
 In many instances, as in the case of Spedding, these papers, so ac- 
 cidentally, so providentially brought to light, directly contradict 
 and disprove her statement. 
 
 But then it is said, a witness who is incredible in some respects, 
 is not so in all; therefore his testimony may still be believed, 
 where it is corroborated by others. It will not be contended, 
 however, that an incredible witness, such as Mrs. Clarke is allow- 
 ed to be, is to have the whole of her evidence believed, because 
 her testimony is accidentally strengthened in some parts: she is 
 credible only where her evidence is confirmed. One gentleman, 
 indeed, of great talents and eminence, the former Solicitor-General 
 (Sir S. Romilly,) expressed an opinion, which, if he does enter- 
 tain, I hope he will be found to be the only man who entertains 
 it, "that a witness who is detected in giving false testimony, in one 
 particular, at the bar of the House of Commons, is not so much 
 to be distrusted, as to the remaining part of his testimony, as a 
 
84 CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 
 
 witness who trips when upon oath; that ]jerjury, indeed, affects 
 not only that part of a witness's testimony which is proved to be 
 false, but the whole; but that an unsworn falsehood vitiates only 
 the part so falsified, and leaves the remainder as worthy of credit 
 as before." Such I collected to be the honourable and learned 
 gentleman's doctrine; and a doctrine more monstrous in morals, 
 or more destructive of the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, 
 it would not be easy to devise. That a witness who speaks false- 
 ly when not on oath, is not thereby rendered wholy unworthy 
 of belief, when the sanction of ayi oath is applied to him, is an 
 intelligible proposition: a man might be ready to say what he 
 would not swear: but to maintain that he who is proved to have 
 said one thing falsely, is therefore not liable to be suspected of 
 saying another thing falsely; that he is to be believed in the re- 
 mainder of his testimony, as if he had not been detected in false- 
 hood in a part, is a proposition which it will require something 
 more than the single authority of that honourable and learned gen- 
 tleman, (however he may pride himself on that singularity,) to 
 maintain. 
 
 The main questions, therefore, to which you must come, are 
 these: do you believe Mrs. Clarke's evidence, or do you not? Or 
 do you see reason to think that there is a mixture of truth and 
 falsehood in it? There are but these three possible degrees of 
 credit. Do you believe this woman altogether? She affirms 
 corrupt knowledge and participation to the fullest extent. Be- 
 lieving this, you cannot refuse to bring the Duke of York to trial. 
 Do you not believe her? Say so; say so by your vote, by a re- 
 corded sentence. Are you in doubt? Do you find it difficult to 
 determine how much to believe? how much to reject? That is 
 precisely the case for further inquiry. "To be once in doubt is to 
 be once resolved." Institute such inquiry as shall convert your 
 doubts into certainties; and probe the matter to the bottom. 
 
 The evidence of Mrs. Clarke is true, or it is false, or it is partl}'^ 
 false and partly true. Are there no means of sifting such evi- 
 dence ? Are there no sanctions, sacred in the eyes of God and 
 man, by which truth and falsehood can be discriminated ? Have 
 those sanctions been applied to this testimony? They have not. 
 Have you the power of applying them ? Not of yourselves, but 
 by reference to another tribunal. Can any honest man doubt, 
 then, that such ought to be our course, rather than to confound the 
 false and the true in a compromise of injustice, and to come to a 
 conclusion which may be wrong either way, but can by no possi- 
 bility be right? 
 
 But if the proof is deficient, what is the presumption of guilt in 
 His Royal Highness the Duke of York? Your Address affirms 
 "that there were corrupt practices with respect to promotions, 
 
CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 85 
 
 &c. in the army." It does not affirm that the Duke of York was 
 cognizant of them: but it more than insinuates that he was, that he 
 must have been so. What is the ground of this insinuation? 
 These corrupt practices were carried on by a firm consisting of 
 the Duke of York, Mrs. Clarke, Colonel Sandon, Mr. Donovan, 
 &c. In 1806 this partnership is dissolved. The Duke of York 
 goes one way; Mrs. Clarke and her associates the other. Are 
 the practices continued after this separation ? Yes. By whom ? 
 By Mrs. Clarke and Captain Sandon. And yet you prosecute — 
 whom? The Duke of York. You never hear of the Duke of 
 York's malpractices, except in connection with Mrs. Clarke's 
 name; of Mrs. Clarke there are abundant malpractices, wholly un- 
 connected with the name of his Royal Highness; and yet you 
 think it just to punish in him, not in her, the guilt of that which 
 
 you do not even show him to have known. 
 
 ******** 
 
 But my honourable friend tells us that all the world knew of 
 this connection; that it was matter of notoriety that the Duke of 
 York was living in this state of disgraceful concubinage with Mrs. 
 Clarke. I do assure the House, in the most solemn manner, that 
 I did not know it; and that the first time that, to my recollection, 
 I ever heard the name of Mrs. Clarke, was in this House, from 
 the lips of the honourable gentleman, who is the accuser upon this 
 occasion. I may be giving a great proof of my ignorance of what 
 is going on in the world by this declaration, but upon my honour 
 it is true; and that of which I was ignorant may have been equally 
 unknown to others. 
 
 This utter ignorance it was, coupled with the utter disbelief 
 which I felt, of the Duke of York's submitting to the sort of traf- 
 fic imputed to him (a feeling which I should entertain in its full 
 force, if I were to hear the same charges to-morrow brought 
 against any honourable gentleman on the opposite benches,) that 
 extorted from me, on the night when the honourable gentleman 
 opened his charges, those expressions of indignation which I have 
 so often, in the course of this debate, been called upon to retract or 
 to explain. Sir, I have nothing to retract on that score; nothing 
 to explain: but I have something to deny. 
 
 I did say that "infamy must rest somewhere," but I did not 
 say that it must rest "either on the accuser or on the accused." I 
 affirm this with confidence; not only from my recollection of the 
 words, but from my recollection of what was the state of mind in 
 which I spoke, and what the scope and purview of my statement 
 on that occasion. I have, besides, endeavoured to correct and con- 
 firm my own recollection, by reference to others, by reference to 
 certain records which it would not be regular directly to name, 
 but which I must describe as well as I can, without naming. Sup- 
 
 I 
 
86 CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OP YORK. 
 
 pose, Sir, there were daily to be published accounts of what passes 
 in this House, multiplied perhaps to the number of ten or a dozen, 
 and suppose I were to find my words stated, according to my own 
 recollection of them, in ten or eleven of those accounts, and stated, 
 as the noble lord and those opposite recollect them, by only one 
 of those reporters, and that one notoriously a decided enemy to 
 me and to those with whom I act; should I not be warranted in 
 considering the many which agreed in confirming my own recol- 
 lection, as better authority than the one which contradicted it? 
 Should I not be warranted in doing so, more especially if I should 
 find, at the same time, another part of the same speech cautiously 
 omitted in that one, and accurately detailed in almost all the 
 others ? I refer, Sir, to what I said, in the same speech, about the 
 liberty of the press. I said that the libels on the Duke of York 
 had been so frequent and so flagrant, "as almost to make good 
 men hesitate whether the licentiousness of the press was not more 
 mischievous than its liberty was beneficial." I said this, it is true; 
 but in the same breath I added, "The hesitation, however, can be 
 but for a moment: the blessings of the liberty of the press are so 
 clear and so acknowledged, as far to outweigh the mischiefs of its 
 abuse. The evil is transitory, but the good is immortal." 
 
 I know, Sir, that in the language of Parliament, I must not ad- 
 vert to considerations which, in every other case, and before eve- 
 ry other tribunal, would be thought worthy of some attention. 
 The venerable age, the infirmities, and the virtues of the royal 
 person, whose heart is to be torn by this Address, are surely not 
 to be overlooked in the question of the mere form of your pro- 
 ceeding. I do not say, God forbid! that these considerations 
 should warp the decision; but surely they may be allowed, 
 blamelessly allowed; to operate upon the manner of pronoun 
 cing it. 
 
 It was stated some nights ago, with as much truth as eloquence, 
 that we owe to the Sovereign now upon the throne, not only that 
 allegiance and duty to which his high functions entitle him, and 
 which the institutions of the country prescribe and consecrate, but 
 we owe to him, eminently, and individually, gratitude for the pre- 
 servation of those institutions themselves. Who but must recol- 
 lect the time when the minds of men in this country were unset- 
 tled by the first shock of the French Revolution, and when the 
 wildness of theory and speculation put to hazard all the establish- 
 ments of the state ? Who but must recollect that, at that most agi- 
 tated and alarming period, when the frame of our constitution, 
 the whole fabric of our laws, and the authority of Parliament it- 
 self, were threatened to be jostled out of their order, and laid in 
 ruins, that even then, amidst the conflicts of passion and the 
 
CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 87 
 
 schemes of change, the throne was kept steady by the virtues of 
 him who filled it? and that while every thing else, however ven- 
 erable, was endangered, the monarchy was worshipped in the per- 
 son of the King? 
 
 Of such an individual would you not wish to spare the feelings? 
 This Address itself professes to intend to do so. With what del- 
 icacy — 
 
 Mr. Tierney said, he rose to call the right honourable gentleman to order, 
 conceiving he was using the King's name to influence the House. 
 
 Mr. Canning. — Sir, the honourable gentleman has interrupted 
 me, perhaps, not improperly. I feel no resentment for the inter- 
 ruption. Unquestionably, the argument is one not easy to man^ 
 age in perfectly strict conformity to the rules and orders of the 
 House. The right honourable gentleman has a right to enforce 
 those orders, but then I entreat the House to observe in what 
 a situation he places me. This Address, indeed, both Addresses, 
 and the mode of proceeding by Address, have been defended on 
 the ground that it was proper to proceed in the manner least inju- 
 rious to the feelings of the King. The Addresses themselves 
 contain this sentiment. The supporters of the Addresses have 
 recommended the adoption of them on this ground. But when I 
 proceed to examine the truth of the statement on the faith of 
 which we are called upon to vote; when I presume to inquire 
 how far the Address is consistent with the professed purpose of 
 those who framed it; how far they have executed their own in- 
 tention, and secured their own object; I am stopped by the right 
 honourable gentleman, who tells me that I am out of order. The 
 Addresses are praised because they are so tender of the King's 
 feelings; but when I venture to describe those feelings, and to 
 probe this professed tenderness, I am told that I travel on forbid- 
 den ground, and that you. Sir, and the House must not hear me! 
 Is this just? With this topic, however, I have done. 
 
 ******* 
 
 The proceeding by Resolution is that which has been adopted 
 in almost all instances, in good times, from that of the Duke of 
 Marlborough, down to the last instance, in the case of Lord Mel- 
 ville. Of Addresses, not either preceded by some examination 
 where the evidence was taken on oath, or not founded on previous 
 Resolution, I have not found approved instances. I have found 
 instances enough to sliow that the other is the approved parlia- 
 mentary practice. Why, then, should we depart from it on the 
 present occasion? Why are we to do this? Because, forsooth, 
 there is a public expectation awakened of some immediate and 
 sweeping act of wrath and vengeance on the part of the House of 
 Commons; and in your eagerness to gratify that expectation, you 
 
88 CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 
 
 must refuse to listen to the voice of justice and reason, and to fol- 
 low the recorded practice of good times! 
 
 I would fain persuade you to adhere to sound precedent. But, 
 according to some doctrines of this day, you must shut your ears 
 to every thing that I, or any one in my situation, can say to you. 
 For we have heard from an honourable baronet, (Sir Francis Bur- 
 dett) whose usual practice it is to impute to persons in office all 
 sorts of corruption and incapacity; but we have heard it not from 
 him only; he has been followed by one of the greatest landed pro- 
 prietors among us (Mr. Coke) — a gentleman who seems to think 
 that he derives from his landed property a degree of authority 
 which property alone, however great, cannot confer — that what 
 comes from any man in office, on this or any other subject, is not 
 to be attended to; that it is worth nothing. Sir, from whatever 
 quarter such sentiments proceed, I hear them with scorn. They 
 disgrace only those who utter them; and show only what it is that 
 they who are capable of imputing base motives to others would 
 themselves be, if they were in official situations. 
 
 But, however I may despise such sentiments, I cannot hear 
 them without regret; because I know that property, in times like 
 those in which we live, has need of all the protection which good 
 order and good government can give it; and I think it but ill 
 pleads its own cause, and but ill provides for its own security, 
 when its possessors endeavour to instil into the minds of the peo- 
 ple a distrust, not of this or that individual, but of the whole class 
 and description of public men. The honourable gentleman who 
 uttered this sentiment may fancy himself safe, in the extent of his 
 possessions, from all the inconveniences attending popular com- 
 motion; but let him not think that the destruction of the authority 
 of Government, and the degradation (if his opinion or his exer- 
 tions could effect that degradation) of all those who, by their hab- 
 its and their education, are qualified for public life, or by an hon- 
 ourable ambition are led to engage in it, however it might conduce 
 to the aggrandizement of his individual importance for a time, 
 would, in the end, secure the stability of that property on which 
 he founds his pretensions to pre-eminence. 
 
 ^ rp i^ ^ rr i^ -i^ 
 
 Whatever our decision shall be, I fear not for the character of 
 the House of Gammons. The confidence which I feel in this re- 
 spect does not proceed from indifference. I deem as highly of 
 this branch of the constitution as any man. I think it would be 
 difficult to point out the individual who must, from every motive 
 of education, of personal feeling, and, I hope, not dishonest am- 
 bition, be more sincerely interested in the honour of the House 
 of Gommons; in the maintenance of its honour in the eyes of the 
 country; and of its power, its preponderance in the balance of the 
 
CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK. 89 
 
 state. But I would not flatter the House of Commons any more 
 than I would offer adulation to my Sovereign. I would not be- 
 tray either into an abuse of power, by encouraging either to mis- 
 take power for right. The House of Commoijps, acting upon this 
 principle, would be a despot; and a despot whose tyranny would 
 not be less intolerable than that of a single tyrant. It is not every 
 thing which the House of Commons can do, that it, therefore, 
 ought to do. It is not because it has the power to sweep from his 
 station whomever it may choose to sacrifice to its displeasure, that 
 it would be justified in condemning the Duke of York either 
 against evidence or without trial — in condemning him upon any 
 other principle than that which would apply equally to the mean- 
 est individual, or by any other process than that of impartial and 
 dispassionate justice. 
 
 On a division, the numbers were 
 
 For Mr. Bankes's Amendment - - - - 199 
 Against it - - 294 
 
 Majority against the Amendment 95 
 
 A second division afterwards took place on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's 
 Amendment on Mr. Wardle's Address. 
 
 For the Amendment --..-- 364 
 For the original motion ----- 123 
 
 Majority in favour of the Duke of York 241 
 
 Adjourned at half-past six o'clock on Thursday morning. 
 
 13 
 
90 
 
 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 JANUARY 26th, 1810. 
 
 On the 26th of January, 1810, Lord Porchester moved, " That a Committee 
 be appointed to inquire into the policy and conduct of the late Expedition to the 
 Scheldt." 
 
 Mr. Canning, in the course of a protracted discussion upon this motion, said — 
 That under the circumstances that had been stated, it would be better to post- 
 pone any direct motion for inquiry, until the House was in possession of the in- 
 formation which Government had promised. This was a deference which he 
 conceived due to the Government. But whatever the contents of these papers 
 might be, they would not supersede the necessity of an inquiry of some kind. 
 Inquiry could not be avoided, it must take place sooner or later. And here he 
 would take the opportunity of repelling an accusation made against him, that 
 he had ever entertained any wish or desire that all the facts connected with 
 that most disgraceful and inglorious business, should not undergo the fullest in- 
 vestigation. No inquiry before that House, or any selection from it, he feared, 
 would be competent to embrace the misconduct, supposing any imputable to 
 them, of the commanders of the Expedition. The case was different, however, 
 with regard to the share that Ministers had in the transaction. If blame was 
 imputable to the plan or policy of the Expedition to Walcheren, he had nothing 
 to say against the proposition of the noble lord, (Porchester) putting in, at 
 the same time, his claim to a full share of the responsibility which the Gov- 
 ernment that set it forward might have incurred. He foresaw one inconve- 
 nience from the adoption of the motion, namely, that it would pledge Par- 
 liament to a particular mode of inquiry ; a mode not the best calculated, in his 
 opinion, to attain the ends which it proposed. Upon these grounds, he thought 
 it would be best to wait for the information that was promised. The practical 
 delay would be but small. At the same time he thought that papers which 
 were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, should have been sooner ready, 
 and that not a moment should be lost in preparing the way for that public and 
 impartial investigation, which no man in the House was more desirous than 
 himself to see instituted. He would give his vote against the motion of the 
 noble lord, but not in the hope of defeating inquiry, which could not, and must 
 not be avoided. The country called for it ; the country was entitled to it 
 
 The House divided — 
 
 For Lord Porchester's motion - . - 195 
 Against it ------ - 186 
 
 Majority .... 9 
 
 Lord Porchester, on Friday, the second of February, gave notice that on 
 the Monday following he would move that certain papers relating to the late 
 Expedition to the Scheldt be laid before the House. 
 
 Mr. Canning was anxious to give the inquiry the greatest possible effect. 
 He had formerly suggested the propriety of referring the military evidence to 
 other tribunals, and he gave it as his opinion that it would have been better so 
 to have done. He would state, in a very few words, what he tliought it would 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 91 
 
 be most becoming the House to inquire into. There were three pomts to which 
 he thought their attention should be directed. The first was the policy of the 
 Expedition. This was the most extended question, since it comprehended the 
 situation in which Great Britain was placed with the other Powers of Europe, 
 For this he felt himself in the highest degree responsible. The military and 
 naval proceedings, though he viewed them with the most favourable eye, he 
 could not think himself responsible for. He did not consider himself at all an- 
 swerable for the evacuation of Walcheren ; at the same time, while saying 
 this, he most distinctly desired to be understood as not giving an opinion either 
 the one way or the other. It might be, that the House would be of opmion, 
 that blame attached itself nowhere; but if it should appear that blame did at- 
 tach somewhere, if he were too active in eliciting discoveries to the prejudice 
 of others, it might appear that he wished to throw the blame oft" himself, by 
 placing the misconduct of others in a most luminous point of view. He would 
 therefore punctually give his attendance throughout the inquiry, and give every 
 explanation of his own conduct; but it was his intention to avoid as much as 
 possible taking an active part, where he was not personally concerned. 
 
 The House then, on the motion of Lord Porchester, resolved itself into the 
 committee, to consider the policy and conduct of the Expedition to the Scheldt. 
 
 Mr. Yorke moved the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, which 
 was, of course, enforced, and the gallery cleared. Mmutes were taken of the 
 evidence given before the committee, which contained the examination of wit- 
 nesses, from the 2d of February to the 10th of March. 
 
 Lord Porchester, on the 26th of March, moved the following Resolu- 
 tions: — 
 
 " 1. — That on the 28th of July last, and subsequent days, an armament, con- 
 sisting of thirty thousand land forces, thirty-seven sail of the line, two ships of 
 fifty, three of forty-four guns, twenty-four frigates, thirty-one sloops, five bomb 
 vessels, and twenty-three gun brigs, sailed on the late Expedition totlie Scheldt, 
 having for its object the capture or destruction of the enemy's ships, either 
 building at Antwerp or Flusliing, or afloat on the Scheldt, the destruction of 
 the arsenals and dock yards at Antwerp, Torneux, and Flushing; the reduction 
 of the island of Walciieren, and the rendering, if possible, the Scheldt no lon- 
 ger navigable for ships of war. 
 
 '''2. — That Flushing surrendered on the 15th of August, whereby the reduc- 
 tion of the island of Walcheren was completed ; and that on the 27th of Au- 
 gust, all attempts on the fleet and arsenals of the enemy at Antwerp were, by 
 the unanimous opinion of the lieutenant-generals, declared to be impracticable, 
 and were abandoned. 
 
 " 3. — That the destruction of the basin, dock yard, arsenal, magazines, and 
 naval store-houses of the town of Flushing, and of sucli part of the sea de- 
 fences as it was found proper to destroy, having been eflfected on the 11th of 
 December, the island of Walcheren was on the 23d of December evacuated by 
 His Majesty's forces, and the Expedition ended. 
 
 "4. — That it does not appear to this House, that the failure of this Expedi- 
 tion is imputable to the conduct of the army or the navy in the execution of 
 their instructions, relative to the military and naval operations in the Scheldt. 
 
 " 5. — That on the 19ih of August a malignant disorder showed itself amongst 
 His Majesty's troops; and that, on the 8th of September, the number of sick 
 amounted to upwards of ten thousand nine hundred and forty-eight men. 
 
 " 6 — That it appears by the report of the physician appointed to investigate 
 the nature and the causes of the malady to which His Majesty's troops were 
 thus exposed, that the disease is one which prevails periodically in the islands 
 of Zealand, and is of peculiar malignity there, and which constantly follows a 
 
92 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 law of season, appearing towards the end of summer, becoming more severe in 
 the autumnal months, declining in October, and nearly ceasing in November. 
 That perfect recoveries are rare, convalescence never secure ; and that the re- 
 currence of fever quickly lays the foundation of complaints which render a 
 large portion of the sufferers inefficient for future military purposes. 
 
 " 7. — That of the army which embarked for service in the Scheldt, sixty of- 
 ficers and three thousand nine hundred men, exclusive of those killed hy the 
 enemy, had died before the 1st of February last, and on that day two hundred 
 and seventeen officers, and eleven thousand two hundred and sixty-nine men 
 ■were reported sick. 
 
 "8. — That the Expedition to the Scheldt was undertaken under circum- 
 stances which afforded no rational hope of adequate success, and at the precise 
 season of the year when the malignant disease which has proved so fatal to His 
 Majesty's brave troops was known to be most prevalent; and that the advisers 
 of this ill-judged enterprise are, in the opinion of this House, deeply responsible 
 for the heavy calamities with which its failure has been attended." 
 
 There was also a second set of resolutions, as follows, relating to the reten- 
 tion of the island of Walcheren : — 
 
 " 1. — That Lieutenant-General Sir Eyre Coote iiaving, on the 9th of Sep- 
 tember, been left in command of Walcheren, with an army of about fifteen 
 thousand men, did, on that day, make an official report on the state of the isl- 
 and, the extent of force required effectually to guard it, the nature and condi- 
 tion of its defences, and the number of men then sick and unfit for duty; rep- 
 resenting that after such his exposition, His Majesty's Ministers would be the 
 best judges of the propriety or possibility of keeping the island; and adding, 
 that the advantages must be great indeed which could compensate the loss of 
 lives and treasure which the retention must necessarily occasion. 
 
 " 2. — That on the 23d of September, Sir Eyre Coote stated to His Majesty's 
 Ministers, that the alarming progress of disease was such, that if it should con- 
 tinue in the same proportion for three weeks longer, (as he added there was 
 every probability that it would,) our possession of the island must become very 
 precarious. 
 
 " 3. — That on the 6th of October, Sir Eyre Coote, afler stating that the num- 
 ber of sick was increasing, and that the effective force was thereby rendered 
 so trivial, as to make the defence of the island, if it should be attacked, ex- 
 tremely precarious, did express his anxiety to be informed of the intentions of 
 His M.ajesty's Government as to the future state of Walcheren. 
 
 " 4. — That notwithstanding these, and many other pressing representations, 
 on the alarming condition of the troops, and the danger to which they were 
 exposed, His Majesty's Ministers did neglect to come to any decision until the 
 4th of November, and that the final evacuation of Walcheren did not take place 
 until the 23d of December. 
 
 " 5. — That on the 10th of September, the number of sick in the island of 
 Walcheren was, exclusive of officers, six thousand nine hundred and thirty- 
 eight ; and that the total number of sick embarked for England between the 
 15th of September and the 16th of November, was eleven thousand one hun- 
 dred and ninety-nine, making in that period an increase of sick of four thou- 
 sand two hundred and sixty-eight. 
 
 " 6. — That although the great object of the Expedition had been abandoned 
 as impracticable, a large proportion of the British army was (without any ur- 
 gent or determined purpose in view, or any prospect of national advantage to 
 justify such a hazard, or to compensate, such a sacrifice) left by His Majesty's 
 Ministers to the imminent danger of attack from the enemy, and exposed 
 during a period of more than tliree months, and under circumstances of ag- 
 gravated hardships, to the fatal ravages of a disease, which on the 31st of Au- 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 93 
 
 gust had been officially announced to be daily increasing to a most alarming 
 degree. 
 
 " 7 — That such the conduct of His Majesty's advisers calls for the severest 
 censure of this House." 
 
 THURSDAY, MARCH 29tli. 
 
 The House of Commons was engaged four nights in the discussion of the 
 above Resolutions. In the course of the adjourned debate upon them, on the 
 third nigiit of the discussion, after Mr. Grattan had delivered a speecli of great 
 eloquence, in vehement condemnation of the Expedition, 
 
 Mr. Canning rose and said: — The right honourable gentleman 
 (Mr. Grattan,) who has just sat down, has conchided his speech 
 with a declaration, that the calamities brought upon the country 
 by the failure of the Expedition to the Scheldt, ought to be visit- 
 ed with exemplary severity upon the heads of those by whom 
 that Expedition was planned and advised. Now, Sir, as one of 
 the advisers of the Expedition, I rise, not only to speak in justi- 
 fication of it, but to contend, and I trust I shall be able to contend 
 successfully, that, in advising that measure, His Majesty's Min- 
 isters were actuated by a just sense of their public duty; that they 
 proceeded upon motives and principles, such as, if I were not my- 
 self a party concerned in the transaction, I should not scruple to 
 assert, entitled them to the approbation of their country; and such 
 as they may confidently recommend to whoever may be hereafter 
 their successors in office. They are principles, which, in what- 
 ever hands the administration may be placed, must necessarily be 
 adopted and acted upon, if the cause of the country is to be main- 
 tained. 
 
 For, Sir, in estimating the merits of the great public measure 
 now under our consideration, we must not be contented to look 
 upon it as a mere insulated question, we must regard it as a branch 
 of that general system of policy and action which has been pur- 
 sued throughout the whole course of the present war, and which 
 has been invariably directed to the twofold object of preserving 
 other nations from the domination of France, and insuring the in- 
 tegrity and independence of the British empire. 
 
 It cannot, I apprehend, require any aid of argument to prove 
 to this House the deep and vital interest that we have in the lat- 
 ter object; neither do I think it difficult to show, that, in the 
 former, though our interest may be less direct and immediate, we 
 have, nevertheless, an interest sufficiently strong to keep that ob- 
 ject constantly in our view, and as strong an obligation to employ 
 all the means in our power for its accomplishment. While Great 
 Britain stands so pre-eminently high amongst the nations of Eu- 
 rope, she owes it as a duty to her own dignity and character to 
 
^4 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 assist and protect weaker nations against oppression, not only so 
 far as that can be done consistently with her own interests, but, I 
 would rather say, so far as is not absolutely incompatible with her 
 own security. True it undoubtedly is, that of those nations, 
 which, in different periods of the war, manifested a spirit of re- 
 sistance against the encroachments or oppression of France, and 
 to whose support this country has contributed generously and 
 promptly every aid and effort in her power; true it undoubtedly 
 is, and not more true than it is deeply to be lamented, that the 
 course and consequences of the war have been such as to place 
 many of those nations, in successive periods, at the mercy and un- 
 der the control of the enemy. We have been in the situation of 
 fighting not against the power of France alone, but against those 
 countries, to which we have heretofore furnished our assistance, 
 but which, ranged by conquest on the side of France, have, 
 whilst their hearts must be for us, been compelled by a dire ne- 
 cessity to raise their hands against us. It does not therefore fol- 
 low that the principle of continental co-operation is unwise; or 
 that our generosity has been detrimental to our interest. The de- 
 struction of the efforts of the enemy, the suspension of immediate 
 danger to ourselves, and the chances afforded by the protraction 
 of that period at the expiration of which we may probably have 
 to contend for our own safety on our own soil — these are sufficient 
 advantages to be derived from our efforts in behalf of other na- 
 tions, even if we were to put out of account the higher considera- 
 tions of national reputation and national faith. But considering 
 at the same time that the period of this separate combat may ar- 
 rive — that the successive wars of the continent may probably 
 enough, (if the power of France continues unbroken) be extin- 
 guished and swallowed up in one great war of the continent against 
 this country — that this consummation (though it may be deferred, 
 and though to defer it be worth every practicable exertion) yet 
 cannot, perhaps, ultimately he avoided; I do admit that in all 
 measures of co-operation with the Powers of the continent, we 
 ought not to lose sight of our own separate security 
 
 The prospective apprehension of these distant and contingent 
 dangers to ourselves, ought not to induce us to withhold or to re- 
 lax our efforts for others: their speedier downfall would but has- 
 ten the crises to our struggle. It ought not to make us distrust the 
 sincerity of their efforts in their own cause. They may be, it is 
 true, hereafter (as many of them already have been) found to act 
 against us; but their hostility to us must be preceded by their own 
 ruin; and we may well believe it their desire to avoid an extremi- 
 ty which cannot be hurtful to us, till it has first been fatal to 
 themselves. But we may naturally and justifiably endeavour, 
 nay, we are bound on every principle of sound policy to endea- 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 95 
 
 vour, to combine in all our continental measures, with the con- 
 sideration of what is immediately useful to others, that of what 
 may be ultimately not prejudicial to ourselves. It is good to be 
 generous to others. But to ourselves also we owe a duty of self- 
 preservation; and that measure is the most prudent, the most suit- 
 able, and the most advantageous, which, while it advances the 
 common cause, in the first instance, does so in a manner con- 
 sistent with our own permanent security, which gives strength 
 to the combined efforts of our allies, and at the same time fortifies 
 us for the separate contest which we may have to carry on here- 
 after, unaided and alone. Upon these grounds the King's Minis- 
 ters acted in advising the late expedition: and by these principles 
 I desire that measure may be tried. The House then will see that 
 I must disclaim altogether one mode of argument by which the 
 Expedition has been condemned — that of estimating it solely by 
 its utility as a diversion in favour of Austria. That it had that 
 effect, that it was calculated to have that effect, and that that was 
 of itself a most important object, is true. It is true, that when 
 Austria had taken up arms against France, and was likely to fur- 
 nish employment for the great mass of the French army, this 
 country was bound to afford every possible assistance to that Pow- 
 er, not only from the recollection of past alliance, but from a 
 strong sense of common interest. But the question still remained, 
 in what manner that assistance could be afforded most convenient- 
 ly for us, as well as most advantageously for Austria; how the 
 application of any British force might be rendered at once most 
 beneficial to the cause of Austria, and conducive, or at least not 
 detrimental, to the permanent security of this country. The Ex- 
 pedition to the Scheldt, therefore, as it is not to be considered on 
 the one hand, as having been undertaken for an object purely sel- 
 fish on our part, so is it not to be judged, in its result, by consid- 
 erations exclusively connected with the cause and the interests 
 of Austria. It must be viewed with reference to both these ob- 
 jects; and when so viewed, I am persuaded that it will appear to 
 every reflecting mind, to have been not only wisely planned, 
 but the very best measure that, all things considered, could at 
 the time have been undertaken. 
 
 It appears by the papers upon the table, that the project of an 
 Expedition to the Scheldt did not originate in the Austrian war. 
 Undoubtedly it did not. An attack upon Walcheren was not a 
 novel project with the Government of this country. It had been 
 frequently, for many years past, in the contemplation of the 
 British Cabinet. It neither grew out of the Austrian war, there- 
 fore, nor did it originate with the particular administration by 
 which it was undertaken. The measure had been meditated and 
 discussed by several successive administi'ations, when the tempta- 
 
96 
 
 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 tions were much less, and the difficulties much greater than at the 
 period now in question. The importance of the object had grown 
 with the growing naval strength of the enemy in that quarter; and 
 never had any occasion at once so favourable and so urgent pre- 
 sented itself for such an enterprise, as that which occurred at the 
 time when the late armament was fitted out. Nothing can be 
 farther from my thoughts than any intention to apply the circum- 
 stance, which I am now about to mention, in the way of recrimi- 
 nation against the honourable gentleman on the opposite side of 
 the House; but I am almost sure that it must be in their recollec- 
 tion as it is in mine, that the noble lord whom I had the honour 
 to succeed in the office which I lately held in His Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment, and to whose talents and sagacity I am disposed to pay 
 every imaginable respect, did, in a debate which took place very 
 soon after the change of the Administration, of which he formed 
 so distinguished a part (a debate which, from one of those circum- 
 stances that sometimes prevent our discu.ssions from being known 
 without our walls, was never made public,) did strongly recom- 
 mend to the Government then newly come into office, a vigilant 
 attention to the growing naval means of the enemy in the Scheldt; 
 that he described the accumulated facilities of annoyance afforded 
 to Buonaparte by the possession of the mouths and the course of 
 that river, and particularly pointed out the arsenal at Antwerp, as 
 the most desirable and advantageous object of attack on any favour- 
 able occasion. In giving this advice, — in leaving this legacy, — in 
 bequeathing this testamentary sanction for such an operation to his 
 successors, that noble lord discharged a solemn duty, and gave a 
 proof of his patriotism as well as of his wisdom. Even in the 
 then state of the enemy's naval resources in the Scheldt, he con- 
 sidered it as an object of wakeful and anxious jealousy and alarm 
 to the Government of this country. I have, therefore, that noble 
 lord's authority, I do not say for the precise detail and plan of this 
 Expedition, but for the principle and object of it, for seizing the 
 earliest opportunity to effect the destruction, if possible, of the 
 enemy's naval force and arsenals in the Scheldt. I have the au- 
 thority of tliat noble lord, who had successively filled the two de- 
 partments of the state that best qualified him to judge of this ques- 
 tion, the Admiralty, and the office in which I had the honour to suc- 
 ceed him — first, for the importance of the object, and, in the second 
 place, for the practicability of the undertaking, or, at least, the jus- 
 tifiableness of the risk. And, if such were the noble lord's opin- 
 ions at the period to which I refer, I -will ask any honourable gen- 
 tleman what was then the state of Antwerp; what was its real im- 
 portance at the time when that noble lord bequeathed this warning 
 to his successors, compared with its condition and importance at 
 'the period when the Expedition was actually undertaken? It 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 97 
 
 must be quite unnecessary to recal to the recollection of the 
 House the active and unceasing attention which Buonaparte had, 
 during the whole of the intervening time, paid to his navy, and 
 the boasts which he uniformly held out to Europe of his growing 
 naval power. To check the growth of that power was surely an 
 object well worth every effort; and worth that which must attend 
 every effort upon a large scale — the hazard of failure. It was an 
 object, the success of which, if viewed in its effect upon the gen- 
 eral scale of the war, would have been important in the highest 
 degree, as lowering the pride and naval power of the enemy; 
 viewed in its relation to the maritime war between this country 
 and France, it was equally recommended by every consideration 
 of national pride, of safety, and of economy. The destruction of 
 the arsenals in the Scheldt might have spared us the necessity of a 
 fleet in the Downs or of a fleet at Yarmouth, and either left that 
 amount of naval force disposable for other services, or enabled us 
 by such retrenchment the more effectually to aid our allies, or 
 the better to support the burden of a protracted warfare. Inde- 
 pendently, therefore, of any consideration of the Austrian war, an 
 Expedition to the Scheldt was perhaps the effort best calculated to 
 promote the essential interests of Great Britain. 
 
 I have thus briefly stated the general grounds upon which the 
 Expedition was first resolved upon, and by which, of themselves, 
 that resolution would, in my opinion, be altogether justified. 
 Then came the Austrian war, and then came urgent applications 
 from Austria for assistance — applications which, indeed, were 
 scarcely necessary, because we were called upon, by every prin- 
 ciple of the most obvious policy, and every consideration of the 
 strongest self-interest, to afford to her in her arduous and critical 
 struggle, all the succour and support in our power. With this 
 disposition, the question which first arose was, how the assistance 
 w^hich we were both bound and willing to afford, could be ren- 
 dered most effectual in support of the cause of Austria. And I 
 can confidently aver, that if, in the state in which our determina- 
 tion then was, in respect to the Scheldt, any other destination 
 could have been pointed out for an Expedition, more obviously 
 serviceable to Austria, and affording an equal or a reasonable pros- 
 pect of success, the superior interest which this country had in 
 the success of an attack upon the Scheldt, would not alone have 
 determined us against a change of destination. If other consid- 
 erations were equally balanced, the obvious and essential interests 
 of this country might fairly be allowed to turn the scale. But 
 not only was there no other destination pointed out in which 
 Austria might be more effectually aided, and which it was neces- 
 sary to sacrifice to our preconceived partiality for the Scheldt; but 
 I will venture to say, that after a full and fair consideration of 
 14 K 
 
98 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 every suggestion which was offered to us, there was no one point 
 to which, an Expedition could have gone, which, exclusively of 
 the separate interests of this country, could, from its general im- 
 portance, policy, and practicability, be placed in competition with 
 the capture and destruction of Antwerp. There are obviously 
 two modes of aiding the efforts of an ally: the one to support him 
 by direct co-operation with his armies in the field; the other, by 
 a formidable diversion, to distract the attention of the enemy, and 
 to relieve our ally from some part of the pressure of the vast mil- 
 itary force concentrated against him. I should certainly not have 
 thought it necessary to establish by argument the impracticability 
 of a direct military co-operation with Austria, in the situation to 
 which the Continent was at that period reduced, if I had not 
 heard some of the honourable gentlemen opposite contend that 
 we should have sent our Expedition to the bottom of the Adriatic, 
 to Trieste, in order to act in conjunction with the Austrians; I 
 know not exactly where, but I suppose by penetrating through 
 the Tyrol to Suabia: an idea so utterly extravagant and absurd, 
 that the mention of it has filled me with amazement. Have the 
 honourable gentlemen who expressed their approbation of such a 
 plan, reflected upon the difHculties and dangers of sending a fleet 
 of transports, crowded with troops, upon such a voyage, through 
 the streights of Gibraltar, along the Mediterranean, and up the 
 Adriatic, to a destination, at which it might arrive three or four 
 months after it sailed, and two or three months after the junction 
 for which it was sent out was no longer either useful or attainable ? 
 Have they considered the enormous preparations, the immense ton- 
 nage, and the inordinate expenditure which it would have required 
 to place an army in a situation to take the field after such a voyage, 
 at such a distance, and in countries so little prepared to receive us? 
 With respect to the other mode of direct co-operation — the land- 
 ing with a British force in Lower Italy — it is only necessary to 
 state, that that experiment was tried to a certain extent, and was 
 only desisted from when it was incontestably found, that the fur- 
 ther prosecution of it was useless, in consequence of the retreat of 
 the Archduke John, with whose operations alone those of Sir 
 John Stuart could have been combined. And how would this 
 same retreat have operated upon the notable Expedition to Trieste, 
 if unfortunately it had been adopted? Why, the consequence, it 
 appears, would have been, that our armament on its arrival at 
 Trieste, would have found the French in possession of that place, 
 and no Austrian army or military force within three hundred 
 miles of it. And then what mercy should we have found at the 
 hands of our present accusers, if we had pleaded that, when the 
 Expedition sailed, forsooth, we had every reason to think that it 
 would be in time ? 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 9& 
 
 I must, however, beg leave in this place to state, in justice to 
 the Austrian Government, that the idea of requiring us to send 
 out a British force to Trieste, never entered into their contempla- 
 tion. Austria unquestionably did, as was naturally to be expect- 
 ed, pomt out several modes, by which the force of this country 
 could be employed; but never hinted at, still less recommended, 
 the impracticable scheme of an Expedition to Trieste. 
 
 The points, to which Austria did propose to the British Gov- 
 ernment to direct its attention, were distinctly and specifically 
 these — 1st, that an attempt should be made by a British force upon 
 Italy; 2dly, that our operations in the Peninsula should be con- 
 tinued; and 3dly, that we should endeavour to operate a diversion 
 in her favour, by landing an army in the north of Germany. 
 These were the propositions actually made and strongly urged by 
 the Austrian Government. With respect to the first, an attack on 
 the side of Italy, I have already stated that such an attempt was 
 made, and that it only was desisted from when a perseverance in 
 it on our part, could no longer be productive of any benefit to the 
 cause of Austria. As to the second proposition, the continuance 
 of our efforts in the Peninsula, I need scarcely observe, that the 
 British Government has fully complied with the desire of Austria 
 in this respect, because every gentleman who hears me must be 
 aware that our operations in the Peninsula, so far from having 
 been slackened or suspended, were pursued with unremitting ear- 
 nestness and exertion. 
 
 It remains only to consider the third and last point, recom- 
 mended by Austria for the employment of a British force, name- 
 ly, the north of Germany. Gentlemen have dwelt with much 
 emphasis upon the great advantages which would have been de- 
 rived in aid of such an Expedition from the insurrections then 
 known to exist in that quarter, and from the spirit of disaffection 
 so prevalent throughout the whole of the population of Germany, 
 which the first success of the British arms would have called forth 
 into active and universal hostility against the common enemy. 
 But I have always been of opinion, and have had occasion, more 
 than once, to declare that opinion in this House, that to excite 
 such insurrections, without having the means of affording effectual 
 permanent protection to the insurgents, is an act of the greatest 
 cruelty as well as impolicy. 
 
 Undoubtedly such insurrections, however temporary, might 
 possibly have operated for the moment as a partial relief to Aus- 
 tria, by drawing oflfa portion of Buonaparte's troops, or detaining 
 the reinforcements destined for his army on the Danube. But 
 that advantage would also belong to the Expedition to the Scheldt. 
 So, therefore, the two rival destinations might be considered as 
 equal. They were then to he compared as to their respective 
 
100 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 probabilities of success. Supposing these probabilities equal also, 
 then, and then only, would be to be considered the balance of ad- 
 vantage to this country in favour of the Scheldt. But supposing 
 the failure in Germany the more likely, how would the evil of that 
 failure be aggravated by the miseries which it would bring upon 
 the unfortunate people who had been induced to join us! Gentle- 
 men declaim against the Expedition to the Scheldt, merely be- 
 cause the objects of that Expedition, the capture of ships, and the 
 destruction of naval arsenals, fix upon it the suspicion of a selfish 
 motive. They appear to me to carry a principle, good in itself, 
 much too far. Whenever any partial or temporary interest of our 
 own clashes with a permanent and vital interest of an ally, our 
 temporary interest ought certainly to give way; but to put our 
 own interests of any description altogether out of view, merely 
 for the purpose of avoiding a possible imputation of selfishness 
 from a perverse construction of our motives, would be absurd and 
 romantic in the extreme. At all events, let those who feel such 
 an extreme delicacy on this point consent to carry that delicacy 
 a little further, and apply it where it is at least equally applicable, 
 to the case of those districts of Germany, which the approach of 
 a British army would have roused to insurrection, and which its 
 retreat would leave to the vengeance of their oppressors; and let 
 them consider whether a temporary success to our own arms, or 
 a partial relief to Austria, would have been legitimately purchased 
 by such a sacrifice of those whom we pretended to deliver, but 
 should, in truth, by such a course betray. 
 
 If indeed we could have hoped to effect their permanent de- 
 liverance, the case would have been widely different. In that 
 case the north of Germany would unquestionable have been the 
 chosen scene of our exertions. But what was the chance of such 
 
 success 
 
 No long period has elapsed since a British army was actually 
 sent to the north of Germany to co-operate against France, and 
 it has been attempted to be argued, that those who were par- 
 ties to, or who approved the sending out that former Expedi- 
 tion (which arrived in Germany just in time to learn the issue 
 of the fatal battle of Austerlitz,) could have no possible justifica- 
 tion, for not having sent the late Expedition to the same destina- 
 tion. But here I must beg of gentlemen to consider the differ- 
 ence in the situation of affairs at these different periods; and to com- 
 pare the state of Europe at the time when the former armament 
 was sent to the north of Germany, with the situation to which 
 it had been reduced at the period when the Expedition to the 
 Scheldt was undertaken. On the former occasion a formidable 
 Russian army was combatting, in support of the Austrian mon- 
 
 •chy; and, with the Emperor at its head, was already partici- 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 101 
 
 pating in the main operations of the campaign: another Russian 
 force of fifteen thousand men was advancing in the north; and 
 with a corps of fifteen thousand Swedes was ready to take the 
 field in conjunction with our expedition. Denmark was neutral; 
 the power of Prussia was whole and unbroken; and though her 
 neutrality was cold, perhaps it was not a mere profession ; the 
 strength and character of her armies made her policy respected, 
 and preserved her territory from French violation. Compare 
 with this description, which every honourable member must ad- 
 mit to be just, the situation of the north of Germany last year, 
 when we were invited by the Austrian Government to make 
 a diversion there in its favour. Russia, instead of being leagued 
 against France, was now her most obsequious and devoted ally; 
 Denmark our enemy, the military power of Prussia no longer 
 formidable even by reputation, but broken down in one disastrous 
 battle, the sequel of a disastrous policy; and the whole face of 
 Germany, once covered with independent and respectable states, 
 now strewed with the fragments of her ancient institutions, and 
 presenting nothing in their room but enfeebled or usurped gov- 
 ernments, all leagued with, or subservient to France. Such was 
 the state of things, in which we were invited to send an army 
 to the north of Germany. Let us consider a little the detail 
 of such an operation. Could we have sent our army upon any 
 other condition, or with any other view than that it should re- 
 turn to England in the winter? No one of those who have most 
 strenuously contended for the policy of a diversion in the north of 
 Germany, has ventured to go the length of stating that it would 
 have been politic to risk the fate of a British army during the 
 winter in that part of the continent. The times are indeed long 
 past, when foreign armies, moving in great masses, could main- 
 tain themselves like a separate state, a nation among nations, 
 in the heart of Germany, for many successive seasons: the cir- 
 cumstances of Europe are completely changed since any such 
 comprehensive plan of continuous operations could have been 
 practicable; and, at all events, the force we could spare for such 
 an undertaking must have been so small as to be wholly inade- 
 quate to the accomplishment of it. With whatever good fortune, 
 therefore, it might have commenced its career, it must have been 
 finally withdrawn before the winter. And I shudder at the ca- 
 lamities that would have been brought upon the unfortunate in- 
 habitants, who, having been induced to take up arms upon the 
 faith of British protection, must have been left exposed to all the 
 vindictive outrages of exasperated tyranny, whenever the progress 
 of the seasons, independent of military disasters, should render it 
 indispensable for the British army to retire. 
 
 But this is not all. It is not alone a humane consideration for 
 
102 
 
 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 the sufferings that might have been entailed upon the wretched 
 inhabitants, nor even a regard for the ultimate security of the 
 British army, that rendered an expedition to the north of Ger- 
 many, in my opinion, inexpedient and impolitic. There were 
 other considerations, which could not be safely overlooked at a 
 time when such an Expedition was in agitation. Broken down 
 and humbled as Prussia was, she still had an army, which, though 
 unable to make head against France, might yet have been very 
 formidable against the limited force which we could have sent out 
 to Germany. With that army the British army, in the course of 
 its operations, must have come in contact; and, if that were likely, 
 (nay, rather, if it was impossible to avoid it,) I will ask whether, 
 under all the circumstances of Europe, it would have been pru- 
 dent in us to have involved ourselves in active hostilities with 
 Prussia; or, on the other hand, if any thing like an understanding 
 should appear to have existed between Prussia and us, would it 
 not have furnished Buonaparte with a plausible pretext for wrest- 
 ing from the monarch of that country the bauble of a sceptre, and 
 tearing from his head the mockery of a crown which he is still al- 
 lowed to wear ? If, then, these would have been the consequences 
 that would have resulted from an Expedition to the north of Ger- 
 many, need more be said to show, that it was the bounden duty 
 of His Majesty's Government to pause before they should under- 
 take it; nay, that they are fully justified in having declined the 
 undertaking after the most grave and mature deliberation.'' 
 
 All this would be true, even on the supposition that the insur- 
 rections in Germany had risen to such a height, without our in- 
 terference, as to hold out some temptation to an enterprise of this 
 kind. Without such a temptation, to be sure, the hostile invasion 
 of Germany would have been madness. But, after all, what was 
 actually at the time the state of these insurrections? What pro- 
 gress had they made, or what assistance were they likely to afford 
 to our efforts, if an expedition from Great Britain had been sent 
 thither? A bold and adventurous soldier (Schill,) impelled by 
 loyalty and national zeal, though unauthorized by his sovereign, 
 took up arms against the common enemy, and having assembled 
 a few followers, commenced an intrepid but short-lived career of 
 active hostility and daring enterprise; the Prince of Hesse, seek- 
 ing the recovery of the dominions of which he had been tyran- 
 nically deprived by Buonaparte, was employed in raising a corps 
 of partisans; and the gallant Duke of Brunswick, anxious to re- 
 venge the wrongs sustained by his illustrious house, had placed 
 himself at the head of a small but chosen body of troops, and was 
 enabled, partly by the bravery of his followers, and partly by the 
 good will of the people, to traverse the whole of the north of Ger- 
 many unmolested, defeating several corps of the enemy, his supe- 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 103 
 
 riors in number, on the way. This was the sum of the insurrec- 
 tions in the north of Germany. Tlie little obstruction given to 
 the different bodies of troops in arms was undoubtedly a proof of 
 the disposition of the mass of inhabitants; but that disposition, 
 though friendly, was inactive and quiescent. Splendid as they 
 were as instances of individual heroism, these partial and detached 
 exertions surely did not amount to such an expression of national 
 will, nor hold out such assurance of general concert, as would 
 alone have justified a landing in the north of Germany, in reli- 
 ance upon the co-operation of the people. It was surely incum- 
 bent upon us, before we embarked in such a momentous enter- 
 prise, to compare our means with the end; to weigh against the 
 possible advantage the certain sacrifice; and to keep ever upper- 
 most in our contemplation the dreadful sufferings that its failure 
 or even its partial success, would draw down upon the population 
 of Germany. The feelings of humanity no less than considera- 
 tions of prudence, were against the measure, nor could Austria 
 justly expect, nor could we consistently afford her, that temporary 
 relief which, it is admitted, she might have gained, at the expense 
 of so much certain and permanent injury to others. 
 
 The course which His Majesty's Government, on the contrary, 
 did actually take, was calculated to promote alike the interests of 
 our ally and our own, to a degree in all probability much greater, 
 and in a manner free from the objection of injustice. 
 
 Sir, I understand that in a French newspaper, published imme- 
 diately under the eye of the Government at Paris, in an account of 
 some former debate in this House, expressions have been imputed 
 to me, importing that, when the Expedition sailed for the Scheldt, 
 I looked for and expected an active co-operation from the people 
 of Flanders and Holland. The words of so insignificant an in- 
 dividual as myself could hardly be worth the trouble of misrepre- 
 sentation — nor should I think myself warranted to take up the 
 time of the House in setting such misrepresentation right — were 
 it not that, from the official situation which I had the honour to 
 fill when this enterprise was undertaken, I might be supposed to 
 speak from some ascertained knowledge of the dispositions of the 
 inhabitants of the countries in question; and a declaration, taken 
 to be official, might be used to their wrong. I think it right, 
 therefore, to avail myself of this opportunity to deny that I ever 
 uttered such an expression; I will go farther, and fairly and truly 
 state, that no expectation of the kind was entertained; and that 
 one consideration which mainly recommended the Expedition to 
 the Scheldt to my mind, was the absence of any such view or ex- 
 pectation. I knew we had not a force, and I did not think it 
 was our policy to engage in a system of continental 0|>erations. 
 The same objections which I felt to the north of Germany would 
 
104 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 have weighed with me against Antwerp, if it had been proposed 
 to me to go in search of insurrections. I agreed to the Expedi- 
 tion to the Scheldt as a miHtary, not a political enterprise; as an 
 enterprise of destructive hostility, not of conciliatory co-opera- 
 tion. I had no hope of conquering through Flanders; or of keep- 
 ing Flanders against France; or of liberating Holland by pene- 
 trating its frontier from the Scheldt. But I did think, and do 
 think still, that a great blow was to be struck against the pride 
 and power of Buonaparte, by the destruction of his fleet and ar- 
 senals. I wished for no longer occupation than might be sufficient 
 for this purpose, and this I expected to gain, not by the connivance 
 of the inhabitants, but by force, and by taking them unprepared. 
 Indeed, if I were to lay my finger upon that spot of subjugated 
 Europe, which has suffered the least from French tyranny and op- 
 pression, and where, therefore, co-operation was least to be ex- 
 pected, I should point out Antwerp. Before the French Revolu- 
 tion, Antwerp was in a state of comparative desolation; her former 
 greatness had vanished; her prosperity was extinguished; her trade 
 annihilated; her population was dwindled, and the grass growing 
 in her streets, formerly the crowded haunts of industry and com- 
 merce. To this wretched state had Antwerp been reduced, not 
 by nature, but by treaty; not by any moral or physical defect, but 
 by the arts of the diplomatist and the dash of a pen; and from 
 the destructive effects of a restriction so imposed, was she libera- 
 ted in consequence of her annexation to France. Neither was 
 there any thing of attachment to her former government to coun- 
 teract the natural influence of her present prosperity; and it was 
 against the sources of that prosperity, her growing maritime 
 greatness, that this blow was aimed. From the population of 
 Antwerp, therefore, no aid or co-operation was to be expected. 
 They alone, perhaps, of all the inhabitants of the continent, would 
 suffer by being replaced in the situation in which they had been 
 previous to the French Revolution. On what, then, did we ground 
 our hopes of success? I have stated on our own means, and their 
 want of preparation. Undoubtedly we had expected to be able 
 to take Antwerp by surprise; and we had every reason to suppose 
 it would be found in such a state from all the information which 
 had been collected upon the subject. That the information upon 
 which that expectation was founded, was correct, has since been 
 unequivocally proved. I refer, as the most satisfactory proof on 
 this point, to certain articles which were published in the Moni- 
 teur, at the time when the destination of the Expedition was first 
 publicly known at Paris, purporting to be the official correspond- 
 ence between Buonaparte and his minister of war; and manifestly 
 published with a view to make the people of France believe that 
 Antwerp had not been incautiously neglected. This correspond- 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 105 
 
 ence set forth that our Expedition had been originally intended 
 for Spain, but that in consequence of the conckision of the armi- 
 stice between France and Austria, its destination was subsequent- 
 ly changed. An assertion which we know to be false, and which 
 could have no object but to excuse the not having made timely 
 preparations at Antwerp. This is a construction of itself suffi- 
 ciently evident, but is made still more so by the order with which 
 this correspondence was followed — an order, commanding the 
 gens dhirmes and the garde nationale to march to Antwerp im- 
 mediately, and put that city in a perfect state of defence. Most 
 unquestionably if that city had been previously secure against at- 
 tack, it would not have been necessary to issue an order calling 
 for the services of comparatively irregular troops, for the purpose 
 of putting it into a proper state for defence. Such a measure 
 is a virtual admission that Antwerp was in an unprepared state, 
 that the enemy was taken by surprise. It is an evidence derived 
 from the enemy himself, of the wisdom of the original plan of 
 the Expedition — and of the original probability of its success. 
 
 But it has been urged with a great apparent triumph against 
 His Majesty's Ministers, either that they had not foreseen the 
 difficulties encountered in the progress of the Expedition, or that, 
 having been aware of those difficulties and dangers, and having 
 yet sent out the armament under all these discouragements, they 
 are more deeply responsible for all the consequences of it. Un- 
 doubtedly His Majesty's Ministers did foresee difficulties in the 
 course which they were pursuing (and what great military meas- 
 ure can be expected tc be wholly free from them,) but the difficul- 
 ties which they foresaw were not of a nature to preclude a ration- 
 al prospect of success. If I am to judge by what I have heard 
 in the course of this discussion, gentlemen think that before any 
 expedition should ever sail from our shores. His Majesty's Min- 
 isters should not only have an absolute certainty of ultimate suc- 
 cess, but should also trace out to the respective commanders every 
 step by which they are to proceed in the execution of the service 
 intrusted to them. In that case no expedition would ever be un- 
 dertaken; for what mortal foresight can take in all the possible 
 casualties that may occur to defeat the object? Or who would un- 
 dertake to furnish a general with a detailed plan of all the opera- 
 tions which he may have to execute, without leaving him any dis- 
 cretion to depart under any circumstances, from the strict line of 
 his instructions; considering how much must always depend upon 
 contingencies which cannot be foreseen, as well as upon observa- 
 tions made, and information collected, upon the spot. A man en- 
 gaged in a game of chess, may, without any question, by taking 
 certain moves on the part of his adversary for granted, insure his 
 own success. But then if his adversary should vary from the 
 15 
 
106 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 course which he assumes for him, all his hopes would be frus- 
 trated, and all his plans would fall to the ground. All that can, 
 upon this point, be required of a government, is, that they should 
 in the first place select a proper object to justify the attempt by 
 its importance, and where there may be a probable prospect of suc- 
 cess; that their views, respecting such object should be communi- 
 cated without reserve to the generals commanding, to whom, at 
 the same time, should be left a certain degree of discretion as 
 to the means of executing the service; and that they should pro- 
 vide adequate means for carrying any plan that may be deter- 
 mined upon into execution. Much has been said as to the insuf- 
 ficiency of the means provided for the regular siege of Antwerp; 
 but in this objection it is assumed that a regular siege was neces- 
 sary for its reduction. The expectation of the Government cer- 
 tainly was, that it would be taken by surprise, and carried by 
 bombardment or by an assault. Much censure has also been be- 
 stowed upon His Majesty's Ministers for having undertaken the 
 Expedition at all in opposition to the declared opinions of the 
 Commander-in-Chief and of Colonel Gordon; and much stress is 
 laid upon a particular expression of the latter officer, viz. " that it 
 was a desperate enterprise." It appears to me that this expression 
 does not bear out the interpretation which has been given to it. 
 It is clearly used by Colonel Gordon in a colloquial sense, but 
 honourable gentlemen extract from it more than its strict etymo- 
 logical meaning; and insist, that according to Colonel Gordon, the 
 enterprise was so difficult and hazardous, as, if undertaken, to 
 preclude all hopes of success, and to include every ground of 
 failure. 
 
 Great efforts, I observe, have on the other hand been made to 
 disparage the opinions of General Brownrigg, and with this view 
 particularly it has been urged against him that he had not stated 
 the authorities upon which those opinions were founded. I ob- 
 serve, indeed, that those gentlemen who seem to set so high a 
 value on authorities, never once thought of calling for the authori- 
 ties upon which the opinions of those officers were founded whose 
 testimony appeared in any degree to bear against the Government 
 But so minute, so anxious are they in scrutinizing and sifting 
 every thing that favours His Majesty's Ministers, that if General 
 Brownrigg had quoted authorities for his opinion, I am Convinced 
 they would have called for the authorities of these authorities, and 
 so on, until at length they should arrive at some point where they 
 could make a stand and withhold belief An old Indian mytholo- 
 gy affirms that this globe is supported by an elephant: a question 
 arises, what supports the elephant? the answer is "a tortoise;" 
 well, and upon what does the tortoise rest? to that question the 
 mythologist affords no answer. And in like manner, General 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 107 
 
 Brownrigg's authorities must have had some end, and so the hon- 
 ourable gentlemen would find at last some ground of doubt, and 
 some excuse for incredulity. 
 
 It has been much insisted upon as a ground of charge against 
 the Government, that the opinion of Lord Chatham had not been 
 taken upon the policy and practicability of the Expedition; but 
 upon what ground does such a charge rest? As a Cabinet Minis- 
 ter, Lord Chatham was a party to the principle, and by having 
 accepted the command in chief he rendered himself more par- 
 ticularly responsible for its execution. There is a story which I 
 remember to have heard more than once from an honourable 
 member of this House, now no more, (Mr. Fox,) of two generals 
 in the French service, one of whom, addressing his troops at the 
 commencement of a battle or an assault, used to say, " Jillez, mes 
 e )7f a iis;^' the other ''' ^Hons, mes enfans.'''' The latter was the 
 more popular commander, as he showed his confidence in the en- 
 terprise and his expectation of success, by his willingness to share 
 in the perils and the glory of the attempt. Upon the same prin- 
 ciple the honourable gentleman may infer Lord Chatham's appro- 
 bation of the Expedition, from his censenting, by the acceptance 
 of the command, to associate himself with its operations and its 
 success. 
 
 In reply to all that has been said, as to the impracticability of 
 taking Antwerp by surprise, the noble lord on the bench behind 
 me (Lord Castlereagh) has very appositely quoted the case of Co- 
 penhagen: that case unfortunately, however, " was not to the taste 
 of the honourable gentlemen opposite:" for, say they, "Copen- 
 hagen was taken too much by surprise. And besides, the inhabit- 
 ants of Copenhagen were filled with such indignation against us 
 for the unprovoked attack;" that — what? Why " that they sur- 
 rendered the city, without making all the resistance which the 
 state of its defences would have allowed." This was, certainly, 
 the oddest effect of indignation that I have, ever heard of; that it 
 should diminish energy, and facilitate surrender; instead of ani- 
 mating and exasperating hostility, and determining men to defend 
 themselves to the last extremity! 
 
 But, if instances are necessary to prove the practicability of 
 carrying such a place as Antwerp by a coup-de-main, they pre- 
 sent themselves to recollection in abundance. We cannot forget 
 how the strong fortresses of Breda, Bergen-op-Zoom, and the 
 other fortified places in Dutch Flanders, and Brabant, fell without 
 a struggle before Dumourier in the infancy of the French Revo- 
 lution. These instances, however, will perhaps be set aside by 
 the honourable gentlemen as easily, and certainly with more 
 plausibility than Copenhagen. Their fall was the effect of revo- 
 lutionary principles, it will be said. They were half conquered 
 
108 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 before the enemy appeared under their walls. Let us go back 
 then to former wars, when no such extraneous principles operated 
 upon the fate of fortified towns, and we shall fnid a regular forti- 
 fication, Prague, surrendering upon a bombardment of seven days. 
 We shall find a Schweidnitz, in Silesia, a fortress deemed impreg- 
 nable, yet taken and retaken by surprise, I think three several 
 times, between the years 1747 and 1761, and a fourth time, I be- 
 lieve, in 1762, but then to be sure by a regular siege. The three 
 former captures were by coup- de-main. If I were to go farther 
 back still, I might refer to the case of Lerida in Catalonia, before 
 which the great Conde failed in a regular siege, and yet, when af- 
 terwards invested by the Duke of Orleans, the place was carried 
 by assault in a fortnight. 
 
 It is not my object to prove by these instances out of the num- 
 berless cases of a similar description that could be quoted, that, 
 because places deemed secure against such a mode of attack have 
 sometimes been reduced by a coup-de-main, therefore every im- 
 practicable attempt upon a strong fortress, may prudently be 
 hazarded! No such thing. The inference that I draw from the 
 cases alluded to, is simply this, that as in the progress of wars, 
 fortresses of the highest military description, fortresses generally 
 deemed impregnable, have been reduced by summary means, it 
 does not necessarily follow, that an expedition fitted out under pe- 
 culiarly favourable circumstances, for the attainment of such an 
 object, should be justly condemmed as rash and absurd, because 
 the place against which it is directed may have been, in other 
 times, considered as not liable to be taken without regular ap- 
 proaclies. I do not mean to say, that a positive dependence ought 
 by preference to be placed on improbable contingencies, but that 
 war never has been nor ever can be carried on, without incur- 
 ring some danger, and leaving something to hazard ? Undoubted- 
 ly means should be diligently proportioned to ends, every prac- 
 ticable foresight should be exercised, every attainable security 
 taken, and as little left to chance as may be. But when, after all 
 that human wisdom can do, to chance something must still be 
 left; when, after all physical and material means are provided, 
 spirit and enterprise must after all turn the scale: I am not pre- 
 pared to condemn an expedition because I cannot beforehand dem- 
 onstrate that it will succeed. The general who surrendered with- 
 out a blow, because the enemy outnumbered him, in a certain 
 given proportion, may have acted according to all the rules of 
 war. When Lord Peterborough took Montjuich, he sinned 
 against all the principles of military calculation. But I read with 
 more delight of Lord Peterborough's romantic achievements, than 
 I do of the sober and regular movements of his successor, who 
 proceeded with the most scrupulous regularity, to lose back all 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 109 
 
 that his predecessor had so irregularly won. A book came out, 
 some years ago, in France, on the sucject of a carriage, or some 
 such vehicle, which had been contrived in this country, I believe, 
 for a wager at Newmarket, to go a certain distance in a given 
 time. The author of the book undertook to prove, very learned- 
 ly, that the project could not possibly succeed. He formed a 
 most elaborate calculation, according to the most precise rules, 
 which gave the greatest satisfaction to all the scientific of Paris. 
 A was to represent the carriage; B the horses; C the driver; D 
 the resistance of the air; E the friction of the earth; and F the 
 utter impossibility of success. And A plus, B plus, C plus, D 
 plus, E was equal to F, and, therefore, the project must fail. 
 While the book was publishing, however, the wager was won: 
 but the lovers of science contented themselves with affirming that, 
 though the project did succeed, it ought not to have succeeded. 
 Now, Sir, I am ready to admit that honourable gentlemen came 
 forward with their mathematical reasoning under very great ad- 
 vantages; the Expedition, upon whatever grounds undertaken, has 
 failed. But, whatever may be the reasoning on their part, I must 
 ever contend that this failure has risen from causes which it was 
 utterly impossible for human wisdom or power to control. It was 
 chiefly to that state of the winds by which the Expedition was 
 compelled to go into the Room-pot, and to the consequent impos- 
 sibility of capturing Cadsand, that this failure is to be attributed. 
 I will ask any honourable gentleman, whether, if Cadsand had 
 been reduced in the first instance, and the passage up the Scheldt 
 at once opened and free, there would not have been good reason 
 to expect complete ultimate success? 
 
 From the countenances of some of the honourable o-entlemen 
 opposite, I collect that there are judges in this House before 
 whom the accused appear under great disadvantage. I feel sensi- 
 bly, that I labour under considerable difficulty in arguing this 
 case before those gentlemen by whom His Majesty's Ministers 
 have heretofore been called on, not only to defend themselves for 
 failures, but to exculpate themselves for victories, and to make 
 atonement for success. From those gentlemen undoubtedly I am 
 not sanguine enough to look for any very favourable decision. 
 Such, I trust, however, is not the disposition of the whole House. 
 The House will not make His Majesty's Ministers responsible 
 for disasters which they could not prevent; nor censure them 
 because the weather proved unfavourable; it will not, I am per- 
 suaded, regard with a prejudicial harshness and severity the con- 
 duct of men, to whom the utmost stretch of human malice could 
 impute no motive but that of having desired, at great risk to 
 their own situations, to render a great service to the country. 
 They had but to be still to be safe: but it never did and never 
 
 L 
 
110 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 could escape them, that, in an undertaking of such magnitude 
 and hazard, the discredit and unpopularity to be incurred by 
 failure, infinitely counterbalanced any credit that would be given 
 to them by their opponents for success. 
 
 For, Sir, in all discussions upon the events of the war, I ob- 
 serve that some gentlemen mete out a very different measure of 
 judgment to the actions and undertakings of their own Govern 
 ment, and those of the enemy. They uniformly find room for 
 panegyric in the success of the French Ruler; nor do I recollect 
 to have ever heard one of them censure the conduct of Buonaparte 
 for his oversights or his failures. The injudicious and unsuccess- 
 ful attack upon Acre, the defeat at Aspern, and the shutting him- 
 self up after that defeat in the island of Inder-lobau — a measure 
 universally condemned by military men as an egregious error, 
 and one which afforded to Austria an opportunity of decisive and 
 destructive success, if, happily, advantage had been taken of it — 
 these acts of rashness and misconduct have passed, so far as I 
 have observed, without animadversion. But while they over- 
 looked the blunders of the enemy, and gave him the fullest credit 
 for his successes, they disparage every advantage, and exaggerate 
 every misfortune of this country. According to their just stand- 
 ard, any success on the part of the British Government is inva- 
 riably the result of accident, but failure is evidence of ignorance 
 and incapacity. But let us suppose the course of the campaign 
 which we are now discussing to have been inverted; suppose the 
 enemy to have been the assailant; suppose that instead of having 
 to justify themselves for having captured Walcheren, His Majes- 
 ty's Ministers had now to defend themselves for having suffered 
 the Isle of Wight to be occupied by the enemy; for having al- 
 lowed a French army to remain for three whole months in pos- 
 session of a station menacing and overawing our principal naval 
 arsenal at Portsmouth? What would be the severity of the 
 charges which their accusers would then have brought against 
 them; what admiration would have been expressed of the enter- 
 prise of the enemy, and what epithet of disgrace left unapplied 
 to the Ministers who had thus been taken by surprise? And yet, 
 extravagant as this supposition may sound, the continued occupa- 
 tion of Walcheren by a British army during so many months, 
 had precisely the same effect with respect to France, to which the 
 Scheldt is not less important, as a naval port and arsenal, than 
 Portsmouth to this country. 
 
 The continued occupation of Walcheren would have been not 
 less a blow to the maritime power, and to the pride of Buona- 
 parte, than that of the Isle of Wight by France, to the power and 
 pride of Great Britain, In that view — in contemplation of its 
 moral effect upon the minds of the people of France, as much as 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. HI 
 
 in respect to its solid advantages — I concurred in the destination 
 of the Expedition to the .Scheldt. I think it would have been 
 of incalculable benefit that the Ruler of France should see that 
 he could not strip his coasts snd country of troops, and draw the 
 whole strength of his army into the heart of distant kingdoms, 
 without subjecting to insult and invasion his own immediate ter- 
 ritories, and the dearest interests of his empire. 
 
 That these and other objects have been blasted by the ultimate 
 failure of the Expedition, I do not attempt to deny. But while 
 the magnitude of these objects aggravates the regret which its 
 failure naturally occasions, it offers to the discriminating justice 
 of the House what will be deemed, I trust, a sufficient justifica- 
 tion of the undertaking. 
 
 Having said thus much upon the general question of the policy 
 of the Expedition, in which I feel myself involved in a common 
 responsibility with all those who were at the time of its being 
 undertaken members of His Majesty's Government, I come now 
 to that part of the question in which I am no otherwise concern- 
 ed, than that, as having concurred in advising the Expedition, I 
 may be, to a certain degree, responsible for all its consequences; 
 but in which I had no personal share — I mean the period of the 
 evacuation of Walcheren. Upon this subject the resolution of 
 censure proposed by the noble lord, appears to me immeasurably 
 severe. No man can, in my opinion, think conscientiously that 
 His Majesty's Ministers, with the island of Walcheren in their 
 hands, with so many strong reasons for retaining it, if the reten- 
 tion were possible, could reasonably be expected to come to an 
 immediate decision upon a point involving so many considera- 
 tions of infinite importance and embarrassment. 
 
 I have already stated, among the grounds for attempting the 
 Expedition, the commanding position of Walcheren; the curb 
 which it put upon the maritime strength, and, I might add, upon 
 the commercial greatness of the French empire. The customs 
 of Antwerp are at least one-third of the whole custom revenue 
 of Buonaparte. Add to this considerations of economy: if (as 
 was at least the opinion of some of the most competent judges) 
 the possession of Flushing would have enabled us to diminish the 
 amount of the fleet destined to watch the Scheldt: add, too, the 
 military triumph of wresting and retaining from the enemy the 
 key of this naval arsenal, upon the creation of which he had rest- 
 ed so much, too, of his glory. Against this was to be put the af- 
 flicting sickness and mortality which prevailed among our troops; 
 a calamity of which it is as absurd as it is unjust to pretend that 
 the Ministers did not feel all the weight and poignancy as much 
 as those who affect to be the loudest in deploring it. But neither 
 the original plan of the Expedition, nor the prolongation of the 
 
112 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 stay of the army in Walchercn, are fairly censurable on this ac- 
 count, in the manner and to the degree to which the noble lord 
 proposes to inflict his censure. 
 
 If an expedition is never to be sent to a climate less healthy 
 than that in which we have the happiness to live, the circle of 
 warfare will undoubtedly be much contracted. If the authority 
 of the very eminent physician (Sir John Pringle,) which has been 
 quoted with so much confidence, is to be conclusive upon this 
 question, that same authority proves a great deal too much; for, 
 if taken in its full extent, it would follow that no expedition ought 
 ever to be sent to any part of Dutch Flanders. It would con- 
 demn retrospectively most of our former expeditions to the con- 
 tinent, and specifically all those campaigns of which Sir John 
 Pringle himself has written the history. 
 
 Every man who has read the papers on the table must feel, and 
 deeply feel, for the miseries unavoidably incident to war; but 
 though these miseries have been brought nearer to our view than 
 in former instances, and though it may possibly suit the particular 
 purposes of some gentlemen to dwell upon them, yet I must beg 
 of the House not to suffer themselves to be so far biassed in their 
 judgment by the impulse of a very honourable feeling, as to ima- 
 gine that the instance of this Expedition, however striking, is sin- 
 gular in the history of the wars of this country: I beg them not 
 to imagine that they are at liberty to exhaust the whole of their 
 compassion on Walcheren alone; nor to deceive themselves as to 
 the tenure by which our West India islands are held. No man 
 can deplore more than I do the waste of life that results from the 
 acquisition and retention of such possessions; but it must be con- 
 sidered at the same time, that no important national advantage is 
 to be gained without some kind of sacrifice; and however we may 
 lament the price at which it is purchased, a government would be- 
 tray its trust, which should precipitately abandon a great and es- 
 sential object of national acquisition, or national glory, even from 
 such a laudable impulse. Happy, indeed, would it be for man- 
 kind, if the slaughter of the battle was the only evil of war. But 
 there are, it is too true, various other sufferings consequent upon 
 a state of war, besides those that are produced by engagements in 
 the field; sufferings which have not the animation of cfibrt, or the 
 consolation of glory: but let it not be supposed that they were in- 
 curred in so much greater proportion for Walcheren as to require 
 the exaction of a vindictive retribution from Ministers in this case 
 more than any other. Walcheren had often been an object of 
 British desire, aye, and of British possession, too. We have won 
 it — we have held it in former times. Its importance to this coun- 
 try is now increased ten-fold; surely its climate is not in the same 
 proportion become more pestilential. It has been confidently as- 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 113 
 
 serted in this debate, that a clause existed in the capitulation oi 
 the regiment of Berne, when in the service of the Dutch Govern- 
 ment, stipulating that these troops should not be employed in 
 Walcheren. This assertion I cannot take upon myself positively 
 to contradict; but I can affirm, from very good authority, that this 
 very regiment of Berne has, in point of fact, more than once, 
 within the last twenty years, made a part of the garrison of Wal- 
 cheren. And I have further been assured, too, that after the most 
 diligent search no such clause is to be found in any published 
 treaty or capitulation of the Cantons, though there is, in some of 
 the capitulations published in Dumont's collection, an article pro- 
 viding that the Swiss auxiliaries shall not serve in Batavia or the 
 other Dutch colonies. This stipulation is, as we know, not unu- 
 sual; the foreign troops in our own service are not bound to serve 
 in the British colonies. 
 
 Still, however, the whole point thus at issue is merely a ques- 
 tion of degree. I admit, without hesitation, that the miseries in- 
 cident to an unhealthy situation may overbalance many and con- 
 siderable political advantages. But the question to be considered 
 is, what were the nature and extent of the advantages to be de- 
 rived from the possession of Walcheren, and were the advan- 
 tages such as to justify the retaining it, could it have been retained, 
 at any moderate sacrifice ? This is the calculation into which gen- 
 tlemen should enter, before they make up their minds to pass cen- 
 sure upon His Majesty's Ministers for having kept the island so 
 long. The result of such a calculation, I firmly and conscien- 
 tiously believe, will be, that such was the importance of Walcheren 
 to this country, that very great efforts ought to have been made 
 to retain it; and that His Majesty's Ministers were perfectly jus- 
 tified in having hesitated as long as they did, before they finally 
 determined to abandon so very valuable a possession: my doubt, 
 I confess, is, whether they ought to have abandoned it at all. 
 
 If, indeed, His Majesty's Ministers had previously resolved to 
 evacuate the island, I am not ready to affirm, or even to admit, 
 that they were in that case justifiable in retaining it so long mere- 
 ly with a view to the destruction of the works at Flushing, or in 
 compliance with the wishes of Austria. The destruction of the 
 basin at Flushing, a mere temporary mischief to the enemy, to be 
 repaired by money, ought not, in my opinion, to have been pur- 
 chased by any avoidable expense of British life. It was not an 
 advantage worth such a price; and as to Austria, though I would 
 do much, and sacrifice much for an ally in the war, yet in the actual 
 situation of her affairs at that period, so long after the armistice, with 
 so very little reasonable probability of the renewal of hostilities, 
 if our army was exposed to ten days' unnecessary sickness upon 
 the supposition of affording any effectual aid to Austria, then I 
 16 L* 
 
114 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 must say, that there does not appear to me to have been any just 
 proportion between the advantage expected and the sacrifice actu- 
 ally made. 
 
 Such, however, do not appear to have been the motives of the 
 delay. It appears that His Majesty's Ministers received succes- 
 sive reports, which went so far as to encourage the hope of being 
 enabled to retain Walcheren, that I must take it for granted that 
 they were induced really to look to that object, that they did not 
 unnecessarily expose the army to the influence of disease for a 
 day after they had finally resolved on abandoning the island; and 
 under this impression I shall certainly vote against the second re- 
 solution of the noble lord, though I shall at the same time feel it 
 necessary to move or to suggest an amendment to the counter- 
 resolutions of the honourable and gallant general (General Craw- 
 ford.) The object of my amendment will be to omit the specific 
 grounds of justification arising from the circumstances of Austria, 
 and from the destruction of the basin at Flushing; and to leave that 
 justification on the plain and obvious ground of the necessity of 
 collecting the materials for an opinion, and the danger of deciding 
 precipitately on so great and important a question. I am perfect- 
 ly ready to concur in the conclusion that no blame attaches to the 
 Government; but I cannot concur in the honourable general's 
 statement of the premises from which that conclusion is to be 
 drawn. These, Sir, are the grounds upon which I as cordially 
 join in acquitting the Ministers upon the second of the noble 
 lord's propositions, in which I am not myself personally impli- 
 cated, as I confidently expect, from the reflecting justice and tem- 
 per of the House, an acquittal for myself in common with my 
 former colleagues, upon the charge contained in the noble lord's 
 first Resolution. 
 
 Something yet remains to be said upon one topic on which 
 much stress has been laid by our accusers — the policy of marking 
 with extraordinary severity a failure so disastrous as this is repre- 
 sented to have been, of an enterprise, (as it is averred,) so rashly 
 undertaken. 
 
 Sir, of this policy, as a matter distinct from justice, I take the 
 liberty to entertain great doubts. I doubt whether the vice of 
 the British Constitution and Government be a too great proneness 
 to undertake splendid and daring enterprises, or its main perfec- 
 tion an uncommon facility for conducting the operations of war. 
 There is enough already, as it appears to me, both of difficulty to 
 impede and of responsibility to daunt any administration in this 
 country, to whom the conduct of a war is intrusted : and when 
 that war is to be carried on against such an enemy as him with 
 whom we have to contend at present, it is not, in my humble 
 opinion, politic to go one step beyond what justice may prescribe 
 
EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 115 
 
 to enhance that difficulty, and press the weight of that responsibil- 
 ty upon the Government. Possibly I might think that even to stop 
 something short of an extreme and rigorous account, might be the 
 more politic alternative of the two. We have to contend against 
 an enemy who, with whatever qualifications he may be endowed by 
 nature, has full scope and play given to all his faculties and views, 
 by the unlimited power, the irresponsible freedom with which he 
 acts. He asks no consent, he renders no account, he wields at 
 will the population and resources of a mighty empire, and its de- 
 pendent states. His successes are magnified with enthusiasm, his 
 failures silently passed over. And against this unity of counsel 
 and this liberty of action we have to contend, under the disadvan- 
 tages of a mixed and complicated government. Disadvantages in 
 this respect they are, though happily and gloriously redeemed and 
 compensated by the great and manifold blessings of a constitution 
 unequalled by any other system of human policy in the history of 
 the world! Secrecy of design, celerity of execution, a boldness 
 of adventure arising from fearlessness of responsibility for ill suc- 
 cess, are the qualities the most useful for the vigorous prosecution 
 of military operations. They are advantages which our despotic 
 adversary enjoys in the most eminent degree. They are those 
 which a free government necessarily wants. I doubt whether it 
 be politic to aggravate the inequality of such a contest, by a se- 
 verity of scrutiny, and a hardness of animadversion upon failure, 
 which, by making responsibility too heavy to be borne, has a ten- 
 dency to make all enterprise too hazardous to be attempted. Nei- 
 ther again, while I admit and lament the failure of this Expedi- 
 tion, can I agree with those who consider the disappointment of a 
 great object of national policy as synonymous with national dis- 
 grace and as pregnant with national ruin. 
 
 Disgrace happily there has been none. Our arms are not only 
 untarnished in this enterprise, but have been crowned with signal 
 success. It is not by military defeat that we have incurred po- 
 litical disappointment. 
 
 And as to national ruin, or any real danger, external or in- 
 ternal, to the state, from the failure of this undertaking, and from 
 the judgment of acquittal which it is anticipated the House may 
 pronounce upon the authors of it, I confess they appear to me to 
 be visionary apprehensions. 
 
 That the inquiry which has taken place into this subject was 
 proper and necessary, that it was due to the magnitude of the 
 case and to the feelings of the country, I admit as willingly as 
 any man — I think it will be generally agreed that the inquiry so 
 instituted has been conducted throughout with as much industry 
 and impartiality as temper and moderation. 
 
 I hope it will be felt that those who were implicated in it have 
 
116 EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT. 
 
 not shrunk from the investigation, but have courted it with all 
 becoming deference, and now await the result with all humility, 
 but with all confidence in its justice. 
 
 When that result shall be pronounced, I trust that it will meet 
 the dispassionate acquiesence and approbation of the country. Nor 
 do I fear any shock from the failure of the Expedition to the 
 Scheldt (disastrous and afflicting as it has been,) or from the con- 
 duct of the House upon it, either to the substantial and magnifi- 
 cent fabric of the British Constitution, or to the sound and solid 
 foundation of British greatness and prosperity. And so. Sir, upon 
 every ground of feeling, reason, and principle, I expect, from the 
 justice of the House, a vote in opposition to the resolutions of the 
 noble lord. 
 
 The debate was again adjourned to the following day, (Friday) and after a 
 protracted discussion, the House divided at seven o'clock on the morning of 
 Saturday : — 
 
 For Lord Porchester's Resolutions - - 227 
 Against them ------ 275 
 
 Majority for Ministers - - 48 
 
 Mr. Canning's amendment was carried by a majority of .51, and a resolution 
 (proposed by General Crawford,) was also carried by a majority of 23, declara- 
 tory of the approbation of the House in the retention of Walcheren, and con- 
 sequently approving the conduct of Ministers. 
 
117 
 
 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 JUNE 15th, 1810. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the 
 third reading- of the Vote of Credit Bill. The amount of the vote of credit 
 was £3,000,000. On the question being put — 
 
 Mr. Whitbread took an extensive review of our internal and foreign relations, 
 and dissented from so large a vote of credit, at the same time that he declined 
 dividing the House upoa the question. The principal points in his speech are 
 brought so clearly into view in the following very eloquent speech of Mr. Can- 
 ning, as to supersede the necessity of introducing here a summary of his argu- 
 ments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Canning rose at the same 
 time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave way. 
 
 Mr. Canning then spoke to the following effect: — I should 
 hesitate, Sir, to avail myself of the courtesy of my right honoura- 
 ble friend, especially as there are some topics in the speech of the 
 honourable gentleman (Mr. Whitbread,) to which a person in my 
 right honourable friend's situation, as one of His Majesty's Min- 
 isters, can alone be competent to afford a satisfactory answer, were 
 it not that the honourable gentleman has done me the honour to 
 address himself, in many parts of his speech, personally to me, 
 and in a manner which naturally makes me anxious to reply to 
 him. I trust, therefore, that I shall meet the indulgence of the 
 House, while I state distinctly, but as shortly as I can, the reasons 
 which induce me to give my most cordial assent to the measure 
 which the honourable gentleman opposes. 
 
 As to the grounds which the honourable gentleman has laid for 
 this opposition in the character which he ascribes to the present 
 administration, and the distrust which he professes to feel in them, 
 it is not my intention to follow the honourable gentleman through 
 that part of his speech. I leave these topics to those who may 
 hereafter take part in the debate. It is sufficient for me to say, 
 that whatever might be my general opinion of any administration, 
 yet, if they continued in office at the end of a session of Parlia- 
 ment, I know nothing that would justify me in leaving them, 
 during the recess, unarmed with the means usually placed at the 
 disposal of all administrations, to provide for unforeseen contin- 
 gencies, and to take advantage of' any fortunate, though unexpect- 
 ed change in the situation of Europe. 
 
 A Government does exist, to which His Majesty has intrusted 
 the administration of public affairs, and from which the confidence 
 of Parliament has not been withdrawn. If the determination of the 
 honourable gentleman be to withhold from this Government such 
 
1^8 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 means as have never been hitherto refused to any other, far from 
 approving of the candour which he has shown in putting off his 
 opposition to the last stage of the bill now under discussion, I 
 should have thought that he had acted more consistently with that 
 determination on his part, if he had made some distinct motion 
 for placing the administration of affairs in other hands. To tie 
 up the hands of those who are still left in the conduct of the Gov- 
 ernment, appears to me to be neither a wise mode of marking 
 distrust, nor a happy expedient for remedying imbecility. 
 
 If, then, the present Government be entitled to the usual confi- 
 dence given to every administration, by a vote of credit at the 
 close of the session, there remains only the question as to the 
 amount of that vote — a question of degree, which would equally 
 apply to any government, even to one in which the honourable 
 gentleman could place the most unlimited confidence. That a 
 vote to some amount ought to be granted, is a proposition which, 
 I apprehend, will not be denied, if the functions of the Govern- 
 ment are to be discharged at all, and the affairs of the nation to 
 be at all administered. But the amount of such a vote is undoubt- 
 edly matter fit for discussion, and is to be decided by the view 
 which the House may take of actual and probable circumstances 
 in the situation of the countr3\ 
 
 The view which the honourable gentleman would induce the 
 House to take of those circumstances is such as would justify, in 
 his mind, the withholding of any vote of credit, or, at least, of the 
 vote proposed; though he has not stated exactly in what degree 
 he would desire that vote to be diminished. He foresees no use, 
 at least no advantageous use, that can be made of it. To whatever 
 points he directs his view, all prospect of good seems closed upon 
 him; he looks for nothing from continued exertion but renewed 
 disappointment, and ultimate despair. 
 
 The honourable gentleman, I perceive, (and not without some 
 degree of surprise) has not concluded his speech this night in the 
 same manner as his former annual exhibitions at the close of the 
 session, by a declaration of the necessity of peace, and an avowal 
 of his conviction that the attainment of peace is practicable. If 
 to terminate a contest, into which this country has been forced, 
 and in which it is compelled to continue by the violence and in- 
 justice of the enemy, the honourable gentleman could have con- 
 tended that a safe and honourable peace might be obtained, and 
 had recommended the immediate opening of negotiations for the 
 purpose of obtaining it; however I might be disposed to disagree 
 with the honourable gentleman in that opinion, I should yet be 
 compelled to admit that he had laid some parliamentary ground 
 for the course which he is taking. He might argue, that, if a se- 
 cure and honourable peace, the only legitimate end of all war. 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 119 
 
 could be procured, this House ought not to grant to the Govern- 
 ment the means of meeting the contingencies of unnecessarily- 
 protracted warfare. But as the honourable gentleman appears to 
 have abandoned the opinion which he entertained respecting 
 peace — (" I have not abandoned it," said Mr. Whitbread across 
 the table, " I omitted to state it ") — well then, the honourable 
 member has not abandoned his opinion, but he has omitted to state 
 it: if the omission was voluntary, that honourable gentleman's 
 sentiments have clearly undergone a considerable change; if inad- 
 vertent, it at least shows that he does not feel quite so confidently 
 upon the subject as heretofore; for no man forgets the main arti- 
 cle of his creed while his faith continues unshaken. In either 
 case, therefore, it is obvious that, according to the honourable gen- 
 tleman's own present views we are to look to, and ought to pro- 
 vide for, a state of indefinite, not to say interminable war. 
 
 The observations made by the honourable gentleman respecting 
 the rapid and unexpected changes which have of late years taken 
 place in Europe, appear to me to suggest a reply to much of his 
 general reasoning; because the more frequent these sudden changes, 
 the greater is the chance that some one may be favourable; and 
 the more necessary is it for this House to furnish to the Govern- 
 ment the means of taking advantage of such a change. Let the 
 honourable gentleman retrace the awful and extraordinary events 
 of the last year, and then say that it appears even to him prudent 
 to shut our eyes to the variations of the still shifting scene, and 
 wantonly to put it out of our power to profit of any possible open- 
 ing, not to say of anj^ probable contingency, in our favour ? The 
 honourable gentleman admits that he felt sanguinely in the cause 
 of Spain in the outset; but had he anticipated that glorious strug- 
 gle? Did he foresee or foretell that sudden ebullition of the he- 
 roic spirit of Spain, that simultaneous and universal effort against 
 the formidable French force, which, at the time, occupied every 
 advantageous position in that country? The honourable gentleman 
 augured unfavourably, and expected little, from the result of the 
 war in which Austria embarked last year. He told us so (to do 
 him justice) at the moment when that war broke out. But while 
 he indulged these forebodings, had he any notion that, within the 
 space of one month from the date of his prophecy, such a turn of 
 affairs would have arrived as not only arrested the victorious ca- 
 reer of the enemy, but rendered the issue of the campaign doubt- 
 ful, and, by poising equally for one critical month the chances of 
 the war, opened to the nations of Europe a cheering, though alas! 
 a short lived prospect of deliverance? Was either of these chances 
 foreseen ? Was either of them not worth seizing as it arose ? Argue 
 then from the past to the future, and let the honourable gentleman 
 say whether, in the unsettled and anomalous situation of the con- 
 
120 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 tinent, it is not now equally impossible to foresee what events 
 may burst upon us, in the course of a few months, with as little 
 previous notice as those to wiiich I have referred ? 
 
 But although events are not exhausted, the honourable gentle- 
 man's hopes are so. Is Parliament then not to make provision 
 for any possible case but such a one as may have in it demonstra- 
 ble certainty of success ? Or is there in the present state of the 
 Spanish cause, to which the honourable gentleman's expressions 
 of despondency particularly apply, such utter hopelessness, such 
 irrecoverable exhaustion and decay, that nothing can henceforth 
 be rationally attempted on its behalf; and that on that ground 
 alone, therefore, to prevent a wasteful application of the resources 
 of this country, to an absurd and unattainable object. Government 
 ought to be left without any discretionary power of applying 
 them ? 
 
 If the honourable gentleman is resolved to despair of Spain, I 
 cannot hinder him. But I think I can prove to him that he has 
 no right to despair, on the same principles on which he has des- 
 paired so often during the last fourteen years, (and so often, I am 
 grieved to add, has been justified by the event) respecting the 
 other states of Europe. 
 
 What has been the nature of those former contests — and what 
 the character of the states which have been successively subdued 
 by France? What that of France as compared with them? I 
 speak. Sir, of the earlier stages of the French Revolution, and re- 
 fer to the language then held by the honourable gentleman and his 
 friends. France was then a nascent Republic — the neighbouring 
 nations were governed by old and feeble despotisms — military 
 despotisms, it is true, but feeble from the inherent vices of their 
 constitution. In France, a liberal and enlightened philosophy had 
 brought forth a spirit of revolutionary freedom — had reared this 
 new and formidable birth to a sudden maturity of strength and 
 vigour — had 
 
 " Torn from his tender limbs the bands away, 
 And bade the infant giant rnn and play." 
 
 He did so, and the effete and tottering monarchies of the conti- 
 nent, military despotisms though they were, fell before the first 
 touch of this regenerating conqueror. 
 
 But now the spirit, at least, if not the strength, has changed 
 sides. Finance — as if, according to the doctrines of barbarian su- 
 perstition, the soul of the slain had transmigrated into the slayer — 
 France is herself become a military despotism. She is opposed 
 in that character to the new-born independence of Spain; and, if 
 victory had been faithful to the precepts of the honourable gentle- 
 man and his friends, victory ought no longer to declare in favour 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 121 
 
 of arms which are no longer wielded in the cause of freedom, but 
 in that of tyranny and oppression. 
 
 Victory, indeed, the Spaniards have not to boast. The military 
 power of France has unfortunately outlived the causes which pro- 
 duced it; and in spite of theory, flourishes not only unsupported 
 by freedom, but opposed to it. But yet the theory is not wholly 
 shamed. And, if France has not at once lost her good fortune 
 because she is enslaved, there is yet sufficient distinction between 
 the degrees of resistance opposed to her by Spain and that of any 
 other country, to justify the generous belief, that a truly national 
 spirit is not to be subdued. 
 
 In other instances, when once the French armies had overcome 
 the regular and disciplined, armies of the continent, the conquered 
 Power fell without further effort, and submitted to the will of the 
 conqueror. But is that the case in Spain ? Has the enemy, with 
 all his military superiority, and with all the advantage of having 
 taken the Spaniards unprepared — of having occupied in peace 
 the strong holds, which he afterwards turned to the purposes of 
 war — has he yet succeeded in establishing his will as the law of 
 Spain ? Whatever faults the honourable gentleman may find with 
 the Spaniards, I am sure he cannot accuse them of tame submis- 
 sion; or of a want of persevering exertions in the glorious con- 
 test, into which they have been driven and betrayed. We have 
 seen their armies beaten down, their towns taken and razed; yet 
 have not those calamities broken their spirits. From the ashes of 
 their slaughtered countrymen, and from the smoking ruins of their 
 cities and their hamlets, has burst forth a renovated flame, kindling 
 anew that ardour and enthusiasm, which misfortune may for a time 
 smother and overwhelm, but has not power to extinguish. A 
 people so animated and so resolute may be exterminated, but they 
 cannot be subdued; from each disaster that befalls them they de- 
 rive new energies as they do fresh motives of resistance. Im- 
 mediate and decisive success was not to be expected in such a 
 contest; but surely to have so long protracted the struggle against 
 such an enemy, and under all the disadvantages under which they 
 were forced into it, affords indisputable proof of qualifications in 
 the Spaniards, which demand our admiration and esteem; of a 
 patriotism, a steadiness, a zeal, a perseverance, of which no peo- 
 ple in Europe had hitherto afforded an example. 
 
 The more I contemplate the circumstances of Spain, the more 
 pleasure I derive from the consideration, that the honourable gen- 
 tleman himself, with all the doubts and apprehensions which he 
 professes to entertain, has not thought it wise to recommend any 
 step to be taken with a view to peace. He feels, no doubt, that 
 whilst there remains a chance of rescuing that country from the un- 
 just and tyrannical usurpation of France, it would be as little politic 
 17 M 
 
122 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 as generous to withdraw our assistance from the Peninsula. We 
 cannot do so, unless we are prepared to leave the Peninsula to be 
 occupied by France: and all its means, opportunities, and resources 
 to be immediately employed against ourselves. 
 
 It is not now a question, whether Spain and Portugal shall be 
 suffered to return to a state of neutrality, upon our consenting on 
 one part, and of France on the other, to retire from the Peninsula 
 as from afield of battle; it is not now to be decided whether Ca- 
 diz chall send forth her peaceful fleets of commerce, to pass, un- 
 molested by either belligerent, over the surface of the ocean, and 
 to waft the products of the remote dependencies of Spain, indis- 
 criminately to both: the only question is, whether, by abandoning 
 the footing which we possess in the Peninsula, we shall leave 
 France at liberty to occupy the ground which we abandon, to oc- 
 cupy the ports and arsenals, to seize the naval resources of Spain 
 and Portugal, and to fit out in harbours now in our possession, or 
 under our protection, hostile fleets destined (though destined, I 
 trust, in vain) for the object most dear to the heart, and always 
 uppermost in the thoughts of Buonaparte, the invasion and de- 
 struction of Great Britain. 
 
 We are engaged in the struggle, therefore, inevitably; and have 
 no alternative but to maintain it with vigour, or, declining it, to 
 be prepared to pay, in our own perils, and in exertions for self- 
 defence, the price of our own pusillanimity and baseness. Is this 
 the situation of things, in which the honourable gentleman would 
 recommend to us to pause on our policy — to cease our efforts on 
 behalf of our allies — and to acquiesce in the injustice and usurpa- 
 tion of the enemy? 
 
 But again I ask, what are the grounds of the honourable gen- 
 tleman's despondency ? There has been (says the honourable gen- 
 tleman) no order, no plan, no combination in the military efforts 
 of Spain: and is this wonderful? The population of universal 
 Spain, roused by a sense of insult and injury, and actuated by the 
 powerful and heroic determination to preserve their existence as 
 a people, rose against their invaders, in different and distant parts 
 of the country, rose at once, but without previous concert or com- 
 bination. Who could expect to find in that unparalleled national 
 explosion, at a time, too, when the French troops were in posses- 
 sion of all the strong places of the kingdom, all the order, all the 
 arrangement, all that efiicient organization of means, and all that 
 wise and judicious application of them, which are to be traced in 
 the operations of governments of regular constitution, and estab- 
 lished authority, representing and uniting the general will, and 
 capable of directing the general resources of a country ? But these 
 advantages of regular governments, we know, have been frequent- 
 ly more than counterbalanced by their inherent disadvantages in 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILE. 123 
 
 the tremendous conflicts which, of late years, they have had to 
 sustain. And Spain, with tlic disadvantages which belong to her, 
 has some counterbalancing advantages. If the old governments 
 have fallen an easy prey before the energies of regenerated France, 
 let it be recollected, as I have already had occasion to observe, 
 that the principle from which these energies were supposed to 
 spring, no longer exists; that the spirit of liberty in France has 
 been extinguished; that its republican throes and convulsions have 
 quietly subsided into a military despotism: while, on the other 
 hand, the Spanish nation, rising in vindication of its invaded 
 rights, and for the preservation of its integrity and independence, 
 is animated by every sentiment, and impelled by every motive, 
 which can ensure a determined resistance against tyranny, and a 
 steady devotion to the country's cause. And whilst the Span- 
 iards, true to these motives and these sentiments, continue to main- 
 tain the struggle, can we doubt that it is the first duty, as well as 
 the clearest interest of this country, to afford them all possible as- 
 sistance ? 
 
 I do not mean to deny that, if the object of this war were one 
 of Spanish interest merely, and if it were a question as to the 
 claims of Spain upon this country for support, there may have 
 been — there undoubtedly has been — cause of dissatisfaction, in 
 the conduct of the Spanish Government. The papers upon the ta- 
 ble, the correspondence of Lord Wellington particularly, show, 
 that, in respect to the reception of the British army, there is great 
 reason for complaint, and that, as between Spain and England, 
 Spain has been much in the wrong. But the question now at is- 
 sue is really of a higher order: it relates, indeed, in the first in- 
 stance, to the immediate existence of Spain; but it ultimately and 
 intimately involves the most essential interests of this country — 
 and the hopes, if hope remain, of subjugated, but yet restless Eu- 
 rope. 
 
 Considerations of such magnitude must not give way to the re- 
 sentments — even to the just resentments — of the moment; to dif- 
 ferences between parties whose object and whose interests are so 
 closely united. True, we have a good cause against Spain, and 
 could make out a very sufficient ground of quarrel, if this were 
 the time, if we had at this moment the leisure, and if we had the 
 inclination to bring her to account. But what is our case against 
 Spain compared with the case of Spain, and with our own case, 
 against France? And to whose advantage would it be, but to that 
 of France, if we were now to separate ourselves from the Spanish 
 cause, or to waste in complaint against our ally the season of ac- 
 tion against the enemy ? Our interests demand that we should de- 
 fend the Peninsula to the last extremity; even if we were released 
 by the conduct of Spain from all other obligation; even if honour 
 
124 
 
 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 did not bind us not to abandon ber, whilst there remains a possi- 
 bility of defence. Our citadel lies here, it is true, in this impreg- 
 nable island: but Spain and Portugal are its outworks; and, though 
 I can have no doubt of a glorious triumph, if we should ever have 
 to maintain the contest in this country, I cannot consent to be a 
 party to that chivalrous feeling, that would retreat from the out- 
 works and admit the enemy to the gates, in order that we might 
 have the satisfaction of defeating him under the walls of our for- 
 tress. Our obvious policy, if policy alone were in question, 
 is to keep the war alive in every quarter where France has an 
 enemy in arms, to prevent her from converting those enemies into 
 conscripts for ber armies, to fight our battle with combined, rather 
 than against confederated, nations. 
 
 This, I say, would be the dictate of policy, even if we were to 
 banish from the maxims of a great, a powerful, and a generous 
 nation, those enlarged views of interest, and that just sense of 
 duty, which prescribe to us to resist tyranny, even when exercised 
 against others, and to aid the oppressed, even though our aid may 
 be unsolicited or unacknowledged. 
 
 Let us then continue to aid Spain in spite of her weakness, in 
 spite even of her ingratitude, if she has proved ungrateful; cau- 
 tious where we have found reason to distrust her, but not eagerly 
 seizing on every pretext, which the conduct of her Government 
 might offer for abandoning her to her fate. 
 
 But the faults of the Spanish Government, it is contended, are 
 attributable to us — to the administration in this country, by whom 
 no measures had been taken to procure for Spain a better form of 
 government. Hence the mismanagement of the internal affairs of 
 Spain; and hence, also, the spirit of jealousy manifested by the 
 Spaniards towards this country! 
 
 For my own part, I am desirous to claim my full share of re- 
 sponsibility for all the measures taken by the administration of 
 which I was a member, with respect to Spain, and in relation to 
 its government; a share, which must be the more ample from my 
 having had the honour to fill that department, within the province 
 of which it fell to advise and execute whatever measures were 
 taken on that subject. One point the honourable gentleman will 
 find sufficiently established by the papers laid before Parliament, 
 that no pains were spared, even from the earliest period of our 
 intercourse with Spain, to obtain the establishment of a supreme 
 and central government, which should collect into one point the 
 scattered authorities of the several provincial juntas, and control, 
 and guide, and give consistency and energy to, the whole. This 
 was made the condition of the continuance of our aid: it was the 
 express and sine qua non condition of the employment of a Brit- 
 ish army in Spain. 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 125 
 
 It is true, we did not go so far as to prescribe the precise form 
 of the government so to be constituted. And I am ready to ex- 
 plain, and to defend the grounds of our forbearance in this partic- 
 ular. But let the honourable gentleman look at Mr. Stuart's cor- 
 respondence — the first British agent sent to Spain. He will find 
 Mr. Stuart constantly insisting upon the establishment of one uni- 
 form government, and stating that as the condition of sending a 
 British military force into Spain. At length this point was ac- 
 complished. 
 
 As to the characters of the persons composing the supreme 
 government, for which the honourable gentleman would make me 
 responsible, because I was, as he affirms, the warm panegyrist of 
 the Spanish Junta, I beg leave, in the first place, to ask the hon- 
 ourable gentleman by what possible knowledge, by what intuition, 
 rather, I could be prepared, not only to stipulate for the establish- 
 ment of a supreme central government, but to dictate the selec- 
 tion of the members who were to compose it ? What could I know 
 of them but from the communications of the British agent? And 
 when, in despatches received previously to the formation of the 
 Junta, the names of distinguished persons in Spain, of Florida 
 Blanca, Saavedra, and Jovellanos, were stated to be in the mouths 
 of every body, as the fittest persons to be intrusted with the con- 
 duct of the government; and when I found by the first despatch 
 transmitted after the establishment of the government, that these 
 persons were actually appointed, not only members of the Junta, 
 but to the leading situations of the executive government, could 
 I possibly have supposed, that they were not, as they had been 
 previously represented to me, the most proper persons in Spain, 
 to whom that high and important trust could have been commit- 
 ted ? or that the government, which had the sanction of their ap- 
 probation, and the advantage of their assistance, was not the best, 
 upon the whole, that could be put together under the very difficult 
 circumstances of the country? The eulogium, therefore, which I 
 am accused by the honourable gentleman of having pronounced 
 upon the members of the Supreme Junta, was not, because it 
 could not be, the result of personal knowledge on my part; nor was 
 it so imposed by me upon the House: neither could it by any fair 
 construction render me in any degree responsible for the consist- 
 ency of their conduct with the tenor of my representations. What 
 I said here, was, in fact, but the echo of the voice of the Spanish 
 nation conveyed to me through the medium of official reports, 
 and repeated by me to this House and to the world. I conceived 
 it an act of justice to the Junta, and an act of duty to my coun- 
 try, whose interests were so intimately connected with the ex- 
 istence of an efficient government in Spain, to affiard every en- 
 
126 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 couragement in my power, to a government professing that char- 
 acter, and represented to me as deserving it. 
 
 If the Junta disappointed the hopes which were entertained of 
 it — if it either wanted the energy or the authority, which it was 
 intended to possess — undoubtedly there is much cause for regret; 
 but there is none for blame as to the administration here, unless 
 it can be shown, that some other form of government in Spain 
 would have been obviously preferable, and also could have been, 
 with equal facility, and at an equally early period, obtained. For, 
 let it not be forgotten how precious were the moments of this 
 glorious and unexpected opportunity! — let it not be forgotten that, 
 while on the one hand it was necessary for the ultimate and per- 
 manent success of the Spanish cause, that the efforts of the nation 
 should be combined and directed" by one presiding authority, it 
 was no less necessary for its immediate safety, that the enemy, 
 once taken by surprise, should not be allowed to recover from the 
 first shock of the insurrection! Had we then time to pick and 
 choose, even if we had had the means of judging, and had con- 
 ceived a sound and rational preference for one form of provision- 
 al government over another? Were the feelings of the country 
 here disposed to give us time ? What would my right honourable 
 friend (Mr. Sheridan,) who has so repeatedly renewed his notice 
 of a motion respecting the campaign in Spain, and of whose pres- 
 ence I should have been extremely glad on the present occa- 
 sion, what would he say to the charge of the honouranle gentle- 
 man, that we had too hastily acquiesced in the form of govern- 
 ment established by the Spaniards? he, who two years ago, when 
 no deputation had been received in this country, except from the 
 Asturias, one of the smallest of the Spanish provinces, and con- 
 sisting of a rocky and mountainous tract, though containing a 
 brave, a loyal, and independent population, reproached the Ad- 
 ministration with being too tardy in adopting the Spanish cause, 
 too timid in hesitating to give it at once every possible assistance 
 and support? I should wish to know whether my right honoura- 
 ble friend, who then reproached us for having paused, before we 
 determined to act, on the solicitation of a single province, would 
 now condemn us for having supported the Spanish people with 
 all the means of this country, after deputations had been received 
 from the north, and from the south, and when we had a certain- 
 ty of the whole nation having determined to rise as one man 
 against their unprincipled oppressors ? Would he, who thought us 
 wanting to the interests of this country and of the world, because 
 we did not send fleets and armies to the port of Gijon, when that 
 port alone (for aught we knew,) was open to us throughout the 
 whole coasts of the Peninsula; who stimulated us to action, when 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 127 
 
 a single principality had taken up arms against the French, and 
 therewith, for aught that we could know, against the rest of Spain 
 also; when, what turned out undoubtedly to be a faithful specimen 
 of a general national effort, might have been, for aught that we 
 could know, the insulated and unsupported burst of mere provin- 
 cial patriotism ? Would he, I say, or any rational man, have de- 
 sired that when not Asturias, but all Spain had declared itself; when 
 what might hav§ been a partial, proved to be the universal senti- 
 ment of the nation; when the will of the whole country was ex- 
 pressed beyond the possibility of misapprehension, would any man 
 have thought that it was then our duty to boggle about the precise 
 shape and denomination of the presiding government, by which 
 the collective will was to be provisionally represented and em- 
 bodied? 
 
 In a crisis of such extraordinary novelty, and such transcendent 
 importance; when interests so mighty were committed to the is- 
 sue of the struggle; and where that issue, after all that could be 
 done, was necessarily so hazardous and uncertain; it was impossi- 
 ble to take any step, or to oifer any counsel, which must not at 
 the time, be felt and acknowledged to be of doubtful and ques- 
 tionable policy; and to which it was not foreseen, that in the 
 event of a disastrous result, that disaster would be, however un- 
 justly, ascribed ! But in this difficulty of choice, were we to do 
 nothing, were we to counsel nothing, till the use of counsel and the 
 period of action were past? Or were we at some risk, but with a 
 determined purpose, conscious of a just end, though necessarily 
 less confident in our means, to take the course which appeared 
 upon the whole liable to the fewest objections ? 
 
 Gentlemen talk very glibly now of what might have been, and 
 what ought to have been, our mode of proceeding. Some would 
 have done nothing, the safest opinion of all: but they must have 
 found another Ministry to act upon their opinion, and another 
 people, than such a one as the people of England were in June 
 1808, to countenance and support them in doing so. 
 
 Some think, that we ought to have insisted upon the immediate 
 assembling of the Cortes; some, that we ought not to have ac- 
 knowledged Ferdinand at all; others again, that we ought not to 
 have stipulated for (in truth, we did not stipulate, they mean that 
 we ought directly to have discountenanced) the monarchical con- 
 stitution in Spain. A word upon each of these suggestions. 
 
 And first, as to our acknowledgment of Ferdinand VII., or, as 
 it is sometimes stated, our imposition of him upon the Spanish 
 people. On the one hand, it is said, that by acknowledging Ferdi- 
 nand VII. as King of Spain, in exclusion of his father, we thereby 
 gave a sanction to the principle and the practice of the revolu- 
 tionary deposition of sovereigns; whilst on the other hand, we 
 
128 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 are accused of making the preservation of monarchy in Spain 
 the peremptory condition of our assistance. Nothing, however, 
 could be more unfounded than either and both of these charges. 
 Perhaps, in any other kingdom of Europe, we should have been 
 slow to recognize the accession of the son before the demise of 
 the father. But in Spain, the elevation of the son by the volun- 
 tary resignation of the father is familiar to the people by the re- 
 corded transactions of some of the brightest periods of their his- 
 tory. There was therefore no ground for jealousy at such an 
 event, unless there had been good cause for suspicion respecting 
 the means by which it had been accomplished. The resignation 
 of Charles V., their greatest monarch, and of Philip V., the 
 founder of the Bourbon Dynasty in Spain, who subsequently re- 
 sumed the reins of government on the death of his son, to whom 
 he had transferred them, must be in the recollection of every 
 gentleman who hears me: and with these precedents before us, 
 and whilst there existed no ground whatever for suspicion, the 
 Government of this country was bound to consider the resigna- 
 tion of Charles as voluntary, and the accession of Ferdinand as 
 legitimate, according to the usage of the Spanish monarchy. As 
 to the charge of imposing Ferdinand, and in his person monarchy, 
 on Spain; why, Sir, the name of Ferdinand resounded from every 
 corner of the kingdom; it became the watch-word of Spanish 
 patriotism; the pledge of popular enthusiasm; the bond and 
 cement of national union; the charm, before which all separate 
 interests, all discordant passions and prejudices faded away. It 
 was no suggestion, no fancy of ours; we found this symbol of 
 Spanish loyalty interwoven with every part of the Spanish cause. 
 It was the burden of every oral, and the stamp and sanction of 
 every written communication, which, in my official character, it 
 was my duty and my happiness to receive from the Spanish 
 agents or ministers. It was not left to our option, whether Spain 
 should be a monarchy under Ferdinand VII. If we had denied 
 Ferdinand they would have disclaimed us; if we had stipulated 
 against monarchy we should have been repudiated by Spain. 
 
 I say not this as a matter of defence; I state the plain truth. 
 Upon this point we have no responsibility, because we had 
 nothing to decide. Upon every principle by which our conduct 
 could be guided, whether drawn from legal precedent, or from 
 the unequivocal demonstrations of national feeling, we could look 
 upon Ferdinand VII. in no other light, than as being at once the 
 lawful Monarch of Spain,- by the established constitution of the 
 kingdom, and the Sovereign of the nation's affections, the King 
 of the people's choice. 
 
 But then we should have insisted on the assembling of the 
 Cortes, the ancient, legal, recognized estates of the realm — whereas 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL,, 129 
 
 we acknowledged the weak and incapable authority of the Su- 
 preme Junta. First, as I have before argued, what right had we 
 to criticise the form of that institution, or the pretensions of the 
 members? Was it not enough that we were assured of its having 
 the sanction and the confidence of the Spanish nation; and were 
 we not justified thereby in recognizing the Junta as representa- 
 tive of the authority of the legitimate sovereign during the 
 period of his most unfortunate absence and captivity? Let us 
 only look back to a memorable instance in our own history, I 
 mean the glorious Revolution of 1688, and judge what would 
 have been the consequence, if the proceedings of tliat period had 
 been criticised with too scrupulous nicety, or required to have 
 been conducted with all the solemnity and precision of the most 
 minute forms and established precedents ? What might have been 
 the consequences of such a scrupulous adherence to established 
 ceremonials, such an appeal to ancient usage, at a period, when 
 the novelty of the circumstances and the urgency of the case 
 called for the adoption of extraordinary measures, if William the 
 Third had refused to take upon himself the government before 
 the meeting of the convention, because the address to him to do 
 so proceeded from an irregular authority — from a few members 
 of extinct Parliaments, gathered together in haste, with the lord 
 mayor, aldermen, and common council of the city of London ; 
 if he had declined taking any share in administering the aflairs 
 of the kingdom, or affording any assistance to the nation, until a 
 Parliament, summoned by regular writs, and assembled with all 
 the forms of the constitution, should have ceremoniously invested 
 him with the powers of the executive government? The case of 
 Spain was still more urgent, because at the very moment, when, 
 it is said, we should have waited for all the tardy forms and all 
 the regular process of the old constitution of Spain for the elec- 
 tion, and assembly of the Cortes, the French troops were in pos- 
 session of all the fortresses of the country. At such a moment, 
 it was rather to be considered as miraculous, that the Spaniards 
 should have found in each of the several provinces a spot whereon 
 to plant the standard of resistance, than to be exj)ected, that they 
 should be able to conduct the election of the Cortes with all the 
 requisite solemnities, and with all the deliberation, which would 
 have been necessary to find out what those solemnities were. 
 For let it not be forgotten, that these same Cortes had been long 
 disused; that, when last assembled, they had been assembled in 
 mere form, and to register the edicts of the crown; that the Cor- 
 tes of Arragon and Castile have never been brought to act cor- 
 dially together, even if brought together at all, except by com- 
 pulsory means; that many of the provinces, foremost in the great 
 struggle against France, had not the privilege of sending repre- 
 
 19 
 
130 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 sentatives to the Cortes; that Asturias had never sent any, Gal- 
 licia seldom if ever — certainly not uniformly, nor of custom and 
 right; and that to the two provinces therefore, which were the 
 earliest in their application to us for assistance, if we had answer- 
 ed, " assemble the Cortes," they might have replied, " with the 
 Cortes we have nothing to do;" that to bring into shape and into 
 action this grand but obsolete machinery, would have required 
 deep and laborious research into records and registers; that per- 
 haps after all a representative might have been produced less 
 satisfactory to the nation at large, than that which sprang from 
 their own concurrent though irregular impulse; but that, at all 
 events, much precious time must have been lost in the process, 
 and that while we were discussing antiquated forms and adjusting 
 contested elections, the enemy would have rallied from his first 
 consternation, and effected the conquest of the country. 
 
 That the assembling of the Cortes would be a wise and salu- 
 tary measure, when it could be effected peaceably and regularly, 
 no doubt was entertained; and accordingly the Junta were ad- 
 vised, and had determined to make it one of their first acts. But 
 I am not surprised, for one, that it was not earlier effected. I 
 doubt whether a general election could be speedily accomplished 
 here after a long disuse of Parliaments, and with an enemy occu- 
 pying all the country north of Trent. And I cannot but make 
 some allowance for the Spanish Government, when I recollect, 
 that at almost every period since the establishment of the Junta, 
 the French have been masters of Arragon and of the greatest part 
 of the countries behind Ebro. 
 
 In truth, the uniform experience of all similar revolutions 
 shows that time only and practice can safely be relied on for 
 modeling and perfecting the form of a government, struck out at 
 a heat, as it were, by the immediate necessity of the occasion. 
 The natural effect of the pressure of the immediate exigency is, 
 in all such cases, it was in this, to unite in one body the two dis- 
 tinct branches of the legislative and executive authority. The 
 equally natural tendency of experience is, to show the expediency 
 of separating these authorities as soon as proper depositories can 
 be found or contrived for them. A Regent, or a Regency, for 
 the one, and the Cortes for the other, formed obviously the natu- 
 ral division of the combined authorities of the Junta. And, 
 even if we had had the right, and the leisure to prescribe the 
 course which should be taken, I doubt whether it would have 
 been wise to insist upon erecting these separate powers in the 
 first instance; whether the Junta, or something like the Junta, 
 was not a necessary stage, preparatory to the more regular distri- 
 bution of the functions of the government. It is plain that the 
 Regency could be claimed by no one, without something like the 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 131 
 
 form of a choice, and something, or somebody to choose it. And 
 it may be doubted, whether, if the Cortes had been called at once, 
 they would have been contented with their own share of author- 
 ity and power; whether the Cortes assembled in the first instance 
 and exigency would not have been, in fact, a Junta under another 
 name. At any rate, these were questions exclusively of domestic 
 cognizance, upon which it was neither our duty, nor our right to 
 dictate to Spain, if we had been competent to do so. Much less 
 should we have been justified in withholding our assistance, until 
 this most delicate, difficult, and perplexing question should have 
 been settled to our satisfaction, at a period so critical to the exist- 
 ence of Spain as a nation, that the delay of a moment might have 
 been ruin to the cause. 
 
 Such then were the principles on which the Government, of 
 which I was a member, acted; and such are the answers which I 
 offer to the several clashing and contradictory charges of having 
 been too precipitate, and of having been too dilatory; of having 
 exacted too much, and of having exacted too little from Spain; 
 of having dictated improperly the constitution of the government, 
 and of having suffered the government to constitute itself 
 
 The truth is, that we interfered to the extent, to which we had 
 a right to interfere, and no further, when we insisted that there 
 should be a central government formed, before a British army 
 entered Spain. 
 
 Sir, in following the honourable gentleman next to his observa- 
 tions on the conduct of the war, I pass over the campaign of Sir 
 John Moore, because it has been, heretofore, the subject of ample 
 and detailed discussion; and because the honourable gentleman 
 himself has very properly avoided dwelling upon it this night. I 
 come now therefore to the operations of last summer. The hon- 
 ourable gentleman has condemned in strong terms the impolicy, 
 the madness, as he calls it, of sending another army into Spain, 
 after the dear-bought and fatal experience which we had acquired 
 in the campaign which terminated in the battle of Corunna. But 
 here the honourable gentleman assumes what is not the fact, in 
 order to make his unfounded assumption the ground of a charge 
 to which His Majesty's Government is not justly liable. The 
 army of Lord Wellington was not sent out to penetrate into 
 Spain; it was sent out to liberate Portugal from the yoke of the 
 French; to provide for the security of that kingdom against any 
 fresh attack; and, so far as could be done consistently with these 
 objects, and so far only, upon any favourable occasion that might 
 be presented, to co-operate with the Spanish generals and armies 
 in the provinces of Spain, that border on the Portuguese frontier. 
 Would the honourable gentleman then have left the British gene- 
 ral inactive in Portugal, after having accomplished the first object 
 
132 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 of his expedition by the expulsion of the enemy from that coun- 
 try ? or would he have restricted him from extending the line of 
 his operations with a view to the relief of Spain, when that could 
 be done without abandoning or endangering the other object for 
 which the force under him was immediately destined ? Would 
 he blame Lord Wellington for availing himself of the latitude 
 given him by his instructions, occasionally to lengthen the chain 
 which bound him to the frontiers of Portugal ? Would he have 
 prevented him from pursuing that course which brought on the 
 battle, and led to the brilliant victory of Talavera; a victory 
 which covered the British arms with unfading laurels, and crown- 
 ed the gallant general and his brave troops with immortal glory ? 
 But, says the honourable gentleman, that victory was barren. 
 Barren undoubtedly it was, if you know no fruits of victory but 
 districts overrun, fortresses taken, extent of territory acquired; 
 yet not barren but fruitful: not unproductive, but as advantageous 
 as brilliant, if you take into account, that it immediately opened 
 the gates of Cadiz, and that it will hereafter open to you the ports 
 of Spanish America. These are advantages which far outweigh 
 the ordinary military results of a victory. But even were the effects 
 of all our exertions confined to the prolonging the struggle against 
 France in European Spain, so thoroughly am I convinced of the 
 policy of supporting that struggle to the last extremity, that were 
 the question at this moment a new and undecided question; were 
 our armies and our fleets hitherto not engaged, nor our faith 
 pledged in the cause, I should be of opinion, that it would be the 
 duty no less than it would be the interest of this country, even 
 now to begin our efforts in aid of the Peninsula, if now, for the 
 first time, we were called upon to begin them. 
 
 It is not, however, only with respect to Spain itself, to the for- 
 mation and control of her Government, and to the conduct of the 
 war in the Peninsula, that we are accused of great and sinful neg- 
 ligences and omissions, but with respect to the Spanish colonies 
 we are said to have been criminally neglectful. We have been 
 told to-night, in the course of a discussion upon another subject, 
 that we should have made it a condition of our alliance with the 
 Government of Spain, that the Spaniards should give up the slave 
 trade in their colonies. The honourable gentleman (Mr. Brough- 
 am,) who made that observation, must be aware, that it would 
 have been much easier to declare, than to effectuate, our wishes in 
 such a case. I am as anxious as that honourable gentleman for 
 the total extermination of that abominable trade, and with him I 
 am ready to allow that we ought to make every sacrifice to prin- 
 ciple, whenever such sacrifice may be likely to advance the prin- 
 ciple* but I very much question, whether, by such a proposition, 
 premat»r«»ly brought forward, we might not have thrown the 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILE. 133 
 
 Spanish colonies into the arms of France, without at all advancing 
 the object of humanity. England and the abolition, on one side, 
 might possibly have had but an unfavourable competition against 
 Buonaparte and unlimited slave trade on the other, in bidding for 
 the affections of the colonies. 
 
 Sir, I have noticed this subject incidentally, only to show, that, 
 in the colonial, no less than in the European part of this great po- 
 litical question, the course which the British Government have 
 had to steer, has not been altogether plain sailing — has not been 
 so little embarrassed with difficulties of different kinds, as to en- 
 title gentlemen to turn round upon the King's Ministers and make 
 it matter of charge against them, that they have not provided for 
 every interest, and secured the operation of every principle, which 
 they and we may concur in our desire to promote and to main- 
 tain. It is true, it is perfectly true, as gentlemen are fond of ob- 
 serving, that Spain is a country of prejudice and of bigotry: bigotry 
 and prejudice, however, not without their use in such a contest as 
 that in which they are engaged — prejudice which exalts the spirit 
 of patriotism by the rooted preference for their own manners and 
 institutions — and bigotry, which, if it is akin to intolerance on 
 one side, is allied to perseverance on the other; which, however 
 to be deprecated as an active principle, is of powerful operation 
 in inspiring resistance, and sustaining courage under oppression. 
 I am not sure that, balancing the good and evil of such qualities, 
 I would strip the Spanish nation of them, in their present cir- 
 cumstances, if I could. But it is enough for my argument that I 
 could not, if I would. And, with this conviction, nothing can 
 be more unreasonable than to make it matter of reproach to the 
 British Government, that they have not, at the same time that 
 they were aiding the Spaniards in a struggle for the preservation 
 of the mother country, been able, or attempted, to engage them 
 to revise the whole system of their colonial polity, to adopt refor- 
 mations and improvements, which, if they had been disposed to 
 adopt them, they might have found it impossible to reconcile to 
 the feelings of the colonies, and equally impossible to enforce 
 against those feelings, at a time when the circumstances of the 
 war must necessarily have loosened the ties of colonial allegiance. 
 
 Advice, however, has not been withheld, nor has the Spanish 
 Government shown itself unwilling to listen to the advice which 
 has been offered to them, for extending privileges to the colonies, 
 and uniting them closer with the mother country by community 
 of rights and of interests. To promote this union has been the 
 object of our policy. Some, I know, are of opinion, that we 
 ought rather to have played a separate game with the colonies. 
 The honourable gentleman who spoke last, has alluded to the ben- 
 efits, which might be derived to this country from a connexion 
 
 N 
 
134 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 with Spanish America altogether distinct from Spain. I have 
 only to ohserve, that in my opinion, if any advantages are to re- 
 sult to us from a connexion with the Spanish trans-atlantic colo- 
 nies, we should rather wait for them as a reversion, as the reward 
 of the success, or the consolation under the reverses of the Eu- 
 ropean struggle, than consider them as a temptation to the prema- 
 ture abandonment of the mother country. With these feelings 
 deeply impressed upon my mind, I shall never consent that the 
 hand of Great Britain should be laid, in untimely interference, 
 for the sake of immediate gain upon Spanish America. I shall 
 never be one of those, who, professing the warmest wishes for the 
 success of Spain, would aim the most deadly blow at her exist- 
 ence, by robbing her of those foreign dependencies, now more 
 than ever necessary to enable her to maintain her independence, 
 by prosecuting to a successful issue the mortal contest in which 
 she is engaged. Still less will I consent to starve the Spanish 
 cause, for the sake of hastening that consummation of evil, which, 
 if it is not to be averted, may yet be delayed; and of profiting by 
 the rich spoil, which we may gather in Spanish America, after 
 European Spain has fallen. I cannot bring inyself to contemplate 
 the fate of Spain, as our inimitable dramatic poet describes one of 
 his most exquisitely drawn characters, Shylock, contemplating 
 the fate of his daughter, who had fled from him with a heap of 
 gold and jewels — while he is lamenting her flight, and his friends 
 undertake to console him with the hope, that after all she may be 
 still alive, he presently undeceives them as to the real cause of his 
 wailing. It is not his daughter, but his treasure, that is upper- 
 most in his thoughts. " As for her," says he, " would she lay 
 dead at my feet, with the jewels in her ear; would she were cof- 
 fined at my feet, so that my ducats were in her coffin!" So it is 
 that the honourable gentleman and others appear to think of Spain: 
 they think of the money that she has cost us; they think of the 
 little return in profit that she has made to us; they look to the ad- 
 vantages, which we may hope to inherit after her struggle is well 
 over; and they are disposed rather to blame the obstinacy of that 
 struggle, and to deplore the length of that agony, which keeps us 
 out of our expected inheritance. 
 
 And yet, Sir, surely the coldest heart, the most calculating 
 head, cannot but be warmed and exalted by such a spectacle as 
 Spain afibrds to the world ! There can surely be but one feeling 
 in this House with regard to the character of the Spanish cause: 
 no man can entertain a doubt that a contest of such a description 
 ought to succeed: and, if in spite of all the difficulties, which the 
 Spaniards have had to encounter (and formidable those difficulties 
 have been,) they have contended with unbroken spirit, though 
 with various fortunes, against the gigantic power of France, in a 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 135 
 
 manner, and for a period, to shame by the comparison the efforts 
 of almost all the nations of the continent, I must again ask, why 
 are we to despair? I cannot bring myself yet to despair of the 
 ultimate success of Spain, because I would fain believe in the suc- 
 cess of any people, that shall act upon the same principle, and 
 persevere with the same courage, in so righteous a cause; because 
 I would not despair of ourselves under similar circumstances. 
 
 If the enemy should pass those outworks, which the line ot 
 policy recommended by the honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. 
 Whitbread,) would level: if ever we shall have to contend against 
 that enemy on British ground, I trust that our resistance will be 
 signal, and his defeat certain: but I doubt how far we can expect 
 to exceed the example which is set to us by the Spaniards. In 
 prowess in the field, no doubt we shall, and must exceed them, 
 because that depends upon a variety of circumstances and advan- 
 tages, which the Spanish nation did not possess; not on valour 
 only, but on skill — on discipline in the soldier — on science and 
 experience in the officer — and, above all, upon an efficient Gov- 
 ernment to organize the establishments, to provide for the accom- 
 modation, and to dii'ect the movements of the various masses of 
 individuals that compose an army. In these particulars, unques- 
 tionably we shall have greatly the advantage of the Spaniards; 
 but in other qualities, not less essentially necessary for maintain- 
 ing a defensive struggle — in firmness under defeat — in content- 
 ment under privations — in patience and long suffering, we may 
 equal, but I doubt, if we can go beyond them. 
 
 Let any gentleman who hears me, ask his own mind, and ask 
 impartially whether he can answer for the town or city near which 
 he lives, that if attacked in the same way, it would rival in its 
 defence the heroic perseverence of Saragossa or Gerona? If any 
 man, who confides (as I trust every man does) in the ability of 
 this country to defend itself against any force of the enemy, yet 
 hesitates how far he can answer this question in the affirmative, 
 that man has no right to despair of the eventual triumph of Spain. 
 
 The contest is not at an end. The French, it cannot be denied, 
 have gained very considerable advantages, and the Spaniards have 
 on the other hand suffered most severely. But the fortress of Ca- 
 diz, containing the principal arsenal and the principal naval means 
 of Spain, and garrisoned in part by British troops, detains before 
 it a large portion of the French army; no impression of a serious 
 nature has been made upon the defences of that important place; 
 every day brings fresh accounts of the unabated enthusiasm dis- 
 played by the population of the various provinces; the French 
 troops are harassed in their movements, and straitened in their 
 quarters, by the desultory activity of the Spanish peasants; their 
 supplies cut off, and their communications intercepted: place all 
 
136 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 these things before your eyes, and then say, if it be at such a 
 time, and under such circumstances, that we are to withdraw our- 
 selves from the support of Spain, and to leave the Peninsula to 
 the mercy of its ruthless oppressors ? 
 
 I have said that there is a British garrison in Cadiz. I admit 
 to the honourable gentlemen that some jealousy has been mani- 
 fested by the Spanish Government upon this subject. I must, 
 however, in this respect, do justice to the Spanish Government, 
 It is true, that I thought it my duty to press earnestly for the ad- 
 mittance of a British force into Cadiz, after the failure of the first 
 campaign, and to make that admittance the siiie qua non condi- 
 tion of ever again sending British troops into Spain. It is equal- 
 ly true, that the Spanish Government would not at that time con- 
 sent to receive them. But it is no less true, that in such refusal, 
 and in the explanation given of the cause of it, I did not find any 
 just ground for supposing that it had proceeded from distrust in 
 the British Government. A Government, depending for its ex- 
 istence, and certainly for its authority, wholly upon public opinion, 
 and aware of the jealousy, (for some jealousy of us did most cer- 
 tainly prevail amongst the people of Spain,) with which the na- 
 tion might view the introduction, at that critical period, of foreign 
 troops into one of their most important naval stations, might feel 
 itself obliged to decline opening the gates of Cadiz to a British 
 corps, until an adequate and obvious necessity for that measure 
 had arisen. But although the admittance of our troops was in 
 the first instance refused on these grounds, I never had a doubt, 
 but that they would be received whenever the necessity became 
 obvious. The period of necessity has since arrived, and the 
 event has most fully justified my expectation. Cadiz is now oc- 
 cupied by British conjointly with Spanish troops: the pledge of 
 that alliance by which Spain may yet be rescued and saved. Whilst 
 Cadiz is safe, Spain is not lost; and while all is not yet lost, all is 
 ultimately retrievable. 
 
 The French army has achieved and may continue to achieve 
 the conquest of province after province; but it has not been, and 
 will not be able to maintain such conquests in a country, where 
 the influence of the conqueror does not extend beyond the limits 
 of his military posts! where authority is confined within the for- 
 tresses which he garrisons, or the cantonments which he occupies; 
 where all that is behind him, and before him, and around him, is 
 sullen discontent, and meditated vengeance — unconquerable re- 
 sistance, and inextinguishable hate. 
 
 And if the Spaniards have their sufferings to endure, at what 
 price do the French carry on this war? At a price which no 
 former war with the other Powers of Europe has ever cost them. 
 The honourable gentleman indeed, has lamented, that we should 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 137 
 
 be parties, as he expressed himself, to the system of warfare pur- 
 sued by the Spaniards, which he describes as transgressing the 
 limits of legitimate hostility. I would entreat the House to con- 
 trast that sentiment with what fell from the same honourable gen- 
 tleman in a former debate, when another honourable member de- 
 tailed to the House the abominable atrocities committed by the 
 French on their approach to the Isle of Leon. On that occasion 
 the honourable gentleman affected to discredit the statement of 
 crimes so shocking in the recital, and warmly deprecated the in- 
 troduction of such horrible details into the discussions in this 
 House, lest their circulation should have the effect of substituting 
 wicked enormities of that description for the more humane spirit 
 of generous warfare! Generous warfare! Good God! the gener- 
 ous warfare begun by Buonaparte against unoffending Spain! the 
 generosity of him, — the outrageous violator of every sacred obli- 
 gation, the bloody and unfeeling destroyer of the rights of sove- 
 reigns, and the independence of nations! Far am I, as far as any 
 man, from justifying the commission, under any circumstances, 
 of excesses, which deform the character, and brutalise the feelings 
 of man. But the crime and the shame are in the original perpe- 
 trator. There are insults and injuries, which to have endured at 
 the hand of an oppressor, degrades a man in his own esteem, and 
 forces him to recover his level by a signal and terrible revenge. 
 Such are the inflictions, which the French armies have poured 
 out upon the Spaniards. If ever acts of ferocious retaliation 
 might admit of extenuation, it is in such a cause, and upon such 
 provocation as they have received, from an enemy unrestrained 
 in his career of ambition and blood, by any law human or divine. 
 
 Such is, in my opinion, the justification of the Spaniards 
 Thus they defend and avenge their invaded country — their pil- 
 laged and desolated homes — their murdered parents — their vio- 
 lated wives and daughters — and who shall say, that such ven- 
 geance is not justified in the eyes of God and man? Who shall 
 pretend that the assailant of unoffending and defenceless inno- 
 cence is privileged from resistance or retaliation; that the invader 
 has a right to make his inroad when he thinks fit, to commit 
 what excesses he pleases; — but that he is only to be met in the 
 listed field and by regular battalions — that the cottage or the altar 
 are to be defended or avenged only by an enrolled soldiery; that 
 the peaceful population of a country must be passive under eve^y 
 species of outrage and of wrong ? 
 
 That our army has had any share in committing or countenanc- 
 ing such excesses is not pretended, and would not admit of ex- 
 cuse. Our business with the enemy is in the field. But that I 
 should, therefore, whine over his sufferings and his losses — that I 
 should deny or disguise the satisfaction which I derive from the 
 20 N* 
 
i3S VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 consideration that every French soldier, who falls a sacrifice to 
 Spanish vengeance, is one oppressor the less, for the rest of the 
 nations of the world — v^ould be a hypocrisy, which I disdain. 
 Long may the struggle be! And be its course as deathful to the 
 French armies as heretofore! One French army has already been 
 worn down and destroyed in Spain: and I know no precept of 
 humanity that forbids me to exult in the prospect of a similar fate 
 awaiting those who are now the instruments of tyranny and 
 violence. 
 
 War is unavoidably attended with calamities, as well as with 
 glories. Its glories are sullied and darkened by its calamities: 
 its calamities redeemed — or in part redeemed — by its glories. 
 But if we accustom ourselves to look only at one side of the pic- 
 ture in the case of an enemy, and at the other in our own; — at all 
 that is gloomy on one part, and all that is brilliant on the other — 
 if we count for the enemy all that he gains, and all that we lose 
 — but for ourselves only our positive gains, without admitting 
 into the account the losses of the enemy: against such a mode of 
 calculating results, no spirit can long stand unimpaired: — we go 
 to the field already half subdued: we may entitle ourselves to 
 commendation for the fineness of our sympathies; but we are ut- 
 terly unfitted for continuing the contest. 
 
 I fear that I may have detained the House to an unpardonable 
 length upon the subject of Spain; though I feel it even now diffi- 
 cult to tear myself from it. I hope, however, that my excuse 
 for having dwelt upon it so long may be found in the share which 
 I personally had in the counsels and measures of this Gov- 
 ernment at the commencement of the Spanish struggle, and in 
 the desire, which I naturally feel, that these counsels and mea- 
 sures should be distinctly and fairly understood; but, above all, 
 in my earnest zeal for the success of our allies, and for the con- 
 tinuance of our effective support of a cause involving as much 
 our interests as our glory. 
 
 I shall now proceed to follow the honourable gentleman briefly 
 into one or two of the other topics, to which he has alluded. As 
 to the statements made by the honourable gentleman with respect 
 to Sicily; to the disaflfeetion of its inhabitants; to the probable 
 change in the policy of the Sicilian Government, and the conse- 
 quent critical situation of the British army in that island, I shall 
 only assert, as an individual (having no official knowledge to sup- 
 port my assertion,) that I believe his opinions and his apprehen- 
 sions to be unfounded. I do not believe that there is any corres- 
 pondence open between Buonaparte and the Queen of Naples. 
 I have not seen the letter to which the honourable gentleman 
 refers, but from the description of it, I should doubt if it be 
 
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 139 
 
 As to the effect of the Austrian marriage upon the politics of 
 the court of Palermo, I cannot oblige the honourable gentleman 
 to forego his conjecture, though I do not agree with him in it. I 
 will only say by the way, that I am glad to miss, in the honourable 
 gentleman's speech of to-night, the epithet of "/e/Za"," which he 
 applied on a former night to this inauspicious alliance. The 
 painter of old, when he drew the picture of the sacrifice of 
 Iphigenia, despairing to express the workings of anguish and 
 shame in the countenance of the father, by whom she was sacri- 
 ficed, hid Agamemnon's face in his robe; so would I have the 
 honourable gentleman deal on this occasion with the Emperor of 
 Austria, and, at least, not insult his paternal feelings by ascribing 
 to them the character of " felicity." 
 
 But whatever may be the soundness of the honourable gentle- 
 man's speculations in respect to the ultimate policy and conduct 
 of the court of Sicily, I am not prepared to recommend the anti- 
 cipation of treachery: I cannot agree, therefore, with the honour- 
 able gentleman to withhold the Vote of Credit, unless part of it 
 should be expended in defeating the designs of the enemy upon 
 Sicily, and keeping him out of possession of it too long. I am 
 still less prepared (even if that were a cheap expedient) to seize 
 on Sicily for ourselves. 
 
 From Sicily — declaring, that in Europe he sees nothing to re- 
 quire or justify so large a Vote of Credit — the honourable gen- 
 tleman passes to America, and specifically objects to the Vote of 
 Credit, on the ground, that a war with the United States is no 
 longer probable. I hope and trust it is not. The recent proceed- 
 ings of Congress have effected so much of what it was the anxious 
 wish of the Government, of which I was a member, to attain, 
 that I trust all our differences with America may be speedily 
 adjusted. In truth I had never much doubt upon my mind, that 
 America, if left to her own policy, and to the effect of those dis- 
 cussions which would take place in her own legislatures, general 
 and provincial, would at no distant period arrive at that point, at 
 which by the late act of Congress, she appears to have arrived. 
 No man is more anxious than I am for an amicable accommodation 
 with that Power. But I trust, at the same time, that the change 
 in the policy of the United States has not been effected by any 
 improper concessions on our part; a circumstance, which I can 
 fully disclaim, during the period that I remained in office. I 
 should rather hope, that it has been the consequence of a deter- 
 mined adherence to that system, which has been so often declaim- 
 ed against in this House, but which has proved as clearly benefi- 
 cial to the commercial interests, as it has been consistent with the 
 political dignity of this nation. 
 
 The honourable gentleman has introduced into this part of the 
 
140 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 
 
 discussion a reference to the instructions given to our Minister to 
 the United States (Mr. Erskine,) upon which it was not my wish 
 to have touched, if the honourable gentleman had not forced me 
 to do so, because I cannot touch upon it without speaking unfa- 
 vourably of the conduct of a gentleman towards whom I enter- 
 tain no feeling of hostility whatever. But, as the honourable 
 gentleman has thought proper again to advert to the subject, I 
 am compelled, in my own defence, again to assert, as I have re- 
 peatedly before asserted, that Mr. Erskine, in the arrangement 
 which he concluded with the American Government, did violate 
 both the letter and the spirit of the instructions under which he 
 acted. That he violated the letter of his instructions, is admitted 
 by every body — by the honourable gentleman himself. Mr. Er- 
 skine was expressly directed to do certain things, which he did 
 not do. But it was not, as the honourable gentleman insinuates, 
 a mere formal error — a merely literal mistake. Mr. Erskine 
 violated the spirit of his instructions, because, being authorized 
 to concede certain points to the American Government, in con- 
 sideration only of concessions to be by them reciprocally and 
 simultaneously made, he did that absolutely, which he was in- 
 structed to do only conditionally, and thereby lowered the tone 
 and just pretensions of his country. I am still ready, as I ever 
 have been, to go into the full discussion of this question, when- 
 ever the honourable gentleman may think proper; but unless he 
 should advert to it again I shall now take a final leave of it, and 
 never again revive it. 
 
 Sir, I have now only to add, with respect to the Bill before 
 the House, that it is not because I think that a war is to be ap- 
 prehended with America, or that a question may arise as to the 
 abandonment or seizure of the island of Sicily, that I assent to 
 the Vote of Credit; but because I wish to enable His Majesty's 
 Ministers to aid to the utmost extent to maintain to the last ex 
 tremity the contest in Portugal and Spain, and also to take ad- 
 vantage of any opportunities which may arise from the annoy- 
 ance of the enemy, and for which, without a Vote of Credit, they 
 might be unprovided. For the application of the means, which this 
 Vote entrusts to them, the Ministers are responsible. And I can 
 assure the honourable gentleman, that, if he and his friends had 
 now the conduct of the Government, for the same purposes, and 
 under the like resposibility, I should not be disposed to withhold 
 from them that degree of confidence (whatever it be) which this 
 Vote may be construed to imply. 
 
 After some discussion, the Bill was read a third time and passed. 
 
1^1 
 
 ON THE REPORT OF THE BULLION 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 MAY, 8th, 1811. 
 
 Mr. Horner, as Chairman of the Bullion Committee, moved the following 
 Resolutions : — 
 
 First. — That the only money which can be legally tendered in Great Britain, 
 for any sum above twelve-pence in the whole, is made either of gold or silver ; 
 and that the weight, standard, and denomination, at which any such money is 
 authorized to pass current, is fixed, under His Majesty's prerogative, according 
 to law. 
 
 Second. — That since the forty-third year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 
 the Indentures of His Majesty's Mint have uniformly directed that all silver 
 used for coin should consist of eleven ounces two pennyweights of fine silver, 
 and eighteen pennyweights of alloy in each pound troy ; and that the said 
 pound troy should be divided into sixty-two shillings, or into other coins in that 
 proportion. 
 
 Third. — That since the fifteenth year of the reign of King Charles the Sec- 
 ond, the Indentures of His Majesty's Mint have uniformly directed, that all 
 gold used for coin, should consist of eleven ounces of pure gold and one ounce 
 of alloy in each pound troy; and that the said pound troy should be divided and 
 coined into forty-four guineas and one half guinea, or into other coins in that 
 proportion. 
 
 Fourth. — That by a proclamation of the fourth year of the reign of King 
 George the First, it was ordered and directed, that guineas and the several 
 other gold coins therein named, should be current at the rates and values then 
 set upon them ; viz. The guinea at the rate of twenty-one shillings, and other 
 gold coins in the same proportion : thereby establishing, that the gold and silver 
 coins of the realm should be a legal tender in all money payments, and a 
 standard measure for ascertaining the value of all contracts for the payment of 
 money in the relative proportion of 15^^/^ pounds weight of sterling silver to 
 one pound of sterling gold. 
 
 Fifth. — That by a statute of the fourteenth year of the reign of His present 
 Majesty, subsequently revived and made perpetual by a statute of the thirty- 
 ninth year of his reign, it is enacted, that no tender in payment of money made 
 in the silver coin of this realm, of any sum exceeding the sum of twenty-five 
 pounds at any one time, shall be reputed in law, or allowed to be a legal ten- 
 der, within Great Britain or Ireland, for more than, according to its value by 
 weight, after the rate of 5s. 2d. for each ounce of silver. 
 
 Sixth. — That by a proclamation of the sixteenth year of the reign of His 
 present Majesty, confirmed by several subsequent Proclamations, it was ordered 
 and directed, that if the weight of any guinea shall be less than five penny- 
 weights eight grains, such guinea shall cease to be a legal tender for the pay- 
 ment of any money within Great Britain or Ireland; and so in the same pro- 
 portion for any other gold coin. 
 
 Seventh. — That under these laws (which constitute the establislied policy 
 of this realm in regard to money,) no contract or undertaking for the payment 
 of money, stipulated to be paid in pounds sterling, or in good and lawful money 
 of Great Britain, can be legally satisfied and discharged in gold coin, unless the 
 coin tendered shall weigh in the proportion of If parts of five pennyweights 
 
142 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 eight grains of standard gold for each pound sterling, specified in the said con- 
 tract; nor in silver coin, for a sum exceeding twenty-five pounds, unless such 
 coin shall weigh in the proportion of |-^ of a pound troy of standard silver for 
 each pound sterling specified in the contract. 
 
 Eighth. — That the promissory notes of the Bank of England are stipulations 
 to pay, on demand, the sum in pounds sterling, respectively specified in each 
 of the said notes. 
 
 Ninth. — That when it was enacted by the authority of Parliament, that the 
 payment of the prommissory notes of the Bank of England, in cash, should for 
 a time be suspended, it was not the intention of Parliament that any alteration 
 whatsoever should take place in the value of such promissory notes. 
 
 Tenth. — That it appears, that the actual value of the promissory notes of the 
 Bank of England (measuring such value by weight of standard gold and silver 
 as aforesaid) has been, for a considerable period of time, and still is, considera- 
 bly less than what is established by the laws of the realm to be the legal ten- 
 der in payment of any money contract or stipulation. 
 
 Eleventh. — That the fall which has thus taken place in the value of the 
 promissory notes of the Bank of England, and in that of the country bank pa- 
 per which is exchangeable for it, has been occasioned by too abundant issue of 
 ' paper currency, both by the Bank of England, and by the country banks; and 
 that this excess has originated, from the want of that check and control on the 
 issues of the Bank of England, which existed before the suspension of cash 
 payments. 
 
 Twelfth. — That it appears that the exchanges with foreign parts have for a 
 considerable period of time been unfavourable to this country, in an extraordi- 
 nary degree. 
 
 Thirteenth. — That, although the adverse circumstances of our trade, togeth- 
 er with the large amount of our military expenditure abroad, may have con- 
 tributed to render our exchanges with the continent of Europe unfavourable; 
 yet the extraordinary degree, in which the exchanges have been depressed for 
 so long a period, has been in a great measure occasioned by the depreciation 
 which has taken place in the relative value of the currency of this country, as 
 compared with the money of foreign countries. 
 
 Fourteenth. — That during the continuance of the suspension of cash pay- 
 ments, it is the duty of the Directors of the Bank of England, to advert to the 
 state of the Foreign Exchanges, as well as to the price of bullion, with a view 
 to regulate the amount of their issues. 
 
 Fifteenth. — That the only certain and adequate security to be provided, 
 i against an excess of paper currency, and for maintaining the relative value of 
 ' the circulating medium of the realm, is the legal convertibility, upon demand, 
 of all paper currency into lawful coin of the realm. 
 
 Sixteenth. — That in order to revert gradually to this security, and to enforce 
 meanwhile a due limitation of the paper of the Bank of England, as well as of 
 all the other bank paper of the country, it is expedient to amend the act which 
 suspends the cash payments of the Bank, by altering the time, till which the 
 suspension shall continue, from six months after the ratification of a definitive 
 treaty of peace, to that of two years from the present time. 
 
 Mr. Canning. — After the ample discussion which this question 
 has undergone, I rise, Sir, not in the presumption that I am able 
 to add any thing to the information which the Committee has al- 
 ready received from gentlemen the best qualified by their talents 
 and their acquirements, by their professional pursuits and their 
 official situations, to throw light upon the subject in all its princi- 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 143 
 
 pies and details; but simply for the purpose of stating the grounds 
 of my own vote upon the several propositions which are submit- 
 ted to our consideration. 
 
 In discharging this duty — a duty which I feel to be incumbent 
 upon me as a Member of Parliament — I beg to be considered as 
 speaking in that character only; as delivering freely and honestly, 
 a sincere and unbiassed opinion, upon a question so important, 
 that I did not think myself at liberty to let it pass without form- 
 ing, to the best of my judgment, some opinion upon it; as neither 
 adopting nor countenancing the prejudices of any set of men 
 whatever; as neither the advocate nor the antagonist of the Bul- 
 lion Committee; neither the advocate nor the antagonist of the 
 Bank. 
 
 With respect to both those bodies, I firmly believe, that they 
 have, each according to their measure, performed conscientiously 
 a very difficult duty. 
 
 Of the Bank it is always to be remembered, that the condition 
 in which they have found themselves has been none of their own 
 seeking; that the original restriction, in 1797, was imposed upon 
 them by Parliament, upon their own showing indeed of their dif- 
 ficulties — difficulties, however, arising out of circumstances over 
 which the Bank had no control; and that the restriction was re- 
 newed after they had declared their readiness to resume their 
 payments in cash. Of the necessity of the first restriction I have 
 no doubt: of the policy of the terms upon which it was last re- 
 newed, I certainly entertain great doubts; but the error of that 
 policy, whatever it may have been, is not justly to be visited on 
 the Bank. Placed, as the Directors of the Bank have been by 
 the effect of that last renewal, and by the events which have since 
 occurred, in a situation perfectly novel; having — from the mere 
 managers of the affairs of a great money corporation, — become, by 
 the force of circumstances, the sole issuers and regulators of the 
 whole currency of the country; — it is surely not to be wondered at 
 that, in such a situation, they may have found the maxims of their 
 original and habitual occupation either inapplicable to their new 
 and enlarged sphere for action, or insufficient for it; and may have 
 committed mistakes in the exercise of one of the highest prerog- 
 atives of the Sovereign, which they would easily have avoided in 
 conducting the concerns of their constituents. If they have fall- 
 en into such errors, I am not inclined to blame them. I would 
 correct the errors, but without imputation on the men. 
 
 On the other hand, I must as fairly confess that I think the 
 Bullion Committee has been hardly dealt with in the course of 
 these discussions. A stranger who had derived his only knowl- 
 edge of the case from the debates of the two last nights, would 
 almost have been led to imagine that the Bullion Committee was 
 
144 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 some strange and self-erected power, wholly extrinsic to the con- 
 stitution, and independent of the control of this House; who, 
 without commission, and without provocation, had thought fit to 
 intermeddle in the affairs of the Government and of the Bank, 
 and to attempt the subversion of a system not only eminently 
 beneficial, but confessedly without fault, without mischief, and 
 without danger; a system with which all the world was perfectly 
 satisfied in all its parts, until this officious Committee thought fit 
 to disturb the general satisfaction. But what is the true history 
 of this proceeding? A Committee was appointed last year by the 
 House of Commons to inquire into the causes of the high price 
 of gold bullion, and into the state of the foreign exchanges and 
 of the currency of the country. They took these subjects into 
 their consideration: they brought to that consideration talents and 
 information such as have rarely been collected together in any 
 one Committee of this House; and they bestowed upon it (that 
 praise no man denies to the Committee) unremitted diligence and 
 labour. The result of their investigations they submitted to the 
 House, according to its injunction and to their duty. And be- 
 cause that result was to some persons unexpected, and is to others 
 unpalatable, are we therefore justified in turning round upon the 
 Committee of our own appointment, and rebuking them for the 
 execution of the task which we had imposed upon them ? — What 
 would we have had them do ? refuse the task allotted to them by 
 the House? — or decline to render an account of the inquiries 
 which we had ordered them to institute ? — Or would we have had 
 them fashion their Report, in spite of their own conviction, to the 
 creed or the convenience of any persons or party, and recom- 
 mend only whatever might best flatter our prejudices and justify 
 our inaction ? 
 
 If such were our wish, why was the Committee named ? Why 
 was not the proposal for its appointment rejected, or at least op- 
 posed? I was in the House on the day when it was proposed; 
 and, so far as I recollect, not a single voice was raised against it. 
 If the subject did not require investigation, it was idle, and not 
 only idle, but mischievous, to set the investigation on foot. If it 
 was apprehended that the possible or probable result might be 
 prejudicial to the interests of the country, then was the time to 
 stop. It would then have been perfectly easy to do so. A sin- 
 gle word, the intimation of a doubt from any quarter of the 
 House, might, at that moment, have checked the proceeding. But 
 to institute an inquiry upon a matter of great difficulty, with a 
 pre-determination to come to but one conclusion, is neither very 
 creditable to those who appoint, nor very just to those who are 
 appointed the conductors of it. 
 
 Although I do not go with the Committee (as I shall presently 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 145 
 
 have occasion to explain) to the length of their practical conclu- 
 sion; and although the details of this intricate and perplexing sub- 
 ject are as little agreeable to my taste, or habits, as to those of any 
 person in the House; — although I would as gladly as any body 
 have turned aside from the task of examining the reasonings and 
 deductions of the report; yet I cannot in justice throw upon the 
 members of the Committee the blame of those inconveniences 
 which are inherent in the nature of the subject referred to their 
 inquiry. However much I may dislike the unpleasant truths 
 which are told in the Report, I do not think myself warranted to 
 transfer that dislike to those whose duty it has been to tell them. 
 
 The Committee, then, I say, have only done their duty. Nor 
 can we avoid the performance of the duty which now devolves 
 upon ourselves. Distasteful as the matter may be, it is before us, 
 and we must dispose of it. 
 
 I do not share in the apprehensions of those persons who pre- 
 dict danger and mischief from this discussion. I have seldom 
 known an instance in which more good than evil has not arisen 
 out of parliamentary discussion of subjects, however delicate, 
 upon which the public mind had been previously agitated and di- 
 vided. 
 
 As little do I agree with those who think that the discussion must 
 necessarily be barren and useless. Even if it should not termin- 
 ate (as probably it may not) in the adoption of the practical 
 remedy suggested by the Committee, or in the suggestion of any 
 other in its room, I do not think that the time and the trouble of 
 the House will therefore have been entirely thrown away. The 
 discussion which has already taken place out of doors, renders 
 some decision of this House necessary. In the course of that 
 discussion, the fundamental principles of our whole money sys- 
 tem have been disputed and denied; — all that had long been con- 
 sidered as fixed and determinate in them has been shaken, or at 
 least attempted to be shaken: — a mischief more serious than even 
 that which the Committee has proposed to cure; and one to which 
 a cure may be (and ought to be) administered by the Resolutions 
 of this House, whatever may become of the practical recommen- 
 dation of the Committee. 
 
 Nor is it only out of doors that these fundamental principles 
 have been questioned. The right honourable gentleman opposite 
 to me (Mr. Vansittart) — a gentleman for whom personally I en- 
 tertain the sincerest respect as well as regard, and whose just rep- 
 utation for knowledge upon these subjects entitles his opinions 
 upon them to very peculiar attention — has countenanced, by him- 
 self adopting it, a mode of reasoning which has been much em- 
 ployed in the written controversy, but which I had hoped no man 
 in this House, and least of all any man of such extensive infor- 
 21 o 
 
146 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 mation and such high authority, would have been found to endure, 
 much less to sanction. He has rejected altogether the established 
 doctrine of a fixed standard of the currency of the realm ; and, 
 instead of trying the disputed value of our present circulating 
 medium, by reference to that which has always hitherto been 
 taken as the settled measure in all such inquiries, he has thought 
 himself at liberty to bend and accommodate the fundamental 
 principles of our money system to the state of our currency, 
 such as he happens to find it. 
 
 Others who have supported the right honourable gentleman's 
 propositions have carried this license still farther. They have 
 not only considered the principles of all our coinage laws, so far 
 as they relate to the value of our money, as inapplicable to the 
 present state of our currency, but as altogether obsolete. They 
 appear to look upon the law by which Bank paper is made incon- 
 vertible into cash, not as an occasional law growing out of a tem- 
 porary necessity, and determinable with that necessity, but as a 
 wise and provident contrivance to substitute absolutely and indefi- 
 nitely for the ancient coin of the kingdom, a currency better 
 adapted in their opinion to the present state of the world and to 
 the peculiar exigencies of this country. The suspension of the 
 cash payments of the Bank had hitherto always been treated as a 
 necessary evil; as an expedient upon which we were forced with 
 reluctance, and of which we had the decency at least to pretend 
 to desire and to anticipate the discontinuance: but, in the view 
 of the subject which has been taken by these supporters of the 
 right honourable gentleman's propositions, the Bank restriction is 
 now become the staple resource in our pecuniary system; it is to 
 be avowed as the standing policy of the State; and to be prized 
 as an invention long desired, and now happily found, for supply- 
 ing boundless exertion with inexhaustible and unexhausting 
 finance. 
 
 The decision of the House, therefore, im.portant as it would 
 undoubtedly be, if it should either confirm the recommendation 
 of the Bullion Committee, or substitute in its stead some other 
 practical measure for the termination of the Bank restriction, 
 will yet be not less (I had almost said will be more) important, 
 if, even rejecting that recommendation, and confirming the con- 
 tinuance of the restriction, it shall nevertheless at the same time 
 recognize the general principles which that Committee have laid 
 down; and shall separate and distinguish the measure of the re- 
 striction itself, from the false and dangerous arguments by which 
 it has been not only justified as an expedient, but recommended 
 as a system. 
 
 To record principles which are true, and which have been 
 called in question, is not of itself an idle nor an unparliamentary 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 147 
 
 practice: and it is no paradox to say, that to record principles is ( 
 never so much a matter of duty as when some over-ruling neces- J 
 sity obliges us to a practical departure from them. It then be- 
 comes incumbent upon us to prove that we are acting indeed 
 from necessity, not from indifference or change of system; to 
 take care that our deviation shall not be made a precedent to be 
 resorted to hereafter on occasions of less urgency; to provide 
 that the exception shall not be erected into the rule. 
 
 This then is the answer which I give to those who represent 
 the concluding Resolution of the honourable and learned Chair- 
 man (Mr. Horner) of the Bullion Committee, as the only essen- 
 tial object of our deliberations; and who would persuade us that, 
 if we are not prepared to decide with him upon the opening of 
 the Bank, we have nothing to do with all his preliminary Reso- 
 lutions but to get rid of them as quickly as possible. I, for one, 
 am not prepared to vote with him for the opening of the Bank; I 
 shall vote against the honourable gentleman's concluding Resolu- 
 tion: but I think that, according to all sound and practical views, 
 the question, important as it is, whether the Bank shall be opened 
 or shut, sinks into insignificance in comparison with that which 
 has been raised with respect to the principles upon which the 
 whole money system, and consequently the whole credit of the 
 country, essentially depends. 
 
 Give me the affirmation by Parliament of the first ten Resolu- 
 tions of the honourable and learned gentleman — those Resolutions 
 which state (and state correctly) the principles of that money 
 system, from which we have been compelled to depart, and the 
 effects of our departure from them — and I would not unwillingly 
 consent to a compromise with the right honourable gentleman 
 opposite to me (Mr. Vansittart.) I would, on that condition, 
 adopt the two last of his propositions; adopt them in substance 
 at least, — so far as to agree with him that this is not the moment 
 at which our cash payments can be resumed, or at which the pre- 
 cise period of their resumption can be determined. The right 
 honourable gentleman ought surely to be satisfied with this com- 
 promise. His conclusion would, to my mind, even flow more 
 logically from the premises laid down in the Resolutions of the 
 honourable and learned gentleman. I certainly cannot subscribe 
 to it as flowing from his own. I am ready to do as he would have 
 me do, if he will allow me to record the reasons of my concur- 
 rence: but it is a concurrence which, I feel, requires explanation 
 and apology; it is a concurrence which, if I do not altogether 
 withhold it, I certainly cannot give, except on the condition that 
 I shall be at liberty to prove at the same time, that it is given 
 not in consequence of the right honourable gentleman's reasons, 
 but in spite of them. That our currency is in such a state that 
 
148 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 the Bank cannot safely open, I agree; but it is hard to insist that 
 I should find every thing right in that state of things which 
 forces me to come to such an agreement. 
 
 My right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 (Mr. Perceval,) has, with great dexterity, as well as eloquence, 
 endeavoured to divert our attention from the specific object of this 
 night's deliberation, by directing it to those circumstances in the 
 present situation of afiairs at home and abroad, upon which there 
 is scarcely any difierence of feeling or opinion. The inordinate 
 ambition and gigantic power of the enemy, the warfare directed 
 by him against our trade and our manufactures; these are topics 
 upon which my right honourable friend has expatiated with a 
 force of statement, and a warmth of language, which do full jus- 
 tice to his argument; and has appealed to us, whether we will 
 wantonly aggravate difficulties already so complicated and so 
 overwhelming? He has availed himself with equal skill of 
 another argument, which he well knows would operate upon my 
 mind with no less force than upon his own, and which, if I could 
 indeed be convinced that it was legitimately applied to the ques 
 tion in the way in which he applies it, would lead me, I will not 
 say to concur in his conclusions, but at least to hesitate in reject- 
 ing them. He refers to the recent triumphs of our arms; he 
 places before our eyes the prospect of successes still more splen- 
 did; he describes the safety of this country as involved in the 
 war in the Peninsula; and he asks us, how that war is to be main- 
 tained? how we are to find the means of keeping on foot that 
 army which has already performed such brilliant achievements, 
 and of seconding the exertions of the Commander who has car- 
 ried the British name to the highest point of military glory? 
 Shall such a contest — a contest for all that is interesting to this 
 country and to Europe, be abandoned? Shall Lord Wellington 
 be checked in his career? Shall Portugal have been liberated 
 only to be again given up to slavery? Shall the hopes of Spain 
 have been revived only to be finally dashed and extinguished ? 
 God forbid! M}^ right honourable friend well knows that, in 
 calling upon me duly to weigh these considerations, he interposes 
 the surest impediment to any rash decision on my part, by which 
 interests so dear to this country could by possibility be brought 
 into hazard. He knows that 1 must put a violence upon myself 
 before I can coolly calculate the real bearing of topics which 
 come home so forcibly to my feelings; before I can dissipate the 
 illusion which they throw round the matter in debate, and ex- 
 amine dispassionately the degree in which they really apply to it. 
 
 But I will not pay my right honourable friend so ill a compli- 
 ment as to suppose that he is not himself perfectly aware, that in 
 thus shaping his argument, he has, in fact, either assumed or 
 
THE BULLION COiMMlTTEE. 149 
 
 omitted the question that is in dispute. — The question is not — 
 whether we shall continue the war in the Peninsula with all our 
 heart, and with all our might? — Who doubts, — who dissuades 
 that determination ? That point might have been assumed with- 
 out hazard of contradiction. But my right honourable friend 
 argues that point as if it were disputed: — and assumes without 
 argument that which it was necessary for him to prove; — namely, 
 that to the continuance of the war, and of our successes in the 
 Peninsula, it is essential that the present system of our currency 
 should remain unchanged. Just as fairly might I assume without 
 argument, that a change in our currency is necessary to this 
 same purpose of continuing the war; — and then retort upon my 
 right honourable friend his own expostulations against fettering 
 the energies, and cramping the exertions of the country. In 
 either case the point which alone is in dispute, remains to be 
 decided. 
 
 Why is the continuance of the present system of currency es- 
 sential to the continuance of the war? Is it because that currency 
 is in a sound state? — or that, being depreciated, a depreciated 
 currency is the best instrument of foreign exertion ? Which of 
 these two propositions is it that my right honourable friend in- 
 tends to maintain ? I ask this question with the more earnestness, 
 because throughout the whole of his speech, long, able, and elo- 
 quent as it was, I watched in vain for any sentence which dis- 
 tinctly expressed an opinion upon either of them. I did not hear 
 him affirin that the currency was sound; I did not hear him ad- 
 mit that it was depreciated; he always stopped short of this affir- 
 mation and of this admission; and if any distinct proposition 
 could be collected and embodied out of those topics with which 
 he endeavoured to cover these simple questions, it seemed at 
 most to amount to nothing more than this — that it was best to go 
 on as we are, avoiding all inquiry on the subject. 
 
 To that proposition (if that be the proposition which my right 
 honourable friend means to maintain) — I answer, that it comes 
 too late. The period for acting upon that policy passed by when 
 the House consented to the appointment of the Bullion Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 To the question, how shall our military exertions be best sup- 
 ported? I reply — By supporting the credit of the country; by 
 ascertaining the soundness of our currency, if it be sound; by 
 ascertaining the degree of its defect, if it be defective; with a 
 view in the one case to apply a remedy so far as a remedy may 
 be applicable; and in the other to fix and settle the public opinion, 
 which of itself is no small ingredient in the financial resources 
 of a state. 
 
 I have no right, and certainly full as little desire, to impute to 
 
150 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 my right honourable friend that he is avowedly the advocate of 
 a depreciated currency: but this debate would end most unsatis- 
 factorily for the public, as well as for the House, if it were to 
 end without its being clearly undei'stood on what precise grounds 
 my right honourable friend thinks the present state of our cur- 
 rency such as it ought to be. — First, whether he thinks it is not 
 depreciated; secondly, whether, admitting it to be depreciated, 
 he considers the depreciation as incurable, and therefore only 
 would take no step to cure it; or, thirdly, whether he concurs 
 with those who see in that depreciation a fertile source of wealth 
 and blessings to the country: — these, after all, are the points in 
 dispute, — and these points my right honourable friend appears to 
 me to have studiously avoided. 
 
 Even in that part of his speech in which he approached the 
 nearest to the question of depreciation, my right honourable 
 friend so managed the course of his argument as to make it im- 
 possible that he should arrive at any definite conclusion. — With a 
 semblance of candour which seemed as if he had adopted an in- 
 verted mode of reasoning as the best calculated in this particular 
 instance for discovering the truth, he begins with examining the 
 question of Excess — " Prove," says my right honourable friend, 
 " that there exists an excess, and then I will be ready to go with 
 you into an inquiry whether that excess has produced deprecia- 
 tion." — Now, it cannot be necessary to remind my right honour- 
 able friend, that to reason from effect to cause has always been 
 the course of sound philosophy. — The Committee affirms the ex- 
 istence of depreciation; and, as that depreciation cannot arise 
 from any doubt of the solidity of the Bank — of its ability to 
 meet its engagements, they attribute it (unanswerably, as appears 
 to me) to excessive issue. " Prove this excessive issue," says my 
 right honourable friend. But how is positive excess (if I may 
 use that expression) susceptible of proof? How is it possible to 
 prove, that too many bank notes are issued, so long as there is a 
 single applicant willing to receive them? The comparison of the 
 amount of bank notes in circulation with that of the aggregate 
 pecuniary transactions of the community, would of itself afford 
 no certain criterion of the sufficiency or excess of that circulation 
 — even if it were possible to state that comparison with any thing 
 like accuracy. But who shall pretend to state the actual aggre- 
 gate amount of all the pecuniary transactions of the community? 
 So far as a pretty general increase of prices is any symptom of 
 excessive currency, that symptom undeniably exists. But I ac- 
 knowledge it to be no more than a symptom. I admit further, 
 that the mere amount of bank paper in circulation, however large 
 it may be, does not of itself necessarily constitute excess. I ad- 
 mit that there is not excess, unless there be depreciation. Whether 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 151 
 
 depreciation does exist or not, is, therefore, the question which 
 inust necessarily have the precedency in our examination. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman opposite to me (Mr. Van- 
 sittart,) when he opened his counter-propositions to the House, 
 put to my right honourable friend near me (Mr. Huskisson,) the 
 question — "What do you mean by depreciation?" He put this 
 question, rather irregularly, in the middle of his own speech; and 
 seemed to think it matter of triumph that he did not receive, at 
 that moment, an answer in a single word. An answer he has, 
 however, since received, and I should imagine (in one sense at 
 least) to his complete satisfaction. " By depreciation, do you 
 mean discredit?" said the right honourable gentleman. If by 
 " discredit," the right honourable gentleman means a doubt of 
 the solidity of the Bank, a doubt whether the outstanding de- 
 mands upon the Bank do not exceed the amount of their assets; 
 unquestionably no such doubt exists, and consequently "discredit" 
 enters for nothing into the " depreciation" of Bank of England 
 paper. 
 
 But when the right honourable gentleman has obtained this 
 concession, it appears to me that he has obtained nothing at all 
 towards overthrowing the arguments of his antagonist, or towards 
 establishing his own. For the same concession would be equally 
 true with respect to a paper currency which should represent to 
 its full amount the whole moveable and immoveable property of 
 the country. There would be assets in existence adequate to the 
 redemption of that paper. Of a paper issued to such an amount, 
 although resting on such unquestionable security, it is probable 
 that my right honourable friend (Mr. Perceval,) who spoke last, 
 would not dispute the excess; yet how could that excess be indi- 
 cated except by depreciation? That depreciation, in the case 
 which I have supposed, the right honourable gentleman (Mr. 
 Vansittart) could not deny; but he must acknowledge that it 
 would arise from other causes than discredit. The argument, 
 therefore, or rather the suggestion (for it has not been distinctly 
 argued,) that there can be no depreciation unless arising from, or 
 accompanied with, discredit; and the inference which is covertly 
 insinuated, that they who affirm bank notes to be depreciated, in- 
 tend to attack the credit of the Bank, entirely fall to the ground. 
 
 The alleged depreciation of bank notes consists in this — that, 
 whereas they did in fact represent heretofore the real as well as 
 the nominal value of the coin which constitutes our lawful money, 
 they now represent its nominal value only. This is the answer 
 to the question of the right honourable gentleman. 
 
 In return, my honourable friend proposed a question to the 
 right honourable gentleman, to which I think he has not yet 
 given any answer. " If j^ou affirm," said my honourable friend. 
 
152 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 " what I deny, the equivalency of bank notes to money, tell me, 
 what is the common standard by which you measure that equiva- 
 lency?" This question the right honourable gentleman has al- 
 together evaded. He has given no answer to it. — Does he mean 
 to acquiesce in those which have been given for him by others 
 who have taken the same side with him in this debate, or by 
 some fanciful writers, who, under the guise and garb of practical 
 men, have indulged themselves in the wildest theories and imag- 
 inations, upon this subject of the standard ? 
 
 " The coin," says a noble. Lord, " is, or was, the standard of 
 the paper." But this description does not advance us a single 
 step? for the question still remains, "What is the standard of the 
 coin ? What is that common measure to which coin and paper 
 may be equally referred for the purpose of ascertaining their 
 agreement or disagreement, with it, and with each other?" 
 
 The noble Lord has indeed devised a singular definition of this 
 measure, in which I should be exceedingly curious to know 
 whether the right honourable gentleman concurs. He defines it 
 to be " a sense of value in reference to currency as compared 
 with commodities." — I hope I do not misquote him. To the 
 best of my recollection, these were the very words — " A sense 
 of value!" But whose sense? with whom is it to originate? 
 and how is it to be communicated to others ? Who is to promul- 
 gate, who is to acknowledge, or who is to enforce it? How is it 
 to be defined ? and how is it to be regulated ? What ingenuity 
 shall calculate, or what authority control its fluctuation? — Is the 
 "sense" of to-day the same as that of yesterday, and will it be 
 unchanged to-morrow? It does fill me with astonishment that 
 any man, of an accurate and reasoning mind, should not perceive 
 that this wild and dangerous principle, (if principle it can be 
 called) would throw loose all the transactions of private life, all 
 contracts and pecuniary bargains, by leaving them to be measured 
 from day to day, and from hour to hour, by no other rule than 
 that of the fancies and interests of each individual conflicting 
 with the fancies and interests of his neighbour. 
 
 A " sense of value!" It is not many days since an experiment 
 was tried upon this " sense," which may serve to illustrate the 
 probable course of its operations, if left exclusively to its own 
 guidance. The artizan who on the Thursday night had exchanged 
 a one-pound note Avith his neighbour for four dollars, found in 
 the morning that he had, insensibly to himself, become two shil- 
 lings richer by the exchange. I am not, here, about to inquire 
 whether the Bank were right or wrong in raising the denomina- 
 tion of the dollar; I refer to this operation merely as an illustra- 
 tion of the argument: and I ask. Where would be the end of 
 such operations if every individual's " sense of value " were to 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 153 
 
 be his only guide in his dealings with his neighbours? In this in- 
 stance the authority of the Bank sanctioned and limited the de- 
 gree of the rise in the current value of the dollar, or, to put the 
 same thing in other words, the degree of the loss which the bank 
 note should sustain in exchange against the dollar. But, is it to 
 be imagined that, — if they had merely sanctioned the principle 
 of such alteration, without limiting the degree, — two shillings in 
 the pound, or ten per cent., is the precise amount of the rise on 
 the one hand, or of the depreciation on the other, which all the 
 holders of bank notes, and of dollars respectively, would have 
 agreed to fix by a common " sense of value" ? Is not such a sup- 
 position utterly absurd ? Is it not clear that something wholly 
 extrinsic to that capricious " sense," is necessary to regulate the 
 ordinary dealings between man and man; and that the course of 
 those dealings could not be left without a guide, but at the hazard, 
 or the certainty rather, of immediate and inextricable confusion ? 
 
 If, however, we were persuaded to leave the proportions and 
 prices of all commodities to be adjusted by this " sense of value," 
 we ought at least to be consistent in our theory and practice. 
 This " sense of value," which is now proposed to be erected into 
 an universal measure, has been occasionally adopted as such by 
 individuals. There is a man now expecting the judgment of the 
 law, whose "sense of value" led him to. exchange for guineas a 
 proportion of Bank of England paper, which he considered as no 
 more than an equivalent. Of what crime was this man guilty, 
 but of obeying that natural and instinctive impulse which the 
 noble Lord is now prepared to set up as a substitute for the 
 standard of our money? If there be nothing more fixed and 
 stable than individual feeling, to which the estimate of values 
 can be referred, let us at least refrain from punishing the exercise 
 of that individual feeling. If the law shall decline to fix a stand- 
 ard measure, it cannot reserve the right of visiting erroneous 
 measurement as a crime. This would be an injustice like that of 
 the eastern monarch who called upon the soothsayers to interpret 
 his dream, but refused to tell them the dream of which he re- 
 quired the interpretation. 
 
 No dream, it must be owned, could be more extravagant than 
 the visions of those practical men who have undertaken to refine 
 away the standard of the currency of the realm into a pure ab- 
 straction. There is indeed something perfectly ludicrous in the 
 inconsistency and injustice with which they impute a love of ab- 
 straction to their opponents, while they are themselves indulging 
 in the most wanton departures from substance and reality. " Be- 
 ware of abstract theories," say they to the Bullion Committee, 
 when they find fact and law laid down as the foundation of its 
 Report. " Beware of abstract theories," say they to the honour- 
 22 
 
154 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 able and learned Chairman of the Committee, when they find, in 
 his first seven Resolutions, nothing like theory or imagination; 
 but a clear, concise, a dry and faithful, recapitulation of those rules 
 which the statutes of the country have established for the weight 
 and fineness of its coin. Nor has the speech with which that 
 honourable and learned gentleman introduced and enforced his 
 Resolutions — a speech which, remarkable as it was for eloquence 
 and ability of every kind, was by nothing so distinguished as by 
 its perpetual appeal to acknowledged principles and established 
 law, — even that speech has not rescued the honourable and learn- 
 ed gentleman from the imputations of flightiness and romance. 
 The same caution, to " beware of abstract theories," is addressed 
 to my honourable friend near me, whose intelligence, whose ac- 
 curacy, and whose official knowledge, digested and assimilated by 
 a powerful and really practical understanding, make him perhaps, 
 of all men, the least proper object for such an admonition. And 
 this admonition comes from whom? from the inventers and 
 champions of " abstract currency;" from those who after ex- 
 hausting, in vain, every attempt to find an earthly substitute for 
 the legal and ancient standard of our money, have divested the 
 pound sterling of all the properties of matter, and pursued it, 
 under the name of the " ideal unit^^ into the regions of nonen- 
 tity and nonsense! 
 
 When the ingenious sophistry of Dr. Berkeley, to prove the 
 non-existence of matter, was quoted to Dr. Johnson as a fallacy 
 not easy to be refuted. Dr. Johnson stamped his foot with force 
 against a stone, and exclaimed, '*' I refute it thus." Unluckily, I 
 know no process of reasoning that can reduce one of these prac- 
 tical men to the necessity of admitting, that a pound sterling is 
 not a creature of the imagination: one cannot appeal even to their 
 senses, because that sense of theirs, which I suppose is the most 
 conversant with this subject, the " sense value," is enlisted on the 
 other side. But one may appeal from their theories to ancient 
 records, to positive institution, and to existing law. On these 
 authorities, I contend that a certain specified weight of gold, or 
 silver, of a certain fineness, is the only definition of a pound ster- 
 ling which an Englishman, desirous of conforming to the laws 
 of his country, is bound to regard or to understand. 
 
 Here then it is that I should pause for the answer of the right 
 honourable gentleman opposite to me to the question of my hon- 
 ourable friend. — Does he admit or deny this definition of stand- 
 ard? does he admit or deny the existence of a standard at this 
 moment conformable to this definition ? If he admits it, then it 
 is possible not only to answer his question with respect to the 
 meaning of the word " depreciation," but also to demonstrate 
 that a depreciation, in the sense in which that word is used, does 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 155 
 
 exist. Grant but the lawful standard as the instrument of men- 
 suration, and nothing is more easy than to assign the exact pro- 
 portion in which coin and bank notes differ in value from each 
 other. But while the right honourable gentleman denies the ex- 
 istence of any such instrument, how can he reasonably require 
 that the accuracy of such a measurement should be proved to his 
 satisfaction ? 
 
 A pound sterling is either ff of a pound of standard silver; or, 
 fy of a guinea weighing not less than S"^^^'^- and S^''^- This is the 
 simple and the only definition which the practice of our ances- 
 tors recognizes, and the law of the country allows. Does a one- 
 pound note represent this portion of the precious metals, or does 
 it not? If it does, the legal coin of the country, and the notes of 
 the Bank, are equivalent. If not, either the law is mis-stated, or 
 the depreciation is proved. 
 
 "Oh! but," says the right honourable gentleman, " the bank 
 note represents the coin itself, quatenus coin; and has no refer- 
 ence or relation to the quantity of gold or silver which that coin 
 contains." But does not the right honourable gentleman see that 
 it is impossible for him to avail himself of the law in one in- 
 stance and to deny its operation in the other? — The King's 
 proclamation confirmed by Act of Parliament has fixed the de- 
 nomination of the coin; which denomination it is admitted on 
 all hands, the bank note continues to represent: but the same 
 Act of Parliament has fixed the weight of the coin as the sole 
 and indispensable test of the value which that denomination im- 
 plies. The law (as the right honourable gentleman well knows) 
 watches with such scrupulous anxiety over the weight of the 
 guinea, as to consider the loss of a single grain as sufficient to de- 
 stroy its character as a legal coin. When the law evinces this 
 anxiety about weight, is it not a little too much to assume in ar- 
 gument that its only care is denomination ? 
 
 But what is the proposition for the sake of which this assump- 
 tion is hazarded ? Not simply that bank notes are a convenient 
 symbol of coin, but that they are actually equivalent to it. In 
 proof of this equivalency it is contended that the law has bound 
 them together. 
 
 First, this argument would prove too much: it would undoubt- 
 edly get rid of all the embarrassing considerations of standard, 
 of weight, and of intrinsic value; but, on the other hand, those 
 who maintain it would be involved in absurdities, which even 
 the ingenuity of the right honourable gentleman could not recon- 
 cile. They would have to maintain, for instance, that in the 
 year 1695, when, previous to the resolution taken to reform the 
 silver coinage, arguments something like those which are now 
 used on the right honourable gentleman's side of the question, 
 
156 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 prevailed upon the Legislature to try the experiment of a statute 
 by which it was made penal to receive or tender the undipped 
 coin at any higher price than the clipped coin — they would have 
 to maintain, I say, that from the passing of that act, the clipped 
 and undipped coin of the country became precisely equivalent; 
 in other words, that an ounce of silver in the one became, by the 
 operation of the statute, equal to an ounce and a quarter of the 
 same silver in the other. Unquestionably this cannot be what 
 the right honourable gentleman is prepared to maintain as true; 
 though I must admit, on the other hand, that a subject of this 
 country might at that time have been punished for acting as if 
 he thought it false. But is the relation which was thus produced 
 by law between two things, obviously of different values, equiva- 
 lency? Or is it to be imagined, that so forced and unnatural a 
 state of things, call it by what name you will, could be maintain- 
 ed by any law, that any law could continue long in force whose 
 purpose it was to maintain it? The consequence of this state of 
 things in 1695, was the disappearance, that is to say, the hoard- 
 ing, the melting, or the exportation of the perfect coin: the 
 further consequence was, that, after a short trial of the compul- 
 sory law. Parliament found itself obliged to go to the root of the 
 evil, and to reform the depreciated part of the currency. 
 
 But, moreover, the right honourable gentleman's assertion of 
 the equivalency of coin and bank notes, is in direct contradiction 
 with admissions of his own. In the course of this debate he has 
 admitted (though others have denied) that in the year 1804 the 
 paper of the Bank of Ireland was depreciated. I might here ask 
 him in what sense he understands the word dejireciated, when he 
 so applies it; and he would have to answer me, as it has been an- 
 swered to him, that the Irish bank note did not then represent the 
 intrinsic value of the coin with which it was interchangeable. 
 
 This is the most important admission on the part of the right 
 honourable gentleman; and it has a bearing upon the present ques- 
 tion, of which one would almost apprehend he could not have 
 been aware, but which nevertheless he will find it difficult to deny. 
 The premium, as I understand, in 1804, was about one shilling and 
 sixpence on the guinea. At that period Irish Bank paper, as in- 
 terchangeable v/ith English, was at a discount which pretty near- 
 ly corresponded with its depreciation in reference to the coin. 
 The premium now openly paid in Ireland upon guineas is from 
 three and sixpence to four shillings. But Irish Bank paper is 
 now exchangeable with English nearly at par. Whence is it that 
 English Bank paper, which had an advantage over Irish Bank 
 paper in 1804, when Irish paper was depreciated only about seven 
 and a half per cent, should be now nearly on a par with it, when 
 it is confessedly depreciated almost twenty per cent. If, indeed, 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 157 
 
 English Bank paper has suffered a depreciation to the same 
 amount, this phenomenon is perfectly intelligible: but upon the 
 hypothesis of the perfect and unchanged equivalency of English 
 Bank paper and coin, it admits of no solution. 
 
 To my mind, I do confess, here is one decisive proof of depre- 
 ciation. 
 
 But, is not the case of the dollar (to which I have had occasion 
 to refer with another view in a former part of the argument,) it- 
 self a conclusive proof, not only of the existence of a depreciation 
 of Bank paper, but of the opinion of the Bank, and of the Gov- 
 ernment, that such depreciation does exist? Why was the bank 
 note, which was equivalent to four dollars on one day, worth two 
 shillings less than four dollars the next? Those who claim to 
 themselves exclusively the title of practical men, take a subtle 
 distinction, and say that it is not the bank note which is worth 
 less, but the dollar which is worth more: and they treat as theo- 
 rists and visionaries all whose faculties do not enable them to en- 
 ter into this distinction. But, however the variation arose, why 
 did the Government and the Bank think it necessary to sanction 
 and promulgate it? Why? but because the dollar, being a coin 
 circulating in this country by sufferance only, a currency of con- 
 vention, would, according to the admission, or rather the declara- 
 tion of the Bank, under the authority of the Privy Council, have 
 been driven out of circulation, that is to say, would have been 
 hoarded, or melted, or exported, if it had not been allowed to pass 
 at the marketable value of the silver which it contains. 
 
 With this example before their eyes — with this admission and 
 declaration still recent before the eyes of the public, there are yet 
 some persons who contend, that the disappearance of our legal 
 coin — the guinea — is no proof of the depreciation of bank notes, 
 in respect to that coin; but is entirely owing to the balance of 
 trade and of payments, and to the wiles of our inveterate enemy. 
 The bank note, which, confronted with the dollar, shrunk from 
 twenty to eighteen shillings, preserved, as they affirm, in face of 
 the guinea, an unaltered, and unalterable equivalency. And what 
 is it, according to their theory, that occasions this peculiarity ? 
 The law. The law, which does what? The law, which makes it 
 criminal (if indeed it be criminal) to exchange the guinea for more 
 than its denominative value in bank notes; and which prohibits 
 the exportation of the legal coin of the realm. 
 
 Let us see what is the mode in which these powerful and bene- 
 ficial laws are now actually operating. The result which they 
 were intended to obtain confessedly was to keep our legal coin at 
 home, and to maintain it in circulation. The result actually is, 
 that such coin has vanished from domestic circulation, and that it is 
 exported to all parts of the world. The dollars were sent into 
 
 p 
 
158 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 circulation, unprotected by any law which should prevent their 
 exportation to foreign countries: for a time they circulated in 
 abundance; at length they began to disappear. By what process 
 has it been attempted, and successfully, to check their disappear- 
 ance? By the same process which it so wisely contrived to pre- 
 vent the disappearance of guineas? By forbidding more to be 
 given for them than they had hitherto been exchanged for in bank 
 notes ? No, but by a precisely contrary process — by allowing the 
 dollars to pass at, or above, their value. The consequence is, a 
 continued circulation of dollars in this country, in spite of the bal- 
 ance of trade and of the wiles of the enemy. 
 
 Here, then, are two metallic currencies, one of which continues 
 in circulation, while the other vanishes from it. The distinctive 
 differences between them are: First, that of one the exportation 
 is permitted, and of the other prohibited. I acknowledge the 
 perversity of human nature, and its proneness to do what is for- 
 bidden: but I cannot think that principle alone sufficient to account 
 for the exportation of the coin, which it is illegal to export, and 
 for the continuance in circulation of that which might be exported 
 without offence. Secondly, the one is exchangeable for its full 
 marketable value in our domestic currency, whereas the law en- 
 forces (or is supposed to enforce) the exchange of the other at no 
 more than its denominative rate. The bank note is the common 
 measure both of the guinea and of the dollar, of the exportable 
 and unexportable coin: the guinea it is allowed by law to measure 
 only according to its denomination; the dollar by the ordinance 
 of the Bank, it is allowed to measure according to its marketable 
 value. What is the result? The coin, which is by law unexport- 
 able, flies to another market, while the exportable remains at 
 home. 
 
 But let it, for argument's sake, be conceded that the rise of the 
 dollar is not a proof of depreciation in the bank note. It follows 
 then, that if the bank note, which would heretofore have pur- 
 chased four dollars, is not depreciated in respect to the dollar, be- 
 cause it is now obliged to call in two shillings to its aid in order 
 to make the same purchase, neither would the bank note, which 
 heretofore purchased a guinea with the aid of one shilling only, 
 be depreciated in respect to the guinea, if it should now be al- 
 lowed to make the same purchase with the aid of four or five 
 shillings. I think I may defy the most practical of men to quar- 
 rel with this proposition. 
 
 Well, then, if this be so, and if it be indeed an object to keep 
 our guineas at home, why is not the operation, which has been so 
 successful with respect to the dollar, applied to the guinea? What 
 difference is there in the principle? and what difference in the 
 practical policy of the transaction, but such as would preponderate 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 159 
 
 in favour of the guinea? If it be answered, " that the guinea is a 
 legal coin, which the dollar is not; that the dollar might be treated 
 as arbitrarily and unceremoniously as we pleased, but that the 
 same experiment could not be tried upon the guinea, without an 
 alteration of the law, and that alterations of the law are danger- 
 ous;" I reply, that the law is much less in our way on this point 
 than gentlemen seem to apprehend. It is true that the dollar is a 
 foreign coin, of which our laws take no specific cognizance; but 
 it is equally true that there is another coin in the country not a 
 legal coin — a coin of which the law takes no notice, except to put 
 it out of its protection; which no man is obliged, or even permit- 
 ted, to receive from another in payment; which, in short, is as 
 completely devoid of the qualities of British coin as the dollar, 
 and indeed more completely so, since it is expressly stripped of 
 those qualities by statute. Now if such a coin as this can be found, 
 where is the harm of trying upon it the same experiment which 
 has been so happily applied to the dollar; especially if it be, as 
 fortunately it is, a gold coin, and, therefore, capable of supplying 
 that share which dollars do not supply towards the completement 
 of a metallic circulation? The coin to which I allude is one which 
 my honourable friend near me (Mr. Huskisson) is accused of 
 having treated in his pamphlet with exaggerated respect, but 
 which, in the course of this debate, has, I think, been too much 
 disparaged — I mean the light guinea. 
 
 The light guinea is not, any more than the dollar, a legal coin. 
 A guinea having arrived by wear at a certain degree of lightness, 
 is at once divested by law of all its qualities of coin, and is re- 
 duced to its intrinsic value, whatever that may be, as bullion. It 
 happens, to be sure, at the present moment, that this reduction, as 
 measured in bank notes, is a promotion. But that is equally true 
 in respect to the dollar. The rate at which the dollar now passes 
 is not only higher than it was some time ago, but higher than that 
 which it bears, from its intrinsic value, in comparison with the le- 
 gal coin of the country. Whether it was right to raise the de- 
 nomination of the dollar, I do not think it necessary to give an 
 opinion : — that is done. But upon the principle, whatever it was, 
 on which the denomination of the dollar was raised, there can 
 surely be no objection to suffering the light guinea to go for what 
 it is \vorth, and thereby obtaining an anomalous gold currency to 
 correspond with the anomalous silver currency, each alike inde- 
 pendent of the legal coin of the realm. 
 
 The legal coin — the guinea of full lawful weight — would still 
 remain, in the eye of the law, in that of the imagination, and in 
 the argument of the right honourable gentleman, as the equivalent 
 for bank notes. It would not often come forth indeed to afford 
 a practical illustration of his argument: but he might continue to 
 
160 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 enjoy the satisfaction of maintaining, as he does now, as an ab- 
 stract proposition, that bank notes and guineas are equivalent in 
 law. 
 
 Meantime the advantage derived from the marketableness of 
 light guineas would be, either to retain at least that portion of our 
 metallic circulation at home, or to make the foreigner or the 
 enemy pay its full value for it on exportation. 
 
 It is on all hands acknowledged — by the right honourable gen- 
 tleman and his supporters it is earnestly contended — that our gold 
 finds its way out of the country, either in discharge of the balance 
 of payments, or into the coffers of the enemy. That enemy is 
 by some persons represented as sitting like a great spider in the 
 midst of its web, and drawing along the living lines and fibres of 
 its net all the gold of Great Britain, into an abyss from which it 
 is never to return. By what process this can be effected, except 
 by that of a trade of some sort or other, we are not told, and I 
 am at a loss to conceive. Among all the dangers of the country, 
 many of them real and formidable, a danger happily more vision- 
 ary than this was never apprehended by a disordered imagination. 
 
 That our gold, however, goes from us, is generally asserted 
 and believed; and whether by a natural efflux, or by some un- 
 heard-of power of magnetic attraction in Buonaparte, is, in re- 
 gard to the question which we are considering, of little moment. 
 It goes, and we wish to stop it. It can be stopped effectually only 
 by being retained in circulation at home. It can be retained in 
 circulation (as those who raised the denomination of the dollar, 
 and who gave the reasons which were given for raising it, must 
 of all men be the last to deny,) only by allowing it to pass for 
 what it is intrinsically worth, or what it will fetch in the market. 
 
 Here, however, I shall be met by an argument which has been 
 urged with much vehemence and solemnity by the right honour- 
 able gentleman (Mr. Vansittart,) that the law absolutely prohibits 
 the exportation of our coin, and that any reasoning, therefore, 
 which is founded upon the supposition of that exportation, is not 
 only incorrect, but is of a most immoral and dangerous tendency, 
 as holding out encouragement to perjury and fraud. Let us ex- 
 amine this argument. 
 
 We are all agreed upon the fact, that gold bullion is at a high 
 price in the currency of this country. We are all agreed, that 
 either as the consequence of this high price or as the cause of it, 
 or both, there is a great scarcity of gold bullion in this country. 
 We are all agreed that the gold coin has nearly vanished from 
 circulation; and nobody doubts, so far as I have heard, and nobody 
 has asserted more strenuously than the right honourable gentle- 
 man and those who side with him, that this high price and scarcity 
 of bullion, and this vanishing of our gold coin, are infallible in- 
 
THE BULl.lON COMMITTEE. 161 
 
 dications of a large exportation of gold; of which exportation a 
 large part must, as infallibly, have consisted of coin, either melt- 
 or unmelted. Upon these facts, I say, we are all agreed. Now 
 I ask, is it not idle, is it not absurd, to assume for the purpose of 
 argument a supposed obedience to the law, which notoriously has 
 no existence; and to deny for the purpose of argument, a fact 
 which is acknowleded by all to be the surest symptom, and con- 
 tended by many to be the origin and cause, of the evils which 
 have brought us to the necessity of the present discussion ? Is it 
 not wholly unworthy an assembly of legislators, to pretend an 
 ignorance in our legislative capacity of that, which every one of 
 us, in his individual capacity, perfectly believes to be true ? Is 
 the existence of a statute which, as we know, is openly violated 
 (and for the most part with impunity) every day in the week, to 
 be pleaded as a bar against any attempt to remedy the evils which 
 confessedly result from its violation ? 
 
 What then can be more unjust, or more ridiculous, than to rep- 
 resent those persons as countenancing and encoui'aging perjury 
 and fraud, who only tell you what you yourselves avow, that per- 
 jury and fraud are and have always been committed under your 
 present system of law; and who, inferring that they always will 
 be committed under that system, suggest to you the expediency 
 of amending it? Who are the encouragers of- crimes? — they 
 who, finding the existing law notoriously inadequate to counter- 
 act the temptation to commit them, propose either to change the 
 law or remove the temptation; — or they who content themselves 
 with whimpering over the depravity of human nature, and, in- 
 stead of endeavouring to prevent the commission of crime, con- 
 sole themselves with the reflection that the mischief to the pub- 
 lic is only in proportion to the guilt of the criminal ? 
 
 He was not an unwise or an unjust judge, of whom it is re- 
 corded, that — 
 
 " He sent the thief who stole the gold away, 
 And punish'd him who put it in his way." 
 
 Undoubtedly it is neither wise nor just to place temptations in 
 men's way, which we know by constant experience to be suffi- 
 cient to overpower the positive enactments of law. It is neither 
 politic nor moral to resort on every occasion to the obligation of 
 oaths as supplementary to a defective legislation. This policy 
 unfortunately pervades too many of our statutes; and it is but 
 rarely successful in its object, never perhaps where considerable 
 gain and great facility conspire to tempt to perjury. The exporta- 
 tion of coin, or of bullion melted from coin, when the exchanges 
 are unfavourable beyond a certain limit, is looked upon as so 
 much in the natural course of things, that most writers, who have 
 treated of coinage and of trade, have laid it down as a conse- 
 23 p* 
 
162 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 quence not to be disputed, and not even necessary to be proved. 
 According to the concurrent opinions of such writers, the efflux 
 of bullion from one country to another is governed by causes 
 nearly as steady and uniform in their operation, as those which 
 govern the seasons or the tides. As well might you pretend to 
 fix a limit on the shore, and bid the flowing ocean advance no 
 farther, as attempt by the interposition of a statute to stop the 
 tide of the precious metals in whatever direction it is made to 
 flow by the influence of commercial necessity and commercial 
 demand. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman, and those who adopt his 
 views of the present question, acknowledge the force of these 
 principles: they attribute, in fact, the whole of our difficulties 
 to their operation. There is, indeed, a slight difierence of opinion 
 among them as to the cause of the export of our gold; some at- 
 tributing it to the demand for gold in the market of the conti- 
 nent, others to the necessity of remitting it from hence, in pay- 
 ment of the balance of trade; but all concurring that, whatever 
 may be the degree in which either of these causes, separately or 
 jointly, operate, the result is an irresistible attraction of the gold 
 of this country to the continent. Is it not, then, with marvellous 
 inconsistency that these same gentlemen oppose the mere exist- 
 ence of a powerless law, and a high-coloured description of the 
 crimes which it occasions and constitutes, as an answer, and the 
 only answer, to those who contend, that, if the evil which the 
 law is intended to prevent, be indeed one which it is important 
 to check, and if the efflux of our gold be certain, so long as the 
 force of the temptation is stronger than the restraint of the law, 
 it is necessary, and it would be as wise as humane, either to alter 
 the law, or to diminish the temptation ? 
 
 I may, perhaps, be inclined to believe, that the repeal of this 
 law would be in itself no unwise m.easure. That belief might be 
 supported by the opinion of many able writers and experienced 
 statesmen, and by the example of many of those states in which 
 commerce has been most flourishing, and credit and coin most 
 abundant. I admit that the immediate, the momentary effect of 
 this repeal, (if unaccompanied by any other measure,) might be 
 to increase the exportation of our gold, by removing the scruples 
 of such persons as may now, perhaps, be wavering between 
 temptation on the one hand, and obedience to the law on the 
 other. Even so, however, it would have the benefit of saving 
 all that perjury and fraud which shock, so justly, the moral feel- 
 ings of the House; and of extending to the honest trader a con- 
 venience which is now exclusively reserved for the dishonest one. 
 But in the long run, I certainly do not believe that the repeal of 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 163 
 
 this law would swell, by a single guinea, tlie amount of the ex- 
 port of our gold. 
 
 It is true that the repeal of this law alone would not have a 
 necessary tendency to bring gold again into circulation in this 
 country, either by recalling what has been exported, or by en- 
 ticing what is now hoarded, out of its hiding places. That would 
 be the effect of the other alteration to which I have already al- 
 luded, of suspending the law and the proclamation which limit 
 the current rate of the guinea, and permitting it to pass according 
 to its intrinsic value. 
 
 I have, indeed, stated this proposition hitherto only as applica- 
 ble to the light guinea; of which the purchase, at its intrinsic value, 
 is certainly no infringement either of the letter or the spirit of 
 any existing proclamation or statute. I do not know whether I 
 might, without presumption, say, that the law is by no means 
 clear on this point, even with respect to guineas of full legal 
 weight. Guineas of legal weight, however, I left out of my prop- 
 osition in the former part of my argument, expressly, as I said, 
 in the hope of conciliating the right honourable gentleman, by 
 leaving untouched, in respect to guineas of full weight, his propo- 
 sition of the equivalency of bank paper and legal coin. But, if 
 the right honourable gentleman should be disposed to concur with 
 me at all, I trust, upon reflection, he would not be prevented from 
 doing so by the contemplation of this trifling adA^antage to his ar- 
 gument. If he will consent to let guineas go for what they are 
 worth in the market, he will have a gold currency; he will prevent 
 the exportation of our coin, he will get rid of fraud and perjury: 
 and all this benefit he will purcliase at no greater expense, than 
 that of being one argument out of pocket. It will then, to be 
 sure, be vain for him to contend, against the daily evidence of 
 men's senses, that bank paper and guineas are, at their respective 
 denominations, equivalent to each other: but at least we shall have 
 them both, and they may circulate amicably together. 
 
 That by no other possible means the coin of the country can 
 be retained in circulation, so long as the precious metal of which 
 it is composed, is intrinsically of a value so much higher than the 
 rate at which it is estimated in our currency, is a proposition of 
 which all experience, as well as all reason, establishes the truth. 
 The present state of the law in the present state of our currency, 
 operates, in fact, as a bounty upon the exportation of our coin. 
 
 Of the two causes of the export of gold, which are admitted 
 by the right honourable gentleman and his friends, the supposed 
 demand for gold on the continent, and the supposed necessity for 
 exporting it to set right the balance of our trade, the first will un- 
 doubtedly have an uncontrolled operation, so long as there is no 
 counter-demand for gold in the market at home; so long as the 
 
164 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 Bank do not purchase, and as no one else purchases here, except 
 for exportation: the second would, in a natural state of things, find 
 its limit far within the amount of the balance to be set right; it 
 would cease to operate, whenever the scarcity of gold, produced 
 here by exportation, and the plenty produced on the continent by 
 its importation, rendered gold less eligible for transmission abroad 
 than any other merchantable commodity. But this limit it can 
 never find, so long as gold is the only merchantable commodity 
 for which the consumption of this country affords no market. 
 
 Independently, however, of these causes, the difference between 
 the real value of the precious metal and that at which it is rated 
 in our currency, would be itself sufficient to ensure us against the 
 continuance of the guinea in circulation. Demand on the conti- 
 nent might be counteracted by demand here; and gold would 
 cease to be a preferable article for transmission abroad, from the 
 moment at which it, like other articles, could be sold for its real 
 value at home. But, imprisoned in the coin, and degraded by its 
 imprisonment, gold has an unconquerable tendency to escape from 
 a situation so unnatural: and it would make its escape from such 
 a situation, even although you do not owe the continent any thing; 
 and although there were no more demand on the continent for 
 gold, than for any other article of merchandise. 
 
 But this, I may be told, is the language of theory. Is not the 
 principle, then, recognized by any sober practical authority ? Let 
 us hear the statute-book itself " Whereas it has been a practice," 
 says the preamble to the Act 14 Geo. III. c. 70, "to export the 
 new and perfect coin of the realm for private advantage, and to 
 the great detriment of the public; and the like practice will con- 
 tinue," (adds this theoretical and visionary preamble)"while pieces, 
 differing greatly in weight, are current under the same denomina- 
 tion, and at the same rate of value." 
 
 The persons who framed this Act, and framed it for the express 
 and practical purpose of restoring the credit of our currency, 
 could not be ignorant of the penalties under which the exportation 
 of coin was prohibited; yet we see, that in spite of these penal- 
 ties, they take for granted as inevitable the " continued" exporta- 
 tion of the coin, so long as the temptation to export it continues. 
 We see further, that, in their opinion, conformity to standard 
 weight is the distinctive quality by which the value of money is 
 to be estimated. We see, lastly, that, without any reference to 
 demand for gold on the continent, without any reference to 
 an unfavourable balance of trade, the certain result of an attempt 
 to circulate together, " under the same denomination and at the 
 same rate of value," two descriptions of currency, differing in 
 intrinsic value from each other, is to drive that which is of the 
 higher intrinsic value out of circulation. 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 165 
 
 This is, in fact, as I understand it, the whole of the Bullion 
 Committee upon this subject; and so far from having the guilt or 
 the merit of novelty, we find it assumed six and thirty years ago, 
 in the preamble of an Act of Parliament, as a doctrine established 
 and self-evident. 
 
 Of this doctrine, thus adopted by Parliament in the year 1774, 
 there is an earlier and not less authoritative recognition in the 
 Report of Sir Isaac Newton, in the year 1717, of the existence 
 of which Report I was surprised to hear a right honourable friend 
 of mine, (Mr. Rose) declare himself entirely ignorant. A person 
 so distinguished as my right honourable friend unquestionably is, 
 by great knowledge and indefatigable research, I should have 
 thought, could hardly have missed a document of such interest 
 and importance, and so immediately bearing upon the subject be- 
 fore us. This Report was made by Sir Isaac Newton in his ca- 
 pacity of Master of the Mint, and is to be found in our Journals.* 
 
 It is too long for me to trouble the House with reading it; but 
 gentlemen will find, upon looking into it, that upon a reference 
 made to him by the Lords of the Treasury, as to the best method 
 of preventing the melting down of the silver coin. Sir Isaac New- 
 ton represents the temptation to melt and export it as " arising 
 from the higher price of silver in other places than in England in 
 proportion to gold;" that is to say, from the circumstance, that the 
 silver coin, then our standard currency, was, by the regulations 
 of our Mint, exchangeable with the gold coin at a rate somewhat 
 lower than that at which it was exchangeable, as bullion, with gold 
 in the general market of Europe. So small was this difference, 
 that the taking of sixpence from the current rate of the guinea 
 was estimated by Sir Isaac Newton as sufficient to cure the evil; 
 and yet, small as the difference was, during its continuance, and 
 by its operation alone, the silver coin of standard weight was daily 
 vanishing from circulation. 
 
 In this report of Sir Isaac Newton, and in the principles which 
 are laid down for it, is to be found the answer to many of my 
 right honourable friend's (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) ob- 
 servations upon that part of the Report of the Bullion Committee, 
 which refers to the re-coinage of the silver currency in the year 
 1696. The subsequent disappearance of the new silver coin, is not, 
 as my right honourable friend seemed to insinuate, a proof that the 
 re-coinage at that time had been unadvisedly undertaken; or that 
 it was not the only cure that could be applied to that depreciation 
 of the currency, which Parliament had attempted in vain to rem- 
 edy (as I have already had occasion to state) by a penal law. 
 It is true that, by a slight error in the valuation of the two pre- 
 
 Vol. XVIIl. p. 664. 
 
166 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 cious metals with respect to each other, the silver coin was rated 
 a small degree below its just proportion to gold; and that, in con- 
 sequence, it began to disappear not long after the recoinage was 
 completed. But this technical error does not in any degree vitiate 
 the principles on which the re-coinage had been adopted. It in 
 no degree diminishes or affects the merit of those who had the 
 courage to undertake, and the firmness to carry through that im- 
 portant work, in spite of the prevalence for a time, even in this 
 House, of prejudices very much akin to those of the present day. 
 
 Those prejudices were sufficiently strong to defeat for a con- 
 siderable time the intentions of the Government, after they had 
 upon mature deliberation convinced themselves of the absolute 
 necessity of the measure; but the good sense, temper, and perse- 
 verance of that Administration triumphed in the end, and it is no 
 disparagement to my right honourable friend to recommend the 
 example of the Administration of 1696 to his serious consid- 
 eration. 
 
 The war in which King William was then engaged against 
 France, may not have been equal with the present war in magni- 
 tude of exertion. Yet if we compare the means of the country 
 at that period with its present means, and consider the exertions 
 which were then made, it would perhaps be difficult to say that 
 any excuse could be offered now, which was not in a great meas- 
 ure applicable then, for sparing, amidst the burdens of war, any 
 internal effort which was not absolutely indispensable. But the 
 restoration of the currency to a sound state was then deemed to 
 be indispensable; and the war was considered not as a reason for 
 postponing the required effort, but as an additional reason for 
 making it with as little delay as possible. 
 
 The high price of gold was then, as it is now, one striking in- | 
 dication of the deteriorated state of the currency. The indica- 
 tion might, indeed, be at that time more undeniable; because, 
 gold not being then our standard coin, and the guinea not being 
 limited by law as to the rate at which it should pass current, the 
 high price became immediately visible in the gold coin as well as 
 in bullion, the guinea being actually exchangeable for as much as 
 thirty shillings of the clipped silver. The unfavourable state of 
 our exchanges with foreign countries afforded then, as it does 
 now, the other most unerring proof that all was not sound in the 
 currency of this country,' a proof of which my right honourable 
 friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly admits the validity, 
 when he admits that the unfavourableness of the exchange might 
 probably now be corrected by correcting the excess, or (if he ob- 
 jects to the word excess) diminishing the abundance of our paper 
 currency. This admission I understood my right honourable 
 friend to make in the most unequivocal terms; not meaning 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 167 
 
 thereby that I understood him to admit that it was advisable to 
 diminish the paper currency for the sake of correcting the unfa- 
 vourableness of the exchange, but simply that such a correction 
 of the exchange would be the effect of such a diminution of 
 paper. 
 
 This leads me to consider the subject of the exchanges, as it 
 bears upon that of depreciation. I shall treat it as concisely as I 
 can; both because I must confess, that with all the attention 
 which I have bestowed upon it, I am perfectly conscious that I 
 have not been able to unravel all the intricacies of the subject; 
 and also, because it appears to me that the whole question as to 
 depreciation is disposed of by the preceding part of the argument; 
 this is to say, by the comparison of currency with bullion. The 
 state of the exchanges may add some illustration to that argument, 
 but is not wanted for the purpose of establishing it. 
 
 If that which constitutes the par of exchange between any two 
 countries be (as, if I am not mistaken, it is) an equal quantity of 
 precious metal in their respective currencies, this definition alone 
 sufficiently shows, that whatever other considerations there may 
 be, whether growing out of law or out of opinion, which regulate 
 and sustain the rate of a currency at home, its value can be esti- 
 mated abroad by no other criterion than that of the quantity of 
 precious metal for which a specific portion of it is exchangeable. 
 The foreigner knows nothing of the value of the currency of any 
 other country except that a certain portion of that currency re- 
 presents, and will procure in his own country a certain quantity 
 of precious metal. 
 
 The question of the exchanges would therefore be as simple 
 as the question of depreciation, if there were not confessedly 
 other causes which operate upon the exchange, and the operation 
 of which may sometimes be concurrent with that of the relative 
 values of the respective currencies, and sometimes may tend to 
 counteract it. 
 
 A country which imports from another more than it exports 
 to it of all other articles of commerce, is supposed to make up 
 the diflference by a transmission of bullion. In point of fact, this | 
 transmission takes place in much fewer instances than the theory I 
 supposes; but the necessity of rnaking it either actually or virtu- 
 ally, causes a variation in the rate of exchange in favour of the 
 creditor, and to the disadvantage of the debtor country; the 
 amount of which variation is measured by, and expresses, the 
 cost of making the transmission. 
 
 Supposing the currencies of two countries, each in a perfectly 
 sound state, any variation from the par of exchange between 
 them can be produced only by the one country having a debt to 
 discharge to the othei*. Supposing the debts and credits of two 
 
168 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 countries to be exactly balanced, any variation from the par of 
 exchange between them can only be produced by a depreciation 
 in the currency of one of them. These causes, however, may 
 both exist at the same time; and they may exist, either on oppo- 
 site sides, or together; in the one case aggravating, in the other 
 counteracting each other. 
 
 A country might be largely in debt to another, and yet, if its 
 currency were sound, and the currency of the creditor country 
 deteriorated, the course of the exchange would exhibit only the 
 difference between the contending effects of such deterioration 
 on the other hand, and such debt on the other: and it might hap- 
 pen that these effects might be so precisely balanced, as exactly 
 to neutralize each other. But when a country is in the situation 
 of being indebted to another, and at the same time of having a 
 depreciated currency, the depression of the exchange exhibits the 
 combined effect of both causes. 
 
 This last may, or may not, be our present situation. For I am 
 far from taking upon myself to assert, that the balance of the 
 payments from us to the continent, enters for nothing into the 
 unfavourable exchange against this country. I only deny that it 
 can be the sole cause of that unfavourableness. Still less do 1 
 pretend to define the share which this cause may have in pro- 
 ducing the effect. But as it is obvious that the depression of the 
 exchange from this cause can never, for any great continuance of 
 time, very far exceed the expense of transmitting bullion for the 
 liquidation of the balance of payments; as it is not only acknow- 
 ledged but contended, that bullion for this purpose is in fact 
 transmitted; as the expense of the transmission is perfectly 
 known, in all its several parts of price, freight, and insurance; 
 and as their collective result is notoriously very far within the 
 limits of the actual depression of the exchange, there w^ill remain 
 of that depression a large share to be accounted for, after every 
 deduction that can be made on account of the balance of pay- 
 ments, and that remainder can no otherwise be accounted for 
 than by the deterioration of our currency. 
 
 The state of the exchanges, therefore, is a proof, though I do 
 not admit it to be a necessary proof, still less could I allow it to 
 be the test, of a depreciated currency. I do not admit it to be a 
 necessary proof ; because, the price of bullion in the currency, is 
 proof sufficient without it, I do not allow it to be the test; be- 
 cause under certain circumstances, a currency might be depreci- 
 ated to a limited degree, without producing a visible depression 
 of the exchange; nay, it might coexist with an exchange posi- 
 tively favourable. These cases would arise whenever the effect 
 produced upon the exchange by the balance of payments in favour 
 of the country whose currency is depreciated in the one case ex- 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 169 
 
 actly equalled, or, in the other exceeded, the degree of the depre- 
 ciation. But though a depreciation of the currency might thus 
 exist without inducing an unfavourable exchange, a state of the 
 exchange unfavourable to a great degree, and progressively grow- 
 ing worse for a great length of time, is an infallible indication of 
 a depreciated currency. 
 
 This is all the use that I think it necessary to make of the ar- 
 guments to be drawn from the exchanges; and so far as this goes, 
 I cannot understand how any one can doubt as to their bearing. 
 We do not doubt with respect to other countries, that a sound or 
 unsound state of their currency influences the state of their ex- 
 changes. When we see the exchanges between Hamburgh or 
 Amsterdam on the one hand, and Russia or Austria on the other, 
 unfavourable in a great degree to either of the two latter coun- 
 tries, we have no hesitation in at once ascribing that unfavoura- 
 bleness, in great part at least, to a depreciation of its currency. 
 
 My right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) 
 has taken what I must think not a very fair advantage of an argu- 
 ment of an honourable gentleman opposite to me (Mr. Sharp,) 
 when he has represented him as having recommended the general 
 policy of Holland and of Hamburgh as an object of imitation for 
 this country; because, the honourable gentleman stated that by 
 not issuing a paper-money, the currencies of Holland and of Ham- 
 burgh had been preserved from depreciation. The honourable 
 gentleman certainly did not guard and qualify his statement with 
 all the circumstances which were nevertheless obviously connect- 
 ed, in his mind, with the proposition which he was advancing; 
 but it is quite as clear that nothing but the strong temptation of 
 flying from argument to declamation, could have led my right 
 honourable friend so far to mistake the honourable gentleman's 
 meaning. The meaning of the honourable gentleman evidently 
 was not to hold out Holland as having been wise in its submis- 
 sions and compliances towards France, and as enjoying the re- 
 ward of her prudent obedience in a state of enviable happiness 
 and prosperity. Still less could he intend (how is it possible that 
 any rational being could be for a moment suspected of intending ?) 
 to extol the prowess of Hamburgh. "Prowess" was, I think, 
 the word which my right honourable friend did not disdain to put 
 into the honourable gentleman's mouth, for the sake of making 
 an indignant comment upon it. The scope of the honourable gen- 
 tleman's argument I understood to be simply this: — that if Hol- 
 land, impoverished by an exhausting war, and preyed upon by an 
 exacting despotism — if Hamburgh, in the very clutches of the , 
 French power — if these unhappy states, stripped of their com- i 
 merce and independence, could yet maintain their respective cur- / 
 rencies undepreciated, it would seem to follow that a state of war, ' 
 24 Q 
 
no ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 however expensive and burdensome — that stagnation of com- 
 merce — that even the oppression of a conquering enemy — were 
 not sufficient justifications, much less necessary causes, of such 
 a system of currency as that which (according to the honour- 
 able gentleman's argument) now existed in this country, and of 
 which my right honourable friend and others seemed prepared to 
 justify the continuance, so long at least as the war shall continue, 
 as our commerce shall be embarrassed, and as our enemy shall 
 persevere in his present system of measures. This is what I un- 
 derstood the honourable gentleman to contend; and, whatever 
 might be the worth of his argument, it surely was not open to the 
 imputation which my right honourable friend found it convenient 
 to attach to it; as if the honourable gentleman had been guilty of 
 the egregious absurdity of proposing for the imitation of this 
 country the political courage of the Dutch, and the military prow- 
 ess of the Hamburghers. 
 
 I am not, however, disposed to deny the assertion which my 
 right honourable friend has grounded upon this argument, that in- 
 ferences are not to be conclusively drawn from the establishments 
 of other countries, whether political or commercial, to our own. 
 The principles of public credit are so much better understood, 
 and so much more religiously observed in this country, the line 
 of separation between the financial operations of the State, and 
 the concerns of the National Bank, confounded too often by ar- 
 bitrary governments, is here so distinctly marked, that it cannot 
 be doubted but many general propositions are true of paper cur- 
 rencies abroad, which would be utterly inapplicable to the system 
 of the Bank of England. 
 
 The depreciation of the Austrian paper money, therefore, which 
 has been cited and commented upon by my honourable friend 
 near me (Mr. Huskisson,) is not precisely an example; it is not 
 a counterpart of our actual situation; but it does afford a most use- 
 ful warning, it shows how rapidly paper money sinks in value, 
 when once power has been in any degree substituted for confi- 
 dence; and how tremendously, when once the first impulse has 
 been given, the force of descent accumulates and increases. The 
 depreciation of Austrian paper was not, in its origin, like that 
 which we are now discussing; there was, in its origin, something 
 of discredit, of a distrust (that is) of the solidity of the funds upon 
 which the paper was issued. 
 
 If solidity of funds, however, were alone sufficient to keep up 
 the credit of a paper, even the assignats of France would not have 
 fallen so soon and so rapidly in value. The rulers of France by 
 whom that paper money was coined, affected to be surprised at 
 the depreciation of securities, resting, as they contended, on foun- 
 dations more solid than those of the Bank of England — and cal- 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 171 
 
 culated, like the paper of the Bank, to promote the prosperity of 
 the country in which it circulated. Well and wisely did Mr. 
 Burke, when, in the language of an orator, and in the spirit of a 
 prophet, he foreshowed that series and succession of calamities, 
 which the jDrinciples of the French Revolution, in all its parts, 
 must inevitably produce — well and wisely did he describe those 
 essential qualities of the paper of the Bank of England which 
 constitute its real value, 
 
 " They (said he, speaking of the National Assembly) imagine, 
 that our flourishing state in England is owing to bank paper, and 
 not the bank paper to the flourishing condition of our commerce, 
 to the solidity of our credit, and to the total exclusion of all idea 
 of power from any part of the transaction. They forget that in 
 England not one shilling of paper money of any description is re- 
 ceived but of choice; that the whole had its origin in cash actual- 
 ly deposited; and that it is convertible at pleasure, in an instant, 
 and without the smallest loss, into cash again. Our paper is of 
 value in commerce, because in law it is of none. It is powerful 
 on Change, because in Westminster Hall it is impotent. In pay- 
 ment of a debt of 20/. a creditor may refuse all the paper of the 
 Bank of England. Nor is there among us a single public security, 
 of any quality or nature whatsover, that is enforced by authority. 
 In fact, it might easily be shown, that our paper wealth, instead 
 of lessening the real coin, has a tendency to increase it; that in- 
 stead of being a substitute for money, it only facilitates its entry, 
 its exit, and its circulation; that it is the symbol of prosperity, 
 not the badge of distress. Never was a scarcity of cash and an 
 exuberance of paper a subject of complaint in this nation." 
 
 These were the characteristics of the paper of the Bank of 
 England, when Mr. Burke contrasted it with the assignats of 
 France. Its convertibility into specie upon demand, was suspend- 
 ed by the Act of 1797, on grounds which it is not now necessary 
 to discuss. The suspension was, for a series of years, unattended 
 with any symptoms that indicated depreciation. And it must be 
 our wish, as well as our interest, to believe (what from reasoning 
 also appears most probable,) that this suspension alone, if not fol- 
 lowed up by excessive issue, might have endured, as long as the 
 political circumstances of the state might have rendered its en- 
 durance necessary, without producing that effect. But if that ef- 
 fect has been produced, as seems to be established be3^ond the pos- 
 sibility of contradiction, let us not, instead of attempting to cor- 
 rect it, endeavour rather to palliate its evils, and to reconcile 
 ourselves to its consequences. Even under the change produced 
 by the temporary suspension of cash payments, let us remember, 
 that the essential and fundamental principles upon which the char- 
 acter and utility of bank paper rest, are those described in the ex- 
 
i 
 
 172 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 tract which I have just quoted from Mr. Burke. Let us not, un- 
 der the pressure of what has been always considered as a temporary- 
 necessity, and in the despair of meeting what I trust is no more 
 than a transitory, and, as yet, a curable evil, abjure this language 
 and these doctrines of Mr. Burke, and adopt in their stead the 
 cant and sophistry of those against whom his arguments were di- 
 rected. 
 
 Far be it from me to imagine that between the notes of the 
 Bank of England and the assignats of the National Assembly, 
 there now exists that resemblance of which Mr. Burke, in 1791, 
 denied and disproved the existence! But in proportion as I am 
 satisfied that the bank note is of a different nature from the as- 
 signat, in that proportion do I dislike to hear them defended by 
 the same arguments. " Ce n^est pas Vassignat qui perd, c'est 
 V argent qui gagne,^^ was the motto and the doctrine of a trea- 
 tise, published in Paris during the reign of the National Assem- 
 bly, for the purpose of maintaining the credit of assignats, by 
 accounting for the difference between their nominal and ex- 
 changeable values. " It is not the bank note which loses, but the 
 dollar which gains," is the argument by which we have heard 
 the rise in the denomination of the dollar explained: "It is not 
 paper which has fallen, but gold which has risen," is the argu- 
 ment which has filled all the pamphlets and all the speeches 
 which we have read and heard upon the subject. The arguments 
 are identically and undistinguishedly the same. I wish that any 
 of my honourable friends, who maintain the undepreciated state 
 of our paper currency, could satisfy me and the country that 
 there is some essential difference in their mode of applying them. 
 I wish they could show me that the doctrine of the French pam- 
 phlet might be false, while that of the English pamphlets and 
 of their own speeches is true. 
 
 I do not need to be reminded of the many essential differ- 
 ences in the circumstances of the two paper currencies. I am 
 here speaking, not of the causes of depreciation, but simply of 
 the fact. That assignats were discredited in all sorts of ways, no 
 person doulits. But the price of the precious metals in those as- 
 signats was, after all, the evidence and the measure of their de- 
 preciation. The high price which other commodities bore in as- 
 signats, afforded, to be sure, strong suspicions of depreciation; 
 but it proved the fact, and established the degree of that deprecia- 
 tion only as compared with the price for which the same articles 
 could be obtained in gold or silver. I say this to guard myself 
 against the imputation of disparaging bank notes by comparing 
 them with a currency so notoriously worthless and fraudulent. 
 Paper currency may be depreciated from various causes, which 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 173 
 
 have no resemblance to each other; but whatever may be the 
 causes of depreciation, the test of it is in all cases the same. 
 
 On all these grounds, I own my entire, though unwilling con- 
 viction, that a depreciation of our paper currency does actually 
 exist; — that the permanently unfavourable state of the exchanges 
 with foreign countries, is an indication — and the long continued 
 high price of bullion at home, the proof — of it. I can at the 
 same time most truly say, that I shall hold myself infinitely in- 
 debted to any man who, by reasoning and argument, by reference 
 to admitted facts and established principles, can bring me back 
 from this most unsatisfactory conviction. No man set out in the 
 examination of the subject with less disposition to arrive at this 
 conclusion: and no man would more gladly find reasons that 
 could satisfy his own mind for receding from it. 
 
 I confess, however, that although I can make full allowance to 
 others for the same unwillingness which I have felt myself, to 
 believe in the fact of an existing depreciation, I am more alarm- 
 ed than encouraged by the apparent disposition rather to escape 
 from the avowal of this fact, than to controvert it. I cannot see, 
 without concern, the constant flight from the point at which the 
 controversy really lies, to the war, to the harvest, to Portugal, 
 and to Buonaparte; in short, to every imaginable topic, except 
 those on which the discussion essentially turns. This may con- 
 fuse and perplex the argument, by raising a crowd of images, 
 with which it has no relation. But as to the point at issue, it 
 seems to me a confession of weakness, rather than a display of 
 strength. 
 
 Still greater is my apprehension, when I hear what are the mo- 
 tives assigned for continuing the present state of our currency, 
 whatever it may be, rather than making any attempt to decide 
 what that state really is, and, if necessary, to correct or to improve 
 it. Some persons there are indeed so sanguine and extravagant, 
 as to deny altogether that either improvement or correction is 
 necessary; or, that the ideas which these words convey, can be 
 applicable to a system which they consider, not as an evil, but as 
 a benefit. We have been told of " localized " currency, of an 
 " insulated " circulation, as a blessing far outweighing all the 
 other advantages arising from our peculiar local situation; as 
 something analogous to them; something which was wanting to 
 complete the perfection of our insular character, and which we 
 have fortunately stumbled upon by accident; for I think no man 
 has been hardy enough to say, that we could have or ought to 
 have established it by design. 
 
 One honourable gentleman (Mr. Baring) only, I think, has 
 gone back to the origin of the Bank restriction in 1797, and has 
 imputed to the great man who was the author of it, an intention 
 
174 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 of laying in that measure the foundation of a system of fraudu- 
 lent finance, and of providing for an indefinite extension of the 
 public expenditure abroad, by retrenching the just value of the 
 payment of the public creditor at home. This is the imputation 
 brought forward by that honourable gentleman: and, while I 
 fully acquit my right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer) of any participation in this sentiment, I cannot but 
 express my regret that he should not have distinctly disclaimed 
 it; especially as he thought proper to bestow such lavish and un- 
 qualified commendation upon the speech in which it was contain- 
 ed, and to declare, in more large and positive terms than I think 
 he would upon reflection be disposed to confirm, his concurrence 
 in the general views and doctrines of that speech. 
 
 But acquitting my right honourable friend altogether of the 
 wildest and most extravagant of the tenets which have been ad- 
 vanced by persons who admit and admire a depreciated currency, 
 I see cause of sufficient alarm in those which he has avowed and 
 maintained. If the causes of the present state of our currency 
 be, as he says, the unfavourable balance of our trade, and the ne- 
 cessary extent of our war expenditure; if, so long as those causes 
 continue to operate, gold must, as he contends, continue to flow 
 out of the country; if nothing can contribute to recall it, except a 
 turn of the exchanges in our favour; if that turn can never be 
 produced, except either by the previous turn of the balance of 
 trade in our favour, or by the reduction of our paper currency; 
 if the balance of trade, having been turned against us by the anti- 
 commercial decrees of our enemy, must continue against us till 
 those decrees are repealed; and if, of the only other expedient 
 for correciing the exchanges (viz., the reduction of our paper 
 currency,) my right honourable friend, while he admits the 
 efficacy to be probable, denies the application to be possible; — I 
 am afraid the result of this series of propositions, every one of 
 which I collect from the speech of my right honourable friend, 
 is, not only that we have no remedy for the present evil, but that 
 we are likely to arrive at a term, when all our exertions for the 
 safety of the country must cease, from our absolute inability to 
 maintain them. 
 
 The precious metals are necessary to feed and sustain our mili- 
 tary operations abroad. In all former wars, what went out in 
 bullion for military purposes, was replaced in the course of trade 
 by fresh importations. But now, according to the argument of 
 my right honourable friend, our commerce itself is but another 
 drain for our bullion, and must continue so long as the enemy 
 pleases. The time, therefore, must come when the stream — al- 
 ways flowing, and never replenished — will be exhausted; and 
 when, consequently, all the operations, whether of war or of com- 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 175 
 
 merce, to which it gave motion, will stand still. This, I beg it 
 may be remembered, is not my statement: it is that which I col- 
 lected from the speeches of those who profess to see nothing re- 
 quisite to be set right in the present system of our currency. It 
 would be a statement of complete despair, if there were abso- 
 lutely no check in nature for the course and progress of the mis- 
 chief. One check, one only check, there is — a check, as I should 
 think, safe as well as effectual. But while we are comforted with 
 hearing from my right honourable friend that such a check might, 
 in his opinion also, be effectual, we hear from him, at the same 
 time, that it would be absolute destruction to resort to it. 
 
 In addition to these motives of policy, there are — as I have 
 heard this night, not without astonishment and dismay — consid- 
 erations of justice, which preclude any systematic reduction of 
 the amount of our paper currency. Such a reduction, it is ar- 
 gued, would change the value of existing contracts, and throw 
 into confusion every species of pecuniary transactions, from the 
 rent of the great landed proprietor down to the wages of the peas- 
 ant and the artizan. Good God! what is this but to say, that the 
 system of irredeemable paper currency must continue for ever? 
 What is it but to say, that the debts incurred, and the contracts 
 entered into, under the old established legal standard of the cur- 
 rency, including the debts and contracts of the State itself, are 
 now to be lopped and squared to a new measure, set up originally 
 as a temporary expedient; and that the sacredness of public faith, 
 and the obligation of legal engagements, are to be conformed to 
 the accidental and fluctuating derangement, and not to the ancient 
 and fixed rule of our currency ? 
 
 If this be so, there is indeed no hope that we shall ever return 
 to our sound and pristine state. This objection is of a nature to 
 propagate itself indefinitely. Every day new contracts must ne- 
 cessarily be made; and every day successively (as it is of the es- 
 sence of depreciation to go on increasing in degree,) at rates di- 
 verging more and more widely from the real standard from which 
 we have departed. Every day, therefore, must interpose addi- 
 tional impediments to a return to the legal standard. Never did 
 the wildest and most hostile prophesier of ruin to the finances of 
 this country venture to predict that a time should come, when, by 
 the avowal of Parliament, nominal amount in paper, without ref- 
 erence to any real standard value in gold, would be the payment 
 of the public creditor. But still less could it ever be apprehend- 
 ed that such a system was to be built on the foundations of equity 
 and right — that it would be considered as unjust to give to the 
 paper creditor, the real value of his contracts in gold, but just to 
 compel the creditor who had trusted in gold, to receive for all 
 
176 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 time to come the nominal amount, whatever that might come to 
 be, of his contract in paper. 
 
 This proposition appears to me so monstrous, and shows so 
 plainly to what an extravagant and alarming length we are liable 
 to be hurried, when once we have lost sight of principle, and 
 given ourselves up to the guidance of expediency, that I am sure 
 this House ought to lose no time in pronouncing its opinion as to 
 the maxims by which, for centuries, the currency of this country 
 has been preserved in eminent purity and integrity; and in de- 
 claring its determination to acknowledge no others in the theory 
 of our mone)^ system, and to look to a practical return to that sys- 
 tem, not only as advantageous to the state, but as indispensable to 
 its justice and its honour. 
 
 For these purposes, it is in my opinion necessary, in the first 
 place, to enter a distinct record of what is, in our opinion, the le- 
 gal standard of our currency. I know not how this can be done 
 with greater clearness and correctness, than by adopting the first* 
 seven of the Resolutions proposed by the honourable and learned 
 Chairman of the Bullion Committee. 
 
 To these seven Resolutions are opposed, and for them it is in- 
 tended to substitute, the first of the Propositions of the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman opposite to me.t 
 
 I should have no hesitation in affirming these first seven Reso- 
 lutions, if they stood simply and positively on their own merits: 
 but when I find that we cannot get rid of them without admitting 
 into their place a Proposition so exceptionable as the first Propo- 
 sition of the right honourable gentleman, and one which, when 
 admitted, will bring in its train other Propositions still more ex- 
 ceptionable — one in particular (I mean the third) absolutely re- 
 pugnant (as it seems to me) to common sense — I consider the af- 
 firmation of the original Resolutions as doubly important, not only 
 from what it will establish, but for what it will exclude. 
 
 This is not the time to discuss the Propositions of the right 
 honourable gentleman; otherwise it would be easy to show that 
 the doctrine of his first Proposition, which, referring every thing 
 relating to the money of the country exclusively to the preroga- 
 tive of the Crown, states, as altogether equal and indifferent, the 
 exercise of that prerogative by the will of the Crown alone, or 
 with the concurrence of the two Houses of Parliament — that this 
 doctrine, if not absolutely false in principle and in theory (a ques- 
 tion which I will not now discuss,) is, at least in any practical 
 view, and to any practical purpose, unsound: it is incomplete, de- 
 lusive and dangerous; it states the prerogative, indeed, but it does 
 not state it as defined and regulated by law. This, however, is a 
 
 * See Res. 1 to 7, of Mr. Horner. t See Res. 1, of Mr. Vansittart. 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 177 
 
 part only of his objections to the right honourable gentleman's 
 Propositions. There are others which I shall reserve till the mo- 
 ment shall arrive, when it becomes itself the subject of substan- 
 tive discussion. What I have now said, in my opinion, is sufficient 
 to disqualify it as a subtitute for the precise and unimpeachable defi- 
 nition of the monetary system of this country as established by the 
 joint authority of the Crown and Parliament, which is contained 
 in the honourable and learned gentleman's first seven Resolutions. 
 If I do not go at large into those Resolutions for the purpose 
 of explaining and defending the vote which I shall give in favour 
 of them, it is because, in the whole course of this debate, I have 
 not heard a single objection urged against them. It is singular 
 that the whole skill of his antagonists should have been exhausted, 
 not in attacking, but in evading his statement; that, of a chain of 
 reasoning, which, if it could be loosened in a single link, would, 
 I admit, fall to pieces, not a single link has been attempted to be 
 loosened. It remains entire and unbroken, and connects undis- 
 puted premises with an inevitable conclusion. 
 
 The eighth and ninth Resolutions* of the honourable and learn- 
 ed gentlemen contain truisms which no man disputes; and which 
 the right honourable gentleman, in proposing to substitute for 
 them his second Proposition, only makes less completely true i 
 by the omission of one essential circumstance. The eighth Reso- / 
 lution states, that the notes of the Bank of England are stipulations ) 
 to pay on demand. The right honourable gentleman's second / 
 Proposition omits the words, on demand. Why this omission? ' 
 It can hardly be accidental; it can hardly be without some mean- 
 ing: and yet the right honourable gentleman, so far as I have 
 heard, in the speech with which he introduced his Propositions, 
 did not offer any thing to account for so singular an alteration. Is 
 it possible that he can mean to say, that bank notes are not stipu- 
 lations to pay on demand? It is perfectly true that the restriction 
 law of 1797 suspends the fulfilment of this stipulation, and pro- 
 tects the Bank against the consequences of a refusal to fulfil it: 
 but does not the right honourable gentleman see the danger of 
 confounding two things so different as the temporary suspension 
 of the effect of an obligation, and the actual annulment of the ob- 
 ligation itself? I am almost sure that the right honourable gentle- 
 man must, upon reflection, be aware of the perilous tendency of 
 such a confusion. But, in the mean time, forasmuch as a correct 
 and complete definition is preferable to one which is undeniably 
 and dangerously defective, I cannot hesitate to vote for the eighth 
 and ninth of the original Resolutions, to the exclusion of the right 
 honourable gentleman's most unnecessary and most suspicious 
 amendment.! 
 
 ♦See Res. 8 and 9 of Mr. Homer. f See 2d Res. of Mr. Vansittart, 
 25 
 
178 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 The tenth* of the original Resolutions contains a clear, indis- 
 putable, and (as I have before described it) inevitable conclusion, 
 from the state of the law, as accurately laid down in the preceding 
 Resolutions, coupled with the notorious and undisputed fact of 
 the high price of bullion. The truth of the averment contained in 
 this Resolution is not directly denied. The dispute is only whether 
 that which is admitted to be true is not nevertheless unfit to be 
 recorded. It is not denied that the exchangeable value of bank 
 notes is at this moment considerably less than their denominative 
 value, if those values respectively be measured in gold or silver; 
 but it is disputed whether gold or silver be the fit measure of the 
 value of bank notes. This is in effect the whole of the argument, 
 not upon this Resolution only, but upon the whole in dispute. It 
 is the single point on which all our discussions turn. 
 
 I have already discussed this point so much at length, and have 
 so nearly (as I am afraid) exhausted the patient indulgence of the 
 Committee, that I do not think myself at liberty here to recapit- 
 ulate the arguments upon it. I will content myself with asking 
 of those who maintain a contrary opinion, and particularly of the 
 right honourable gentleman (Mr. Vansittart,) " If the precious 
 metals, and particularly that one which is the legal standard of the 
 currency of the country, be not the proper measure of the value 
 of that currency, what is?" The right honourable gentleman has 
 his answer ready in his third Proposition: and a most curious 
 one it is.t "Public estimation" is, according to the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman, the true standard measure of the value of a 
 currency; and the common measure of the two parts of a currency 
 as compared with each other. If I felt upon this question with 
 the spirit of a partisan — if I had been a member of the Bullion 
 Committee, and were responsible for their Report, I should say, 
 that the right honourable gentleman's third Proposition was abso- 
 lutely beyond my hopes. Speaking impartially, I must say, that 
 if I had seen this third Proposition any where but where it is, 
 fairly printed and numbered in the right honourable gentleman's 
 series, I should have thought it an invention of his antagonists, 
 calculated to place the fallacy of his doctrine in the most glaring 
 and ridiculous point of view, but carrying the license of exagge- 
 ration rather beyond pardonable limits, and defeating its purpose, 
 by the grossness of the caricature. I would have taken no other 
 person's word than the right honourable gentleman's own, that he, 
 a man of science, a man of practical knowledge and experience, 
 was the author of this Proposition. 
 
 This Proposition, however, is not now regularly before us. I 
 think it absolutely incredible that it should ever be brought be- 
 
 * See Res. 10, of Mr. Horner. f See 3d Res. of Mr. Vansittart. 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 179 
 
 fore us for our direct consideration and adoption. It is now only 
 to be viewed as the contrast and contradiction of the tenth Reso- 
 lution of the honourable and learned gentleman; as intended to 
 divert us by the prospect of something better from sanctioning 
 that Resolution. And how does it effect that purpose ? By show- 
 ing us that, if we will let that Resolution alone, and not unsettle 
 the public mind by resolving any thing at all about the measure- 
 ment of the value of bank notes, there is already a sufficient rule 
 for the just estimation of their value. What is that rule? "Public 
 estimation." Good. And who is the party whose opinion is to 
 be settled ? The public. To whom do they appeal ? To the 
 House of Commons. The public opinion is divided; the public 
 appeal to the House of Commons for judgment; and the House 
 of Commons, after gravely hearing the arguments on both sides, 
 delivers, not its own decision of the question in dispute, but a 
 decree that the opinion of the public has already decided it. 
 
 Is this (I do not say) wise, judicious, satisfactory? I ask if it 
 be intelligible; if it be not a mockery of the public; a degrada- 
 tion of our own character, and an abdication of our own func- 
 tions ? 
 
 Again I say, I cannot, will not believe, that we shall ever be 
 seriously called upon to vote this third Proposition. 
 
 But even so, we must not leave this main point of inquiry, un- 
 determined, nor our determination upon it unrecorded. The 
 tenth of the original Resolutions contains the just and indisputa- 
 ble inference from the known law and the acknowledged facts of 
 the case. Till the indentures of the Mint be altered, and the 
 statutes which sanction them repealed, definite weight of precious 
 metal constitutes the true standard of our currency. By that 
 standard, while it subsists in law, every species of our currency 
 must be measured. Measured by that standard, bank notes have 
 not at present a value equal to their denomination. Unless the 
 premises can be denied, it is vain to dispute the conclusion. And 
 this conclusion, if it be true, it is our bounden duty solemnly to 
 record. 
 
 These ten Resolutions, therefore, expound the law of our cur- 
 rency; and establish the fact of the actual depreciation of that 
 part of it which consists in paper. 
 
 Here I confess I should be contented to leave the matter: con- 
 ceiving that the remedy to be applied to the evil may best be 
 proposed by the Executive Government; and that the causes of 
 it, though to my mind obvious and manifest, yet are not as capa- 
 ble of certain and demonstrative proof, as the fact of its existence. 
 
 I have myself no doubt of the truth of the honourable and 
 learned gentleman's* eleventh Resolution. But I am not pre- 
 
 *See Res. 11, of Mr. Horner. 
 
180 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 pared to affirm it by my vote. I think that, unlike, in this res- 
 pect, to those which have preceded it, it asserts more than it 
 proves; and I think it implies a degree of blame upon the Bank, 
 which I am not ready to impute to that body. 
 
 When it is stated that the depreciation of bank notes is owing 
 to an excessive issue, and that the excessive issue has been pro- 
 duced by a want of check and control, it is difficult not to con- 
 strue such a statement as imputing to the Bank a heavy responsi- 
 bility both for the excess of their issues, and for a neglect of those 
 precautions by which such excess might have been prevented. 
 But the check and control which are said to have been wanting, 
 may have been, and in point of fact were, in part at least, extrin- 
 sic to the Bank. The main check was the payment of their 
 notes in specie upon demand: for the discontinuance of this 
 check the Bank is obviously not responsible. If indeed I could 
 agree with my right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer) in considering the question of excess as independent 
 of that of depreciation, and as capable of being satisfactorily 
 proved or disproved, otherwise than through the depreciation, I 
 could not affirm the fact of an excessive issue without imputing 
 to the Bank the blame of having intentionally produced that ex- 
 cess. But the check of cash payments once removed — which 
 was, as I apprehended, the only infallible guard against excess, I 
 know of no test by which the Bank could ascertain the fact that 
 their issues had become excessive, except by that of their paper 
 having become depreciated. The degree and the long continuance 
 of the unfavourableness of the exchange strongly indicate — and 
 the high price of bullion incontrovertably proves — the deprecia- 
 tion; the depreciation proves the excess. But such being the order 
 of the demonstration, it is not till the fact of depreciation was estab- 
 lished that I could consider that of an excessive issue as proved: and 
 it would not be until such excess should have been persevered in 
 against better knowledge, that I should think it just to animad- 
 vert upon the conduct of the Bank in the sense of this Resolution. 
 Besides, I confess I think it unnecessary. I cannot help being 
 satisfied, that without any specific resolution on the subject of 
 excess, the effect of this debate, should the first ten Resolutions 
 be adopted — nay, I cannot help hoping that the effect of the de- 
 bate itself — will be to correct that evil. 
 
 For this purpose, however, it is undoubtedly desirable, that 
 the Bank should be disabused of some notions which it appears 
 to entertain, and of others which have been suggested in this de- 
 bate; at least if those notions are, as they appear to my under- 
 standing, entirely erroneous. " It is impossible that there should 
 be an excess in the issue of bank notes," say the Bank, because 
 those notes are never issued except upon solid security — the se- 
 
THE BULLION C03IMITTEE. 181 
 
 curity of real mercantile transactions." Surely it cannot be ne- 
 cessary to show that, although this may be an adequate precaution 
 against loss to the Bank, it is none against an excessive issue. It 
 surely cannot be contended, that every mercantile transaction, 
 that is to say, every object of commerce, may be represented 
 to its full value in the paper currency of the country — and re- 
 presented not once only, but as often as it changes hands — with- 
 out any inconvenient augmentation of the mass of that currency. 
 A. sells to B. a bale of cloth, or a hogshead of sugar, and receives 
 from B. a bill of exchange payable in two months. Here is a 
 bill founded upon a real mercantile transaction. A. carries B.'s 
 bill to the Bank for discount; and a bank note to the amount of 
 the bill is sent into circulation. Next day B. transfers his goods 
 to C, and receives from C. a similar bill of exchange. Here is 
 another bill founded on a real mercantile transaction. Like the 
 former, it is carried to the Bank; and, like it, is the cause of add- 
 ing a bank note of the same amount to the circulation. Is it not 
 plain that this transaction may be almost indefinitely repeated, 
 till the bale of cloth or the hogshead of sugar is represented a 
 hundred fold in the currency of the country ? The security of 
 the Bank is not in the rule of its issue, but in the solvency of the 
 several parties. This may guard their notes against depreciation 
 from discredit; but what tendency has it to secure them from de- 
 preciation by excess? 
 
 "It is impossible," others have said, "that there should be an 
 excess, when the mass of property to be circulated in this coun- 
 try — the rents of land, the profits of trade, the expenditure of 
 the state, and the receipt of the revenue — are grown and daily 
 growing to an amount so much beyond all former experience." 
 " The amount of the circulating medium," it is said, " so far from 
 having increased in a ratio equal to that of these several enor- 
 mous demands for its employment, bears an infinitely smaller 
 proportion to those demands than it has done at former periods 
 of our history. It cannot therefore be in excess." This propo- 
 sition has been much dwelt upon by many gentlemen who have 
 spoken in this debate; and the difficulty of dealing with it lies in 
 this — that on neither side of the comparison are what it assumes 
 as data, fixed and certain; that, on the one side, the total amount 
 of the currency of the country, including paper of all kinds, is 
 necessarily unknown; and on the other side, who is there (as I 
 have before had occasion to ask) that shall pretend to estimate 
 with accuracy the aggregate amount of all the private transactions 
 of the country ? The peremptory inference that excess is impos- 
 sible, is surely not to be drawn with confidence from premises 
 necessarily conjectural. 
 
 In one sense indeed, which, however, I can hardly suppose to 
 
 R 
 
182 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 be m|8kc 
 
 be mSftided, it may be true that there never can be any such thing 
 as eji^Ess or superabundance of currency in a country: it cannot 
 be superabundant, if you do not care for its depreciation. Sup- 
 pose for instance, ten millions sufficient to carry on all the trans- 
 actions of the country — fabricate fifteen millions of paper instead 
 of ten, the whole fifteen will circulate: — the only consequence 
 will be, that the commodities for which it is exchanged will rise 
 fifty per cent, in their nominal price. Make those fifteen millions 
 twenty; the addition will in like manner be absorbed into the en- 
 hanced prices of commodities. Excess of currency cannot be 
 proved to the conviction of those who will not admit depreciation 
 to be the proof of it. 
 
 But again, if we were to allow the accuracy and certainty of 
 all the data that are assumed by those persons who have relied on 
 this argument; to allow whatever amount they please for the pe- 
 cuniary transactions of the country, public and private; to allow 
 them to fix where they please, the amount of the currency; and 
 to assume that its actual amount at the present moment, consist- 
 ing, as it does, almost exclusively of paper, is not greater — is even 
 less — than when it consisted in part, and in great part, of gold; — 
 still it would remain for them, before they could infer the impos- 
 sibility of excess, to show, that there was no improved m.ode of 
 carrying on the transactions of the country, which facilitated and 
 quickened all pecuniary transfers, and made a less quantity of cur- 
 rency perform what had required a greater amount before; — it 
 would remain for them to show that the very substitution of paper 
 for gold did not greatly contribute to this facility; that a bank 
 note of one hundred pounds would not perform in a given space 
 of time an infinitely greater number of operations in exchange of 
 commodities, than an equal sum in the more bulky and less trans- 
 ferable shape of guineas. 
 
 That these or any other arguments can disprove the possibility 
 of excess, I utterly deny — and I trust that the Bank has, by this 
 time, ceased to believe. On the other hand, that the existence of 
 excess can be proved by the converse of these arguments, or that 
 any conclusive inference can be drawn from the positive amount 
 of paper in circulation, or from the comparison of that amount, 
 either with the amount of currency in circulation at any former 
 time, or with that of the pecuniary transactions, revenue and ex- 
 penditure of the country — I do not pretend. 
 
 The currency might be increased or diminished in any assigna- 
 ble degree, without affording any inference fairly conclusive upon 
 the point in question, unless that diminution or increase were ac- 
 companied by a variation of its value. Whether that value has 
 or has not varied, is therefore the sole question. It is the point 
 from which we set out, and that to which we must return. And 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 183 
 
 as it is one which is capable of being either proved or disproved 
 directly, they who argue about it analogically, instead of directly, 
 afford a strong indication of their own distrust in the soundness 
 of their reasoning. 
 
 That excessive issue has therefore been the cause of deprecia- 
 tion, I entertain no doubt. And although, for the reasons which 
 I have given, I do not think it necessary to declare this fact in a 
 distinct Resolution, I trust that the statement of principles in 
 those Resolutions which precede, and those which follow, is suffi- 
 cient to answer every practical purpose of such a declaration. 
 
 The twelfth Resolution simply records a fact, about which there 
 is no dispute — the unfavourable state of the exchanges. 
 
 The thirteenth Resolution attributes this unfavourable state of 
 the exchanges, in a great measure, to the depreciation of the rela- 
 tive value of the currency of this country, as compared with that 
 of other countries; without however excluding the operation of 
 other causes. 
 
 The fourteenth* declares it to be the duty of the Bank, under 
 the present circumstances, to take the state of foreign exchanges, 
 as well as the price of bullion, into their view, in regulating the 
 amount of their issues. 
 
 The twelfth Resolution requires no comment. 
 
 To the thirteenth and fourteenth, however the right honourable 
 gentleman opposite to me (Mr. Vansittart) may object, my right 
 honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must agree. 
 He must agree, at least, unless he thinks either that the deprecia- 
 tion of our paper currency is a good thing in itself; or that, being 
 an evil, it is productive of good by which it is more than coun- 
 terbalanced. He must agree to these Resolutions: for he admits 
 that the reduction of the amount of Bank paper would have a ten- 
 dency to set right the exchanges. The state of the exchanges, 
 therefore, is not, in his opinion, as it is in that of others, wholly 
 independent of the amount of the Bank issues, and unaffected by 
 it. If the exchanges are affected by the issues of the Bank, and 
 affect in their turn, as they undoubtedly do, and as by some they 
 are thought to do exclusively, the price of gold, and the general 
 commercial interests of the country, the state of the exchanges 
 cannot be altogether a matter of indifference in any question re- 
 specting the amount to which the Bank issues should be carried. 
 But the Bank have told us distinctly, that they do not advert to the 
 exchanges with a view to regulate their issues. Their reason for 
 not doing so, they state to be, that they do not consider the 
 amount of their issues, and the state of the exchanges, as having 
 any connexion, or bearing in any degree upon each other. In 
 
 * See Res. 12, 13, and 14, of Mr. Horner. 
 
184 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 this opinion, my right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer) thinks, as I think, that the Bank is wrong. He must, 
 therefore, naturally agree with me in the necessity and expediency 
 of correcting their error on this subject. Consequently, I can 
 anticipate no objection on his part to the twelfth, thirteenth, and 
 fourteenth Resolutions. 
 
 The fifteenth* Resolution cannot be opposed by any man, who 
 is not prepared to go the full length of the argument, that excess 
 of paper currency is a thing of itself physically impossible, or 
 who is not desirous of converting the temporary suspension of 
 cash payments into a permanent system. With these exceptions, 
 every man must concur in the opinion, that the convertibility upon 
 demand of paper into coin, is the only permanent and certain se- 
 curity against excess in the issue of paper; and must be anxious 
 that this principle, having been called in question, should be 
 unequivocally affirmed. More especially must those persons be 
 anxious for such an affirmation, who are prepared to vote for the 
 last but one of the propositions of the right honourable gentle- 
 man opposite to me (Mr. Vansittart;) in which the expediency 
 of returning to cash payments as quickly as possible, is so clearly 
 and properly recognized. I have already declared that I am one 
 of those who concur in that proposition; and who would not ob- 
 ject to voting, at the same time, for the concluding proposition 
 of the right honourable gentleman, which declares the inexpedi- 
 ency of reverting to cash payments at the present moment: but 
 to those propositions, the Resolutions of the honourable and 
 learned gentleman (Mr. Horner,) which I have already discussed, 
 and especially this fifteenth Resolution, appear to me to form the 
 best and most natural introduction. 
 
 I now come to the concluding Resolution of the honourable 
 and learned gentleman,! and that with respect to which alone I 
 differ from him to the extent of being compelled to vote against 
 it. Agreeing with him as I do in all the main principles of his 
 argument; admitting, as I do, that the evil which he has de- 
 nounced, exists, and that he and his fellow-labourers have traced 
 it to its source; admitting also that it requires remedy, I am cer- 
 tainly bound to explain why I cannot go along with him in his 
 practical conclusion: and I will endeavour to explain myself 
 upon this point, I hope, to his satisfaction. 
 
 The object of this Resolution is to change the term of the re- 
 striction upon cash payments at the Bank; and to ascertain, 
 though not necessarily to shorten, the period of its duration, 
 
 I have already said, that, throughout the whole of this busi- 
 ness, I consider the Bank as entirely passive. The restriction 
 
 *See the 15th Resolution of Mr. Horner. fSee Res. 16, of Mr. Horner. ' 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 185 
 
 was originally imposed upon them by Parliament. By Parlia- 
 ment it was renewed more than once during the continuance of 
 the former war, after the Bank had declared its readiness to pay 
 in cash; — by Parliament it was re-enacted at the recommence- 
 ment of the war; — and with a policy, which I deeply regret, but 
 for which the Bank is no way answerable, was made commensu- 
 rate in its continuance with the continuance of the war. If, there- 
 fore, the error has prevailed of considering this as a war measure, 
 it is not to the Bank, but to the Parliament, that this error ought 
 to be imputed. The Bank was taught by Parliament so to con- 
 sider the subject; and it is hard to visit upon the Bank the conse- 
 quences of our own error. 
 
 Nothing can be more obvious than that, considering its own 
 interests as a commercial corporation, the Bank may have thought 
 itself not only warranted, but obliged to adopt a different course 
 of conduct, with a view to prepare for the resumption of cash 
 payments at a period of six months after a definite treaty of peace, 
 from that which they would have adopted with a view to a dif- 
 ferent period, definite in point of time, but independent of the 
 consideration of peace or war. It is possible that, taking the 
 colour of their opinions from Parliament, and considering the 
 war as the cause of restriction, and peace, whenever it should be 
 made, as certain to supersede the necessity of it, they may have 
 thought that the six months which are to intervene between the 
 conclusion of the definite treaty and the call upon them for cash, 
 would be sufficient to enable them to replenish their coffers; 
 however they might have exhausted them in the mean time, by 
 a liberal assistance to Government, and however they might have 
 omitted to replace their issues by the purchase of gold in the 
 market. I do not say that such has been the conduct of the 
 Bank: I sa)'^, that if such has been their conduct, it is perfectly 
 natural and excusable. We know, indeed, in point of fact, that 
 they have omitted to purchase bullion. I regret this — because I 
 think that continued purchases, on their part, would have tended 
 to keep their notes and the precious metals more nearly on a par. 
 But we have nothing to do with the policy on which the Bank 
 conducts its own private concerns; we have no right to examine 
 into the state of its coffers; and it would be highly improper and 
 mischievous to do so. We had a right to require, before the 
 Bank restriction, payment of their notes in specie on demand: 
 that right we have voluntarily forgone for purposes, and with a 
 view to interests, not of the Bank, but of our own; and all that 
 we have now strictly a right to require of the Bank is, that it 
 should be ready to resume its cash payments at the period which 
 Parliament has fixed for that resumption. 
 
 It would, therefore, in my opinion, be unjust to shorten, by 
 26 R* 
 
1S6 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 any compulsory measure, the duration, or to change the nature of 
 the term for which the restriction has heen enacted. 
 
 But I also think the change would be impolitic, as well as un- 
 just. I am for adhering to our bargain; although I do not think 
 it a very wise one. I am afraid, that if we propose to alter it 
 for our own convenience, we should not only not obtain our ob- 
 ject, but by throwing loose the terms of the existing agreement, 
 should risk the non-performance of that agreement when the pe- 
 riod for exacting it arrives. 
 
 That our first object might be defeated by the Bank — if we 
 could suppose that the Directors of the Bank (which, however, I 
 am very far from believing) were capable of defeating it by de- 
 sign, — is sufficiently obvious. But even innocently, and with the 
 sincerest desire to conform themselves to the express wish of Par- 
 liament, the Bank Directors, suddenly driven out of the course 
 which they may have adopted in reliance upon the former act, 
 by this new and unlooked-for interposition, might, by the very 
 measures which that interposition rendered necessary, create a 
 state of things which would oblige us hastily to recall it. 
 
 We read in the Report of the Bullion Committee of the alarm- 
 ing effects of a too sudden and violent contraction of the Bank 
 issues. We feel at the present moment the ill effect of an uncon- 
 trolled augmentation of them. The result of the present discus- 
 sion must and will be (I cannot doubt but it will) to check the 
 latter evil: but I am afraid, that, by fixing peremptorily a new 
 period for opening the cash coffers of the Bank, we should incur 
 a danger of the former kind to an extent of which the conse- 
 quences cannot be foreseen. Of these consequences, that which 
 I most apprehend, which I think the most certain, and consider 
 as the most to be deprecated, would be that, the act under which 
 the restriction is now limited being repealed, the new limitation 
 would be found impracticable; and that we should thus be left 
 without the prospect of any definite period for the restoration of 
 the sound and natural state of our currency. 
 
 In the present state of this discussion, I shall be well contented 
 if we come out of the Committee with the principles of our 
 money system unequivocally recognised, and with the prospect 
 of our return to the practice of them only not impaired. Of that 
 issue I will not despair. For the rest, I am willing to leave to 
 the good sense and good intentions of the Bank, and to the sug- 
 gestions of the executive government, that gradual retrenchment 
 of the excess of our paper currency, which can alone correct 
 those evils, the existence of which we all agree in acknowledg- 
 ing. I impute nothing to the Bank for whatever has taken place 
 amiss; I rely confidently on their disposition to amend it. As 
 to the Government, I am quite sure, that whatever may be the 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 187 
 
 present feelings of my right honourable friend, no obstinate at- 
 tachment to preconceived opinions will prevent him from look- 
 ing at the whole subject with impartiality, or from setting him- 
 self, with that solicitude which its importance demands, to review 
 and to re-consider all the facts and arguments connected with it, 
 and to adapt his conduct (his counsel, rather — for it is in that 
 way alone that he can properly influence the Bank) to whatever 
 may, after full deliberation, be his own final and sincere convic- 
 tion. I think that, after full deliberation, he cannot be convinced 
 but aright. 
 
 If I am asked " What, will you then be satisfied, after all, 
 with doing nothing? — with leaving things as they are?" I an- 
 swer — We the House of Commons do perhaps as much as at this 
 moment we can do; we do something practical, something essen- 
 tially useful and important, if we strengthen, by a declaration of 
 our opinion, the foundations of the money system of the country; 
 if we re-establish the credit of the true standard of our currency, 
 at a moment when it is attempted to be brought into doubt and 
 disrepute. 
 
 The Bullion Committee will not have sat in vain, if its report 
 shall have recalled the attention of Parliament to that system, and 
 that standard, which it was never the intention of Parliament to 
 abandon. Nor will this House have mis-spent its time, if, at the 
 conclusion of this long and anxious investigation, it shall give its 
 sanction to the principles of the Bullion Committee, so far as the 
 system of our money and the standard of our currency are con- 
 cerned, even although it may withhold that sanction from the 
 practical measure which the report of the Committee recom- 
 mends. 
 
 The Committee then divided on the first of Mr. Horner's Resolutions- 
 Ayes 75 
 
 Noes 151 
 
 Majority against it - - 76 
 The fourteen next resolutions were then put and negatived without a divi» 
 sion; and on the sixteenth resolution the Committee again divided: — 
 
 Ayes 45 
 
 Noes 180 
 
 Majority against it - - 135 
 
188 
 
 BULLION COMMITTEE. 
 
 MAY 13th, 1811. 
 
 Mr. Vansittart moved the following Resolutions: — 
 
 First. — Resolved, that it is tlie opinion of this Committee, that the right of 
 establishing and regulating the legal money of this Kingdom, hath at all times 
 been a royal prerogative, vested in the Sovereigns thereof, who have from time 
 to time exercised the same, as they have seen fit, in changing such legal money, 
 or altering and varying the value, and enforcing or restraining the circulation 
 thereof, by proclamation, or in concurrence with the estates of the realm, by 
 Act of Parliament: and that such legal money cannot lawfully be defaced, 
 melted down, or exported. 
 
 Second. — That it is the opinion of the Committee, that the promissory notes 
 of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, are engagements to 
 pay certain sums of money, in the legal coin of this kingdom; and that, for 
 more than a century past, the said Governor and Company were at all times 
 ready to discharge such promissory notes in legal coin of the realm, until re- 
 strained from so doing on the 25th February, 1797, by an order of council con- 
 firmed by Act of Parliament. 
 
 Third. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the promissory notes 
 of the Company have hitlierto been, and are at this time, held in public esti- 
 mation to be equivalent to the legal coin of tlie realm, and generally accepted 
 as such in all pecuniary transactions to which such coin is lawfully applicable. 
 
 Fourth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that, at various periods, 
 as well before as since the said restriction, the Exchange between Great Britain 
 and several other countries have been unfavourable to Great Britain; and that 
 during such periods, the prices of gold and silver bullion, especially of such 
 gold bullion as could be legally exported, have frequently risen above the mint 
 price; and the coinage of money at the mint has been either wholly suspended 
 or greatly diminished in amount: and that such circumstances have usually oc- 
 curred when expensive naval and military operations have been carried on 
 abroad, and in times of public danger and alarm, or when large importations of 
 grain from foreign parts have taken place. 
 
 Fifth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that such unfavourable ex- 
 changes, and rise in the price of bullion, occurred to a greater or less degree, 
 during the wars carried on by King William the Third and Queen Anne, and 
 also during part of the Seven Years' war, and of the American war, and during 
 the war and scarcity of grain in 1795 and 1796, when the difficulty of procuring 
 cash or bullion increased to such a degree, that on the 25th of February, 1797, 
 the Bank of England was restrained from making payments in cash, by an Or- 
 der of Council, confirmed and continued to the present time by divers Acts of 
 Parliament; and the exchanges became still more unfavourable, and the price 
 of bullion higher, during the scarcity which prevailed for two years previous 
 to the peace of Amiens. 
 
 Sixth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the unfavourable state 
 of the exchanges, and the high price of bullion, do not, in any of the instances 
 above referred to, appear to have been produced by tiie restriction upon cash 
 payments at the Bank of England, or by any excess in the issue of bank notes; 
 inasmuch as all the said instances, except the last, occurred previously to any 
 restriction on such cash payments; and because, as far as appears by such in- 
 formation as has been procured, the price of bullion has frequently been high- 
 est, and the exchanges most unfavourable, at periods when the issues of bank 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 189 
 
 notes have been considerably diminished; and they liave been afterwards re- 
 stored to their ordinary rates, allliough those issues have been increased. 
 
 Seventh. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that during- the period 
 of nearly seventy-eight years, ending with the 1st of January, 1796, and pre- 
 vious to the aforesaid restriction, of which period accounts are before the 
 House, the price of standard gold in bars had been at or under the Mint price 
 twenty-eight years and five months, and above the said Mint price tbrty-eight 
 years and eleven months; and that the price of foreign gold coin has been at 
 or under 3/. 18s. per ounce thirty-six years and seven months, and above the 
 said price thirty-nine years and three months; and that during the remaining 
 intervals, no prices are stated. And that, during the same period of seventy- 
 eight years, the price of standard silver appears to have been at or under the 
 Mmt price three years and two months only. 
 
 Eighth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that during the latter part, 
 and for some months after the close of the American War, during the years 
 1781, 1782, and 1783, the exchange with Hamburgh fell from 34. 1. to 31. 5. 
 being about eight per cent. ; and the price of foreign gold rose from 3/. 17s. 6d. 
 to 4:1. 2s. 3d. per ounce, and the price of dollars from 5s. 4^^/. per ounce to 5s. 
 llirf. ; and that the Bank notes in circulation were reduced between March 
 1782 and September 1782, from 9,160,000/. to 5,905,000/., being a diminution 
 of above one-third, and continued (with occasional variations) at such reduced 
 rate until December, 1784; and that the exchange with Hamburgh rose to 
 34. 6., and the price of gold fell to 3/. 17s. 6d. and dollars to 5s. l^d. per ounce 
 before the 25th of February, 1787, the amount of' Bank notes being then in- 
 creased to 8,688,000/. 
 
 Ninth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the amount of Bank 
 notes in February, 1787, was 8,688,000/. and in February, 1791, 11,699,000/. , 
 and that during the same period, the sum of 10,704,000/. was coined in gold, 
 and that the exchange with Hamburgh rose about 3 per cent. 
 
 Tenth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the average amount 
 of Bank notes in the year 1795 was about 11,497,000/., and on the 25th of 
 February, 1797, was reduced to 8,640,000/. during which time the exchange 
 with Hamburgh fell from 36. to 35., being about 3 per cent.; and the said 
 amount was increased to 11,855,000/. exclusive of 1,542,000/. in notes of 1/. 
 and 21. each, on the 1st February, 1798, during which time the exchange rose 
 to 38. 2. being about 9 per cent. 
 
 Eleventh. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the average price 
 of wheat per quarter in England in the year 1798, was 50s. '3d. ; in 1799, 67s. 
 5rf.; in 1800, 113s. 7d. ; in 1801, 118s. 3d.; and in 1802, 67s. 5d. The amount 
 of Bank notes of 51. and upwards, was — 
 
 £ £. £• £. 
 
 In 1798, about 10,920,400, and under 5^ 1,786,000 '^ f 12,706,400 
 
 In 1799 " 12,048.790 " 1,626,110 , • 13,674,900 
 
 In 1800 " 13.421,920 " 1,831,820 } " ,'."^ < 15,253,740 
 
 In 1801 " 13,454,370 " 2,715,180 I '^°g^^"'^'' 16,169,550 
 
 In 1802 " 13,917,980 " 3,136,470j [l7,054,450 
 
 That the exchange with Hamburgh was, in January 1798, 38. 2. ; January 
 1799, 37. 7.; January 1800,32.; January 1801, 29. 8.; being in the whole a 
 fall of above 22 per cent. ; in January 1802, 32. 2. ; and December 1802, 34,, 
 being in the whole a rise of about 13 per cent. 
 
 Twelfth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that during all the pe- 
 riods above referred to, previous to the commencement of the war with France 
 in 1793, the principal states of Europe preserved their independence, and the 
 trade and correspondence thereof were carried on conformably to the accus- 
 tomed law of nations ; and that, although from the time of the invasion of Hol- 
 land by the French in 1795, the trade of Great Britain with the Continent was 
 
190 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 in part circumscribed and interrupted, it was carried on freely with several of 
 the most considerable ports, and commercial correspondence was maintained at 
 all times previous to the summer of 1807. 
 
 Thirteenth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that since the month 
 of November 1806, and especially since the summer of 1807, a system of exclu- 
 sion has been established against the British trade on the Continent of Europe 
 under the influence and terror of the French power, and enforced with a de- 
 gree of violence and rigour never before attempted ; whereby all trade and cor- 
 respondence between Great Britain and the Continent of Europe has (with 
 some occasional exceptions, chiefly in Sweden and in certain parts of Spain 
 and Portugal) been hazardous, precarious and expensive, the trade being load- 
 ed with excessive freights to foreign shipping, and other unusual charges; and 
 that the trade of Great Britain with the United States of America, has also 
 been uncertain and interrupted ; and that in addition to these circumstances, 
 which have greatly affected the course of payments between this country and 
 other nations, the naval and military expenditure of the United Kingdom in 
 foreign parts has, for three years past, been very great, and the price of grain, 
 owing to a deficiency in the crops, higher than at any time whereof the ac- 
 counts appear before Parliament, except during the scarcity of 1800 and 1801, 
 and that large quantities thereof have been imported. 
 
 Fourteenth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the amount of 
 currency necessary for carrying on the transactions of the country must bear 
 a proportion to the extent of its trade and its public revenue and expenditure; 
 and that the annual amount of the exports and imports of Great Britain, on an 
 average of three years, endmg 5th January, 1797, was 48,732,651Z. official 
 value; the average amount of revenue paid into the Exchequer, including 
 monies raised by lottery, 18,759,165Z. ; and of loans, 18,409,842?., making to- 
 gether 37,169,007/.; and the average amount of the total expenditure of Great 
 Britain 42,855,111/.; and that the average amount of Bank notes in circulation 
 (all of which were for 5/. or upwards) was about 10,782,780/. ; and that 57,- 
 274,617/. had been coined in gold during His Majesty's reign, of which a large 
 sum was then in circulation. 
 
 That the annual amount of the exports and imports of Great Britain, on an 
 average of three years, ending 5th January, 1811, supposing the imports from 
 the East Indies and China to have been equal to their amount in the preceding 
 year, was 77,971,318/., the average amount of revenue paid into the Exche- 
 quer, 62,763,746/., and of loans, 12,673,548/., making together 75,437,294/. ; 
 and the average amount of the total expenditure of Great Britain 82,205,066/. ; 
 and that the average amount of Bank notes above 50/. was about 14,265,850/., 
 and of notes under 5/. about .5,283,320/. ; and that the amount of gold coin in 
 circulation was greatly diminished. 
 
 Fifteenth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the situation of 
 this kingdom, in respect of its political and commercial relations with foreign 
 countries, as above stated, is sufficient, without any change in the internal value 
 of its currency, to account for the unfavourable state of the foreign exchanges, 
 and for the high price of bullion. 
 
 Sixteenth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is highly im- 
 portant that the restriction on the payments in cash of the Bank of England 
 should be removed, whenever the political and commercial relations of the 
 country shall render it compatible with the public interest. 
 
 Seventeenth. — That it is the opinion of this Committee, that under the circum- 
 stances affecting the political and commercial relations of this kingdom with 
 foreign countries, it would be highly inexpedient and dangerous now to fix a 
 definite period for the removal of the restriction of cash payments at the Bank 
 of England prior to the term already fixed by the Act 44 Geo. III. c. 1, of six 
 months after the conclusion of a definite treaty of peace. 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 191 
 
 Mr. Canning. — I should not have thought it necessary, Sir, 
 to trouble the Committee with the expression of my sentiments 
 in this night's debate, after the able and lucid speech of the hon- 
 ourable gentleman who spoke last (Mr. H. Thornton,) if I had 
 not been desirous of addressing myself more particularly than he 
 has done to the propositions now brought forward, in the shape 
 of Resolutions, by the right honourable gentleman opposite to me 
 (Mr. Vansittart,) which are the immediate subject of this night's 
 deliberation. 
 
 I should, indeed, be unpardonable, if, after having already tres- 
 passed at so great length on the indulgence of the Committee, 
 when the original Resolutions were under discussion, I should 
 again expatiate upon the general subject which I conceive to have 
 been disposed of by the vote of the former night. The present, 
 however, is a very different question from that which was then 
 decided. We decided by our former vote, not to adopt the prac- 
 tical recommendation of the Bullion Committee. In that vote I 
 concurred. We decided farther, not to sanction and record the 
 declaration of the principles of our money system, on which the 
 recommendation of the Bullion Committee was founded. In that 
 decision I did not concur, and it is one which I deeply regret; be- 
 cause those principles were, as I think, correctly defined in the 
 original Resolutions; and because I think that a declaration of 
 them, under the sanction of this House, would have been emi- 
 nently useful at the present moment. 
 
 But the House having thought otherwise, and having rejected 
 all the Resolutions of the honourable and learned gentleman; my 
 next wish would have been, that with that rejection the whole 
 discussion should have terminated. Why pursue it farther? The 
 Bullion Committee is defeated; its doctrines are, at least for the 
 present, set aside. Why could not its antagonists be contented 
 with this negative victory ? Why must they aim at the unneces- 
 sary and perilous triumph of substituting their own doctrines in 
 the place of those which they have discomfited ? 
 
 In the majority of the former night were numbered many per- 
 sons who profess to disapprove of abstract propositions. Those 
 persons must, in common consistency, oppose the propositions of 
 the right honourable gentleman, which are to the full as abstract 
 as the original Resolutions. In that majority were many who not 
 only did not agree with the right honourable gentleman opposite 
 to me, in denying the existence of a depreciation of the paper 
 currency; but who distinctly declared their entire conviction of 
 the existence of that depreciation, and only thought it too notori- 
 ous and undeniable to require the formality of a parliamentary 
 affirmation. Can those persons be expected by the right honour- 
 able gentleman to concur in the Resolutions which he is now 
 
192 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 bringing forward? Others again there were, who, neither admit- 
 ting nor denying the depreciation, were desirous only of escaping 
 from the necessity of a decision either way: contending that no 
 result could be so satisfactory, as the discussion itself was mis- 
 chievous. Will those persons thank the right honourable gentle- 
 man for reviving a discussion which, if it had finally closed on 
 Friday night, would have left them in quiet possession of their 
 doubts, — doubts which any man might very reasonably prefer to 
 a decision in support of the right honourable gentleman's third 
 Resolution? 
 
 Independently of this violence to the feelings and judgments 
 of his supporters, has the right honourable gentleman no consid- 
 eration for the reputation of the House of Commons itself, when 
 he calls upon us, by voting that Resolution, to affirm a proposition, 
 which, I will venture to say, there is no man who, without the 
 doors of the House, could affirm with a grave countenance ? 
 
 The third Resolution is the essential part, the soul and spirit, 
 of the right honourable gentleman's system. Of the other Reso- 
 lutions, the first and the fifteenth are the only two, which, in my 
 view of the subject, appear to require particular observation. The 
 remainder, from the fourth to the fourteenth, inclusive, contain a 
 vast variety of statements, historical, political, commercial, finan- 
 cial and agricultural; some accurate, some inaccurate; but all val- 
 uable rather from their intrinsic erudition, than from any very 
 near connexion with the subject before us. With none of these, 
 therefore, shall I presume to meddle. 
 
 But, before I proceed to the three Resolutions in which the 
 whole of the right honourable gentleman's argument lies, I must 
 say a word or two in answer to a challenge of the right honoura- 
 ble gentlemen as to his sixteenth and seventeenth Resolutions.* 
 He states, and states very truly, that I had declared myself ready 
 to vote for those two Resolutions, provided they were prefaced 
 and introduced, not by his own preceding Resolutions, but by the 
 first ten of the original Resolutions moved by the honourable and 
 learned Chairman of the Bullion Committee. The right honour- 
 able gentleman triumphs in this declaration of mine, as if it had 
 been a concession to his argument, instead of an exposition of my 
 own. He has caught me in a great inconsistency it seems. And 
 what is this inconsistency? That I am ready to affirm two things 
 irreconcilable with each other? That I would vote premises that 
 did not bear out their conclusion, or a conclusion contradictory to 
 its premises? No such thing; but, simply, that I am ready to 
 adopt the premises suggested by one man, and the conclusion 
 drawn by another. This is what he considers as an inconsistency; 
 
 * See Res. 16,17. 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 193 
 
 as if consistency had reference not to the compatibility of doc- 
 trines, but to the identity of persons holding them. 
 
 It is true that if the first ten of the original Resolutions had 
 been carried, I should not have objected to adding to them the 
 two concluding propositions of the right honourable gentleman. 
 But I cannot consent to vote for them by themselves, nor if in- 
 troduced by his own preceding propositions. 
 
 I am not, any more than the right honourable gentleman him- 
 self, for changing the period now fixed by law for the repeal of 
 the Bank restriction. I could therefore have been contented to 
 vote for the sixteenth and seventeenth of the right honourable 
 gentleman's propositions, if those principles, respecting the stand- 
 ard of our money, which were luminously and accurately devel- 
 oped in the Resolutions moved by the Chairmain of the Bullion 
 Committee had been previously recognised and sanctioned. The 
 truth of these principles once admitted, there might have been 
 comparatively little danger in deciding either way the question, 
 whether the period for returning to the strict practical application 
 of them should be accelerated. But to decide that question in a 
 way which should imply a denial of the truth of those principles, 
 would be productive of a mischief than which none can be great- 
 er, except, indeed, that of adopting the right honourable gentle- 
 man's Resolutions, in which the truth of those principles is de- 
 nied, not by implication, but directly. 
 
 To have abstained from adopting the original Resolutions, pro- 
 vided no others were agreed to in their room, would be to leave 
 the true principles of our money system unvouched indeed, but 
 not discredited, and to leave the Bank restriction precisely as it 
 stands. To declare the continuance of the Bank restriction, by 
 adopting the right honourable gentleman's sixteenth and seven- 
 teenth resolutions only, without adverting at the same time to 
 the principles laid down by the Bullion Committee, would be to 
 leave it matter of doubt whether the restriction was continued 
 because those principles were false, or only because their force 
 was overborne by considerations of expediency. This result would 
 be unsatisfactory enough. To adopt and record the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman's premises as the foundation of his own con- 
 clusion, would be, in his view, no doubt, perfectly consistent; but 
 it would be a consistency obtained at no less an expense than that 
 of abrogating, so far as the Resolutions of this House can abro- 
 gate it, the whole system under which the currency of this coun- 
 try has been hitherto regulated and preserved in a state of purity 
 and integrity, equally creditable to the character of the state, and 
 to the increasing vigilance and anxiety of Parliament. 
 
 In matters which have been frequently the object of parlia- 
 mentary revision, it is no light thing to come to Resolutions of a 
 27 s 
 
194 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 general and abstract nature without taking the former proceed- 
 ings of Parliament for our guide. 
 
 If they who dissented from the doctrines of the Bullion Com- 
 mittee thought the errors of that Committee the more formidable 
 on account of the authority by which they were inculcated, how 
 much more cautious ought we to be in ascertaining, beyond pos- 
 sibility of doubt, the truth of those doctrines which we are now 
 called upon to promulgate by the much higher authority of the 
 House itself? 
 
 A declaration of the law by one of the branches of the Legis- 
 lature ought not to be made at all but for a grave and adequate 
 object; and, at least, ought to be unimpeachably correct. 
 
 Let us examine the right honourable gentleman's first Resolu- 
 tion, in this double view. First, let us see how far it is positively 
 correct; and secondly, what is the object to which it is directed, 
 and how far it attains that object.* 
 
 That the right of establishing and regulating the legal money 
 of this kingdom is a prerogative of the Sovereign, is most un- 
 doubtedly true: that the Sovereigns of this kingdom have at dif- 
 ferent times altered the value of such money, is also true — if by 
 value be intended only the denomination of such money, that is, 
 the rate at which any given quantity of gold or silver should be 
 current within these realms. But " value," absolutely stated, is 
 by no means a correct expression. To alter the positive intrinsic 
 value of the precious metals, or make it other than it is by nature, 
 and by the relation which those metals bear to other commodi- 
 ties, is a power, which neither kings nor parliaments have hith- 
 erto, so far as I know, arrogated; but the existence of which, to 
 be sure, would at once put an end to all dispute, and give to the 
 right honourable gentleman, and those who side with him, a com- 
 plete triumph. If value were, indeed, the offspring of authority, 
 there is no doubt but that paper or pasteboard, or any viler ma- 
 terial, might be raised by that authority to a level with gold. But 
 the only power which Sovereigns have ever yet exercised or 
 claimed, has been to fix the rate or " current " value of coin 
 within their own dominions. 
 
 Nor is it merely an inaccuracy of expression to omit this 
 qualification of the word " value." It is an inaccuracy which 
 may lead to serious misconception in a case where the whole con- 
 troversy turns upon this single question, " whether there be or 
 be not an inherent inextinguishable value in the precious metals 
 estimated according to their relation to other commodities gene- 
 rally, throughout the world; and independent of any arbitrary 
 valuation, which positive edicts or enactments can affix to them ?" 
 
 *See 1st Resolution. 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 195 
 
 The right honourable gentleman's proposition, as it stands, with- 
 out the addition to the word "value" of the epithets "current" 
 or " denominative," would go to favour the notion that edicts 
 and enactments have this power: a notion so wild that it might 
 seem almost unnecessary to guard against it, if it, or something 
 very like it, were not in fact the foundation of almost all the 
 right honourable gentleman's arguments. 
 
 He cannot, however, intend to avow such a notion. He will, 
 therefore, I presume, have no objection to qualify the word 
 " value," by the addition of one or other of the epithets which I 
 have suggested. So qualified, the proposition, that the Sovereign 
 has at different times varied the "current" or "denominative" 
 value of the coin, would be true, and perfectly harmless. 
 
 The Resolution proceeds to state, that this has been done by 
 proclamation, " or " by Act of Parliament. This is also a true 
 proposition; but upon this also I must observe, that it is not 
 stated with sufficient qualification. The Resolution seems to im- 
 ply that the option between the two modes of proceeding is per- 
 fectly arbitrary; that Parliament may be either admitted into, or 
 excluded from, a share in the operation, exactly according to the 
 will and pleasure of the Crown. But, I would take the liberty 
 of suggesting to the right honourable gentleman, that it was not 
 enough to state the abstract principles and theory of the constitu- 
 tion; it was incumbent on him to state them as they have been 
 acted upon, as they are modified by practice, as they are to be 
 found, not in the proclamations of Henry the VHIth, but in the 
 statute book; in statutes of the last century; in those of the pres- 
 ent reign. 
 
 The Sovereign (says the right honourable gentleman) can alter 
 the value of the coin — but can he do that at the present moment, 
 without consent of Parliament? Can he do it against existing 
 Acts of Parliament? Can he, except by the aid and concurrence 
 of Parliament, repeal the Acts of the 14th of the present reign, 
 which were passed on occasion of the last recoinage of the gold; 
 and which must be repealed or amended, if any alteration should 
 be made in the current value of the guinea? Unquestionably the 
 King, according to the theory of the prerogative, can, by his 
 proclamation, reduce or raise the denomination of the current 
 coin. But, if by doing so, he would ])lace his subjects in the di- 
 lemma of either disregarding his proclamation, or acting in con- 
 travention of an Act of Parliament, would it be in that case a 
 sound or a safe statement of the law, to give a naked definition 
 of the prerogative, without reference to the practical restrictions 
 by which the exercise of it must necessarily be controlled ? 
 
 Are the opinions of lawyers so settled and uniform upon this 
 subject as to warrant the right honourable gentleman's sweeping 
 
196 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 and unqualified assertion ? Do lawyers agree that there is no limit 
 to the power of the Crown in this respect? that the Crown may 
 give what current value it pleases to coin, which it may debase 
 at its pleasure ? 
 
 I do not mean to assert that all such authorities are uniformly 
 the other way: it would, perhaps, be difficult to name that branch 
 of the prerogative which has not been exalted to an excess in the 
 speeches or writings of some one or other of the great Crown 
 lawyers who have spoken or written upon the prerogative. But 
 such opinions, even if they were more general than they will be 
 found to be, surely could not avail against positive statute. 
 
 " The denomination " (says Blackstone,) " or the value for 
 which the coin is to pass current, is likewise in the breast of the 
 King; and if any unusual pieces are coined, that value must be 
 ascertained by proclamation. In order to fix the value, the weight 
 and the fineness of the metal are to be taken into consideration 
 together. When a given weight of gold or silver is of a given 
 fineness, it is then of the true standard, and is called sterling. 
 Of this sterling metal all the coin of the kingdom must be made 
 by the statute 25 Edw. III. cap. 15; so that the King's preroga- 
 tive seemeth not to extend to the debasing or enhancing the value 
 of the coin below or above the sterling value: though Sir Matthew 
 Hale appears to be of another opinion." 
 
 The right honourable gentleman may perhaps tell me that his 
 opinion agrees with that of Sir Matthew Hale; to which Judge 
 Blackstone here refers as seemingly more favourable to the pre- 
 rogative than his own. But if he will look into that elaborate 
 and instructive treatise, which contains an abstract of all the learn- 
 ing and all the history relating to our coinage — I mean the Let- 
 ter of the late Earl of Liverpool to the King — he will there find 
 in what respects the Legislature has limited the exercise of that 
 prerogative, since the death of Sir Matthew Hale. He will find 
 it stated that, even in Sir Matthew Hale's opinion, " though this 
 great prerogative is unquestionable, it is certainly advisable that 
 in the exercise of it, whenever any great change is intended to 
 be made, the King should avail himself of the wisdom and sup- 
 port of his Parliament." " Sir Matthew Hale observes," says 
 Lord Liverpool, " that it is neither safe nor honourable for the 
 King to imbase his coin below sterling; if it be at any time done, 
 it is fit to be done by the assent of Parliament: and he concludes, 
 that on such occasions '■fieri non debiiit, factum valet.' " 
 
 Even if such were still the state of the prerogative, would it 
 justify a Resolution of the House of Commons, which describes 
 that prerogative as absolute and indefinite, and describes " the as- 
 sent of Parliament " not as that with which, according to Sir 
 Matthew Hale, " it is fit " that such alteration should be made, if 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 197 
 
 made at all; and without which, according to the same authority, 
 ^^ fieri non debuit;^' but merely as that which it is optional with 
 the Crown to ask or not to ask, according to its good pleasure? 
 Would such a Resolution have befitted the House of Commons, 
 even at the time when Sir Matthew Hale wrote ? Is it possible 
 to pass it now; when that prerogative, which by Sir Matthew 
 Hale was considered as unfit to be exercised without consent of 
 Parliament, stands actually limited by statute? 
 
 Let us now consider what is the object with a view to which 
 this exposition of the law is made, and how far that object is at- 
 tained by it. 
 
 The question in agitation is, whether our paper currency be or 
 be not depreciated ? The price of gold in that paper currency is 
 adduced in proof of the depreciation. What answer is it to this 
 question — what refutation is it of this proof — to say, " The King's 
 prerogative can alter the value of the coin?" — Granted that it 
 can. At least it has not done so in the present instance. The 
 coin is not varied in value: the paper currency, it is contended, 
 is. The King's prerogative has nothing to do with the paper 
 of the Bank. The paper of the Bank is not (God forbid it 
 ever should be!) the legal money of the realm. How, then, 
 does the King's prerogative decide — how does it even affect — 
 the question as to the depreciation of Bank paper? It can by 
 no possibility affect it at all, unless the right honourable gentle- 
 man be prepared to address us in something like the following 
 manner — " The King has a power to make whatever he pleases 
 money; and to make that money of what value he pleases. If 
 you murmur at ihis supposed depreciation of bank notes, beware 
 that you do not provoke an exercise of the prerogative, which 
 shall make those bank notes to all intents and purposes legal 
 money; or which shall cure that pretended disparity between 
 paper and gold about which you clamour so loudly, by raising 
 the denomination of the coin." 
 
 Is this what the right honourable gentleman means to say ? If 
 so, though I do not think that there would be much wisdom in 
 the measure, I admit that his Resolution is an apt and natural in- 
 troduction to it. I can at least understand its application to the 
 subject. I can see what is meant by it. But unless this be his 
 meaning, I am at a loss to conceive how the assertion that the 
 paper currency is actually depreciated, is disproved, or even 
 touched, by the assertion of the King's prerogative to establish 
 and alter at his pleasure the legal money of the realm. 
 
 The Resolutions on the subject of the coinage laws, which we 
 rejected on a former night, and for which this of the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman is intended as a substitute, had a direct and 
 sensible bearing upon the question in dispute. In affirming the 
 
 s* 
 
^98 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 depreciation of the paper currency, it was necessary to define the 
 standard by which such currency was to be measured. The hon- 
 ourable and learned mover of the original Resolutions did define it, 
 and, as I think, with perfect truth as well as precision. Can it be 
 the right honourable gentleman's intention, by stating with such 
 laxity the absolute and indefinite power of the Crown over the 
 legal money of the realm, to imply that, where every thing is 
 liable to such arbitrary fluctuation, there can be no fixed standard 
 by which to measure the value of the currency? If his argu- 
 ment be good for any thing, it can only be so by being pushed to 
 this extent: but even then it affords no answer to the Resolutions 
 of the honourable and learned gentleman. Those resolutions as- 
 serted that the paper currency is in a state of depreciation, if 
 measured by the existing standard of our legal currency. The 
 right honourable gentleman does not contradict this assertion; he 
 passes it by; he says nothing at all as to what the standard of our 
 currency really is; but contents himself with disparaging its fit- 
 ness as a measure of value, by insinuating that, whatever it may 
 be at the present moment, the King has, by his prerogative, an 
 unlimited power of changing it. 
 
 But, again, even if the King has this power, it is not pretended 
 that he has in point of fact thought fit to exercise it. If any 
 part of our currency has been varied in its value, either in re- 
 spect to another part of it, or in repect to the standard, it is not 
 pretended that this has been done by the interposition of the 
 Crown. The complaint is, however, that such a variation has in 
 fact taken place in the value of Bank paper. What answer is it 
 to this complaint, to say, that though the King has not, yet he 
 might, if he pleased, have made a like variation in the current 
 value of the coin ? 
 
 There is, however, another operation of the prerogative, which, 
 to make his definition complete, the right honourable gentle- 
 man ought to have noticed: but which he has altogether omitted, 
 perhaps because he saw that it would bear inconveniently upon 
 his argument: I mean the King's power of giving currency to 
 foreign coin within his own dominions. Now one of the plainest 
 illustrations of the actual depreciation of our paper currency has 
 been derived from the change which has been recently made in 
 the current value of the dollar. 
 
 " The King," says Mr. Justice Blackstone in the same part of 
 his work to which I have already referred, " may also, by his 
 proclamation, legitimate foreign coin, and make it current here; 
 declaring at what value it shall be taken in payments. But this, 
 I apprehend, ought to be by comparison with the standard of 
 our own coin; otherwise the consent of Parliament will be ne- 
 cessary." 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 199 
 
 " This great prerogative," says Lord Liverpool in his Letter 
 to the King, " which the Kings of this reahn have immemorially 
 enjoyed and exercised, of giving currency to the coins made at 
 their mint, and sometimes to foreign coins, at a determinate rate 
 or value, and of enhancing and debasing them at their pleasure, 
 is of so important and delicate a nature, and the justice and hon- 
 our of the Sovereign, as well as the interests of the people, are 
 so deeply concerned in it, that it ought to be exercised with the 
 greatest judgment and discretion." 
 
 We here see the limitations in point of law, which, in the 
 opinion of so able a lawyer as Blackstone, — and those in point of 
 prudence and discretion which, in the opinion of so profound a 
 practical statesman as the Earl of Liverpool, would have gov- 
 erned the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown in giving 
 currency to the dollar. Have these limitations, has this caution, 
 been observed in fixing the rate at which the dollar now circu- 
 lates ? The intrinsic value of the dollar " by comparison with 
 the standard of our own coin," — as compared, for example, with 
 the British crown piece — is nearly in the proportion of nine to 
 ten. The current rate at which the dollar circulates, as com- 
 pared with the crown piece, is now in the proportion of eleven 
 to ten. 
 
 By what authority has so strange an anomaly been introduced 
 into our money system ? — an anomaly which, according to Black- 
 stone, the Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, is bound to 
 avoid. By an ordinance of the Bank. The prerogative of the 
 Crown, we have seen, might have given currency to the dollar: 
 but it could only have done so at a rate proportionate to its in- 
 trinsic value, as compared with the standard of the realm; or for 
 any deviation from that standard it must have obtained the con- 
 currence of Parliament. But the thing is done. It is one of the 
 main features of our present system. It makes one of the grounds 
 of the complaint which the right honourable gentleman proposes 
 to answer by the authoritative language of his first Resolution. 
 And how does he answer it? By referring to the prerogative of 
 the Crown as the authority by which alone the currency can be 
 regulated; and yet omitting altogether a part of that prerogative, 
 so essential to the present subject, as the power of giving cur- 
 rency to foreign coin! He omits it — Why? — Evidently because 
 he could not state it, without acknowledging, at the same time, 
 that the rules by which the exercise of that part of the preroga- 
 tive has always been governed, have been entirely neglected in 
 the issue of the dollar at its present rate; and because he could 
 not make that acknowledgment without avowing the depreciation 
 of our currency. 
 
 Before the late ordinance of the Bank, nine crown pieces would 
 
200 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 have exchanged for ten dollars. Now, ten dollars cannot be had 
 for less than eleven crowns. If this be not depreciation, what is 
 it? Perhaps I shall be warned that this argument proves too much; 
 for that the depreciation here established would be that of the 
 lawful coin of the realm, — not of the paper currency, of which 
 alone the depreciation is asserted. 
 
 I answer — the depreciation of the lawful coin in respect to the 
 dollar is effected through the medium of the paper. If the crown 
 piece and the dollar circulated together without the intervention 
 of the paper, it would be impossible that they should bear to each 
 other any other relation than that which arises naturally from 
 their respective intrinsic values. It is by the intervention of the 
 paper, which measures the one according to its nominal, the other 
 according to its intrinsic value, that this relation is forcibly in- 
 verted, and the more valuable is degraded below the less valuable 
 coin. 
 
 I shall probably be told, however, that the dollar is a mere 
 token; it is no more than a promissory note in silver, which no 
 man is bound to accept in payment. This is perfectly true: but 
 it is a singular argument to be relied upon by the practical school, 
 since it is no less true that the dollar, such as it is, constitutes in 
 fact by far the greater part of the metallic currency now in circu- 
 lation. In the same way it has been argued, that a bank note is 
 not a legal tender — that no man is bound to take a bank note 
 from his neighbour in satisfaction of a just debt. This also is 
 true: but it is no less so that the public creditor is bound to re- 
 ceive bank notes, or at least can get nothing else, in payment of 
 his demand upon the state; and it seems to be no great consolation 
 to the public creditor to be assured that what he is compelled to 
 take from the Government, nobody is compellable to take from 
 him. 
 
 This being then practically the state of our currency, what sat- 
 isfaction, I must again ask, does the first Resolution of the right 
 honourable gentleman afford to those who complain of the depre- 
 ciation of bank paper, by stating, and stating, as it appears, incor- 
 rectly, the money prerogatives of the Crown? — prerogatives, 
 which, in respect to the bulk of our currency, the paper, have no 
 operation at all; and which, in respect to the small portion of me- 
 tallic currency which we possess, have been suffered to lie dor- 
 mant and passive, while that currency has been regulated, by an- 
 other authority, on principles directly contrary to those by which 
 the Crown must have been guided in giving currency to a foreign 
 coin. 
 
 This Resolution, therefore, the House of Commons cannot but 
 reject: first, because it is defective as a definition of the preroga- 
 tive which it affects to define; secondly, because it is wholly in- 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 201 
 
 applicable to the only points about which there is any dispute, — 
 namely, bank paper, which is out of the province of the preroga- 
 tive; and the foreign silver currency, of which in fact it has taken 
 no cognizance; and lastly, because it is calculated, by implication 
 at least, to exclude Parliament from all share in the regulation of 
 a subject, in which, in all good times. Parliament has claimed it 
 as a right, and felt it a duty, to interfere, whenever the occasion 
 has called for its interference. 
 
 It is impossible to pass over the second Resolution without ob- 
 serving, that it remains liable to the objection which I took the 
 liberty of making to it in a former debate.* The words " on de- 
 mand" are still omitted: I trust, the right honourable gentleman 
 intends to supply this omission. I must say, that the persisting 
 in it would afford just ground of serious suspicion and alarm. 
 
 I now come to the main Resolution of all, the third. This it 
 is that contains the sum and substance of all the right honourable 
 gentleman's arguments and doctrines; and to which I cannot be- 
 lieve it possible, until the vote shall actually have passed, that any 
 assembly of reasonable men can be persuaded to give their con- 
 currence. The Resolution is as follows: 
 
 III. That the Promissory Notes of the said Company have hitherto been, and 
 are at this time, held in public estimation to be equivalent to the legal coin 
 of the Realm, and generally accepted as such in all pecuniary transactions 
 to which such coin is legally applicable. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman, in stating what he considered 
 to be the effect of this Resolution, made use of an expression 
 which does indeed most truly describe its character, and the char- 
 acter of that assent which he reckons upon obtaining to it. By 
 this Resolution, said the right honourable gentleman, we " pledge 
 ourselves to believe the equivalency of bank notes to coin." 
 Pledge ourselves to believe! This is perhaps more than any man 
 ever before avowed of himself; but certainly more than any man 
 ever openly declared his intention to exact from others. Belief 
 is not usually matter of volition; therefore, one should think, it 
 cannot reasonably be made matter of undertaking and engage- 
 ment. Of all martyrs of whatever faith, I have alwa)^s conceived 
 the just praise to be, that they adhered stedfastly to a belief found- 
 ed on sincere conviction, not that they anticipated that conviction 
 by pledging themselves beforehand what their belief should be. 
 The right honourable gentleman's martyrdom is of a superior de- 
 scription: it not only professes its faith, but creates it: and to say 
 the truth, it does require a faith, rather of the will than of the un- 
 derstanding, to believe the doctrine which the right honourable 
 gentleman has promulgated in this third Resolution. 
 
 * See Second Resolution. 
 
 28 
 
202 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 The right honourable gentleman, however, has not done full 
 justice to his own Resolution. The pledge which it contains goes 
 much farther than he describes. It is not we, the resolvers, that 
 are pledged by it to the creed of the right honourable gentleman: 
 it pledges all mankind, except ourselves. It is so contrived, that 
 even I might consistently vote for it, denying as I do every syl- 
 lable of the doctrine which it contains. Whatever other merit 
 the Resolution may want, this is at least ingenious, and I think I 
 may venture to say it is altogether new in parliamentary pro- 
 ceeding. 
 
 The object of the right honourable gentleman is to settle the 
 public mind on a question on which there is a great division of 
 opinion. There are various modes in which the public mind may 
 be settled in matters depending on positive authority. The first 
 is a proclamation by the King, where the subject matter is one to 
 which the Royal prerogative is of itself competent; and such the 
 right honourable gentleman contends this matter to be. A second 
 mode is by Act of Parliament, in which the united wisdom of the 
 two branches of the Legislature is sanctioned by the authority of 
 the Crown. A third mode is by concurrent resolution of the two 
 Houses of Parliament declaring their joint opinion. A fourth 
 mode is, by resolution of one or other House of Parliament, de- 
 claring its opinion alone. But to these four recognized modes, it 
 remained for the ingenuity of the right honourable gentleman to 
 add a fifth — that of a resolution of the House of Commons, de- 
 claring, not its own opinion, but that of the litigants themselves. 
 
 Are bank notes equivalent to the legal standard coin of the 
 realm ? This is the question which divides and agitates the public 
 opinion. I, says the right honourable gentleman, will devise a 
 mode of settling this question to the satisfaction of the public. 
 By advising a proclamation? No. — By bringing a bill into Par- 
 liament? No. — By proposing to declare the joint opinion of both 
 Houses, or the separate opinion of one? No. — By what process, 
 then? Why, simply by telling the disputants that they are, and 
 have been all along, however unconsciously, agreed upon the sub- 
 ject of their variance; and gravely resolving, for them, respectively, 
 an unanimous opinion. This is the very judgment, I should imag- 
 ine, which Milton ascribes to the venerable Anarch, whom he rep- 
 resents as adjusting the disputes of the conflicting element: 
 
 " Chaos umpire sits, 
 And by decision more embroils the fray." 
 
 That the public would have bowed in reverence and submission 
 to the pronounced opinion of the House of Commons, cannot be 
 doubted: but when the House of Commons speaks, not as a judge 
 but as an interpreter, it can hardly expect to be regarded as infal- 
 lible by those whose sentiments it professes to interpret. 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 203 
 
 " In public estimation," says the right honourable gentleman's 
 Resolution, "bank notes and coin are equivalent." Indeed? 
 What then is become of all those persons who, for the last six 
 months, have been by every outward and visible indication evin- 
 cing, maintaining, and inculcating an opinion diametrically oppo- 
 site? Who wrote that multitude of pamphlets, with the recollec- 
 tion of which one's head is still dizzy? What is become of the 
 whole class of readers of those pamphlets, of whom to my cost I 
 was one; and a great number of whom at least were convinced, 
 like me, of the actual depreciation of our paper currency? Were 
 these writers and readers no part of the public ? or does the right 
 honourable gentleman apprehend that his arguments must have 
 wrought their conversion ? Far be it from me to say that, what- 
 ever I may think of his arguments, the authority of his name 
 would not have great weight with me and with the public. There- 
 fore do I regret that, if he does not think fit to frame his Resolu- 
 tion in the name of the House of Commons, he should not at least 
 resolve in his own name the equivalency which he is so bent upon 
 establishing. A Resolution, importing that " in the estimation" of 
 the right honourable gentleman individually, " bank notes are 
 equivalent to the legal coin of the realm," though I do not pre- 
 tend to say it would carry all the force of a decision of the legis- 
 lature, would yet be a prodigious comfort even to those who are 
 hardened in their disbelief of that equivalency; as it would show 
 them in what quarter to apply when they wished to make an ex- 
 change on equal terms. 
 
 Nor would such a declaration of individual opinion, though un- 
 usual, be wholly without example. I saw the other day an ad- 
 dress to the public from a patriotic lottery-office keeper, which in 
 truth I should think had not escaped the right honourable gentle- 
 man's notice, since his third resolution is nearly a transcript of it. 
 This worthy distributor of the favours of Fortune disclaims, in 
 the most indignant terms, the intention to " make any distinction 
 between bank notes and the current coin of the realm." He is 
 " at all times ready," he says, " to serve the public with tickets or 
 shares, on equal terms for either." Why should not the right 
 honourable gentleman give a similar demonstration of the sincerity 
 of his own opinion? It is obvious that if the lottery-office keeper, 
 instead of speaking for himself, had only declared that " in the 
 estimation of the public," bank notes and coin were equal, his as- 
 surance would have gone for but little: and I really cannot see 
 why, in adopting, as he has done, the very words of the lottery 
 advertisement, the right honourable gentleman should decline 
 adopting the advertiser's test of his sincerity. 
 
 I must, however, observe, that the right honourable gentleman 
 carries his doctrine somewhat farther than his prototype, the lot- 
 
204 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 tery office-keeper. The advertisement is much more cautiously 
 worded than the Resolution. The advertisement only affirms the 
 equivalency of bank notes to the " current" coin of the realm. 
 The Resolution says that they are equivalent to the " legal" coin. 
 Now the assertion of the advertisement may be perfectly safe from 
 contradiction, forasmuch as "current" coin of the realm, there is 
 at this moment none. But the " legal" coin of the realm, though 
 driven out of circulation, is capable of strict definition. The 
 right honourable gentleman's proposition therefore admits of a 
 test, which the advertiser's does not. To make his proposition 
 perfect, the right honourable gentleman ought to define both those 
 things which he declares to be equivalent to each other. Bank 
 notes he has defined in his second Resolution: they are " engage- 
 ments to pay certain sums of money in the legal coin of this Idng- 
 dom." But he has omitted to define the " legal coin." 
 
 With his leave, I will venture to remind him that one pound in 
 sterling money of this realm, is either If of a guinea, weighing 
 not less than S*^"'^- S^"'^- standard fineness; or it is f^ of a lb. of 
 standard silver. Does the right honourable gentleman object to 
 either of those definitions? If not, does he maintain his proposi- 
 tion of equivalency? Does he maintain that a one-pound note is 
 equivalent to If of a lawful guinea, or to If of a lb. of standard 
 silver? Does he not know that a guinea is intrinsically worth not 
 a one-pound note, with one shilling in addition, but with the ad- 
 dition of four or five shillings, at the present moment? — and that 
 so far from purchasing nearly the third part of a lb. of standard 
 silver, a bank note of one pound would now purchase little more 
 than the fourth part of it? 
 
 But the right honourable gentleman warns us, that we overlook 
 the force and real meaning of the word "legal" as employed 
 in his Resolution. He alludes not to the laws which have fixed 
 the standard, and which ensure the weight and purity of our 
 coin; but to those which provide by wholesome penalties against 
 the influence of its real upon its denominative value. The gold 
 of a guinea may be worth what we will; the Resolution applies 
 only to the gold in a guinea. It does not say that a bank note is 
 worth as much as a guinea. It says only that the guinea can pass 
 for no more than the bank note. It ties the living to the dead, 
 and then pronounces them equal to each other. The gold which 
 is necessary to constitute a guinea, may be worth twenty-six or 
 twenty-seven shillings. The right honourable gentleman's busi- 
 ness with it commences only when it has received the stamp and 
 sanction of the Sovereign. It is then that, degraded by this dis- 
 tinction, and restricted by this guarantee, it looses about a fifth 
 of its value, and becomes worth only a one-pound note and one 
 shilling. 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 205 
 
 Be it so. This then may be the state of the law: but how 
 does this prove " public estimation?" If the Resolution had pur- 
 ported merely that by law the guinea could pass for no more than 
 twenty-one shillings, perhaps the right honourable gentleman 
 may have the law on his side. But this proposition he had the 
 sagacity to see would not answer his purpose. It would do no- 
 thing for the bank note. It would settle the proportion between 
 gold and silver coin; but not between either of those metals and 
 bank paper. Bank paper, until it is made the paper of the state, 
 and a legal tender (which as yet happily it is not,) must depend 
 upon confidence for its value; and I am afraid that confidence 
 may rather be impaired than restored by such a Resolution as the 
 right honourable gentleman's. 
 
 There is, however, yet one addition, which qualifies the right 
 honourable gentleman's proposition. Bank notes are not only 
 " equivalent to legal coin," it seems, but are " generally accepted 
 as such;" which to be sure it is natural to expect they should be, 
 if equivalent. They are so accepted, however, not in all transac- 
 tions. No — only in " transactions to which such coin is legally 
 applicable." There are transactions, then, it seems, in which 
 they are not accepted as equivalent? Yes; but those transactions 
 are not legal ones. Is the purchase of gold bullion a legal trans- 
 action ? I presume it is. A pound of gold bullion is at this mo- 
 ment worth about 58/. 16^. in bank notes: 58/. 16^. in guineas, 
 according to their current value, makes fifty-six guineas. Now 
 forty-four and a half of these guineas, we know, weigh exactly 
 one pound. The right honourable gentleman, therefore, means 
 gravely to affirm that there exist persons who will with equal 
 readiness give 58/. 165. in bank notes, or fifty-six golden guineas, 
 in payment for a commodity which is intrinsically worth exactly 
 forty-four guineas and a-half. It warms one's heart to hear such 
 heroic instances of more than Roman virtue: but I must be per- 
 mitted to doubt whether they can be truly stated to be as " gene- 
 ral," as the right honourable gentleman supposes. I doubt 
 whether even the patiotic lottery-man, from whom the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman has borrowed his third Resolution, would make 
 such a sacrifice as this to the laws of his country. I doubt 
 whether the right honourable gentleman himself does not stand 
 the single instance of such striking self-devotion: and would 
 again submit to him, therefore, whether his third Resolution, in- 
 stead of affirming any thing about the public, ought not to run 
 singly in his own name. 
 
 But, after all, is the right honourable gentleman sure that he is 
 prepared to define exactly, at this moment, the legality or illegal- 
 ity of interchanging guineas and bank notes, at any other than the 
 uominal current value ? What cognizance does the law take of 
 
206 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 the rate at which bank notes shall pass ? Is there any law which 
 touches this matter? If any body had such a fancy for bank 
 notes, and differed so entirely from the Bullion Committee, and 
 from the right honourable gentleman, as to think them not only 
 not depreciated in respect to coin, but as worth being bought up 
 in coin at a premium; is there any law which would prevent him 
 from gratifying his taste in this particular? If for more, might he 
 not also buy them for less, than their nominal value? Is there 
 any law to prevent that? The man who has been convicted, and 
 is now expecting judgment for buying guineas at a premium, 
 might he not justly aver that he had only sold bank notes at a 
 loss? Is there any law which forbids that? The right honoura- 
 ble gentleman may tell me, that this question is at this very mo- 
 ment before the judges of the land, by whose determination the 
 conviction to which I have referred, will be either confirmed or 
 reversed. And so I tell the right honourable gentleman; and 
 from that very circumstance, from the law on that subject being 
 in such a state of uncertainty as to require a reference to the 
 judges, it is, in my opinion, unseemly, and must be most unsatis- 
 factory, for the House of Commons to assume the law to be such 
 as the right honourable gentleman's Resolution declares it. 
 
 But, supposing the declaration of the law by the right honour- 
 able gentleman's Resolution to be correct, how does it bear out 
 his assertions as to" public estimation?" — Does he not know — is 
 it not notorious — has it not been admitted in the course of this 
 debate — that in one part of the United Kingdom, at least in Ire- 
 land, so far are bank notes from being " equivalent to the legal 
 coin in the public estimation," that a premium is openly given 
 for guineas? Does the right honourable gentleman forget, that 
 the House of Commons to which he proposes his Resolution, is 
 the House of Commons of Ireland as well as of Great Britain ? 
 And can he conceive a proceeding more likely to bring that 
 House of Commons into contempt with the people of Ireland, 
 than that, with the perfect knowledge which we have that they 
 are every day exchanging bank notes against guineas at a discount, 
 we should come to a Resolution that — not in our estimation, but 
 in theirs — bank notes and guineas are equivalent? 
 
 When Buonaparte, not long ago, was desirous of reconciling 
 the nations under his dominion to the privations resulting from 
 the exclusion of all colonial produce, he published an edict, which 
 commenced in something like the following manner: — "Whereas 
 sugar made from beet-root or the maple-tree is infinitely prefera- 
 ble to that of the sugar-cane...." and then proceeded to denounce 
 penalties against those who should persist in the use of the infe- 
 rior commodity. The denunciation might be more effectual than 
 the right honourable gentleman's Resolution; but the preamble 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 207 
 
 did not go near so far; for though it asserted the superiority of 
 the maple and beet-root sugar, it rested that assertion merely on 
 the authority of the state, and did not pretend to sanction it by 
 "public estimation." 
 
 When Galileo first promulgated the doctrine that the earth 
 turned round the sun, and that the sun remained stationary in the 
 centre of the universe, the holy fathers of the Inquisition took 
 alarm at so daring an innovation, and forthwith declared the first 
 of these propositions to be false and heretical, and the other to be 
 erroneous in point of faith. The Holy Office " pledged itself to 
 believe " that the earth was stationary and the sun moveable. 
 This pledge had little effect in changing the natural course of 
 things: the sun and the earth continued, in spite of it, to preserve 
 their accustomed relations to each other, just as the coin and the 
 bank note will, in spite of the right honourable gentleman's Res- 
 olution. 
 
 The reverend fathers, indeed, had the advantage of being ena- 
 bled to call in the aid of the secular arm, to enforce the accept- 
 ance of their doctrines. I confess, I am not wholly without ap- 
 prehension that some of the zealous advocates for the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman's doctrine may have it in contemplation to 
 employ similar means of proselytism. There is something omin- 
 ous in that mixture of law and opinion, which pervades the right 
 honourable gentleman's Resolution. The business of law is with 
 conduct; but when it is put forward to influence opinion, pains 
 and penalties are seldom far behind. I like but little the period 
 of our history, to which my honourable and learned friend, the 
 Attorney-General, was obliged to go back to find a penal statute 
 for settling opinions upon the value of money — that statute upon 
 which the late convictions have taken place, and upon the appli- 
 cability of which to the present times the Judges are now delib- 
 erating. This statute was passed at a period when our coin had 
 been debased, in the course of three years, considerably upwards 
 of £200 per cent. — and when the total debasement, as compared 
 with the original standard, was not less than £355 per cent. The 
 consequence of this debasement, as stated by Lord Liverpool, 
 was, that merchants and tradesmen increased the price of every 
 article which they had to sell. To counteract this effect, Govern- 
 ment tried every method to keep up the value of the debased 
 coin; prices were set on all the necessary articles of consumption; 
 laws were passed for regulating the manner of buying and selling; 
 the law against regraters, forestallers, and engrossers, since re- 
 pealed, was passed on that occasion. Amongst those admirable 
 and judicious efforts of wholesome and enlightened legislation, 
 was enacted the law for inflicting penalties on those who should 
 " exchange any coined gold or coined silver at a greater value 
 
208 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 than the same was or should be declared, by His Majesty's procla- 
 mation, to be current for within his dominions." 
 
 Such is the law which, according to the right honourable gen- 
 tleman, secures the equivalency of the different sorts of our cur- 
 rency. Such is the shelf from which that law has been taken 
 down and brought into use on the present auspicious occasion: a 
 law passed at a time which the late Lord Liverpool forcibly de- 
 scribes as a " period of convulsion in our monetary system," and 
 in company with laws which have since been repealed as a dis- 
 grace to the statute book. Faulty, however, as our legislation ap- 
 pears to have been at the period to which we are referring, it at 
 least did not fall into the absurdity of declaring such laws to be 
 the opinions of the people. If the right honourable gentleman is 
 determined to force opinions to conform to his law, he must come 
 down a few years later in our history. He must pass from the 
 reign of Edward the Vlth, to that of Queen Mary, to find the 
 most approved method of applying the operation of law to the 
 reformation of speculative opinions. 
 
 Even in times, however, of such ignorance, and such licentious 
 theory, in respect to the value of money, there were not wanting 
 in one part of this island shrewder spirits, who saw the errors into 
 which the English Government were running, and determined to 
 guard against their effects, at least upon themselves. In the year 
 1529, it is related in a note to Lord Liverpool's Treatise, " Gavin 
 Dunbar, Bishop of Aberdeen, in a contract with William Suther- 
 land, of Duffus, stipulated, that ' if it should happen that the 
 money of Scotland, or of any other kingdom, which passes in 
 Scotland, be raised to a higher price than it is now taken in pay- 
 ment for, whereby the reverend father, his heirs or assigns, be 
 made poorer or in a worse condition, he the said William Suther- 
 land should pay to the possessors (whoever they may be) of the 
 annual rent reserved therein, for every mark of thirty-two pen- 
 nies, one ounce of pure silver of certain fineness, or else its true 
 value in the usual money of the kingdom of Scotland.' " This 
 contract took place about twenty years before the statute of Ed- 
 ward VI. If that statute shall be revived and acted upon, and if 
 the doctrine of the right honourable gentleman's Resolutions shall 
 be sanctioned by Parliament, it requires no great stretch of appre- 
 hension to foresee that men will, ere long, endeavour to guard 
 themselves against the effects of such a system by resorting to 
 contracts of a similar nature. 
 
 I have now done with the right honourable gentleman's third 
 Resolution. I will only again say, that if any man had mention- 
 ed it to me out of this House as a proposition which the right 
 honourable gentleman intended to offer for our acceptance, I 
 should have utterly disbelieved him: I should have considered 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 209 
 
 such a rumour as a mere device on the part of his opponents, to 
 place in the strongest light imaginable the absurdity to which, if 
 pushed to all their consequences, the right honourable gentleman's 
 arguments were capable of going. 
 
 Passing over the statistical Resolutions, from the fourth to the 
 fourteenth inclusive, I come now to the fifteenth, which contains 
 the right honourable gentleman's doctrine of exchanges.* 
 
 This Resolution partakes, in a very striking degree, of the 
 faults which I had occasion to remark upon in the first of the se- 
 ries to which it belongs. From the vague and imperfect manner 
 in which it is expressed, the proposition intended to be conveyed 
 by it is rather insinuated than aifirmed. The right honourable 
 gentleman does not distinctly deny that the state of our currency 
 has any influeuQe on the foreign exchanges, or on the price of 
 bullion; at the same time, he certainly does not admit that it has 
 any such influence. He only asserts that there are other causes 
 " sufficient to account for the unfavourable state of the exchange, 
 and the high price of bullion, without any change in" (what he 
 calls) " the internal value of our currency." 
 
 Now it cannot escape so accurate an understanding as that of 
 the right honourable gentleman, that this mode of stating his ar- 
 gument, is not an answer to the main points in dispute, but an 
 evasion of them. The Bullion Report asserts that our paper cur- 
 rency is depreciated, and that the depreciation of our currency 
 has raised the price of gold, and turned and kept the foreign 
 exchanges against us. The right honourable gentleman replies, 
 not by denying both these assertions, but by affirming with 
 respect to the latter, that the imputed consequences may have 
 been produced by other causes, without the existence of the cause 
 specifically assigned for them. 
 
 We know, indeed, from the preceding part of the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman's argument, that he does deny the depreciation 
 of our currency. So far he is perfectly intelligible. But as to 
 the second proposition, " that the depreciated currency has occa- 
 sioned the rise in the price of bullion and the unfavourableness 
 of the foreign exchanges," are we to understand him as saying, 
 that a depreciated currency would not have those effects? or 
 only, that as our currency is not depreciated, such effects cannot 
 in this instance be attributable to that cause ? 
 
 If he admits that such would be the natural effects of a depre- 
 ciated currency, admitting at the same time (as he does) that such 
 effects do exist, the whole of his argument is destroyed by his 
 own admissions. The utmost advantage that he could then de- 
 rive, even from the undisputed admission of all the facts enumer- 
 
 * See Res. 15. 
 
 29 T* 
 
210 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 ated in his statistical Resolutions — of his prices of stocks, and 
 prices of corn, his exports and imports, and revenue and expendi- 
 ture — would be to show that there are other causes which may 
 enter for something into the degree of the rise in the price of bul- 
 lion, and into the degree of the unfavourableness of the exchange, 
 which nobody denies. 
 
 But to acknowledge the tendency of a depreciated currency to 
 produce certain effects, to acknowledge these effects to have been 
 produced to an extent, and to have continued for a length of time, 
 unexampled in the history of the country, — and then to expect 
 that upon the mere dictum of the right honourable gentleman, his 
 adversaries in the argument shall consent to ascribe those effects 
 wholly to other causes, of which they deny the sufficiency, alto- 
 gether excluding the operation of that one, the efficacy of which 
 he himself admits, is to reckon upon a degree of ductility in 
 those with whom he argues, which even the right honourable gen- 
 tleman's authority is not entitled to command. 
 
 On the other hand, does the right honourable gentleman con- 
 tend, that the depreciation of our currency, even if it existed, 
 would not affect the exchange ? To argue that it would not affect 
 the price of bullion in that currency, is certainly more than he 
 can venture. But it has been contended by others who take the 
 same side with him, that depreciation " of internal value" in the 
 currency of a country has no tendency to alter the foreign ex- 
 change. Is this the right honourable gentleman's meaning? 
 
 By "internal value," I now understand the right honourable 
 gentleman to signify not " intrinsic value," as I was at first in- 
 clined to suppose, but value in internal or domestic currency, as 
 opposed to value abroad. The proposition, then, of those who 
 push the right honourable gentleman's argument to its extent is, 
 that the currency of a country may be depreciated to an indefinite 
 degree, and yet, if the inhabitants of that country continue, no 
 matter whether voluntarily or by legal compulsion, to receive that 
 depreciated currency at its full nominal value, the foreigner has 
 no business with it, and the foreign exchange would not exhibit 
 any symptom of being affected by it. The very definition of ex- 
 change, about which I apprehend there is no dispute, is of itself 
 sufficient to confute this doctrine. The par of exchange between 
 any two countries, being an equal quantity of precious metal in 
 the respective currencies of those countries, how is it possible, 
 that if, by any process, the currency of one of those countries 
 shall cease to contain or to represent that quantity of precious metal 
 which it did represent or contain when the par of exchange with 
 the other country was assigned — the currency of that other coun- 
 try remaining precisely the same — there should not take place a 
 proportionate variation in the rate of the exchange ? To say that 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 211 
 
 the rate of exchange will continue unaltered, when one of the cur- 
 rencies between which the comparison is made has lost part of its 
 value, is to say, in other words, that an equation is not destroyed 
 by a change in the value of one of its terms. 
 
 We should be sufficiently alive to the fallacy of such a doctrine, 
 if applied to the currency of other countries. In the edict lately 
 published in Austria, which has been referred to more than once 
 in the course of these debates, while a gradual depreciation, 
 amounting in the end to no less than £400 per cent, is acknowl- 
 edged, and the paper directed to be current henceforth at £400 
 per cent, below its nominal value; sundry excellent reasons are 
 given why, in Austria, in the particular circumstances of that 
 country, this depreciation ought to occasion no manner of alarm; 
 and especially why foreigners ought not to consider it as vitiating 
 or confounding the transactions of exchange. The foreign creditors 
 of Austria, however, probably entertain a very different opinion: 
 and it is a curious fact, which has been vouched to me on what I 
 believe to be unquestionable authority, that even before the Aus- 
 trian paper money was depreciated to the present extravagant de- 
 gree, the monied men on the continent, who were engaged in loans 
 to the Emperor, were in the habit of stipulating that those loans, 
 if repaid any where else than at Hamburgh or at Amsterdam, 
 should be repaid, not in the currency of Austria, or of any other 
 country, according to its denomination, but in specific quantities 
 of gold or silver. And why this exception in favour of Ham- 
 burgh and Amsterdam? For a reason which at once explains the 
 nature of exchange, and the true principles of value in money, 
 namely, that at the Banks of Hamburgh and Amsterdam, all pay- 
 ments are made, not in reference to coins of any country or any 
 denomination, but by the transfer from the debtor to the creditor 
 of a specific quantity of bullion. 
 
 Can we really flatter ourselves, then, that the currency of this 
 kingdom might be depreciated with impunity so far as relates to 
 transactions with foreign countries? If a bill upon England for 
 46/. 14^. 6d. would heretofore have purchased, on the exchange of 
 Hamburgh or Amsterdam, a credit on those Banks for a pound 
 of gold bullion, and if a pound of gold bullion cannot now be pur- 
 chased in England for less than 58/. in English currency, we can 
 imagine that, nevertheless, the bill upon England for 46/. 14^. 6d. 
 will still purchase a pound of gold at Hamburgh or Amsterdam ? 
 Yet this is, in fact, the proposition of those who contend that an al- 
 teration in the value of the internal currency of a country does not 
 jproportionably affect the foreign exchange. 
 
 But while this is the argument of many who have taken part 
 in the debate — whilst it is covertly, though not avowedly, the ar- 
 gument of the right honourable gentleman's fifteenth Resolution 
 
512 ON THE REPORT OP 
 
 — it is not the argument of my right honourable friend the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, who has admitted the influence of the 
 internal currency of a country upon its foreign exchanges, by ad- 
 mitting that a diminution in the quantity of our paper would tend 
 to turn the exchanges in our favour. Does the right honourable 
 gentleman agree in this admission, or differ from it? If he differs, 
 I refer him for conviction to my right honourable friend: if he 
 agrees, there, is no escape from the conclusion to which this ad- 
 mission leads — that the unfavourableness of the exchange, which 
 would be, in part at least, cured by a diminution in the amount, 
 and consequent rise in the value of our paper currency, is, in part 
 at least, occasioned by the excess and consequent depreciation 
 of it. 
 
 What then becomes of the assertion of the right honourable 
 gentleman's fifteenth Resolution, whichever sense we assign to it? 
 If it is meant to deny the connexion of internal currency with 
 foreign exchange, can the House consent to adopt a vote so di- 
 rectly at variance with the fact? If, admitting that connexion, it 
 is meant only to deny its effect now, why, I should be glad to 
 know, is the present time to afford an exception to an universal 
 rule ? What is there now to suspend the operation of principles, 
 not dependent upon circumstances, but inherent in the nature of 
 things? There is a great stagnation of commerce it is true, but 
 that stagnation of commerce is not peculiar to this country. The 
 continent shares largely in all the distress which the decrees of 
 the tyrant of the continent produce; and yet it is in comparison 
 with the continent that the exchanges are in our disfavour. True, 
 we are carrying on an expensive and extended war; but the ex- 
 changes have been permanently against us in peace as well as in 
 war, when the same cause, a depreciated currency, has operated 
 to produce that effect. In 1696, a period of war, the deteriora- 
 tion of our silver, then our standard coin — in 1773, a time of 
 peace, the deterioration of our gold coin, were indicated alike by 
 the long continued unfavourableness of the foreign exchanges. 
 In both instances the reformation of the coin remedied the evil. 
 What the deterioration of coin occasioned in those instances, the 
 depreciation of paper has occasioned now. The coin had then 
 ceased to contain, as the paper has now ceased to represent, the 
 quantity of precious metal implied by its denomination. Foreign 
 countries estimated the coin then as they do the paper now, not 
 by what it is called, but by what it would exchange for in those 
 commodities — gold and silver — which are, by the consent and prac- 
 tice of mankind, the common measures of all marketable value. 
 
 However gentlemen may endeavour to disguise and perplex 
 this simple view of the question, it is, after all, that by which it 
 must be decided. If this be not the test, there is no other. If 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 213 
 
 gold and silver have ceased to be the common measures of the 
 value of other commodities, and weight and fineness combined have 
 ceased to be the standard of value in gold and silver, there is no 
 more to be said: but in that case, instead of these Resolutions, let 
 the right honourable gentleman come forward boldly at once with 
 an assertion, not merely that paper is equivalent to the precious 
 metals, but that it has altogether superseded them. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the same standard of value remains, let 
 not the right honourable gentleman attempt to draw a veil over 
 it. In all our departures from it, let us fairly own that we are 
 departing from it — by necessity, if you please, but with a resolu- 
 tion of returning to it again. Let us not, like men who, when 
 hurried down a rapid stream, fancy that the shores are flying 
 from them — 
 
 " terrseque urbesque recedunt ;" 
 let us not conceive that, by some strange revolution in the phys- 
 ical world, the precious metals are retreating beyond our reach; 
 when it is, in fact, only by a rapid depreciation that our currency 
 is leaving them behind. Neither let us suppose that we have al- 
 ready gone down so far, that to reascend the stream is impossible 
 — that, 
 
 " Should we wade no more, 
 Returning were as tedioua as go o'er." 
 
 A very little firmness, a very little sacrifice, might at present 
 enable us to retrace our course. The half of the ingenuity which 
 is employed in the right honourable gentleman's Resolutions to 
 gloss over our situation, might suffice to find a remedy for it. 
 
 It is asked — shall we attempt this in time of war? Can we at- 
 tempt it without abandoning our present military system, with 
 all its hopes and all its glories ? Undoubtedly, I think, we can. I 
 never can believe of this mighty empire, that it has not sufficient 
 energy in itself at once to right whatever may be amiss in its 
 own internal situation, and to maintain its accustomed place and 
 movement in the system of the world. 
 
 But, it is said, we are only going on in the course in which 
 greater authorities have led the way; Mr. Pitt had made up his 
 mind to this depreciation of our currency. " He contrived it," 
 says one honourable gentleman, " He could not avoid foreseeing 
 it," says my right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer.) 
 
 First, the inconveniencies which now result from that deprecia- 
 tion, and which constitute the proof of it, were not felt in Mr. 
 Pitt's time. Neither could they possibly be foreseen by Mr. 
 Pitt, if they in fact arise only from the causes to which my right 
 honourable friend and the right honourable gentleman's fifteenth 
 
214 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 Resolution ascribe them: Mr. Pitt certainly could not foresee the 
 Berlin and Milan decrees. The war, indeed, raged in his life- 
 time with not less violence than since; but yet in the very hottest 
 and most disastrous part of the war, at the moment of the greatest 
 public alarm and calamity, the exchanges were in our favour, and 
 the price of gold did not materially rise. He therefore did not 
 witness any of those symptoms which have awakened anxiety, 
 and led to investigation on the present occasion. 
 
 Further, we have the testimony of my honourable friend op- 
 posite to me, (Mr. Wilberforce,) that in the year 1802, when the 
 probable tendency of unredeemable bank paper to excessive issue, 
 and consequent depreciation, became a subject of alarm to some 
 men of great ability in financial matters — we have, I say, that 
 most satisfactory testimony, that Mr. Pitt at that time professed 
 his entire agreement in the principles laid down in a very able 
 publication of the honourable gentleman who preceded me in this 
 night's debate (Mr. H. Thornton,) which I presume every man 
 who has attended to this question, has read. And what are those 
 principles ? — Why, these — 
 
 " It is the maintenance of our general exchanges " (says Mr. 
 Thornton,) " or, in other words, it is the agreement of the mint 
 price with the bullion price of gold, which seems to be the true 
 proof that the circulating paper is not depreciated." 
 
 If these are the principles which Mr. Pitt sanctioned, what 
 pretence is there for saying that he foresaw the present state of 
 things? or that, if he had lived to see it, he would now have as- 
 serted our circulating paper to be in an undepreciated state? Are 
 our " general exchanges" now " maintained ?" " Does the bullion 
 price of gold " now " agree with the mint price ? " Are not, on 
 the contrary, the unfavourable exchanges, and the high price of 
 bullion, the very particulars which are cited as affording the most 
 irrefragable proof of a depreciation? If the absence of these 
 criteria at that time was conclusive one way, must not the pres- 
 ence of them be now admitted to be conclusive the other? If 
 Mr. Pitt was then satisfied that all was right because these symp- 
 toms had not appeared, is it fair to infer, that he would have been 
 equally satisfied now, when they are seen in so aggravated a de- 
 gree? Is not the fair inference directly the contrary? 
 
 Nor is it an unimportant evidence of Mr. Pitt's general view 
 of this subject, that the Letter of Lord Liverpool to the King 
 was the result of an investigation commenced in Mr. Pitt's first 
 administration in 1798, and concluded in the year 1805, when 
 he was again minister of the country. In that letter, not only 
 are all the principles of our money system distinctly and ably 
 expounded, according to the authority and the practice of the 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 215 
 
 best times; but, with respect to the system of our paper cur- 
 rency, the danger of its being carried to excess, and the necessity 
 of a parliamentary revision of it, are stated in a manner which 
 shows with how much attention, in the opinion of the Govern- 
 ment of those days, that system required to be watched. 
 
 But if Mr. Pitt had happily been still alive, what remedy 
 would he have applied to this evil ? Far be it from me to pre- 
 sume on this or on any other occasion to usurp the authority of 
 his name, or to employ it for any purpose, which is not warrant- 
 ed by his recorded opinions. But that he would have applied 
 some remedy — that he would not have been contented to let the 
 evil take its course, if there were in human wisdom the means 
 of checking it — that he would not have sought to reconcile delu- 
 sion with credit, and to palliate a departure from principles by a 
 denial of the principles themselves; every man who remembers 
 his characteristic firmness, who recollects the difficulties which he 
 had to combat, and the manner in which he combated and over- 
 came them, will, 1 think, be ready to acknowledge. 
 
 If I am asked what remedy I would myself apply, I again say, 
 as I have said before, that it must rest with the Executive Gov- 
 ernment to propose, as they alone can advantageously carry into 
 effect, any measure of practical benefit. But I have no difficulty 
 in offering one suggestion, which has indeed been in some degree 
 anticipated in the course of these debates. The Bank proprietors 
 have made great and unusual gains under the operation of the 
 Bank restriction. I say this without the smallest intention of 
 laying blame upon the Bank, or of exciting any invidious feeling 
 towards them. The Directors of that Institution, I again repeat, 
 have, so far as I can judge, acted for the best in the discharge of 
 a new and most difficult duty. But the fact I believe will not be 
 disputed. Great gains have been made in consequence of the 
 Bank restriction. The issues of bank paper, whether too large 
 or not in another view, have undeniably been much larger than 
 they could have been, had the obligation to pay in cash upon de- 
 mand continued, or been renewed. These gains certainly formed 
 no part of the inducement to lay on or to renew the Bank restric- 
 tion. They form no ground to continue it. But it is obvious — 
 it is in the principles of human nature — that they must form a 
 temptation to the Bank proprietors to wish for its continuance. 
 It is obvious also, that if the issues are inordinately extended, the 
 difficulty of resuming cash payments must be proportionably aug- 
 mented. And it is still more obvious, that whether those motives 
 and those causes do in fact so operate or no, from the natural in- 
 vidiousness attendant on great gains, the world in general will be 
 apt to suspect and impute their operation. 
 
216 ON THE REPORT OF 
 
 Now the publ'c has no right to complain that the Bank restric- 
 tion, though not laid or continued in contemplation of advantage 
 to the Bank proprietors, has incidentally been productive of such 
 advantage; but they have a right to expect that no impediment 
 shall on that ground be thrown in the way of the removal of the 
 restriction. A continued increase of profit, and a continued rais- 
 ing of the dividends to the Bank proprietors, if it had not that 
 effect, would have that appearance. The dividend is now, I be- 
 lieve, ten per cent. There surely it might stop. All surplus 
 profit beyond that amount, during the continuance of the restric- 
 tion, might be strictly appropriated as a fund for the purchase of 
 bullion, at whatever price. 
 
 It is not in my contemplation that the public (as has been sug- 
 gested in several quarters since this question has been in discus- 
 sion) should enter into any share of the extraordinary profits, or 
 meddle in any degree in the management, of the Bank. No such 
 thing. Let those extraordinary profits remain, in full, undisputed, 
 and unenvied property, to the Bank. But as they are created by 
 the suspension of cash payments, let the public have the assur- 
 ance that they are so employed by the Bank, as to ensure their 
 ability to resume those payments, without convulsion or distress, 
 at the period which the Legislature has fixed for the resumption 
 of them. 
 
 This, I think, is a suggestion, the adoption of which would 
 be no less creditable to the Bank than satisfactory to the public. 
 
 For this, or any other measure calculated to remedy the evils 
 acknowledged to exist, we can, after the decision to which this 
 House has already come, rely only on the effect which may be 
 produced by our discussions upon the advised discretion of the 
 Bank, and upon the awakened attention of the public. 
 
 But at least, if we will do no good, let us, in the name of 
 comimon sense, not do any harm. If we will not set right the 
 course of the vessel, let us at least not destroy the chart and com- 
 pass by which it may steer. 
 
 Let us leave the evil, if it must be so, to the chance of a grad- 
 ual and noiseless correction. But let us not resolve as law. 
 what is an incorrect and imperfect exposition of the law. Lei 
 us not resolve as fact, what is contradictory to universal experi- 
 ence. Let us not expose ourselves to ridicule, by resolving, as 
 the opinions of the people, opinions which the people do not, 
 and which it is impossible they should, entertain. This is not 
 the way to settle the public feeling, and to set the subject at rest. 
 It is the way to ensure renewed and interminable discussions. 
 That we may at least not incur this unnecesary mischief, by 
 adopting the Resolutions now before us, I move, Sir, that you do 
 now leave the Chair. 
 
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 217 
 
 The House divided on Mr. Canning's Amendment, when there appeared — 
 
 J'or Mr. Canning's Amendment 42 
 Against it 82 
 
 Majority against it .... 40 
 
 Mr. Vansittart's Resolutions were then agreed to pro forma, with an un- 
 derstanding that they should be discussed upon the Report. The discussion 
 on Mr. Vansittart's Resolutions was resumed on the following day; and on 
 the 15th, after some verbal amendments, they were agreed to. 
 
 30 
 
218 ^ X ' -P^. 
 
 ADDRESS RESPECTING THE.%AR 
 WITH AMERICA. 
 
 FEBRUARY 18tb, 1813. 
 
 Lord Castlereagh moved the following Address: 
 
 " That an humble Address be presented to His Royal Highness, the Prince 
 Regent, to acquaint His Royal Highness that we have taken into our consider- 
 ation the papers laid before us, by His Royal Higlmess's commands, relative to 
 the late discussions with the Government of the United States of America. 
 That, whilst we deeply regret the failure of the endeavours of His Royal High- 
 ness to preserve the relations of peace and amity between this country and the 
 United States, we entirely approve of the resistance which has been opposed 
 by His Royal Highness to the unjustifiable pretensions of the American Gov- 
 ernment; being satisfied that those pretensions could not be admitted without 
 surrendering some of the most ancient, undoubted, and important rights of the 
 British empire. That, impressed as we are with these sentiments, and fully 
 convinced of the justice of the war in which His Majesty has been compelled 
 to engage, His Royal Highness may rely on our most zealous and cordial sup- 
 port in every measure which may be necessary for prosecuting the war with 
 vigour, and for bringing it to a safe and honourable termination." 
 
 Mr. Canning and Mr. Stephen rose together; a general wish being express- 
 ed by the House, that the former should proceed, the latter gave way, and Mr, 
 Canning addressed the House nearly as follows: 
 
 I should not have persisted, Sir, in claiming the attention of the 
 House in opposition to the learned gentleman to whom personal 
 allusions have just been made, had not my opinions also been 
 called in question in more than one sense, at an earlier period of 
 the debate. I have been asked, from two different, indeed, oppo- 
 site quarters, whether I still persist in the opinions which I for- 
 merly stated on the subject of America. Those opinions were of 
 two descriptions; the one relating to the justice of the war into 
 which the United States have thought proper to plunge us, the 
 other to the management of that war on our part. I retain both. 
 But the noble lord has very properly said, that the main question, 
 indeed the only question for deliberation and decision to-night, is, 
 whether we will uphold, by our votes, the justice of the cause of 
 our country, laying aside all dispute upon the less important point 
 of the practical management of the war. And agreeing with the 
 noble lord in this view of our present and most pressing duty; 
 agreeing that our first object must be to inform our new enemy 
 that we, the Parliament of the British Einpire, think our country 
 in the right, and that we are determined to stand by the Execu- 
 tive Government in maintaining that right against any power that 
 may venture to dispute it, and thinking, at the same time, that 
 
THE WAR WITH AMERICA. 219 
 
 any very anxious or angry discussion, as to the vigour and effect 
 with which the cause of the country has hitherto been maintained 
 by the Executive Government, might, if it impaired the una- 
 nimity of this vote, detract from its weight and consideration with 
 the Government and people of the Umted States of America, I 
 confess that I am glad to postpone all such details, however im- 
 portant they may be in other views of the subject, or however fit 
 for separate discussion hereafter; and I shall be much less solicit- 
 ous to examine this night the conduct of Administration, since the 
 war has began, than to vindicate the principles on which this and 
 preceding Administrations have acted, in the transactions from 
 which the war has sprung, and to establish those upon which it 
 must be maintained, and upon which alone it can be concluded 
 with safety and with honour. 
 
 The honourable gentleman (Mr. Baring) who spoke last, ob- 
 served at the outset of his speech, with regret, mingled with some 
 consolation, that the differences with the United States, were now 
 reduced to a single point, and he recommended that the negotia- 
 tions should be revived, with a view to an amicable conclusion on 
 that point. I agree with the honourable gentleman that the 
 grounds of dispute are ostensibly so much narrowed, that if a ne- 
 gotiation could be set on foot, which should have regard merely 
 to the true interests of the republic of the United States, and 
 should not be disturbed and diverted from its course by the in- 
 fluence of those passions by which its Government has been agi- 
 tated, then, indeed, we might hope for conciliation and tranquil- 
 lity; but I cannot concur with him, either that the point in dispute 
 is of such easy settlement, complicated as it has been in the course 
 of the negotiations with national feelings and animosities. Still 
 less do I think that so prompt a solution of the difficulty, as he 
 seems to reckon upon, is afforded by his construction of the English 
 Act of Parliament to which he has referred. If, indeed, the true 
 meaning and intent of the statute of Anne, were to give to for- 
 eign sailors, entering and serving on board the British navy, not 
 only all those privileges here, but all that protection against their 
 natural sovereigns and native governments, which the United 
 States both claim the right of conferring, and in practice attempt 
 to confer upon British sailors, seduced or deserting into their ser- 
 vice, then I admit that this country would have to make to Ameri- 
 ca an equal concession for an equal infringement of national rights; 
 and that as there would have been a parity in the infringement, 
 there could be no difficulty in a parity of concession. Neither Gov- 
 ernment could in that case have had any thing to reproach to the 
 other: and instead of a question of violation of the law of nations, 
 on the one side, and of forcible and summary self-redress on the 
 other, the whole matter would be one of mutual acknowledgment, 
 
220 ADDRESS RESPECTING 
 
 as to the past, and of conventional arrangement for the future. 
 There would be no diflference of principle, and the point in dis- 
 pute would be settled only on grounds of reciprocal convenience. 
 But I acknowledge that my construction of the act of Anne, was al- 
 together different. I understood that by it this country professed to 
 give that only which it is competent to bestow, without interfering 
 in any degree with the rights or claims of other Powers — that it 
 imparted to foreigners, on certain conditions, certain municipal 
 privileges, but leaves untouched and unimpaired their native al- 
 legiance. The operation of this act as I understood it, before the 
 honourable gentleman's commentary, was not to hold out to for- 
 eign seamen, that at the same time that they may become entitled 
 topossess or inherit property, and to participate in all the bless- 
 ings of the British constitution, all the ties which bind them to 
 their native country, are loosened; not to assert that by any ser- 
 vice to a foreign state, he can relieve himself from that indelible 
 allegiance which he owes to the Government under which he was 
 born. The enactments of this statute are a testimony of national 
 gratitude to brave men, of whatever country, who may lend their 
 aid in fighting the battles of Great Britain; but not an invitation 
 to them to abandon the cause of their own country when it may 
 want their aid: not an encouragement to them to deny or to un- 
 dervalue the sacred and indestructible duty which they owe to their 
 own Sovereign, and to their native soil. Such being the real in- 
 tention of the act, what similitude, what analogy can be drawn 
 between it and the pretensions of America? In the papers upon 
 the table of the House, it is asserted by our enemies, that British 
 seamen once enrolled in the American service, become the sea- 
 men of the United States of America: and the Government of 
 that country declares that it must protect them against the claims 
 of their undoubted Sovereign, even when he on their allegiance 
 demands their service in war; in the present war, for instance, 
 which he is unwillingly compelled to wage. Taking the converse 
 of the honourable gentleman's proposition, then, I should say, 
 that if the American Government would adopt such a provision as 
 that quoted by the honourable gentleman, from the Act of Queen 
 Anne, in that case, if all differences were not instantly and alto- 
 gether removed, at least the question in dispute would be greatly 
 and advanta'geously narrowed. 
 
 But, coupled with the inordinate and unheard-of rights of citi- 
 zenship which the United States pretend to confer, to the anni- 
 hilation of the claims of nativity and allegiance, the practical 
 abuses of which we have also a right to complain, in seducing 
 or harbouring pur seamen, even independently of the principles 
 and pretensions by which they are defended, would be of them- 
 selves matter of serious grievance. Were these principles and 
 
THE WAR WITH AMERICA. 221 
 
 pretensions, once fairly given up, indeed, the road would be open- 
 ed to the discussion of the practice. It would be open to con- 
 sider whether any adequate security could be provided by diplo- 
 matic arrangement, and municipal regulation, against a grievance 
 which it is impossible that we should tolerate; such as should 
 supersede the necessity of that summary and effectual method of 
 doing ourselves justice, which we cannot relinquish till some sat- 
 isfactory substitute is found for it: but the exercise of which, it 
 must be admitted, may be liable to some abuse or irregularity. 
 Now, on a fair perusal of the documents, I find nothing which 
 proves any disposition, in the English Ministry, to shut the door 
 against a consideration of that important question. The fact is, 
 that different modes of entering upon the subject have been sug- 
 gested, but there is one preliminary demand on the part of Amer- 
 ica, which it is absurd to suppose that we could comply with. 
 We are, by ancient and unquestioned usage, and by the law of 
 nations, as they are now understood, in the possession of the right 
 of search. It has been, and is, of ancient and uninterrupted usage. 
 It is proposed by both parties, that a discussion should be com- 
 menced, as to the more unexceptionable mode of exercising this 
 right; but what does the American Executive insist upon? That 
 we should first abandon it, and trust for its restoration to the re- 
 sult of the negotiation. We are required to trust to an act to be 
 hereafter passed by the American Legislature, for the restoration 
 of this right, or for the provision of an equivalent. Can any 
 thing be more manifestly absurd and unjust? Is not the natural 
 course, not by the lav^ of nations only, but by the rules of com- 
 mon sense, that we should retain that which we rightfully possess, 
 until the equivalent for which it is to be exchanged shall be fully 
 discussed, and satisfactorily ascertained ? The honourable gentle- 
 man says, that it will cost us a war to maintain the possession of 
 it. I wish to ask him what wars would it not cost us to regain 
 possession, if it were once resigned ? At least, maintaining our 
 right, we are safe until force compel us to resign it. 
 
 I am sure that gentlemen, upon reflection, must see the pro- 
 posed compromise is at least attended with difficulties which, if 
 not absolutely insuperable, are extremely hard to be surmounted. 
 The appointment of a tribunal similar to a prize court, as suggest- 
 ed by an honourable gentleman (Mr. Baring) in this debate, ap- 
 proaches nearest to my ideas of possibility; but is this likely to 
 be found practicable or palatable to America, if the proposal of it 
 should come from this country? Were it suggested by America, 
 it might perhaps produce some beneficial result; but if proposed 
 by Great Britain, would it not be repelled with indignation ? 
 Would America bear to see her citizens made subjects of judica- 
 ture, like bales of contraband goods ? Would she endure that a 
 
222 ADDRESS RESPECTING 
 
 judge of our appointment should settle the fate of her natives, as 
 we assign chattels to the right owner? Or would not such a pro- 
 posal, instead of tending to the settlement of differences, and the 
 extinction of animosities, be employed by the demagogues on the 
 other side of the Atlantic to inflame the public mind, to exaspe- 
 rate the jealousies and hatreds of the enemies of Great Britain, 
 and to make all amicable arrangement utterly hopeless? 
 
 I have, however, as I have said, no objection, and the British 
 Government has not shown any, throughout the correspondence 
 now under our consideration, to any attempt to make the exercise 
 of this right the subject of diplomatic arrangement, provided the 
 principle of the right itself be unequivocally acknowledged; pro- 
 vided the suspension, or tacit abandonment of it be not expected 
 to precede the substitution of some other effectual mode of securing 
 the objects to which it applies; and provided it be distinctly un- 
 derstood that, failing the attempt to effect that substitution, our 
 right, and the practice of it, are to continue not only unimpaired, 
 but thenceforth unquestioned. The dispute relating to the im- 
 pressment (as it is termed) or rather the recal of our own seamen, 
 is not, however, as the honourable gentleman admits, the only 
 point to be adjusted, before we can return to a good understand- 
 ing with the United States. The American Government also re- 
 quires the renunciation of the system and principle of what they 
 call paper blockades; that is to say, of the right which we claim 
 and have exercised under the orders in council of 1807, and 
 should, I trust, exercise again, if again occasion arose for it, of re- 
 torting upon the enemy any attempt which he may make to 
 wound us through the sides, or by the instrumentality of neutrals. 
 With respect to blockades, the honourable gentleman has appeal- 
 ed to my recollection, whether the blockade of 1806 did not 
 stand on different principles from those of 1807? The honoura- 
 ble gentleman is perfectly correct. The order of 1806 establish- 
 ed, or professed to establish a blockade upon the old principles, 
 by the application of a specific and competent force to particular 
 ports. In January 1807, an order was issued professedly of a re- 
 taliatory character. The order of 1806 merged in it. What had 
 intervened between the order of May 1806, and that of January 
 1807 ? The French Berlin Decree. In retaliation, and avowedly 
 in retaliation for that decree, the order of January 1807 was is- 
 sued; doing away the strict legal blockade, and instituting what 
 has been and may justly be described as a constructive blockade, 
 not supported by an adequate specific force, but excluding neu- 
 trals from the coasting trade of the enemy by a prohibition re- 
 taliatory of that sweeping prohibition of the Berlin Decree by 
 which they were precluded from all trade with Great Britain. 
 The orders of November, 1807, extended the operation of the 
 
THE WAR AVITH AMERICA. 223 
 
 order of January: but did not vary its principle. I have no wish 
 to revive the differences which the honourable gentleman and I 
 have so often discussed upon that subject, but I am equally pre- 
 pared to contend now, as four years ago, that though there was 
 some difference in degree between the orders of November, and 
 that of January 1807, there was no difference in the principle; 
 and certainly the honourable gentleman must own that the Amer- 
 icans have made no such distinction in their remonstrances. 
 
 The orders in council, however, both of January and Novem- 
 ber were abandoned: wisely or not, there is now no advantage in 
 inquiring; with little chance of satisfying America, as I thought at 
 the time, and as must now be manifest to all mankind: and for this 
 plain reason, that the American Government was not to be satisfied. 
 They had an itch for war with this country, and they were deter- 
 mined to have it. Although, therefore, these are the only two 
 points on which any practical discussion is pending, I cannot 
 agree that they only entered the minds of the American Execu- 
 tive when they declared war (for be it always remembered, that 
 the war originated in their declaration.) The spirit of animosity 
 to this country, indeed, was not confined to the persons forming 
 the cabinet of the United States; the gall of bitterness not only 
 overflowed in Washington, but at the very court of London. The 
 notes of the republican Charge d'affairs, Mr. Russell, contain 
 abundant evidence not only of the predetermination to war, but 
 of the real motives of that policy. In the month of August, he, 
 with warning voice, pointed out to Ministers the consequences of 
 hostility; he told them, " if concessions are not speedily made, 
 the passions of the inhabitants of the United States will be roused, 
 and conquests may be gained on terms that forbid restoration." 
 When this sentence was penned, has not Mr. Russell Canada be- 
 fore his eyes? Was he not in the transport of his visions of suc- 
 cess betraying incautiously the secrets of his employers, which 
 were not to be divulged till the promulgation of the declaration? 
 Low as he was in the rank of diplomacy, he was intrusted with 
 this grand and favourite design; and it is impossible for any man 
 not to see from the commencement to the termination of all the 
 proceedings of the Government of the United States an eager 
 desire to gain possession of our North American territories: a 
 plan long cherished, and not wholly, I fear, repugnant to the sen- 
 tim.ents even of that party in the United States whom it is usual 
 to designate as our friends. Even when their whole military es- 
 tablishment was 1,000 men, the American Government and its 
 partisans loudly proclaimed their sanguine hopes of victory in an 
 expedition against British America, and delighted their fancies by 
 imaginary conquests. I say, that even those who are called our 
 friends in the United States, are not averse from this enterprise, 
 
224 ADDRESS RESPECTING 
 
 and would be won by the acquisition of Canada to the support 
 and approbation of the war. But I use the expression " friends 
 of this country," — as I do that of friends of France, — not as im- 
 plying on the one hand a British influence, nor on the other hand, 
 imputing an actual conscious subserviency to Buonaparte: (though 
 it must be owned that for the latter imputation there are appear- 
 ances of but too probable grounds:) but simply as designating the 
 two parties in the United States who respectively think the inter- 
 ests of their country best consulted, the one by a British, the 
 other by a French connexion. 
 
 And here I must confess that the censure of the honourable 
 gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) upon that part of the noble lord's 
 (Lord Castlereagh's) speech which referred to the period chosen 
 by the American Government for declaring war, appears to me 
 exceedingly ill-founded. The noble lord's remarks upon that 
 subject did not appear to me unjust or unnecessary. Looking at 
 the present state of the world who shall say what America might 
 not have achieved ? Not by mixing in the contest, and involving 
 herself in the complicated relations of European politics; (for I 
 have never wished to see America involved in the war,) but 
 merely by abstaining from the course which she has unfortunately 
 taken, by refusing to administer to the passions, to flatter the ha- 
 tred of the tyrant, to afford him that new hope of victory, and 
 that consolation in defeat, which he boasts of deriving, from the 
 diversion of our means, and the distraction of our efibrts by the 
 American war? What assistance might she not have rendered to 
 the late glorious struggle in the north, not by active concert, but 
 merely in forbearing to aid Buonaparte's arms by partly occupying 
 ours? Who would have expected to have seen this favourite child 
 of freedom leagued with the oppressor of the world ? She who, 
 twenty years ago, shed her blood for independence — She that, 
 ever since that time, has boasted of the superiority of her citizens 
 above all the nations of the globe — She that, watched over in her 
 infancy by Great Britain, with parental tenderness and anxiety,* 
 nursed in the ver}' lap of liberty, and educated in the school of 
 republicanism, is now seen truckling to France, and condescend- 
 ing to become the tool of an ambition which threatens to lay pros- 
 trate at its feet the independence of every government, and of 
 every people! Is this the same nation that we once z^emember to 
 have heard shouting for emancipation ? Is this the people that 
 was to set an example of magnanimity to the world ? I can 
 scarcely believe it: I would willingly persuade myself that I am 
 deceived; but facts cannot be discredited, and I behold the free 
 republic of America lending her aid to crush those principles to 
 
 *Vide Ld. Chatham. 
 
THE WAR WITH A3IERICA. 225 
 
 which she owes her own existence, and to support the most deso- 
 lating tyranny that ever afflicted the race of man. It is impossi- 
 ble not to lament the loss to such a nation, of such an opportunity, 
 which no combination of circumstances can ever restore. I do 
 not say, that America should have been induced to assist us against 
 France. I would not have asked her to risk her tender and un- 
 confirmed existence in a war, and to endure all the dangers, or to 
 incur all the expenses that must have ensued from her taking 
 part in such an enterprize. She might have maintained a just 
 and noble neutrality. But were it put to me indeed as matter of 
 opinion, supposing (what I do not suppose) that she could not 
 avoid deciding one way or other, and that the risk of war on one 
 side must be run, which would best become her history, her 
 character, and her constitution, to unite with England or to 
 league with France; — I should not have hesitated in my deter- 
 mination. There was a time when I hoped that her choice, under 
 such an alternative, would have required little deliberation; but 
 though I should have applauded her option in such a case, I 
 would not have forced nor even have solicited it. She was wel- 
 come to be neuter, could she but have persuaded herself to be impar- 
 tial. — There is still something imposing in the name of a republic. 
 The veneration for that form of government is, even in this mon- 
 archical country, interwoven with our earliest impressions of 
 honour, of liberty, and of virtue. But, I fear, that in the republic 
 of America we look for the realization of our visions of repub- 
 lican virtue in vain. The sacred love of freedom, displayed in 
 the annals of Greece and Rome, " made ambition virtue," and 
 consecrated even the weapons of the conqueror. The modern 
 republics of Europe polished mankind by their industry, and 
 their arts. But I am afraid that neither the hardy valour, the 
 ardent patriotism and the lofty magnanimity of ancient Greece 
 and Rome, nor the gentle manners and artificial refinements of 
 Genoa or Florence, are to be traced in the hard features of trans- 
 atlantic democracy. Would it were otherwise! The heartless 
 and selfish policy pursued by America will lead her far astray 
 from her real interest. The first consequence of it will be, the 
 loss of much internal prosperity, and I am much deceived if she 
 will compensate this loss by the acquisition of much military 
 glory. The honourable gentleman (Mr. Foster,) describes a 
 thousand soldiers, four or five frigates, to guard an extent of coast 
 of fifteen hundred miles, and a revenue of only two millions and 
 a half of dollars, I think, or thereabouts, as the means, physical 
 and pecuniary, of which the United States were in possession, 
 when they declared war against this country. Undoubtedly no 
 man could hear the statement without exclaiming — " and could a 
 nation so circumstanced venture upon a war with the mighty em- 
 31 
 
226 ADDRESS RESPECTING 
 
 pire of Great Britain, with the most distant prospect of success?" 
 Unluckily it did. The unwelcome truth cannot be concealed. Two 
 out of these four or five frigates have captured two frigates from 
 the British navy. I advert with unwillingness to this part of the 
 subject, because in my opinion, (an opinion before expressed and 
 still retained) vigorous measures becoming this great nation might 
 have averted disasters which may have the effect of prolonging 
 hostilities. It is no answer to say, that our navy is immense, but 
 that it is pro])ortionably extended on the different stations. I com- 
 plain notof the naval department, but of the policy which controlled 
 its operations. I complain that the arm which should have launch- 
 ed the thunderbolt, was occupied in guiding the pen: that Ad- 
 miral Warren was busied in negotiating, when he ought to have 
 been sinking, burning, and destroying. Admiral Warren sails 
 from this country in the middle of August, and on the 27th of 
 September he reaches Halifax with his squadron, where he em- 
 ploys himself in writing despatches to the American Government; 
 while Commodore Rogers on the 10th of October, sails unmolest- 
 ed from Boston. But we waited, it seems, to be quite sure that 
 we were actually at war? Granted for argument's sake (for no 
 other purpose could I consent to grant it) that in the first instance 
 there might be not full conviction of the certainty of war; but 
 even after the American declaration was received in the end of 
 July, no hostile measure was resorted to by this country till the 
 14th of October, when letters of marque were issued, upon the 
 receipt here of the intelligence (and as might be not unfairly sus- 
 pected, in consequenceof that intelligence) that the Guerriere frigate 
 had been captured by the Americans. — What is the next advance 
 towards actual war? The blockade of the Chesapeake; and the or- 
 der in council announcing that blockade, was issued, when ? — the 
 day after the arrival of the intelligence that the Macedonian, an- 
 other of our frigates, had fallen into the power of the Republic. 
 The loss of these two fine ships of war, produced a sensation in 
 the country scarcely to be equalled by the most violent convulsion 
 of nature. I do not attribute the slightest blame to our gallant 
 sailors, they always do their duty; but neither can I agree with 
 those who complain of the shock of consternation throughout 
 Great Britain, as having been greater than the occasion justified. 
 Who would represent the loss as insignificant, and the feelings of 
 shame and indignation occasioned by it as exaggerated and ex- 
 travagant? That indignation was a wholesome feeling, which 
 ought to be cherished and maintained. It cannot be too deeply felt 
 that the sacred spell of the invincibility of the British navy was 
 broken by those unfortunate captures; and however speedily we 
 must all wish the war to terminate, I hope I shall not be consid- 
 ered as sanguinary and unfeeling, when I express my devout wish 
 
THE WAR WITH AMERICA. 227 
 
 that it may not be concluded before we have re-established the 
 character of our naval superiority, and smothered in victories the 
 disasters which we have now to lament, and to which we are so 
 little habituated. — Sir, I entered on these points reluctantly on the 
 present occasion. Other occasions will arise for their discussion. 
 I hasten to quit them. But having been expressly called upon to 
 declare if I retained the sentiments which I before expressed upon 
 the conduct of the war, I felt bound in fairness not to decline the 
 avowal that my opinion not only remains unaltered, but has re- 
 ceived additional confirmation from subsequent events. If it be 
 true (as I believe it to be) in general, that indecision and delay 
 are the parents of failure; that tliey take every possible chance 
 of detriment to the cause in which they are employed, and afford 
 every advantage and encouragement to the adversary; it was pe- 
 culiarly true in the present instance, that promptitude and vigour 
 afforded at once the surest pledge of success in the war, and the 
 only hope of averting it altogether, if while the elections were 
 pending, the result of which was to place Mr. Madison, the arch 
 enemy of this country, in the President's chair, a decisive blow 
 had been struck by this country, the tide of popular opinion in 
 America might have been turned, and the consequences of a long 
 and ruinous war might have been avoided. I lament, for the gene- 
 ral happiness of mankind, that no such vigourous exertion was 
 attempted; and though I am not disposed to unnecessary cruelties, 
 nor would countenance the wanton effusion of human bood, yet I 
 cannot help thinking that if some signal act of vengeance had 
 been inflicted on any part of the United States exposed to mari- 
 time attack, but particularly on any portion of their territory 
 where there prevailed the greatest attachment to the interests of 
 France, it would have at least been a useful warning, and might 
 have prevented the continuance of the contest, if they had not 
 prevented its commencement. I protest against the doctrine of 
 half measures, and forbearance in war; for where vigour has a 
 tendency to decide the contest, hesitation is cruelty. But with 
 these topics I have done. Whatever may be the result of the 
 contest, after the declaration issued by the United States, this 
 country will stand right in the eyes of the world and of posterity. 
 Nay, it is not paradoxical to say that we shall stand right, at no 
 distant time, in the eyes even of our enemies in the United 
 States; for by a singular anomaly, upon the issue of this struggle 
 in which America is attempting to cripple our resources, depends 
 not only the independence of Europe, but perhaps ultimately, 
 the freedom of America herself. 
 
 The question was put and carried nem. con. 
 
228 
 
 MR. CANNING'S EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 May 6th, 1817. 
 
 Mr. Lambton this day brought forward the motion of which he had given 
 notice, respecting Mr. Canning's Embassy to Lisbon. In bringing forward this 
 motion, he disclaimed any intention of attack upon the right honourable gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Canning.) whose name was prominently connected with the trans- 
 actions to which it referred. It was not tJie conduct of an individual that he 
 arraigned; but the charge which he had to prefer was against His Majesty's 
 Ministers of delinquency, by which, in his opinion, they had subjected them- 
 selves to an impeachment (if that was not an obsolete proceeding,) on a charge 
 of a criminal nnsapplication of the public money tor the most corrupt private 
 purposes. This was not the first time when this transaction had been made 
 the subject of discussion. Both within and without those walls it had been re- 
 garded as a measure resorted to, purely tor the purpose of supplying the weak- 
 ness of the members of Government, by calling to their assistance the talents 
 of the ricrht honourable gentleman, (Mr. C.) talents too useful indeed to lan- 
 guish in obscurity. It had every where been asserted, that there were no pub- 
 lic grounds for sending an Ambassador to Lisbon after the conclusion of the 
 Peninsular War; that it was a disgraceful waste of public money, and solely 
 to be attributed to the lowest species of political barter and intrigue. The pa- 
 pers which had been laid upon the table of the House fully proved that the 
 mission to Lisbon was undertaken with no prospect of advantage to the inter- 
 ests of this country in its political or commercial relations, but with a view 
 solely to the political, and he might almost say, commercial, advantages of the 
 Ministers themselves; and that for these sinister objects they consented to add 
 to the burthens of the people, already groaning under the weight of an insup- 
 portable taxation. 
 
 The statement of the case was this: — In July, 1814, a negotiation was en- 
 tered into by the Ministers for the purpose of obtaining the co-operation of the 
 right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning) and his friends in both 
 Houses. On the 29th of June that negotiation was brought to a successful is- 
 sue, Mr. Canning being appointed Ambassador to Lisbon, Mr. Huskisson Sur- 
 veyor-General of Woods and Forests, and Mr. Wellesley Pole Master of the 
 Mint. On the 30th of July, the member for Liverpool moved for a new writ 
 in the room of his friend, Mr. Huskisson, on the appointment of that gentle- 
 man. The motives assigned for the appointment of an Ambassador to Lisbon 
 had been two despatches from Lord Strangford, the Minister at the court of 
 Brazil, to Viscount Castlereagh, respecting the intention of the Prince Regent 
 of Portugal to return to Europe. The first of these despatches had been received 
 on the 24th of April, 1814, the second on the 26lh of August. As these were the 
 only authorities on which the measure rested, he should read them. The first 
 was in these words: — 
 
 " I should fail in my duty, did I not earnestly recommend to the considera- 
 tion of his Royal Highness's Government, the speedy return to Europe of the 
 Portuguese Royal Family. The Prince's own feelings, and those of every 
 member of his family, are earnestly in favour of this measure. Some degree 
 of apprehension may, perhaps, operate upon the mind of the Prince himself, to 
 prevent him from coming forward as eagerly as the other individuals of the royal 
 family would wish ; but this sentiment would be easily removed, and His Royal 
 Highness has explicitly stated to me, that as s(X)n as ever Great Britain tie- 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 229 
 
 Clares that his return to Portugal is necessary, he will accede to any intima- 
 tion to that effect." 
 
 This, it would be observed, contained merely a declaration of the line of 
 policy which Lord Strangford had thought fit to adopt. The next despatch 
 was received on the 26th of August, and v/as in these words: — 
 
 " The glorious events wliich have given peace and independence to Europe, 
 have revived in the mind of the Prince of Brazil those eager desires to revisit 
 his native country, which had been for a time suppressed. His Royal High- 
 ness has lately done me the honour to state his anxious hope that Great Britain 
 will facilitate the completion of his wishes upon this subject, and that he may 
 return to Portugal under the same protection as that under which he had left 
 it. And His Royal Highness has, during the last week, intimated to me four 
 or five times, as well publicly as privately, that in case Great Britain should 
 send a squadron of ships of war to this place, for the purpose of escorting His 
 Royal Highness to Europe, it would be particularly and personally gratifying 
 to His Royal Highness that should be selected for this service." 
 
 The blank, he believed, had been filled up by the name of Sir Sidney Smith. 
 Now, on one or other of the despatches which he had read, the appointment of 
 the Lisbon Ambassador must have been founded, if it had any foundation but 
 the desire to find an appointment for the right honourable gentleman. It was 
 ascertained that, in the interval between the 24th of April and the 26th of 
 August, no communication had been made from the Portuguese Ambassador to 
 our Government. An address had been voted for all the communications from 
 the Portuguese Ambassador respecting the return of the Prince Regent of Por- 
 tugal, and the answer was, that no written communication had been made. 
 Indeed, he could prove at the bar that not only had the Portuguese Minister 
 made no communication of the probability of the return of the Prince of Bra- 
 zil, but he had asserted that the Government had quite misunderstood the in- 
 tention of his master. The appointment could not have been in consequence 
 of the despatch received in April, for it was on the 6th of June that Mr. Syden- 
 ham was appointed ; and on the 18th of July, when the noble lord opposite had 
 written to Mr. Sydenham, telling him that he could not anticipate any public 
 grounds why he (Mr. S.j should not confine himself within his ordinary allow- 
 ances, he of course could have had no contemplation of any such appointment. 
 It was still more impossible that the appointment could have been occasioned 
 by the despatch received on the 26th of August, for that was a month after the 
 appointment of the right honourable gentleman had been announced to the pub- 
 lic in the newspapers. He supposed it would not be contended that the ap- 
 pointment did not take place until it was formally announced in the Gazette — 
 the evidentia ret, the previous notoriety of the transaction, was a sufficient con- 
 tradiction of any such idea, and he did not think any of the Ministers would 
 stand forward in their places and assert, that the appointment did not take place 
 in July. But if the right honourable gentleman had really been appointed for 
 the purpose of welcoming the Prince Regent on his return, by what pretence 
 could the appointment be justified in August, when the fleet intended to con- 
 vey the Prince of Brazil to Europe did not sail till the 29th of October 1 It was 
 morally impossible, therefore, that His Royal Highness could have reached 
 Europe till the month of May following. 
 
 He should now call the attention of the House to the expenses of the mis- 
 sions:— On the 18th July, 1814, Lord Castlereagh had written a letter to Mr. 
 Sydenham, then the Minister at Lisbon, in which he stated that it was the 
 Prince Regent's pleasure that the expenses of the mission should be reduced to 
 the lowest scale, and stating, that he could not contemplate any reasons for con- 
 tinuing the scale of expenditure which had been adopted during the Peninsular 
 War. He had been rather surprised to find this economical disposition in any 
 production of the noble lord's; but his surprise was of short duration, for only 
 
230 
 
 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 ten days after Mr. Sydenham had been reduced to a salary of £5,200 a year, 
 the right honourable gentleman was appointed Ambassador Extraordinary, with 
 a salary of nearly treble that amount. On tlie 31st of October, in the absence 
 of the noble lord (Castlereagh) at the Congress, Lord Bathurst wrote to Mr. 
 Canning, then in England, to inform him that he was to be allowed £ 14,200 a 
 year, on the same grounds on which Mr. Sydenham had been limited to £ 5,200. 
 Why such a change had taken place in the allowance to the Minister, while 
 no change had taken place in the circumstances of the embassy, and when no 
 chance existed of the immediate return of the Prince of Brazil to Europe, yet 
 remained to be explained. The expense of Sir Charles Stuart had been re- 
 ferred to, but tiiat could form no precedent for the expenditure of the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman. The whole of Sir Charles Stuart's expenses were occa- 
 sioned by the Peninsular War. He actually held tJie reins of the Portuguese 
 Government. He was a member, he believed the sole efficient member, of the 
 Regency, and was forced to incur the whole of his large expenditure, to dis- 
 cliarge the high official duties of his situation. But the case was very differ- 
 ent when the war had ceased, and when the Ambassador was no longer a mem- 
 ber of the Portuguese Government. On the 30th of May, 181.5, the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman had found out a reason for this increased scale of allowance. 
 In a letter to tlie noble lord (Castlereagh) of that date, he stated, that " the rank of 
 ambassador, which could make no practical dift'erence in expenses, of which 
 the salary (whether as ambassador or as envoy) supplied only a part, was po- 
 litically important, as counterbalancing the positive loss of rank and influence, 
 which would otherwise have been occasioned by the British Minister's being 
 no longer a member of the Regency." The right honourable gentleman had 
 by that time forgotten the letter of Lord Castlereagh, in which Mr. Sydenham 
 was directed to reduce his expenses to the lowest scale. He seemed to have 
 taken a former suggestion of his noble friend — to have "two strings to his 
 bow" — for when he was forced to acknowledge that the object of his mission 
 had ceased, as there was no probability of the Prince of Brazil's return to Eu- 
 rope, he contrived to discover that it was essential to the political welfare of 
 England that his salary should be continued; he discovered, in short, that as 
 Sir Charles Stuart had a large allowance, because he was a member of the 
 Regency, so he (the right honourable gentleman) ought to have a large allow- 
 ance, because he was not a member of the Regency. The rest of this letter 
 of the right honourable gentleman's was unimportant, except as it displayed 
 talents for finance, which, although in this instance elicited for his own ad- 
 vantage, it was to be hoped he would henceforward contribute to the public 
 service, and in support of his friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in this 
 «eason of financial difficulty. 
 
 From all these documents it was evident, that the plain and almost avowed 
 purpose of the mission was, to procure a place for the right honourable gentle- 
 man. He was therefore sent, with a salary of £ 14,000 a year, to a capital 
 where there was no court, and to which, even while it had a court, no ambas- 
 sador had been sent for almost a century. He superseded a deserving servant 
 of the public, acting there as envoy, with a salary of £ 5,000 a year. He said, 
 superseded designedly, for Mr. Sydenham's intention of resigning was not 
 known to Ministers when they made Mr. Canning's appointment, and when he 
 had amassed a sufficient sum, or when a place was provided for him, or when 
 the job became too glaring and called forth the public censure, he left the im- 
 portant business of the Lisbon mission under the sole guidance of a charge 
 d'affaires; and during the whole of this mission, the only duty performed by 
 him was a speech to the factory. The defenders of tliis mission had talked of 
 the efforts which the right honourable gentleman had made to complete the 
 abolition of the Slave Trade; and one of his friends, on a former occasion, had 
 said, "that if there was the least chance that the abolition of the Slave Trade 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 231 
 
 would be accelerated by this measure, the opposers of the appointment of the 
 right honourable gentleman should pause before they called on the country to 
 pronounce it a gross and scandalous job." He could prove, however, that since 
 the appointment of the right honourable gentleman, the trade of Portugal in 
 human flesh had increased instead of decreasing; and that not one single fa- 
 vourable declaration was procured from the Portuguese Government by the 
 efforts of the Ambassador. 
 
 Under all these considerations, he called on the House to come to a decision 
 on the merits of the case. He had now to put to the test the sincerity of the 
 professions of the House, of economy and vigilance over the extravagant con- 
 duct of Ministers. He showed them a case in which the public money had 
 been most culpably and disgracefully squandered; — no sort of necessity had 
 been shown in the papers which the Government had submitted as their justi- 
 cation; on the contrary, every document tended to prove most clearly tliat in 
 no one instance had they more abused the confidence reposed in them by Par- 
 liament than in the present. If, in these times of distress and discontent, it 
 was important for tiie House to acquire a reputation for strict public virtue, and 
 incorruptibility, they would mark their sense of this proceeding, and show the 
 people that they still retained within themselves the means of satisfying their 
 just claims, and of protecting them against the culpable and profligate extrava- 
 gance of Ministers. He should move the following Resolutions: 
 
 1. "That it appears to this House, that on the 18th of July 1814, Lord Vis- 
 count Castlereagh addressed an official despatch to Thomas Sydenham, Esq., 
 then His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon, acquainting him that it was the com- 
 mand of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, that during his residence at 
 the Court of Portugal, he should confine his personal expenses within his ordi- 
 nary allowances as Envoy Extraordinary and Ministry Plenipotentiary, viz. 
 £.5,200 per annum; that he had directed Mr. Casamajor to lose no time in re- 
 moving the mission from the house of the Marquis de Pombal, and that he 
 could not anticipate any public grounds for continuing the expenditure of His 
 Majesty's servants at Lisbon on the scale on which it had been conducted du- 
 ring the war in the Peninsula. 
 
 2. " That it appears that under the pretence of congratulating the Prince of 
 Brazil, on his return to his native dominions, the Right Honourable Georo-e 
 Canning was appointed Ambassador Extraordinary to the court of Lisbon, with 
 the increased emoluments and allowances belonging to that character, viz. 
 £8,200 as salary, £ 6,000 as extraordinaries, £ 1,500 as outfit, and £ 3,180 as 
 plate money, amounting in the whole to the sum of eighteen thousand eight 
 hundred and eighty pounds. 
 
 3. " That such an appointment, on such a scale of expense, appears to this 
 House inconsistent with the recorded declaration in Lord Castlereagh's de- 
 spatch to Mr. Sydenham, of the 18th of July 1814; was uncalled for" by any 
 change in the circumstances of the mission subsequent to Mr. Sydenham's ap- 
 pointment; and has been attended with an unnecessary and unjustifiable waste 
 of the public money." 
 
 After the speech of Admiral Sir John Beresford, there was a considerable 
 pause in the House, — Sir Francis Burdett alone having spoken in support of 
 Mr. Lambton's Motion. At length, no other Member offering himself, and the 
 Question being about to be put from the chair, 
 
 Mr. Canning rose, and spoke nearly as follows: — 
 
 SiK, — Upon a question which, hov^^ever disguised in form, I 
 cannot but feel in common with every Member who hears me — 
 
232 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 in common with the honourable mover of the Resolutions, and in 
 common with the honourable baronet, who has fairly stated the 
 real object in view, — to be an attack directed against me individ- 
 ually, i trust I shall not be considered as having shown any blame- 
 able reluctance in pausing before I offered myself to the attention 
 of the House. Sir, I could not bring myself to believe, that, in 
 the two speeches of the honourable mover, and the honourable 
 baronet, I had heard the whole of what is to be alleged against 
 me; and yet I must suppose that, if others intended to add their 
 weight to the accusation, I must suppose that, in a case in which 
 every thing that is dear to man, in character, in reputation, and in 
 honour, is at stake, they would have had the fairness to give to 
 the accused an advantage which is not withholden from the mean- 
 est criminal, — that of hearing the whole indictment to which he 
 is to plead. 
 
 If, after a year of menace, and after three months of prepara- 
 tion, from amidst all the array which I see opposed to me, these* 
 are my only accusers; if the speeches which I have heard, contain 
 the whole of the charges which are to be urged against me; 
 charges, which those who bring them forward, state to be direct- 
 ed to no other object than the public weal, — but which I know, 
 and which they know, to be intended to disqualify me for ever 
 from serving the public with credit to myself or with advantage 
 to the state; if this be all, — it falls, indeed, far short of the expec- 
 tations excited by such mighty menace and by such deliberate 
 preparation? But, Sir, if this is not all, — if there are gentlemen, 
 who hold themselves in readiness to aggravate the matter prefer- 
 red against me, — whose speeches, prepared for the occasion and 
 now throbbing in their breasts, are reserved till I shall be disabled 
 from answering them, — from such I appeal to the candour of the 
 House and of the world; declaring, and desiring it to be under- 
 stood, both within and without the walls of this House, that if I 
 do not refute what they may hereafter advance against me, it will 
 be only because I am precluded by the forms of the House from 
 speaking a second time (cries of No, no.) Oh, Sir, I am not to 
 be told that the motion consists of a string of Resolutions — that 
 each Resolution is a separate question — and that upon each sepa- 
 rate question I may speak: — but neither are my accusers to be 
 told that this is technical nonsense: — that the effective debate must 
 take place upon the first Resolution, and that the question upon 
 that Resolution once put to the vote, I should be heard upon those 
 which follow, to very little purpose indeed. 
 
 I agree with the honourable baronet, that I have often deplored 
 and deprecated; and, in spite of the honourable baronet's warn- 
 
 * Mr. Lambton and Sir Francis Burdett. 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 233 
 
 ing, I shall continue (not for myself but for the public good) to 
 deprecate and to deplore — the practice of calumniating public men 
 on either side of this House, by imputing to them motives of ac- 
 tion, the insinuation of which would not be tolerated in the inter- 
 course of private life. If, indeed, I shall be found to have forfeit- 
 ed all claim to the confidence of the House, the honourable baronet 
 needs not fear that I shall again offend him by such unpleasant 
 animadversions. But if, on the other hand, I shall be fortunate 
 enough to make plain to others, that which I myself confidently 
 feel — my perfect clearness from any of the imputations attempted 
 to be thrown upon me — the honourable baronet may depend upon 
 hearing from me hereafter the same language which I have used 
 heretofore on this, and on other subjects still more disagreeable to 
 the honourable baronet and his followers. 
 
 Sir, the charge which the honourable gentleman's Resolutions 
 involve, is this, — That the Government, being perfectly aware 
 that the Prince Regent of Portugal had no intention of returning 
 to Europe, pretended a belief in such intention, for the express 
 purpose of corruptly offering that mission which I corruptly ac- 
 cepted. It is true, that a distinction is most disingenuously affect- 
 ed to be drawn between the Government and me, of which it is 
 hardly necessary to say, that I disdain to take advantage. It is 
 pretended, that a charge is brought forward only against the Gov- 
 ernment for making the offer, but that I might have accepted that 
 offer, if not altogether without blame, at least without absolute 
 criminality. Sir, I disclaim this insidious distinction, I will al- 
 low no such exception in my favour. As my noble friend has 
 claimed that my case shall be considered as that of the Govern- 
 ment; so do I declare on my part, that the case of the Govern- 
 ment is mine. 
 
 The first head of charge, therefore, against the Government 
 and myself is, that there was no belief on the part of the Govern- 
 ment, or on mine, that the Prince Regent of Portugal intended to 
 return to Europe: the second is, that the Mission sent to i*eceive 
 and congratulate the Prince Regent on his return was on a scale 
 of unnecessary, unexampled, profligate prodigality. To both 
 these issues, distinctly, I mean to plead. All that I require of 
 those who are to judge me is, that they will keep these two is- 
 sues separate in their minds: that they will not confound them, as 
 has been industriously done in the speeches of the honourable 
 gentlemaruand the honourable baronet. If a fraud were purposed 
 — if the Government did believe in the return of the Royal Fam- 
 ily of Portugal — there is crime enough for an impeachment, if 
 you will, without entering into the question of expense. In that 
 case the expense of one farthing was too much. But if, on the 
 contrary, the Government was sincere in its belief of the occasion 
 32 V* 
 
234 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 for the appointment when they made it, — and I, when I accepted 
 it, — then the question of expense is indeed a fair subject of par- 
 liamentary jealousy (I am far from denying that it is so;) but the 
 amount of that expense must be estimated, with reference to its 
 object, and not upon the unfair and fallacious assumption that there 
 was no occasion for any expense at all. 
 
 As to the first point, if I were pleading for myself alone, all 
 that it would be necessary for me to do, would be to refer to one 
 only of the papers before the House: — the extract of Lord Strang- 
 ford's despatch to Lord Castlereagh, dated Rio de Janeiro, June 
 21st, 1814. It is in these words: — 
 
 " The glorious events which have given peace and independence to Europe, 
 have revived in the mind of the Prince of Brazil those eager desires to revisit 
 his native country, which had been for a time suppressed. 
 
 "His Royal Highness has done me the honour to state his anxious hope that 
 Great Britain will facilitate the completion of his wishes upon this subject; and 
 that he may return to Portugal under the same protection as that under which 
 he left it." 
 
 The despatch, of which this is an extract, was, in fact, the only 
 one upon the subject that I happened to see before I went to Por- 
 tugal. 
 
 Before I proceed further, I must here vindicate my noble friend 
 the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, from the al- 
 legation of the honourable gentleman, that my noble friend stu- 
 diously delayed, or wilfully confounded, the papers moved for by 
 the honourable gentleman or his friends. The honourable gentle- 
 man accuses my noble friend of having produced a despatch, ad- 
 dressed to me. by Lord Bathurst (No. 2, of the papers first pre- 
 sented to Parliament,) instead of the despatch of my noble friend 
 to Mr. Sydenham of the 18th of July — well knowing that this 
 latter was the paper really moved for. Now, Sir, I cannot pre- 
 tend to say in what terms the motion of the honourable gentleman 
 was conceived: I was not in the House (so far as I know) when 
 he made it. The first knowledge that I had of it was from a note 
 of my noble friend, inclosing a copy of the despatch addressed to 
 me by Lord Bathurst; informing me that this despatch was to be 
 laid before the House of Commons; and desiring to know whether 
 there were any papers which I might wish to be produced in or- 
 der to meet the charge, whatever it might be, which appeared, by 
 the call for this despatch, to be meditated against me. This was 
 a courtesy which my noble friend, or any Minister, would have 
 equally shown to any other individual menaced with a parlia- 
 mentary attack, and I only mention it, as affording a strong proof 
 of the sincerity of my noble friend's belief that the paper first 
 produced was that which had been moved for by the honourable 
 gentleman. Lord Strangford's despatch being (as I have said) the 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 235 
 
 only document that I happened ever to have seen, relating to the 
 Prince Regent of Portugal's return, it was the only one that oc- 
 curred to me at all necessary to illustrate that matter. It was the 
 only one, therefore, of which, with that view, I suggested the pro- 
 duction; and, upon looking it over — as I was extremely desirous 
 to bring forward nothing but what was absolutely necessary — I 
 thought the two or three sentences, which are given in the first 
 set of papers presented to the House, amply sufficient. I knew, 
 indeed, that the Prince Regent of Portugal's intention of return- 
 ing to Europe had been questioned; but it was not until after the 
 production of these papers that I had any suspicion that it was de- 
 nied. The honourable gentleman now professes that his intention 
 was to move, not for any despatch to me, but for a despatch to 
 Mr. Sydenham. It is to be regretted, in that case, that the hon- 
 ourable gentleman did not mention Mr, Sydenham's name in his 
 motion, which would have obviated any possibility of misappre- 
 hension. I am not without my suspicions, indeed, that if in re- 
 turn to the honourable gentleman's ambiguous motion my noble 
 friend had laid upon the table the despatch to Mr. Sydenham, he 
 would then have been accused of keeping back the despatch to 
 me. In truth, Sir, if the honourable gentlemen wanted complete 
 information, their obvious course was to move for all despatches 
 relating to the subject in question, within a certain specified pe- 
 riod. But if their object was to feel their way, paper by paper, 
 in order that they might proceed or not, according as the informa- 
 tion obtained by their successive motions should or should not 
 correspond with the prejudices which they had endeavoured to 
 raise; why, then. Sir, perhaps they had not gone far in this course 
 of discovery before they repented of having engaged in it. 
 
 But to return to the despatch of Lord Strangford. — The extract 
 from that despatch which I have just read, appeared to me quite 
 sufficient to establish the Prince Regent of Portugal's intention. — 
 I confess, indeed, that my belief in that event rested on authority 
 short even of this extract. It rested on the authority of a private 
 letter from Lord Liverpool, received by me on the 28th August, 
 at a considerable distance from London; which, — though it is not 
 pleasant to quote in public discussion the contents of private let- 
 ters, I will now (having my nohlc friend's permission,) read to 
 the House. It is dated London, August 26th, 1834. 
 
 " Letters have been this day received from Lord Strangford, by which it ap- 
 pears that the Prince of Brazil has intimated his desire to return to Portugal 
 (in consequence of the recent events in Europe,) and the gratification which he 
 would feel at the arrival of a British squadron at Rio de Janeiro, for the pur- 
 pose of conveying the royal family to Lisbon. 
 
 " Under these circumstances, Melville has given orders for preparing a prop- 
 er squadron tor this service, and it will sail as soon as the necessary arrange- 
 ments can be completed." 
 
236 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 This letter, Sir, I received on the 28th of August at Manches- 
 ter, in my way from London to a distant part of the country, 
 from whence I had no thoughts of returning till the middle of 
 September. My right honourable friend, now sitting near me 
 (Mr. Huskisson,) was with me when I received it. Now, the 
 hypothesis of my accusers is, that the whole notion of the Prince 
 Regent's return was a feint and a fraud on the part of the Gov- 
 ernment, if not on mine. But, I ask of any candid man, if he 
 can believe, I ask of any man living, if he will avow the belief, 
 that supposing a fraud to have been intended, it is likely that such 
 a letter as this from Lord Liverpool, written in the unguarded 
 style of private friendship, and addressed (as any gentleman who 
 would take the trouble to look at it would see that it is) with the 
 usual formulary of the most familiar correspondence, should have 
 been one of the documents got up for such a purpose ? Is it like- 
 ly, that of two men, known to each other by nearly thirty years 
 of intimacy, one should practise such a delusion upon the other? 
 Or, is it likely that two such men should carry hypocrisy so far 
 as to provide beforehand for the support of a public fraud, by the 
 contrivance of such a private communication? 
 
 This letter from Lord Liverpool was founded upon that des- 
 patch from Lord Strangford of which I have already read the ex- 
 tract, and which appears at full length in the papers last laid upon 
 the table. The extract was moved for at my desire, the extract 
 only, when I conceived that my justification alone was in ques- 
 tion: the whole despatch was afterwards moved for, also at my 
 suggestion, when I found that the Government were suspected of 
 having deceived Tne into a belief, for which they had no founda- 
 tion. I will now take the liberty of reading the whole despatch. 
 
 Rio de Janeiro, June 21, 1814. 
 [Received August 26th, 1814.] 
 " My Lord, 
 
 " The glorious events whicli have given peace and independence to Europe, 
 have revived in the mind of the Prince of Brazil those eager desires to revisit 
 his native country, which had been for a time suppressed. 
 
 " His Royal Highness has lately done me the honour to state his anxious 
 hope, that Great Britain will facilitate the completion of his wishes upon this 
 subject, and that he may return to Portugal under the same protection as that 
 under which he left it. And His Royal Highness has, during the last week, 
 intimated to me, four or five times, as well publicly as privately, that, in case 
 Great Britain should send a squadron of ships of war to this place, for the pur- 
 pose of escorting His Royal Highness to Europe, it would be particularly and 
 personally gratifying to His Royal Highness that should be select- 
 ed for this service. 
 
 "I have the honour to be, &c. 
 
 " Strangford. 
 
 ^^To Viscount Castlereagh, <^c. c)pc. c|*c." 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 237 
 
 (The name of the officer is omitted from motives of delicacy. 
 Sir John Beresford had been already appointed and announced to 
 the Court of Rio de Janeiro, before this depatch was received.) 
 
 Submit this document to any man in the habit of canvassing 
 evidence, and ask him, whether there is any thing in it that could 
 create a suspicion of the sincerity of the wish which it announces? 
 — whether the Government could reasonably doubt the authen- 
 ticity of the intelligence conveyed in it, any more than I doubted 
 the fidelity of the abstract of that intelligence transmitted to me 
 by Lord Liverpool? A man might say, that he intended to go a 
 journey, and the fact of his entertaining that intention might, per- 
 haps, not be considered as altogether established by the mere in- 
 timation of it: but, when he ordered his carriage to the door, and 
 named the servants by whom he wished to be conducted, then, 
 surely, one would consider him to be really in earnest. 
 
 This despatch, however, I did not see till after my return to 
 London in September. I was quite satisfied of the fact, as stated 
 to me by Lord Liverpool. Nothing is more easy than, when an 
 event has, or has not, actually taken place, to find out that you 
 ought to have foreseen how likely, or to have discovered how un- 
 likely, it was to happen. But who balances probabilities in this 
 way, in the ordinary transactions of life ? Who is the wise and 
 happy man that receives every friendly communication with dis- 
 trust; that calls for proofs of the most credible expectancies, and 
 deems every occurrence problematical till it has actually occurred ? 
 The Prince Regent of Portugal announced to the British Cabinet 
 his intention of returning; he requested that a squadron might be 
 sent to escort him to Europe; he named the officer by whom he 
 wished that squadron to be commanded: yet Ministers were to 
 suspect that he entertained no intention of the kind! For myself, 
 I protest, that no shadow of doubt ever crossed my mind, as to 
 the reality of this intention. Perhaps it may have been rash to 
 believe: if so, I must acknowledge my error. But when, in ad- 
 dition to such positive testimony, I considered how desirable it 
 was, with a view to the interests of the Portuguese Monarchy, of 
 this country and of the world; how essential to the complete res 
 toration and tranquillity of that order of things which the French 
 Revolution had disjointed and broken up, that Portugal, now sunk 
 into a province, should resume her station among the States of Eu- 
 rope; — when I felt that no efibrts of the British Government 
 ought to have been spared, and had reason to be assured that none 
 had been spared, to induce that return, I confess I know not on 
 what I could have founded the smallest doubt that the return of 
 the Court of Portugal was really determined upon, and that this 
 determination was upon the eve of execution. 
 
 It may be true, that there were, as has been asserted, at the pre- 
 
23S EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 cise period to which I am alluding, conflicting reports on this sub- 
 ject; that merchants in Lisbon had received letters from their 
 friends in Brazil, contradicting the opinion that the Prince Regent 
 would return; that there were rumours of opposition to the meas- 
 ure in the councils of Rio de Janeiro; and that persons, supposed 
 to have access to correct intelligence, avowed the conviction that 
 the Court would remain in South America. If there were such 
 reports, I knew nothing of them. But I fairly own that had they 
 come distinctly to my knowledge, had I even been consulted as 
 to the weight to be allowed to them, I should have considered the 
 British Minister's testimony as outweighing them all. I will tell 
 the House why the testimony of Lord Strangford would have had 
 so powerful a weight with me on this subject. In 1 807, at the time 
 when the Court of Portugal em.igrated to the Brazils, I had the hon- 
 our to fill the olfice now filled by my noble friend — (Lord Castle- 
 reagh.) When the first intelligence of the intended emigration 
 reached this country, there was then, also, an abundance of con- 
 flicting and contradictory reports; and I believe I may say that 
 for several days I alone, in London, alone perhaps among my col- 
 leagues, was persuaded of the existence of that intention. At 
 that time I knew nothing of Lord Strangford, except from his 
 official correspondence: but that correspondence had inspired me 
 with a full reliance upon the authenticity of his sources of infor- 
 mation, and upon his knowledge of the Prince Regent's mind; 
 and Lord Strangford all along affirmed that the Prince Regent in- 
 tended to emigrate. The general persuasion at Lisbon was that 
 the Court would not emigrate; even up to the very day, when, as 
 Lord Strangford had predicted, the Prince actually embarked in 
 the Tagus, and set sail for Brazil. 
 
 My belief, therefore, in the present instance was founded, first, 
 on positive information, — secondly, on the obvious desirableness 
 of the return of the Prince Regent to Europe, and on the certain- 
 ty that this country must have used all means of counsel and per- 
 suasion to ensure that event. I was persuaded both of the reality 
 of the intention, and of the probability of its instant execution. 
 Nothing, absolutely nothing, had come to my knowledge that 
 could excite a reasonable distrust. But even had such distrust 
 been excited in my mind by any rumour, or any testimony less 
 than official, it would have been dispelled by the assurances of 
 Lord Strangford. Such was my belief, my credulity, if you will 
 — but a credulity of which I have assigned the grounds — a cre- 
 dulity which was assuredly not so fatuitous as to be fairly con- 
 strued into crime. 
 
 I must, however, beg not to have it understood that my belief 
 in the return of the Prince Regent at once determined my accept- 
 ance of the mission; though it might have done so, for aught that 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 239 
 
 I can see, without blame. Undoubtedly no earthly consideration 
 would have induced me to accept it without an assurance as to 
 that return: but it required a combination of other circumstances, 
 with which I need not trouble the House, to induce me to go in 
 an official character to Lisbon; and in fact my acceptance was not 
 determined till after my return to town, late in September. 
 
 The Government had stronger grounds for their belief than I 
 had. They had before them the communications contained, or 
 referred to, in the papers last submitted to the House: — letters, 
 namely, from Lord Strangford, of so early a date as February, 
 and the autograph letter of the Prince Regent of Portugal to the 
 Prince Regent of Great Britain, dated the 2nd of April. Of 
 these I knew nothing till the other day, when the honourable 
 gentleman's inquiries and denunciations led to an examination of 
 the correspondence in the Foreign Office. This autograph letter 
 disproves the notion of the honourable gentleman, that there was 
 an interval between the month of February and the month of 
 August in the communications respecting the Prince Regent's in- 
 tended return. This letter fills up the supposed chasm in the 
 correspondence. The reason why a copy of this document has 
 not been laid before the House, is, that as many gentlemen who 
 hear me must know, it is contrary to the etiquette observed to- 
 wards Sovereign Princes so to make their letters public. The 
 practice is for the Secretary of State to refer to the substance of 
 such letters in an official despatch accompanying them, or ac- 
 knowledging their receipt: and such a record of the letter in ques- 
 tion is to be found in the despatch from the Secretary of State to 
 Lord Strangford, of the 25th of July. In that despatch, this au- 
 tograph letter is noticed as stating that the Prince Regent of Por- 
 tugal only waited for intelligence of the final success of the allies^ 
 in order to determine his return to Europe. 
 
 But all this evidence, all this testimony, is, it seems, to be con- 
 sidered as fallacious, if not absolutely false, because there is a 
 solemn, indubitable, irrefragable witness at variance with it — a 
 paragraph in a newspaper of the 29th of July, which announced 
 my actual appointment as Ambassador to Portugal! An appoint- 
 ment of the 29th of July could not be in consequence of informa- 
 tion received on the 26th of August. — Clearly. But events might 
 be contemplated as probable before the 29th of July, which in- 
 telligence of the 26th of August might confirm: and a specula- 
 tion might be founded upon those probabilities, contingent upon 
 their fulfilment or non-fulfilment. I do not affirm that some such 
 speculation, founded on some such possible contingency, but ab- 
 solutely dependent for its realization on the happening or not 
 happening of that contingency, might not be afloat before the 
 29th of July. The despatch, of the 25th of July (of which. 
 
240 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 however, any more than of the autograph letter alluded to in it, 
 I had not any distinct knowledge till it was brought into notice 
 the other day in consequence of the honourable gentleman's in- 
 quiries) — the date, I say, of this despatch renders it not improba- 
 ble that it may have been about that time that a mission to Por- 
 tugal began to be contemplated as probable. But that I was at 
 that time, or near that time appointed, that I then accepted such 
 appointment, if offered to me, or that it could then have been of- 
 fered to me, if I had been willing to accept it, I utterly deny. I 
 deny here, Sir, in your presence, and in the presence of my coun- 
 try, that which has been assumed as established because I did not 
 deny it when asserted in a newspaper. Sir, I value as much as 
 any man the liberty of the press; I acknowledge its utility, I 
 bow to its power; in common with all public men, I listen to its 
 suggestions, and receive its chastisements, with all due humility 
 and thankfulness: but I will not plead at its bar! I will continue 
 to treat with scorn the attacks of anonymous malice. I disdain 
 to make any answer to such charges, whilst there is a House of 
 Commons before which I can vindicate my character. This is 
 the place where it is my right as well as my duty to plead, before 
 a competent tribunal, and in the face of known and accountable 
 accusers. And in behalf of all that is sacred and decent in pri- 
 vate life, as well as in behalf of the honour of public men, I pro- 
 test against the inference, that he is to be held guilty of a charge, 
 who resolutely declines to answer it at the bar of the daily press. 
 But the newspaper had, it seems, announced not only that I 
 was appointed Ambassador to Lisbon; but that my right honour- 
 able friend near me (Mr. Huskisson,) was appointed Surveyor of 
 the Woods and Forests, and my right honourable friend (Mr. 
 W. W. Pole,) at the end of the bench, Master of the Mint; both 
 which nominations were immediately verified. It is very true 
 that the latter office was shortly afterwards filled by my right 
 honourable friend (Mr. W. W. Pole,) who has discharged the 
 duties of it with so much honour to himself, and advantage to 
 the public: but I disclaim in the most peremptory terms any 
 merit or influence of mine in that appointment. My right hon- 
 ourable friend (Mr. Huskisson) near me, was, it is also true, ap- 
 pointed to the office of Surveyor of Woods, and undoubtedly 
 not without my intervention. On the 30th of July I think it was 
 that I moved the new writ for my right honourable friend. I 
 moved that writ for the express purpose of showing that I ap- 
 proved, and was party to, the accession of my right honourable 
 friend, and of other friends of mine, to the Administration. And 
 had I myself accepted office at that time, I should have been 
 equally ready, nay, anxious to avow it. At different periods of 
 my political life, I have held, I have resigned, I have refused, and 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 241 
 
 I have accepted office. And there is no occasion on which I have 
 taken "either of these courses, on which I am not perfectly pre- 
 pared to vindicate (I will not say always the prudence, but I will 
 say confidently) the purity and honourableness of my conduct. 
 
 I know, Sir, how difficult it is to speak plainly on subjects of 
 this nature, without transgressing the decorum, if not the strict 
 order of our debates. But is it brought as an accusation against 
 me, that, having no difference of opinion with the Administration, 
 I did not neglect an opportunity which presented itself of furnish- 
 ing an accession of strength to that Administration, which I wish- 
 ed to strengthen and uphold ? Why ought I to have declined 
 this? And by whom am I accused for not declining it? By those 
 who consider the principle of party as a virtue — as a badge of 
 distinction, and a pledge of purity, when predicated of themselves; 
 but who are intolerant of any party, presuming to connect itself 
 together, except under their banners. And, what is the bond of 
 party ? what are the boasted ties that connect the honourable gen- 
 tlemen on the other side of the House with each other? Fidelity 
 in private friendship, as well as consistency in public principle. 
 Their theory of party is a theory which they would confine ex- 
 clusively to their own practice. One may become a satellite in 
 their system, and welcome; but any eccentric planet, moving in 
 another system, they view with jealous, yet with scornful eyes, 
 and denounce its course as baleful and destructive. To this ex- 
 clusive doctrine I have never subscribed. To these pretensions I 
 have never listened with submission. I have never deemed it 
 reasonable that any confederacy of great names should monopo- 
 lize to themselves the whole patronage and authority of the state: 
 should constitute themselves, as it were, into a corporation, a bank 
 for circulating the favours of the Crown and the suffrages of the 
 people, and distributing them only to their own adherents. I can- 
 not consent that the administration of the Government of this free 
 and enlightened country shall be considered as rightfully belong- 
 ing to any peculiar circle of public men, however powerful, or of 
 families however preponderant; and though I cannot stand lower 
 in the estimation of the honourable baronet than I do in my own, 
 as to my own pretensions, I will (to use the language of a states- 
 man,* so eminent that I cannot presume to quote his words with- 
 out an apology,) I will, as long as I have the faculty to think and 
 act for myself, " look those proud combinations in the face." I 
 plead guilty, then, to the charge, if it be one, of having treated 
 with an Administration, with the principles of which I per- 
 fectly agreed, I plead guilty to the charge, if it be one, of having 
 on this, aye, and on other occasions, postponed my own interest 
 
 * Mr. Burke. 
 33 w 
 
242 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 to that of my friends. If, indeed, the charge could be turned the 
 other way; if, occupied exclusively with any personal objects of 
 my own, it could be said that I had neglected the claims, the in- 
 terests, or the feelings of any individual connected with me in 
 political life, I should, indeed, hear that charge with sensations 
 very different from those which I now experience: then, indeed, 
 should I hide my head with shame. 
 
 When I moved the writ of my right honourable friend, on the 
 30th of July, I declare, upon my honour, that I thought it very 
 doubtful whether I should myself have any official connexion 
 whatever with the Government. I do not mean to say, that the 
 question had not been mooted, as to my undertaking the mission 
 to Portugal, if it should turn out that such a mission was to be 
 sent. But many circumstances might have prevented the result 
 that did afterwards happen. I was not pledged, I was very far 
 from having made up my own mind, to accept the mission if it 
 should be offered to me; nor had the Government, as yet, any as- 
 surance that they should have it to offer. I had previously made 
 arrangements of m)^ own. My plans were to go where I did go, 
 but from different motives and with a different object. What that 
 object and those motives were, I am not called upon, nor do I 
 think it necessary to state in this place. It is sufficient for me to 
 say that I was master of my own actions, and that I chose to go. 
 My intention was known to my private friends, and had been 
 communicated to my constituents two months before the close of 
 the session. 
 
 The first official tender of the mission was made to me by my 
 noble friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I think about the 
 end of the first week of August: — I cannot be positive as to the 
 day; but I recollect perfectly that I had but two interviews with 
 my noble friend upon the subject, within a few days of each 
 other, — and that at the date of one of those interviews, Mr. Sy- 
 denham had arrived in England. He arrived on or about the 8th 
 of August. My noble friend was then on the eve of his depart- 
 ure for Vienna. His tender to me was altogether contingent and 
 conditional. The way in which the matter was left, was this; that 
 if the certainty of the Prince Regent of Portugal's immediate 
 return should be established, I should hear from him (or, in his ab- 
 sence, from Lord Liverpool) again. I did hear again, in the man- 
 ner that I have stated; but, in proof that I had not, in the mean 
 time, acted on the pi-esumption that I should go out in an official 
 character, I can appeal to some of the members of the Board of 
 Admiralty who sit near me, that I was, so late as in the month 
 of September, a supplicant at the Admirality, as a private person, 
 for a ship to convey me and my family to Lisbon; and when I 
 arrived in Portugal, I found a house provided for me, as a private 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 243 
 
 person, through the kindness of a friend, — a house in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Lisbon, which, in my official character, I could not 
 
 «^<^"py- . , , . ., . , 
 
 But all this, it may be said, was but contrivance, — an artificial 
 chain of circumstances forged and linked together, with a view 
 to the present discussion. Has such an imputation the colour of 
 probability ? What I have now stated both as to facts and motives 
 is the truth. If any man shall contradict this statement, I can 
 only say that he will affirm that which is not true. Where a 
 matter rests — and from a nature must rest solely — on the con- 
 sciousness of an individual, there is no other answer (that I know 
 of) to be given to an arbitrary contradiction. I speak this, I hope, 
 without offence. But, on this part of my case, I know of no other 
 possible answer. 
 
 I did believe then in the intention of the Prince Regent to re- 
 turn. The Government believed in it. Their belief would have 
 been ground enough for mine. But I have shown that they had 
 good grounds for their belief Further, it appears, from what has 
 been stated by the gallant admiral behind me, (Sir John Beres- 
 ford,) in anticipation of a question which I might perhaps have 
 taken the liberty to put to him, that not only had the royal family 
 really entertained that intention, but that the disposition to carry 
 it into execution survived the report of its abandonment; that 
 he was repeatedly requested by the Prince Regent of Portugal to 
 defer his departure from Rio de Janeiro from time to time, in 
 hopes that the next arrivals from Europe might bring intelligence 
 decisive of the voyage; and that it was not until the beginning 
 of April that those hopes were finally relinquished, and the gal- 
 lant admiral permitted to take his leave. 
 
 Contrary and contradictory rumours did, no doubt, continue to 
 prevail on this subject, in London, as they certainly did in Lis- 
 bon. Even when I received at Lisbon, in the beginning of 
 April 1815, the first intimation from England on which I found- 
 ed my resignation, I was in possession of most positive assurances 
 the other way; and on the very day on which I sent off my re- 
 signation. I had heard through what I might have considered as 
 authentic channels, that the Prince would certainly embark. 
 The day was specified on which the embarkation was to take 
 place; and we were to look for the first news of that event in 
 the arrival of the squadron off the bar. But did I act on this in- 
 formation? Did I endeavour to shake any credit which the Gov- 
 ernment at home might be disposed to give to their accounts from 
 Rio de Janeiro? Did I contrast the rumours of Lisbon with the 
 rumours of London, for the purpose of clinging to my office ? 
 No. It appears, from the papers on the table, that upon the 29th 
 of March the information of the Prince Regent's abandonment 
 
244 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 of his design was received here in an official shape. Probably this 
 official information must have been preceded some days by private 
 intelligence. The intimation which reached me on the 9th of 
 April certainly was not official; I did not wait, however, for its 
 official confirmation: on the 10th of April, I wrote and sent off 
 by an express packet the following despatch to the Foreign 
 Office: 
 
 "By the mails which came in yesterday, I learn, (though not officially,) that 
 the accounts received in England from Rio de Janeiro since Admiral Sir John 
 Beresford's arrival there, create a doubt of the Prince Regent of Portugal's 
 present intention to return to his European dominions. 
 
 " Nothing has been received here from the Brazils, which indicates any such 
 change in His Royal Highness's intention. But should any impediments have 
 been interposed to delay the execution of it, until the intelligence of the late 
 astonishing and afflicting revolution in the state of Europe sliall reach Rio de 
 Janeiro, it is possible that the receipt of that intelligence may determine His 
 Royal Highness to remain there for the present. 
 
 "In that case, or in the event of your lordship's receiving such positive ac- 
 counts, as satisfy your lordship's mind that such a determination has been taken 
 by the Prince Regent of Portugal, I have to request your lordship, to lay at 
 the feet of His Royal Highness, the Prince Regent, my humble resignation of 
 the commission with which he was graciously pleased to honour me, in con- 
 templation of the Prince Regent of Portugal's return." 
 
 So much for the first head of the charge against me, and against 
 the Government. I have shown, I hope to the satisfaction of the 
 House, that we did believe in the return of the Court of Portu- 
 gal to Europe; — that we had good grounds for that belief; — and 
 that, upon that belief exclusively, any mission to Lisbon was 
 founded. 
 
 It remains to be considered, whether upon that ground, such a 
 mission was necessary or justifiable. And this question again 
 divides itself into two heads; first, whether necessary at all; 
 secondly, (if admitted to be necessary,) wbether conducted on a 
 scale of disproportionate expense — disproportionate either to the 
 unavoidable expenditure of the mission, or to its political im- 
 portance. 
 
 In the first of these questions — Was an embassy to I^isbon ne- 
 cessary, in the event of the Prince Regent's return? — is involved 
 another more j)ersonal question, from which I must not shrink: — 
 namely — Was there any unfitness in the offer of that mission to 
 me, or in my acceptance of it? — I feel all the difficulty of argu- 
 ing this point in a manner at once satisfactory to the House and 
 not unjust to myself It is distasteful and revolting to one's feel- 
 ings to be obliged to speak of one's-self, and of one's own fitness 
 for any situation, or any undertaking. But it will be remembered, 
 that I am upon my trial — that I am defending myself against a 
 criminal charge; and if in such a defence, something like egotism 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 245 
 
 should be unavoidable, I hope the House will have the goodness 
 to excuse it. 
 
 Sir, to place this question in its true point of view, I must once 
 more go back to the year 1807. I have said that when in that 
 year the royal family of Portugal adopted the resolution of emi- 
 grating to the Brazils, I had the honour to hold the Seals of the 
 Foreign Office. I had thus an opportunity of becoming acquaint- 
 ed with the wishes of the Prince Regent of Portugal in favour of 
 Lord Strangford, who had been employed to advise and to urge 
 that splendid and magnanimous emigration. It was my duty to 
 report these wishes, and to recommend the services of Lord 
 Strangford to the consideration of my royal master. The result 
 was, that his lordship was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and 
 Minister Plenipotentiary; was invested with a red riband; and 
 might also have received an advance in the peerage — which (for 
 reasons nothing to the purpose of this night's discussion) he de- 
 clined. There was, however, another point respecting which the 
 Court of Portugal was extremely solicitous, — a reciprocation of 
 missions of the highest rank: and this point, from the period of 
 which I am speaking to the last moment at which I held the Seals 
 of Office, the Portuguese Minister never lost an opportunity of 
 pressing upon my attention. It has been said, by shrewd ob- 
 servers of domestic politics, that when once a coronet gets into a 
 man's head there is no driving it out again: and I believe it may 
 be as justly said, that when once a Court takes up the notion of 
 reciprocation of embassies, it is no easy matter to get the better 
 of it. Such a notion reproduces itself on every occasion. A Sec- 
 retary of State is to be assailed with repeated solicitation till the 
 favourite measure is accomplished. 
 
 To this application I at that time did not listen. And I believe 
 I reconciled the Court of Portugal to the refusal of it, by showing 
 that it could not then be granted in the person of Lord Strangford; 
 whose diplomatic standing would not admit of such an advance- 
 ment — having been already so recently raised from the station of 
 Charge-d'AfTaires. I promised, however, that on the occurrence 
 of any signal event which might constitute a proper occasion for 
 an embassy, (and the two possible events in contemplation were 
 either the final establishment of the Portuguese Court at the Bra- 
 zils — should the cause of Europe be lost, or, what was then a dis- 
 tant, though never with me a hopeless prospect — its restoration 
 to Europe on a successful termination of the war,) I would recom- 
 mend to my Sovereign — should I be then in office — a compliance 
 with the wishes of the Court of Portugal. 
 
 Long after I quitted office, and more than once, or twice, or 
 three times, I was appealed to for the truth of the assertion, that 
 such a promise had been given; not that any engagement of mine 
 
 w* 
 
346 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 could be binding on my successors. At last, I believe in 1811, 
 without waiting for these long coming events, the Portuguese 
 Minister here assumed the character of Ambassador. The recip- 
 rocation was declined. Much discussion, it seems, followed during 
 the three succeeding years upon the refusal to name an Ambassa- 
 dor at the Court of Brazil: and I perfectly remember, that in one 
 of the conversations which I had with my noble friend the Sec- 
 retary for Foreign Affairs, he reminded me of the circumstances 
 which I have here recapitulated, and observed, " We shall, be- 
 sides, thus have the long disputed point of a reciprocation of em- 
 bassies settled, and your pledge to the Court of Portugal redeem- 
 ed in your own person." 
 
 If it is supposed by honourable gentlemen, that the aggregate 
 allowances of the mission were necessarily increased by giving 
 the name and rank of Ambassador, instead of that of Envoy Ex- 
 traordinary, to my appointment, 1 assure them they are mistaken. 
 The question of expense I reserve for separate consideration: but 
 as it here mixes itself with the question of the rank of the mis- 
 sion, I am compelled shortly to advert to it, a little before its 
 time. There are (or were before the regulation of 1815,) two 
 different scales of ambassadorial allowances; the higher scale with 
 a salary of £11,000 a year, and the other, on what is called the 
 old salary of £8,200. The difference between these two salaries 
 is nearly the same as the difference between the lower of them 
 and that of an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten- 
 tiary, — which is £5,200. Now, Sir, a man who coveted an em- 
 bassy for the sake of emolument would hardly fail, once Ambas- 
 sador, to choose the higher scale of salary. I chose the lower. 
 But I do not claim any merit from this preference. For as nei- 
 ther £5,200, (the salary of Envoy Extraordinary,) nor £8,200, 
 (the salary of Ambassador on the old scale,) nor even the higher 
 salary of £11,000 reduced by deductions at home and abroad, was 
 -expected to cover all the expenses of the mission, without an ad- 
 dition of extraordinaries (as I shall presently show) it became in- 
 different in that point of view, what should be the nominal rank 
 of the mission. 
 
 But it was not indifferent in other respects. I flatter myself, 
 that I shall not be suspected of the idle and stupid vanity of caring 
 under what name I did the public business. I believe, however, 
 that it will be generally acknowledged, that having once, — with 
 however little pretensions to so high a station — filled that office 
 which presides over the diplomacy of the country, I could not 
 consistently assume any other than the highest diplomatic rank — 
 that which alone represents the Sovereign — in any mission on 
 which I should happen to be employed. Much less could I 
 have done so with propriety on a mission to the Court of Portu- 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 247 
 
 gal, with which I had, as Secretary of State, engaged for those 
 exertions, and (sanguinely, perhaps, but, as it has turned out, safe- 
 ly) anticipated those results, by which that Court was now ena- 
 bled, if it so thought fit, to accomplish its return to Europe. 
 
 But neither was the question of what might be individually be- 
 coming, the whole of this question. The character of Ambassa- 
 dor, though it may make little difference here^ where every ne- 
 gotiation passes through responsible Ministers, is by no means a 
 matter of indifference in many foreign courts. The mere ques- 
 tion of precedency, trifling as it may seem in itself, is not a thing 
 of no moment, in diplomatic transactions. The facility of access 
 to the person of the Sovereign without the intervention of a Min- 
 ister, perhaps hostile to our interests — and the right of pre-audi- 
 ence of that Sovereign himself — are advantages of no inconsid- 
 erable moment in courts where the will of the Sovereign is main- 
 ly the policy of the State. 
 
 But what good did I expect to achieve through these advan- 
 tages? What was there for me to do? What did I expect to be 
 able to do ? First, it was not for me to judge of my own qualifica- 
 tions; it was for the Government. I might entrench myself be- 
 hind this answer. But in the spirit in which I am stating my ar- 
 gument, taking the defence of the Government upon myself (as 
 my noble friend has taken mine upon the Government) I will not 
 do so. I must again remind the House, that I speak of myself, 
 only because I am upon my trial. With the allowance belonging 
 to that consideration, I may be permitted to say, I think that there 
 was good to be done; and I think that /had as fair means, and as 
 probable a chance, as any other man, of doing it. 
 
 I pass by many obvious difficulties and embarrassments in the 
 present state of the relations of the Court of Portugal with other 
 Governments in Europe, which might have been avoided had that 
 Court returned. But there is one subject which seems to be com- 
 paratively forgotten at this moment, but which in 1814 (the year 
 of my appointment) was the theme of loud remonstrance and in- 
 cessant reproach against the Government — as though they had 
 been indifferent or lukewarm in their exertions upon it, — I mean 
 the Slave Trade. I did hope to be able to effect something on 
 this great and interesting subject. I cannot conceive a more fa- 
 vourable opportunity for this purpose than would have been af- 
 forded by the return of the Prince Regent to the kingdom of his 
 ancestors: a kingdom saved, through the blessing of Providence 
 upon the arms and counsels of this country. Of those counsels I 
 had, from my official situation, been the humble instrument and 
 organ: nor was it perhaps altogether an unreasonable presumption, 
 to hope that the share which I had accidentally had in them might 
 have conciliated, even to so humble an individual as myself, some- 
 
248 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 thing of kindness from the Sovereign whose crown and whose 
 dominions had been thus preserved and restored to him. I say, 
 therefore, Sir, I cannot conceive circumstances which would have 
 afforded a better chance of making some impression on the mind 
 of a prince naturally good — naturally religious — upon a matter in 
 which his personal character was the best, perhaps the one, hope 
 of success. 
 
 I can assure the honourable gentlemen, that of the instructions 
 which I carried out with me, three-fourths were directed to this 
 object. And, besides the instructions of my noble friend, the 
 Secretary of State, I had with me ample and most useful sugges- 
 tions from an honourable friend of mine (Mr. Wilberforce,) whom 
 I do not now see in his place, which should not have lain idle in 
 my desk. I hoped nothing, indeed, from the " oratory" which 
 the honourable baronet is pleased (I suppose ironically) to attribute 
 to me; but much from a good cause in zealous hands. I did be- 
 lieve — I do still believe, that had I had the opportunity of per- 
 sonal intercourse with the Prince, I might have effected some 
 good in this matter; and if it had pleased God that T should suc- 
 ceed in it, I should neither have thought the expenses of my mis- 
 sion ill employed, nor have felt any disparagement to myself in 
 having undertaken it. 
 
 So much for the objects in contemplation at the commencement 
 of the mission. But these objects were not attained. — True. And 
 it is supposed, that not to have attained them was to me matter of 
 great disappointment. In one sense, undoubtedly it was so. I 
 should have thought the settlement of the question of the Slave 
 Trade with one of the Peninsular Powers, an object of import- 
 ance not easily to be over-rated. In another sense, I do assure 
 the honourable baronet and the honourable gentleman, that I had 
 not experienced one half of the satisfaction in accepting my office 
 which I felt when I was permitted to resign it. 
 
 When, after writing the letter of April the 10th, tendering my 
 resignation, I yielded to the request of my noble friend, and con- 
 sented to remain at my post so long as my services might be thought 
 necessary, I must beg the House to observe that the whole ques- 
 tion of the mission had assumed an entirely new form. The war 
 had broken out; and if there had not then been a Minister of high 
 diplomatic rank at Lisbon, it would have been absolutely necessary 
 to appoint one. I failed, it is true, in the main object of my ne- 
 gotiations during the war, — the obtaining the aid of a corps of 
 Portuguese troops to act with the Allies in Flanders. But why 
 did I fail? Precisely because that state of things existed in Por- 
 tugal — because that form of local government remained there — 
 which it was the interest and the wish of this country to see al- 
 tered. I failed because the Sovereign himself was not at Lisbon ; 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 249 
 
 an additional proof, if any had been wanting, of the advisableness 
 of that return wliich we had endeavoured to invite by every prop- 
 er inducement; an additional proof of the inconvenience of leav- 
 ing one of the kingdoms of Europe with which Great Britain is 
 most intimately allied, under a delegated Government; a Govern- 
 ment incapable, from the very nature of their trust, and from the 
 immensity of distance which separates them from their Sovereign, 
 of acting in all cases with the promptness and energy necessary 
 for the glory of the absent Sovereign, and for the welfare of his 
 people. 
 
 Sir, I venture to hope that the House will feel that I have sat- 
 isfactorily disposed of the first part of the question as to the em- 
 bassy, and justified the nomination of a mission of that character, 
 on the supposition (which I had before justified) of the Prince 
 Regent of Portugal's return. I now proceed to the second part 
 of that question, the expense of the mission. 
 
 If there was no delusion in the cause assigned for the embassy 
 — if I have shown that it was necessary or highly expedient in 
 the case supposed to exist — it still remains to be inquired whether 
 or not it was conducted on too costly a scale. I must observe, 
 however, again, that if the belief in the return of the Prince and 
 the expediency of an embassy to welcome him are not made out, 
 one farthing of expenditure was too much; and if, therefore, in 
 the opinion of one honest and impartial man who has heard me, 
 what I have stated appears to be founded in fraud or artifice, the 
 question of pecuniary expense is at an end. On the other hand, 
 if I have been so far successful, I am prepared to challenge a like 
 decision on the issue now to be joined; and to demonstrate that 
 the cost of this mission was not only not prodigal in proportion 
 to its rank and character, but that it was economical, in compari- 
 son with any standard with which it can in fairness be compared. 
 
 The honourable baronet has quoted a dictum of Sir Robert 
 Walpole's, that " every man has his price." I do not think this 
 maxim true of men: — I do not think it true that even every thing 
 has its price. Things must be estimated not merely by their in- 
 trinsic qualities, but by their relative fitness and value. There is 
 no rule for judging absolutely what ought to be the cost of an 
 embassy. There is no forming such an estimate «^Wore. Facts 
 and experience are the only gounds on which you can safely or 
 justly proceed. 
 
 I beg gentlemen then to look at the printed accounts of mis- 
 sions in the years 1812, 1813, and 1814, and I ask who could tell, 
 on going to Lisbon in the autumn of the latter year, what his ex- 
 penses were likely to be? Who is there, that having before him 
 the expenditure of Sir Charles Stuart for the years 1812-13, and 
 1813-14j would have ventured upon such a mission, without com- 
 34 
 
250 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 ing to some understanding as to the extent of his expenditure, and 
 as to the principles of its limitation ? 
 
 I shall perhaps surprise the honourable baronet when I confess 
 that an application on the subject of extraordinaries was made by 
 me to the Government. But in what sense was this application 
 made ? Was it for latitude and indulgence ? Was it that I might 
 be put upon the same footing and allowed the same range as my 
 predecessor? No, Sir; it was for strictness, for definition, for 
 restraint. In the beginning of October I wrote a letter to my 
 noble friend. Lord Liverpool, (my noble friend. Lord Castlereagh, 
 near me, was then abroad,) an extract of which, with their per- 
 mission, I will now read to the House. The House will see that 
 it was of as private and familiar a style, and as little destined for 
 public citation as that from Lord Liverpool to me, which I read 
 to the House a short time ago. 
 
 " I have been looking over Stuart's extraordinaries, and they really frighten 
 me. It may be very well for him or any man not connected witli politics, to 
 draw thus at discretion, but it would not do for 7ne. For God's sake limit me 
 to what you think right — I can form no judgment of the matter : only limit 
 me, so that I may have no responsibility." 
 
 This letter shows at least the qtio animo — the disposition with 
 which I entered upon the subject. Is this the language of rapa- 
 city? Is this a petition for large emolument and unbounded dis- 
 cretion ? Or does it not rather indicate a cautious dislike of dis- 
 cretionary power, arising from a dread of responsibility, and an 
 anticipation of injustice — the former of which I am not ashamed 
 of confessing I did feel; the latter, I have at this moment, God 
 knows, no reason to disavow. 
 
 Sir, in entering upon this most disagreeable discussion — disa- 
 greeable, because I must mention the names of honourable men 
 in a way which may be liable to misconstruction — disagreeable, 
 because I must speak (though but to repel them with scorn) of 
 imputations with which I never thought my own name liable to 
 be stained, I beg leave to preface what I have to say by observ- 
 ing, that the name of Sir Charles Stuart, or of any other person 
 whom I may have occasion to mention in my defence, is brought 
 forward by me most reluctantly. I have no choice, the necessity 
 is forced upon me. The name of Sir Charles Stuart I mention 
 with the respect due to his talents and character. I consider him 
 as one who has rendered eminent services to his country, and from 
 whom his country may confidently look for such services hereafter. 
 I believe him to be as free from pecuniary taint, as I know my- 
 self to be. Large as his expenditure at Lisbon may appear, I am 
 persuaded that it was at once justified and limited by the neces- 
 sity of the case. It is to be borne in mind also, that of the ag- 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 251 
 
 gregate sums which appear to have been expended by him, no 
 small proportion was simply and absolutely loss upon the ex- 
 change, and upon the conversion of English into Portuguese 
 money. After these declarations, I proceed to state the expendi- 
 ture of the Lisbon mission, as it stood in Sir Charles Stuart's 
 time, and the amount of his regular and extraordinary allowance. 
 
 For the year, from the 5th of April, 1812, to the 5th of 
 April, 1813, Sir Charles Stuart's extraordinaries appear to have 
 been .- £26,807 
 
 Salary 5,200 
 
 Total £32,007 
 
 For the next year, from the 5th of April, 1813, to the 5th of 
 
 April, 1814, the extraordinaries are stated at - - £26,006 
 
 Salary 5,200 
 
 Total £31,206 
 
 This was the conclusion of Sir Charles Stuart's mission. These 
 statements are all before the House. They are to be found in 
 pages 30 and 31 of the Report of the Committee on the Civil 
 List, in June, 1815; — which Report I wish that the honourable 
 gentlemen opposite would have the goodness to take into their 
 hands, as I shall have many occasions to refer to it. 
 
 Then comes a period which is particularly selected as a con- 
 trast to my expenditure; — namely, the half year, beginning the 
 5th of April, 1814, (the termination of Sir Charles Stuart's mis- 
 sion,) and ending the 10th of October, 1814, (the commencement 
 of mine.) Here my accusers take their grand position. This is 
 the narrow isthmus between two rushing seas of expense, on which 
 they plant their standard of economy! — I do not complain of 
 them for doing so, I do not blame the honourable gentleman 
 who brought forward this question, for moving for papers to illus- 
 trate this position. But what I do think I have some right to 
 complain of is, that having obtained these documents, they have 
 somehow or other totally forgotten to notice their results. When 
 it suited the honourable mover's purpose, he asked for the infor- 
 mation; and when he got it, and found that it was not precisely 
 what he wanted, it suited his purpose to abstain from any obser- 
 vation upon it. In this respect, he will excuse me if, instead of 
 following his example, I endeavour to supply his omissions. 
 
 At Sir Charles Stuart's departure from Lisbon, Mr, Casamajor, 
 the Secretary of Legation, was appointed Charge d'Affaires, re- 
 ceiving of course the regular salary belonging to these two ap- 
 
252 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 pointments. As Mr. Casamajor's salary during this half year 
 was nearly the same as his salary of Secretary of Embassy with 
 me, and made but a trifling part of the expenses of either mission, 
 I shall not take it into calculation. Not so, however, as to his ex- 
 traordinary allowances; which during this economical half-year 
 appear, by the Civil List Report, p. 32, as well as by Mr. Syden- 
 ham's testimony, to have amounted to upwards of £2,500. 
 
 I am not exactly informed at what period between April and 
 July Mr. Sydenham was named Envoy Extraordinary and Minis- 
 ter Plenipotentiary to the Local Government of Portugal. The 
 first official despatch to him that I have seen is dated in July: but 
 his nomination must have preceded that despatch by some weeks. 
 He had from the 5th of April the same salary as had been enjoy- 
 ed by Sir Charles Stuart. I speak here of the regular salary of 
 £5,200 a year, — not of extraordinary allowances. Mr. Syden- 
 ham arrived at Lisbon the end of the first week of July. He re- 
 mained there until the 27th or 28th of that month, when he em- 
 barked for England, being obliged to quit his station suddenly on 
 account of his health. These three weeks (or thereabouts) were 
 the whole of Mr. Sydenham's residence at Lisbon; and for 
 these he received (I am not blaming him, but I state the fact) 
 two quarters' salary, at the rate of £5,200 a year — that is to 
 
 say £2,600 
 
 He received also, for outfit, ----- 1,500 
 He received for his journey to Lisbon - - "- 1,100 
 And lastly he received (at a subsequent period) for 
 losses occasioned by his sudden relinquishment of 
 the mission 2,000 
 
 In all £7,200 
 Add to this sum, Mr. Casamajor's extraordinaries for 
 
 the same period ------- 2,500 
 
 The result of cost to the public, for the half year in- 
 tervening between Sir Charles Stuart's mission and 
 mine, is therefore ------ £9,700 
 
 This was the reformed period which is to put all past and fu- 
 ture Ministers to shame! This was the rigid scale of economy 
 which I ought to have taken for my guide, and for departing 
 from which I am arraigned before this House and the country! 
 Yet hear how Mr. Sydenham describes Mr. Casamajor's way of 
 life. " I find," (says Mr. Sydenham, in his letter to Mr. Hamil- 
 ton of the 8th of July, written immediately upon his arrival at 
 Lisbon.) 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 253 
 
 " I find that Mr. Casamajor iias been living in a very quiet retired vi'ay, with 
 no suite to feed and lodge ; and by the examination of his books I perceive that 
 he does not live on less than £100 a week." 
 
 Here was no establishment, no representation, no call for dis- 
 play of any kind; yet the ordinary expenses of Mr. Casamajor's 
 household were £100 a week, or at the rate of £5,200 a year! 
 
 It is true, at least I have heard and believe, that during the 
 three weeks that Mr. Sydenham passed at Lisbon he lived in Mr. 
 Casamajor's house. But, as to the charge upon the public, Mr. 
 Sydenham was then in the enjoyment of a yearly salary of £5,200, 
 which comes to exactly another £100 a week. So that indepen- 
 dently of the extraordinary allowances of Mr. Sydenham, for 
 outfit, journey, and losses, the aggregate of the regular salary re- 
 ceived by him, joined to the extraordinaries allowed to Mr. Casa- 
 major for weekly expenditure, for victus and convictus, during 
 the economical half year, was at the rate of upwards of £10,000 
 a year. 
 
 There is not upon earth a more honourable mind than Mr. 
 Casamajor's; and I had myself the opportunity of verifying the 
 statement respecting his expenditure, by the inspection of his 
 books, at his own particular desire. But I must take the liberty 
 of reminding the House, that from the moment at which I ar- 
 rived at Lisbon, Mr. Casamajor, then becoming Secretary of Em- 
 bassy, became part of my family, and as such, lived at my table. 
 From that time, therefore, his expenses (salary excepted) were 
 involved in mine. Why, Sir, if I were to calculate by simple ad- 
 dition, or by the rule of three, I might say, that, according to 
 what I have shown you, on Mr. Sydenham's testimony as well as 
 my own — two Casamajors ought to have eaten up my whole al- 
 lowances, ordinary and extraordinary. And, by the way, I had 
 two Casamajors — for in addition to the gentleman of whom I 
 have been speaking, and of whom I speak with every feeling of 
 kindness and of respect, another gentleman, Mr. Croft, who was 
 recommended to me by my noble friend as Secretary for the Por- 
 tuguese Language, (and who had been with Sir C. Stuart in the 
 same capacity) lived with me as one of my family, during the 
 whole period of my mission. I, of course, do not mean seriously 
 to state that the increase of my expenses was in exact proportion 
 to the number of persons whom I had to maintain. But I do 
 mean seriously to show the different footing upon which Mr. Sy- 
 denham and Mr. Casamajor separately, or even Mr. Sydenham and 
 Mr.Casamajor jointly — stood in respect to the claims upon their 
 expenditure, from that in which I stood, — with all the accessary 
 burdens, and all the unavoidable representation of an embassy. 
 With neither of the two gentlemen, whom I had the good fortune 
 to have attached to me — ^JVIr. Casamajor or Mr. Croft — had I any 
 
 X 
 
254 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 personal acquaintance before my mission began. I learnt, during 
 our official and domestic intercourse, to value and esteem them 
 both. I am sorry to be forced to mention their names in con- 
 nexion with these miserable details; but I am. driven to it by the 
 unsparing coarseness of the attacks which have been made upon 
 me, and by the foolish, fallacious, and dishonest contrast of my 
 expenditure with that of Mr. Sydenham: — Mr. Sydenham's, who, 
 during his three weeks' residence at Lisbon, was an inmate in the 
 house of Mr. Casamajor, — and mine, who, during the whole pe- 
 riod of my mission had the suite of an embassy to maintain! 
 
 And now. Sir, come we to the famous letter of letters, upon 
 which it seems that the whole of the case against me is made to turn 
 — the letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Sydenham, directing 
 him to confine his expenditure within his regular allowances. Be- 
 fore this letter is made conclusive against me, I might perhaps 
 contend that it should be shown that I was in some degree, if not 
 party to it, cognizant of it. Upon my honour, I never saw it till 
 after the honourable gentleman's first notice of his motion. I can- 
 not say that I had never heard of it. I had heard, or perhaps seen 
 in a newspaper, that some such letter had been written to Mr. Sy- 
 denham by my noble friend: and I well remember that the same 
 authority stated the rate of £5,000 a year as that which covered 
 all Mr. Sydenham's allowances. I have already shown the ac- 
 curacy of that statement. 
 
 But I waive this plea: I acknowledge the authority of the let- 
 ter; and, if the circumstances of Mr. Sydenham's situation and 
 mine were the same; and if the meaning of this letter was what 
 has been attributed to it; and ?/that meaning was enforced against 
 Mr. Sydenham, or was not remonstrated against by him; I will 
 admit that, notwithstanding my ignorance of the law, I was bound 
 by it, and am guilty of not conforming to it. 
 
 And, first, what was Mr. Sydenham's situation ? That of Envoy 
 to the Local Government; mine, that of Ambassador to the Sover- 
 eign. (With the propriety of the appointment we have in this 
 part of the argument nothing to do.) Secondly, what was the 
 meaning of the letter? My noble friend, the writer of it, has told 
 you, that it did not mean the absolute exclusion of extraordina- 
 ries, which he held to be almost impossible; but it did mean to 
 prescribe the discontinuance of that rate of expenditure which had 
 brought, during the war, such heavy charge upon the public. The 
 letter itself says, 
 
 "I cannot anticipate any public grounds for continuing the expenditure of 
 His Majesty's servants at Lisbon, on the scale on which it has been conducted 
 during the continuance of the War in the Peninsula." 
 
 To be sure he could not. Who dreamt of an expenditure of 
 •upwards £30,000 a year in time of peace? Lastly, the instruc- 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 255 
 
 tions which were given, were they executed ? Did Mr. Syden- 
 ham think it practicable to conform to them ? Did he receive them 
 without a remonstrance, and act up to them with strictness and 
 fidelity.'' With fidelity, in the moral sense of the word, I have no 
 doubt he would have acted up to them if he had remained at Lis- 
 bon; but have we no positive proof that he regarded the literal 
 execution of them as impossible? 
 
 And here, Sir, again I feel myself called upon to guard against 
 being supposed to mean any thing unkind in the reference which 
 I am compelled to make to Mr. Sydenham. That gentleman is 
 no more! He has closed a distinguished and honourable life, during 
 which he endeared himself to his friends, and has left behind 
 him an unspotted character. I implore of those who hear me, 
 that if a word should escape me in the heat of argument, which 
 can be thought to bear any colour of disrespect to Mr. Syden- 
 ham's memory, they will believe it to be wholly unintentional. 
 I am the last man living who would wantonly throw a slur upon 
 his reputation, or give a wound to the feelings of those who mourn 
 his loss. I would most gladly have avoided any allusion to him: 
 but his name has been made the vehicle for a foul calumny against 
 my character; and the House will feel that not to me who repel 
 an attack, but to those who have misused Mr. Sydenham's name 
 for the purposes of attack upon me, is to be imputed the guilt of 
 profaning (if it be profaned) the sanctity of the tomb. 
 
 The fact is, that while the mandate to Mr. Sydenham, directing 
 him to confine his expenses within certain limits, was traversing 
 the ocean in one direction, a remonstrance, by anticipation, against 
 such a limitation was on its passage to the Foreign Office. Mr. 
 Sydenham, I suppose, might have heard rumours of such intended 
 restriction; he knew, from what he saw of Lisbon himself (in the 
 amount of Mr. Casamajor's weekly bills,) and from what he had 
 heard of it from others, that a literal compliance with that restric- 
 tion was impracticable; and, on the 8th of July, the very day (I be- 
 lieve) after his arrival at Lisbon, he thus addressed himself to Mr. 
 Hamilton, the Under Secretary of State (for the information of 
 my noble friend,) in the letter from which I have already quoted 
 an extract: — 
 
 " While the Duke of Wellington was at Madrid, he spoke to me on the sub- 
 ject of my allowances at Lisbon, and he gave me the comfortable assurance of 
 my being ruined, unless Government allowed me something more than the usu- 
 al salary, diminished by the usual deductions in England, and the loss of ex- 
 change. He promised to mention the subject to Lord Castlereagh; and I have 
 written to him to remind him of his promise. I find that Mr. Casamajor has 
 been living in a very quiet, retired way, with no suite to feed and lodge, and by 
 the examination of his books, I perceive that he does not live on less than j£100 
 a week. 
 
 So far is printed. Further on, in the same letter, the extract 
 
256 _ EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 of which now lies before me, he states that he "shall live with 
 the greatest possible economy; but that what he cannot pay out 
 of his allowances he shall trust to the Government to pay for 
 him." 
 
 Mr. Sydenham, as I have before observed, resided about three 
 weeks in Lisbon, namely, from about the 7th or 8th to the 27th 
 or 28th of July. I have already stated the allowances, regular 
 and extraordinary, which he received during that period or on 
 account of it — viz. £2,600 salary; £1,500 outfit; £1,100 for the 
 journey from Paris and Madrid to Lisbon. All these sums are 
 in the printed accounts of the Civil List Report; and therefore 
 gentlemen might have known them without moving for papers: 
 but I was not aware, and I suppose they were not aware, till in 
 an evil hour they brought it out by their own motion for papers, 
 — of the sum of £2,000 for losses, which makes up the aggregate 
 of Mr. Sydenham's receipts on account of his half year's mission, 
 to £7,200. 
 
 If it is said, that as the sum of £7,200 includes outfit, and al- 
 lowances for journey and for losses, it is not fairly to be stated as 
 Mr. Sydenham's expenditure for half a year, I readily admit 
 that it is not so: but then I must observe, that, on the same 
 ground the aggregate of my allowances cannot be fairly stated as 
 the expenditure of a year. The cost of outfit and plate in my 
 case would not have been repeated another year, any more than 
 that of outfit, and allowances for journey and for losses would, in 
 Mr. Sydenham's case, have been repeated in another half year. 
 But it is quite fair — it is indeed absolutely necessary, since the 
 contrast between Mr. Sydenham's half year and my year, has 
 been so much insisted on — to state, as I have done, Mr. Syden- 
 ham's salary, joined to Mr. Casamajor's extraordinaries, for 
 the same half year, as constituting the expenditure of the mis- 
 sion for that period. And it is fair to state the ivhole of Mr. 
 Sydenham's receipts joined to Mr. Casamajor's extraordinaries, 
 as the aggregate expense of that half year with which the aggre- 
 gate of my receipts for a whole year is to be compared. 
 
 Whatever comments, therefore, gentlemen may think proper 
 to make on my conduct in other respects, they will at least, I 
 think, abandon the contrast between Mr. Sydenham's mission 
 and mine, as to the rate of their respective cost to the public. 
 This point, on which they relied so confidently, completely fails 
 them. They may, if they will, continue to arraign my political 
 sins; but if comparison with the period of Mr. Sydenham's mis- 
 sion be a decisive test of economy, they must on that comparison 
 absolve me from pecuniary transgression. 
 
 But, Sir, it is not on pecuniary matters only that they have 
 guessed wrong as to me and Mr. Sydenham. They flattered 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 257 
 
 themselves that they had another case against me on his account; 
 a case of hardship — as if this vahiable public servant had been 
 displaced purposely to make way for me. It has been asserted 
 that I superseded Mr. Sydenham. Sir, I did not supersede Mr. 
 Sydenham. If the fact were so, I know not that it would consti- 
 tute any charge against me. It would, I believe, be the first time 
 that the undoubted right of the Crown to appoint and to change 
 its foreign Ministers has been made matter of charge, or even of 
 question, in Parliament. But the fact is not so. Mr. Sydenham's 
 mission was irretrievably at an end before mine began. He quitted 
 Lisbon not only unrecalled, but without leave. He did this from 
 necessity, on account of the impaired state of his health. He ar- 
 rived in England (as I have already had occasion to say) on or 
 about the 8th of August. From that day to the 10th of October 
 he received in England his appointments as Minister at Lisbon. 
 Are the economists angry that he did not continue so to receive 
 them longer ? He was neither then, nor at any subsequent period 
 before his death (as I shall presently show, by a document found- 
 ed on his own representations) in a state of health to admit of his 
 resuming the Lisbon mission — or accepting any other. If he had 
 happily been so, my noble friend will bear testimony not only to 
 the fact, but to my knowledge of the fact, that another and more 
 important employment was in contemplation for him. So much 
 for that charge. 
 
 I have in my hand a copy of the letter from the Foreign Office 
 to the Treasury, which authorized the payment to Mr. Sydenham 
 of that sum of £2,000 for losses, which forms the last item in his 
 account. I almost wonder, by the bye, that I have not been told, 
 in distinct terms, that this £2,000 was given to Mr. Sydenham to 
 reconcile him to my supersession of him. The House, if they 
 will allow me to take the liberty of reading this letter to them, 
 will see how that matter stands. I am ready to move for its be- 
 ing laid on the table, if they think it necessary. It is luckily the 
 last document of the kind with which I shall have occasion to try 
 their patience. It is as follows: 
 
 " Foreign Office, Oct. 2bth, 1815. 
 "My Lords, 
 
 " Thomas Sydenham, Esq. late His Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Min- 
 ister Plenipotentiary to the Court of Lisbon, has represented to me the very 
 great expense he was at in making preparations to undertake that mission, 
 with a view to a permanent residence at Lisbon, and the great loss he sustain- 
 ed by the sudden disposal of his eifects, &c. on his being obliged to relinquish 
 that mission, on account of the dangerous state of his health, after a residence 
 of only a few months, whereby he has been a looser of considerably more than 
 £2,000 and is tliereby involved in difficulties beyond the reach of his private 
 fortune to satisfy." 
 
 35 X* 
 
258 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 (There is a slight error of inadvertency here as to the period 
 of Mr. Sydenham's actual residence at Lisbon — which was, as I 
 have shown, weeks only and not months. I now come to a pas- 
 sage to which I particularly wish to call the attention of the 
 House.) — 
 
 " Having considered this application, it has appeared to me, under the pecu- 
 liar circumstances of the case {Mr. Sydenhants state of health still prevent- 
 ing his being employed in the diplomatic service of His Majesty,) to be just 
 and reasonable that Mr. Sydenham should receive a compensation on account 
 of these losses. — I am, therefore, to desire your lordships will be pleased to 
 take the commands of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, with regard to 
 the issue of the sum of two thousand pounds, neit, to Mr. Sydenham, or his 
 assigns, as a compensation for the losses above stated." 
 
 Is this also a sham letter and a concerted fraud? Perhaps the 
 date will help us to a solution of this question. It is dated the 
 25th October, 1S15, — that is to say, six months after I had ten- 
 dered the resignation of my mission, and three months after my 
 resignation had been accepted — a period, therefore, when, if Mr. 
 Sydenham's health had been sufficiently restored to enable him 
 to resume his station at Lisbon, there had been for three months 
 no impediment whatever, and for six months no impediment on 
 7711/ part, to his resuming it. It was manifestly the hopelessness 
 of his return to public life that weighed with the Foreign Office 
 in writing this letter, to which I am happy to have had an oppor- 
 tunity of referring, both for the proof which it affords of good- 
 natured and considerate disposition, and the just testimony which 
 it bears to the merits and character of Mr. Sydenham. I had not 
 the honour and the happiness of a personal acquaintance with 
 Mr. Sydenham. I knew him only by reputation; by the report 
 of common friends, whose report would of itself have been suffi- 
 cient to ensure my belief of his good qualities, — and by the exhi- 
 bition of his talents in that memorable investigation which was 
 carried on in a Committee of this House upon the renewal of the 
 East India Company's Charter. In the course of that examina- 
 tion the gentlemen connected with India displayed a degree of 
 ability and information, which perhaps could not have been 
 matched, certainly not excelled, in any other service, or in any 
 other country. Among these very able men Mr. Sydenham stood 
 eminently distinguished, — evincing a capacity for great affairs and 
 a fitness for important employments, such as are rarely to be found 
 even in more practised statesmen. If, therefore, I have been 
 driven to say any thing of this gentleman (I hope I have not, I 
 am sure I have not intended it) which may have appeared in any 
 degree disrespectful or disparaging, — if I have been obliged to 
 soil the name of a high-minded and liberal man with money, — 
 the blame (I repeat it) is not with me, — but with those who forced 
 Mr. Sydenham's name into this discussion. 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 259 
 
 I now, Sir, come to the details of the expenditure of my own 
 mission, the account of which is among the papers upon the table. 
 The honourable gentleman who made the motion, has had the 
 goodness to compliment me on the minuteness and accuracy of 
 my calculations. I understand the nature of the honourable gen- 
 tleman's compliment; and I see that he has been taught thorough- 
 ly to understand the nature of the advantage which he has over 
 me on this day. Undoubtedly any charge connected with money 
 places the accused in a dilemma of painful difficulty, — a difficulty 
 the more painful in proportion to the consciousness of his inno- 
 cence, and to the warmth of his indignation. If he contents him- 
 self — as is the first natural impulse of every honourable mind — 
 with general and lofty denial, he exposes himself to be triumphed 
 over as having evaded investigation; and figures are then invoked 
 as the only test of truth. If, on the other hand, he condescends 
 to detailed arithmetical calculation, he becomes liable to such com- 
 pliments as those of the honourable gentleman; and must feel (as 
 I do now) a certain inevitable degradation in the very process by 
 which he is to be justified. It is certainly not without such pain 
 that I made up my mind to this latter alternative. Those who 
 know me in private life are, I am afraid, too well aware how little 
 I am versed in questions either of arithmetic or of economy, not 
 to have been as much surprised, as the honourable gentleman pro- 
 fesses himself to be gratified, at the proficiency in figures which is 
 displayed in the papers before the House; particularly in that la- 
 boured despatch of mine of the 30th May, 1815. In truth, I avail- 
 ed myself, for the purpose of those statements and calculations, of 
 the aid of persons much more conversant with such matters than 
 I can pretend to be. I beg the honourable gentleman also to un- 
 derstand that I do not profess, in these accounts, to state my 
 whole expenditure at Lisbon, but only my expenditure of public 
 money. 
 
 Sir, the expenditure of Sir Charles Stuart's mission for the two 
 years, 1812-13, and 1813-14, and that of the interval between 
 the conclusion of Sir Charles Stuart's mission and my appoint- 
 ment, can hardly be denied to justify the nominal amount of the 
 allowances assigned to me. But that nominal amount and the 
 real effective value were very different indeed. For my actual 
 expenditure (as distinguished from nominal receipt, or rather 
 nominal issue,) a fair but strict standard of comparison is furnish- 
 ed by the Report of the Civil List Committee of June, 1815. If 
 it shall appear that my whole actual expenditure as Ambassador, 
 tallied within a very trifle with the amount fixed by that Com- 
 mittee and sanctioned by the House for a Minister at Lisbon of 
 the second order, I think it will not be imputed that I abused the 
 discretion confided to me. 
 
260 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 Assuredly I did not, on going out to Lisbon, anticipate the trial 
 of this day; but I did, as has been seen, dread and deprecate any 
 unlimited pecuniary discretion. It has been shown how anxious 
 I was to have the limits of my expenditure defined: and within 
 those limits, whatever they might be, I resolved to restrict my- 
 self. 
 
 My nominal allowances were, as I have said, and as appears 
 from the papers upon the table — 
 
 Salary -------- £S,200 
 
 Extraordinaries, not to exceed - - - - 6,000 
 
 Total £14,200 
 
 Of this amount of extraordinaries I drew only for three-fourths, 
 or £4,500. I received (like every other Minister of whatever 
 rank,) the sum of £1,500 for outfit. If that sum be taken as re- 
 placing the £1,500 extraordinaries which I declined to draw, the 
 result of salary, extraordinaries, and outfit for that one year {oiit- 
 Jit could only be a charge on the first year,) is, as above, £14,- 
 200. I had plate, like other Ambassadors and Envoys Extraor- 
 dinary, &c., but upon the scale of an Envoy. 
 
 Having no rule or experience to guide me, all that I could de- 
 termine was to consider the established recognized amount of the 
 salary as the limit of my public expenditure, and to draw for no 
 more extraordinaries than should make up the nominal salary 
 of £8,200 to that effective amount. Had, therefore, that salary 
 been paid free from deductions at home, and without loss on the 
 exchange and on the conversion into Portuguese money, I should 
 not have drawn for one shilling of extraordinaries for my ex- 
 penses at Lisbon. But the case was very different. This nomi- 
 nal salary was liable to deductions amounting to no less than 
 about sixteen per cent, in England, which reduced it from £8,200 
 to about £6,900; and this latter sum again to a loss of something 
 more than twelve per cent, in its transit and conversion, reducing 
 it from £6,900 to somewhere between £6,100 and £6,000. 
 
 This statement applies to the first three quarters of the year, 
 ending the 5th of July, 1815. In July I received the Report of 
 the Civil List Committee, to which I have so often had occasion 
 to refer. From that time, therefore, I had — what I had always 
 wished — a positive written public rule, not laid down indeed for 
 my mission, but which I might safely take for my guide. By the 
 Civil List Report, the Minister to Portugal was considered pros- 
 pectively on the footing not of an Ambassabor, but of an Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. To that Minister 
 of the second order, the Report assigned a salary of £8,000 a 
 year. It further recommended that all sums for foreign missions 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 261 
 
 should be paid free of all deductions except the property tax; thus 
 relieving the issues of salary from all the established legal defal- 
 cations at home, amounting to about six per cent, (in addition to 
 the property tax,) and from all losses by exchange or otherwise, 
 in the transmission abroad. At the same time, the allowance for 
 outfit — which had been hitherto in all cases, and for all ranks, 
 only J 1,500 — a sum which is stated by the Report not to be suf- 
 ficient to cover above one-third or one-fourth of the real expense, 
 was raised to £4,000, and an annual allowance of £500 was given 
 for house rent. The several arrangements are to be found in pp. 
 47 and 48 of the Civil List Report, to which I beg the gentlemen 
 who do me the honour to watch what I am saying, to refer. De- 
 ducting £800 the property tax, from the salary of £8,000, these 
 issues to the new Envoy would amount to £11,700 nett for the 
 first year; and to £7,700 nett for every subsequent year. And 
 this exclusive of plate, for which the Report makes a special pro- 
 vision. 
 
 When I received the copy of this Report, I instantly determined 
 that, so long as the mission continued in my hands, I would limit 
 myself strictly to the amount specified in it. For the last quar- 
 ter, therefore (from July the 5th to October 10th, 1815,) I con- 
 formed to the new scale of ordinary allowances, and received only 
 £1,800 nett, without any extraordinaries whatever. The exchange 
 was now, in consequence of the termination of the war, become 
 so favourable as in a great measure to counteract the loss upon the 
 paper money, which continued to be about seven per cent. The 
 result of this counteraction was, that the loss upon £1,800 by 
 the exchange and paper money jointly, which three months be- 
 fore would have been about £220, was now only about £70. 
 
 Of the £6,000 extraordinaries which I had liberty to draw, I 
 drew only for so much as was sufficient — 
 
 First, to replace the deductions on £6,150, being three quarters 
 of nominal salary at the old rate of £8,200 (gross,) and on 
 £1,800 one quarter at the 7iew rate of £7,200 (nett.) 
 
 Secondly, to make up the old allowance for outfit, viz. £1,500 
 to the sum of £4,000 specifically allowed by the Committee, and 
 not one farthing more, so help me God. 
 
 So scrupulously did I adhere to these limits, (which seemed to 
 me to have been formed on a clear principle, and which had the 
 sanction of the House of Commons,) that finding that my agent 
 had drawn for the last quarter a sum of £1,500 as extraordina- 
 ries (at the rate of £5,000 originally allowed to me,) I directed 
 him to return that sum to the Treasury: and I declare, on my con- 
 science, that when I gave this direction, I had no more expecta- 
 tion that the transaction would ever be knowm to any one except 
 to my agent, to my right honourable friend near me, Mr. Huskis- 
 
26? EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 son, who n T requested to see my direction executed, to my noble 
 friend, Lord Castlereagh, (whose permission was necessary;) and 
 to the Treasury, (to which the return was made,) I had no more 
 expectation that I should ever have to state this transaction pri- 
 vately or publicly in vindication of my character, than I had ap- 
 prehension that on such grounds my character would ever be as- 
 sailed. 
 
 It is undoubtedly still open to the honourable gentlemen who 
 are the framers and supporters of the impeachment against me, 
 to recur to the charge that the mission to Lisbon was unneces- 
 sary; to find fault, if they please, with my personal conduct in 
 accepting it (of which a word by-and-by,) and to censure the 
 mode in which I may have discharged the duties of it. But as 
 to pecuniary imputation, I stand upon a rock — I stand upon the 
 authority of a Committee of this House, appointed long after my 
 embassy was established and endowed, and not merely approving 
 by retrospect the amount of its actual endowment, but recom- 
 mending prospectively the same endowment for a mission of a 
 lower character. Before that Report was known to me, with the 
 power to go to a certain extent of expense, I restrained myself 
 within that extent, to limits narrowed by my own sense of what 
 was right. As soon as I had the authority of that Report to guide 
 me, I adhered to it voluntarily and strictly, living as an Ambassa- 
 dor, within the allowances assigned for an Envoy. To other alle- 
 gations of misconduct, political or prudential, I may be obnox- 
 ious; but surely no fair adversary, after this exposition, will im- 
 pute to my embassy either a wasteful prodigality on the part of 
 the Government, or a corrupt rapacity on mine. 
 
 I am afraid I have already wearied the House with figures, but 
 there is another calculation, of which the result is so striking, that 
 I cannot help requesting of the House to allow me to state it to 
 them. Its elements are few, and the process short and simple. 
 I particularly request attention to it from the right honourable 
 gentleman (Mr. Tierney,) who sits opposite to me, whose skill in 
 these matters peculiarly qualifies him to detect any error in the 
 statement. 
 
 The Report of the Committee on the Civil List fixes the salary 
 of the Lisbon Envoy at £8,000, to be reduced by the deduction 
 of the property tax to £7,200. This sum of £7,200 was to be 
 received nett at Lisbon, free from all other deductions at home, 
 and from loss by exchange and conversion abroad. Sir, I desired 
 a person far better skilled in calculations than I am, to make out 
 for me how much must have been received nett from the Treas- 
 ury here, to produce £7,200 nett, in Lisbon, during the years 
 1814-15? The following is the statement of my arithmetician. 
 
 The first addition to be made is that of the amount necessary 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 263 
 
 to cover the average loss of something more than 12 per cent, by 
 exchange and paper money: this would be about - £ 980 
 which being added to 7,200 
 
 Gives J8,180 
 
 as the sum necessary to have been received 7iett in England, in 
 order to produce £7,200 nett in Lisbon. 
 
 But, again; how much would it have been necessary for the 
 Treasury to issue gross to produce (on the footing on which my 
 salary was issued) ^£8,180 neii in England? The deductions at 
 the Exchequer, I have shown, amounted to about 16 per cent., 
 the property-tax included. The sum necessary to cover these de- 
 ductions, would be about _ . . _ _ £1,556 
 Which, added to ...... 8,180 
 
 Shows, that the gross issue at the Treasury must have 
 
 been about - £9,736 
 
 Add to this sum the allowance for outfit - - 4,000 
 
 Add the allowance for house-rent (to which, by the 
 way, might be added 12 per cent, for loss on ex- 
 change, &c.) ------- 500 
 
 And the gross nominal issues at the Treasury to 
 meet the recommendation of the Committee, for 
 the first year of the new Envoy, must have been £14,236 
 
 Does not the very sound of this sum carry conviction, — and I 
 could almost hope compunction, to the bosoms of my accusers? 
 Does it not excite in the minds of all impartial men, an indignant 
 recollection of the arts and the clamours, by which, during two 
 years and a half, I have been stigmatized to the country as an in- 
 stance of unexampled waste, — as an insatiable pillager of the 
 Exchequer? 
 
 Sir, of the pecuniary charge I trust that I may here take my 
 leave. After my own vindication, however (which must on every 
 account be nearest to my heart,) I confess, I am most anxious to 
 put the well-intentioned part of the nation on their guard against 
 those exaggerations, for mischievous purposes, by which public 
 men are run down. If the result of this night shall warn them 
 not to be too easily misled into the belief of monstrous and im- 
 probable corruptions, I cannot say that I shall not still regret the 
 calumnies with which I have been overwhelmed; but I shall be 
 in some degree rewarded and consoled for them. 
 
 I have thus disposed of the two main heads of accusation. I have 
 shown that there was a sincere and well-grounded belief in the 
 return of the Prince Regent of Portugal to Europe: and I have 
 
264 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 shown that the cost of the embassy appointed to receive him on 
 his return was not only not extravagant, but that according to 
 every test by which expenditure can be tried, whether of contrast 
 with what had gone before, or of comparison with what has been 
 deliberately established for the future, it was limited by a reason- 
 able and scrupulous economy. 
 
 Some minor charges remain to be refuted. 
 
 I am accused of having held the mission after all hope of exe- 
 cuting the duty which I undertook to fulfil was abandoned. But, 
 before I enter on this point, I am reminded that I am accused also 
 of bavins; assumed the mission too soon. It is said that I assumed 
 it in October, although the Prince of Brazil could not be expected 
 in Europe for six months from that date. Now if there were 
 any ground for supposing that the return was altogether a false 
 pretence, the acceptance of the Embassy sooner or later would be 
 of no consequence; the acceptance of it at all was a crime. But 
 if the Prince Regent of Portugal was to come to Europe, there 
 was fair probability that Sir John Beresford might have landed 
 him at Lisbon in February. Sir John Beresford sailed from 
 Portsmouth on the fifth of October. True, he was driven back 
 to Plymouth after having been some days at sea. But, as to the 
 length of the passage, he did reach the Brazils in seven weeks 
 from the date of his last sailing (that too with a convoy under his 
 protection;) and it was not only no improbable expectation, but it 
 was the belief of Sir John Beresford himself, stated repeatedly to 
 the Prince Regent of Portugal, that from five to six weeks would 
 be sufficient for the voyage from Rio de Janeiro. It is true, that 
 the hypothesis was, that the Prince Regent would be ready to 
 embark, and would have made all the preparations necessary for 
 his departure, between the period of his writing for a squadron 
 and its arrival. Such in fact was our expectation; and upon that 
 supposition (as I have said before) the arrival at Lisbon of the 
 Prince Regent himself would have been the first intelligence that 
 would have been received there of his departure from Rio de Ja- 
 neiro. I sailed in the beginning of November. I landed at Lis- 
 bon (I think) on the first of the following month. I had no more 
 doubt of the impatience of the Portuguese royal family to return 
 to Europe than I have that I am now addressing this House. I 
 consequently reckoned upon their arrival in Lisbon almost as soon 
 after my own as I could conveniently be prepared to receive 
 them. In the month of February, I well remember, we used to 
 be looking out at Lisbon, at every favourable turn of the wind, 
 for the arrival of Sir John Beresford with his royal passengers, 
 in the Tagus. The only period, therefore, during which I can be 
 accused of receiving a salary without executing a public duty, is 
 that between the date of my appointment and my sailing for Lis- 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 265 
 
 bon, a period of about three weeks. Surely this then is a charge 
 of minute and petty captiousness. It is said that nature abhors a 
 vacuum; and I believe it may be equally said that an Exchequer 
 Quarter abhors a fraction. My salary was reckoned from the 10th 
 of October, the quarter-day which preceded by about ten days my 
 taking leave at Carlton House; — and which preceded my actual 
 departure (as I have said) by about three week. Of the scores or 
 hundreds of missions which have gone out from this country for 
 the last century, I very much doubt whether one could be found 
 whose allowances had begun to run from so short a period before 
 its departure. If this, Sir, be not a sufficient defence on such a 
 matter, I can only give myself up to the mercy of the House, 
 with a frank expression of my regret that I was gazetted three 
 weeks too soon. 
 
 As to retaining my office too long, I have already answered to 
 this point incidentally; but I must briefly answer to it again here 
 in its proper order. The first loose intimations of a doubt of the 
 return of the Prince Regent to his European dominions, arrived in 
 England in ihe month of March. They reached me at Lisbon on the 
 9th of April. On the 10th of April I wrote to the Foreign Office, 
 tendering my resignation. I was desired to continue in the exer- 
 cise of my functions; and from that moment the mission entirely 
 changed its character. I was no longer the pageant Ambassador 
 to a non-forthcoming Sovereign. The war had broken out, with 
 the ominous re-appearance of Buonaparte; and who was there in 
 this country, or in Europe, that ventured to predict its speedy, its 
 miraculous termination? Who could presume to say what might 
 be its course; or what the extent of effiart required to give effect 
 to its operations? Henceforth, therefore, I filled (whether worth- 
 ily or not, is another question,) a situation of business at a not in- 
 significant post, and at a most eventful crisis. If / had not been 
 on the spot, another must have been appointed — a Minister o/ Me 
 second order, if you please — but even if so, with all the allow- 
 ances and expenses incident to a Minister of the second order at 
 Lisbon — which I have already shown to be, according to the re- 
 commendation of the Civil List Report, substantially the same as 
 mine. Henceforth, therefore, I did not add one farthing to the 
 unavoidable expenses of the country. It may be alleged, that a 
 more able individual might have been found to discharge the du- 
 ties of the mission; and that I did wrong in continuing to do 
 what others might have done better; but there is not a shadow of 
 pretence for affirming that my continuance at Lisbon laid any 
 burden upon the public, or that any saving could have been ef- 
 fected by the acceptance of my resignation on the 10th of April. 
 
 It is obvious that in the refusal to accept my resignation, I was 
 wholly passive; but neither does my noble friend require any jus- 
 36 Y 
 
266 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 tification for having recommended to the Prince Regent to decline 
 accepting it. My noble friend is sufficiently justified by the case 
 itself, and by his subsequent conduct. For no sooner was the 
 battle of Waterloo fought, and the war thus happily ended, (al- 
 most as soon as begun,) than my noble friend signified to me His 
 Royal Highness's acceptance of the resignation which had been 
 before declined. It is true, that it was not until three months af- 
 ter this notification that I was finally relieved from the mission. 
 Amidst the important negotiations in which my noble friend was 
 then engaged, he appears to have forgotten that he had not ap- 
 pointed any one to receive the business and correspondence of the 
 Lisbon mission, out of m.y hands. Portugal and myself had (no 
 wonder) sunk into insignificance and oblivion; and up to the be- 
 ginning of August no successor to me was appointed. Did I think 
 this a lucky chance ? Did I go on quietly to enjoy the advantage 
 of this oblivion? No. After about a month had elapsed without 
 hearing any thing from the Foreign Office, I wrote to my noble 
 friend to remind him of my existence: and, apprehending him to 
 be — as he in fact was — absent from England, I wrote by the 
 same packet a private letter to Lord Bathurst, begging leave, in 
 case any difficulty should have occurred in the nomination of a 
 successor, to recommend Mr. Croft (whom I have already men- 
 tioned as having been first introduced to me by my noble friend,) 
 as a person perfectly competent to act as Charge d'Affaires; and 
 oflfering, at the same time, the aid of my unofficial advice, so long 
 as I should remain (which I intended to do through the winter) 
 in Portugal. I desire to know if this conduct can be character- 
 ized as a clinging to my office? or whether my pertinacity in ad- 
 hering to it was more than exactly on a par with my eagerness in 
 seeking it? 
 
 Perhaps, Sir, I might now sit down, perfectly satisfied with 
 having cleared the integrity of my conduct; and, perhaps, with a 
 feeling rather of gratitude than of hostility towards those who, 
 by manfully giving a distinct and substantive shape to their al- 
 legations, have afforded me an opportunity of refuting them. 
 But I cannot pass by the taunts of the honourable baronet, and 
 the grave admonitions of the honourable mover of the question, 
 without assuring them, that so long as I possess in my own breast 
 the consciousness of integrity, such assailments, whether taunting 
 or monitory, will excite in it no emotion warmer than contempt. 
 I must above all things assure the honourable baronet, that no 
 attempt to impeach my character and to degrade me (as he flatter- 
 ed himself his proceeding might do) in that estimation with this 
 House which constitutes all that is valuable, and all that is effi- 
 cient in a public man — no such attempt, I say, will cause me to 
 lower my voice one key, or to abate one jot of my exertions, in 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 267 
 
 opposing and exposing those doctrines of which the honourable 
 baronet is the representative and the champion. Let not the 
 honourable baronet flatter himself with any such result from this 
 attack upon my reputation. Let him not flatter himself with the 
 hope of such a result from his asperity to-night, or from his 
 menaces for the future. If I am satisfied to have done right, for 
 the peace of my own conscience — I am also glad to have made 
 that right apparent, mainly because I know how necessary are 
 the good opinion and the favouring attention of this House, to 
 enable me to exert myself successfully for the defeat of those 
 projects which the honourable baronet has at heart, and which, I 
 verily believe would bring this country to ruin. The honourable 
 baronet has spoken out: and the only sentiment with which I am 
 inspired by the bitterness of his declared enmity, and by the 
 burst of his anticipated triumph, is that of a pride — I hope an 
 honest and pardonable pride — at the proof which he has thus un- 
 intentionally afforded of the reasons to which I am indebted for 
 his hostility. It is because I am held in hatred and in fear by 
 those who share the honourable baronet's opinions, that by them 
 I have been sought to be destroyed. I have been sought to be 
 destroyed, because I have declared myself — (with what effect it 
 becomes not me to say, but with all my heart and soul) — against 
 schemes, which, if unchecked, would bring destruction upon 
 those hallowed institutions by which the mixed and free Govern- 
 ment of this great kingdom is upholden, and from which the 
 practical blessings of our constitution are derived. 
 
 Sir, I thus dismiss all that part of the charges which, if substan- 
 tiated, would have established against me the guilt of criminality 
 or of culpable misconduct. But I wish to leave nothing unno- 
 noticed, whether of charge or of insinuation; whether conveying 
 the imputation of positive guilt, or only implying discredit and dis- 
 paragement. 
 
 It is made matter of accusation and reproach against me that I 
 have accepted office with my noble friend (Lord Castlereagh) who 
 sits beside me, — between whom and myself it is assumed that our 
 former differences had placed an impassable barrier. First, from 
 what quarter comes this reproach and accusation ? From a bench, 
 on which I do not see any two neighbours who have not differed 
 from each other, and that within short memory, too, much more 
 essentially than m3^self and my noble friend. But it is insinuated 
 that the differences between my noble friend and myself were of 
 a sort which precluded reconciliation! Since when have such mat- 
 ters become topics of parliamentary discussion ? Since when has 
 it been the practice of this House to take cognizance of the disa- 
 greements of individuals, and to indulge in such animadversions 
 on the most delicate topics of personal conduct as in private so- 
 
268 EMBASSY TO LISBON. 
 
 ciety no gentleman would venture to hazard? Since when, I say, 
 has this practice commenced? and how far is it to be carried? I 
 know of no precedent for it. I know of no authority. It is not 
 for my own sake, but for the sake of this House, that I protest 
 against it; for if this practice be permitted, our discussions must 
 inevitably sink into grosser personalities than have disgraced the 
 meetings of Palace Yard and of Spa Fields. 
 
 The honourable baronet is entirely mistaken as to what he sup- 
 poses me to have addressed to my constituents at Liverpool in 
 1812. Nothing that I then said was intended to convey, or did 
 convey, the notion that I was precluded by any feeling, or (in my 
 own judgment) by any principle, from acting in office with my 
 noble friend. I had declared the directly contrary opinion some 
 months before, in a correspondence respecting the formation of an 
 Administration, which the discussions of those times brought be- 
 fore the public, and which is now upon record. What is not pub- 
 licly recorded is, that some time after those discussions had closed, 
 but six or eight weeks before my Election at Liverpool, other ne- 
 gotiations, which had for their object my return to office, had 
 taken place; amongst the proposed arrangements of which, my no- 
 ble friend, with a manliness and generosity which I hope I felt as 
 they deserved, had voluntarily tendered to my acceptance the 
 seals of the office which he now holds. Other reasons induced 
 me to decline that tender; I might be right or wrong in my view 
 of those reasons. One among them was, that I was at that time 
 embarrassed with respect to a most important question (the dis- 
 cussion of which is now fixed for no distant day) by pledges 
 which I could best hope to redeem with unquestioned fidelity and 
 honour, by remaining out of office till I had redeemed them. But 
 what would be thought of me, what should I deserve to be thought 
 of by any liberal mind, if, after such a transaction as I have de- 
 scribed, I could ever pause for a moment, to consider in what or- 
 der with respect to each other my noble friend and I should march 
 towards our common objects in the service of the country? In 
 that transaction, any feelings which had previously separated my 
 noble friend and myself were buried for ever. The very memory 
 of them was effiiced from our minds: nor can I compliment the 
 good taste of those who would call them up from oblivion; surely 
 not with the vain hope of exasperating differences anew, but with 
 the purpose of making a reconcilement now of five years' stand- 
 ing, a subject of suspicion, taunt, and obloquy. 
 
 What i have said, Sir, is, I hope, a sufficient comment upon the 
 notable discovery that I accepted public employment not tvith, 
 but under, my noble friend. This paltry distinction, I can assure 
 those who are so vain of it, occasions me not the slightest uneasi- 
 ness. When Lord Pembroke went out to Vienna, and the Mar- 
 
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 269 
 
 quls Wellesley to Spain, during (or under, if you will) my ad- 
 ministration of the Foreign Department, had /the ridiculous van- 
 ity to fancy that these distinguished noblemen acted under me, in 
 any sense of degrading subordination ? Or is it imagined that when 
 the Duke of Wellington undertook his mission to Paris, my no- 
 ble friend conceived that he was therefore entitled to claim pre- 
 eminence over the deliverer of Europe? They know little, Sir, 
 of the spirit of our Constitution, they are very ill acquainted with 
 the duties that it imposes, and the privileges that it confers, who 
 are not aware, that in whatever station a man may be called upon 
 to serve his Sovereign and his country, there is among statesmen, 
 co-operating honestly for the public good, a real substantive equal- 
 ity which no mere official arrangement can either create or destroy; 
 they, who are yet to learn, that in a free country like ours, it is for 
 the man to dignify the office, not for the office to dignify the man. 
 Sir, I have now done. I have humbly to apologize to the 
 House for having trespassed upon them so long, and to thank them 
 for their indulgent attention. The manner in which I have been 
 heard by the House, has been such as satisfies me that they justly 
 and kindly considered how much I had at stake on this day. If 
 I have succeeded, (as my conscience tells me that I must have 
 done,) in refuting the charges brought against me, I have not 
 spoken in vain; and you. Sir, will not regret having listened to 
 me. If I have not succeeded; if the House shall be of opinion 
 that any stain remains upon my character, then, indeed. Sir, have 
 I troubled you too long; but I have troubled you for the last 
 time. 
 
 Sir T. Ackland said, that he was confident the candour of the honourable 
 baronet (Sir F. Burdett) would not permit him to hesitate in pronouncing the 
 full acquittal of a person accused, who had proved himself to be innocent. 
 After a speech so eloquent, which had thrilled through every heart in the 
 House, he should have been proud to have been accused, in order to have so 
 defended himself. 
 
 The House divided : — 
 
 For Mr. Lambton's Motion - - - 96 
 Against it - - - - . - 270 
 
 Majority - 174 
 
270 
 
 VOTE OF THANKS TO THE MARQUIS OF HAST- 
 INGS, AND THE BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA. 
 
 MARCH 4th, 1819. 
 
 Mr. Canning — 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — I rise, in pursuance of the notice given by me 
 to the House at the opening of the session, to propose a vote of 
 Thanks to the Marquis of Hastings, and to the Officers and Troops 
 who served under his command during the late Campaign in In- 
 dia. This vote, I wish the House to understand, is intended 
 merely as a tribute to the military conduct of the campaign, and 
 not in any wise as a sanction of the policy of the war. I feel it 
 necessary to state this reservation the more emphatically, lest, 
 from my having deferred my proposition until the papers which 
 the Prince Regent was graciously pleased to direct to be laid be- 
 fore us, had been for some time in the hands of the members of 
 the House, any apprehension should be entertained that I wished 
 the policy of the measures adopted in India to be discussed on 
 this occasion, with the view of conveying in the Vote of Thanks 
 an implicit general approbation. I assure you. Sir, that I have no 
 such object in view. The political character of Lord Hastings' 
 late measures forms no part of the question upon which I shall 
 ask the House to decide. My object in the present motion is to 
 acknowledge with due praise and gratitude the splendid services 
 of the Indian army. I was, indeed, anxious to have the papers 
 upon the table, because some statement of the political relations 
 of the different parties in the late hostilities, in the way, not of 
 argument but of narrative, seems necessary, to render intelligi- 
 ble the origin and operations of the war. From these papers I 
 will describe as succinctly as I can, the situation in which the 
 British Government found itself placed towards the different na- 
 tive powers of India: and if, in performing this task, I should let 
 slip any expression of my own opinions as to the policy of the 
 Governor General (and it may be hardly possible to avoid doing 
 so, whatever caution I endeavour to observe,) I beg to be under- 
 stood as by no means calling upon the House to adopt those opin- 
 ions. In agreeing to the vote to which I trust they will agree 
 this evening, they will dismiss altogether from their consideration 
 the preliminary observations with which I introduce it. 
 
 I approach the subject, Sir, with the greater caution and deli- 
 cacy, because I know with how much jealousy the House and the 
 ■country are in the habit of appreciating the triumphs of our arms 
 
VOTE OF THANKS TO MARQUIS HASTINGS, &c. 271 
 
 in India. I know well that, almost uniformly successful as our 
 military operations in that part of the world have been, they have 
 almost as uniformly been considered as questionable in point of 
 justice. Hence the termination of a war in India, however glo- 
 rious, is seldom contemplated with unmixed satisfaction. That 
 sentiment generally receives some qualification from a notion, in 
 most cases perhaps rather assumed than defined, that the war is 
 likely to have been provoked on our part, with motives very dif- 
 ferent from those of self-defence. Notions of this sort have un- 
 doubtedly taken deep root in the public mind: but I am confident 
 that in the present instance (and I verily believe on former occa- 
 sions which are gone by, and with which it is no business of mine 
 to meddle at present) a case is to be made out as clear for the jus- 
 tice of the British cause, as for the prowess of the British arms. 
 Neither, however, do I accuse of want of candour those who en- 
 tertain such notions; nor do I pretend to deny that the course of 
 Indian history since our first acquaintance with that country, fur- 
 nishes some apparent foundation for them. It is not unnatural 
 that, in surveying that vast continent, presenting as it does, from 
 the Boorampooter to the Indus, and from the northern mountains 
 to the sea — an area of somewhere about one million of square 
 miles, and containing not less than one hundred millions of inhab- 
 itants; in looking back to the period when our possessions there 
 consisted only of a simple factory on the coast for the purposes 
 of a permitted trade, and in comparing that period with the pres- 
 ent, when that factory has swelled into an empire; when about 
 one-third in point of extent, and about three-fifths in point of pop- 
 ulation, of those immense territories are subject immediately to 
 British Government; when not less than another fourth of the 
 land, and another fifth of the inhabitants, are under rulers either 
 tributary to the British power or connected with it by close alli- 
 ance; it is not unnatural that, upon such survey and comparison, 
 prejudices should have arisen against the rapid growth of our In- 
 dian establishment; that its increase should have been ascribed, 
 not only by enemies or rivals, but by sober reflection and by im- 
 partial philosophy, to a spirit of systematic encroachment and am- 
 bition. 
 
 On the other hand, in a power so situated as ours, a power 
 planted in a foreign soil, and without natural root in the habits or 
 affections of the people; compelled to struggle, first for its exist- 
 ence, and then for its security, and, in process of time, for the de- 
 fence of allies from whom it might have derived encouragement 
 and aid, against nations in the habit of changing their masters on 
 every turn of fortune, and, the greater part already reduced under 
 governments founded by successful invasion; in a power so situa- 
 ed, it can hardly be matter of surprise that there should have been 
 
272 VOTE OF THANKS TO MARQUIS HASTINGS, 
 
 found an irrepressible tendency to expansion. It may be a miti- 
 gation, if not a justification, of such a tendency, that the inroads 
 which it has occasioned have grown out of circumstances hard to 
 be controlled: that the alternative has been, in each successive in- 
 stance, conquest or extinction; and that, in consequence, we have 
 prevailed for the most part over preceding conquerors, and have 
 usurped, if usurped, upon older usurpations. 
 
 But, with all that may be said in excuse for this disposition of 
 our Indian empire to stretch its limits wider every day, far am I, 
 very far, from describing it as a disposition to be fostered and in- 
 dulged; or from undervaluing the constant laudable exertions of 
 the British Parliament to check its progress, and, if possible, to 
 counteract its impulse. Would to God that we could find, or 
 rather that we could long ago have found, the point, the resting- 
 place, at which it was possible to stand! But the finding of that 
 point has not depended upon ourselves alone. 
 
 I state these considerations rather as qualifying generally the 
 popular and sweeping condemnations of Indian warfare, than as 
 necessary or applicable in the case of the present war. I refer 
 to the wise and sober enactments of the British Parliament, not 
 to dispute their authority or to set aside their operation; but be- 
 cause I can with confidence assert, that at no period of our Indian 
 history, have the recorded Acts and Votes of Parliament been 
 made more faithfully the basis of instructions to the Government 
 in India than at the period when the Marquis of Hastings as- 
 sumed the supreme authority. It is but justice to the executive 
 body of the East India Company to say, that the whole course 
 and tenour of their instructions has been uniformly and steadily 
 adverse to schemes of aggrandizement, and to any war which 
 could safely and honourably be avoided. It is but justice to the 
 memory of the noble person, whom I succeeded in the office 
 which I have the honour to hold, to say, that he uniformly incul- 
 cated the same forbearing policy, and laboured to turn the atten- 
 tion of the Indian Governments from the extension of external 
 acquisitions or connexions to the promotion of internal improve- 
 ment. And having said this, it may not be an unpardonable de- 
 gree of presumption in me to add, that I have continued to walk 
 in the path of my predecessor; that I have omitted no occasion 
 of adding my exhortations to those which I found recorded in 
 my office, against enterprizes of ambition and wars of conquest. 
 So strongly and so recently had the pacific system been recom- 
 mended, that upon the eve of the breaking out of the late hostil- 
 ities, the hands of the Supreme Government were absolutely tied 
 up from any foreign undertakings, except in a case of the most 
 pressing exigency. Such an exigency alone produced, or could 
 
AND THE BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA. 273 
 
 justify, the war, the glorious result of which the House is now 
 called upon to mark by its vote. 
 
 That war takes its denomination from the power against which 
 it was in the first instance exclusively directed, the Pindarries: a 
 power so singular and anomalous, that perhaps no exact resem- 
 blance could be found for it in history; a power without recog- 
 nized government or national existence; the force of which, as 
 developed in the papers upon the table, is numerically so small, 
 that many persons have, naturally enough, found themselves 8.t a 
 loss to conceive how it could be necessary for the suppression of 
 such a force to make preparations so extensive. It is true that the 
 Pindarries consisted only of from thirty thousand to forty thou- 
 sand regular and irregular horse; capable, however, of receiving 
 continual reinforcements, and of eluding, by the celerity of their 
 movements, the attack of regular armies. Remnants of former 
 wars — the refuse of a disbanded soldiery — they constituted a 
 nucleus round which might assemble all that was vagabond and 
 disaffected — all that was incapable of honest industry and peace- 
 ful occupation — all that was opposed in habit and in interest to a 
 system of settled tranquillity in Hindostan. Hostilities against 
 them could, therefore, be undertaken only at the risk of bringing 
 into action all the elements of a restless and dissatisfied popula- 
 tion; and the hazards to be calculated were not merely those 
 arising from their positive strength, but those also which might 
 arise from the contagion of their excitement and example. 
 
 It was not, however, from mere speculation as to the danger to 
 be apprehended from such a body collecting and bringing into 
 activity the unquiet and dissolute of all manner of castes and 
 tongues and religions; it was not from theoretical conviction of 
 the incompatibility of the existence of such a power in central 
 India, with the maintenance of social order and general peace, 
 that the late war was undertaken. The Indian Government, 
 however confident its persuasion upon these points might be — 
 however keen its sense of the perils to which the peace of India 
 was exposed — were too fast bound by their instructions to strike 
 the first blow, or to engage in war upon any less provocation than 
 that of positive aggression, either against the British power itself, 
 or against allies whom its faith was pledged to defend. The war 
 was provoked by actual aggressions, such as no government could 
 endure without the neglect of a sacred duty. The native popula- 
 tion would, without doubt, have had just reason to complain if the 
 British Government, having superseded those who would have 
 sympathized with their sufferings, had omitted to avenge injuries 
 which the awe of the British name ought perhaps to have been 
 sufficient to prevent. Neither was it one aggression only, nor a 
 series of aggressions, confined to one year, that called for chas- 
 37 
 
274 VOTE OF THANKS TO MARQUIS HASTINGS 
 
 tisement: nor was it against distant provinces, or obscure depen- 
 dencies of the British power, that these injuries had been directed. 
 So long ago as 1812 an irruption was made into Bengal; in 1813 
 into the territory of Bombay; and in 1816, accompanied with cir- 
 cumstances of extraordinary audacity and outrage, into that of 
 Madras. Of this last irruption intelligence was received in Eng- 
 land, within a few weeks after the final and most peremptory in- 
 junctions of a forbearing policy had been despatched to India: 
 and this intelligence it was that determined the Government at 
 home so far to relax those injunctions, as to loose the hands of the 
 Indian Government specially against the invaders. Even without 
 such specific permission, the Government in India could not 
 longer have forborne; unless it had forgotten what it owed to its 
 subjects, and had not been contented to forfeit its good name 
 throughout the territory of Hindostan. And it is but justice to 
 that Government to say, that it had taken on its own responsbility 
 a determination conformable to its character and its duty. For- 
 tunately, the delays incident to the season at which this deter- 
 mination was taken, enabled the Marquis of Hastings to receive 
 from home a warrant for his proceedings, before he began to act 
 on his own discretion. 
 
 The war, therefore, against the Pindarries was undertaken by 
 the Indian Government, with the full concurrence of the Govern- 
 ment at home. And what was the nature of the aggressions 
 which called for this concurrence? Nothing can be imagined 
 more dreadful than the irruptions of the Pindarries. There is no 
 excess of lawless violence which they did not perpetrate; no de- 
 gree of human suffering which they were not in the habit of in- 
 flicting. Rapine, murder in all its shapes, torture, rape, and con- 
 flagration, were not rare and accidental occurrences in their prog- 
 ress, but the uniform and constant objects of their every enterprize, 
 and the concomitants of every success. After ravaging tracts of 
 country of all visible wealth, they inflicted torture on innocence, 
 helplessness and age, for the purpose of extorting the avowal and 
 indication of hidden treasure. There were instances where the 
 whole female population of a village precipitated themselves into 
 the wells, as the only refuge from these brutal and barbarous 
 spoilers; where, at their approach, fathers of families surrounded 
 their own dwellings with fuel, and perished with their children 
 in the flames kindled by their own hands. If it were not a shame 
 to add to such details any thing like a calculation of pecuniary 
 loss, it might be added, that this last invasion was calculated to 
 have cost, in booty and in wanton waste, scarcely less than a mil- 
 lion sterling. 
 
 No wonder then that the Government of India had resolved to 
 avenge and chastise such unparalled atrocities so soon as the sea- 
 
AND THE BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA. 275 
 
 son for taking the field should arrive, even had they not received 
 any previous sanction from England. No wonder that the Gov- 
 ernment at home had not hesitated to revoke its interdicts of war, 
 and to qualify its injunctions of forbearance, upon receipt of de- 
 tails so afflicting to every feeling of human nature. 
 
 It is obvious from what I have ah'eady stated, that a war once 
 excited in India might draw into its vortex many whom fear of 
 our power only kept at peace. With respect to the Pindarries 
 themselves, the difficulty was to find an opportunity of striking a 
 decisive blow. Attacked, routed, scattered in all directions, they 
 would speedily collect and congregate again; as a globule of 
 quicksilver, dispersing for a moment under the pressure of the 
 finger, re-unites as soon as that pressure is withdrawn. But the 
 Pindarries had also chances of external support. They had, many 
 of them, been trained to arms in the service of Scindia, the 
 greatest among the native princes who maintain an independent 
 rule; in the service of Holkar, long the rival of Scindia for pre- 
 ponderance in the Mahratta confederacy; and in that of Meer 
 Khan, a Mahometan adventurer, who, originally employed as an 
 auxiliary by Holkar, had the address to render himself, for a time, 
 master of the Government which he had been called in to sup- 
 port, and to carve out for himself, in return for his abdication of 
 that influence, a substantive and independent sovereignty. How- 
 ever contemptible therefore in themselves, when compared with 
 the numerous and well-trained armies of the British Government, 
 yet, as the fragments of bands that had been led by formidable 
 chieftains, to whom they still professed allegiance, these vagrant 
 hordes might be the means of calling into action Powers of greater 
 magnitude and resources, — Scindia, Holkar, and lastly Meer 
 Khan, himself essentially a predatory Power, and the leader only 
 of more regular and disciplined Pindarries. Nor was this the ut- 
 most extent of danger to be apprehended. Suspicions might also 
 be naturally entertained that the other Mahratta Powers were not 
 displeased to see the British authority, against which they had 
 more than once combined with all their forces in vain, weakened 
 in effect and in opinion by the unavenged attack of such despicable 
 antagonists; and that when the occasion should ripen, they might 
 not be disinclined to revenge and retrieve their former defeats. 
 But whatever might be the extent of immediate hostility to be 
 encountered, or the chances of future danger to be calculated, the 
 case was one which did not admit of doubt. The most beneficial 
 acquisitions of territory would not have justified the incurring 
 either the expense or the hazard of a war; but no hazard and no 
 expense could be put in competition with the vindication of na- 
 tional honour, and the discharge of national duty. 
 
 In the endeavour to render intelligible the origin and operations 
 
-76 VOTE OF THANKS TO MARQUIS HASTINGS 
 
 of the war, I fear I may have trespassed much too long with pre- 
 fatory matter upon the patience of the House. But it will be felt 
 that in offering these explanations, I have incidentally disposed 
 of a question strictly military, which I have mentioned as sug- 
 gesting itself on the first view of Lord Hastings' undertaking — 
 how it happened that preparations on so large a scale were neces- 
 sary for the suppression of a horde of 30,000 horsemen ? Ban- 
 ditti as they were, it will have been shown that they touched in 
 near relation three powerful independent chiefs of India; — friendly 
 indeed by the existing state of peaceful relations, but in character, 
 and habit, and interest, our foes. It will have been shown, that 
 two of these three chiefs being members of the great Mahratta 
 confederacy, it would not have become a prudent statesman to lay 
 out of his contemplation the possibility, however remote — how- 
 ever in the name of good faith to be disbelieved and deprecated 
 — that the nominal head and the other members of that confede- 
 racy, the Peishwah, the Rajah of Nagpoi-e, and the prince known 
 by the title of the Guickwar (whose dominions are situated on 
 the western side of Hindostan) might, if the course of events 
 should be protracted or untoward, forget the obligations of trea- 
 ties, and make common cause with those whose hostility we more 
 nearly apprehended. 
 
 In fact, of these last mentioned Mahratta States, our allies and 
 tributaries, the Guickwar is the only one that did not, in the 
 course of the war, take part with our enemies. The Peishwah 
 and the Rajah of Nagpore, though recently bound to us by the 
 most solemn engagements — and the latter particularly by the 
 most signal benefits — did avail themselves of the earliest oppor- 
 tunity to declare against us: — with a treachery which, to Lord 
 Hastings' trusting and generous nature, was unexpected; but 
 which, though unexpected, did not take him unprepared. 
 
 I now come. Sir, to the operations in the field: upon which, 
 extensive and complicated as they were — spread over so wide a 
 theatre, and involving so much intricacy of military detail — I do 
 not presume to venture to speak with any particularity; or to 
 offer myself as a guide to the House through a labyrinth, which 
 I have neither skill nor practice to enable me to trace. I shall 
 confine myself to the general course, and character, and results, 
 of the campaign. 
 
 The House has seen that when the Governor General pre- 
 pared to take the field against the Pindarries, he looked forward 
 to the possible hostility of Scindia, Holkar, and Meer Khan. 
 With the Peishwah — a prince the most important from the influ- 
 ence of his high rank among the Mahratta States — and with the 
 Rajah of Nagpore, treaties had been recently signed and ratified, 
 under such fair seeming protestations of good faith and friend- 
 
AND THE BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA. 277 
 
 ship, that, so far as instruments and professions could be binding, 
 the fidelity of these Powers seemed assured. The treaties to 
 which I refer are the first and second in the collection upon the 
 Table. 
 
 So effectual were the plans and dispositions of Lord Hastings, 
 that Scindia, the most formidable of his expected enemies, was 
 overawed, and compressed, as it were, into a new treaty which 
 pledged him to active co-operation against the Pindarries. The 
 utmost extent of the stipulations of this treaty cannot be said to 
 have been very diligently fulfilled by him: but so far the object 
 of it was effected that he at least remained neutral during the 
 campaign. Whether in this respect Scindia acted under the im- 
 pulse of fear, or was persuaded by arguments addressed to his 
 interest and ambition, the prudence of the Governor-General is 
 equally conspicuous: it detracts nothing from military skill to 
 have been aided by political sagacity. As to Meer Khan, the 
 overwhelming force which Lord Hastings brought to bear upon 
 him compelled his immediate acquiescence and submission. He 
 withdrew his troops, and surrendered his artillery. It remains to 
 speak of the third power whose hostility was expected — Holkar. 
 With Holkar's Government, (the actual chief being a minor) ne- 
 gotiations were for some time carried on: regarding which, the 
 papers on the table contain information somewhat less ample than 
 could be wished; as, by some omission, no doubt accidental, va- 
 rious documents relating to these transactions have not yet reach- 
 ed this country. That Lord Hastings had been in negotiation 
 with the Regent, the mother of the young Rajah, and that great 
 hopes were indulged of a favourable issue, is clear: but how these 
 hopes were disappointed does not appear in the documents before 
 the House. I am, however, enabled to add to what appears in the 
 papers, one fact, the particulars of which have only come to my 
 knowledge within a few days. A short time before the great and 
 decisive battle with the forces of Holkar, one of the refractory 
 and disaffected chieftains in his council took this summary meth- 
 od of over-ruling the policy of the Regent: he entered her tent 
 at night, dragged her out by her hair, and severing her head from 
 her body, cast both into the river. Of the change thus suddenly 
 wrought in Holkar's counsels, the first indication was an attack 
 by the army of Holkar on the troops composing the advanced 
 guard of Sir Thomas Hislop. 
 
 This brings me to the battle of Maheidpore — the only great 
 general action which occurred in the course of the campaign. Of 
 this battle I feel myself incompetent, even if it were necessary, 
 to enter into the military details: the Gazettes furnish a more 
 perspicuous account of it than I could pretend to offer. But I 
 may be permitted to say, that more determined gallantry, more 
 
 z 
 
278 VOTE OF THANKS TO MARQUIS HASTINGS 
 
 inflexible perseverance, or greater exertion of mind and body on 
 the part of every individual engaged, were never displayed than 
 in the battle of Maheidpore. The result was, the defeat and dis- 
 solution of the army of the enemy, though not without a loss on 
 our side, deeply to be deplored. This victory recommends to the 
 gratitude of the House the name of Sir Thomas Hislop, by whose 
 conduct and under whose auspices it was won; and that of Sir 
 John Malcolm — second in command on that occasion — second to 
 none in renown, whose name will be remembered in India as 
 long as the British tongue is spoken, or the British flag hoisted 
 throughout that vast territory. 
 
 The result of this battle, as it was the complete dissolution of 
 the army of Holkar, so was it that of the confederacy among the 
 Mahratta Powers, which had long been secretly formed, and which 
 an unprosperous or even a doubtful issue of our first action in the 
 field, would unquestionably have brought into full play. A treaty 
 of peace was forthwith negotiated with Holkar, by which were 
 ceded to us all his possessions on the south side of the river Ner- 
 budda: and the remainder of the campaign, so far as this member 
 of the hostile confederacy was concerned, consisted in collecting 
 for the British Government the scattered fragments of his dis- 
 membered chieftainship. 
 
 While the campaign was proceeding thus successfully against 
 those whom Lord Hastings had taken into account as probable 
 enemies, their number was unexpectedl}'^ increased by the addi- 
 tion of the Peishwah, the executive head of the Mahratta empire; 
 — who suddenly broke the ties which bound him (as has been seen) 
 in the strictest amity to the British Government. Even Sir John 
 Malcolm — better qualified perhaps than any other person to fath- 
 om the designs and estimate the sincerity of the native Powers — 
 had been so far imposed upon, in an interview with that prince at 
 Poonah, as to express to Lord Hastings his perfect conviction that 
 the friendly professions of the Peishwah deserved entire confi- 
 dence. In the midst of this unsuspecting tranquillity, at a mo- 
 ment now known to have been concerted with the other Mahratta 
 chieftains, the Peishwah manifested his real intentions by an un- 
 provoked attack upon the residency (the house of the British 
 Resident) at Poonah. Mr. Elphinstone (a name distinguished in 
 the literature as well as in the politics of the East) exhibited on 
 that trying occasion, military courage and skill which, though val- 
 uable accessories to diplomatic talents, we are not entitled to re- 
 quire as necessary qualifications for civil employment. On that, 
 and not on that occasion only, but on many others in the course 
 of this singular campaign, Mr. Elphinstone displayed talents and 
 resources, which would have rendered him no mean general, in a 
 country where generals are of no mean excellence and reputation. 
 
AND THE BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA. 279 
 
 The gallant resistance of Lieutenant-Colonel Burr, at the head 
 of the small force cantoned in the vicinity of Poonah, to the con- 
 centrated army of the Peishwah, — and the brilliant and decisive 
 victory subsequently gained over that army by Brigadier-General 
 Smith, stand recorded in the Gazette — memorable instances of 
 British valour. Nor less memorable is the instance of British 
 moderation displayed by General Smith after his victory, in 
 sparing the then hostile capital of a treacherous enemy, which lay 
 at the mercy of the conquerors. 
 
 It may be convenient to despatch in continuity what remains to 
 be stated respecting the Peishwah, though anticipating for that 
 purpose events and the order of time. It was the task of Gene- 
 ral Smith to pursue that fugitive prince, through all the windings 
 and doublings of a warfare which shifted its ground a thousand 
 times; to overthrow his collected force a second time in a pitched 
 battle; and in that battle to rescue from his power the Rajah of 
 Sattarah, descendant of the ancient sovereigns, and, by just title, 
 the real head — of the Mahratta empire. Of that empire the 
 Peishwah was originally the first executive minister. As hap- 
 pens frequently in Oriental sovereignties, the legitimate monarchy 
 had for some time sunk into a mere name; and in that name the 
 Peishwahs had now for six generations exercised the supreme au- 
 thority, keeping during the same period the successive hereditary 
 sovereigns in confinement. To seize the person of the Rajah of 
 Sattarah, in the fort of that name, in which he had long been im- 
 mured, was the first object of the Peishwah in his flight from 
 Poonah; lest, falling into the hands of the British, the restitution 
 of that sovereign to his state should lead to the final extinction of 
 the Peishwah's office and power. To defeat this precaution was 
 the effect of General Smith's victories; and it was no small reward 
 of his exertions to be the instrument of such a restoration. Amid 
 the rapid revolutions and fluctuating dynasties of the East, it is 
 not alwa3^s that European policy can satisfy itself as to the cor- 
 rectness of the course which circumstances or engagements may 
 compel it to pursue or to sanction. But it is no unsatisfactory 
 consequence of a faithless and unprovoked attack upon the British 
 power, that a lawful sovereign has been replaced on the throne of 
 his ancestors, by the same British army which drove a perfidious 
 aggressor from his capital, and finally reduced him from a wan- 
 derer to a captive. 
 
 What has been stated of the unexpected hostility of the Peish- 
 wah, applies, in its general outline, and with change only of names 
 and places, to the Rajah of Berar, At Nagpore, as at Poonah, an 
 attack was suddenly made on the British Residency, while the at- 
 tention of the Governor-General was supposed to be exclusively 
 occupied with the Pindarry war. A similar resistance was sue- 
 
280 VOTE OF THANKS TO MARQUIS HASTINGS 
 
 cessfully opposed to this attack by the resident, Mr. Jenkins; who 
 affords anotlier instance of the happy union of military qualifica- 
 tions with diplomatic skill; and whose courage and constancy had 
 been heretofore displayed under very trying circumstances, when, 
 after the former Mahratta war, he held the office of resident at 
 the Court of Scindia. The few troops stationed at Nagpore, un- 
 der Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, made a gallant stand against the su- 
 perior numbers of the enemy — (a superiority sufficient to sur- 
 round and overpower the British force, even if the attack had 
 been foreseen) — instances of individual heroism displayed on this 
 occasion are deservedly recorded in our military annals. It re- 
 mained for the skill and valour of Brigadier-General Doveton to 
 follow up the advantages thus obtained; and to complete the over- 
 throw ot a Power which had acted with such perfidious violence. 
 The hostility of Nagpore was a still greater surprise than that of 
 Poonah. The result in both cases was the same. The Peishwah 
 is consigned to a secure though mitigated captivity; the Rajah of 
 Berar continues still a fugitive, but so reduced and deserted, that 
 although I cannot aver that a renewal of hostilities by him is al- 
 together impossible, I trust that they cannot be renewed in a shape 
 likely to give the Governor-General much trouble or uneasiness. 
 
 Neither had these distant and unforeseen occurrences the effect, 
 which was probably anticipated by the Mahrattas, of calling off 
 the attention of the Bengal Government from the original object 
 of their military preparations — the Pindarries. Within three 
 months after the opening of the campaign, this formidable horde 
 had ceased to exist as a body. Surrounded and driven, as if into a 
 net, between the converging forces of the British Presidencies, 
 repelled on one side from the frontiers of the Company's terri- 
 tories, and pressed on the other against the frontiers of Scindia 
 and Holkar (Scindia's territory being closed against them by that 
 chieftain's treaty of co-operation, and Holkar's by the treaty of 
 peace which followed the battle of Maheidpore;) cut off from 
 their accustomed retreat across the Nerbudda, into the territories 
 of Poonah or Nagpore, and unable, as is their nature, to make head 
 against a regular army in the field, they gradually melted away, 
 dispersed, concealed, or surrendered themselves; their families, 
 their treasured plunder, their fortresses, fell into our hands; and 
 that association of freebooters may, I hope, be said to be extir- 
 pated, not, indeed, in their persons, but in purpose and in name. 
 
 Of such complicated hostilities, covering an extent of country 
 before which the dimensions of an European campaign shrink in 
 comparison, it is, as I have said, quite impossible for me to at- 
 tempt any thing like a detailed exposition. Among feats of prow- 
 ess and deeds of gallantry performed contemporaneously in scenes 
 of action far removed from each other, but conducing alike to 
 
AND THE BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA. 281 
 
 one great end, I feel totally unable to thread the mazes of victory, 
 and to select instances for minute specification and particular 
 praise, either with justice to the British troops, or with satisfac- 
 tion to my own sense of their merits. The names of the leaders 
 and of the actors in these distinguished scenes must be fresh in 
 the recollection of those who have perused the reports of the cam- 
 paign; and I fear that if I were to attempt a catalogue, I might, 
 from inadvertence (though not from partiality,) leave many well 
 deserving of praise unnamed. In every instance the valour of the 
 British troops has been eminently conspicuous. And when I say 
 of the British troops, let me guard the House against any such er- 
 roneous impression as that the contest was one between tried and 
 valiant British soldiers on the one side, and feeble and unwarlike 
 natives on the other. Let it not be considered as an unequal con- 
 flict of European valour with untaught Indian courage: for out of 
 about 90,000 troops, whom Lord Hastings brought into the field, 
 10,000 only, or thereabouts, were British; the remainder were the 
 native forces of the East India Company, trained, it is true, by Eu- 
 ropean officers, and proving by their obedience, their courage, their 
 perseverance, their endurance, that in discipline and in achieve- 
 ments they were capable of rivalling their British instructors. 
 
 In doing justice to the bravery of the native troops, I must not 
 overlook another virtue — their fidelity. Many of the Bombay 
 army had been recruited in the territories of the Peishwah; their 
 property, their friends, their relatives, all that was valuable and 
 dear to them, were still in that prince's power. Previously to the 
 commencement of hostilities, the Peishwah had spared no pains 
 to seduce and corrupt these troops — he abstained from no threats 
 to force them from their allegiance — but his utmost arts were vain. 
 The native officers and soldiers came to their British commanders 
 with the proofs of these temptations in their hands, and renewed 
 the pledges of their attachment. One man — a non-commissioned 
 officer — brought to his captain the sum of 5,000 rupees, which 
 had been presented to him by the Peishwah in person, as an ear- 
 nest of reward for desertion.* The vengeance denounced by the 
 Peishwah was not an unmeaning menace. It did in many in- 
 stances fall heavily on the relatives of those who resisted his 
 threats and his entreaties; but the effect was rather to exasperate 
 than to repress their ardour in the service to which they had 
 sworn to adhere. 
 
 This combined courage and attachment were never more con- 
 spicuous than on one occasion, which I will take the liberty to 
 particularize, for the purpose of paying a just tribute as well to the 
 
 * The name of this man — Shieck Houssein — however unmusical to European 
 ears, deserves to be recorded. 
 
 38 z* 
 
282 VOTE OF THANKS TO MARQUIS HASTINGS 
 
 native troops, as to the talents of an officer commanding them. It 
 is an instance which I may select without invidiousness, as the 
 rank of the officer does not allow of his name being mentioned in 
 a vote of thanks. 
 
 A body of between eight and nine hundred men, all natives 
 except the artillery (the proportion of which to a force of this 
 strength many gentlemen present can estimate more correctly 
 than myself,) was on its march from a distant part of the Peish- 
 wah's territories to Poonah, soon after the denunciation of hostili- 
 ties, and unexpectedly found itself in presence of the whole Mah- 
 ratta army. What was the exact amount of the Peishwah's force 
 I am not able to state with precision, but the cavalry alone was 
 not less than 20,000. The small band which I have described, 
 hemmed in on all sides by this overwhelming superiority of num- 
 bers, maintained through a long day an obstinate and victorious 
 resistance; victorious, for they repelled on every point the furious 
 attacks of the enemy. The chief suffering of which they com- 
 plained during this singular and most unequal contest, was the in- 
 tolerable thirst which tbey could not procure the means of slaking 
 until the action was over. In the end they not only secured an 
 unmolested retreat, but they carried off their wounded. In such 
 a waste and wilderness of space and of glories, distracting the 
 sight and perplexing the judgment, it is satisfactory thus to select 
 some small insulated field of action, which one can comprehend 
 at a single glance, and of which (as of some green and sunny spot 
 in a far-stretching and diversified landscape) one can catch and 
 delineate all the characteristic features. 
 
 From this one small achievement — small as to extent, but 
 mighty with reference to the qualities displayed in it, the spirit 
 which pervaded and animated the whole Indian army may be in- 
 ferred. The officer who commanded this gallant little force was 
 Captain Staunton; his rank does not entitle him to be recorded in 
 our votes, but the House will be glad to learn that his merits and 
 services have not been overlooked by his immediate employers 
 the Court of Directors. 
 
 To sum up the military results of the whole campaign in a 
 few words: — Within the short period of six months, between No- 
 vember and June, eight-and-twenty actions were fought in the 
 field, differing from each other in magnitude, but all exhibiting in 
 unvaried splendour the character of our Indian army. One hun- 
 dred and twenty forts — many of them scarcely accessible, some 
 deemed impregnable either by force or skill — fell to that army by 
 surrender, by siege, or by storm. To give some notion of the ex- 
 tent of country over which these actions were distributed, the dis- 
 tance between the most northern and most southern of the cap- 
 tured fortresses is not less than seven hundred miles. 
 
AND THE BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA. 283 
 
 At the southern extremity of this long line of operations, and 
 in a part of the campaign carried on in a district far from public 
 gaze and without the opportunities of early and especial notice, 
 was employed a man, whose name I should indeed have been 
 sorry to have passed over in silence. I allude to Colonel Thomas 
 Munro; a gentleman of whose rare qualifications the late House 
 of Commons had opportunities of judging when he was examined 
 at their bar on the renewal of the East India Company's Charter; 
 and than whom Europe never produced a more accomplished 
 statesman, nor India, fertile as it is in heroes, a more skilful sol- 
 dier. This gentleman, whose occupations for some years past 
 have been rather of a civil and administrative than a military na- 
 ture, was called, early in the war, to exercise abilities, which 
 though dormant, had not rusted from disuse. He went into the 
 field with not more than five or six hundred men, of whom a very 
 small proportion were Europeans; and marched into the Mahratta 
 territories to take possession of the country which had been ceded 
 to us by the treaty of Poonah. The population which he sub- 
 dued by arms, he managed with such address, equity, and wis- 
 dom, that he established an empire over their hearts and feelings. 
 Nine forts were surrendered to him or taken by assault on his 
 way; and at the end of a silent and scarcely observed progress, 
 he emerged from a territory heretofore hostile to the British in- 
 terest, with an accession instead of a diminution of force, leaving 
 every thing secure and tranquil behind him. This result speaks 
 more than could be told by any minute and extended com- 
 mentary. 
 
 This, however. Sir, (in order that I may keep my word with 
 the House) is the last episode in which I shall indulge. It re- 
 mains only to describe briefly the general state in which our af- 
 fairs were placed at the end of the campaign. The Peishwah 
 and the Rajah of Nagpore I have already traced from their un- 
 provoked hostility to their merited chastisement. The Pindarries, 
 the original cause and object of the war, are gone. Of the Powers 
 which had a natural interest to side with the Pindarries, Meer 
 Khan, is reduced to his original comparative insignificance; Hol- 
 kar has paid the penalty of his hostility by the sacrifice of a large 
 portion of his dominions; and the most formidable and most im- 
 portant of all, Scindia, having been prevented by wise manage- 
 ment from taking that course which would justly have placed 
 him amongst the victims of our vengeance, remains, and long 
 may he remain, an independent sovereign. Long may he remain 
 so! — because, anxious as I am for the prosperity and grandeur 
 of our Indian empire, I confess I look at its indefinite extension 
 with awe. I earnestly wish that it may be possible for us to re- 
 main stationary where we are; and that what still exists of sub- 
 
284 VOTE OF THANKS TO MARQUIS HASTINGS 
 
 stantive and independent power in India, may stand untouched 
 and unimpaired. But this consummation, however much it may- 
 be desired, depends (as I have said) not on ourselves alone. Ag- 
 gression must be repelled, and perfidy must be visited with its 
 just reward. And while I join with the thinking part of the 
 country in deprecating advance, — who shall say that there is 
 safety for such a Power as ours, in retrogradation ? 
 
 In one view, the accession of territory, by the various opera- 
 tions of which I have attempted to give some outline, is as im- 
 portant as the war was justifiable and necessary. In the begin- 
 ning of this war the frontier to be guarded was in extent not less 
 than two thousand five hundred miles. In consequence of our 
 late successes, and of the tributary alliances which have grown 
 out of them, that frontier is indeed much advanced; but in pro- 
 portion as it is advanced it is also narrowed, so that the line to- 
 wards the Indus does not now present more than one-third of the 
 extent of the former external boundary. 
 
 I have thus. Sir, endeavoured to bring before the House a re- 
 view of the late campaign; and imperfect as I am aware that re- 
 view must necessarily be, I do not know that I have omitted any 
 material part of the grounds on which I found my call upon the 
 House for a vote of thanks to the Marquis of Hastings. I have 
 said enough to show the providence with which he called forth, 
 and the skill with which he arrayed, the forces of the great em- 
 pire committed to his charge; the wisdom with which he laid his 
 plans, and the vigour with which he carried them into execution. 
 I conclude with proposing the vote to Lord Hastings as the com- 
 mander under whose auspices these successes have been achieved; 
 but I think it due to him as a statesman at the same time to as- 
 sure the House that his most anxious wdsh is to improve by the 
 arts of peace the provinces acquired in war; extending the pro- 
 tection of British justice to every part of our widely-spread do- 
 minions; but leaving as he may find them the harmless prejudices 
 of nations; and conforming our Government to native habits and 
 institutions, wherever those habits and institutions are not at vari- 
 ance with equity and reason: convinced that the British rule will 
 be stable enough throughout India, in proportion as it is benefi- 
 
 cient and beloved. [Mr. Canning here read the vote of thanks 
 
 to the Marquis of Hastings.] 
 
 It is necessary that I should preface the second resolution with 
 a few remarks on a circumstance in the conduct of a gallant gen- 
 eral, who has greatly signalized himself in this campaign. 
 
 I mentioned, in the earlier part of my speech, that one of the 
 first results of Sir Thomas Hislop's victory over Holkar, was an 
 order issued by that chief, and intrusted to Sir T. Hislop, for the 
 surrender of certain fortresses to the south of the river Nerbudda. 
 
AND THE BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA. 285 
 
 Amongst the fortresses so ordered to be surrendered to Sir Thomas 
 Hislop, was that of Tahieir. At that place an event occurred 
 which is related in the papers before the House, and the particu- 
 lars of which it is not necessary for me to repeat. In those pa- 
 pers the House is possessed of all the information which the East 
 India Company or the Government have received on this subject. 
 With that information neither the East India Company nor the 
 Government are satisfied. The only course which, under these 
 circumstances, could be adopted, was to send instructions to the 
 Government of India to transmit to England the most ample in- 
 formation, and to institute, if necessary, the most minute inquiry. 
 I am very far from admitting that because there has been an omis- 
 sion in sending home satisfactory documents, we are therefore to 
 conclude that the transaction is not justifiable. The inference 
 must be the other way: — First, from the character of a British 
 officer; secondly, from the individual character of this officer, 
 whom (though I am not myself acquainted with him,) I under- 
 stand to be eminently entitled to praise, not more from his pro- 
 fessional talents, than for his abhorrence of every thing cruel or 
 severe. We have further, in support of this inference, two sepa- 
 rate approvals of his conduct by the Marquis of Hastings, con- 
 veyed in the most unqualified terms. It is impossible to imagine 
 any interest or affection that could have induced Lord Hastings to 
 slur over a transaction, which in his conscience he thought de- 
 serving of blame. I say this the more confidently, because in- 
 stances have occurred in the course of this campaign which prove 
 that, however anxious Lord Hastings is to bestow praise where 
 praise is merited, he knows his duty too well to withhold blame 
 from those who have justly incurred it. Those instances it would 
 be unfair to mention; but I can assure the House that such are in 
 my possession. 
 
 When the despatch which contains the account of the capture 
 of Talnier, was transmitted in the military department of the of- 
 ficial correspondence, it came unaccompanied with any civil de- 
 tails whatever. I felt some reluctance in making the bare mili- 
 tary statement public: but I thought the plain course to pursue 
 was, to deal with this despatch as other despatches of a military 
 nature had been dealt with; looking forward confidently to the 
 arrival of the details which were wanting to give the transaction 
 its true colour. 
 
 Those gentlemen who take an interest in Indian affairs must 
 know how uncertain correspondence is with that part of the 
 world. There have been — there still are — great chasms in the 
 correspondence respecting the late campaign. In last Saturday's 
 Gazette, is an account of occurrences which took place not less 
 than a year and a half ago: it is not the fault of the Government 
 
286 VOTE OF THANKS TO MARQUIS HASTINGS 
 
 that the intelligence of them did not arrive sooner. And here it 
 may possibly be expedient for me to state, by the way, why .des- 
 patches, of which the general interest is gone by, are nevertheless 
 inserted in the Gazette. The reason. Sir, is this: from the intense 
 and laudable eagerness with which military honours are sought 
 for, it is necessary that those services by which such honours may 
 be merited, should be publicly recorded. Public record being 
 made — and wisely — an indispensable condition of the grant of 
 those honours, it would be hard to run the risk of invalidating 
 any officer's title to them hereafter, by keeping back altogether 
 the notification of services, the official report of which might have 
 happened to be delayed. 
 
 To return to Sir Thomas Hislop: his despatch arrived in Au- 
 gust; the approbation of the Marquis of Hastings, though dated 
 only a fortnight after that despatch, did not arrive till the 27th of 
 November. The details of a complete justification may be now 
 on their way. 
 
 In this imperfect state of evidence three modes of proceeding 
 presented themselves to Government. The first was, to withhold 
 remuneration altogether from the services of the Indian army till 
 this point should be cleared up: but no man who knows the spirit 
 and temper of armies in general, and the composition of the In- 
 dian army in particular, would recommend a course so ungrateful 
 and ungracious. The next was to grant to other deservers the 
 proper honorary rewards, omitting the name of the commander 
 under whom the most considerable victory had been gained — the 
 name of him in whose praise the letters from India were lavish: 
 but such an exception would have placed on his character a stamp 
 of obloquy too deep to be effaced by any subsequent atonement. 
 The last course was, to include him with the body of officers to 
 whom military honours were due; still, however, expecting and 
 requiring at a future period a satisfactory explanation of this par- 
 ticular part of his conduct. If the House shall be of opinion that 
 the Executive Government have not judged amiss in the choice 
 which they have made between these three modes of proceeding, 
 the House will, perhaps, so far countenance and concur with their 
 decision as to vote its thanks for military service to Lieutenant- 
 General Sir Thomas Hislop, in common with his brave compeers 
 in glory; and to be contented with entering, at the same time, a 
 special record of its own suspended judgment on this particular 
 transaction. 
 
 I admit the reasonableness of such a record, on the grounds 
 which I have stated; though I feel that, standing in my situation, 
 it would hardly be becoming in me to propose what that record 
 shall be. To join it with the vote of thanks itself, when every 
 end can' be obtained by a separate Resolution, would be as harsh 
 
AND THE BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA. 287 
 
 as unnecessary: unnecessary, since the suspension of the judgment 
 of the House may be sufficiently marked without such a junction; 
 — and harsh, because the vote of thanks will be placed on the 
 regimental books, and read in front of every military line in In- 
 dia. This, I am ready to confess, would not be too severe a course 
 if the transaction were finally to be imprinted with a character, 
 such as, I trust, it never can assume: but what would be the feel- 
 ings of Sir Thomas Hislop and of his comrades, if such a censure 
 were sent forth, in ignorance here, to be read before an audience 
 in India who might well know that it had not been deserved ? 
 
 I trust, then, that the House will allow the name of Sir Thomas 
 Hislop to stand in my second Resolution of Thanks, without any 
 phrase of qualification; and, in return, if any gentleman shall pro- 
 pose a separate Resolution of the description which I have ven- 
 tured to suggest, I shall think that by assenting to such Resolu- 
 tion I best discharge my duty to the House, to the Indian army, 
 and to Sir Thomas Hislop himself. 
 
 The Resolutions were agreed to without a division. 
 
288 
 
 MR. TIERNEY'S MOTION ON THE 
 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 MAY 18th, 1819. 
 
 Mr. Tierney moved — " That this House will resolve itself into a Commit- 
 tee of the whole House, to take into consideration the State of the Nation." — 
 The arguments adduced in Mr. Tierney's motion, are replied to seriatim in 
 Mr. Canning's admirable speech on this occasion. 
 
 Mr. Canning rose and said: — 
 
 The motion, Sir, of the right honourable gentleman, as fairly 
 explained by himself, and as understood by almost every honour- 
 able gentleman who has taken part in this debate, is, to call upon 
 the House to exercise one of its highest constitutional functions — 
 to sit in judgment on the character, and pass a verdict on the con- 
 duct, of the Ministers of the Crown. Some attempts have, in- 
 deed, been made in the course of the discussion, to diminish the 
 force of the right honourable gentleman's explanation, and to de- 
 tract from his just admissions. But that diminution and that de- 
 traction cannot be allowed to weigh against the avowal of the 
 honourable mover; who puts no other interpretation on his own 
 object than this — that the decision of the House this night in- 
 volves the fate of the existing Administration. Lest any mistake 
 arise on this point — lest any honourable members should be un- 
 wittingly led to adopt a measure of which they do not mean to 
 approve — I think it right to repeat, on my own part, and on the part 
 of my colleagues, what has been most candidly and distinctly de- 
 clared by the right honourable gentleman, that the issue of the 
 division this night, if affirmative of the proposition brought for- 
 ward by the right honourable gentleman, will pronounce the dis- 
 solution of the Government which now possesses the confidence 
 of the Crown. Do I mean on that account to impute any blame 
 or any improper motive to the right honourable gentleman ? No 
 such thing. The present proceeding is an acknowledged and con- 
 stitutional mode of ascertaining the sense of Parliament on the 
 conduct of the Administration of the country. If there is any 
 unfairness to be complained of, it certainly is not in the nature of 
 the motion, but in the time and in the circumstances under which 
 it is brought forward. 
 
 An honourable gentleman, who spoke late in the debate, seems 
 to think that he may support the motion without passing a sen- 
 tence of condemnation and dismissal on His Majesty's Ministers. 
 With this qualification I, Sir, do not presume to find fault: but I 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 289 
 
 do think myself entitled to desire that all those who may think 
 "with the honourable gentleman will take an opportunity of dis- 
 tinctly expressing that opinion, lest, by their votes, if unexplained, 
 the House and the country — who will unquestionably construe 
 the motion according to the general understanding of it, and ac- 
 cording to the right honourable mover's own exposition of its in- 
 tention and effect — should be deceived with respect to the object 
 which those whose votes are thus qualified have in view. Ano- 
 ther honourable gentleman fancies he sees a way of escaping from 
 the difficulty, by distinguishing between his general approbation 
 of His Majesty's Ministers, and the abhorrence which he feels for 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consequence of the London 
 Docks not being so full as usual, and still more on account of 
 the dastardly imbecility with which my right honourable friend 
 has recoiled from a double duty upon tallow. Torn as his agitated 
 bosom was by these conflicting sentiments — by a consciousness, on 
 the one hand, of the obligations which he owed to Ministers for 
 their general conduct, and his indignation, on the other, at these 
 particular and reprehensible backslidings of the Finance Minister, 
 the honourable gentleman declared that he saw no means of eva- 
 ding his embarrassment, but by voting with an honourable and 
 learned gentleman (Mr. C. Wynn) for the previous question. Un- 
 happily, however, even this mode of retreat is not left open to 
 him; for that honourable and learned gentleman has not moved, 
 nor does he intend to move, the previous question. He did, in- 
 deed, mention such a question as moveable, and as not inapplica- 
 ble to the motion before the House; but after propounding the 
 matter gravely, and weighing it deliberately, he resolved to have 
 nothing at all to do with the division, but to go home to bed. If, 
 therefore, the honourable gentleman is deterimned to follow the 
 honourable and learned gentleman's suggestion, he must follow 
 him, not into the lobby, but to his chamber. " Misery," as Trin- 
 culo says, " acquaints a man with strange bedfellows;" and when 
 the honourable gentleman shall be reclined on the same pillow 
 with the mover of the imaginary motion which he is so anxious 
 to support, they may condole with each other on the difficulties 
 by which they fancy themselves surrounded, and eventually, per- 
 haps, may make up their minds, though somewhat too late, as to 
 the vote to be given on a question on which, of all questions in 
 the world, it seems most easy to come to a decisive opinion. 
 
 I have said that if I were disposed to complain of any thing in 
 the right honourable gentleman's motion, it would be only of the 
 time and the circumstances under which it is brought forward. 
 But, in saying this, I beg to be understood as founding my objec- 
 tion not on the general situation of the country and of the world, 
 but merely on the particular state of public business in Parliament. 
 39 A A 
 
290 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 This I think it necessary to premise, lest my observations on the 
 proposition and speech of the right honourable gentleman may 
 be misunderstood. The course of argument which has been pur- 
 sued by the right honourable gentleman is this: — that the coun- 
 try stands, both internally and externally, in a situation of extraor- 
 dinary difficulty and even peril ; a situation demanding all the 
 attention which the most able and experienced minds can bestow 
 upon it. I am very ready to admit that the internal situation of 
 the country is full of difficulties ; but they are not insurmounta- 
 ble. There is nothing in that situation which ought to lead us to 
 despair. I admit also that it is impossible to look through the 
 world without perceiving that there may be some latent and not 
 yet unfolded grounds of foreign embarrassment, some distant 
 chance that the exertions which have been made for the 
 establishment and preservation of general tranquillity, however 
 strenuous and ardent, may be frustrated at some period, more or 
 less remote, by occurrences, difficult to forsee, and not possible 
 to be guarded against. Who will undertake to say, that at this 
 very moment som^e unperceived danger may not be gathering 
 over the country ? and when was there a moment in the history 
 of the country at which such an undertaking could be confidently 
 hazarded ? In making these admissions, therefore, I beg to be 
 understood as not alluding to any specific circumstances of diffi- 
 culty or danger ; but merely as not opposing to the vague suppo- 
 sitions of the right honourable gentleman, any assurance that might 
 be understood as intended to deprecate discussion, or to divest the 
 right honourable gentleman's inotion of the character and import- 
 ance which he has assigned to it. Whatever may be the grounds, 
 or whatever the amount of the apprehensions reasonably growing 
 out of the present situation of affairs — in one thing I most cordi- 
 ally agree with the right honourable gentleman, that nothing could 
 more effectually tend to preserve the tranquillity now so happily 
 prevailing throughout the world, than an impression that we 
 should not shrink from war in case of necessity. To this end it is 
 unquestionably indispensable that our financial system should be 
 sound. And to make it so, it is no doubt necessary to purge it 
 of its defects, to repair its infirmities, and, above all things, to give 
 such an ample and undisguised explanation of its real condi- 
 tion, as may render it perfectly clear and intelligible, not only to 
 this country, but to the world. All this is as strongly felt by His 
 Majesty's Government as by the right honourable gentleman ; and 
 the only matter of which they have a right to complain in respect 
 to the present motion, is that itis brought forward prematurely, and, 
 if not with the purpose, certainly with the effect, of intercepting 
 and anticipating that exposition of the whole of our system of 
 finance, which it is the undoubted duty of the Ministers to bring 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 291 
 
 forward, and which it is notorious that they will, in the course of 
 a few days, submit to the consideration of Parliament. The right 
 honourable gentleman has so timed his motion as to enable himself, 
 whenever this exposition shall be made, to exclaim, " Aye, this 
 flows from my motion ; just as the inquiry into the affairs of the 
 Bank was the consequunce of my former notice." As to the ori- 
 gin of the inquiry into the affairs of the Bank, that question was 
 disposed of at the time, and I will not now weary the attention of the 
 House by re-arguing it : but as to the financial statement, I can 
 assure the right honourable gentleman, that nothing but the obvious 
 necessity of first completing the investigation of the committee on 
 the Bank, and of determining the character of the future currency 
 of the country, before any solid and permanent system of finance 
 could be established, has prevented my right honourable friend, the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, from proposing to the House the 
 plan of finance which has been prepared, not merely for the pre- 
 sent year, but for the whole period of peace, whatever may be its 
 duration. My single objection, therefore, to the fairness of the 
 motion is, that it endeavours to take from Ministers the initiative 
 which belongs to them on this momentous subject ; on which (as 
 the right honourable gentleman himself most justly argues) the 
 whole view of the state of the country, external as well as inter- 
 nal, depends. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman has, however, avoided entering 
 into any examination of the labours of the Secret Committee, or 
 into the much agitated question respecting the currency, or into 
 the details of our financial situation. In this abstinence I will im- 
 itate him : and having merely protested against the implication, 
 thus unfairly conveyed in the motion, that the right honourable 
 gentleman's interference (however great his talents in that line, or 
 however laudable the application with which he has directed them 
 to that object) was necessary to obtain for the House and for the 
 country a prompt and full examination of our financial wants and 
 means, I will proceed to follow the right honourable gentleman 
 through the wider range and more general topics of his speech. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman appears to think that in conse- 
 quence of the alleged exhaustion of our finances, opportunities 
 have been lost of asserting the interests and vindicating the honour 
 of the country. On this point the right honourable gentleman did 
 not indeed express himself in very direct terms. He was con- 
 tented to "just hint a fault and hesitate dislike." He just made 
 the allusion, and left it to work its own impression. He said that 
 two British subjects had been murdered under the forms of justice 
 by a general of the United States. The act was not characterized 
 by the right honourable gentleman in terms of too strong abhor- 
 rence ; but for what purpose was it thus alluded to in a motion 
 
-92 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 for a Committee to inquire into the State of the Nation, unless for 
 that of insinuating, that there had been something in the forbear- 
 ance of the British Government which could not be accounted for 
 but by a consciousness of absolute impotence ? And yet the right 
 honourable gentleman himself confessed his doubts whether, by the 
 law of nations, the interference of the British Government on 
 this occasion would have been justifiable. The right honorable 
 gentleman's doubts are well founded. His Majesty's Ministers 
 have not been the less diligent or the less anxious in their deliber- 
 ations and researches, to ascertain whether, consistently with the 
 law of nations, they could interfere, than if they had (as was the 
 first natural impulse in every British bosom) made this country 
 and America ring from one end to the other, with cries for re- 
 dress. Let it not be imputed to His Majesty's Ministers that 
 they alone, of all Englishmen, of all mankind, felt not the indig- 
 nation at the act in question which it justly merited ; that the 
 moral guilt and baseness of that atrocious proceeding appeared to 
 them in any other light than to the plain understanding of every 
 right-minded individual ; or that it would not have been easier, ten 
 thousand times more easy as well as more grateful, to have fol- 
 lowed at once where their feelings led the way, than to have curb- 
 ed, and questioned, and disciplined those feelings by a reference 
 to their duties and obligations. But if the unhappy men who 
 were the victims of this inhuman outrage, placed themselves by 
 their own act out of the protection of their Government; if there was 
 no right of interfering in their behalf, which would have justified 
 an appeal to the last extremity, by which atonement, if not grant- 
 ed on a first requisition, must be enforced ; if therefore remon- 
 strances disregarded would not have justified resentment ; if to 
 have called for reparation would have been to enter upon a course 
 from which, when unsatisfied, we should have had nothing to do 
 but to retire ; surely it will be felt that the dignity of the country 
 would have been ill consulted by a proceeding at once fruitless 
 and humiliating: and surely credit may be given to us for hav- 
 ing discharged — reluctantly discharged — our duty to our coun- 
 try as Ministers, without imputing to us an insensibility which 
 would have disgraced us as men. 
 
 Again, as to the cession of the Floridas by Spain to the United 
 States, the right honourable gentleman spoke, not as if he himself 
 thought, but as if it might be thought by some one, that the Brit- 
 ish Government ought to have interfered for the purpose of pre- 
 venting that cession. Unquestionably it would have been more 
 to the interests of this country that the Floridas should have 
 remained in the possession of Spain. But by what right, by 
 what construction of the law of nations, independently of the 
 specific stipulations of particular treaties (and none -such were 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 293 
 
 in this case in operation,) could the British Government inter- 
 fere to prevent a transfer of territory between independent Pow- 
 ers; unless it had been prepared to make common cause with 
 the nation of whom the cession was required ? It is, I believe, 
 pretty generally admitted on all sides, that Ministers have rightly 
 abstained from any interference in this matter; but if no blame is 
 imputed to them, why was the subject introduced into the right 
 honourable gentleman's speech, in a manner which either meant 
 nothing, or meant that there might be something to find fault 
 with? On another point, the right honourable gentleman was less 
 equivocal. He clearly did mean to impute blame to Ministers 
 for not having openly espoused the cause of the South American 
 provinces. When I recollect. Sir, all that has been so often de- 
 claimed in the House on the advantages of peace, on the dangers 
 of war, on the impropriety of interfering in the concerns of for- 
 eign nations — when I recollect all those brilliant common places 
 with which the ears of every honourable member present must 
 still be ringing, I confess my astonishment at the tone of the right 
 honourable gentleman's remarks on the subject of Spanish South 
 America. I am astonished at the suggestion, coming from a states- 
 man not liable to be misled by the ebullition of any very roman- 
 tic or fanatical spirit, that the Government of this country ought 
 to have committed its honour and resources in a new, and what I 
 must call unnecessary war against Spain, for the purpose of fo- 
 menting the struggle between her and her colonies. I have heard 
 of many wars rashly undertaken — I have heard of wars of inter- 
 est, wars of temper, wars of honour, and wars of speculation ; but 
 I never yet heard of so mad a proposition as that the cause of the 
 insurgents in South America (I do not mean by the term " insur- 
 gents," to give any opinion as to the merits of the cause) should 
 be taken under the protection of Great Britain. Putting out of 
 question the moral right of such an interposition, have any of 
 these sanguine enterprizers who contend for alliance with the in- 
 surgents, condescended to calculate the magnitude of the under- 
 taking — the distance — the risk — the cost — and that to an " ex- 
 hausted country ?" No, the British Government had but one wise, 
 as but one honest course to pursue in this contest. They have not 
 interfered to assist either party, but they have repeatedly offered 
 their good offices with a view to reconcilement through an impar- 
 tial mediation. That mediation has unhappily proved hopeless, 
 nor was it our business to obtrude it undesired: nor would we, nor 
 ought we to undertake to give effect to it, on condition of enfor- 
 cing it on either side by arms. Amicable intercourse has been 
 kept up with every part of South America to which our flag has 
 access; and I have no doubt that a strong sense is entertained 
 of the pacific and impartial dispositions of England throughout 
 
 AA* 
 
294 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 the continent of South America, unless where her character has 
 been maligned, and her motives distorted, for purposes of lo- 
 cal delusion, or of personal interest. But, on the other hand, the 
 armaments fitted out from this country in aid of the South Amer- 
 icans have undoubtedly created (and have been most diligently 
 and unfairly employed to create) an impression that the wishes 
 and opinions of the British Government were embarked with the 
 adventurers of which those armaments were composed. Such a 
 supposition is wholly inconsistent with the neutrality professed 
 and observed by the British Government, and may require con- 
 tradiction; but it is unquestionably a conclusive answer to the im- 
 putation of partiality against the South Americans. The wisdom, 
 as well as the good faith of this system of neutrality, must, I 
 think, be obvious to every one, except to a race of petty politi- 
 cians (I certainly do not mean to include the right honourable 
 gentleman in this description,) who hold that the present is a fine 
 opportunity for retaliating upon Spain, the conduct which we ex- 
 perienced from her during the contest with our North American 
 colonies. Yes, we have retaliated; but I trust on a more just, at 
 least a more Christian principle. Our retaliation has been to en- 
 deavour, by mediation, to heal the wounds which discord had in- 
 flicted on both parties in the quarrel. Would to God that our of- 
 fers had been accepted. Would to God that the parties who were 
 the objects of it had yielded to the suggestions of friendship and 
 sound prudence; and that instead of tearing each other to pieces 
 with a waste of blood, such as few wars have occcasioned, some 
 compromise could have been effected, favourable at once to ra- 
 tional principles of liberty, and to the peace of the old world and 
 the new. In one respect, His Majesty's Ministers are certainly 
 guilty of the charges brought against them. In their transactions 
 with South America, they have abstained from endeavouring, by 
 a commercial treaty, to turn the troubles and distresses of a strug- 
 gling people to the advantage of this country. The assistance 
 which they did not think it right to grant, they would not be 
 tempted to sell; and so far have they carried their forbearance in 
 this particular, that in all their repeated offers of mediation, while 
 they have uniformly stated freedom of trade as one of the condi- 
 tions which justice would stipulate for the colonies, they have as 
 uniformly disclaimed for Great Britain any separate or partial 
 commercial preference. Let peace be established, let trade be 
 open — competition, enterprize, capital, would ensure her due share 
 of advantage to this country. 
 
 These, I think, are all the questions of external policy to which 
 the right honourable gentleman has adverted, with the exception 
 of those general reflections on the state of Europe, which have 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 295 
 
 been already satisfactorily noticed by my noble friend, the Sec- 
 retary of State. 
 
 To return to internal matters. The manner in which the right 
 honourable gentleman brought forward his motion, rendered it al- 
 most impossible wholly to preclude discussion on the affairs of the 
 Bank, the currency, and the finances. Nor has the caution which 
 the right honourable gentleman himself observed on that subject, 
 been imitated by those who followed him. To their remarks, 
 however, I do not mean at present to reply. Nor shall I dwell 
 particularly on the more unimportant charges which the right 
 honourable gentleman has copiously flung out against His Majes- 
 ty's Ministers, but shall confine myself to the pervading topic of 
 his speech. According to the right honourable gentleman, not 
 only are His Majesty's Ministers, taken as a whole, incompetent 
 to bring the resources of the empire into full and healthy play, 
 whether in respect to its internal or external polity; but their de- 
 ficiency is rendered still more deficient, and their imbecility more 
 weak, by divisions among themselves: there is no point of union 
 among them, no common principle of action. The country 
 ought therefore to look to an administration all strength — all unan- 
 imity — the members of which should not have taken difierent 
 sides on any question of great political interest. But where is 
 this perfect administration to be found? Not certainly in the per- 
 sons of the right honourable gentleman and his friends around 
 him. Be it remembered, that it is not I who allege this matter 
 of accusation. But if it be indeed absolutely indispensable for 
 the conducting affairs wisely and steadily, with prudence and de- 
 cision, that there should be no difference on any important subject 
 among the members of an administration; and if it shall farther 
 appear that such differences would nevertheless exist under any 
 possible administration that could be formed out of the materials 
 now available in this country, the result, I fear, will be not only 
 that the present Ministers cannot go on, but that the country must 
 altogether despair of an efficient and serviceable administration. 
 The truth, however, I believe to be, that those theorists tax hu- 
 man nature too high, who require, among any number of men 
 capable of forming an opinion for themselves, an undeviating 
 unanimity of opinion upon every one of the various and compli- 
 cated questions that can occur in the management of the affairs of 
 this extended and diversified community. An agreement in gen- 
 eral principles, and a concurrence in the details of practical ad- 
 ministration, are undoubtedly necessary to give consistency to 
 councils, and unity to action. But upon points either purely 
 speculative, or of comparative unimportance in practice, there 
 may be — there must be — occasionally, such differences among in- 
 telligent and instructed minds, as may render necessary mutual 
 
296 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 concessions for the sake of the public service. Measures must 
 sometimes be shaped and modified by the comparison and partial 
 compromise of different opinions. If the result be to present for 
 practical adoption, and to support with frankness, strength, and 
 union, measures of sound policy, any harshness of criticism or se- 
 verity of examination into the process by which such consent may 
 have been obtained, would be utterly misplaced — would be to 
 travel beyond the sphere of human action into that of thought, 
 with which human judgment has no concern. 
 
 I apply these observations specifically to the instance on which 
 the right honourable gentleman has commented with the greatest 
 severity — the question of the resumption of cash payments by the 
 Bank. If the measure to be proposed on the report of the Secret 
 Committee has the concurrent recommendation of every member 
 of the Administration, I know of no point of honour which calls 
 for explanation, as to the particular opinions which may have 
 been compromised to arrive at that conclusion, and to produce 
 that salutary concurrence. The existence of that complete prac- 
 tical concurrence, on that most important practical measure, I 
 have the happiness to announce. The right honourable gentle- 
 man may easily point out (for they are on record) the particular 
 differences of opinion which prevailed at a former period — a pe- 
 riod when I and the right honourable gentleman thought together 
 on the principles of this intricate and interesting subject. I, Sir, 
 hold unchanged the opinions which I avowed in 1811. The right 
 honourable gentleman, I presume, has not altered his opinions — 
 indeed, I know he has not as to principles; but yet, in the Secret 
 Committee, concurring as it did almost unanimously as to the 
 practical inference to be drawn from those opinions as applicable 
 to the present state of the question, the right honourable gentle- 
 man admitted that he stood alone. It is not difficult for one man 
 to be unanimous: but the right honourable gentleman has much 
 difficulty in understanding how those who, holding different opin- 
 ions on a difficult and abstract subject, have nevertheless been able 
 to agree in one common conclusion; while he, holding the opin- 
 ions of the majority, had contrived nevertheless to have a conclu- 
 sion entirely to himself The right honourable gentleman has talked 
 of the supposed disunion among the members of the Cabinet, as if it 
 pervaded every question connected with the welfare of the nation. 
 But, the fact is, Sir, that I know but one great national question, 
 namely, that which is called the Catholic Question, on which the 
 members of Administration are divided in opinion; and no man 
 better knows the sources from which that disunion has flowed, 
 and the attempts which have been made to remedy it, than the 
 right honourable gentleman himself. On that question, indeed, I 
 speak my sincere sentiments, when I say, that it is hopeless to 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 297 
 
 look for an united opinion in any Administration which there are 
 the means of forming. I believe I can speak with as much expe- 
 rience on this subject as any one in the House; and I am per- 
 suaded, that had it been possible, out of the public men in the 
 country to form an Administration united on the Catholic Ques- 
 tion, and not differing widely on other questions of equal import- 
 ance, that object would have been achieved in 1812. To that 
 object, I twice in that year sacrificed what the right honourable 
 gentleman acknowledged, and what I have no hesitation in ac- 
 knowledging with the right honourable gentleman, to be the 
 legitimate object of liberal ambition in a free state — a share in 
 the Government of the country. Twice in that year did I sacri- 
 fice this object of ambition, for the express purpose of being the 
 better able, either to produce (in conjunction with abler and wor- 
 thier men, who earnestly and sincerely, but vainly, laboured after 
 the same object) the union in Administration of persons agreeing 
 on this question, or (failing that attempt) of serving the question 
 more effectually out of office. It is not necessary to recall to the 
 right honourable gentleman's recollection, the fruitlessness of the 
 search after both of these objects. Every attempt at forming an 
 Administration that should be united upon the Catholic Question, 
 and at the same time upon other great principles and measures, 
 more immediately connected with the carrying on of the public 
 service, failed; and upon that failure the present Administration 
 was formed. In that formation I was not included; but I speak 
 with perfect confidence, when I assert that those who gave their 
 support to the present Administration, on its formation, did so on 
 the understanding that every member of that Administration en- 
 tered into office with the express stipulation that he should main- 
 tain his own opinion in Parliament on the Catholic Question. 
 Whether such a stipulation was wise or not, is another question 
 which I will not now argue; but I will say to those who now first 
 object to it, that they come too late. They ought to have stated 
 their objection when the Administration was framing, and not 
 now charge as a crime that which was settled with their entire 
 cognizance and zealous approbation. When I subsequently en- 
 tered office, my opinion on the Catholic Question remained un- 
 changed; I take for granted, that the understanding which I have 
 described, that I as well as every other member of the Cabinet, 
 should maintain my own opinions on that subject in Parliament, 
 was unchanged also; and I do not see on what pretext, having 
 taken a course in perfect coincidence with that understanding, I 
 could now be called upon, either by those who oppose, or those 
 who favour the Catholic cause, to desert the ranks of the Govern- 
 ment. I feel no such obligation, in point of honour; and I will 
 go farther, and confess, that after all that has passed since 1812, I 
 40 
 
29S STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 should now doubt, with a view to the ultimate success of the ques- 
 tion itself, the prudence of attempting to make it the test and 
 bond of opinion in an Administration. Although, as I said in 
 1812, there was no sacrifice which I was not ready to make, and 
 which I did not make for the sake of forming an Administration 
 which should agree upon it, the difficulties in the way of accom- 
 plishing that object, did then appear to me insurmountable; every 
 succeeding year has added so much to my conviction to that ef- 
 fect, that if, by the vote of this night, the power of forming a new 
 Administration should be conferred on the right honourable gen- 
 tleman, I venture to assure him, that he would find it less easy 
 than he is aware, to form an Administration which would be able 
 to carry that question effectively and safely as a measure of Gov- 
 ernment, and at the same time to do justice to the country in 
 other important branches of its affairs. Indeed, the gentlemen on 
 the opposite side of the House ceased, long before I did, either to 
 imagine such a scheme of Administration feasible, or to think it 
 desirable — I know not which — for in 1806, when the framing of 
 an Administration was entrusted to the then leaders of opposi- 
 tion, they not only included, but solicited permission to include, 
 in their cabinet, two noble lords (Lords Sidmouth and Ellenbo- 
 rough) who were known to be decidedly hostile to any farther 
 concession to the Catholics. If I might be allowed to state my 
 present creed upon the subject, I would say, that I believe, not 
 only that the difficulties of combining an Administration unani- 
 mous on the question of the Catholic Claims, are insurmountable, 
 but that it is not desirable, with a view to the public good, that 
 such an Administration should be formed. An Administration 
 decidedly and uniformly favourable to the Catholic Claims, or 
 one decidedly and uniformly hostile to them, would be equally 
 likely to excite a clamour, and to engender an irritation, at vari- 
 ance with the best and most essential interests of the empire. In 
 this case, as well as in many others, that which at the time it oc- 
 curred was a bitter disappointment, has providentially turned out 
 to be a most happy circumstance. The question is (in my judg- 
 ment) gradually making its way in public opinion; and to public 
 opinion it ought to be allowed eventually and soberly to settle the 
 question. Such are my sentiments with respect to that question, 
 the only important question on which any difference of opinion 
 exists in the Cabinet, 
 
 Another charge which has been brought forward against Gov- 
 ernment is, that they have not had strength enough to resist the 
 motions which have been forced upon them. Undoubtedly the 
 charge is true in two memorable instances, in which Ministers 
 failed in resisting the appointment of committees. Overloaded 
 with committees of their own proposing, the kindness of the op- 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 299 
 
 posite side of the House, it seems, has forced upon them others 
 which they have not been able to decline, although anticipating 
 from them mischiefs of the greatest hazard and magnitude. — Very 
 true — twice have these suggestions been tendered lor their accept- 
 ance — twice attempted to be evaded, and twice have majorities of 
 the House — not very large ones it must be owned — but majorities, 
 compelled their acquiescence. If I am asked, whether this is the 
 way to carry on the affairs of the nation ? I answer with the utmost 
 frankness — No. A Government by minorities would undoubted- 
 ly be a very new, and upon the long run, not a very safe or effi- 
 cient mode of Administration. But, at the same time, there are 
 various considerations to be weighed before a ministry can proper- 
 ly fix the point at which they will pledge their existence as a Gov- 
 ernment, upon a vote of the House of Commons. The occasion 
 must be adequate, or they might cover themselves with ridicule. 
 But the frequency of small occasions, I admit, would constitute 
 an adequate case; and I admit farther, that enough of such smaller 
 occasions have occurred, to make Ministers very anxious to learn 
 whether the confidence of the House has really been withdrawn 
 from the existing Administration, and to make them, feel very 
 thankful to the right honourable gentleman for having afford- 
 ed an opportunity of trying that question upon the present mo- 
 tion. If the support to be calculated on by Government be only 
 such as they experienced on the two occasions to which I have 
 alluded; if they can rely on no other, then, no doubt, they are 
 gone. The right honourable gentleman says that Ministers will 
 take no hints. If they are not prepared to take the hints to which 
 the right honourable gentleman adverts, it is not because they turn 
 a deaf ear to them, but because they do not understand them so 
 clearly as to be sure that they would do right in acting upon them. 
 A series of such hints occurring in rapid succession, would un- 
 questionably throw the Government into the right honourable 
 gentleman's hands; and if such be the intention of the House, the 
 sooner and the more clearly ii is made manifest the better. 
 
 But there is another view in which the appointment of com- 
 mittees is objected to the present Administration. It is said, that 
 they are a government of committees — that they abdicate the 
 functions of the executive authority, and fritter them away by 
 partial delegations. It is a little hard in the right honourable gen- 
 tleman thus to blow hot and cold at the same time. Does he mean 
 that the proposal of a committee is in itself a crime in a Govern- 
 ment, and the resistance of such a proposal in all cases a duty? 
 Does he mean that the opposition only should have the privilege 
 of proposing a committee, and then of railing at the Government 
 equally whether they adopt or resist it? When the honourable 
 gentlemen get into one of their conciliabiiles to devise a motion 
 
300 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 for the annoyance of Ministers, do they once in a hundred times 
 make such a motion in a direct shape for such or such specific 
 measure? No. The constant device is, to move for a committee 
 of inquiry; a committee of inquiry is the standing recipe for stray 
 votes — for catching, for instance, that of the honourable member 
 for Bramber (Mr. Wilberforce.) Bait the hook of these motions 
 with a committee, and the fish are sure to bite. Nay, some hon- 
 ourable gentlemen, it appears, this night, are so voracious for a 
 vote in opposition, that they even take the hook when there is no 
 bait to cover it; when the right honourable gentleman plainly and 
 openly tells them, that his object is not to obtain the committee 
 which forms the pretext of his motion — that it is simply and na- 
 kedly to turn out the Ministers. 
 
 But, Sir, I deny that Ministers have resorted to committees ex- 
 cept when they have found themselves utterly unable to discharge 
 the detailed duties entrusted to those committees. They shrink 
 from no just responsibility; they neglect no attendance; they share 
 no discussion in this House; — but it ought to be borne in mind 
 how great a change has taken place of late years in the business 
 of the House of Commons — a change which has thrown a burden 
 of business upon Ministers, which no physical or mental consti- 
 tution can adequately sustain. I call upon those members of the 
 House of Commons who recollect the good old times when the 
 destinies of the empire were swayed in Parliament by Mr. Pitt, 
 or Mr. Fox, to say whether the labours of an Administration in 
 those days were to be compared with what they are now. The 
 Ministers were not then harassed and perplexed by a complica- 
 tion of daily business, with the whole of the details of which, 
 however trifling, it was expected that they should be intimately 
 and accurately acquainted. Their time was not then vexatiously 
 wasted on questions of complaint and cases of pretended griev- 
 ance, such as a pied-poudre court would not entertain; such as a 
 court of conscience would dismiss without the award of a farthing 
 damages. It is now expected that Ministers should come down 
 to the House every night fully possessed of details of facts, and 
 characters of individuals concerned, and histories of the transac- 
 tions of years, whenever any person blasted in character may 
 have prevailed on an honourable member to present a folio volume 
 of a petition, charged with falsehoods and libels: and which, after 
 three or four hours wasted in fruitless conversation, is found to be 
 unfit to lie upon the table. Thus the marrow of the day is con- 
 sumed; and then, after three or four hours passed in a weary, vex- 
 atious, useless debate, the Ministers, jaded and fatigued, as they 
 must necessarily be, are expected to proceed to public business, 
 with a host of new opponents, who plena pasti, come like giants 
 refreshed to the battle; whilst the unfortunate Minister, exhausted 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 301 
 
 and impransus, is to enter upon a new course of wrangling, hap- 
 py if at last he can get through one-third part of the real business 
 of the day. It is not then in these cases the weakness of the 
 Minister of which complaint ought to be made, but the weakness 
 of man; for human strength is unable to endure this wearying, 
 worrying, uninteresting, and unprofitable course of exertion. 
 The right of petitioning is a sacred right: but every body must 
 feel to what an extent in these days the abuse of it is carried. 
 That abuse is arrived at such a height, that, in self-defence, if the 
 House values its time, which is the public property, and its func- 
 tions, which are for the public benefit, it must be remedied one 
 way or other. While Government is thus daily harassed and 
 tormented, can it be matter of surprise that many important ques- 
 tions which require examination in detail, are referred to the con- 
 sideration of committees? How else can they be beaten out, and 
 sifted to the bottom? Neither time nor human strength would 
 avail for such a task. 
 
 " Why," it is said, " do not Administration take up the subject 
 of the poor laws?" " Why," it is asked with admirable consist- 
 ency on the part of the honourable gentlemen opposite — " why 
 do not Government, foolish and ignorant as they are, undertake 
 to settle the most extensive and important problem that ever came 
 before Parliament? Weak and contemptible, why do they not 
 carry a measure which Mr. Pitt, in the plentitude of his power, 
 found too much for him; in which Mr. Whitbread, in the vigour 
 of his strength, and backed by the influence of Administration, 
 found himself utterly unable to make any way? With such ex- 
 amples before them, why do not Government decide off-hand a 
 question growing out of the usage of centuries, interwoven with 
 the habits and deeply rooted in the prejudices of different classes 
 of the people?" A reference to what has actually taken place will 
 be the best answer to these queries. It will be seen, that the sub- 
 ject, even in the neutral hands, as I may call them, of my right 
 honourable friend (Mr. Sturges Bourne) whose knowledge and 
 industry so well qualify him for the task, and whose firmness and 
 courtesy have conciliated the esteem and good-will of all who 
 have had to act with him upon the subject, who has conducted 
 the discussions upon it without the shadow of an allusion to any 
 topic that could stir up party feeling; it will be seen even in his 
 hands, the principal measures emanating from the committee over 
 which he presided, have failed of receiving the support of the 
 House — and that the gentlemen on the opposite benches are di- 
 vided in opinion respecting it. What is the inference? Simply 
 this: that if Government had brought forward such a proposition, 
 and had attempted to cai-ry it as a party or ministerial question, 
 the benches opposite would have been, night after night, in as full 
 
 BB 
 
302 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 array as they are at the moment at which I am speaking: and 
 those who have not been able to agree on a question by the deci- 
 sion of which no poHtical triumph was to be obtained, would have 
 found it easy enough to concur in opposing — where opposition 
 was stimulated by the hope of discomfiting their political antago- 
 nists. Gentlemen well know with how many inflammable and 
 inflammatory topics the discussion of the poor laws are nearly al- 
 lied; how much food for declamation would have been furnished 
 against the weakness, the inconsistency, the corruption of Minis- 
 ters, if they had hastily adopted any plan on a matter so deeply 
 interesting to the whole nation, and perplexed by so many con- 
 tradictory theories and conflicting interests. The time may come 
 when, after the whole of this great subject has been well and thor- 
 oughly examined by the persons most capable of examining it 
 advantageously, by persons bringing local knowledge and practical 
 experience in aid of general principles of theory and law — it may 
 be the duty of the Executive Government to select that one out 
 of the different suggestions propounded by the Committee, to 
 which they will give their support, and which they will endeavour 
 to persuade Parliament to pass into a law. But of all the subjects 
 of legislation on which Government ought not hastily and prema- 
 turely to interfere, without ascertaining and if possible carrying 
 with them the prevailing sentiment of the country — this of the 
 poor laws appears to me to be the one on which it would have 
 been the most unadvisable to take a precipitate course. 
 
 But to return from those specific charges to the general scope and 
 object of the right honourable gentleman's motion. Suppose, for 
 a moment, that it were carried, what is the amount of advantage, 
 let me ask, that would arise from the change of Administration? 
 Suppose the right honourable gentleman and his friends in power; 
 is there no question, like that of the Catholic Claims, or the 
 Scotch Burghs, which might produce some dissension in their 
 ranks? What do they think of parliamentary reform? What 
 do they think of another Westminster election? It is true that 
 the honourable baronet,* one of the members for Westminster, is 
 this night with them; but it is only on the understanding that 
 they will support his darling measure of parliamentary reform. 
 After some hesitation, and a sort of whispering negotiation, car- 
 ried on openly in the face of the House, it appears, that the right 
 honourable gentleman has acceded to the honourable baronet's 
 conditions, and that a coalition has been established between 
 them. Suppose, then, the new coalition Ministry to be formed, 
 who in point of talent — yes, who in point of talent, rank, and of 
 consideration in the country, is better fitted to be a leading mem- 
 
 *Sir Francis Burdett. 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 303 
 
 ber of that Cabinet, than the honourable baronet? Well then, 
 every body knows that one of the first questions which the hon- 
 ourable baronet, when Minister, would bring forward, would be 
 the great subject of Parliamentary Reform. What then would be 
 the conduct of the Whig members of the Cabinet? Either they 
 would come forward in a body to support the plan of their hon- 
 ourable colleague, or they would flatly contradict their professions 
 during a long series of years, and by refusing to support a reform 
 in Parliament, create a division in their Administration on what 
 I presume the right honourable gentleman will allow to be one 
 of the most important, the most comprehensive, the most vital 
 questions that ever "agitated the country." What would this be 
 but the very same reproach which they so unmercifully cast on 
 their unfortunate predecessors? An honourable member has said, 
 that if the Ministers are popular in the House, the Whigs are 
 popular in the country. Really, Sir, I should have thought that 
 popularity was the last topic that the Whigs would have suffered 
 to be put forward as one of their pretensions to come into power. 
 I do not presume to say, that the Ministers are particularly popu- 
 lar, or that I am so, more than the rest of my colleagues; but I 
 have myself gone through the ordeal of a popular election, with- 
 out the accompaniment of mud and grenadiers. I was not sub- 
 jected to such striking proofs of favouritism, as those idols of the 
 people, the Whigs: my retreat was effected with more safety than 
 that of the routed cavalcade, who, with laurels in their hats, and 
 brickbats at their heels, bedaubed with ribbands and rubbish, 
 were only rescued from their overwhelming popularity by a de- 
 tachment of His Majesty's Horse Guards! Suppose, then, these 
 mud-bespattered Whigs were to come into office instead of the 
 present Ministry, where, after all, would be the advantage worth 
 contending about? Is it the trifling difference between an unpopular 
 and a pelted Administration? The right honourable gentleman has 
 confessed that the present is a trial of strength; and I trust that the 
 division of this night will show which party, in the opinion of the 
 House, is most likely to give stability to our internal quiet, and per- 
 manence to our external glory; and to diffuse a general satisfaction 
 and general confidence throughout the country. With a view to de- 
 ciding this question of preference aright, the right honourable gen- 
 tleman has said, that it would be the duty of the committee to take 
 a retrospective view of the transactions of past years. Yes! and 
 in fulfilling that duty, the committee would have, on the one side 
 of the retrospect, to count nations rescued, and thrones re-estab- 
 lished; battles won with matchless courage, and triumphs unpar- 
 alleled in their splendour and consequences. They would see this 
 little island, after having saved the Continent, watch with a steady 
 guardian care over the tranquillity which it had restored. They 
 
304 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 would have to enumerate, on the other side of the account, a se- 
 ries of persevering objections to every measure by which these 
 glories and benefits have been obtained; a succession of theories 
 refuted by facts, and of prophecies falsified by experience: an uni- 
 form anticipation of disaster and defeat, contradicted by an uniform 
 achievement of successes unequalled in our history. The pro- 
 posed committee, if appointed, would have to choose between the 
 two parties to which these attributes respectively belong. But 
 what need of a committee to make the option ? The whole sub- 
 ject is before the House; and the House may at once come to the 
 decision. All that I ask for my friends and myself is — a decided 
 course. If Ministers are found wanting, let them be dismissed 
 kindly (for promptitude in such a case is kindness,) with a clear 
 and striking majority. If the course which they have taken is 
 approved, and if they are to be retained by the vote of this night 
 in office, let them be retained with the assurance of receiving such 
 a support as will enable them to conduct the affairs of the country 
 with dignity and advantage. 
 
 The House divided. — 
 
 Ayes . - - - - 178 
 Noes 357 
 
 Majority against the Motion - 179 
 
305 
 
 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY RE- 
 MOVAL BILL. 
 
 MARCH 16th, 1821. 
 
 In the course of the debate that arose on the order of the day being read, 
 for the second reading of this bill, Mr. Plunkett, in a speech of transcendent 
 ability, supported the bill. It was also supported by Mr. Wilberforce and Sir 
 James Mackintosh, and opposed by Mr. Peel, Sir W. Scott, and Mr. Bathurst, 
 who moved, as an Amendment, " That the bill be read a second time this day 
 six months." 
 
 Mr. Canning said, that often as it had fallen to him during 
 the time that he had been a member of that House, to take part 
 in the discussion of that most important matter which was this 
 night the subject of their deliberation, he had never risen to dis- 
 charge his duty under greater anxiety than he felt on the present 
 occasion. That anxiety arose, in part, from the intense convic- 
 tion which he felt of the great and growing expediency of the 
 measure then proposed to the House. It arose in part also from 
 the peculiar circumstances under which the determination of the 
 House was then to be taken. Those circumstances did not con- 
 sist in an augmentation of the difficulties by which the question 
 had been surrounded — for difficulties had been, in some degree, 
 removed ; nor did they arise from an exaggeration of the objec- 
 tions which were opposed to the measure — for objections hereto- 
 fore insisted upon, appeared to have been in some measure abated; 
 neither did they consist in any irritation of the public mind — for 
 never, on any former occasion, had the public mind been in such 
 a state — he would not say, with his right honourable friend (Mr. 
 Peel) — of apathy, but of complete resignation to the wisdom of 
 Parliament. They did not consist in any acerbity of temper with 
 which the discussion had been carried on within the walls of that 
 House; for eminently on that night, and also, as he had been in- 
 formed, in the former stage of this discussion, had it been carried 
 on with a candour, a temper, and a propriety, that did high hon- 
 our to the right honourable and learned gentleman who had 
 brought in the present measure, and to his right honourable 
 friend, the member for Oxford, who had opposed it. 
 
 Having as warm a feeling of esteem for his right honourable 
 friend as it was possible for one man to entertain for another — 
 concurring with him upon most subjects of public policy as much 
 as it was possible for one public man to concur with another — 
 yet^ differing with him as he did conscientiously upon the present 
 
 41 BB* 
 
306 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 question, of his right honourable friend he must say, that he had 
 discharged a painful duty upon the present occasion, in a manner 
 which reflected the highest credit on his public character and con- 
 duct, and which must afford him satisfaction in the retrospect, to 
 the latest hour of his life. 
 
 In return, he (Mr. C.) hoped he might be allowed in the out- 
 set, to assure his right honourable friend and the House, that he 
 came to this debate in the same temper of mind as his right hon- 
 ourable friend; and to say, that if, in the warmth of argument, he 
 should fall into any expression which might be supposed to con- 
 vey disrespect to those from whose opinions he diflered, he trust- 
 ed he should be acquitted of any intention to give pain, and that 
 for any such accidental intemperance, the interesting nature of 
 the cause would plead his apology. It was from the very im- 
 provements in the position of the great question about to be de- 
 cided; it was from the diminution of the difficulties with which 
 it had been hitherto surrounded; from the abated tone of the ob- 
 jections with which it had been heretofore assailed; from the 
 acquiescence without doors, and the calmness within; that, de- 
 riving unusual hope, he also derived a more than common share 
 of anxiety. In proportion as those external causes which, on for- 
 mer occasions, had contributed to the ill reception and defeat of 
 this question, were removed; in proportion as it was left more 
 freely to the operation of its own intrinsic merits, the responsi- 
 bility for a favourable result appeared to weigh more heavily upon 
 its advocates. And when, in addition to the facilities which he 
 had already enumerated, he considered the advantage of an un- 
 pledged Parliament, and the auspiciousness of a new reign, he 
 could not help avowing, that if in a state of things so highly en- 
 couraging, the i^sue of this night's discussion should prove — as 
 he trusted it would not prove — unfavourable, he should almost be 
 led to despair of final success. 
 
 Under these circumstances, it was rather the magnitude of the 
 issue than the difficulty of the argument which filled him with 
 apprehension, and occasioned him to approach the question that 
 night with a trepidation such as he had never before experienced. 
 
 What, then, was the question which they were called upon to 
 decide? It was whether they should allow the laws that aifected 
 the Roman Catholics to remain in their present state; or should 
 reform them by further mitigations; or should restore them to 
 that standard from which, during the whole of the late reign. Par- 
 liament had been employed in gradually bringing them down? It 
 was idle to say that this division of the subject was invidious. It 
 was impossible to look to the laws as they at present stood, with- 
 out adverting to the origin of those laws, and to the state in which 
 they had stood when in their mature and undiminished vigour, in 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 307 
 
 order to obtain a complete view of their moral operation and ef- 
 fect. It is most true, as had been stated by his honourable friend 
 the member for Bramber (Mr. Wilberforce,) in his delightful 
 speech a few hours ago, that it was not merely the existing state 
 of those laws, nor the temper in which they were now adminis- 
 tered, that was to be considered, when you were about to deter- 
 mine upon their continuance or repeal — the temper in which 
 they were originally enacted — the accusations of which they 
 were now the memorial — the imputations which, if true, war- 
 ranted, more than any other, the efficacy with which they were 
 formerly administered — must all form part of the consideration. 
 
 These laws, be it remembered, had never been stationary; for 
 two centuries had they been growing; for half a century had they 
 been in their decline. At the summit of the hill there was a 
 plain of only twenty years; on one side was an ascent of two 
 hundred years, and, on the other, a descent of about sixty. Was 
 it possible to contemplate singly the point to which sixty years 
 of gradual declension had brought them, without taking into 
 view the point of cruel perfection from which they began to de- 
 cline, and the degrees by which they had previously been raised 
 to it? 
 
 Was it possible to consider the propriety and policy of what 
 remains of the code, without reference to the cause in which it 
 had originated; — to the reasons or the pretexts by which it had 
 been justified; — to the effect, good or evil, to which it had ope- 
 rated while in force; — to the recollections with which it was as- 
 sociated; — to the severities which it had inflicted; — to the resent- 
 ments which it had engendered; — to the character of the times 
 in which it had grown and flourished; — and to that of those in 
 which it was now proposed to abrogate it altogether? 
 
 And, first, as to its origin and causes: — At what period in the 
 history of this empire were the laws against the Roman Catho- 
 lics justified, otherwise than by the supposed political as well as 
 spiritual connexion of the Roman Catholic with a foreign Power? 
 The argument was now taken as if that connexion had been 
 nothing else but spiritual; but that was not so — it had always 
 been made ground of charge against the Roman Catholic, that he 
 had also entertained a political predilection, or acknowledged the 
 obligation of political obedience towards a foreign Power. That 
 foreign Power, in the earliest times of the reformation, was the 
 Pope, then formidable in temporal as well as in spiritual prepon- 
 derance; and arrogating a supremacy over the temporal concerns 
 of princes, which those who admitted, could be but imperfect in 
 their allegiance to their lawful sovereigns. In later times, an ex- 
 iled family — exiled on account of political as well as religious 
 bigotry — became the rival of the reigning dynasty of England, 
 
308 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 and divided, or assumed to divide with it, the allegiance of British 
 subjects. Concurring in the religion of the exiled family, the 
 Roman Catholic subjects of the British Crown were held also to 
 be devoted to their political claims. The Roman Catholic was 
 presumed to be essentially a traitor; but as treason was naturally 
 concealed as much as possible, while religion was more readily 
 avowed or ascertained, the test of the suspected politics was 
 sought in the professed creed. It was necessary to discover the 
 papist who was ready to restore the exiled family to the throne. 
 It was devised to detect him by the oath of transubstantiation. 
 Was his creed his guilt? No. But his creed designated the man, 
 and his guilt consisted in his foreign attachment. Would any 
 man pretend to assert that that attachment existed at present? 
 No, it was gone — the object of his attachment was no more. But 
 he who maintained the doctrine of transubstantiation was still to 
 be made the subject of penal laws! This was to mistake a rule 
 for a reason. It was as if a magistrate, having received informa- 
 tion that a murder had been committed by a man who wore spec- 
 tacles and a wig, and having apprehended an individual distin- 
 guished by those appendages, should, upon its being afterwards 
 ascertained that no murder had been committed at all, still refuse 
 to relinquish his man, persisting that the spectacles and wig were 
 conclusive evidence of the murder. The Roman Catholic be- 
 lieving in transubstantiation, had been formerly the object of 
 penal laws, because, attached to an exiled family, that family no 
 longer existing, he was now punished for believing in transub- 
 stantiation. 
 
 The earliest dawn of the Reformation, to which mankind, and 
 this country above all, were indebted for so many invaluable bless- 
 ings, would be found, like all great mutations in the affairs of the 
 world, to have been tainted with many acts of violence, injustice, 
 and mutual persecution. Out of that conflict, the Reformed 
 Church of England had happily come triumphant; but was it now 
 to be assumed that criminality attached, not only to all who re- 
 sisted, but to all who professed the creed of those who had resist- 
 ed its establishment ? No man would contend for so unjust a prop- 
 osition. 
 
 He thanked God that the Church of England had come pros- 
 perously out of that arduous struggle; but he could not bring him- 
 self to say that those who had adhered to the old religion, as the 
 mild Melancthon had advised his aged mother to adhere, rather 
 than distract herself with controversy, were, on that account, fit 
 objects of punishment. Restrict them if they connected their re- 
 ligion with politics hostile to the peace of their native country; 
 but, happy as was the consummation which had rendered this a 
 Protestant state, he could not consent to judge harshly of those 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 309 
 
 who had opposed the change, when he considered under what 
 circumstances, and by what instruments it had been brought about. 
 Look to the character of the first royal promoter of Protestanism 
 in England, and to the mixed motives by which he was actuated: 
 and whether you attribute his conduct to policy or to passion, to 
 avarice or to vanity; whether you agree with the historian who de- 
 scribes him as a tyrant, by whose arbitrary laws whoever was for 
 the Pope was hanged, and whoever was against him was burned; or 
 with the poet, who attributes his conversion to a softer passion — 
 
 " When love could teach a monarch to be wise, 
 And gospel-light first dawn'd from Boleyn's eyes." 
 
 In any case, surely it was not a substantive crime, and worthy an 
 inheritable punishment, to have opposed an innovation, in which, 
 whatever might be the governing motive, it was at least pretty 
 clear that simple piety had no considerable share. The reign of 
 Queen Elizabeth was glorious, both in its foreign and domestic 
 policy; but it was, undoubtedly, not the reign either of civil or 
 religious liberty. In that reign was laid the foundation of the 
 penal code against the Catholics; but laid expressly on the ground 
 of political disaffection, not of religious differences. Then, in- 
 deed, were papists excluded from the House of Commons, but 
 they were expressly allowed to continue to sit in the House of 
 Lords. And why ? because a popish lord was less a papist than a 
 popish commoner? No — but because of the fidelity — the political 
 fidelity of her peers, the Queen said she had other means of as- 
 suring herself During the reign of James I. the Roman Catholic 
 was sti'ipped of his privileges as a citizen, denuded of his rights 
 as a social man, deprived of the common connexions of country, 
 rendered liable to a prsemunire if he stepped five miles from his 
 own threshold, and to the penalties of treason, if he so transgress- 
 ed a second time; but was it necessary to remind the House of 
 Fawkes's plot, as a proof that treason, not faith, was the cause and 
 the object of these terrible enactments ? Terrible as those enact- 
 ments were, it must be allowed that there was some justification 
 for them, while the safety of the state, and the succession to the 
 throne were threatened by the conflict of the hostile religions. 
 But with the reign of Jam^es I. that apology seemed to end. In 
 the reigns subsequent to that of James I. was there any thing in 
 the conduct of the Roman Catholics to induce the belief that their 
 religion was hostile to the security of the state? In the reign of 
 Charles I. was it the old religion that overturned the monarchy? 
 Did the Roman Catholics bring that monarch to the block ? Was 
 it a papist who struck the fatal blow? 
 
 It had been asserted, indeed, in that debate, that it was impos- 
 sible for a Roman Catholic to enter into a full enjoyment of po- 
 litical rights, without feeling it to be his bounden duty to employ 
 
310 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY. 
 
 them in an attempt to overturn the Protestant ecclesiastical estab- 
 lishments of the country, and it had even been said that no harm 
 was intended in imputing this doctrine to the Catholics — that it 
 charged them with nothing which they who made the charge 
 would be ashamed of doing, had it been their fortune to live un- 
 der an adverse ecclesiastical establishment. Now he thought this 
 was taking an unfair advantage. Any man who chose to throw 
 away his own character, was not master of that of another; and 
 honourable gentlemen were mistaken in thinking that by thus im- 
 partially accusing themselves, they acquired the right of incul- 
 pating the Catholics. He was, therefore, obliged to vindicate his 
 right honourable friend from his own admission, in order to pro- 
 tect the Catholic from the inference deduced from it. He entire- 
 ly disbelieved his right honourable friend's self-accusation; he was 
 sure that if the lot of his right honourable friend (Mr. Peel) had 
 been cast in another country, of which the established religion 
 viras different from his own — and if he had there been allowed, 
 nevertheless, to take his seat in the senate, and to exhibit himself, 
 as he did at present, to the admiration of all who heard him, he 
 was sure that no suggestion of priestcraft, that no motive of con- 
 science, would ever lead him to attempt the overturn of the es- 
 tablishment of that country which had placed him in so distin- 
 guished a situation. 
 
 But in what manner did the history of England bear out the 
 theory of his right honourable friend ? What, as he had already 
 observed, was the conduct of the Catholics of England, through- 
 out the trying struggle of the reign of Charles I. ? A continual 
 tenour of adherence to the Government amidst domestic faction, 
 and civil war, and at the risk of their property and their lives. 
 Had they no temptation to shrink from a faithful discharge of their 
 duty? and yet in what instance had they failed? 
 
 He had said that Catholics, though excluded by law from the 
 House of Commons, still retained their seats in the House of 
 Peers. What was their conduct in that House ? and how was it re- 
 quited? In 1641, a bill was brought in to exclude the bishops from 
 sitting in Parliament. In the House of Lords it was lost upon a 
 division, and in the majority were to be found many Catholic peers. 
 Thirty years after, a bill was sent up to the Lords, for the exclu- 
 sion of Catholic peers from seats in Parliament. It was passed 
 by a great majority; and in that majority were included the Prot- 
 estant bishops. He meant nothing disparaging to the bishops of 
 that day. Undoubtedly, they thought that they were doing their 
 duty. But he should like to know — supposing the Catholics to 
 have voted for the expulsion of the bishops, as the bishops did for 
 theirs — what would now have been said of the conduct of the 
 Catholics? Would not the House have rung with the triumphant 
 
REMOVAL, BILL. 311 
 
 inference that now, as in 1641, the admission of the Catholics into 
 Parliament, must be the destruction of the Protestant hierarchy? 
 The only inference he would draw was, that as one good turn de- 
 served another, the passing of this bill would afford to the bishops 
 of the present day an opportunity of returning the obligation of 
 1641. 
 
 But some gentlemen had a still more ingenious theory. For 
 two centuries, it was urged, had the Catholics been brooding pa- 
 tiently over their wrongs, and, like the Brutus of history, dis- 
 guising, under the appearance of insensibility, the deep sense 
 which they entertained of them — they were only waiting for the 
 passing of this bill to wreak the vengeance which had so long 
 been smothered in their breasts. Indeed! and had this and form^- 
 er debates so far exhausted all reasonable objections, and all ration- 
 al fears, that we were now to be daunted from doing what was 
 right, by the apprehension that the present race of Catholics would 
 throw off a mask worn by successive generations of their ances- 
 tors, and revenge themselves in the first delirium of new-gotten 
 freedom for ages of suppressed feeling and hypocritical fidelity? 
 Surely to believe in such a danger, required more than a Roman 
 Catholic credulity. 
 
 He had hitherto spoken of the Roman Catholic religion gene- 
 rally, and addressed himself to its operation in England, He now 
 came to speak more particularly of that part of the united king- 
 dom which was more peculiarly interested in the present question 
 — of Ireland. 
 
 During the earlier of the reigns of which he had shortly re- 
 viewed, the Reformation, which, in England had made such rapid 
 strides, had not only mounted the throne, but almost monopolized 
 the legislature, it had made no progress whatever in Ireland. And 
 why? And whose the fault? No pains had been taken to advance 
 it. On the contrary, to judge from facts, it was the policy of 
 Elizabeth to keep it back. Neglect alone hardly furnished a suf- 
 ficient solution of such total apathy in one kingdom, contrasted 
 with so stirring and anxious an activity in the advancement of 
 Protestantism in the other. But such was the firct. What won- 
 der then, that the rebellion in the time of Charles I. assumed in 
 Ireland a popish character, when the whole population were pa- 
 pists ? What wonder if politics and religion were mixed up in a 
 country where the Reformation never entered at all; and the re- 
 formed religion never, but in arms and as a conqueror? Such 
 was its entry, first under Cromwell, and last under King William. 
 The penal code against the Catholics of Ireland, dated from the 
 conquest of that kingdom by William HI. The popish Parlia- 
 ment had enacted severe laws against Protestants, the Protestant 
 Parliament had retaliated most severely. No single individual 
 
312 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 would have dared to take upon himself the odium attendant on 
 such retaliation. From that Parliament emanated a series of laws, 
 such as had not previously existed in the records of legislation — 
 laws, the framers of which seemed to have taxed their imagina- 
 tion to find out the sore points of human nature to which they 
 might apply them as corrosives — laws which counteracted all the 
 feelings of nature, destroyed all the comforts of families so long 
 as they existed; and exist they did, until the fourteenth year of 
 the reign of George III. all in full force and undiminished vigour. 
 By them the conforming son could seize upon the property of the 
 unconforming father; by them the unprincipled and heartless 
 Protestant wife could array herself in the riches of her betrayed 
 Catholic husband; by them the orphan heretic might be robbed by 
 any anti-papist plunderer of his patrimony; through their opera- 
 tion there was no faith in kindred, no social intercourse of friend- 
 ship, no security in any of the relations of domestic life. In 1774 
 came the first relaxation of this accursed system, the first breathing 
 of a mighty thaw upon that accumulated mass of cold and chill- 
 ing enactm.ents, which till then had congealed and benumbed a 
 nation. What was the first symptom of this genial spirit? It was 
 a symptom sufficiently indicative of the degraded state to which 
 the Catholic had been reduced, and of the difficulty which benev- 
 olent repentance found in breaking up the frost which so long had 
 bound him. The first relaxation, that omen of returning spring, 
 enabled the papist, notwithstanding his belief in transubstantiation, 
 to rent — oh, mighty indulgence! — fifty acres of bog! This relax- 
 ation was found to succeed so well, the Protestant establishment 
 continued so firm under the shock of it, that Parliament allowed 
 them afterwards to take a lease for sixty years. From that time 
 the system was progressively mitigated until the year 1793, which 
 crowned and consummated the gift of civil liberty, and left only 
 political concession imperfect — imperfect in actual deed — but in 
 principle acknowledged and anticipated. 
 
 When, in the year 1793, the elective franchise was conceded 
 to the Catholics of Ireland, that acknowledgment and anticipation 
 which he called upon the House that evening formally to ratify 
 and realize was, in point of fact, irrevocably pronounced. To 
 give the Catholic the elective franchise, was to admit him to po- 
 litical power. To make him an elector, and at the same time ren- 
 der him incapable of being elected — was to attract to your side 
 the lowest orders of the community, at the same time that you 
 repelled from it the highest orders of the gentry. This was not 
 the surest or safest way to bind Ireland to the rest of the empire 
 in ties of affection. What was there to prevent our union from 
 being drawn more closely ? Was there any moral — was there any 
 physical obstacle? Opposuit natural No such thing. We had 
 
REMOVAL. BILL. 313 
 
 already bridged the channel. Ireland now sat with us in the re- 
 presentative assembly of the empire; and when she was allowed 
 to come there, why was she not also allowed to bring with her 
 some of her Catholic children.'' For many years we had been 
 erecting a mound, not to assist or improve, but to thwart nature. 
 We had raised it high above the waters; and it had stood there 
 frowning hostility, and etfecting separation. In the course of time, 
 however, chance and design, the necessities of man and the silent 
 workings of nature, had conspired to break down this mighty 
 structure — till there remained of it only a narrow isthmus, 
 standing 
 
 " Between two kindred seas, 
 
 Which, mounting, view'd each other from afar, 
 And long'd to meet." 
 
 " What then shall be our conduct? Shall we attempt to repair 
 the breaches, and fortify the ruins? — a hopeless and ungracious 
 undertaking — or shall we leave them to moulder away by time 
 and accident? — a sure, but distant and thankless consummation. 
 Or shall we not rather cut away at once the isthmus that remains, 
 allow free course to the current which our artificial impediments 
 have obstructed, and float upon the mingling waves the ark of our 
 common Constitution?" 
 
 The right honourable gentleman then proceeded to reply to va- 
 rious detached objections which had been offered in the course of 
 the debate by different speakers. Some gentlemen were afraid 
 that when the final concessions were granted, those persons who 
 had stood by the Constitution when they only enjoyed its bene- 
 fits partially, would rise up against it, after being admitted to the 
 full participation of its blessings. This was not likely. As yet 
 the Constitution was to them negative and repulsive. Then it 
 would be positive and full of advantage. We had frequently 
 been assailed by the prayers of the Roman Catholics, but we had 
 as often treated them with scorn, professing at the same time to 
 do it for their own good. Indeed, he thought that the Catholics 
 might address us in pretty much the same language as a certain 
 lover had addressed his mistress: — 
 
 " When late I attempted your pity to move, 
 Oh, why were you deaf to my prayers? 
 Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, 
 But why did you kick me down stairs!" 
 
 Others apprehended that they would still be discontented be- 
 cause all offices could not be opened to them indiscriminately, 
 not those, for instance, which had, by the nature of their func- 
 tions, any connexion with ecclesiastical interests. Surely the 
 distinction was plain enough. With the established religion of 
 the country the Roman Catholics would of course have nothing 
 42 cc 
 
314 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 to do. This must be a first and fundamental principle, both of 
 all that was yielded and all that was retained. None but those 
 who professed the established religion of the state could pretend 
 to the exercise of any functions immediately connected with that 
 religion, or with the ecclesiastical system in which it was em- 
 bodied. They had already provided liberally for diffusing the 
 benefits of education in Ireland — and God forbid that any sect of 
 Christians should, on account of their faith, be deprived of the 
 means of obtaining knowledge — but God forbid, he would also 
 say at the same time, that the means of education should not, 
 wherever it was possible, be conferred under the auspices of our 
 national church! The provisions of the bill excluded Roman 
 Catholics from the universities, and from the spiritual courts. He 
 could perceive no difficulty, no injustice, in carrying those pro- 
 visions into effect, and in considering them as conditions of this 
 final adjustment. This exclusion must undoubtedly be a perpet- 
 ual, indispensable article of the new compact, which, he trusted, 
 they were on the point of ratifying. He relied for the observance 
 of that article on the nature of the thing itself, as well as on the 
 millions of hands and hearts which were ready to defend it in 
 case of an attempt to abrogate or repeal it. Such an apprehension, 
 therefore, could afford no legitimate ground for refusing to share 
 with our fellow-subjects the blessings which we enjoyed. Nor 
 could he join in the opinion that the passing of this bill would 
 divorce the union of the national church and state. He could not 
 think that the Crown would be desecrated and the monarchy ren- 
 dered unholy, any more than insecure; when every christian 
 creed should be admitted to the franchises of the Constitution, 
 and when thanksgivings for a community of benefits were breath- 
 ed alike in every diversity of christian prayer. 
 
 He next adverted to the fears which had been expressed of a 
 combination of Roman Catholic members of Parliament to carry 
 points favourable to their separate interests and persuasions. First, 
 the number of members that would be returned from Ireland, 
 how infinitely small would it be in comparison with the whole 
 representation ? But let them for a moment suppose the case of 
 any considerable number of these much dreaded Catholics pos- 
 sessing seats in that House, what was it that they could combine 
 to accomplish or to repeal? What objects could they have in 
 view? The)'^ must necessarily be objects of private or local inter- 
 est; for with regard to political designs, with regard to all that 
 appertained to the advancement of their faith or spiritual interests, 
 suspicion was alive, and the attempt must be defeated as soon as 
 it was made. Such a combination, if directed to general pur 
 poses, must be as notorious as the sun at noon; and must be de- 
 feated as soon as known. Others again, dreaded not the opera- 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 315 
 
 tion of numbers, but the danger to arise from the return of dema- 
 gogues to Parliament. He should only answer, that in Parlia- 
 ment he wished to see them. He had never known a demagogue 
 who, when elected to a seat in that House, did not, in the course 
 of six months, shrink to his proper dimensions. In the event of 
 a parliamentary reform it would be his wish to see a little nest of 
 boroughs reserved for their separate use, and he should not be 
 alarmed at their introduction, even although they had been quali- 
 fied in Palace-yard. " Here," he would say, " let the demagogue 
 appear, and let him do his worst." 
 
 To return, however, to the main question, he was aware that 
 he had exercised too long the patience of the House: he felt the 
 importance of the subject most deeply: he was convinced that 
 this bill, or (as he did not mean to affirm that it was perfect of its 
 kind,) a bill of this nature was necessary, and was most expedient 
 at the present season. The moment was peculiarly favourable for 
 discussion, and singularly free from any hazard with which the 
 measure might otherwise be attended. We were now in the en- 
 joyment of a peace achieved by the common efforts of both reli- 
 gions, by Catholic as well as Protestant arms, and cemented by 
 Catholic as well as Protestant blood; a peace which, notwithstand- 
 ing the threatening aspect of affairs in some quarters of Europe, 
 he hoped and believed was destined to be permanent. But it be- 
 came us, with a view to political contingencies, to fortify ourselves 
 by adopting all those means of strength which were offered to our 
 hands; and never did a more auspicious period occur for such a 
 purpose. How beneficial to extinguish a question that never could 
 be discussed without agitating large classes of the community! 
 How desirable to avoid the inconvenience which must follow the 
 loss of that question at this time — its revival from year to year 
 with increasing and more hopeless agitation! How delightful to 
 convert the murmur of national discontent into the voice of na- 
 tional gratitude! The expression of national gratitude was not al- 
 ways conveyed by the proud column or the triumphal arch; but 
 let this grand effort of legislation be consummated, and he had 
 not the shadow of a doubt, but that the sentiment would be effect- 
 ually inspired and unequivocally displayed. It was indifferent to 
 him, provided the result was concord, on which side the work of 
 conciliation began. He cared not whether the boon was plucked 
 from Protestant acknowledgment, by the patience, the long suffer- 
 ing, and the supplications of the Catholic; or was tendered in gener- 
 ous confidence, as a voluntary gift. It would, in either case, like 
 " the gentle dew from heaven," bless both the giver and the re- 
 ceiver; resembling those silent operations of nature which per- 
 vade and vivify the universe, receiving and repa)'ing mutual bene- 
 fits, whether they rose in the grateful exhalation, or descended in 
 
316 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 the fertilizing shower. To conckide, he conjured the House to 
 adopt a measure, from which he entertained a conviction approach- 
 ing to prescience — that far from having cause to repent of its re- 
 sult, they would long reap a rich harvest of national strength, and 
 happiness, and renown. — [The right honourable gentleman sat 
 down amidst fervent and general cheering.] 
 
 The question being put, " That the bill be now read a second time," the 
 House divided : 
 
 Ayes 254 
 
 Noes 243 
 
 Majority - - ~Tl 
 The bill was then read a second time; and at half past three in the morningt 
 the House adjourned. 
 
 MARCH 26th, 182L 
 
 Mr. Bankes, in the Committee on the Roman Catholic Disability Removal 
 Bill, moved the insertion of a clause in the bill, excluding Roman Catholics 
 from seats in Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Canning said, he agreed with those honourable members 
 who considered this as the most important point of the bill. He 
 agreed that it was that of which, if refused, the refusal would take 
 much from the value of any other concessions, and of which, if 
 conceded, the concession would enhance greatly their importance. 
 He agreed that it was a point, the granting of which would form 
 the key-stone of that arch which they were erecting, and com- 
 plete that incorporation of interests which was the object of those 
 who took part in promoting this bill. He agreed, at the same 
 time, that they who, with him, contended for the admission of Ro- 
 man Catholics into Parliament, were not entitled, from any pre- 
 vious vote to which the House had come in the course of the pres- 
 ent discussions, to assume this point as conceded, or to preclude a 
 renewed examination of it in the present stage. Nothing had been 
 conceded, in fact or in argument, that could prevent members 
 from deciding upon the point before them, according to its merits. 
 Differing as he did from the right honourable gentleman who had 
 last addressed the committee, he begged to guard against any mis- 
 apprehension of what he should say, by offering at the outset the 
 tribute of his acknowledgment for the general candour and libe- 
 rality with which he (the Speaker) had stated his opinion, an 
 opinion, it was unnecessary to say, formed most conscientiously, 
 and not urged by the right honourable gentleman beyond the 
 bounds of fair argument and discretion. Whatever the result 
 might be, he (the Speaker) would have the satisfaction of feeling, 
 that he had contributed his full share to the elucidation of the ques- 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 317 
 
 tion, and to the good temper which had happily pervaded the 
 whole discussion. 
 
 He would now proceed, first, to state what he might conceive 
 to be the claims (the extent to which he understood the term 
 " claims," he would afterwards explain, in order to guard against 
 misconstruction,) the claims of the Roman Catholics to admission 
 into Parliament; and secondly, he would inquire what dangers, 
 real or imaginary, might obstruct the concession of those claims. 
 Now as to the term " claims," he was ready to avow his convic- 
 tion, that neither an individual nor a body of men, could be prop- 
 erly said to have any natural claims belonging to them as men, to 
 any political franchise or employment. The claims of men in a 
 civilized society were subject, not only to limitation from the cir- 
 cum.stances of the times, but to lasting control from the necessity 
 of the state. The exclusion of the Roman Catholics from Parlia- 
 ment was just, if it was necessary; and the point now under dis- 
 cussion was whether such a necessity existed or not. Without 
 reverting, however, to any wild theory of natural right, and un- 
 der the qualification which he had already explained, he had no 
 hesitation in affirming, that in every civilized society, and in every 
 well constituted state, wealth, ability, knowledge, station, gave a 
 claim to office; and that eligibility to office had always been an 
 object of ambition with the most cultivated minds. In this coun- 
 try, for ages past — and he hoped for ages to come — the highest 
 object had been, was, and would be, to obtain a seat in the assem- 
 bly which governs the counsels of the nation. To be excluded 
 by positive enactment from the pursuit of this object of ambition, 
 he would not say was an exclusion which no circumstances could 
 warrant, and no expediency justify; but it was an exclusion so se- 
 vere as to be justified only by circumstances which could not be 
 mistaken, and an expediency not to be avoided or controlled. The 
 burden of proof rested with those who contended for the exclu- 
 sion. Exclusion was the exception. The general rule was the 
 other way. Undoubtedly, if we looked back to the times pre- 
 ceding the Reformation, we should find that no class of society 
 was then precluded from the political service of the state. The 
 distinction grew up with the Reformation, a transaction affecting 
 the whole of Europe, and the policy external and internal of 
 every state composing the European commonwealth; which 
 changed the line of demarcation between nations, and separated 
 each people among themselves. A Protestant and a Catholic inter- 
 est grew up, which divided and classed the nations of Europe; 
 and within each each nation took place a correspondent division 
 and classification; which had the double effect of arraying differ- 
 ent parts of the same community against each other, and creating 
 in each part respectively, a sympathy with foreign states. Simj- 
 
31S ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 larity of creed was brought into competition with identity of coun- 
 try; and in many instances, and on many occasions, it could not 
 be denied, the religious sentiment was too strong for the patriotic. 
 Grant, then, as he might safely do, for argument's sake, that, dur- 
 ing the existence of this struggle, in its full force, it might not be 
 safe to admit to political power the professors of any other than 
 the predominant national religion, and that such a state of things 
 justified exclusion; still, if that state of things no longer existed, 
 if the struggle between patriotism and religious sympathy was at 
 an end, if in all the nations of Europe, whatever might be the 
 form of their government or the modification of their faith, that 
 line of demarcation was effaced (with the exception, he would ad- 
 mit, of Spain and Portugal, where the Reformation never made 
 its way, and where, therefore, the materials for conflict and subse- 
 quent reconcilement had not been created;) and if we still saw that 
 line in full force among ourselves, if we found the only trace of 
 that demarcation in this country, a country blessed with a greater 
 portion of regulated liberty than any other — a country in which 
 every individual, born in whatever station, could rise to the high- 
 est honours under the Crown by the exercise of talent, industry 
 and virtue; must not we be at a loss to reconcile this inconsisten- 
 cy; and ought we not to look anxiously to the time when it would 
 be entirely removed? 
 
 He, therefore, did not contend — his argument did not require 
 that he should contend — that at the period immediately subse- 
 quent to the Reformation those who continued attached to the 
 church and court of Rome, after the bulk of the population of 
 England, as well as its Crown and Parliament, had embraced the 
 tenets of the Reformation, and abjured all temporal as well as 
 spiritual allegiance to the Pope, might not be justifiably excluded 
 from political power. He troubled not himself with any reason- 
 ing upon this point; but he did contend for the fact, that whatever 
 disqualification was then imposed on the Roman Catholics by the 
 governing power, was justified on the ground of danger from 
 foreign interference, foreign connexion, and foreign allegiance; 
 and that, without one exception, that danger was stated as con- 
 stituting the sole necessity for such disqualification. But where 
 was notu the danger of foreign interference, foreign connexion, 
 or foreign allegiance, which justified the maintenance of that dis- 
 tinction in this country which other countries had abolished? 
 He called upon the House, therefore, to reform so unjust an 
 anomaly, if it could with safety be reformed. By the acts 
 which excluded Roman Catholics from Parliament, foreign al- 
 legiance was distinctly stated as the cause of the exclusion. It 
 was stated in the statute of Elizabeth the more distinctly, from 
 the partiality of its operation. The Roman Catholic commoners 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 319 
 
 were excluded by it from seats in the House of Commons; but 
 the right of the Roman Catholic peers to sit in the House of 
 Peers was not taken away. And why? because the Roman 
 Catholic peers were less Catholic than the commons? — because 
 the Commons continued to hold doctrines which the lords had 
 abjured? No such thing. In this respect there was no difference 
 between them. The reason was avowed to be this: the Queen 
 having other means of ascertaining the fidelity of the peers, it was 
 therefore not necessary to exclude them. It was not therefore 
 doctrine or dogma; it was not transubstantiation, but political 
 attachment, which form.ed the ground of admission or exclusion. 
 The individual peers being under the Queen's immediate eyes, 
 she could satisfy herself of their political allegiance and attach- 
 ment; but the multitude of the commons precluding any such 
 personal security, it was thought necessary to exclude them from 
 admission to Parliament. So much for the principle of the law. 
 And now what was the extent of its operation ? A period of about 
 260 years had elapsed since the statute of Elizabeth was passed. 
 For not much less than one-half of that period commoners alone 
 were excluded from Parliament — peers continuing to sit there. 
 During that time, therefore, at least, there was no change in the 
 policy of the exclusion. It rested on the grounds on which it 
 was originally enacted — dread of foreign allegiance, not danger 
 of popish faith. In fact, the religious reason for the exclusion, 
 dated only from the act of Charles II. — an act passed in a moment 
 of delirious fear and fury — the sure advisers of indiscriminate 
 violence, and comprehensive and unsparing proscription. Then, 
 for the first time, the creed of the Roman Catholic was made the 
 test of his political loyalty. The belief in transubstantiation was 
 taken as equivalent to disaffection, or rather as an unfailing indi- 
 cation of it; and, tried by this test, the hitherto unsuspected Ro- 
 man Catholic peer could not but be involved in the general dis- 
 qualification of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. Now, he must 
 be allowed to ask, why was the danger so much greater at the 
 present moment than it was in the 5th of Queen Elizabeth — than 
 it was from that time to the 30th of Charles II. ? For the present, 
 he left the commoners out of view; but, as we were to go so 
 much by the wisdom of our ancestors, why might he not put our 
 older ancestors against our more recent ones — the days of good 
 Queen Bess against those of the second of the Stuarts, and hum- 
 bly inquire, upon what imaginable ground, if the peers of Eliza- 
 beth's time, who professed the Roman Catholic religion, should 
 have been suffered to mix in affairs of state, it was unsafe to ad- 
 mit the peers at the present day ? Upon what strange apprehen- 
 sion or possibility were Catholic peers not only excluded, but de- 
 prived of their birthright? For, be it remembered, they continued 
 
320 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 peers of England; they enjoyed their titles of precedency; but 
 they must not take their seats in Parliament. They had been 
 summoned to attend on a late trial, and were obliged to pay the 
 postage of letters inviting them; but they were not allowed to 
 come. It was safe that they should be summoned; but it was not 
 safe to remove the objections to their complying, to their exemp- 
 tion from postage, and admission to take their places. Not a 
 word had been said in justification of this strange inconsistency 
 and injustice. The peers' right lo sit in the peers' house, in fact, 
 was only suspended. Was it possible to conceive this suspension 
 necessary? Were the Howards and the Talbots so degenerate 
 from the character of their ancestors that the Constitution would 
 not be safe if they were admitted to the seats which they claimed 
 under that Constitution ? So much as to the peers, whose case he 
 verily and in all sincerity felt to be quite irresistible. 
 
 Now, as to the lions who were roaring in our own lobby, who, 
 if we once admitted them, would turn us out of doors. He could 
 not reason with antipathies. Some persons had such an antipathy 
 to cats, that they were sensible of the entrance of one into a room 
 before they saw where it was perched. He (Mr. Canning) never 
 felt annoyed at sitting, as he often had done in that House, next 
 to a dissenter. He really could feel no apprehension of that sen- 
 sitive kind. He would grant, for the argument, that one hundred 
 Catholic members might be returned, partly from Ireland and 
 partly from England; he would grant that they would combine; 
 he would grant that they would combine for overturning the ec- 
 clesiastical establishment: but, granting all this, he asked how 
 they were to go about it? It must be — 1, by force of reasoning; 2, 
 by force of numbers; or, 3, by force alone. Was it that the elo- 
 quence of the one hundred members would ^cceed in persuading 
 gentlemen attached to the Protestant establishment to join them 
 in destroying it, in order to make way for the magnificent edifice 
 of mitred popery? Could any one believe that the members who 
 might, in consequence of this bill, be admitted to seats in Parlia- 
 ment, would move such a project? or could any one suppose for 
 a moment that the slightest motion which had such an end in 
 view, would not be resisted? 
 
 An honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Wetherall) had ex- 
 emplified what the opponents of the Catholics understood by 
 force of reasoning in a singular manner, when he said, the other 
 night, with respect to Archdeacon Paley's arguments on the sub- 
 ject of the Catholics, that if we were called upon to refute the 
 archdeacon, he would throw his book into the fire. The honour- 
 able and learned gentleman was, in this mode of settling a dis- 
 pute, only imitating, and imperfectly, the first great disputant ot 
 the reformed religion, Henry VIII.; who challenged a poor 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 321 
 
 schoolmaster to debate some article of faith with him, on this 
 condition, that if he, the schoolmaster, was worsted in the argu- 
 ment, he should be burnt as a heretic. It was unnecessary to add, 
 that victory declared for the king; and the poor schoolmaster 
 was accordingly thrown — where the honourable and learned gen- 
 tleman proposed only to throw the archdeacon's book, — into the 
 fire. Against such a form of syllogism, he would not answer for 
 it that the honourable and learned gentleman himself, with all his 
 protestantism, would be proof. But happily, it was a form which 
 could only be applied by those who possessed a superiority of 
 force of another kind, from which he trusted, in this case, there 
 was no apprehension to be entertained. As to superiority of 
 numerical force in the legislature, it was really visionary to ap- 
 prehend it. Look at the distribution of property throughout the 
 whole United Kingdom; and whence were the overpowering 
 numbers of Catholic representatives to come? As to physical 
 force, what tendency had this measure to alter its proportions? 
 And was the rejection of the present measure the best means of 
 calming any ebullition of that kind? Was it the safest remedy to 
 say to the Catholic, that you shut your doors upon him for ever? 
 It would be idle to suppose that any scheme of representation 
 could ever be so arranged, as that the sentiments of every indi- 
 vidual in the country should be directly represented. Few per- 
 sons had expressed their opinions to that effect, more frequently 
 or more decidedly than himself. But still, he must admit, there 
 was a difference between that general or virtual representation 
 which he contended ought to bound the wishes, as it satisfied the 
 wants and protected the interests, of all classes of the community, 
 and an absolute exclusion of any one class from the capacity of 
 representing. He would ask whether it was not carrying the 
 doctrine of virtual representation a little too far, to say that the 
 Catholics were virtually represented, when the first oath to be 
 taken by every member of the House of Commons, was one of 
 abhorrence of their religion, as incompatible with the safety of 
 the state? The way then to avert the danger of external force 
 (granting for argument's sake, what he denied, that any such dan- 
 ger existed) was, to afford vent to the feelings of the Catholic 
 within the walls of Parliament; to give him the capacity to re- 
 present, as well as that of being represented; and thus to cure, 
 with respect to Ireland, where the elective franchise has already 
 been extended to the Catholic, an anomaly in legislation, which 
 cannot, in the nature of things, be suffered long to endure. 
 
 But not the elective franchise only — a privilege of the utmost 
 civil importance— -but the army and the navy, from their lowest to 
 their highest ranks, had been now opened to the Catholics: a con- 
 cession after which it was difficult to say whether it was more 
 43 
 
322 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 impolitic or unjust to continue the exclusion from civil power, — 
 to exclude from seats in Parliament. An honourable and learned 
 gentleman had been mistaken, when, arguing on this subject on a 
 former night, he had spoken of this concession as one growing 
 out of former discussions in Parliament. In truth, it had hap- 
 pened, rather than been contrived or foreseen. It had come, as 
 many blessings do come upon mankind, in spite of argument and 
 decision. The dangers of admitting the Catholics to commissions 
 in the army and navy had been argued as strenuously in the last 
 debates on this question, a few years ago, as ever before; but in 
 the mean time, the thing had done itself, without interference or 
 observation. The exclusion of the Catholics from the army and 
 navy had rested upon certain oaths, directed by certain statutes 
 to be administered to all officers in either force on receiving their 
 commissions. By a lapse, of which no one could trace the date, 
 these oaths, which had been always rigidly enforced in the navy, 
 had fallen into disuetude in the army. Upon this discrepancy in 
 the practice between the two services being quite accidentally 
 discovered, it became a question whether the army should be re- 
 called to the strictness observed in the navy, or the navy should 
 be put on the footing of the army. The latter course was adopted, 
 and thus was the service in both instances thrown equally open to 
 Catholic and Protestant ambition. Such being now the situation 
 of Catholics in this respect, he would beg the committee to con- 
 sider the grievance which it must be to a Roman Catholic, de- 
 scended of one of the great families of England, who, following 
 the brave example of his ancestors, had merited the thanks of his 
 country; what a grievance must it be to him, that, after having 
 earned the reward, he should be deprived of it on account of his 
 religion. He would suppose a Roman Catholic officer to have 
 commanded under Nelson at Trafalgar, or under Wellington at 
 Waterloo; his Protestant leaders and companions are ennobled, 
 and take their seats in the House of Peers, but the Catholic, even 
 though that Catholic were the first in his rank in the kingdom — 
 even though already in the rank of the peerage^ — must be turned 
 back from the door of that House, into which, if a Protestant, his 
 valour and his services would have opened the way. Now this 
 was a state of things which could not last. It was a monstrous 
 inconsistency in our system, and he conceived that we could not 
 have a better time to remove it than the present. As we had gone 
 so far already in the work of conciliation, sooner or later this too 
 must be done. 
 
 His right honourable friend (the Speaker) had supported the 
 present clause for the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from seats 
 in Parliament, with the impression that, as the adoption of a sim- 
 ilar clause had been fatal to a similar bill on a former occasion, it 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 323 
 
 might prove so at the present moment; but he hoped, whatever 
 might be the result of this motion — however the committee might 
 decide — that it would not stop the progress of the bill. He trust- 
 ed that, in whatever shape the bill might come from the commit- 
 tee, unless, indeed, it were very materially altered, it would pass 
 the House. 
 
 It was said in the debate the other evening, that if Catholics 
 were admitted to seats in Parliament, they might be admitted as 
 governors of colonies. Now, he should like to know what act it 
 was which could prevent the Crown from the appointment of 
 Catholics to the colonies at the present moment. He was not 
 aware of any. The 25th of Charles H. excluded them expressly 
 and specifically from being governors of Guernsey or Jersey; but 
 if that was the act relied upon, the very specification of these 
 places left other commands open. Upon this point, however, he 
 was willing to listen to any suggestion. He thought it of small 
 importance, compared with the general scope and provisions of 
 the bill. 
 
 With respect to the interference of Roman Catholics in eccle- 
 siastical preferments, this bill expressly and anxiously provided 
 against it. The oiKce of Lord Chancellor of England was ex- 
 cepted, because he had ecclesiastical preferments to bestow; as 
 was, for the same reason, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and he 
 had no objection to extend the like exception to all places which 
 had ecclesiastical patronage. But it was objected, that a commis- 
 sion for the filling up of ecclesiastical appointments would be a 
 a clumsy remedy, — that the nomination to church preferments 
 rested with the prime minister, and that if he were deprived of it, 
 it would be taking the first feather from his wing. 
 
 Now, in the first place, it was by no means true tliat the dis- 
 pensation of church patronage was necessarily vested in any par- 
 ticular office; or that any particular office necessarily constituted 
 what, in common parlance, though not in the language of the Con- 
 stitution, is called a prime minister. Lord Chatham was prime 
 minister when lord privy seal; and the patronage of the church 
 might, without any violation of form or usage, be delegated to 
 any minister to whom the Crown pleased to assign it. Nor was 
 the expedient of a commission to nominate to church preferments 
 so novel and unprecedented a contrivance, as gentlemen seemed 
 willing to believe. There was a precedent for such a commission, 
 and in good times, too, in a reign, and by the act of a sovereign 
 whom those who took this objection were particularly bound to 
 reverence, whose every act but this they were never weary of 
 quoting in these debates — he meant King William. That sover- 
 eign, in the year 1695 (he believed, but the fact was to be found 
 in all the histories of the time) appointed a commission, consist- 
 
324 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 ing of an archbishop and four bishops, who had authority to pre- 
 fer to all ecclesiastical benefices and dignities, and the reasons 
 given for it was that they were more versed in those apppoint- 
 ments than the Crown. A commission, therefore, for the same 
 object, at present, could not be considered as a new, nor, after such 
 authority had been produced for it, could it again be called a clum- 
 sy contrivance. 
 
 Another objection, which he heard with some surprise, was, 
 that Protestants would have a conscientious scruple about taking 
 the oath which recognized the existence of Catholic bishops. 
 Hitherto, it was said, no such order was known to exist. This 
 he considered to be no more than a quibble. We admitted the 
 ordination of a Roman Catholic priest to be valid; and it was dif- 
 ficult to admit that, without acknowledging the existence of a Ro- 
 man Catholic bishop. Nay, more, if a Roman Catholic priest 
 should become a convert to the Church of England, and should 
 be presented to a living in the Protestant Church, re-ordination 
 was not considered necessary; so that we not only admitted the 
 ordination, but we took the man so ordained into the bosom of the 
 church. And how had that ordination been obtained but at the 
 hands of a popish bishop ? But the statutes went farther. By the 
 11th and 12th William III., chap. 4, it was enacted, " that where- 
 as popish bishops resorted to this country in greater numbers than 
 formerly" (a pretty clear admission of their existence,) " a reward 
 of ^6100 would be given to any person informing of the residence 
 of such popish bishop, such bishop incurring the pain of perpetual 
 imprisonment." This surely applied to a description of persons 
 whose existence and character were admitted. It was true that 
 the popish bishop would not fetch his £100 now; for, by the 18th 
 George III., this part of the act of William was repealed. We 
 now, therefore, not only acknowledged the existence of popish 
 bishops amongst us, but allowed them to be here at full liberty. 
 Under these circumstances, he thought that the Protestant must 
 have a very tender conscience, indeed, who would not take an 
 oath which implied the existence of Roman Catholic bishops. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman then adverted to the inter- 
 course between this country and the see of Rome, and asked 
 whether any doubt existed as to that intercourse being carried on 
 at the present moment, to as great an extent as if there never had 
 been any interdiction at all? By the 13th of Elizabeth it was 
 made treason to receive any bull, rescript, or indulgence, from the 
 see of Rome, in this country. But did a month or a week elapse 
 in which such things were not received at present? If it was right 
 to prohibit them, in the name of God, let it be done effectual ly; 
 but if the intercourse were to be permitted, what ground of ob- 
 jection could there be for subjecting it to regulation ? Why should 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 325 
 
 it not be so subjected in this, as it was in all other countries? They 
 were told, indeed, that certain Roman Catholic priests said that 
 they would not agree to the measure. He would ask, if any other 
 portion of His Majesty's subjects would thus presume to dictate 
 to the Parliament? He knew of no sanctity which hedged in a 
 popish priest, by which he should be authorized to interpose his 
 private judgment, or his private conscience, between the benevo- 
 lence of the legislature and the wishes of his fellow subjects. The 
 Roman Catholic peers had expressed their willingness to take the 
 oath prescribed (three of them, he understood, were prevented 
 by absence from signing the petition,) and he would confidently 
 act upon their opinion. The priest might clamour if he pleased; 
 he might roar, like the tyrant of old, in one of his own bulls; but 
 what was the loss of his influence and patronage, compared with 
 the mighty and unspeakable benefit to be derived from bringing 
 under one common bond of union the whole mass of Catholic and 
 Protestant population ? He hoped the House would not be deter- 
 red by such attempts, from giving to the Roman Catholic peers 
 of this country their birthright, and admitting the fair claims of 
 the other portion of the Catholic community. 
 
 It was his anxious wish to see this great question happily set 
 at rest; the great body of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity 
 were ready to join in the measures necessary for the contentment 
 and satisfaction of Protestant scruples. He admitted that the 
 change was an important one; but it would be a change of pro- 
 gression, not of revulsion : it had for its object the reconcilement 
 of both parties, and in their union the better security of the in- 
 terests of both. The present period was peculiarly favourable. 
 After a season of storms there was one gleam of sunshine: let the 
 House take advantage of it; and let them not counteract what ought 
 to be its effect, by casting millions back into gloom and despair. 
 The committee divided — 
 
 For Mr. Bankes's amendment ... 211 
 Against it 223 
 
 Majority 12 
 
 APRIL 2d, 1821. 
 
 Mr. Canning, in the course of the debate on the third reading of the Roman 
 Catholic Disability Removal Bill spoke to the following effect : — 
 
 Mr. Canning observed, that his right honourable friend (Mr. 
 Peel) who had taken so active a part against the bill, complained, 
 that those who took the same side as himself laboured under 
 great disadvantages, seeing that they were unfairly called upon 
 
 DD 
 
326 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 to become the champions of those laws which had existed against 
 the Catholics from the Reformation to the present time. But he 
 (Mr. C.) felt, on the other hand, that those who took that part in 
 favour of the bill, which, from conviction, he had found himself 
 compelled to take, were placed in a situation equally difficult; for 
 it was assumed, that every argument which they brought forward 
 vv^as an attempt to disturb the peace which had hitherto prevailed, 
 and to launch out into an untried sea of speculation. He claimed, 
 then, for the advocates of the bill, that the system which they 
 wished to introduce should be compared, not with an uniform 
 and recognized system, but with admitted anomalies, with the 
 state of things which had produced the recent innovations. His 
 right honourable friend deprecated a recurrence to that period 
 when the laws against the Catholics had been in their full force. 
 He would not resist the appeal, because he felt unwilling at the 
 close of a debate which had been marked Jpy such unexampled 
 moderation, to create any new source of contention, or to send 
 forth the bill to the country as a firebrand instead of an extin- 
 guisher of discord. If, like his right honourable friend, he could 
 believe that religious animosities would be more likely to be 
 healed, and the excluded Catholic more likely to be contented, if 
 this bill should not pass, he should be satisfied not to press the 
 House to a completion of the present measure; forasmuch as the 
 great object which he had at heart in the support which it was 
 in his limited power to give to it, would then be accomplished. 
 Nay, if the question were as to a system of which the reason was 
 well matured, or the antiquity long established — as to laws which 
 had not been continually changed, and as to circumstances which 
 had not gradually varied — if it had been proposed to destroy that 
 which was tolerable, in favour of a fancied amelioration, he ad- 
 mitted that in such case a heavy burthen of proof would indeed 
 be thrown upon the supporters of the bill. But the measure pro- 
 posed was to be compared only with imaginary content and ficti- 
 tious tranquillity; it was another change in laws which had been 
 continually changing; it was not the first of a series, but a crown- 
 ing act of mercy to complete the improvements of half a century. 
 The right honourable gentleman then examined the view which 
 Mr. Peel had taken of the different eras of legislation, respecting 
 the Catholics; he denied that even at the time of the Revolution 
 the dangers were such as warranted the system pursued towards 
 the Catholics; but surely the dangers which then did exist, now 
 existed no longer. Religion had then mingled in the political 
 concerns of Europe, and directed the course of wars, and changed 
 the dynasties of kingdoms. Now, struggles of a quite different 
 nature had begun, which were destinecV perhaps, to produce ef- 
 fects as stupendous as the wars which followed the Reformation. 
 
REMOVAL. BILL. 327 
 
 The right honourable gentleman then went on to argue, that it 
 4vas to be gathered from the murmurs of the Roman Catholic 
 clergy, that at least this bill might be considered a boon to the 
 laity; that its provisions were not of that character which some 
 of its enemies represented; and that the Catholic clergy did not 
 look upon the bill as causing so much evil to the established Pro- 
 testant Church of Ireland, as the House was called upon to ap- 
 prehend from it. Depend upon it, if the character of the bill 
 was what its adversaries represented it, and if the Roman Catho- 
 lic clergy were also as ardent for the prosperity of their own 
 church, and as wise in their generation, as they were argued by 
 the same authority, and admitted by him, to be — any little dis- 
 content which they inight have felt from the fear of a diminution 
 of their influence over their flocks, would have been more than 
 counterbalanced by the contemplation of the advantage to be de- 
 rived from the operation of the bill, to the exaltation of the pop- 
 ish, at the expense of the Protestant establishment and hierarchy. 
 The murmurs of the more violent Roman Catholic prelates were, 
 therefore, to him (Mr. Canning) one conclusive indication of the 
 probable tendency of the bill to confirm and consolidate the Pro- 
 testant Church in Ireland. 
 
 He next touched upon the number of Catholic members that 
 were likely to be introduced by it into Parliament, contending, in 
 contradiction to the opponents of the measure, that instead of 
 seventy from Ireland^ and thirty from England, the utmost that 
 would probably be returned would be a dozen in the whole. 
 Admitting, however, as he had, in a former debate, for argument 
 sake, that more might obtain entrance — allowing even that the 
 vision of the hundred knights was to be realized — still he asked 
 in what way would they be able to set about the destruction of 
 the Constitution? The other side, who talked so much of danger, 
 was bound to show from whence it would pi'oceed, and how it 
 would operate — in what way the Catholic representatives would 
 succeed in corrupting the rest of the' 568 members, or at least the 
 whole of the minorities on the late divisions on this subject, and 
 the greater part of the supporting majorities. 
 
 He contended that the measure was eminently calculated to 
 conciliate the Irish, and to cement the Union; the recentness of 
 which was to be considered as an advantage instead of an objec- 
 tion, inasmuch as expectations indulged since that event were now 
 to be realized; promises and pledges were to be fulfilled before 
 hope should have been so delayed as to make sick the heart. In 
 the Union, then, he found one of the strongest reasons for enact- 
 ing the bill. For what was the state of Ireland in its relation to 
 this country? Of fifteen millions of subjects, five were separated 
 from the rest, divided from the general body by the channel. 
 
328 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 " How," said the honourable gentleman, " are we to deal with 
 them?" Yes, that is the question on which depended all. Ta 
 that consideration we must come at last, whether this bill were 
 thrown out here or elsewhere. In that separated island were to 
 be found four millions of Roman Catholics; and one million of 
 Protestants, placed as garrisons in an enemy's territory; of which 
 last million, one-half were the dreaded dissenters, from whom 
 so much danger had been feared. Should we, then, incorporate 
 the hearts and feelings of four millions of Catholics, in the same 
 manner as we had incorporated their laws, their commerce, and 
 their institutions? Should we unite them to Great Britain firmly 
 and effectually? or, by a mistaken policy, coerce them in propor- 
 tion to our danger? After half a century of concessions, should we 
 now stop short; and referring to the wisdom of our ancestors in 
 the period preceding those concessions, should we, after having 
 again conquered the Irish, again degrade them into helots, in order 
 that we might fear nothing, unless a servile war? No man had 
 openly avowed that policy. The system of laws formerly devised 
 to bring to completion that odious project, and the effects produ- 
 ced by it, no human being was willing to revive. That time was 
 past, the question was not now, as in the beginning of the reign 
 of George III., between the maintenance of that system, and a 
 beginning of a milder policy; but between the memory of that 
 system, and the completion of the benevolent legislation of the 
 reign of George III., by raising those who were its victims to the 
 level of ourselves. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman* who had introduced this bill, 
 with an eloquent precision that would not have disgraced Tacitus, 
 pointed out in his speech, as in a funeral procession, the statues of 
 those great orators who had distinguished themselves on this ques- 
 tion. Among the names he (Mr. Canning) had missed one,t now 
 no more, never second in the zeal of his resistance, but whose 
 place had this evening, for the first time, been amply supplied by 
 an honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Ellis, of Dublin) from 
 the same country; indeed, so amply and efficiently, so much in 
 the spirit and manner of the great original, that little was left 
 to be desired, as applied to that honourable substitute, he might, 
 perhaps, be allowed to parody two well known lines: 
 
 " The tone, the topics opening to my view, 
 Methinks I see my Duigenan here anew!" 
 
 * Mr. Plunkett. 
 
 I Doctor Duigenan, who, though a most violent opponent of the claims of the 
 Catholics, was married to a Catholic lady, had a Catholic chaplain constantly 
 resident in his family, and is supposed to have died a member of that religious 
 persuasion. 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 329 
 
 He must observe, however, that in one part of his argument, in 
 one only, that honourable and learned gentleman had been some- 
 what unfair. He had objected to the bill as a fault, that it con- 
 tained a clause, excluding Roman Catholics from several parochial 
 offices; a petty species of legislation in the honourable and learned 
 gentleman's view, and altogether unworthy of so great a subject. 
 Now, surely, the honourable gentleman who had watched the 
 progress of the bill with so much solicitude, must know that this 
 fault, if it be one, was not the fault of the framers of the bill; that 
 this merit, if merit it were, was wholly attributable to the zeal of 
 his right honourable friend, the honourable and learned gentle- 
 man's leader in these combats (Mr. Peel;) who foreseeing with 
 admirable prescience that danger to all the affairs of the parish, to 
 which the honourable and learned gentleman appeared most unac- 
 countably insensible, had provided by this special clause for their 
 protection. His right honourable friend, (Mr. Peel) would, he 
 was sure, give him (Mr. Canning) due credit for his forbearance 
 in not having before taken any notice of this mighty effort of 
 legislation. It was very, very tempting; but he had purposely 
 forborne; though certainly nothing since the famous memoirs of 
 P. P., clerk of the parish, had exhibited so fine a specimen of pa- 
 rochial politics. But to have this clause fathered upon the framers 
 of this bill, and by one of its own near relations, was more than 
 flesh and blood could bear. His right honourable friend must for- 
 give him, if, upon such a provocation, he could not abstain from 
 swearing it to its true parent. 
 
 It was, however, a consolatory circumstance to see how his 
 right honourable friend's arguments against the measure before the 
 House had dwindled. Formerly, nothing was heard of, in con- 
 junction with this measure, but a tottering throne, a trembling 
 crown, a shaking sceptre; but now the chief danger was described 
 as threatening parish officers; formerly the apalling question was, 
 how, after such a bill had passed, should we be able to support the 
 Church Establishment? now, it is only how shall we repair the 
 parish church? Comparative trifles now occupied one who before 
 had dealt only with the most magnificent declarations. 
 
 Nunc reges, atque tetrarchas, 
 
 Omnia magna loquens; — Nunc- 
 Vestries atque Churchwardens .'" 
 
 He trusted that a grateful posterity would remember, with be- 
 coming honour, the legislators who had wisely placed such guards, 
 not round the church, but round its overseers. Let not the House, 
 however, be impeded by the smaller obstacles, any more than by 
 those which are now removed: let it not, in its full march to the 
 liberation of five millions of fellow subjects, be stopped at the top 
 44 DD* 
 
330 ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY 
 
 of the hill, and turned back by his right honourable friend and 
 his churchwarden. 
 
 Referring now to some general considerations, the right hon- 
 ourable gentleman expressed his decided opinion that the provi- 
 sion for the Catholic clergy ought to be made a matter of subse- 
 quent consideration. He desired the House to contemplate the 
 Catholics in their real character, maintaining that a priori, a 
 Church of England man would be more ready to admit to equal 
 privileges one who disagreed merely on such a speculative matter 
 as the doctrine of transubstantiation, than one who denied the 
 great fundamental doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and 
 the divinity of the Saviour. Yet every day dissenters were ad- 
 mitted to take the oath at the table, and to share the honours and 
 labours of legislation; there were more points of agreement be- 
 tween the Church of England man and the Catholic, than between 
 the Church of England man and many of the dissenters. If the 
 House went back to times of dangers and of terrors, was there 
 more dread to be apprehended of the renewal of the fires of Smith- 
 field, as in the reign of Mary, than was to be feared of a repeti- 
 tion of the acts of the Covenanters in the reign of Charles I. ? 
 The character of the modern Roman Catholics was not to be 
 sought from the preambles of the acts of Elizabeth, James I., or 
 Charles H., but from the preambles of the acts which had passed 
 both in the English and Irish Parliaments since 1778. Let not 
 the House, then, dwell only on points of difference, without ad- 
 verting also to those of resemblance: let it recollect that Catholics 
 and Protestants were fellow Christians; that they were fellow sub- 
 jects; that their blood was mingled in marriages; that it had often 
 been mingled in the field; that the Catholic had gone before the 
 Protestant in resistance to foreign dominion; that together they 
 had framed and supported the Constitution, and together they 
 ought to enjoy it. The time was now come when public feeling 
 was decidedly in favour of the concession, provided it were tem- 
 perately carried, and provided those whom it was intended to re- 
 lieve, did not dash the cup from their lips. For the temper of 
 Parliament he could answer; but for the temper of the Catholic 
 clergy he could not be a guarantee. If, however, they had a spark 
 of patriotism, or if they felt that love for their flocks which they 
 pretended, they would not impede the progress of legislation by 
 hopeless and interminable agitation! By conjuring the House to 
 pass this bill, regardless of those angry squabbles without doors 
 and petty difficulties within, which must encompass every meas- 
 ure of such magnitude, he conjured them not to stop short from 
 any feelings of false pride — not to incur the responsibility of 
 having taught a people to seek for general peace at their hands, 
 and of then forcing them to retire back upon themselves. Let us 
 
REMOVAL BILL. 331 
 
 rather, in the language of both liturgies, exclaim sursum corda ! 
 Let us raise our hearts to the Dispenser of all Good, and with 
 that elevation of soul, let us proceed in that great work which we 
 have begun, and which, sooner or later, will find its own way to 
 the final consummation, so devoutly to be wished by all good 
 men. The conclusion of the right honourable gentleman's speech 
 was loudly and ardently cheered. 
 
 The House divided : — 
 
 Ayes 216 
 
 Noes - - - ■ - - - 197 
 
 Majority for the third reading of ihe bill 19 
 The bill was then read a third time and passed. 
 
333 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 APRIL 25th, 1822. 
 
 Lord J. Russell moved "Thai the present state of the representation of 
 the people in Parliament requires the most serious consideration of the House." 
 
 Several members rose at the same time with Mr. Canning, but the call for 
 Mr. Canning was so loud and prevalent that they gave way. 
 
 Mr. Canning. — In obeying the call which the House has done 
 me the honour to make upon me, I should be unwilling to occupy 
 their attention for any length of time, upon a subject with respect 
 to which my opinions are sufficiently notorious, were it not for 
 the pointed manner in which I have been alluded to by the noble 
 lord (Lord Folkstone,) who has lately addressed them. That no- 
 ble lord has challenged me either to support my old opinions by 
 new arguments, or to abandon them. He describes himself as 
 having been converted by my former arguments against Parlia- 
 mentary Reform, to an opinion in favour of it; and in his own 
 conversion to a creed which he had before rejected, he fancies 
 himself entitled to carry me with him, and to make me a prose- 
 lyte against myself. Those arguments of mine which have pro- 
 duced this unfortunate and unforeseen effect upon the noble lord's 
 understanding, have been long before the public: and I have no 
 disposition to complain that the noble lord has referred to them 
 as pointedly and particularly as if they had been uttered in the 
 debate of this night. It was natural too, perhaps, that the noble 
 lord, with the ardour of a convert, should flatter himself that his 
 new-born zeal would extend to all around him: but I must beg 
 leave to say, that the noble lord has carried his expectations a lit- 
 tle too far, when he desires me to read my own speeches back- 
 wards; and avow myself, if not a confirmed democrat, at least a 
 friend to moderate reform. With the permission of the House, I 
 will state, in as few words as possible, the grounds on which I 
 continue to hold the same opinions which I have heretofore pro- 
 fessed; and to draw from them the same conclusion. 
 
 Never, Sir, could those opinions be advanced under more fa- 
 vourable auspices — never could a conviction of their truth and 
 justness be expressed with better assurance of a favourable recep- 
 tion than on the present occasion; when we have just been in- 
 formed by the noble marquis (Marquis of Tavistock,) in present- 
 ing a petition for Parliamentary Reform, that the whole body of 
 the nobility, of the gentry, of the clergy, of the magistracy, of 
 the leading and opulent commercial classes — in short, that the 
 
PARLIAiMENTARY REFORM. 333 
 
 great mass of the property and intelligence of the country, is ar- 
 rayed against that question. To (his singular and valuable admis- 
 sion of the noble marquis (singular as to the opportunity chosen 
 for declaring it, and the more valuable for that singularity) have 
 been added others, not less striking, on the part of the noble pro- 
 poser of the motion. The noble lord (Lord John Russell,) while 
 contending for a change which he declares to be necessary for the 
 salvation of the state, but which he admits to be a change serious 
 and extensive in its nature, has acknowledged that under the ex- 
 isting system, the country has grown in power, in wealth, in 
 knowledge, and in general prosperity. He has detailed, accu- 
 rately and laboriously, the particulars of this gradual and sensible 
 improvement; and he has further acknowledged, that in pro- 
 portion to the progress of that improvement, a silent moral 
 change has been operated upon the conduct of this House — 
 which is now, he allows, greatly more susceptible of the influ- 
 ence of popular feeling and of the impressions of public opinion, 
 than it was a century ago. Nay, he has gone farther still. He 
 has — in anticipation of an argument which I perhaps might have 
 used, if the noble lord had not suggested it, but which I am glad 
 to take at his hands — expressed a doubt, or at least has shown it 
 to be very doubtful, whether a more implicit obsequiousness to 
 popular opinion on the part of the House of Commons, would 
 produce unqualified good: avowing his own belief that if the 
 composition of the House had been altered at the Revolution, the 
 purposes of the Revolution would not have been accomplished — 
 the House of Hanover would never have been seated upon the 
 throne. The composition of the House of Commons is now pre- 
 cisely what it was at the time of the Revolution. Whatever 
 change there may be in its temper, is, by the noble lord's ac- 
 knowledgment, towards a more ready obedience to the public 
 opinion. But if the House of Commons had at the time of the 
 Revolution been implicitly obedient to the people; in other 
 words, if the House had been then entirely composed of mem- 
 bers popularly elected — that great event, to which I am as willing 
 as the noble lord to attribute the establishment of our liberties, 
 would, according to the noble lord's declared belief, have been in 
 all probability defeated. 
 
 Surely these admissions of the noble lord are in no small de- 
 gree at variance with his motion. Surely such admissions, if not 
 ample enough of themselves to overbalance the direct arguments 
 which the noble lord has, in the subsequent part of his speech, 
 brought forward in the support of that motion, do at least relieve 
 me from much of the difficulty and odium which might other- 
 wise have belonged to an opposition to Parliamentary Reform. 
 If I contend in behalf of the constitution of the House of Com- 
 
334 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 mons, such as it is, I contend at least for no untried, no discredit- 
 ed, no confessedly pernicious establishment. I contend for a 
 House of Commons, the spirit of which, whatever be its frame, 
 has, without any forcible alteration, gradually, but faithfully, ac- 
 commodated itself to the progressive spirit of the country; and 
 in the frame of which, if an alteration such as the noble lord now 
 proposes, had been made a hundred and thirty years ago, the 
 House of Commons of that day would, by his own confession, 
 have been disabled from accomplishing the glorious Revolution, 
 and securing the fruits of it to their posterity. 
 
 Thus fortified, I have the less difficulty in meeting the noble 
 lord's motion in front — in giving at once a plain and direct nega- 
 tive to the general resolution, which is the basis of his whole 
 plan. I do not acknowledge the existence of the necessity, which 
 by that resolution is declared to exist, for taking into considera- 
 tion, with a view to alteration and amendment, the present state 
 of the representation of the people in the House of Commons. 
 Knowing as I do, that what is in the contemplation of many per- 
 sons who are calling for reform, could not be adopted; and not 
 knowing what may be the ideas and designs of others; feeling an 
 equal repugnance, both from what I know and what I do not 
 know upon this subject, to a doubtful and equivocal proposition, 
 which would have the effect of binding this House to enter into 
 the consideration of an endless succession of schemes for pur- 
 poses altogether indefinite; I object in the very outset to the no- 
 ble lord's general resolution, independently of any objection 
 which I may feel to his particular plan. 
 
 Not, however, that the plan itself is not abundantly fertile of 
 objections. So far as I understand it, that plan is little more than 
 to make an addition of one hundred members to this House, to 
 be returned by the counties and larger towns; and to open the 
 way for this augmentation, by depriving each of the smaller bo- 
 roughs of one half of the elective franchise which they now en- 
 joy. This plan the noble lord has introduced and recommended 
 with an enumeration of names whose authority he assumes to be 
 in favour of it. Amongst those names is that of Mr. Pitt. But 
 the House must surely be aware that the plan brought forward by 
 Mr. Pitt differed widely, not only in detail, but in principle, from 
 that propounded on this occasion by the noble lord. True it is 
 that the object of Mr. Pitt's plan was, like that of the noble lord's, 
 to add one hundred members to this House: but this object was 
 to be attained without the forcible abolition of any existing right 
 of election. Mr. Pitt proposed to establish a fund of ^61,000,000 
 to be applied to the purchase of franchises from such decayed 
 boroughs as should be iviUing to sell them. This fund was to 
 accumulate at compound interest, till an adequate inducement 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 335 
 
 was provided for the voluntary surrender, by the proprietors, of 
 such elective franchises as it might be thought expedient to abol- 
 ish. There was, throughout the whole of Mr. Pitt's plan, a stu- 
 dious avoidance of coercion; a careful preservation of vested in- 
 terests; and a fixed determination not to violate existing rights in 
 accomplishing its object. It was hoped that by these means every 
 sense of injury or danger would be excluded, and that the change 
 in view would be brought about by a gradual process, resembling 
 the silent and insensible operation of time. Here, then, I repeat 
 it, is a difference of the most essential kind between the two pro- 
 positions of Mr. Pitt and of the noble lord; a difference, not su- 
 perficial, but fundamental; as complete indeed as the difference 
 between concession and force, or between respect for property 
 and spoliation. I am not, however, bound nor at all prepared to 
 contend for the intrinsic or absolute excellence of Mr. Pitt's plan; 
 and still less to engage my own support to such a plan, if it were 
 to be brought forward at the present time. But placing it in fair 
 comparison with the noble lord's, I must entreat the House to 
 bear in mind that Mr. Pitt never lost sight of the obligation to 
 preserve as well as to amend; that he proposed not to enforce 
 any reluctant surrender; nor to sacrifice any other than voluntary 
 victims on the altar of practical improvement. 
 
 The noble lord has cited other grave authorities in favour of 
 his projected reform. Now, I hold in my hand an extract from 
 a work which probably will be recognised as I read it, but the 
 title of which I will not disclose in the first instance. Hear the 
 opinion of an eminent writer on the right of Parliament to inter- 
 fere with the elective franchise: — "As to cutting away the rotten 
 boroughs, I am as much offended as any man, at seeing so many 
 of them under the direct influence of the Crown, or at the dispo- 
 sal of private persons. Yet I own I have both doubts and appre- 
 hensions in regard to the remedy you propose. I shall be charged, 
 perhaps, with an unusual want of political intrepidity, when I 
 honestly confess to you, that I am startled at the idea of so ex- 
 tensive an amputation. In the first place, I question the power 
 de jure of the Legislature to disfranchise a number of boroughs, 
 upon the general ground of improving the Constitution." — " I 
 consider it as equivalent to robbing the parties concerned of their 
 freehold, of their birth-right. I say, that although this birth- 
 right may be forfeited, or the exercise of it suspended in particu- 
 lar cases, it cannot be taken away by a general law, for any real 
 or pretended purpose of improving the Constitution." Is it from 
 Sir Robert Filmer, — is it from the works of some blind, servile, 
 bigotted, Tory writer, that I quote the passage which I have now 
 read? No; it is from an author whose name, indeed, I am not 
 enabled to declare, but the shadow of whose name is inseparably 
 
336 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 connected, in our minds, with an ardent if not intemperate zeal 
 in the cause of political freedom. It is Junius, who thus expresses 
 his fears on the subject of interfering with the existing franchises 
 of election, even for the purpose of elFecting what he deems, with 
 the noble lord, a beneficial change in the construction of the 
 House of Commons. 
 
 The plan devised by Mr. Pitt, and the sentiments of this cele- 
 brated writer, equally furnish a contrast to the proposition of the 
 noble lord; which is in effect forcibly to take away the elective 
 franchise from one body of the people for the purpose of giving 
 it to another; and to inflict forfeiture without guilt and without 
 compensation. 
 
 But, even if I, and others who think like me, could be won 
 over to this plan by its vaunted moderation, — by the circum- 
 stance of its going only half the length of the more sweeping re^ 
 form deprecated by Junius, — it does much surprise me that the 
 noble lord should imagine that such half measures would appear 
 satisfactory to reformers. Surely, surely that class of persons 
 upon whom the noble lord reckons for support, and whom he 
 considers as having of late so greatly increased in numbers, look 
 for a very different measure of alteration from that which seems 
 to bound the noble lord's present intentions. How happens it, 
 for instance, that the noble lord, notwithstanding the accuracy of 
 research with which he has apparently studied the subject in all 
 its parts, has omitted any mention of burgage tenures? He cannot 
 but know that it is against that species of election that the popu- 
 lar clamour has been most loudly directed. Yet, amidst all the 
 noble lord's enumeration of rights and modes of election, of free- 
 hold and copyhold, of large towns, and small towns, and counties, 
 and villages, the words " burgage tenure," have never once es- 
 caped his lips! Does the noble lord mean to take away burgage 
 tenure, or does he not? If he does not, I will so far most cor- 
 diallv join with him: but let not the noble lord, in that case, ex- 
 pect'the support of those reformers with whom he has recently 
 allied himself If he intends to pursue a double or a doubtful 
 course; if he proposes to mitigate his violation of franchise in 
 the hands of the present holders by taking only half away, and 
 hopes, by giving only half, to propitiate the new acquirers, — it 
 may be very presumptuous in me to pronounce an opinion upon 
 a scheme which the noble lord must no doubt have turned and 
 viewed in every light before he made up his mind to adopt it; 
 but I do venture to opine, that in thus endeavouring to keep 
 terms with both parties, he will in the end satisfy neither. The 
 one will be as little contented with what is granted to them, as 
 the other will be reconciled to what they lose. Needs there any 
 further argument to show, that whatever may be the feasibility 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 337 
 
 of other plans of reform, this of the noble lord is one which can- 
 not possibly be useful to any juirpose, because it cannot be palata- 
 ble to any party ? 
 
 It being plain then to demonstration that the noble lord's plan 
 cannot succeed, the House must prepare itself, if his first Resolu- 
 tion should be carried, to enter immediately upon the discussion 
 of a variety of schemes, upon a concurrence of opinions in favour 
 of any one of which it would be vain to speculate. Plan will 
 follow plan; all unlike each other in every respect, except in their 
 tendency to destroy the present frame of the Constitution. It is 
 affirmed, indeed, that a great change has lately taken place in the 
 public mind; that the sentiment in favour of reform is diffused 
 more widely, while the violence and exaggeration of that senti- 
 ment in particular minds is much abated; that more people wish 
 for a reform; but that there is a greater disposition to be satisfied 
 with a moderate one; that in proportion as a practical alteration 
 has become more generally desired, the wild and visionary theo- 
 ries heretofore prevailing have been relinquished and discounte- 
 nanced. This may possibly be so: but on what ground am I to 
 rest my belief of it? I have seen nothing in the course of the last 
 two years, during which the noble lord (Lord Folkstone,) on the 
 floor, has been meditating on my speech at Liverpool, to lead me 
 to think that those who, two years ago, entertained wild and vi- 
 sionary notions of reform, have since relinquished them. If my 
 speech was, as the noble lord declares, calculated only to make 
 proselytes to the persuasion that the present House of Commons 
 is inadequate to the discharge of its functions, and if such be in 
 consequence the views which that noble lord has adopted, how 
 can he entertain the notion that the small alterations proposed by 
 the noble mover will satisfy genuine reformers? — Let him be as- 
 sured that he must go far deeper into democracy before he can 
 hope to satisfy the cravings of reform; nay, without the hope of 
 satisfying them, though the Constitution may be sacrified in the 
 experiment. 
 
 Sir, if the House looks only to the various plans of reform 
 which have at different times been laid upon its table, not by vi- 
 sionary speculatists, but by able and enlightened men, some of the 
 ornaments of this and the other House of Parliament, how faint 
 and flat is the noble lord's (Lord John Russell) present plan in 
 comparison with them! Let us take, for example, that one of the 
 plans which had the greatest concurrence of opinions, and the 
 greatest weight of authority in its favour. A petition was pre- 
 sented to this House in 1793, which may perhaps be considered 
 as the most advised and authentic exposition of the principles of 
 Parliamentary Reform, that ever has been submitted to the con- 
 sideration of this House or of the public. Those principles are 
 45 EE 
 
338 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 developed by the petitioners, with singular clearness and force, 
 and expressed in admirable language. It was presented by a no- 
 ble person, now one of the chief lights of the other House of Par- 
 liament, as the petition of the " Friends of the People, associated 
 for the purpose of obtaining a Reform in Parliament." In that 
 petition, certain distinct propositions are laid down as the basis of 
 a reform, which, to my recollection, have never yet been disclaim- 
 ed, either on the part of the petitioners, or of those who have suc- 
 ceeded them in the same pursuit. The petitioners complain, in 
 the first place, that there is oiot an uniform right of voting; — 
 secondly, that the right of voting is in too small bodies; — third- 
 ly, that many great bodies are excluded from voting; — and, 
 fourthly, they complain of the protracted duration of Parlia- 
 ments* Does the noble lord believe that all these notions are 
 forgotten? that no persons still cherish them as the only means of 
 effecting the salvation of the country? — or does the noble lord 
 subscribe to them all, although he may not think this the time for 
 pressing them upon the House? 
 
 For my part. Sir, I value the system of Parliamentary Repre- 
 sentation, for that very want of uniformity which is complained 
 of in this petition; for the variety of rights of election. I con- 
 ceive, that to establish one uniform right would inevitably be to 
 exclude some important interests from the advantage of being rep- 
 resented in this House. At all events, the noble lord's plan does 
 not cure this objection. The rights of voting would remain as va- 
 rious after the adoption of his plan, as before; and a new variety 
 would be added to them. Even of burgage tenures, the most ob- 
 noxious right of all, and the most indignantly reprobated by the 
 
 * Extract of the petition of the " Friends of the People," presented to the 
 House of Commons May 6th, 1793 : — 
 
 " Your petitioners complain, that the number of representatives assigned to 
 the different counties, is grossly disproportioned to their comparative extent, 
 population and trade. 
 
 " Your petitioners complain, that the elective franchise is partially and une- 
 qually distributed, and is, in many instances, committed to bodies of men of such 
 very limited numbers, that the majority of your Honourable House is elected 
 by less than fifteen thousand electors, which, even if the male adults in the 
 kingdom be estimated at so low a number as three millions, is not more than 
 the two-hundredth part of the people to be represented. 
 
 " Your petitioners complain, that the right of voting is regulated by no uni- 
 form or rational principle. 
 
 " Your petitioners complain, that the exercise of the elective franchise is 
 only renewed once in seven years. 
 
 " Is it fitting that Yorkshire and Rutland should have an equal rank in the 
 scale of county representation? 
 
 " Your petitioners affirm, that seventy of your honourable members are re- 
 turned by thirty-five places, where the right of voting is vested in burgage and 
 other tenures of a similar description." — Pari. History, Vol. xxx. p. 789. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 339 
 
 petition of 1793, the noble lord would carefully preserve the 
 principle, only curtailing, by one half, its operation. 
 
 It must be admitted that this alleged defect of variety in rights 
 of voting was much more directly dealt with by the honourable 
 member for Durham (Mr. Lambton,) in the last session, when he 
 brought forward, with great ability, and with the utmost temper 
 and moderation, his specific plan of reform. That honourable 
 gentleman proposed to treat the constitution of the House of Com- 
 mons as a rasa tabula, and to reconstruct the system of repre- 
 sentation altogether upon an uniform plan, abating, without scru- 
 ple, every right and interest that stood in his way. His plan dif- 
 fered as materially from that of the noble lord, as the noble lord's 
 differs from that of Mr. Pitt, and from the project of 1793. I do 
 not mean to say, (I shall not be so misunderstood, I trust) that I 
 approved therefore of the honourable member for Durham's plan, 
 or thought it either practicable or tolerable. Certainly, no con- 
 queror of an invaded country ever parcelled out with a more un- 
 sparing hand the franchises and properties of individuals and com- 
 munities; but that plan had at least one merit which the noble 
 lord's has not: it cured the alleged evil of diversified rights, and 
 tended to produce the desired uniformity of representation. 
 
 Then, Sir, as to the duration of Parliament. Triennial Parlia- 
 ments, it is averred by the petitioners of 1793, would be greatly 
 preferable to septennial. The House would become a more ex- 
 press image of its constituents, by being more frequently sent 
 back to them for election; deriving, like the giant of old, fresh 
 vigour from every fresh contact with its parent earth. But the no- 
 ble lord, if I understand him rightly, admits that this particular re- 
 form would be rather an aggravation of inconveniences, other de- 
 fects in the Constitution remaining unchanged. Nothing, indeed, 
 can be more clear than this proposition. One of the main objec- 
 tions to close representation, at present, is the advantage which 
 the member for a close borough has over one chosen by a popular 
 election. The dissolution of Parliament sends the popular repre- 
 sentative back to a real and formidable trial at the bar of his con- 
 stituents. For the representative of a close borough there is no 
 trial at all; he sits still, and is returned without any struggle or 
 inquiry. It is obvious that the proportion of this comparative 
 disadvantage must be aggravated by every repetition of a general 
 election. 
 
 But further. What is the original sin of Septennial Parlia- 
 ments? — Why, that the Septennial Bill was a violent measure. 
 Granted: it was so. But this allegation, however just, applies 
 only to one enactment of the act, not to its general polic3^ The 
 violence of the Septennial Act did not consist in the prolonga- 
 tion of the duration of Parliaments in time to come: for to do 
 
340 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 that, the supreme authority of the state was undoubtedly as com- 
 petent, as it was to shorten the duration of Parliaments by the 
 Triennial Act some twenty years before. The violence consisted 
 in prolonging the duration of the then existing Parliament 
 — in extending to seven years a trust confided but for three. 
 This, and this alone, is the questionable part of that act — 
 questionable, I mean, as to right. I will not now inquire how 
 far the political necessities of the time justified so strong an act 
 of power. It is quite enough, for any practical purpose, that the 
 evil, whatever it was, is irremediable; that its efiect is gone by; 
 that the repeal of the Septennial Act now cannot undo it; and 
 that, therefore, how grave soever the charge against the framers 
 of the act might be, for the arbitrary injustice of its immediate 
 operation (a question, into the discussion of which I have said I 
 will not enter,) the repeal of it would have no tendency to cure 
 the vice of that enactment which has given the Septennial Act 
 its ill name; but would only get rid of that part of it which is 
 blameless, at least, if not (as I confess I think it) beneficial in its 
 operation. But however much the duration of Parliaments may 
 be entitled to a separate discussion, it is not to that point that the 
 noble lord has called our attention to-night. A change in the 
 constitution of the House of Commons, is the object of the noble 
 lord's motion. 
 
 That such a change is necessary, the noble lord asserts — and I 
 den}'. I deny altogether the existence of any such practical de- 
 fect in the present constitution of this House, as requires the 
 adoption of so fearful an experiment. The noble lord has attempt- 
 ed to show the necessity of such a change by enumerating certain 
 questions on which this House has, on sundry occasions, decided 
 against the noble mover's opinion, and against the politics and 
 interests of that party in the state, of which the noble mover is so 
 conspicuous an ornament. But if such considerations be suffi- 
 cient to unsettle an ancient and established form of political Con- 
 stitution, how could any Constitution — any free Constitution — 
 exist for six months? While human nature continues the same, 
 the like divisions will arise in every free state; the like conflict 
 of interests and opinions; the like rivalry for office; the like con- 
 tention for power. A popular assembly always has been and 
 always will be exposed to the operation of a party-feeling, array- 
 ing its elements and influencing its decisions, in modern as in an- 
 cient times; in Great Britain, in this our day, as heretofore in 
 Athens or in Rome. No imaginable alteration in the mode of 
 election can eradicate this vice, if it be a vice; or can extinguish 
 that feeling, be it good or bad, which mixes itself largely in every 
 debate upon the public affairs of a nation — the feeling of affection 
 or disfavour towards the persons in whose hands is the conduct 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 341 
 
 of those affairs. I am not saying that this is a proper and lauda- 
 ble feeling: I am not contending that partiality ought to influence 
 judgment; still less that when judgment and partiality are at 
 variance, the latter ought, in strict duty, to preponderate. I am 
 not affirming that in the discussion of the question, " What has 
 been done?" the question, "Who did it?" ought silently to 
 dictate, or even to modify, the answer; that the case should be 
 nothing, and the men every thing. I say no such thing. But I 
 do say that while men are men, popular assemblies, get them 
 together how you will, will be liable to such influence. I say, 
 that in discussing in a popular assembly the particular acts of a 
 government, the consideration of the general character of that 
 government, and the conflicting partialities which lead some men 
 to favour it, and others to aim at its subversion, will, sometimes 
 openly and avowedly, at other times insensibly even to the dis- 
 putants themselves, control opinions and votes, and correct, or 
 pervert (as it may be) the specific decision. I say that, for in- 
 stance, in the discussion upon the Walcheren Expedition, which 
 has been more than once selected as an example of undue influ- 
 ence and partiality, there was notoriously another point at issue 
 beside the specific merits of the case ; and that point was, whether 
 the then Administration should or should not be dismissed from 
 the service of their country ? Never, perhaps, was the struggle 
 pushed farther than on that occasion; and that vote substantially 
 decided the question " in what hands should be placed the Ad- 
 ministration of affairs." I am not saying that this was right in 
 the particular instance — I am not saying that this is right in prin- 
 ciple. But right or wrong, such a mode of thinking and acting 
 is, I am afraid, essentially in the very nature of all popular go- 
 vernments; and most particularly so in that of the most free. 
 
 The noble lord has himself stated, that in the instance of the 
 Revolution the Parliament did wisely in setting at nought the 
 immediate feelings of its constituents. There cannot indeed be 
 the slightest doubt that had the nation been polled in 1688, the 
 majority would have been found adverse to the change that 
 was then effected in the Government: but Parliament, acting in 
 its higher and larger capacity, decided for the people's interests 
 against their prejudices. It is not true, therefore, that the House 
 of Commons is necessarily defective, because it may not instantly 
 respond to every impression of the people. 
 
 In the year 1811, 1 myself divided in a minority of about forty 
 against an overwhelming majority, on the question relating to the 
 depreciation of the currency. It would be idle to deny that the 
 majority, which sturdily denied the fact of that depreciation, 
 then spoke the sentiments of the country at large; they certainly 
 did so; but who will now affirm that it would have been a mis- 
 
 *EE 
 
342 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 fortune if the then prevailing sense of the country had been less 
 faithfully represented in the votes of this House? What a world 
 of error and inconvenience should we have avoided, by a salutary 
 discrepancy, at that time, between the constituent and the repre- 
 sentative! Eight years afterwards, but unluckily after eight 
 years' additional growth of embarrassment, in 1819, the princi- 
 ples which had found but about forty supporters in ISll, were 
 adopted unanimously, first by a committee of this House, and 
 then by this House itself. But the country was much slower in 
 coming back from the erroneous opinions which the decision of 
 this House in 1811 had adopted and confirmed. In 1819, as in 
 1811, if London and the other principal towns of the kingdom 
 had been canvassed for an opint<^n, the prevailing opinion would 
 still have been found nearly what it was in 1811. Yet is it necessary 
 to argue that the decision of the House in 1819, against the opin- 
 ion of the country, was a sounder and wiser decision than that of 
 1811 in conformity to it? Never then can I consider it as a true 
 proposition that the state of the representation is deficient, be- 
 cause it does not immediately speak the apparent sense of the 
 people — because it sometimes contradicts, and sometimes goes 
 before it. The House, as well as the people, are liable to err; 
 but that the House may happen to differ in opinion from the peo- 
 ple, is no infallible mark of error. And it would, in my opinion, 
 be a base and cowardly House of Commons, unworthy of the 
 large and liberal confidence without which it must be incompe- 
 tent to the discharge of its highest functions, which having, after 
 due deliberation, adopted a great public measure, should be fright- 
 ened back into an acquiescence with the temporary excitement 
 which might exist upon that measure out of doors. 
 
 Upon another great question which I have much at heart, I 
 mean the Roman Catholic Question, I have not the slightest doubt 
 that the House has run before the sense of the country, which is 
 now, however, gradually coming up to us. I have no doubt that 
 in all our early votes on this most important question, we had not 
 the country with us; but I am equally confident that the period 
 is rapidly advancing, when the country will be convinced that 
 the House of Commons has acted as they ought to have done. If 
 on such questions as these — questions before which almost all 
 others sink into insignificance — the House of Commons have 
 been either against, or before, the opinions of the country, the 
 proposition that the representative system is necessarily imper- 
 fect, because it does not give an immediate echo to the senti- 
 ments of the people, is surely not to be received without abun- 
 dant qualification. On this ground therefore there is no foundation 
 for the noble lord's motion; unless the free expression of an 
 honest and conscientious opinion, when it may happen to differ 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REF0R3I. 343 
 
 from that of its constituents, be inconsistent with the duty and 
 derogatory to the character of a representative assembly. 
 
 To return to the other noble lord (Lord Folkstone,) who has 
 no sooner renounced his former faith and adopted a new one, than 
 he seats himself in the confessional chair, and calls upon me for 
 my recantation: — that noble lord has desired me to explain and 
 defend the proposition which I have heretofore laid down, that 
 those who wish to reform the House of Commons must intend to 
 reform it upon one of two principles — either to construct it 
 anew, or to bring it back to the state at which it exisited at some 
 former period. Before I consent to be thus catechised by the 
 noble lord, I might reasonably ask him in what third sense the 
 word reform can be understood, except that in which it is some- 
 times applied to a military corps, which means to disband and 
 cashier it altogether? Short of that mode of disposing of the 
 House of Commons (for which I presume the noble lord is not 
 yet altogether prepared,) there is, so far as I know, or can con- 
 ceive (until the noble lord shall further enlighten me,) no other 
 way in which a reform can take place, than those which I have 
 specified. Between those two modes, then, I must still desire the 
 noble lord to make his choice. If his choice be another construc- 
 tion — a totally new scheme of House of Commons — is it unrea- 
 sonable in me that, before I pin my faith upon that of the noble 
 convert, I desire to behold that beau ideal — that imaged perfec- 
 tion of political good by which his reason is fascinated, and which 
 his inventive fancy has pictured to him as the standard of parlia- 
 mentary purity ? If the second of my proposed alternatives be 
 that which the noble lord prefers, the inquiry that I have then to 
 make of him is merely historical; and surely he can be at no loss 
 for an immediate answer to it — What is the golden era at which 
 the House of Commons was precisely what you would have it? 
 
 Simple, however, as this latter question is, I have never yol 
 met with the reformer who did not endeavour to evade it. I 
 must endeavour therefore to collect the best answers that I can, 
 from such partial indications of opinion as are scattered up and 
 down among the general arguments for reform. Some theorists 
 are fond of tracing back the Constitution to the twilight times of 
 history, where all that can be clearly discovered is, that when a 
 Parliament met, it usually sat about a fortnight, granted a subsidy 
 or two, and was forthwith dissolved. It is not to this infancy of 
 our institutions that any one will soberly refer, for the likeness of 
 such a House of Commons as would be competent, in the present 
 age, to transact the business of the country and to maintain its due 
 importance in the Constitution. But the House gradually attain- 
 ed a more mature existence; it has grown into a co-ordinate, and 
 is now the preponderant element of the Constitution. If the 
 
344 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 House has thus increased in power, is it therefore necessary that 
 it should also become more popular in its formation? I should 
 say, — -just the reverse. If it were to add to its real active govern- 
 ing influence such an exclusively popular character and tone of 
 action as would arise from the consciousness that it was the im- 
 mediately deputed agent for the whole people, and the exclusive 
 organ of their will, the House of Commons, instead of enjoying 
 one-third part of the power of the state, would, in a little time, 
 absorb the whole. How could the House of Lords, a mere as- 
 sembly of individuals, however privileged, and representing only 
 themselves, presume to counteract the decisions of the delegates 
 of the people? How could the Crown itself, holding its power, as 
 /should say, for the people, but deriving it altogether, as others 
 would contend, yrowi the people, — presume to counteract, or hesi- 
 tate implicitly to obey, the supreme authority of the nation as- 
 sembled within these walls? I fear the noble lord (Lord Folk- 
 stone) is not prepared to answer these questions. I do not pre- 
 sume to say that they are unanswerable; but I affirm that, since 
 they were propounded in my obnoxious speech at Liverpool, they 
 have yet received no answer here or elsewhere. In truth, they 
 admit of no other answer than one which I happen to have fallen 
 upon within these few days, in the report of a debate on Parlia- 
 mentary Reform which took place about thirty years ago; and for 
 which, in the absence of any answer of his own, the noble lord 
 will undoubtedly be very thankful. It is in these words: — " It 
 has been said that a House of Commons, so chosen as to be a com- 
 plete representative of the people, would be too powerful for the 
 House of Lords, and even for the King: they would abolish the 
 one, and dismiss the other, //"the King and the House of Lords 
 are unnecessary and useless branches of the Constitution, let them 
 be dismissed and abolished: for the people were not made for 
 them, but they for the people. If, on the contrar}', the King and 
 the House of Lords are felt and believed by the people to be not 
 only useful but essential parts of the Constitution, a House of 
 Commons freely chosen by and speaking the sentiments of the 
 people, would cherish and protect both, within the bounds which 
 the Constitution had assigned to them."* These are reported to 
 have been the words of a man, the lustre of whose reputation will 
 survive through distant ages, and of whom I can never intend 
 to speak but with feelings of respect and admiration: they are the 
 words of Mr. Fox. That the report is accurate to a letter, I am 
 not entitled to contend; but the substance of an argument so strik- 
 ingly important, cannot have been essentially misapprehended. I 
 quote these words with the freedom of history; not with the de- 
 
 * Parliamentary History, vol. xxx. p. 921. (May 6, 1793.) 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 345 
 
 sign of imputing blame to the speaker of them, but because they 
 contain a frank solution (according with the frankness of his char- 
 acter) of the difficulty with which, in these days, I have not found 
 any one hardy enough to grapple. So then — a House of Com- 
 mons freely chosen by the people, would, it seems " cherish and 
 protect" the House of Lords and the Crown, so long as they re- 
 spectively kept within the bounds allotted to them by the Consti- 
 tution. Indeed? cherish and protect! — but cherish and protect, 
 if so and so: and how, if not so and so? How, if the House of 
 Commons in its reformed character, should happen to entertain a 
 different opinion with respect to the "bounds" to be allotted to 
 the Crown and to the lords under the new Constitution ? What 
 would then be substituted for cherishment and protection ? A fear- 
 ful question! but a question which must be answered, and much 
 more satisfactorily than I can anticipate, before I can consent to 
 exchange that equality and co-ordination of powers among the 
 three branches of our present Constitution, in which its beauty, 
 its strength, its stability, and the happiness of those who live un- 
 der it, consist, for a Constitution in which two of those powers 
 should confessedly depend for their separate existence on the dis- 
 position of the third to "cherish and protect" them. This new 
 Constitution might be very admirable: but it is not the Constitu- 
 tion under which I live; it is not the Constitution to which I owe 
 allegiance; it is not the Constitution which I would wish to intro- 
 duce; and in order not to introduce a Constitution of this nature, 
 I must not consent to the Reform of the House of Commons. 
 
 If this House is adequate to the functions which really belong 
 to it, — which functions are, not to exercise an undivided, supreme 
 dominion in the name of the people, over the Crown and the 
 other branch of the Legislature, but checking the one and balancing 
 the other, to watch over the people's rights and to provide especial- 
 ly for the people's interests. If, I say, the House is adequate to 
 the performance of these its legitimate functions, the mode of its 
 composition appears to me a consideration of secondary import- 
 ance. I am aware, that by stating this opinion so plainly, I run the 
 risk of exciting a cry against myself; but it is my deliberate opin- 
 ion, and I am not afraid to declare it. Persons may look with a 
 critical and microscopic eye into bodies physical or moral, until 
 doubts arise whether it is possible for them to perform their as- 
 signed functions, Man himself is said by inspired authority to 
 be "fearfully" as well as " wonderfully made." The study of 
 anatomy, while it leads to the most beneficial discoveries for the 
 detection and cure of physical disease, has yet a tendency, in some 
 minds, rather to degrade than to exalt the opinion of human na- 
 ture. It appears surprising to the contemplator of a skeleton of 
 the human form, that the eyeless skull, the sapless bones, the as- 
 46 
 
346 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 semblage of sinews and cartilages in which intellect and volition 
 have ceased to reside, that this piece of mechanism should consti- 
 tute a creature so noble in reason, so infinite in faculties, in appre- 
 hension so like a god; a creature formed after the image of the 
 Divinity, to whom Providence 
 
 "Os — sublime dedit: coelumque tucri 
 Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus." 
 
 So, in considering too curiously the composition of this House, 
 and the different processes through which it is composed, not those 
 processes alone which are emphatically considered as pollution 
 and corruption, but those also which rank among the noblest ex- 
 ercises of personal freedom, the canvasses, the conflicts, the con- 
 troversies, and (what is inseparable from these) the vituperations, 
 and excesses of popular election, a dissector of political constitu- 
 tions might well be surprised to behold the product of such ele- 
 ments in an assembly, of which, whatever may be its other char- 
 acteristics, no man will seriously deny that it comprehends as 
 much of intellectual ability and of moral integrity as was ever 
 brought together in the civilized world. Nay, to an unlearned 
 spectator, undertaking for the first time an anatomical examination 
 of the House of Commons, those parts of it which, according to 
 theory, are its beauties, must appear most particularly its stains. 
 For while the members returned for burgage-tenure seats, or 
 through other obscure and noiseless modes of election, pass into 
 the House of Commons unnoticed and uncriticised, their talents 
 unquestioned and their reputations unassailed, the successful can- 
 didate of a popular election often comes there loaded with the im- 
 putation of every vice and crime that could unfit a man not only 
 for representing any class of persons, but for mixing with them 
 as a member of society. The first effect of a reform which should 
 convert all elections into popular ones, would probably be to en- 
 sure a congregation of individuals, against every one of whom a 
 respectable minority of his constituents would have pronounced 
 sentence of condemnation. And if it be so very hard that there 
 are now a great number of persons who do not directly exercise 
 the elective franchise, and who are therefore represented by per- 
 sons whom others have chosen for them, would this matter be 
 much mended when two-fifths of the people of England should 
 be represented not only without their choice, but against their 
 will; not only by individuals whom they had not selected, but 
 by those whom they declared utterly unworthy of their confi- 
 dence? 
 
 Again; — should we have no cause to lament the disfranchise- 
 ment of those boroughs which are not open to popular influence ? 
 How many of the gentlemen who sit opposite to me, the rarest 
 talents of their party, owe their seats to the existence of such bo- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 347 
 
 roughs? When I consider the eminent qualities which distin- 
 guish, for instance, the representatives of Knaresborough, Win- 
 chelsea, Wareham, Higham-Ferrers, I never can consent to join in 
 the reprobation cast upon a system which fructifies in produce of 
 so admirable a kind. No, Sir, if this House is not all that theory 
 could wish it, I would rather rest satisfied with its present state, 
 than by endeavouring to remedy some small defects, run the haz- 
 ard of losing so much that is excellent. Old Sarum and other 
 boroughs at which the finger of scorn is pointed, are not more 
 under private patronage now than at the periods the most glori- 
 ous in our history. Some of them are still in the possession of 
 the descendants of the same patrons who held them at the period 
 of the Revolution. Yet in spite of Old Sarum the Revolution 
 was accomplished, and the House of Hanover seated on the 
 throne. In spite of Old Sarum, did I say? No; rather by the 
 aid of Old Sarum and similar boroughs; for the House has heard 
 it admitted by the noble mover himself, that if the House of 
 Commons of that da)'^ had been a reformed House of Commons, 
 the benefits of the Revolution would never have been obtained. 
 
 The noble lord, in his opening speech, made some allusion to 
 the constitutional history of ancient Rome, and called upon my 
 honourable friend (Mr. Bankes) opposite, as the most recent his- 
 torian of that republic, to vouch for his facts, and for the applica- 
 tion of them. Let me follow the noble lord into his Roman His- 
 tory, to ask him a single question. How was the senate of Rome 
 composed ? I doubt whether even my honourable friend opposite 
 can inform us. All that is certainly known on the subject is, that 
 one and by far the most usual way of gaining admission to the 
 senate, (this has not a very reforming sound,) was through office. 
 Yet that senate dictated to the world, and adequately represented 
 the majesty of the Roman people. History blazons its deeds, 
 while antiquarianism is poring into its pedigree. 
 
 But have the defects imputed to the composition and constitu- 
 tion of the ?Iouse of Commons increased with time ? Are they 
 grown more numerous or more unsightly ? I believe the contrary. 
 I believe. Sir, that in whatever period of our history the compo- 
 sition and constitution of the House of Commons are examined, 
 not only will the same alleged abuses as are now complained of 
 be found to have prevailed; but I will venture to say, prevailed 
 in a degree which could not be now avowed in debate without a 
 violation of our orders. There is great difficulty in speaking on 
 this delicate part of the subject. It has been made an article of 
 reproach by the reformers, that the enemies of reform treat these 
 matters with shameless indifie;i'ence; that we now speak with 
 levity of transactions the bare mention of which, according to 
 the dictum of once the highest authority in this House, was cal 
 
i^ iS PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 culated to make our ancestors perform certain evolutions in their 
 graves. Now it is very hard that the want of shame should be 
 imputed to those who are upon the defensive side of the argu- 
 ment. They who attack, scruple not to advance charges of gross 
 corruption in the grossest terms; and they who defend are re- 
 duced to the alternative either of affecting to be ignorant of the 
 nature of those charges, or of admitting notorious facts, and ac- 
 counting for or extenuating them; and if they take the latter 
 course, they are accused of shamelessness. Be that as it may, 
 however, it may be curious and perhaps consolatory to show to 
 the moralists who are so sensitive upon these subjects, that cor- 
 ruption, as they call it, that (in plain words) influence in the re- 
 turn of members to Parliament, if it be a sin, is not one for which 
 iheir own generation is exclusively responsible. The taint, if it 
 be one, is not newly acquired, but inherited through a long line 
 of ancestors. The purge or the cautery may be applied to the 
 present generation; but I can show that the original malady is at 
 least as old as the reign of Henry VI. a period beyond which the 
 most retrospective antiquary will not require of us to go back in 
 search of purity of election. 
 
 Sir, in the reign of Henry VI. the Duchess of Norfolk thus in- 
 structed her agent as to the election of members for the county 
 of Norfolk: — 
 
 " *Right trusty and well beloved, we greet you heartily well; 
 and forasmuch as it is thought right necessary for diverse causes, 
 that My Lord have at this time in the Parliament such persons 
 as belong unto him, and be of his menial servants, we heartily 
 desire and pray you, that at the contemplation of these our letters, 
 ye will give and apply your voice unto our right well beloved 
 cousin and servants, John Howard and Sir Roger Chamberlayn, 
 to be Knights of the Shire. Framlingham Castle, 8 June, 1455." 
 What follows, probably related to the same election; it is ad- 
 dressed (by Lord Oxenford) to the same individual as the pre- 
 ceding extract. 
 
 " tMy I^ord of Norfolk met with my Lord of York at Bury 
 on Thursday, and there [they] were together till Friday, nine of 
 the clock, and then they departed; and there a gentleman of my 
 Lord of York took unto a Yeoman of mine, John Deye, a Token 
 and a Sedell (Schedule) of my Lord's intent, ivhom he would 
 have Knights of the Shire, and I send you a Sedell inclosed of 
 their names in this Letter; wherefore, methinketh it [were] well 
 done to perforrn 7ny hordes intent ^ 
 
 The next extract which I shall read to the House is of seven- 
 teen years later date than the preceding ones. It is from a letter 
 
 * Paston Correspondence, 4to. vol. i. p. 97. f Ibid. vol. i. p. 99, 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 349 
 
 addressed by one of the Duchess of Norfolk's household to the 
 bailiff of the borough of Maldon, and is dated in the year 1472, 
 the 11th of Edward IV. 
 
 " *It were necessary for my Lady and you all (her Servants 
 and Tenants) to have in this Parliament as for one of the Bur- 
 gesses of the town of Maldon, such a man of worship and of wit 
 as were towards my said Lady; and also such one as in favour 
 of the King and of the Lords of his Council nigh about his per- 
 son; certifying you, that my Lady for her part, and such as be of 
 her council, be most agreeable that all such as be her farmers 
 and tenants and well-willers, should give your voice to a worship- 
 ful Knight, and one of my Lady's Council, Sir John Paston, 
 which stands greatly in favour with my Lord Chamberlain; and 
 what my said Lord Chamberlain may do with the King, and with 
 all the Lords of England, I trow it be not unknown to you." 
 
 It appears from the following letter that the said member-elect 
 for the Borough of Maldon, Sir John Paston (to whom it is ad- 
 dressed) had expected to be nominated a knight of the shire; but 
 that his patrons had ordered it otherwise: — 
 
 " tMy Lord of Norfolk, and my Lord of Suffolk were agreed 
 more than a fortnight ago, to have Sir Robert Wyngfield. and Sir 
 Richard Harcourt; and that knew I not till Friday last past. 
 I had sent, ere I went to Framlingham, to warn as many of your 
 friends to be at Norwich as this Monday, to serve your interest, 
 as I could; but when I came to Framlingham, and knew the ap- 
 pointment that loas taken for the two Knights, I sent warning 
 again to as many as I might, to tarry at home; and yet there came 
 to Norwich this day as many as their costs drew to 9s. WA. paid 
 and reckoned by Peacock and Capron, and yet they did but break 
 their fasts and departed." " If ye miss to be Burgess of Mal- 
 don, and my Lord Chamberlain will, ye may be in another place; 
 there be a dozen Towns in England, that choose no Burgess, 
 which ought to do it," — (this will surely propitiate the Reform- 
 ers): — " ye may be set in for one of these towns, an if ye be 
 friended." Such was reform in those days! 
 
 In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the era to which, habitually 
 and almost instinctively, the mind of Englishmen recurs for every 
 thing that is glorious, I could show the House that the Earl of 
 Essex, her mighty favourite, dictated, without scruple or reserve, 
 the returns to Parliament, not only for the county of Stafford, 
 but for every borough in the county. Unluckily, I have not the 
 documents at hand; but I can aver it on the most unquestiona- 
 ble authority. J 
 
 * Paston Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 99. fl^id. vol. ii. p. 103. 
 
 \ Among the documents alluded to in this passage, are the following letters 
 
 FF 
 
350 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 Passing over the reign of James I. and his unfortunate succes- 
 sor, — and not dwelling upon the cavalier treatment which Crom- 
 well bestowed upon his own purified and reformed Houses of 
 
 from Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, to Richard Bagot, Esq., high sheriff of 
 the County of Stafford ; of which the originals are in the possession of Lord 
 Bagot. 
 
 1. — Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, to Richard Bagot, Esq. 
 
 "After my verie hartie comendacions ; I cannot write severall letters to all 
 those that have interest in the choyse of the Knights of theShere, to be apoynt- 
 ed for the Parliament intended to be held verie shortlie. To which place I do ex- 
 ceedingly desire that my verie good friend, Sir Christofer Blount, may be elected. 
 I do, therefore, commend the matter to your friendlie sollicitacions, praying 
 you to move the gentlemen, my good friends, and yours in that countie; par- 
 ticularly in my name, that they will give their voice with hini for my sake ; 
 assuring them tJiat as they shall do it for one whome I hold deare, and whose 
 sufficiencie for the place is well known to them ; so 1 will most thankfullie de- 
 serve towards them and yourselves any travell, favour, or kindeness that shall 
 be showed therein. Thus I commit you to God's good protection. From Hamp- 
 ton Court, the 2d of January, 1592. 
 
 "ESSEX." 
 
 " I persuade myself that my credit is so good with my countrymen, as the 
 using my name in so small a matter will be enough to affect it. But I pray 
 you use me so kindlie in that as I have no repulse." 
 
 2. — From the same to the same. 
 
 " After my verie hartie commendacions. As I have by my late letters com- 
 mended unto you Sir Christofer Blount to be elected one of the Knights of 
 that Shire, for the Parliament to be holden verie shortlie, by your triendlie 
 mediacion. So I do with no less earnestness intreate your like favoure towards 
 my very good friend. Sir Thomas Sherrard, for the other place ; praying you 
 that you will employe your creditte, and use my name to all my good friends 
 and yours, there, that they will stand faste to me in this requeste, and that my 
 desire may be effected for them. They cannot give me better testimonie of 
 their love and affection, because they are both such as I hold deare, and you 
 may assure all such as shall join with you in election, that I will most thank- 
 fullie requite their readines, and furtherance them by any good office I can. 
 So I committe you to God's best protection. From Hampton Court, the 9th of 
 January, 1592." 
 
 " Your assured friend, 
 
 " ESSEX." 
 
 '•1 sliould think my credite little in my owne countrie, if it should not afford 
 so small a matter as this. Esspessalie the men being so fitt. Therefore I 
 commend you all (as I have interest in your labours) effectuallie in it." 
 
 3. — From the same to the same. 
 
 " After my verie hartie commendacions. I have written severall letters to 
 Lichfield, Stafford, Tamworth, and Newcastle, for the nomination and election 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 351 
 
 Commons, I come to the reign of Charles II., where I find, not 
 amid scarce manuscripts and treasures of ancient lore, but publish- 
 ed in a hundred popular books, in sketches of biography, and 
 lessons for youth, the famous letter of that most famous woman, 
 Anne, Countess of Pembroke; who, amongst her other great titles 
 and possessions, was undoubted patroness of the then, I presume, 
 free and independent borough of Appleby. This great lady writes 
 thus to Sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of state to Charles II., 
 in answer to his suggestion of a member for the borough of Ap- 
 pleby— 
 
 "I have been bullied by an Usurper; I have been ill treated 
 by a Court; but I won't be dictated to by a Subject; your Man 
 sha'n't stand. 
 
 " ANNE, 
 " Countess of Dorset, Pembroke, 
 and Montgomery." 
 
 Now, Sir, I should be curious to know ivhich generation of our 
 ancestors it is that the exercise of political influence in the elec- 
 tions of the present day, so lamentably disquiets in their graves. 
 Is it the cotemporaries of the Duchess of Norfolk, and of the wor- 
 thy electors of Maldon, who were to be careful to choose mem- 
 bers so properly "towards" my Lady? — or those who tasted the 
 sweets of uninfluenced election under Queen Elizabeth ? — or those 
 who contemplated with equal admiration the Countess of Pem- 
 broke's defence of her castles against the forces of the usurper, 
 and of her good borough of Appleby against Secretary William- 
 son's nominee ? Pity it is that the noble lord (Lord Folkstone,) the 
 convert to reform, did not live in the days of one or other of 
 these heroines! Their example could hardly have failed to re- 
 convert him to his original native sentiments upon the subject of 
 influence in elections, and the fit constitution of a House of Com- 
 mons, 
 
 of certen burgesses of the Parliament to be held verie shortlie. I have named 
 unto them, for Lichfield, Sir John Wyngfield and Mr. Boughton. For Staf- 
 ford, my kinsman, Henrie Bourgcher, and my servant, Edward Reynolds. For 
 Tam worth, my servant, Thomas Smith, For Newcastle, Dr. -lames. W'home, 
 because I do greatlie desire to be preferred to the said places, I do earnestlie 
 pray your furtherance, by the creditt which you have in those towns. Assur- 
 ing them of my thankfulness, if they they shall, for my sake, gratifie those 
 whom I have commended ; and yourself that I will not be unmyndful of your 
 curtesie therein. So I commit you to God's good protection. From Hampton 
 Court, the last of December, 1592. 
 
 " Your assured friend, 
 
 " ESSEX." 
 " I send you unto the severall letters, 
 
 which I praye you cause to be delivered 
 
 according to their directions." 
 
352 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 But 1 nave not yet done with my list of patronesses. Nor has 
 interference in elections, and female interference too, been coupled 
 with no great name in the unquestioned good times of the Consti- 
 tution. The noble lord who made this motion will pardon me for 
 referring him to the published letters of his great ancestress, the 
 Lady Russell; in which he will find the Lord Steward (the Duke 
 of Shrewsbury,) and Lord Keeper Somers, tendering to her, for 
 her son Lord Tavistock, then a minor, the representation of the 
 county of Middlesex, upon the single condition that Lord Tavis- 
 tock would consent but to show himself to the electors for one 
 day under the name of Lord Russell.* The offer was not accept- 
 ed, on account, so far as appears, of Lord Tavistock's minority; 
 though instances are adduced by the makers of the proposition to 
 convince her ladyship that that need not be an objection. But 
 what would be said now-a-days, and what would be the agitation 
 of our buried ancestors, if a lord chancellor and a lord steward 
 'were to concur in offering a seat in Parliament for a county to 
 some young nobleman yet under age?t 
 
 Now here let me guard myself against misrepresentation. It 
 must not be imputed to me that I am saying that all this was 
 right: I am only saying that all this was so. I have been deal- 
 ing (be it observed) with the second of my two questions: not 
 with the question, whether the House of Commons should be re- 
 constructed ? — but with the question whether it should be recalled 
 to some state in which it formerly stood ? I have been endeavour- 
 ing to dispel the idle superstition that there once existed in this 
 country a House of Commons, in the construction of which the 
 faults that are attributed to the present House of Com^mons, and 
 attributed to it as a motive for inflicting upon itself its own de- 
 struction, did not equally exist: and not only exist equally, but 
 exist in wider extent and more undisguised enormity. I have 
 been showing that if the present House of Commons is to be de- 
 stroyed for these faults, it has earned that fate not by degeneracy, 
 
 *" At the General Election which took place in October 169.5, it was pro- 
 posed to her, in the most flattering manner, by order of the Duke of Shrews- 
 bury, then lord steward, and the lord keeper Somers, to bring her son into 
 Parliament as member for the county of Middlesex." — hife of Lady Rus- 
 sell, Third Edit. 8vo. p. 120. 
 
 t " It is to be remarked that, in those early days of our renovated Constitu- 
 tion, the objection of Lord Tavistock's age was considered merely in relation 
 to himself, and as no obstacle to the success of his election. Mr. Montague, 
 in his letter to the Duke of Bedford, to obviate any scruple in the duke's mind, 
 mentions that Lord Godolphin's son was to be chosen in Cornwall, and Lord 
 Leicester's in Kent, who were neither of them older than Lord Tavistock : 
 and Mr. Owen, in a letter to Lady Russell, tells her the Duke of Albemarle's 
 son had been allowed to sit in Parliament under age." — Life of Lady Russell, 
 Third Edit. 8vo. p. 123. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 353 
 
 but by imitation; that it would in such case expiate the misdeeds 
 of its predecessors, instead of suflering for any that are peculiarly 
 its own. I have been endeavouring to prove, that of the two op- 
 tions, — "do you mean to restore? — or to construct anew?" — no 
 reformer Avho has carefully examined the subject, can in sincerity 
 answer otherwise than "to construct anew:" for that to restore 
 the times of purity of election, that is, of election free from the 
 influence, and a preponderating influence too, of property, rank, 
 station, and power, natural or acquired, would be, to restore a 
 state of things of which we can find no prototype, and to revert 
 to times which in truth have never been. 
 
 That the proposition "to construct anew" is the much more 
 formidable proposition of the two, is tacitly admitted by the very 
 unwillingness which is shown on all occasions to acknowledge it 
 as the object of any motion for reform. Yet to that must the re- 
 formers come. To that, I venture to tell the noble lord, he, with 
 all his caution, and all his desire to avoid extravagance and exag- 
 geration, must come, if he consents to reform on principle. By 
 reforming " on principle," I mean, reforming with a view not 
 simply to the redress of any partial, practical grievance, but gene- 
 rally to theoretical improvement. I may add that even " on prin- 
 ciple" his endeavours to reform will be utterly vain, if he insists 
 upon the exclusion of influence, as an indispensable quality of his 
 reformed Constitution. Not in this country only, but in every 
 country in which a popular elective assembly has formed part of 
 the Government, to exclude such influence from the elections, has 
 been a task either not attempted, or attempted to no purpose. 
 While we dam up one source of influence, a dozen others will 
 open; in proportion as the progress of civilization, the extension 
 of commerce, and a hundred other circumstances, better under- 
 stood than defined, contribute to shift and change, in their rela- 
 tive proportions, the prevailing interests of society. Whether 
 the House of Commons, in its present shape, does not practically 
 though silently accommodate itself to such changes, with a pliancy 
 almost as faithful as the nicest artifice could contrive, is, in my 
 opinion, I confess, a much more important consideration, than 
 whether the component parts of the House might be arranged 
 with neater symmetry, or distributed in more scientific pro- 
 portions. 
 
 But am I therefore hostile to the reformation of any proved 
 cases of abuse, or to the punishment of mal-practices by which 
 the existing rights of election are occasionally violated? No such 
 thing. When any such cases are pointed out and proved, far be 
 it from me to wish that they should be passed over with impunity. 
 When the noble lord (Lord John Russell) himself brought for- 
 ward, two years ago, a bill for transferring to other constituents, 
 47 FF* 
 
354 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 the right of election of a borough in which gross corruption had 
 been practised, he began, as I thought and think, in the right 
 course. When he proposed the disfranchisement of Grampound, 
 I gave him my support; and if other cases of the same descrip- 
 tion occurred, I should be ready to do so again. That, Sir, is the 
 true way of reforming the House of Commons: by adding 
 strength to the representation, where we can do so certainly and 
 definitely, and without incurring a risk of evils greater than those 
 we cure. In the principle of that proposition of the noble lord I 
 concurred: and if I concurred with those who suggested the sub- 
 stitution of the county of York for the town of Leeds, as the re- 
 cipient of the franchise to be detached from Grampound, I did 
 so, not because I was apprehensive that Leeds would abuse the 
 privilege; but because, for the last forty years, the want of a 
 greater number of members for the county of York had been the 
 standing grievance complained of in every petition for reform. 
 " Shall the great county of York have no more members than the 
 little county 'of Rutland?" — is the language of the petition of 
 1793. " Shall so great, and populous, and manufacturing a county, 
 be no more numerously represented in the House of Commons 
 than the borough of Shoreham, or Cricklade, or Midhurst, or 
 finally than Old Sarum?" — are the apostrophes which have 
 added zest to every debate, and a sting to every petition, from 
 the year 17S0 to the present day. Well? Here was an oppor- 
 tunity of meeting this master-argument, and quieting for ever the 
 perturbed solicitude for Yorkshire representation, I thought, 
 therefore, that it would be a pity to lose such an opportunity; the 
 House fortunately was of the same opinion; and lo! the grievance 
 of grievances, the subject of forty years' clamour is redressed. 
 But, to be quite ingenuous, I will own that I was not without ex- 
 pectation that when the reformers had gained this point, they 
 would find out that they had not gotten exactly what they want- 
 ed. So indeed it has happened. Since the bill passed, I have 
 heard of no congratulations on the event; but I have heard of 
 much regret, and of many fears lest great inconvenience should 
 result from the measure to the county of York itself. This to be 
 sure would be exceedingly to be deplored: and to remedy so un- 
 lucky a result of the first effort at reform, I understand that it is 
 now in contemplation to bring in a bill for the purpose of dividing 
 the county into two parts; assigning to one the old and to the 
 other the new representation. We shall see how this expedient 
 will be relished. For my own part, I apprehend that every true 
 Yorkshireman will object to it as a sort of converse of the judg- 
 ment of Solomon; and that the two old members especially, will 
 rush forward and implore that their ancient parent may be per- 
 mitted to survive whole and unmutilated. In that case, I shall 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 355 
 
 unquestionably join them in the vote for keeping Yorkshire in 
 undivided magnitude, with its augmented representation; afford- 
 ing, as it will do in that state, a conclusive reply to near half a 
 century of remonstrances and lamentations. 
 
 l do not recollect in the speech of the noble mover any other 
 topic on which I feel it necessary to remark; having already, I 
 think, touched upon all the main principles, if not upon all the 
 details and illustrations of his motion; and having, I am well 
 aware, trespassed largely upon the indulgence of the House. 
 
 A few words more upon the more general topics, which belong 
 to this debate, and I have done. It is asked over and over again 
 whether the House of Commons ought not to sympathize with 
 the people? I answer, undoubtedly, yes; and so the House of 
 Commons at present does, finally and in the result. But I also 
 maintain that this House does not betray its trust, if, on points of 
 gravity and difficulty, of deep and of lasting importance, it exer- 
 cises a wary and independent discretion; — even though a momen- 
 tary misunderstanding between the people and the House, should 
 be created by such difference in opinion with the people. I do 
 not believe that the change produced by the noble lord would in- 
 fuse into the House of Commons a more wholesome spirit. I do 
 not believe that to increase the power of the people, or rather to 
 bring that power into more direct, immediate, and incessant ope- 
 ration upon the House — (whether such effect should be produced 
 by rendering elections more popular, or by shortening the dura- 
 tion of Parliaments, or by both) — I do not believe, I say, that this 
 change would enable the House to discharge its functions more 
 usefully than it discharges them at present. With respect to the 
 plan of universal suffrage and annual Parliaments, it seems to be 
 pretty generally agreed, that it would deprive the government of 
 all consistence and stability. Most of the advocates for reform 
 disclaim these doctrines, and resent the imputation of them. I am 
 glad of it. But I confess myself at a loss to understand how any 
 extension of suffrage on principle, how any shortening of Parlia- 
 ments on principle, can be adopted without opening the vvhole 
 scope of that plan: and I confess myself not provided with any 
 argument satisfactory to my own mind, by which, after conceding 
 these alterations in principle, I could hope to control them in 
 degree. I am still more at a loss to conceive in what way such 
 partial concession could tend either to reconcile to the frame of 
 the House of Commons those who are discontented with it as it 
 at present stands, or to enable Parliament to watch more effectual- 
 ly over the freedom, the happiness, and the political importance 
 of the country. 
 
 Dreading therefore the danger of total, and seeing the difficul- 
 ties as well as the unprofitableness of partial alteration, I object to 
 
356 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 this first step towards a change in the constitution of the House 
 of Commons. There are wild theories abroad. I am not disposed 
 to impute an ill motive to any man who entertains them. I will 
 believe such a man to be as sincere in his conviction of the possi- 
 bility of realizing his notions of change without risking the tran- 
 quillity of the country, as I am sincere in my belief of their im- 
 practicability, and of the tremendous danger of attempting to carry 
 them into effect; but for the sake of the world, as well as for our 
 own safety, let us be cautious and firm. Other nations, excited 
 by the example of the liberty which this country has long pos- 
 sessed, have attempted to copy our constitution: and some of them 
 have shot beyond it in the fierceness of their pursuit. I grudge 
 not to other nations, that share of liberty which they may acquire: 
 in the name of God, let them enjoy it! But let us warn them that 
 they lose not the object of their desire by the very eagerness with 
 which they attempt to grasp it. Inheritors and conservators of 
 rational freedom, let us, while others are seeking it in restlessness 
 and trouble, be a steady and shining light to guide their course, 
 not a wandering meteor to bewilder and mislead them. 
 
 Let it not be thought that this is an unfriendly or disheartening 
 counsel to those who are either struggling under the pressure of 
 harsh government, or exulting in the novelty of sudden emanci- 
 pation. It is addressed much rather to those who, though cradled 
 and educated amidst the sober blessings of the British Constitution, 
 pant for other schemes of liberty than those which that Constitu- 
 tion sanctions — other than are compatible with a just equality of 
 civil rights, or with the necessary restraints of social obligation; of 
 some of whom it may be said, in the language which Dryden puts 
 into the mouth of one of the most extravagant of his heroes, that, 
 
 " They would be free as nature first made man, 
 
 Ere the base laws of servitude began, 
 
 When wild in woods the noble savage ran." 
 
 Noble and swelling sentiments! — but such as cannot be reduced 
 into practice. Grand ideas! — but which must be qualified and ad- 
 justed by a compromise between the aspirings of individuals, and 
 a due concern for the general tranquillity; — must be subdued and 
 chastened by reason and experience, before they can be directed 
 to any useful end! A search after abstract perfection in govern- 
 ment, may produce, in generous minds, an enterprise and enthu- 
 siasm to be recorded by the historian and to be celebrated by the 
 poet: but such perfection is not an object of reasonable pursuit, 
 because it is not one of possible attainment: and never yet did a 
 passionate struggle after an absolutely unattainable object fail to 
 be productive of misery to an individual, of madness and confu- 
 sion to a people. As the inhabitants of those burning climates, 
 which lie beneath a tropical sun, sigh for the coolness of the moun- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 357 
 
 tain and the grove; so (all history instructs us) do nations which 
 have basked for a time in the torrent blaze of an unmitigated lib- 
 erty, too often call upon the shades of despotism, even of military 
 despotism, to cover them — 
 
 — " O quis me gelidis in vallibus Haemi 
 Sistat, et ingenti ramorum protegat umbra,!" — 
 
 — a protection which blights while it shelters; which dwarfs the 
 intellect, and stunts the energies of man, but to which a wearied 
 nation willingly resorts from intolerable heats, and from perpetual 
 danger of convulsion. 
 
 Our lot is happily cast in the temperate zone of freedom: the 
 clime best suited to the development of the moral qualities of the 
 human race; to the cultivation of their faculties, and to the securi- 
 ty as well as the improvement of their virtues: — a clime not ex- 
 empt, indeed, from variations of the elements, but variations which 
 purify while they agitate the atmosphere that we breathe. Let 
 us be sensible of the advantages which it is our happiness to en- 
 joy. Let us guard with pious gratitude the flame of genuine lib- 
 erty, that fire from heaven, of which our Constitution is the holy 
 depository; and let us not, for the chance of rendering it more in- 
 tense and more radiant, impair its purity or hazard its extinction! 
 
 The noble lord is entitled to the acknowledgments of the 
 House, for the candid, able, and ingenuous manner in which he 
 has brought forward his motion. If in the remarks which I have 
 made upon it, there has been any thing which has borne the ap- 
 pearance of disrespect to him, I hope he will acquit me of having 
 so intended it. That the noble lord will carry his motion this 
 evening, I have no fear; but with the talents which he has shown 
 himself to possess, and with (I sincerely hope) a long and bril- 
 liant career of parliamentary distinction before him, he will, no 
 doubt, renew his efforts hereafter. Although I presume not to 
 expect that he will give any weight to observations or warnings 
 of mine, yet on this, probably the last, opportunity which I shall 
 have, of raising my voice on the question of Parliamentary Re- 
 form, while I conjure the House to pause before it consents to 
 adopt the proposition of the noble lord, I cannot help conjuring 
 the noble lord himself, to pause before he again presses it upon 
 the country. If, however, he shall persevere, and if his perse- 
 verance shall be successful — and if the results of that success 
 shall be such as I cannot help apprehending — his be the triumph 
 to have precipitated those results — be mine the consolation that 
 to the utmost, and the latest of my power, I have opposed them. 
 
 The House divided : — 
 
 Ayes ...--- 164 
 
 Noes 269 
 
 Majority against the Motion 105 
 
358 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 APRIL 28th, 1823. 
 
 Mr. Macdona.ld concluded a speech, in which he took an extensive review 
 of the negotiations at Verona, Paris, and Madrid, respecting the affairs of Spain, 
 by moving the following Address: — 
 
 " That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to inform His Ma- 
 jesty, that this House has taken into its most serious consideration the papers 
 relating to the late negotiation, which have been laid before them by His Ma- 
 jesty's gracious command. 
 
 " To represent to His Majesty, that tlie disappointment of His Majesty's be- 
 nevolent solicitude to preserve general peace, appears to this House to have, in 
 a great measure, arisen from the failure of His Majesty's Ministers to make 
 the most earnest, vigorous, and solemn protest against the pretended right of 
 the sovereigns assembled at Verona to make war on Spain, m order to compel 
 alterations in her political institutions, as well as against the subsequent pre- 
 tentions of the French Government, that nations cannot lawfully enjoy any civil 
 privileges but from the spontaneous grant of their kings; principles destructive 
 of the rigiils of all independent states, which strike at the root of the British 
 Constitution, and are subversive of His Majesty's legitimate title to the throne. 
 
 " Further, to declare to His Majesty, the surprise and sorrow with which 
 this House has observed that His Majesty's Ministers should have advised the 
 Spanish Government, while so unwarrantably menaced, to alter their Constitu- 
 tion, in the hope of averting invasion ; a concession which alone would have 
 involved the total sacrifice of national independence ; and which was not even 
 palliated by an assurance from France, that on receiving so dishonourable a 
 submission, she would desist from her unprovoked aggression. 
 
 " Finally, to represent to His Majesty, that, in the judgment of this House, 
 a tone of more dignified remonstrance would have been better calculated to 
 preserve the peace of the continent, and thereby to secure this nation more 
 effectually from the hazard of being involved in the calamities of war." 
 
 Mr. Stuart Wortley moved an amended Address — 
 
 " That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to inform His Ma- 
 jesty that this House has taken into its most serious consideration the papers 
 relating to the late negotiations, which have been laid before them by his Ma- 
 jesty's gracious command. To assure His Majesty of our entire concurrence in 
 the principles which His Majesty has repeatedly declared with respect to in- 
 tereference in the internal concerns of independent nations, and in His Majesty's 
 just application of those principles, in the course of the late negotiations, to the 
 case of Spain. 
 
 " To acknowledge with gratitude His Majesty's earnest and unwearied en- 
 deavours to preserve the peace of Europe. 
 
 "To express our deep regret that those endeavours have proved unavailing; 
 and, while we rejoice that His Majesty has not become party to a war in which 
 neither honour, nor treaty, nor the welfare of His Majesty's dominions, required 
 His Majesty to engage, to assure His Majesty that, highly as we estimate the 
 advantages of peace, particularly at the present moment, we shall be at all 
 times ready to afford to His Majesty our most zealous and affectionate support, 
 in any measures which His Majesty may find necessary to fulfil the obligations 
 of national faith, to vindicate the dignity of his Crown, or to maintain the rights 
 and interests of his people." 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 359 
 
 Towards the close of the discussion that arose on the third night of the ad- 
 journed debate upon Mr. Macdonald's motion respecting the negotiation relative 
 to Spain, and on the amendment proposed by Mr. S. Wortley — 
 
 Mr. Canning rose, and said — I am exceedingly sorry, Mr. 
 Speaker, to stand in the way of any honourable gentleman who 
 wishes to address the House on this important occasion.* But, 
 considering the length of time which the debate has already oc- 
 cupied — considering the late hour to which we have now arrived 
 on the third night of discussion — I fear that my own strength, 
 as well as that of the House, would be exhausted, if I were longer 
 to delay the explanations which it is my duty to offer, of the con- 
 duct which His Majesty's Government have pursued, and of the 
 principles by which they have been guided, through a course of 
 negotiations as full of difficulty as any that have ever occupied 
 the attention of a ministry, or the consideration of Parliament. 
 
 If gratitude be the proper description of that sentiment which 
 one feels towards the unconscious bestower of an unintended ben- 
 efit, I acknowledge myself sincerely grateful to the honourable 
 gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) who has introduced the present mo- 
 tion. Although I was previously aware that the conduct of the 
 Government in the late negotiations had met with the individual 
 concurrence of many, perhaps of a great majority of the members 
 of this House; although I had received intimations not to be mis- 
 taken, of the general satisfaction of the country; still, as from the 
 manner in which the papers have been laid before Parliament, it 
 was not the intention of the Government to call for any opinion 
 upon them, I feel grateful to the honourable gentleman who has, 
 in so candid and manly a manner, brought them under distinct 
 discussion; and who, I hope, will become, however unwillingly, 
 the instrument of embodying the sentiments of individuals and 
 of the country into a vote of parliamentary approbation. 
 
 The Government stands in a singular situation with respect to 
 these negotiations. They have maintained peace: they have 
 avoided war. Peace or war — the one or the other — is usually 
 the result of negotiations between independent states. But all 
 the gentlemen on the other side, with one or two exceptions (ex- 
 ceptions which I mention with honour,) have set out with declar- 
 ing, that whatever the question before the House may be, it is 
 not a question of peace or war. Now this does appear to me to 
 be a most whimsical declaration; especially when I recollect, that 
 before this debate commenced, it was known — it was not disguis- 
 
 * Several gentlemen rose at the same time with Mr. Canning, to address the 
 House, but they resumed their seats, as the call for Mr. Canning became loud 
 and general. — Ed. 
 
360 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 ed, it was vaunted without scruple or reserve — that the disposi- 
 tions of those opposed to Ministers were most heroically warlike. 
 It was not denied that they considered hostilities with France to 
 be desirable as well as necessary. The cry " to arms" was raised, 
 and caps were thrown up for war, from a crowd which, if not 
 numerous, was yet loud in their exclamations. But now, when 
 we come to inquire whence these manifestations of feeling pro- 
 ceeded, two individuals only have acknowledged that they have 
 joined in the cry; and for the caps which have been picked up it 
 is difficult to find a wearer. 
 
 But, Sir, whatever may be contended to be the question now 
 before the House, the question which the Government had to 
 consider, and on which they had to decide, was — peace or war? 
 Disguise or overshadow it how you will, that question was at the 
 bottom of all our deliberations; and I have a right to require that 
 the negotiations should be considered with reference to that ques- 
 tion; and to the decision, which, be it right or wrong, we early 
 adopted upon that question — the decision that war was to be 
 avoided, and peace, if possible, maintained. 
 
 How can we discuss with fairness, I might say with common 
 sense, any transactions, unless in reference to the object which 
 was in the view of those who carried them on ? I repeat it, wheth- 
 er gentlemen in this House do or do not consider the question to 
 be one of peace or war, the Ministers could not take a single step 
 in the late negotiations, till they had well weighed that question; 
 till they had determined what direction ought to be given to those 
 negotiations, so far as that question was concerned. We deter- 
 mined that it was our duty, in the first instance, to endeavour to 
 preserve peace if possible for all the world : next, to endeavour to 
 preserve peace between the nations whose pacific relations appear- 
 ed most particularly exposed to hazard; and failing in this, to pre- 
 serve at all events peace for this country; but a peace consistent 
 with the good faith, the interests, and the honour of the nation. 
 
 I am far from intending to assert that our decision in this re- 
 spect is not a fit subject of examination. Undoubtedly the conduct 
 of the Government is liable to a twofold trial. First, was the ob- 
 ject of Ministers a right object? Secondly, did they pursue it in 
 a right way? The first of these questions, whether Ministers did 
 right in aiming at the preservation of peace, I postpone. I will 
 return to the consideration of it hereafter. My first inquiry is as 
 to the merits or demerits of the negotiations; and, in order to en- 
 ter into that inquiry, I must set out with assuming, for the time, 
 that peace is the object which we ought to have pursued. 
 
 With this assumption, I proceed to examine, whether the pa- 
 pers on the table show that the best means were employed for 
 attaining the given object? If the object was unfit, there is an end 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 361 
 
 of any discussion as to the negotiations; — they must necessarily 
 be wrong from the beginning to the end; it is only in reference 
 to their fitness for the end proposed, that the papers themselves 
 can be matter worthy of discussion. 
 
 In reviewing, then, the course of these negotiations, as directed 
 to maintain, first, the peace of Europe; secondly, the peace be- 
 tween France and Spain; and lastly, peace for this country, they 
 divide themselves naturally into three heads: — first, the negotia- 
 tions at Verona; secondly, those with France; and thirdly, those 
 with Spain. Of each of these in their order. 
 
 I say, emphatically, in their order; because there can be no 
 greater fallacy than that which has pervaded the arguments of 
 many honourable gentlemen, who have taken up expressions used 
 in one stage of these negotiations, and applied them to another. 
 An honourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett,) for instance, who ad- 
 dressed the House last night, employed, — or, I should rather say, 
 adopted — a fallacy of this sort, with respect to an expression of 
 mine in the extract of a despatch to the Duke of Wellington, 
 which stands second in the first series of papers. It is but just 
 to the honourable baronet to admit that his observation was adopted, 
 not original; because, in a speech eminent for its ability, and for its 
 fairness of reasoning (however I may disagree both with its prin- 
 ciples and its conclusions,) this, which he condescended to borrow, 
 was in truth the only very weak and ill-reasoned part. By my 
 despatch of the 27th of September, the Duke of Wellington was 
 instructed to declare, that " to any interference by force or menace 
 on the part of the allies against Spain, come what may, His Ma- 
 jesty will not be party." Upon this the honourable baronet, bor- 
 rowing, as I have said, the remark itself, and borrowing also the 
 air of astonishment, which, as I am informed, was assumed by 
 the noble proprietor of the remark, in another place exclaimed 
 "'come what m,ay!' What is the meaning of this ambiguous 
 menace, this mighty phrase, ' that thunders in the index ?' — ' Come 
 what may!' Surely a denunciation of war is to follow. — But no — 
 no such thing. — Only — come what may — ' His Majesty will be 
 no party to such proceedings.' Was ever such a bathos! Such a 
 specimen of sinking in policy ? ' Quid dignum, tanto feret hie 
 promissor hiatu?^ " 
 
 Undoubtedly, Sir, if the honourable baronet could show that 
 this declaration was applicable to the whole course of the nego- 
 tiations, or to a more advanced stage of them, there would be 
 something in the remark, and in the inference which he wished 
 to be drawn from it. But, before the declaration is condemned 
 as utterly feeble and inconclusive, let us consider what was the 
 question to which it was intended as an answer? — That question, 
 Sir, was not as to what England would do in a war between France 
 48 GG 
 
362 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 and Spain; but as to what part she would take, if, in the Congress 
 at Verona, a determination should be avowed by the allies to 
 interfere forcibly into the affairs of Spain? What then was the 
 meaning of the answer to that proposition, — that " come what 
 might, His Majesty would be no party to such a project?" Why, 
 plainly that His Majesty would not concur in such a determina- 
 tion, even though a difference with his allies, even though the dis- 
 solution of the alliance should be the consequence of his refusal. 
 The answer, therefore, was exactly adapted to the question. This 
 specimen of the bathos, this instance of perfection in the art of 
 sinking, as it has been described to be, had its effect; and the Con- 
 gress separated without determining in favour of any joint opera- 
 tion of a hostile character against Spain. 
 
 Sir, it is as true in politics, as in mechanics, that the test of 
 skill and of success is to achieve the greatest purpose with the 
 least power. If, then, it be found that, by this little intimation, 
 we gained the object that we sought for, where was the necessity 
 for greater flourish or greater pomp of words ? An idle waste of 
 effort would only have risked the loss of the object which by 
 temperance we gained! 
 
 But where is the testimony in favour of the effect which this 
 intimation produced ? — I have it, both written and oral. My first 
 witness is the Duke Mathieu de Montmorency; who states, in his 
 official note of the 26th of December, that the measures conceived 
 and proposed at Verona " would have been completely successful, 
 if England had thought herself at liberty to concur in them." 
 Such was the opinion entertained by the Plenipotentiary of France 
 of the failure at Verona, and of the cause of that failure. What 
 was the opinion of Spain ? My voucher for that opinion is the 
 despatch from Sir W. A'Court of the 7th of Januar}- ; in which 
 he describes the comfort and relief that were felt by the Spanish 
 Government, when they learnt that the Congress at Verona had 
 broken up with no other result, than the hruta fulmina of the 
 three despatches from the courts in alliance with France. The 
 third witness whom I produce, and not the least important, be- 
 cause an unwilling and most unexpected, and in this case surely a 
 most unsuspected witness, is the honourable member for West- 
 minster (Mr. Hobhouse,) who seerrf^ to have had particular sources 
 of information as to what was passing at the Congress. Accord- 
 ing to the anti-chamber reports which were furnished to the hon- 
 ourable member (and which, though not always the most authen- 
 tic, were in this instance tolerably correct,) it appears that there 
 was to be no joint declaration against Spain; and it was, it seems, 
 generally understood at Verona, that the instructions given to His 
 Majesty's Plenipotentiary, by the liberal, — I beg pardon, to be 
 quite accurate I am afraid I must say, the radical — Foreign Min- 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 363 
 
 ister of England, were the cause. Now the essence of those in- 
 structions were comprised in that little sentence, which has been 
 so much criticised for meagreness and insufficiency. 
 
 In this case, then, the English Government is impeached, not 
 for failure, but for success; and the honourable baronet, with taste 
 not his own, has expressed himself dissatisfied with that success, 
 only because the machinery employed to produce it did not make 
 noise enough in its operation. 
 
 I contend. Sir, that, whatever might grow out of a separate con- 
 flict between Spain and France (though matter for grave consid- 
 eration) was less to be dreaded, than that all the great Powers of 
 the continent should have been arrayed together against Spain; 
 and that although the first object, in point of importance, indeed, 
 was to keep the peace altogether — to prevent any war against 
 Spain — the first, in point of time, was to prevent a general war; 
 to change the question from a question between the allies on one 
 side, and Spain on the other, to a question between nation and na- 
 tion. This, whatever the result might be, would reduce the quar- 
 rel to the size of ordinary events, and bring it within the scope 
 of ordinary diplomacy. The immediate object of England, there- 
 fore, was to hinder the impress of a joint character from being 
 affixed to the war — if war there must be — with Spain; to take care 
 that the war should not grow out of an assumed jurisdiction of 
 the Congress; to keep within reasonable bounds that predomina- 
 ting areopagitical spirit, which the memorandum of the British 
 Cabinet of May, 1820, describes as " beyond the sphere of the 
 original conception, and understood principles of the alliance," — 
 " an alliance never intended as a union for the government of the 
 world, or for the superintendence of the internal affiiirs of other 
 states." And this, I say, was accomplished. 
 
 With respect to Verona, then, what remains of accusation 
 against the Government? It has been charged, not so much that 
 the object of the Government was amiss, as that the negotiations 
 were conducted in too low a tone. But the case was obviously 
 one in which a high tone might have frustrated the object. I 
 beg, then, of the House, before they proceed to adopt an Address, 
 which exhibits more of the ingenuity of philologists than of the 
 policy of statesmen — before they found a censure of the Govern- 
 ment for its conduct in negotiations of transcendent practical im- 
 portance, upon refinements of grammatical nicety — I beg that 
 they will at least except from the proposed censure, the transac- 
 tions at Verona, where I think I have shown that a tone of re- 
 proach and invective was unnecessary, and, therefore, would have 
 been misplaced. 
 
 Among those who have made unjust and unreasonable objec- 
 tions to the tone of our representations at Verona, I should be 
 
364 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 grieved to include the honourable member for Bramber (Mr. Wil- 
 berforce,) with whose mode of thinking I am too well acquainted, 
 not to be aware that his observations are founded on other and 
 higher motives than those of political controversy. My honour- 
 able friend, through a long and amiable life, has mixed in the busi- 
 ness of the world without being stained by its contaminations: and 
 he, in consequence, is apt to place — I will not say too high, but 
 higher, I am afraid, than the ways of the world will admit, the 
 standard of political morality. I fear my honourable friend is 
 not aware how difficult it is to apply to politics those pure, ab- 
 stract principles which are indispensable to the excellence of pri- 
 vate ethics. Had we employed in the negotiations that serious 
 moral strain which he might have been more inclined to approve, 
 many of the gentlemen opposed to me would, I doubt not, have 
 complained, that we had taken a leaf from the book of the Holy 
 Alliance itself; that we had framed in their own language a cant- 
 ing protest against their purposes, not in the spirit of sincere dis- 
 sent, but the better to cover our connivance. My honourable 
 friend, I admit, would not have been of the number of those who 
 would have so accused us: but he may be assured that he would 
 have been wholly disappointed in the practical result of our di- 
 dactic reprehensions. In truth, the principle of 7ion-intcrference 
 is one on which we were already irrecoverably at variance in opin- 
 ion with the allies; it was no longer debateable ground. On the 
 one hand, the alliance upholds the doctrine of an European police; 
 this country, on the other hand, as appears from the memorandum 
 already quoted, protests against that doctrine. The question is, 
 in fact, settled, as many questions are, by each party retaining its 
 own opinions; and the points reserved for debate are points only 
 of practical application. To such a point it was that we directed 
 our efforts at Verona. 
 
 There are those, however, who think that with a view of con- 
 ciliating the continental powers, and of winning them away the 
 more readily from their purposes, we should have addressed them 
 as tyrants and despots — tramplers on the rights and liberties of 
 mankind. This experiment would, to say the least of it, be a 
 very singular one in diplomacy. It may be possible, though I 
 think not very probable, that the allies would have borne such an 
 address with patience; that they would have retorted only with 
 the " whispering humbleness" of Shylock in the play, and said, — 
 
 " Fair Sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last; 
 
 You spurn'd me such a day ; another time 
 
 You called me — dog; and, for these courtesies," 
 
 "we are ready to comply with whatever you desire." This, I 
 
 say, may be possible. But I confess I would rather make such 
 
 an experiment, when the issue of it was matter of more indiffer- 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 365 
 
 ence. Till then, I shall be loth to employ towards our allies a 
 language, to which if they yielded, we should ourselves despise 
 them. I doubt whether it is wise, even in this House, to indulge 
 in such a strain of rhetoric; to call "wretches" and "barbarians," 
 and a hundred other hard names, powers with whom, after all, if 
 the map of Europe cannot be altogether cancelled, we must, even 
 according to the admission of the most anti-continental politicians, 
 maintain some internal intercourse. I doubt whether these sallies 
 of raillery — these flowers of Billingsgate — are calculated to sooth, 
 any more than to adorn; whether, on some occasion or other, we 
 may not find that those on whom they are lavished have not been 
 utterly unsusceptibe of feelings of irritation and resentment. — 
 
 " Medio de fonte lepornm 
 
 Surget amari aliquid, quod in ipsis floribus angat." 
 
 But be the language of good sense or good taste in this House 
 what it may, clear I am that, in diplomatic correspondence, no 
 Minister would be justified in risking the friendship of foreign 
 countries, and the peace of his own, by coarse reproach and gall- 
 ing invective; and that even while we are pleading for the inde- 
 pendence of nations, it is expedient to respect the independence 
 of those with whom we plead. We differ widely from our con- 
 tinental allies on one great principle, it is true: nor do we, nor 
 ought we to disguise that difference; nor to omit any occasion of 
 practically upholding our own opinion. But every consideration, 
 whether of policy or of justice, combines with the recollection 
 of the counsels which we have shared, and of the deeds which 
 we have achieved in concert and companionship, to induce us to 
 argue our differences of opinion, however freely, with temper; 
 and to enforce them, however firmly, without insult. 
 
 Before I quit Verona, there are other detached objections which 
 have been urged against our connexion with the Congress, of 
 which it may be proper to take notice. It has been asked why 
 we sent a Plenipotentiary to the Congress at all ? It may, per- 
 haps, be right here to observe, that it was not originally intended 
 to send the British Plenipotentiary to Verona. The Congress at 
 Verona was originally convened solely for the consideration of 
 the affairs of Italy, with which, the House is aware, England had 
 declined to interfere two years before. England was, therefore, 
 not to participate in those proceedings; and all that required her 
 participation was to be arranged in a pi'evious Congress at Vienna. 
 But circumstances had delayed the Duke of Wellington's depart- 
 ure from England, so that he did not reach Vienna till many 
 weeks after the time appointed. The sovereigns had waited to 
 the last hour consistent with their Italian arrangements. The 
 option was given to our Plenipotentiary to meet them on their 
 return to Vienna; but it was thought, upon the whole, more con- 
 
 GG* 
 
366 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 venient to avoid further delay; and the Duke of Wellington 
 therefore proceeded to Verona. 
 
 Foremost among the objects intended to be discussed at Vienna, 
 was the impending danger of hostilities between Russia and the 
 Porte. I have no hesitation in saying that, when I accepted the 
 seals of office, that was the object to which the anxiety of the 
 British Government was principally directed. The negotiations 
 at Constantinople had been carried on through the British Am- 
 bassador. So completely had this business been placed in the 
 hands of Lord Strangford, that it was thought necessary to sum- 
 mon him to Vienna. Undoubtedly it might be presumed, from 
 facts which were of public notoriety, that the affairs of Spain 
 could not altogether escape the notice of the assembled Sover- 
 eigns and Ministers; but the bulk of the instructions which had 
 been prepared for the Duke of Wellington related to the disputes 
 between Russia and the Porte: and how little the British Gov- 
 ernment expected that so prominent a station would be assigned 
 to the affairs of Spain, may be inferred from the Duke of Wel- 
 lington's finding it necessary to write from Paris for specific in- 
 structions on that subject. 
 
 But it is said, that Spain ought to have been invited to send a 
 Plenipotentiary to the Congress. So far as Great Britain is con- 
 cerned, I answer — in the first place, as we did not wish the affairs 
 of Spain to be brought into discussion at all, we could not take or 
 suggest a preliminary step which would have seemed to recog- 
 nize the necessity of such a discussion. In the next place, if 
 Spain had been invited, the answer to that invitation might have 
 produced a contrary effect to that which we aimed at producing. 
 Spain must either have sent a Plenipotentiary, or have refused to 
 do so. The refusal would not have failed to be taken by the allies 
 as a proof of the duresse of the King of Spain. The sending 
 one, if sent (as he must have been) jointly by the King of Spain 
 and the Cortes, would at once have raised the whole question of 
 the legitimacy of the existing Government of Spain, and would, 
 almost to a certainty, have led to a joint declaration from the 
 alliance, such as it was our special object to avoid. 
 
 But was there any thing in the general conduct of Great Britain 
 at Verona, which lowered, as has been asserted, the character of 
 England ? Nothing like it. Our Ambassador at Constantinople 
 returned from Verona to his post, with full powers, from Russia, 
 to treat on her behalf with the Turkish Government; from which 
 Government, on the other hand, he enjoys as full confidence as 
 perhaps any power ever gave to one of its own Ambassadors, 
 Such is the manifest decay of our authority, — so fallen in the 
 eyes of all mankind is the character of this country, that two of 
 the greatest states of the world are content to arrange their dif- 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 367 
 
 ferences through a British Minister, from reliance on British 
 influence, and from confidence in British equity and British 
 wisdom! 
 
 Such then was the issue of the Congress, as to the question be- 
 tween Russia and the Porte; the question (I beg it to be remem- 
 bered) upon which we expected to be principally if not entirely 
 engaged at that Congress, if it had been held (as Avas intended 
 when the Duke of Wellington left London,) at Vienna. 
 
 As to Italy, I have already said, it was distinctly understood 
 that we had resolved to take no share in the discussions. But it is 
 almost needless to add that the evacuation of Naples and of Pied- 
 mont, was a measure with respect to which, though the Plenipo- 
 tentiary of Great Britain was not entitled to give or to withhold 
 the concurrence of his Government, he could not but signify its 
 cordial approbation. 
 
 The result of the Congress as to Spain, was simply the discon 
 tinuance of diplomatic intercourse with that power, on the part 
 of Austria, Russia, and Prussia; a step neither necessarily nor 
 probably leading to war; perhaps (in some views) rather dimin- 
 ishing the risk of it; a step which had been taken by the same 
 monarchies towards Portugal two years before, without leading 
 to any ulterior consequences. The concluding expression of the 
 Duke of Wellington's last note at Verona, in which he states that 
 all that great Great Britain could do was to '"' endeavour to allay 
 irritation at Madrid," describes all that in effect was necessary to 
 be done there, after the Ministers of the allied powers should be 
 withdrawn: and the House have seen in Sir W. A'Court's de- 
 spatches how scrupulously the Duke of Wellington's promise 
 was fulfilled by the representations of our Minister at Madrid, 
 They have seen too, how insignificant the result of the Congress 
 of Verona was considered at Madrid, in comparison with what 
 had been apprehended. 
 
 The result of the Congress as to France, was a promise of coun- 
 tenance and support from the allies in three specified hypothetical 
 cases; — 1st, of an attack made by Spain on France; 2d, of any 
 outrage on the person of the King or Royal Family of Spain; 3d^ 
 of any attempt to change the dynasty of that kingdom. Any un- 
 foreseen case, if any such should arise, was to be the subject of new 
 deliberation, either between court and court, or in the conferences 
 of their Ministers at Paris. 
 
 It is unnecessary now to argue, whether the cases specified are 
 cases which would justify interference. It is sufficient for the 
 present argument, that no one of these cases has occurred. France 
 is therefore not at war on a case foreseen and provided for at Ve- 
 rona: and so far as I know, there has not occurred, since the Con- 
 gress of Verona, any new case to which the assistance of the allies 
 
368 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 can be considered as pledged; or which has, in fact, been made 
 the subject of deliberation among the Ministers of the several 
 courts who were members of the Congress. 
 
 We quitted Verona, therefore, with the satisfaction of having 
 prevented any corporate act of force or menace, on the part of 
 the alliance, against Spain; with the knowledge of the three 
 cases on which alone France would be entitled to claim the sup- 
 port of her continental allies, in a conflict with Spain; and with 
 the certainty that in any other case we should have to deal with 
 France alone, in any interposition which we might offer for avert- 
 ing, or for terminating, hostilities. 
 
 From Verona we now come, with our Plenipotentiary, to Paris. 
 
 I have admitted on a former occasion, and I am perfectly pre- 
 pared to repeat the admission, that, after the dissolution of the 
 Congress of Verona, we might, if we had so pleased, have with- 
 drawn ourselves altogether from any communication w^ith France 
 upon the subject of her Spanish quarrel; that, having succeeded 
 in preventing a joint operation against Spain, we might have rest- 
 ed satisfied with that success, and trusted, for the rest, to the re- 
 flections of France herself on the hazards of the project in her 
 contemplation. Nay, I will own that we did hesitate, whether 
 we should not adopt this more selfish and cautious policy. But 
 there were circumstances attending the return of the Duke of 
 Wellington to Paris, which directed our decision another way. 
 In the first place, we found, on the Duke of Wellington's arrival 
 in that capital, that M. de Villele had sent back to Verona the 
 drafts of the despatches of the three continental allies to their 
 Ministers at Madrid, which M. de Montmorency had brought 
 with him from the Congress; — had sent them back for re-consid- 
 eration; — whether with a view to obtain a change in their context, 
 or to prevent their being forwarded to their destination at all, 
 did not appear: but, be that as it might, the reference itself was a 
 proof of vacillation, if not of change in the French counsels. 
 
 In the second place, it was notorious that a change was likely 
 to take place in the Cabinet of the Tuilleries, which did in fact 
 take place shortly afterwards, by the retirement of M. de Mont- 
 morency: and M. de Montmorency was as notoriously the adviser 
 of war against Spain. 
 
 In the third place, it was precisely at the time of the Duke of 
 Wellington's return to Paris, that we received a direct and press- 
 ing overture from the Spanish Government, which placed us in 
 the alternative of either affording our good offices to Spain, or of 
 refusing them. 
 
 This last consideration would perhaps alone have been decisive; 
 but when it was coupled with the others which I have stated, and 
 with the hopes of doing good which they inspired, I think it will 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 369 
 
 be conceded to me, that we should liave incurred a fearful respon- 
 sibility, if we had not consented to niakc the effort, which we did 
 make, to effect an adjustment between France and Spain, through 
 our mediation. 
 
 Add to this, — that the question which we had now to discuss 
 with France was a totally new question. It was no longer a ques- 
 tion as to that general right of interference, which we had dis- 
 claimed and denied — disclaimed for ourselves, and denied for 
 others, — in the conferences at Verona. France knew that upon 
 that question our opinion was formed, and was unalterable. Our 
 mediation therefore, if accepted by France, set out with the plain 
 and admitted implication, that the discussion must turn, not on 
 the general principle, but upon a case of exception to be made out 
 by France, showing, to our satisfaction, wherein Spain had offend- 
 ed and aggrieved her. 
 
 It has been observed, as if it were an inconsistency, that at Ve- 
 rona a discouraging answer had been given by our Plenipotentiary 
 to a hint that it might, perhaps, be advisable for us to offer our 
 mediation with Spain; but that no sooner had the Duke of Wel- 
 lington arrived at Paris, than he was instructed to offer that me- 
 diation. Undoubtedly this is true: and the difference is one which 
 flows out of, and verifies, the entire course of our policy at Verona. 
 We declined mediating between Spain and an alliance assuming 
 to itself that character of general superintendence of the concerns 
 of nations. But a negotiation between kingdom and kingdom, in 
 the old, intelligible, accustomed, European form, was precisely 
 the issue to which we were desirous of bringing the dispute be- 
 tween France and Spain. We eagerly grasped at this chance of 
 preserving peace; and the more eagerly because, as I have before 
 said, we received, at that precise moment, the application from 
 Spain for our good offices. 
 
 But France refused our offered mediation : and it has been rep- 
 resented by some gentlemen, that the refusal of our mediation 
 by France was an affront which we ought to have resented. Sir, 
 speaking not of this particular instance only, but generally of the 
 policy of nations, I contend, without fear of contradiction, that 
 the refusal of a mediation is no affront; and that, after the refusal 
 of mediation, to accept or to tender good offices is no humiliation. 
 I beg leave to cite an authority on such points, which, I think, 
 will not be disputed. Martens, in the dissertation which is pre- 
 fixed to his collection of treaties, distinguishing between media- 
 tion and good offices, lays it down expressly, that a nation may 
 accept the good offices of another after rejecting her mediation. 
 The following is the passage to which I refer: 
 
 " Amicable negotiations may take place, either between the 
 Powers themselves between whom a dispute has arisen, or jointly 
 49 
 
370 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 with a third Power. The part to be taken by the latter, for the 
 purpose of ending the dispute, differs essentially according to one 
 or other of two cases; whether the Power, in the first place, mere- 
 ly interposes its good offices to bring about an agreement; or, sec- 
 ondly, is chosen by the two parties, to act as a mediator between 
 them." And he adds — " mediation differs essentially from good 
 offices; a state may accept the latter, at the same time that it re- 
 jects mediation."* 
 
 If there were any affront, indeed, in this case, it was an affront 
 received equally from both parties; for Spain also declined our me- 
 diation, after having solicited our good offices, and solicited again 
 our good offices, after declining our mediation. Nor is the distinc- 
 tion, however apparently technical, so void of reason as it may at 
 first sight appear. There did not exist between France and Spain 
 that corporeal, that material, that external ground of dispute, on 
 which a mediation could operate. The offence, on the side of each 
 party, was an offence rankling in the minds of each, from a long 
 course of irritating discussions; it was to be allayed rather by appeal 
 to the good sense of the parties, than by reference to any tangible 
 object. To illustrate this: — suppose, for example, that France had 
 in time of peace possessed herself, by a coup-de-main, of Minor- 
 ca; or suppose any unsettled pecuniary claims, on one side or the 
 other, or any litigation with respect to territory; a mediator might 
 be called in, in the first case to recommend restitution, in the 
 others to estimate the amount of claim, or to adjust the terms of 
 compromise. There would, in either of these cases, be a tangible 
 object for mediation. But where the difference was not external; 
 where it arose from irritated feelings, from vague and perhaps ex- 
 aggerated apprehensions, from charges not proved, nor perhaps 
 capable of proof, on either side, in such cases each party felt that 
 there was nothing definite and precise which either could submit 
 to the decision of a judge, or to the discretion of an arbitrator; 
 though each might at the same time feel that the good offices of a 
 third party, friendly to both, would be well employed to sooth 
 exasperation, to suggest concession, and without probing too deep- 
 ly the merits of the dispute, to exhort to mutual forbearance and 
 oblivion. The difference is perfectly intelligible; and, in fact, on 
 the want of a due appreciation of the nature of that difference, 
 
 * " Les neofociations a I'aimable peuvent avoir lieu entre les Puissances seules 
 entre lesquelles la dispute s'est elevee, soit avec le concours d'une tierce Puis- 
 sance. La part que celle-ci peut prendre pour terminer le litige, differe essen- 
 tiellement d'apres que 1° Elle interpose seulement ses hoiis offices pour moyen- 
 ner un accommodement, ou que 2° Elle est choisi par les deux parties pour leur 
 servir de mediateur." — Martens Droit de Gens, Tome VI. p. 328. — And he 
 subjoins in a note, — " La mediation diftere essentiellement de rinterposition de 
 bons offices ; on peut accepter ceux-ci, et rejetter la mediation." 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 371 
 
 turns much of the objection which has been raised against our 
 having suggested concession to Spain. 
 
 Our mediation then, as I have said, was refused by Spain as 
 well as by France: but before it was offered to France, our good 
 offices had been asked by Spain. They were asked in the des- 
 patch of M. San Miguel, which has been quoted with so much 
 praise, a praise in which I have no indisposition to concur. I 
 agree in admiring that paper for its candour, manliness, and sim- 
 plicity. But the honourable member for Westminster has misun- 
 derstood the early part of it. He has quoted it, as if it complained 
 of some want of kindness on the part of the British Government 
 towards Spain. The complaint was quite of another sort. It com- 
 plained of want of communication from this Government of what 
 was passing at Verona. The substance of this complaint was true; 
 but in that want of communication there was no want of kindness. 
 The date of M. San Miguel's despatch is the 15th of November; 
 the Congress did not close till the 29th. It is true that I declined 
 making any communication to Spain, of the transactions which 
 were passing at Verona, whilst the Congress was still sitting. I 
 appeal to any man of honour, whether it would not have been un- 
 generous to our allies, to make such a communication, so long as 
 we entertained the smallest hope that the result of the Congress 
 might not be hostile to Spain; and whether, considering the pecu- 
 liar situation in which we were placed at that time, by the nego- 
 tiation which we were carrying on at Madrid for the adjustment 
 of our claims upon the Spanish Government, such a communica- 
 tion would not have been liable to the suspicion that we were 
 courting favour with Spain, at the expense of our allies, for our 
 own separate objects? We might, to be sure, have said to her, 
 " You complain of our reserve, but you don't know how stoutly 
 we are fighting your battles at Verona." But, Sir, I did hope 
 that she never would have occasion to know that such battles had 
 been fought for her. She never should have known it, if the ne- 
 gotiations had turned out favourably. When the result proved 
 unfavourable, I immediately made a full disclosure of what had 
 passed; and with that disclosure, it is unnecessary to say, the 
 Spanish Government were, so far as Great Britain was con- 
 cerned, entirely satisfied. The expressions of that satisfaction 
 are scattered through Sir W. A'Court's reports of M. San Mi- 
 guel's subsequent conversations; and are to be found particularly 
 in M. San Miguel's note to Sir William A'Court, of the 12th of 
 January. 
 
 In the subsequent part of the despatch of M. San Miguel, of 
 the 15th of November, (which we are now considering) that Min- 
 ister defines the course which he wishes Great Britain to pursue; 
 and I desire to be judged and justified in the eyes of the warmest 
 
J/2 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 advocate for Spain, by no other rules than those laid down in that 
 (lespatcli. 
 
 " The acts to which I allude," says M. San Miguel, " would in 
 no wise compromise the most strictly conceived system of neu- 
 trality. Good offices, counsels, the reflections of one friend in 
 favoui' of another, do not place a nation in concert of attack or 
 defence with another, do not expose it to the enmity of the oppo- 
 site party, even if they do not deserve its gratitude; they are not 
 (in a word) effective aid, troops, arms, subsidies, wliich augment 
 the force of one of the contending parties. It is of reason only 
 that we are speaking; and it is with the pen of conciliation that a 
 power, situated like Great Britain, might support Spain, without 
 exposing herself to take part in a war, which she may perhaps 
 prevent, with general utility." Again — " England might act in 
 this Jiianner; being able, ought she so to act? and if she ought, has 
 she acted so? In the wise, just and generous views of the Gov- 
 ernment of St. James's, no other answer can exist than the affirm- 
 ative. Why then does she not notify to Spain what has been 
 done, and what it is proposed to do in that mediatory sense {en 
 aqnel sentido inediador?) Are there weighty inconveniences 
 which enjoin discretion, which show the necessity of secrecy ? 
 They do not appear to an ordinary penetration." 
 
 I have already told the House why I had not made such a noti- 
 fication; I have told them also that as soon as the restraint of 
 honour was removed, I did make it; and that the Spanish Gov- 
 ernment was perfectly satisfied with it. And with respect to the 
 part which I have just quoted of the despatch of M. San Miguel, 
 that in which he solicits our good offices, and points out the mode 
 in which they are to be applied, I am sure the House will see 
 that we scrupulously followed his suggestions. 
 
 Most true it is, and lamentable as true, that our representations 
 to France were not successful. The honourable member for 
 Westminster attributes our failure to the intrigues of Russia; and 
 has told us of a bet made by the Russian Ambassador in a coffee- 
 house at Paris, that he would force France into a war with Spain. 
 
 (Mr. Hobhouse disclaimed this version of his words. He had 
 put it as a conjecture.) 
 
 I assure the honourable gentleman that I understood him to 
 state it as a fact: but if it was only conjecture, it is of a piece 
 with the whole of the address which he supports; every para- 
 graph of which teems with guesses and suppositions, equally 
 groundless. 
 
 The honourable member for Bridgenorth (Mr. Whitmore) has 
 given a more correct opinion of the cause of the war. I believe, 
 with him, that the war was forced on the French Government 
 by the violence of a political party in France. I believe that at 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RLLAIIVE TO SPAIN. 373 
 
 one time the French Government hoped to avert it; and that, tip 
 to the latest period, some members of that Cabinet wouUI u;ladly 
 have availed themselves of the smallest loophole throu<^h wiiich 
 the S])anish Government would have enabled them to find their 
 retreat. But we, forsooth, are condemned as dujjes, because our 
 opponents gratuitously ascril)e to France one settled, systematic 
 and invariable line of policy; because it is assumed that, from the 
 beginning, France had but one purpose in view; and that she 
 merely amused the British Cabinet from time to time with pre- 
 tences, which we ought to have had the sagacity to detect. If so, 
 the French Government made singular sacrifices to appearance. 
 M. de Montmorency was sent to Verona; he negotiated with the 
 allies; he brought home a result so satisfactory to France, that he 
 was made a duke for his services. He enjoyed his new title but 
 a few days when he quitted his office. On this occasion I admit 
 that I was a dupe — I believe all the world were dupes with me — 
 for all understood this change of Ministers to be indicative of a 
 change in the counsels of the French Cabinet, a change from war 
 to peace. For eight and forty hours I certainly was under that 
 delusion; but I soon found that it was only a change, not of the 
 question of war, but of the character of that question; a change 
 — as it was somewhat quaintly termed — from European to 
 French. The Duke M. de Montmorency, finding himself una- 
 ble to carry into effect the system of policy which he had en- 
 gaged, at the Congress, to support in the Cabinet at Paris, in 
 order to testify the sincerity of his engagement, promptly and 
 most honourably resigned. But this event, honourable as it is to 
 the Duke M. de Montmorency, completely disproves the charge 
 of dupery brought against us. That man is not a dupe, who, not 
 foreseeing the vacillations of others, is not prepared to meet 
 them; but he who is misled by false pretences, put forward for 
 the purpose of misleading him. Before a man can be said to be 
 duped, there must have been some settled purpose concealed 
 from him, and not discovered by him; but here there was a varia- 
 tion of purpose; a variation too, which so far from considering it 
 then, or now, as an evil, we then hailed and still consider as a 
 good. It was no dupery on our part to acquiesce in a change of 
 counsel on the part of the French Cabinet, which proved the re- 
 sult of the Congress at Verona to be such as I have described it, 
 by giving to the quarrel with Spain the character of a French 
 quarrel. 
 
 If gentlem.en will read over the correspondence about our offer 
 of mediation, with this key, they will understand exactly the 
 meaning of the difference of tone between the Duke M. de Mont- 
 morency and M. de Chateaubriand: they will observe that when 
 I first described the question respecting Spain as a French ques 
 
 HH 
 
374 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 tion, the Duke de Montmorency loudly maintained it to be a ques- 
 tion toute Europeenne; but that M. de Chateaubriand, upon my 
 repeating the same description in the sequel of that correspond- 
 ence, admitted it to be a question at once and equally toute Fran- 
 ^aise, et toute Europeenne: an explanation the exact meaning 
 of which I acknowledge I do not precisely understand; but which, 
 if it does not distinctly admit the definition of a question Frcin- 
 gaise, seems at least to negative M. de Montmorency's definition 
 of a question toute Europeenne. 
 
 In thus unavoidably introducing the names of the French Min- 
 isters, I beg I may be understood to speak of them with respect 
 and esteem. Of M. de Montmorency I have already said, that 
 in voluntarily relinquishing his office, he made an honourable 
 sacrifice to the sincerity of his opinions, and to the force of obli- 
 gations which he had undertaken but could not fulfil. As to M. 
 de Chateaubriand, with whom I have the honour of a personal 
 acquaintance, I admire his talents and his genius; I believe him 
 to be a man of an upright mind, of untainted honour, and most 
 capable of discharging adequately the high functions of the sta- 
 tion which he fills. Whatever I may think of the political con- 
 duct of the French Government in the present war, I think this 
 tribute justly due to the individual character of M. de Chateau- 
 briand. I think it further due to him in fairness to correct a 
 misrepresentation to which I have, however innocently, exposed 
 him. From a despatch of Sir W. A'Court, which has been 
 laid upon the table of the House, it appears as if M. de Chateau- 
 briand had spoken of the failure of the mission of Lord F. Som- 
 erset as of an event which had actually happened, at a time when 
 that nobleman had not even reached Madrid, I have recently 
 received a corrected copy of that despatch, in which the tense 
 employed in speaking of Lord F. Somerset's mission is not past 
 but future; and the failure of that mission is only anticipated, 
 not announced as having occurred. The despatch was sent in 
 cipher to M. Lagarde (from whom Sir W. A'Court received his 
 copy of it,) and nothing is more natural in such cases than a mis- 
 take in the inflection of a verb. 
 
 It is also just to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, to 
 allude (although it is rather out of place in this argument) to an- 
 other circumstance, of which I yesterday received an explana- 
 tion. A strong feeling has been excited in this country by the 
 reported capture of a rich Spanish prize in the West Indies by a 
 French ship of war. If the French captain had acted under or- 
 ders, most unquestionably those orders must have been given at a 
 time when the French Government was most warm in its profes- 
 sions of a desire to maintain peace. If this had been the case, it 
 might still perhaps be doubtful whether this country ought to be 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 375 
 
 the first to complain. Formal declarations of war, anterior to 
 warlike acts, have been for some time growing into disuse in Eu- 
 rope. The war in 1756, and the Spanish war in 1804, both, it 
 must be admitted, commenced with premature capture and antici- 
 pated hostilities on the part of Great Britain. But — be that as it 
 may — I wrote to Sir C. Stuart, as soon as the intelligence reached 
 this country, desiring him to require an explanation of the affair; 
 the reply, as I have said, arrived yesterday by a telegraphic com- 
 munication from Paris. It runs thus: — "Paris, April 28, 1823. 
 We have not received any thing official as to the prize made by 
 the Jean Bart. This vessel had no instructions to make any such 
 capture. If this capture has really been made, there must have 
 been some particular circumstances which were the cause of it. 
 In any case, the French Government will see justice done." — I 
 have thought it right to clear up this transaction, and to show the 
 promptitude of the French Government in giving the required 
 explanation. I now return to the more immediate subject of dis- 
 cussion, and pass from France to Spain. 
 
 It has been maintained that it was an insult to the Spanish 
 Government to ask them, as we did, for assurances of the safety 
 of the Royal Family of Spain. Have I not already accounted 
 for that suggestion? I have shown that one of the causes of war, 
 prospectively agreed upon at Verona, was any act of personal 
 violence to the King of Spain or his family. I endeavoured, 
 therefore, to obtain such assurances from Spain as should remove 
 the apprehension of any such outrage; not because the British 
 Cabinet thought those assurances necessary, but because it might 
 be of the greatest advantage to the cause of Spain, that we should 
 be able to proclaim our conviction, that upon this point there was 
 nothing to apprehend; that we should thus possess the means of 
 proving to France that she had no cause, arising out of the con- 
 ference at Verona, to justify a war. Such assurances Spain might 
 have refused — she would have refused them — to France. To us 
 she might — she did give them — without lowering her dignity. 
 
 And here I cannot help referring, with some pain, to a speech 
 delivered by an honourable and learned friend of mine (Sir J. 
 Mackintosh) last night, in which he dwelt upon this subject in a 
 manner totally unlike himself. He pronounced a high-flown 
 eulogy upon M. Arguelles; he envied him, he said, for many 
 things, but he envied him most for the magnanimity which he 
 had shown in sparing his Sovereign. 
 
 [Sir J. Mackintosh said that he had only used the word "spar- 
 ing," as sparing the delicacy, not the life of the King.] 
 
 I am glad to have occasioned this explanation. I have no doubt 
 that my honourable and learned friend must have intended so to 
 express himself, for I am sure that he must agree with me in 
 
376 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 thinking that nothing could be more pernicious than to familiarize 
 the world with the contemplation of events so calamitous. I am 
 sure that my honourable and learned friend would not be forward 
 to anticipate for the people of Spain an outrage so alien to their 
 character. 
 
 Great Britain asked these assurances then without offence; for- 
 asmuch as she asked them — not for herself — not because she enter- 
 tained the slightest suspicion of the supposed danger, but because 
 that danger constituted one of those hypothetical cases on which 
 alone France could claim eventual support from the allies; and 
 because she wished to be able to satisfy France that she was not 
 likely to have such a justification. 
 
 In the same spirit, and with the like purpose, the British Cabi- 
 net proposed to Spain to do that, without which not only the dis- 
 position but perhaps the power was wanting on the part of the 
 French Government, to recede from the menacing position which 
 it had somewhat precipitately occupied. 
 
 And this brings me to the point on which the longest and 
 fiercest battle has been fought against us — the suggestion to Spain 
 of the expediency of modifying her Constitution. As to this 
 point, I should be perfectly contented, Sir, to rest the justification 
 of Ministers upon the argument stated the night before last by a 
 noble young friend of mine (Lord Francis Leveson Gower,) in a 
 speech which, both from what it promised and what it performed, 
 was heard with delight by the House. " If Ministers," my noble 
 friend observed, " had refused to offer such suggestions, and if, 
 being called to account for that refusal, had rested their defence 
 on the ground of delicacy to Spain, would they not have been 
 taunted with something like these observations? 'What! had you 
 not among you a member of your Government, sitting at the 
 same council board, a man whom you ought to have considered 
 as an instrument furnished by ProAadence, at once to give efficacy 
 to your advice, and to spare the delicacy of the Spanish nation ? 
 Why did you not employ the Duke of Wellington for this pur- 
 pose? Did you forget the services which he had rendered to 
 Spain, or did you imagine that Spain had forgotten them ? Might 
 not any advice, however unpalatable, have been ofi'ered by such a 
 benefactor, without liability to offence or misconstruction ? Why 
 did you neglect so happy an opportunity, and leave unemployed 
 so fit an agent? Oh! blind to the interests of the Spanish people 
 — Oh! insensible to the feelings of human nature!'" — Such an 
 argument would have been unanswerable; and, however the in- 
 tervention of Great Britain has failed, I would much rather have 
 to defend myself against the charge of having tendered advice 
 officiously, than against that of having stupidly neglected to em- 
 ploy the means which the possession of such a man as the Duke 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 377 
 
 of Wellington put into the hands of the Government, for the 
 salvation of a nation which he had already once rescued from 
 destruction. 
 
 With respect to the memorandum of the noble duke, which 
 has been so much the subject of cavil — it is the offspring of a 
 manly mind, pouring out its honest opinions with an earnestness 
 characteristic of sincerity, and with a zeal too warm to stand upon 
 nice and scrupulous expression. I am sure that it contains nothing 
 but what the noble duke really thought. I am sure that what he 
 thought at the time of writing it, he would still maintain; and 
 what he thinks and maintains regarding Spain, must, I should im- 
 agine, be received with respect and confidence by all who do not 
 believe themselves to be better qualified to judge of Spain than 
 he is. Whatever may be thought of the Duke of Wellington's 
 suggestions here, confident I am that there is not an individual in 
 Spain, to whom this paper was communicated, who took it as an 
 offence, or who did not do full justice to the motives of the ad- 
 viser, whatever they might think of the immediate practicability 
 of his advice. Would to God that some part of it, at least, had 
 been accepted! — I admit the point of honour — I respect those 
 who have acted upon it — I do not blame the Spaniards that they 
 refused to make any sacrifice to temporary necessity: — but still — 
 still I lament the result of that refusal. Of this I am quite sure, 
 that even if the Spaniards were justified in objecting to concede, 
 it would have been a most romantic point of honour which 
 should have induced Great Britain to abstain from recommending 
 concession. 
 
 It is said that every thing was required of Spain, and nothing 
 of France. I utterly deny it. I have already described the rela- 
 tive situation of the two countries. I will repeat, though the 
 term has been so much criticised, that they had no external point 
 of difference. France said to Spain, " Your revolution disquiets 
 me;" and Spain replied to France, "Your army of observation 
 disquiets me." There were but two remedies to this state of 
 things — war or concession; and why was England fastidiously, 
 and (as I think) most mistakenly, to say, " Our notions of non- 
 interference are so strict that we cannot advise you even for your 
 safety: though whatever concession you may make may probably 
 be met by corresponding concession on the part of France?" — 
 Undoubtedly the withdrawing of the army of observation would 
 have been, if not purely, yet in a great degree, an internal mea- 
 sure on the part of France; and one which, though I will not 
 assert it to be precisely equivalent with the alteration by Spain 
 of any fault in her Constitution; yet, considering its immediate 
 practical advantage to Spain, would not, I think, have been too 
 dearly purchased by such an alteration. That France was called 
 50 HH* 
 
378 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 upon to make the corresponding concession, appears as well from 
 the memorandum of the Duke of Wellington, as from the des- 
 patches of Sir Charles Stuart, and from mine; and this concession 
 was admitted by M. San Miguel to be the object which Spain 
 most desired. England saw that war must be the inevitable con- 
 sequence of the existing state of things between the two king- 
 doms: and, if something were yielded on the one side, it would 
 undoubtedly have been for England to insist upon a countervail- 
 ing sacrifice on the other. 
 
 The propriety of maintaining the army of observation depend- 
 ed wholly upon the truth of the allegations on which France jus- 
 tified its continuance. I do not at all mean to say that the truth 
 of those allegations was to be taken for granted. But what I do 
 mean to say is, that it was not the business of the British Govern- 
 ment to go into a trial and examine evidence, to ascertain the foun- 
 dation of the conflicting allegations on either side. It was clear 
 that nothing but some modification of the Spanish Constitution 
 could avert the calamity of war; and in applying the means in 
 our hands to that object (an object interesting not to Spain only, 
 but to England, and to Europe) it was not our business to take up 
 the cause of either party, and to state it with the zeal and with 
 the assravations of an advocate; but rather to endeavour to reduce 
 the demands of each within such limits as might afford a reasona- 
 ble hope of mutual conciliation. 
 
 Grant, even, that the justice was wholly on the side of Spain; 
 still, in entreating the Spanish Ministers, with a view to peace, to 
 abate a little of their just pretensions, the British Government did 
 not go beyond the duty which the law of nations prescribes. No, 
 Sir, it was our duty to induce Spain to relax something of her 
 positive right, for a purpose so essential to her own interests and 
 to those of the world. Upon this point let me fortify myself 
 once more, by reference to the acknowledged law of nations, 
 " The duty of a mediator," says Vattel,* " is to favour well found- 
 ed claims, and to effect the restoration to each party of what be- 
 longs to him; but he ought not scrupulously to insist on rigid jus- 
 tice. He is a conciliator, not a judge: his business is to procure 
 peace; and he ought to induce him who has right on his side, to 
 relax something of his pretensions, if necessary, with a view to 
 so great a blessing." 
 
 The conduct of the British Government is thus fortified by an 
 
 * "Le devoir d'un Mediateur est bien de favoriser le bon droit, de faire rendre 
 a chacun ce qui lui appartient; mais il ne doit point insister scrupuleusement 
 sur une justice rigoureuse. II est conciliateur, et not pas juge; sa vocation 
 est de procurer la paix ; et il doit porter celui qui a le droit de son c6t^, a. re- 
 licher quelque chose s'il est necessaire dans la vue d'un si grand bien. — L. II. 
 c 18, sec. 328. 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. ^79 
 
 authority, not interested, not partial, not special in its application, 
 but universal, untinctured by favour, uninfluenced by the circum- 
 stances of any particular case, and applicable to the general con- 
 cerns and dealings of mankind. Is it not plain then that we have 
 been guilty of no violation of duty towards the weaker party? 
 Our duty, Sir, was discharged not only without any unfriendly 
 bias against Spain, but with tenderness, with preference, with par- 
 tiality in her favour; and while I respect (as I have already said) 
 the honourable obstinacy of the Spanish character, so deeply am 
 I impressed with the desirableness of peace for Spain, that, should 
 the opportunity recur, I would again, without scruple, tender the 
 same advice to her Government. The point of honour was in 
 truth rather individual than national; but the safety put to hazard 
 was assuredly that of the whole nation. Look at the state of 
 Spain, and consider whether the filling up a blank in the scheme 
 of her representative Constitution with an amount more or less 
 high, of qualification for the members of the Cortes — whether the 
 promising to consider hereafter of some modifications in other 
 questionable points — was too much to be conceded, if by such a 
 sacrifice peace could have been preserved ! If we had declined to 
 interfere on such grounds oi punctilio, would not the very passage 
 which I have now read from Vattel, as our vindication, have been 
 brought against us with justice as a charge ? 
 
 I regret, deeply regret, for the sake of Spain, that our efforts 
 failed. I must fairly add, that I regret it for the sake of France 
 also. Convinced as I may be of the injustice of the course pur- 
 sued by the French Government, I cannot shut my eyes to its im- 
 policy. I cannot lose sight of the gallant character and mighty 
 resources of the French nation, of the central situation of France, 
 and of the weight which she ought to preserve in the scale of Eu- 
 rope; I cannot be insensible to the dangers to which she is ex- 
 posing herself; nor omit to reflect what the consequences may be 
 to that country — what the consequences to Europe — of the hazard- 
 ous enterprise in which she is now engaged; and which, for aught 
 that human prudence can foresee, may end in a dreadful revulsion. 
 As mere matter of abstract right, morality, perhaps, ought to be 
 contented when injury recoils upon an aggressor. But such a re- 
 vulsion as I am speaking of would not affect France alone: it 
 would touch the continental states at many points; it would touch 
 even Great Britain. France could not be convulsed without com- 
 municating danger to the very extremities of Europe. With this 
 conviction, I confess I thought any sacrifice, short of national hon- 
 our or national independence, cheap, to prevent the first breach in 
 that pacific settlement, by which the miseries and agitations of the 
 world have been so recently composed. 
 
 I apologize, Sir, for the length of time which I have consumed 
 
380 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 upon these points. The case is complicated: the transactions have 
 been much misunderstood, and the opinions regarding them are 
 various and discordant. The true understanding of the case, how- 
 ever, and the vindication of the conduct of Government, would 
 be matters of comparatively light importance, if censure or ap- 
 probation for the past were the only result in contemplation. But, 
 considering that we are now only at the threshold, as it were, of 
 the war, and that great events are pending, in which England may 
 hereafter be called upon to take her part, it is of the utmost im- 
 portance that no doubt should rest upon the conduct and policy of 
 this country. 
 
 One thing more there is, which I must not forget to notice with 
 regard to the advice given to Spain. I have already mentioned 
 the Duke of Wellington as the chosen instrument of that counsel: 
 a Spaniard by adoption, by title, and by property, he had a right 
 to offer the suggestions which he thought fit, to the Government 
 of the country which had adopted him. But it has been com- 
 plained, that the British Government would have induced the 
 Spaniards to break an oath: that, according to the oath taken by 
 the Cortes, the Spanish institutions could be revised only at the 
 expiration of eight years; and that, by calling upon the Cortes to 
 revise them before that period was expired, we urged them to in- 
 cur the guilt of perjury. Sir, this supposed restriction is assumed 
 gratuitously. 
 
 There are two opinions upon it in Spain. One party calculates 
 the eight years from the time which has elapsed since the first es- 
 tablishment of the Constitution; the other reckons only the time 
 during which it has been in operation. The latter insist that the 
 period has yet at least two years to run, because the Constitution 
 has been in force only from 1812 to 1814, and from 1820 to the 
 present time: those who calculate from the original establishment 
 of it in 1812, argue of course that more than the eight years are 
 already expired, and that the period of revision is fully come. J 
 do not pretend to decide between these two constructions; but I 
 assert that they are both Spanish constructions. A Spaniard of no 
 mean name and reputation — one eminently friendly to the Con- 
 stitution of 1812 — by whose advice Ministers were in this respect 
 guided, gave it as his opinion, that not only consistently with their 
 oath, but in exact fulfilment of it, the Spainiards might now recon- 
 sider and modify their Constitution — that they might have done so 
 nearly three years ago. " Shall I lay perjury upon my soul ?" say 
 the Cortes. The answer is, " No; we do not ask you to lay per- 
 jury upon your souls; for as good a Spanish soul as is possessed 
 by any of you declares, that you may now, in due conformity to 
 your oaths, reconsider, and, where advisable, reform your Consti- 
 tution." Do we not know what constructions have been put in 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 381 
 
 this country, on the coronation oath, as to its operation on what 
 is called the Catholic Question ? Will any man say that it has 
 been my intention, or the intention of my honourable friend, the 
 member for Bramber, every time that we have supported a mo- 
 tion for communicating to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects the 
 full benefit of the Constitution, to lay perjury on the soul of the 
 sovereign ? 
 
 Sir, I do not pretend to decide whether the number of legisla- 
 tive chambers in Spain should be one, or two, or three. In God's 
 name, let them try what experiment in political science they will, 
 provided we are not affected by the trial. All that Great Britain 
 has done on this occasion has been, not to disturb the course of 
 political experiment, but to endeavour to avert the calamity of 
 war. Good God! when it is remembered how many evils are 
 compressed into that little word " war," — is it possible for any 
 man to hesitate in urging every expedient that could avert it, 
 without sacrificing the honour of the party to which his advice 
 was tendered ? Most earnestly do I wish that the Duke of Wel- 
 lington had succeeded: but great is the consolation that, according 
 to the best accounts from Spain, his counsels have not been mis- 
 understood there, however they have been misrepresented here. 
 I believe that I might with truth go further, and say, that there 
 are those in Spain who now repent the rigid course pursued, and 
 who are beginning to ask each other — why they held out so per- 
 tinaciously against suggestions at once so harmless and so reason- 
 able? My wish was, that Spain should be saved; that she should 
 be saved before the extremity of evil had come upon her, even 
 by the making of those concessions, which, in the heat of national 
 pride, she refused. Under any circumstances, however, I have 
 still another consolation — the consolation of knowing, that never, 
 from the commencement of these negotiations, has Spain been 
 allowed by the British Government to lie under the delusion that 
 her refusal of all modifications would induce England to join her 
 in the war. The very earliest communication made to Spain for- 
 bade her to entertain any such reliance. She was told at the be- 
 ginning, as she was told in the end, that neutrality was our deter- 
 mined policy. From the first to the last, there was never the 
 slightest variation in this language — never a pause during which 
 she could be for one moment in doubt as to the settled purpose 
 of England. 
 
 France, on the contrary, was never assured of the neutrality 
 of England, till my despatch of the 31st of March (the last of the 
 first series of printed papers,) was communicated to the French 
 Ministry at Paris. The speech of the King of France, on the 
 opening of the Chambers (I have no difficulty in saying,) excited 
 not only strong feelings of disapprobation, by the principles which 
 
382 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 it avowed, but serious apprehensions for the future, from the de- 
 signs which it appeared to disclose. I have no difficulty in saying 
 that the speech delivered from the British throne at the com- 
 mencement of the present session, did, as originally drawn, con- 
 tain an avowal of our intention to preserve neutrality; but, upon 
 the arrival of the King of France's speech, the paragraph contain- 
 ing that avowal was withdrawn. Nay, I have no difficulty in 
 adding, that I plainly told the French Charge d'Affaires, that such 
 an intimation had been intended, but that it was withdrawn, in 
 consequence of the speech of the King, his master. Was this 
 truckling to France? 
 
 It was not, however, on account of Spain that the pledge of 
 neutrality was withdrawn: it was withdrawn upon principles of 
 general policy on the part of this country. It was withdrawn, 
 because there was that in the King of France's speech, which ap- 
 peared to carry the two countries (France and England) back to 
 their position in older times, when France, as regarded the affairs 
 of Spain, had been the successful rival of England. Under such 
 circumstances, it behoved the English Ministers to be upon their 
 guard. We ivere upon our guard. Could we prove our caution 
 more than by withholding that assurance, which would at once 
 have set France at ease? We did withhold that assurance. But 
 it was one thing to withhold the declaration of neutrality, and 
 another to vary the purpose, 
 
 Spain, then, I repeat, has never been misled by the British 
 Government. But I fear, nevertheless, that a notion was in some 
 way or other created at Madrid, that if Spain would but hold out 
 resolutely, the Government of England would be forced, by the 
 popular voice in this country, to take part in her favour. I infer 
 no blame against any one; but I do firmly believe that such a no- 
 tion was propagated in Spain, and that it had great share in pro- 
 ducing the peremptory refusal of any modification of the Consti- 
 tution of 1812. Regretting, as I do, the failure of our endeav- 
 ours to adjust those disputes, which now threaten so much evil 
 to the world, I am free at least from the self-reproach of having 
 contributed to that delusion in the mind of the Spanish Govern- 
 ment or nation, as to the eventual decision of England, which, if 
 it existed in such a degree as to produce reliance upon our co- 
 operation, must have added to the other calamities of her present 
 situation, the bitterness of disappointment. This disappointment, 
 Sir, was from the beginning, certain, inevitable: for the mistake 
 of those who excited the hopes of Spain was not only as to the 
 conduct of the British Government, but as to the sentiments of 
 the British nation. No man, whatever his personal opinion or 
 feeling may be, will pretend that the opinion of the country is 
 not decidedly against war. No man will deny that, if Ministers 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 383 
 
 had plunged the country into a war foi the sake of Spain, they 
 would have come before Parliament with a heavier weight of 
 responsibility than had ever lain upon the shoulders of any Gov- 
 ernment. I impute not to those who may thus have misled the 
 Spanish Ministry, the intention either of thwarting (though such 
 was the effect) the policy of their own Government, or of aggra- 
 vating (though such must be the consequence) the difficulties of 
 Spain. But for myself I declare, that even the responsibility of 
 plunging this country into an unnecessary war, would have 
 weighed less heavily upon my conscience, than that, which I 
 thank God I have not incurred, of instigating Spain to the war, 
 by exciting hopes of assistance which I had not the means of 
 realizing. 
 
 I have thus far, Sir, taken the liberty of assuming that the late 
 negotiations were properly directed to the preservation of peace; 
 and have argued the merits of the negotiations, on that assump- 
 tion. I am aware that it is still to be established, that peace, un- 
 der all the circumstances of the times, ivas the proper course for 
 this country. I address myself now to that branch of the subject. 
 
 I believe I may venture to take it as universally admitted, 
 that any question of war involves not only a question of right, 
 not only a question of justice, but also a question of expediency. 
 I take it to be admitted on all hands, that before any government 
 determines to go to war, it ought to be convinced not only that 
 it has just cause of war, but that there is something which renders 
 war its duty: a duty compounded of two considerations — the 
 first, what the country may owe to others; the second, what she 
 owes to herself. I do not know whether any gentleman on the 
 other side of the House, has thought it worth while to examine 
 and weigh these considerations; but Ministers had to weigh them 
 well before they took their resolution. Ministers did weigh them 
 well; wisely I hope; I am sure conscientiously and deliberately: 
 and, if they came to the decision that peace was the policy 
 prescribed to them, that decision was founded on a reference, 
 first, to the situation of Spain; secondly, to the situation of 
 France; thirdly, to the situation of Portugal; fourthly, to the 
 situation of the Alliance; fifthly, to the peculiar situation of 
 England; and lastly, to the general state of the world. And first. 
 Sir, as to Spain. 
 
 The only gentleman, by whom (as it seems to me) this part of 
 the question has been fairly and boldly met, is the honourable 
 member for Westminster (Mr, Hobhouse;) who, in his speech 
 of yesterday evening — (a speech which, however extravagant, as 
 I may perhaps think, in its tone, was perfectly intelligible and 
 straight-forward,) not only declared himself openly for war, but, 
 aware that one of the chief sinews of war is money, did no less 
 
384 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 than offer a subsidy to assist in carrying it on. He declared that 
 his constituents were ready to contribute all their means to in- 
 vigorate the hands of Government in the war; but he annexed, 
 to be sure, the trifling condition, that the war was to be a war of 
 people against kings. Now this, which, it must be owned, was 
 no unimportant qualification of the honourable member's offer of 
 assistance, is also one to which, I confess, I am not quite pre- 
 pared to accede. I do not immediately remember any case in 
 which such a principle of war has been professed by any govern- 
 ment, except in the decree of the National Convention of the 
 year 1793, which laid the foundation of the war between this 
 country and France — the decree which offered assistance to all 
 nations who would shake off the tyranny of their rulers. 
 
 Even the honourable member for Westminster, therefore, is 
 after all but conditionally in favour of war: and, even in that 
 conditional pledge he has been supported by so few members that 
 I cannot help suspecting that if I were to proceed on the faith of 
 his encouragement, I should find myself left with the honourable 
 gentleman, pretty nearly in the situation of King James with his 
 bishops. King James, we all remember, asked Bishop Neale if 
 he might not take his subjects' money without the authority of 
 Parliament? To which Bishop Neale replied, " God forbid, Sire, 
 but you should; you are the breath of our nostrils." The King 
 then turned to Bishop Andrews, and repeated the same question; 
 when Bishop Andrews answered, " Sire, I think it is lawful for 
 your Majesty to take my brother Neale's money, for he offers it." 
 Now, if I were to appeal to the House, on the hint of the hon- 
 ourable gentleman, I should, indeed, on his own terms, have an 
 undoubted right to the money of the honourable gentleman; but 
 if the question were put, for instance, to the honourable member 
 for Surrey (Mr. Holme Sumner,) his answer would probably be, 
 " You may take my brother of Westminster's money, as he says 
 his constituents have authorized him to offer it; but my constitu- 
 ents have certainly given me no such authority." 
 
 But however single, or however conditional, the voice of the 
 honourable member for Westminster is still for war; and he does 
 me the honour to tempt me to take the same course, by remind- 
 ing me of a passage in my political life to which I shall ever look 
 back with pride and satisfaction. I allude to that period when 
 the bold spirit of Spain burst forth indignant against the oppression 
 of Buonaparte. Then unworthily filling the same ofiice which I 
 have the honour to hold at the present moment, I discharged the 
 glorious duty (if a portion of glory may attach to the humble in- 
 strument of a glorious cause) of recognizing without delay the 
 rights of the Spanish nation, and of at once adopting that gallant 
 people into the closest amity with England. It was indeed a stirring, 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 385 
 
 a kindling occasion: and no man who has a heart in his bosom, 
 can think even now of the noble enthusiasm, the animated exer- 
 tions, the undaunted courage, the unconquerable perseverance of 
 the Spanish nation, in a cause apparently so desperate, finally so 
 triumphant, — without feeling his blood glow and his pulses quick- 
 en with tumultous throbs of admiration. But I must remind the 
 honourable gentleman of three circumstances, calculated to qualify 
 a little the feelings of enthusiasm, and to suggest lessons of cau- 
 tion; I must remind him first of the state of this country, — sec- 
 ondly, of that of Spain — at that period, as compared with the 
 present: — and thirdly, of the manner in which the enterprise in 
 behalf of Spain was viewed by certain parties in this country. 
 We are now at peace. In 1808, we were already at war — -we 
 were at war with Buonaparte, the invader of Spain. In 1808, we 
 were, as now, the allies of Portugal, bound by treaty to defend 
 her from aggression; but Portugal was at that time not only men- 
 aced by the power of France, but overrun by it; her Royal Fam- 
 ily was actually driven into exile, and their kingdom occupied by 
 the French. Bound by treaty to protect Portugal, how natural 
 was it, under such circumstances, to extend our assistance to 
 Spain! — Again. Spain was at that time, comparatively speaking, 
 a united nation. I do not mean to say that there were no dif- 
 ferences of opinion; I do not mean to deny that some few among 
 the higher classes had been corrupted by the gold of France: but 
 still the great bulk of the people were united in one cause; their 
 loyalty to their Sovereign had survived his abdication; and though 
 absent and a prisoner, the name of Ferdinand VII. was the rally- 
 ing point of the nation. But let the House look at the situation 
 in which England would be placed, should she, at the present mo- 
 ment, march her armies to the aid of Spain. As against France 
 alone, her task might not be more difficult than before; but is it 
 only with France that she would now have to contend ? England 
 could not strike in the cause of Spain against the invading foe 
 alone. Fighting in Spanish ranks, should we not have to point 
 our bayonets against Spanish bosoms ? But this is not the whole 
 of the difference between the present moment, and the year 1808. 
 In 1808, we had a large army prepared for foreign service; a 
 whole war establishment ready appointed; and the simple ques- 
 tion was, in what quarter we could best apply its force against the 
 common enemy of England, of Spain, of Portugal, — of Europe. 
 This country had no hopes of peace: our abstinence from the 
 Spanish war could in no way have accelerated the return of that 
 blessing; and the Peninsula presented, plainly and obviously, the 
 theatre of exertion in which we could contend with most advan- 
 tage. Compare, then, I say, that period with the present; in which 
 51 II 
 
386 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 none of the inducements, or incitements, which I have described 
 as belonging to the opportunity of 1S08, can be found. 
 
 But is the absence of inducement and incitement all ? Is there 
 no positive discouragement in the recollections of that time, to 
 check too hasty a concurrence in the warlike views of the hon- 
 ourable member for Westminster? When England, in 1808, un- 
 der all the circumstances which I have enumerated, did not hesi- 
 tate to throw upon the banks of the Tagus, and to plunge into all 
 the difficulties of the Peninsula war, an army destined to emerge 
 in triumph through the Pyrenees, — was that course hailed with 
 sympathy and exultation by all parties in the state? Were there 
 no warnings against danger? no chastisements for extravagance? 
 no doubts — no complaints — no charges of rashness and impolicy? 
 I have heard of persons, Sir, — persons of high authority, too — 
 who, in the very midst of the general exaltation of spirit through- 
 out this country, declared that, " in order to warrant England in 
 embarking in a military co-operation with Spain, something m.ore 
 was necessary to show that the Spanish cause was just." " It 
 was not enough," said these enlightened monitors, " it was not 
 enough that the attack of France upon the Spanish nation was 
 unprincipled, perfidious, and cruel — that the resistance of Spain 
 was dictated by every principle, and sanctioned by every motive, 
 honourable to human nature — that it made every English heart 
 burn with a holy zeal to lend its assistance against the oppressor: 
 there were other considerations of a less brilliant and enthusiastic, 
 but not less necessary and commanding nature, which should have 
 preceded the determination of putting to hazard the most valuable 
 interests of the country. It is not with nations as with individu- 
 als. Those heroic virtues which shed a lustre upon individual 
 man, must, in their application to the conduct of nations, be chast- 
 ened by reflections of a more cautious and calculating cast. That 
 generous magnanimity and high-minded disinterestedness, proud 
 distinctions of national virtue (and happy were the people whom 
 they characterize,) which, when exercised at the risk of every 
 personal interest, in the prospect of every danger, and at the sac- 
 rifice even of life itself, justly immortalize the hero, cannot and 
 ought not to be considered justifiable motives of political action, 
 because nations cannot affiDrd to be chivalrous and romantic." 
 History is philosophy teaching by example; and the words of the 
 wise are treasured for ages that are to come. 
 
 " The age of chivalry," said Mr. Burke, " is gone; and an age 
 of economists and calculators has succeeded." That an age of 
 economists and calculators is come, we have indeed every night's 
 experience. But what would be the surprise, and at the same 
 time the gratification, of the mighty spirit of Burke, at finding 
 his splendid lamentation so happily disproved! — at seeing that 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 387 
 
 chivalrous spirit, the total extinction of which he deplored, revive, 
 qua minime 7'eris, on the very benches of the economists and 
 calculators themselves! But, in truth, Sir, it revives at a most in- 
 convenient opportunity. It would be as ill-advised to follow a 
 chivalrous impulse now, as it would in 1808 have been inexcusa- 
 ble to disobey it. Under the circumstances of 1808, 1 would again 
 act as I then acted. But though inapplicable to the period to 
 which it was applied, I confess I think the caution which I have 
 just quoted does apply, with considerable force, to the present 
 moment. 
 
 Having shown, then, that in reference to the state of Spain, 
 war was not the course prescribed by any rational policy to Eng- 
 land, let us next try the question in reference to France. 
 
 I do not stop here to refute and disclaim again the unworthy 
 notion, which was early put forward, but has been since silently 
 retracted and disowned, that it might have been advisable to try 
 the chance of what might be eflfected by a menace of war, unsup- 
 ported by any serious design of carrying that menace into execu- 
 tion. Those by whom this manoeuvre was originally supposed 
 to be recommended are, I understand, anxious to clear themselves 
 from the suspicion of having intended to countenance it, and pro- 
 fess indeed to wonder by whom such an idea can have been en- 
 tertained. Be it so: I will not press the point invidiously — it is 
 not necessary for my argument. I have a right then to take it as 
 admitted, that we could not have threatened war, without being 
 thoroughly prepared for it; and that, in determining to threaten, 
 we must virtually have determined (whatever the chances of 
 escaping that ultimate result,) to go to war — that the determina- 
 tions were in fact identical. 
 
 Neither will I discuss over again that other proposition, already 
 sufficiently exhausted in former debates, of the applicability of a 
 purely maritime war to a struggle in aid of Spain, in the cam- 
 paign by which her fate is to be decided. I will not pause to 
 consider what consolation it would have been to the Spanish na- 
 tion — what source of animation, and what encouragement to per- 
 severance in resisting their invader — to learn, that though we 
 could not, as in the last war, march to their aid, and mingle our 
 banners with theirs in battle, we were, nevertheless, scouring 
 their coasts for prizes, and securing to ourselves an indemnifica- 
 tion for our own expenses in the capture of Martinico. 
 
 To go to war therefore directly, unsparingly, vigorously against 
 France, in behalf of Spain, in the way in which alone Spain 
 could derive any essential benefit from our co-operation — to jom 
 her with heart and hand — or to wrap ourselves up in a real and 
 bona fide neutrality — that was the true alternative. 
 
 Some gentlemen have blamed me for a want of enthusiasm 
 
 HH* 
 
388 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 upon this occasion — some too, who formerly blamed me for an 
 excess of that quality; but though I am charged with not being 
 now sufficiently enthusiastic, I assure them that I do not contem- 
 plate the present contest with indifference. Far otherwise. I con- 
 template, I confess, with fearful anxiety, the peculiar character of 
 the war in which France and Spain are engaged, and the peculiar 
 direction which that character may possibly give to it. I was — I 
 still am — an enthusiast for national independence; but I am not — 
 I hope I never shall be — an enthusiast in favour of revolution. 
 And yet how fearfully are those two considerations intermingled, 
 in the present contest between France and Spain! This is no war 
 for territory, or for commercial advantages. It is unhappily a 
 war of principle. France has invaded Spain from enmity to her 
 new institutions. Supposing the enterprise of France not to suc- 
 ceed, what is there to prevent Spain from invading France, in 
 return, from hatred of the principle upon which her invasion has 
 been justified? Looking upon both sides with an impartial eye, 
 I may avow that I know no equity which should bar the Span- 
 iards from taking such a revenge. But it becomes quite another 
 question whether I should choose to place myself under the ne- 
 cessity of actively contributing to successes, which might inflict 
 on France so terrible a retribution. If I admit that such a retri- 
 bution by the party first attacked could scarcely be censured as 
 unjust, still the punishment retorted upon the aggressor would be 
 so dreadful, that nothing short of having received direct injury 
 eould justify any third power in taking part in it. 
 
 War between France and Spain (as the Duke of Wellington 
 has said) must always, to a certain degree, partake of the charac- 
 ter of a civil war; a character which palliates, if it does not jus- 
 tify, many acts that do not belong to a regular contest between 
 two nations. But why should England voluntarily enter into a 
 co-operation in which she must either take part in such acts, or 
 be constantly rebuking and coercing her allies? If we were at 
 war with France upon any question such as I must again take the 
 liberty of describing by the term "externaP' question, we should 
 not think ourselves — (I trust no government of this country 
 would think itself) — justified in employing against France the 
 arms of internal revolution. But what, I again ask, is there to 
 restrain Spain from such means of defensive retaliation, in a 
 struggle begun by France avowedly from enmity to the internal 
 institutions of Spain? And is it in such a quarrel that we would 
 mix ourselves? If one of two contending parties poisons the 
 well-springs of national liberty, and the other employs against its 
 adversary the venomed weapons of political fanaticism, shall we 
 "voluntarily and unnecessarily associate ourselves with either, and 
 become responsible for the infliction upon either of such unusual 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 389 
 
 calamities ? While I reject, therefore, with disdain a suggestion 
 which I have somewhere heard, of the possibility of our engaging 
 against the Spanish cause, still I do not feel myself called upon to 
 join with Spain in hostilities of such peculiar character as those 
 which she may possibly retaliate upon France. Not being bound 
 to do so by any obligation, expressed or implied, I cannot consent 
 to be a party to a war in which, if Spain should chance to be suc- 
 cessful, the result to France, and, through France, to all Europe, 
 might, in the case supposed, be such as no thinking man can con- 
 template without dismay; and such as I (for my own part) would 
 not assist in producing, for all the advantages which England 
 could reap from the most successful warfare. 
 
 I now come to the third consideration which we had to weigh 
 — the situation of Portugal. It is perfectly true, as was stated by 
 the honourable gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) who opened this de- 
 bate, that we are bound by treaty to assist Portugal in case of her 
 being attacked. It is perfectly true that this is an ancient and 
 reciprocal obligation. It is perfectly true that Portugal has often 
 been in jeopardy; and equally true that England has never failed 
 to fly to her assistance. But much misconception has been ex- 
 hibited during the last two nights, with respect to the real na- 
 ture of the engagements between Portugal and this country; a 
 misconception which has undoubtedly been, in part, created by 
 the publication of some detached portions of diplomatic corres- 
 pondence, at Lisbon. The truth is, that some time ago an appli- 
 cation was made to this Government by Portugal to " guarantee 
 the new political institutions " of that kingdom. I do not know 
 that it has been the practice of this country to guarantee the po- 
 litical institutions of another. Perhaps something of the sort 
 may be found in the history of our connexion with the united 
 provinces of Holland, in virtue of which we interfered, in 1786, 
 in the internal disputes of the authorities in that state. But that 
 case was a special exception: the general rule is undoubtedly the 
 other way. I declined therefore, on the part of Great Britain, to 
 accede to this strange application; and I endeavoured to reconcile 
 the Portuguese Government to our refusal, by showing that the 
 demand was one which went directly to the infraction of that 
 principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, 
 which we professed for ourselves, and which it was obviously the 
 interest of Portugal to see respected and maintained. Our obliga- 
 tions had been contracted with the old Portuguese monarchy. 
 Our treaty bound us to consult the external safety of Portugal; and 
 not to examine, to challenge, or to champion its internal institu- 
 tions. If we examined their new institutions for the sake of deriving 
 from them new motives for fulfilling our old engagements, with 
 what propriety could we prohibit other powers from examining 
 
390 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 them for the purpose of drawing any other conclusion? It was 
 enough to say. that such internal changes no way affected our en- 
 gagements with Portugal; that we felt ourselves as much bound 
 to defend her, under her altered constitution, as under the ancient 
 monarchy, with which our alliance had been contracted. More 
 than this we could not say; and more than this it was not her in- 
 terest to require. 
 
 And what is the obligation of this alliance ? — To defend Por- 
 tugal — to assist her, if necessary, with all our forces, in case of an 
 unprovoked attack upon her territory. This, however, does not 
 give to Portugal any right to call on us, if she were attacked in 
 consequence of her voluntarily declaring war against another Pow- 
 er. By engaging in the cause of Spain, without any direct provo- 
 cation from France, she would unquestionably lose all claim upon 
 our assistance. The rendering that assistance would then become 
 a question of policy, not of duty. Surely my honourable and learn- 
 ed friend (Sir James Mackintosh,) who has declaimed so loudly 
 on this subject, knows as well as any man, that the course which 
 we are hound to follow in any case affecting Portugal, is marked 
 out in our treaties with that crown, with singular accuracy and 
 circumspection. In case of the suspicion of any design being 
 entertained against Portugal by another Power, our first duty is 
 to call on such Power for explanation: in case of such interposi- 
 tion failing, we are to support Portugal by arm.s; first with a lim- 
 ited force, and afterwards with all our might. This treaty we 
 have fulfilled to the letter, in the present instance. We long ago 
 reminded France of our engagements with Portugal; and we have 
 received repeated assurances that it is the determination of France 
 rigidly to respect the independence of that kingdom. Portugal 
 certainly did show some jealousy (as has been asserted) with re- 
 spect to the Congress of Verona; and she applied to this Govern- 
 ment to know whether her affairs had been brought before the 
 Congress. I was half afraid of giving offence, when I said — 
 " the name of Portugal was never mentioned." — " What, not 
 mentioned? not a word about the new institutions?" — " No, not 
 one. If mentioned at all, it was only with reference to the slave 
 trade." In truth, from the beginning to the close of the proceed- 
 ings of the Congress, not the most distant intimation was given of 
 any unfriendly design against Portugal. 
 
 Now, before I quit the Peninsula, a single word more to the 
 honourable member for Westminster and his constituents. Have 
 they estimated the burdens of a Peninsular war? — God forbid 
 that, if honour, or good faith, or national interest required it, we 
 should decline the path of duty because it is encompassed with 
 difficulties; but at least we ought to keep some consideration of 
 these difficulties in our minds. We have experience to teach us, 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 391 
 
 with something like accuracy, what are the pecuniary demands of 
 the contest for which we must be prepared, if we enter into a war 
 in the Peninsula. To take only two years and a half of the last 
 Peninsular war, of which I happen to have the accounts at hand, 
 from the beginning of 1812, to the glorious conclusion of the cam- 
 paign of 1814, the expense incurred in Spain and Portugal was 
 about £33,000,000. Is that an expense to be incurred again, with- 
 out some peremptory and unavoidable call of duty, of honour, or 
 of interest? 
 
 Such a call we are at all times ready to answer, come — (to use 
 the expression so much decried) come what may. But there is 
 surely sufficient ground for pausing, before we acquiesce in the 
 short and flippant deduction of a rash consequence from false pre- 
 mises, which has been so glibly echoed from one quarter to ano- 
 ther, during the last four months. " 0! we must go to war with 
 France, for we are bound to go to war in defence of Portugal. 
 Portugal will certainly join Spain against France; France will 
 then attack Portugal; and then our defensive obligation comes into 
 play." Sir, it does no such thing. If Portugal is attacked by 
 France, or by any other Power, without provocation. Great Britain 
 is indeed bound to defend her: but if Portugal wilfully seeks the 
 hostility of France, by joining against France in a foreign quarrel, 
 there is no such obligation on Great Britain. The letter of trea- 
 ties* is as clear as the law of nationst is precise upon this point: 
 and as I believe no British statesman ever lived, so I hope none 
 ever will live, unwise enough to bind his country by so prepos- 
 terous an obligation, as that she should go to war, not merely in 
 defence of an ally, but at the will and beck of that ally, whenever 
 
 * (Extract of the treaty of defensive alliance, between Great Britain, Portu- 
 gal, and the States General, signed at Lisbon, May 16, 1703.) 
 
 " Art. II. If ever it shall happen that the Kings of Spain and France, either 
 the present or future, that both of them together, or either of them separately, 
 shall make war, or give occasion to suspect that they intend to make war upon 
 the kingdom of Portugal, either on the continent of Europe, or in its dominions 
 beyond Seas; Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, and the lords the States 
 General shall use their friendly offices with the said Kings, or either of them, 
 in order to persuade them to observe the terms of peace towards Portugal, and 
 not to make war upon it. 
 
 " Art. III. But these good offices not proving successful, but altogether inef- 
 fectual, so that war should he made, by the aforesaid kings, or by either of 
 them, upon Portugal; the above mentioned Powers of Great Britain and Hol- 
 land shall make war, with all their force, upon the aforesaid King or Kings, 
 loho shall carry hostile arms into Portugal." 
 
 f " Sed et hie distinguendum est, an Foederatus mens injuriam patiatur, an 
 
 ipse inferat; si patiatur, promissa implebo; si inferat, non implebo;" " Cum 
 
 pacta aiant ^ qui bello petitur,'' eorum alia interpretatio esse nequit quJim ei 
 Fcederato auxilia prsestitum iri, qui nullo jure lacessitur bello, — qui ab hoste 
 petitur, non qui hostem ipse petite — Bynkershoek, Lib. I. Cap. IX. p. 72. 
 
392 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 ambition, or false policy, or a predominant faction, may plunge 
 that ally into wars of her own seeking and contriving. 
 
 On the other hand, would it have been advisable for us to pre- 
 cipitate Portugal into the war ? Undoubtedly we might have done 
 so. For by declaring war against France, on behalf of Spain, we 
 should have invited France (and there was perhaps a party in 
 Portugal ready enough to second the invitation) to extend her hos- 
 tilities to the whole of the Peninsula. But was it an object of 
 sound policy to bring a war upon our hands, of which it was clear 
 that we must bear all the burden ? And was not the situation of 
 Portugal, then, so far from being a reason for war, that it added 
 the third motive, and one of the greatest weight, to our preference 
 for a pacific policy ? 
 
 Fourthly. — As to our continental allies. There was surely 
 nothing in their situation to induce Great Britain to take a part in 
 the war. Their Ministers have indeed been withdrawn from Ma- 
 drid; but no alarm has been excited, by that act, in Spain. No 
 case has occurred which gives to France a right to call for the as- 
 sistance of the allies. But had the British Government taken a 
 decided part in support of the Spaniards, a material change might 
 have been produced in the aspect of afiairs. Spain, who has now 
 to contend with France alone, might in that case have had to con- 
 tend with other and more overwhelming forces. Without push- 
 ing these considerations farther, enough surely has been said, to 
 indicate the expediency of adhering to that line of policy which 
 we successfully pursued at Verona; and of endeavouring, by our 
 example, as well as by our influence, to prevent the complication, 
 and circumscribe the range of hostilities. Let it be considered, 
 how much the duration and the disasters of a war may depend 
 upon the multitude or the fewness of its elements; and how much 
 the accession of any new party, or parties, to a war, must add to 
 the difficulties of pacification. 
 
 I come next to consider the situation of this country. And 
 first, as to our ability for the undertaking of a war. I have already 
 said, that the country is yet rich enough in resources — in means 
 — in strength — to engage in any contest to which national honour 
 may call her; but I must at the same time be allowed to say, that 
 her strength has very recently been strained to the utmost; that 
 her means are at that precise stage of recovery, which makes it 
 most desirable that the progress of that recovery should not be in- 
 terrupted; that her resources, now in a course of rapid reproduc- 
 tion, would, by any sudden check, be thrown into a disorder more 
 deep and difficult of cure. It is in reference to this particular 
 condition of the country, that I said on a former evening, what 
 the honourable member for Surrey (Mr. Holme Sumner) has 
 since done me the honour to repeat, " If we are to be driven into 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 395 
 
 war, sooner or later, let it be later:" let it be after we have had 
 time to turn, as it were, the corner of our difficulties — after we 
 shall have retrieved a little more effectively our exhausted re- 
 sources, and have assured ourselves of means and strength, not 
 only to begin, but to keep up the conflict, if necessary, for an in- 
 definite period of time. 
 
 For let no man flatter himself that a war now entered upon 
 would be a short one. Have we so soon forgotten the course and 
 progress of the last war? For my part, I remember well the antici- 
 pations with which it began. I remember hearing a man, who 
 will be allowed to have been distinguished by as great sagacity as 
 ever belonged to the most consummate statesman — I remember 
 hearing Mr. Pitt, not in his place in Parliament (where it might 
 have been his object and his duty to animate zeal and to encour- 
 age hope,) but in the privacy of his domestic circle, among the 
 friends in whom he confided — I remember well hearing him say, 
 in 1793, that he expected that war to be of very short duration. 
 That duration ran out to a period beyond the life of him who 
 made the prediction. It outlived his successor, and the successors 
 of that successor, and at length came suddenly and unexpectedly 
 to an end, through a combination of miraculous events, such as 
 the most sanguine imagination could not have anticipated. With 
 that example full in my recollection, I could not act upon the 
 presumption that a new war, once begun, would be speedily 
 ended. Let no such expectation induce us to enter a path, which, 
 however plain and clear it may appear at the outset of the journey, 
 we should presently see branching into intricacies, and becoming 
 encumbered with obstructions — until we were involved in a laby- 
 rinth, from which not we ourselves only, but the generation to 
 come, might in vain endeavour to find the means of extrication. 
 
 For the confirmation of these observations, I appeal to that 
 which I have stated as the last of the considerations in reference 
 to which the policy of the British Government was calculated — I 
 mean, to the present state of the world. No man can witness 
 with more delight than I do the widening diffusion of political 
 liberty. Acknowledging all the blessings which we have long 
 derived from liberty ourselves, I do not grudge to others a par- 
 ticipation in them. I would not prohibit other nations from 
 kindling their torches at the flame of British freedom. But let 
 us not deceive ourselves. The general acquisition of free insti- 
 tutions is not necessarily a security for general peace. I am 
 obliged to confess that its immediate tendency is the other way. 
 Take an example from France herself. The Representative 
 Chamber of France has undoubtedly been the source of those 
 hostilities, which I should not have despaired of seeing averted 
 through the pacific disposition of the French King. Look at the 
 52 
 
394 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 democracies of the ancient world. Their existence, I may say, 
 was in war. Look at the petty republics of Italy in more modern 
 times. In truth, long intervals of profound peace are much more 
 readily to be found under settlements of a monarchical form. Did 
 the republic of Rome, in the whole career of her existence, enjoy 
 an interval of peace of as long duration as that which this country 
 enjoyed under the administration of Sir Robert Walpole? — and 
 that interval, be it remembered, was broken short through the in- 
 stigation of popular feeling. I am not saying that this is right or 
 wrong — but that it is so. It is in the very nature of free govern- 
 ments — and more especially, perhaps, of governments newly 
 free. The principle which for centuries has given ascendancy to 
 Great Britain, is that she was the single free state in Europe. 
 The spread of the representative system destroys that singularity, 
 and must (however little we may like it) proportionably enfeeble 
 our preponderating influence — unless we measure our steps cau- 
 tiously, and accommodate our conduct to the times. Let it not 
 be supposed that I would disparage the progress of freedom, that 
 I wish checks to be applied to it, or that I am pleased at the sight 
 of obstacles thrown in its way. Far, very far from it. I am only 
 desiring it to be observed, that we cannot expect to enjoy at the 
 same time incompatible advantages. Freedom must ever be the 
 greatest of blessings; but it ceases to be a distinction, in propor- 
 tion as other nations become free. 
 
 But, Sir, this is only a partial view of the subject; and one to 
 which I have been led by the unreasonable expectations of those 
 who, while they make loud complaints of the diplomacy of Eng- 
 land, as less commanding than heretofore, unconsciously specify 
 the very causes which necessarily diminish and counteract its 
 efficacy. 
 
 There are, however, other considerations to which I beg leave 
 to turn the attention of the House. 
 
 It is perfectly true, as has been argued by more than one hoo- 
 ourable member in this debate, that there is a contest going on in 
 the world, between the spirit of unlimited monarchy, and the 
 spirit of unlimited democracy. Between these two spirits, it may 
 be said, that strife is either openly in action, or covertly at work, 
 throughout the greater portion of Europe. It is true, as has also 
 been argued, that in no former period in history is there so close 
 a resemblance to the present, as in that of the Reformation. So 
 far my honourable and learned friend (Sir J. Mackintosh) and the 
 honourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett) were justified in holding up 
 Queen Elizabeth's reign as an example for our study. The hon- 
 ourable member for Westminster too, has observed, that in imita- 
 tion of Queen Elizabeth's policy, the proper place for this coun- 
 try, in the present state of the world, is at the head of free na- 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 395 
 
 tions struggling against arbitrary power. Sir, undoubtedly there 
 is, as I have admitted, a general resemblance between the two 
 periods; forasmuch as in both we see a conflict of opinions, and 
 in both a bond of union growing out of those opinions, which es- 
 tablishes, between parts and classes of different nations, a stricter 
 communion than belongs to community of country. It is true — 
 it is, I own I think, a formidable truth — that in this respect the 
 two periods do resemble each other. But though there is this 
 general similarity, there is one circumstance which mainly dis- 
 tinguishes the present time from the reign of Elizabeth; and 
 which, though by no means unimportant in itself, has been over- 
 looked by all those to whose arguments I am now referring. 
 Elizabeth was herself amongst the revolters against the authority 
 of the Church of Rome; but we are not amongst those who are 
 engaged in a struggle against the spirit of unlimited monarchy. 
 We have fought that fight. We have taken our station. We 
 have long ago assumed a character differing altogether from that 
 of those around us. It may have been the duty and the interest 
 of Queen Elizabeth to make common cause with — to put herself 
 at the head of — those who supported the Reformation: but can it 
 be either our interest or our duty to ally ourselves with revolu- 
 tion? Let us be ready to afford refuge to the sufferers of either- 
 extreme party; but it is not surely our policy to become the as- 
 sociate of either. Our situation now is rather what that of Eliza- 
 beth would have been, if the Church of England had been, in her 
 time, already completely established, in uncontested supremacy; 
 acknowledged as a legitimate settlement, unassailed and unassaila- 
 ble by papal power. Does my honourable and learned friend 
 believe that the policy of Elizabeth would in that case have been 
 the same? 
 
 Now, our complex constitution is established with so happy a 
 mixture of its elements — its tempered monarchy and its regulated 
 freedom — that we have nothing to fear from foreign despotism — 
 nothing at home but from capricious change. We have nothing 
 to fear, unless, distasteful of the blessings which we have earned, 
 and of the calm which we enjoy, we let loose again, with rash 
 hand, the elements of our constitution, and set them once more 
 to fight against each other. In this enviable situation, what have 
 we in common with the struggles which are going on in other 
 countries, for the attainment of objects of which we have been 
 long in undisputed possession? We look down upon those strug- 
 gles from the point to which we have happily attained, not with 
 the cruel delight which is described by the poet, as arising from 
 the contemplation of agitations in which the spectator is not ex- 
 posed to share; but with an anxious desire to mitigate, to en- 
 
296 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 lighten, to reconcile, to save — by our example in all cases — by 
 our exertions where we can usefully interpose. 
 
 Our station, then, is essentially neutral: neutral not only be- 
 tween contending nations, but between conflicting principles. The 
 object of the Government has been to preserve that station; and 
 for the purpose of preserving it to maintain peace. By remain- 
 ing at peace ourselves, we best secure Portugal; by remaining at 
 peace, we take the best chance of circumscribing the range, and 
 shortening the duration of the war, which we could not prevent 
 from breaking out between France and Spain. By remaining at 
 peace, we shall best enable ourselves to take an effectual and de- 
 cisive part in any contest into which we may be hereafter forced 
 against our will. 
 
 The papers on the table, the last paper at least (I mean the des- 
 patch of the 31st of March, in which is stated what we expect 
 from France,) ought, I think, to have satisfied the honourable bar- 
 onet, who said that, provided the Government was firm in pur- 
 pose, he should not be disposed to find fault with their having 
 acted suaviter in niodo. In that despatch our neutrality is quali- 
 fied with certain specified conditions. To those conditions France 
 has given her consent. When we say in that despatch, we are 
 ^' satisfied" that those conditions will be observed, is it not obvi- 
 ous that we use a language of courtesy, which is always most be- 
 comingly employed between independent powers ? Who does not 
 know that, in diplomatic correspondence, under that suavity of 
 expression is implied an " or," which imports another alterna- 
 tive ? 
 
 So far, then, as the interests and honour of Great Britain are 
 concerned, those interests and that honour have been scrupulously 
 maintained. Great Britain has come out of the negotiations, 
 claiming all the respect that is due to her; and, in a tone not to 
 be mistaken, enforcing all her rights. It is true that her policy 
 has not been violent or precipitate. She has not sprung forth 
 armed, from the impulse of a sudden indignation; she has looked 
 before and after; she has reflected on all the circumstances which 
 beset, and on all the consequences which may follow, so awful a 
 decision as war; and instead of descending into the arena as party 
 in a quarrel not her own, she has assumed the attitude and the at- 
 tributes of justice, holding high the balance, and grasping, but not 
 unsheathing the sword. 
 
 Sir, I will now trouble the House no further than to call its at- 
 tion to the precise nature of the motion which it has to dispose 
 of this night. Sir, the result of the negotiations, as I have be- 
 fore stated, rendered it unnecessary and irregular for the Govern- 
 ment to call for the expression of a parliamentary opinion upon 
 them. It was, however, competent for any honourable member 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 397 
 
 to suggest to the House the expression of such opinion; which, if 
 expressed at all, it will readily be admitted ought to be expressed 
 intelligibly. Now what is the Address which, after a fortnight's 
 notice, and after the menaces with which it has been announced 
 and ushered in, the House has been desired to adopt? The hon- 
 ourable gentleman's Address first proposes to " represent to His 
 Majesty, that the disappointment of His Majesty's benevolent so- 
 licitude to preserve general peace, appears to this House to have, 
 in a great measure, arisen from the failure of his Ministers to 
 make the most earnest, vigorous, and solemn protest against the 
 pretended right of the sovereigns assembled at Verona, to make 
 war on Spain in order to compel alterations in her political insti- 
 tutions." I must take the liberty to say that this is not a true de- 
 scription. The war I have shown to be a French, war, not arising 
 from any thing done, at Verona. But to finish the sentence: — 
 " as well as against the subsequent pretension of the French Gov- 
 ernment, that nations cannot lawfully enjoy any civil privileges 
 but from the spontaneous grant of their kings." I must here 
 again take the liberty to say that the averment is not correct. 
 Whatever the misconduct of Government in these negotiations 
 may have been, it is plain matter-of-fact, that they protested in 
 the strongest manner against the pretension put forward in the 
 speech of the King of France, that the liberties and franchises of 
 a nation should be derived exclusively from the throne. It is on 
 record, in this very Address, that the honourable gentlemen them- 
 selves could not have protested more strongly than the Govern- 
 ment; since, in the next sentence to that which I have just read, 
 in order to deliver themselves with the utmost force, they have 
 condescended to borrow my words. For the Address goes on: 
 
 " principles destructive of the rights of all independent 
 
 states, which strike at the root of the British Constitution, and 
 are subversive of His Majesty's legitimate title to the throne.'* 
 Now by far the strongest expression in this sentence, — the meta- 
 phor (such as it is) about " striking at the root of the British Con- 
 stitution," — is mine. It is in my despatch to Sir Charles Stuart 
 of the 4th of February. I claim it with the pride and fondness 
 of an author; when I see it plagiarized by those who condemn 
 me for not using sufficiently forcible language, and who yet in the 
 very breath in which they pronounce that condemnation, are 
 driven to borrow my very words to exemplify the omission which 
 they impute. 
 
 So much for the justice of the Address; now for its usefulness 
 and efficacy. 
 
 What is the full and sufficient declaration of the sense of the 
 House on this most momentous crisis, which is contained in this 
 monitory expostulation to the throne? It proceeds: " Further to 
 
 EK 
 
398 NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 
 
 declare to His Majesty the surprise and sori-ow with which this 
 House has observed that His Majesty's Ministers should have ad- 
 vised the Spanish Government, while so unwarrantably menaced" 
 — (this "so" must refer to something out of doors, for there is not 
 a word in ihe previous part of this precious composition to which 
 it can be grammatically applied;) — " to alter their constitution, in 
 the hope of averting invasion; a concession which alone would 
 have involved the total sacrifice of national independence, and 
 which was not even palliated by an assurance from France, that 
 on receiving so dishonourable a submission, she would desist from 
 her unprovoked aggression." (I deny this statement, by the 
 way; it is a complete misrepresentation.) " Finally to represent 
 to His Majesty, that in the judgment of this House a tone of more 
 dignified remonstrance tvould have been better calculated to pre- 
 serve the peace of the Continent, and thereby to secure this na- 
 tion more effectually from the hazard of being involved in the ca- 
 lamities of war." And there it ends! — with a mere conjecture of 
 what " ivoidd have heenP'' 
 
 Is this an Address for a British Parliament, carrying up a com- 
 plaint that the nation is on the eve of war, but conveying not a 
 word of advice as to the course to be followed at such a moment? 
 I, for my own part, beg the House not to agree to such an Address 
 — for this reason, amongst others, that as it will be my duty to ten- 
 der my humble advice to His Majesty as to the answer to be given 
 to it, I am sure I shall not know what to advise his Majesty to 
 say: — the only answer which occurs to me as suitable for the oc- 
 casion is, " Indeed! I am very sorry for it." 
 
 This then is the upshot of a motion which was to show that the 
 present Ministers are unfit to carry on war or to maintain peace; 
 and, by implication, that there are those who know better how 
 such matters should be managed. This is the upshot of the motion, 
 which was to dislodge us from our seats, and to supply our places 
 with the honourable gentleman opposite. It is affirmed that we 
 are now on the eve of war, the peace which we have maintained 
 being insecure. If we are on the eve of war, will not this be the 
 first time that a British House of Parliament has approached the 
 throne, on such an occasion, without even a conditional pledge of 
 support? If war is a matter even of possible contemplation, it 
 surely becomes this House either to concur in an Address for the 
 removal of the Ministers, who have needlessly incurred that dan- 
 ger; or, as the amendment moved by the honourable member for 
 Yorkshire proposes, to tender to His Majesty a cordial assurance 
 that this House will stand by His Majesty in sustaining the dig- 
 nity of his crown, and the rights and interests of his people. I 
 trust, therefore. Sir, that by rejecting this most incorrect and in- 
 adequate Address — as unworthy of the House as it is of the oc- 
 
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN. 399 
 
 casion; an Address contradictory in some parts to itself; in more, 
 to the established facts of the case; and in all to the ascertained 
 sense of the country; and by adopting, in its room, the amend- 
 ment moved by the honourable member for Yorkshire, and sec- 
 onded by the member for London, the House will stamp the pol- 
 icy which the King's Ministers have pursued — feebly perhaps — 
 perhaps erroneously — but at all events from pure motives, in the 
 sincerity of their hearts, and as conducive, in their judgment, to 
 the tranquillity, welfare, and happiness, not of this country only, 
 but of the world — with that highest of all sanctions, the deliber- 
 ate approbation of the House of Commons. 
 
 The original Address was negatived without a division. On the amended 
 Address the House divided. The numbers were, 
 
 For the Amendment - . . . 372 
 
 Against it 20 
 
 Majority - - 352 
 
400 
 
 THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 MAY 15th, 1823. 
 
 Mr. F. Buxton submitted the followiner Resolution: — 
 
 "That the state of Slavery is repugnant to the principles of the British Con" 
 stitution, and of the Christian Religion; and that it ought to be gradually abol- 
 ished throughout the British Colonies with as much expedition as may be found 
 consistent with a due regard to the well being of the parties concerned." 
 
 Mr. Secretary Canning said: — Sir, the appeal to His Ma- 
 jesty's Ministers with which the honourable gentleman concluded 
 his speech, makes me feel it my duty to address myself to the 
 House at this early period of the debate, for the purpose of stating, 
 without reserve, the opinions entertained by myself and my col- 
 leagues with respect to this most important, and, I must say, at 
 the same time (notwithstanding what has fallen from the honour- 
 able gentleman,) this most fearful question. I never in my life 
 proceeded to the discussion of any question under a stronger im- 
 pression of its manifold difficulties; not indeed in reference to the 
 principles on which my opinions are grounded, nor with respect 
 to the practical conclusion to which I may think it expedient to 
 come; but on account of the dangers, which, even after all that 
 the honourable gentleman has said to the contrary, appear to me 
 to attend a discussion, in which one rash word, perhaps even one 
 too ardent expression, might raise a flame not easily to be extin- 
 guished. 
 
 I mention these circumstances. Sir, not for the purpose of im- 
 puting any blame to the honourable gentleman, or to those friends 
 in conjunction with whom he has brought forward the resolution 
 in your hands, nor for that of discouraging fair and free delibera- 
 tion; but I take the liberty of throwing out a caution to those 
 who, in a more advanced stage of the discussion, and when con- 
 flicting opinions may have produced a warmth which I do not 
 feel, might be induced to colour more deeply the pictures which 
 the honourable gentleman himself has sketched with no light 
 hand; and who might thus excite feelings which it is not neces- 
 sary to awaken for the accomplishment of any practical good, but 
 which, if awakened, might either impede the attainment of that 
 good, or expose it to gratuitous hazard. 
 
 And here the honourable gentleman must allow me to ask — 
 what had the latter part of his speech to do with his present pur- 
 pose? Why did he think it expedient to recur to the former de- 
 linquencies of this country, which, if capable of expiation, have 
 been expiated ? Why did he go back to a state of things in the 
 
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 401 
 
 West Indies, to which, so far as they could be remedied, remedy 
 has been applied ? Why did he go out of his way to recal the 
 horrors and cruelties connected with the now abolished Slave 
 Trade, which were at former times brought under the notice of 
 Parliament? Why, when he was stirring a question totally new 
 — (and I mention that character of the question, not as matter of 
 blame, but as matter of fact) — why did he mix it up with that 
 other odious question, often, indeed, discussed, but long ago de- 
 cided, with which, during an agitation of twenty years, it was 
 never before placed in Juxia-position, but for the purpose of be- 
 ing contrasted with, and separated from it? In all former discus- 
 sions, in all former votes against the Slave Trade, it cannot surely 
 be forgotten, that the ulterior purpose of emancipation was studi- 
 ously disclaimed. I have myself frequently joined in that dis- 
 claimer on former occasions. In doing so, I certainly did not 
 mean to advance so untenable a proposition as that it was intended 
 to purchase the abolition of the Slave Trade by an indefinite con- 
 tinuance of slavery. Undoubtedly that was not my meaning; but 
 what I at least did mean — what in all fairness any man who took 
 the same distinction must be held to have meant — was, that the 
 two questions should be kept separate, and argued on their sepa- 
 rate grounds; that the odium of that which we w^ere labouring 
 to abolish should not be brought to bear with increased intensity 
 on that of which we were compelled to allow the continuance. 
 Slavery, not willingly, but necessarily, was allowed to continue. 
 I do not say that it is therefore to continue indefinitely; I speak 
 not of it as a system to be carefully preserved and cherished, but 
 as one to be dealt with according to its own nature, and with re- 
 ference to its inherent peculiarities. We must be considered as 
 having tacitly, if not expressly, taken the engagement, not, on 
 every subsequent discussion, to look back to atrocities which 
 have ceased, not to revive animosities which have been extinguish- 
 ed, and to throw in the teeth of those whose interests are at 
 hazard, cruelties with which they in fact had no concern. After 
 such an implied pledge, it is somewhat hard in the honourable 
 gentleman to revert to those past-gone topics, instead of confining 
 himself to facts and arguments which properly belong to the 
 motion which he has introduced. 
 
 I will not follow the honourable gentleman through the various 
 matters of this kind which he has brought to his aid; but I will 
 here take the liberty to dismiss the consideration of the Slave 
 Trade, as of a thing forgotten and gone by: and wnll entreat the 
 House to look at the present situation of the West Indies, not as 
 at a population accumulated by a succession of crimes such as 
 those which the honourable gentleman has detailed, but simply 
 as it is. 
 
 53 KK* 
 
402 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 The honourable gentleman has treated this subject rather with 
 powerful declamation than with sober statement: for I must beg 
 leave to consider as a figure of eloquence, rather than as a practi- 
 cal argument, the intimation that we must deal with this question, 
 not as a matter of justice and judgment, but of impulse and feel- 
 ing. That is not a ground on which Parliament can be called 
 upon to act. The manner in which the black population of the 
 West Indies has been collected, may indeed be the subject of re- 
 flection to the historian, or discussion to the moralist; but, in call- 
 ing upon the legislature to adopt a measure of the greatest im- 
 portance, and of the utmost difficulty, the honourable gentleman 
 addresses himself not to the prudence, but to the feeling of the 
 House. I confess it seems to me that he pursues the course least 
 likely to lead to a satisfactory result. 
 
 Looking, then, at the present condition of the West Indies, I 
 find there a numerous black population, with a comparatively 
 small proportion of whites. The question to be decided is, how 
 civil rights, moral improvement, and general happiness are to be 
 communicated to this overpowering multitude of slaves, with 
 safety to the lives, and security to the interests of the white pop- 
 ulation, our fellow subjects and fellow citizens. Is it possible that 
 there can be a difference of opinion upon this question ? Is it 
 possible that those most nearly concerned in the present state of 
 property in the West Indies, and those who contemplate the 
 great subject with the eye of the philosopher and the moralist, 
 should look at it in any other than one point of view? Is it pos- 
 sible for a member of Parliament, still more for a member of the 
 Government, to say that he does not wish, so far as is consistent 
 with other great considerations necessarily involved, to impart 
 every improvement which may tend to raise in the scale of being 
 the unfortunate creatures now in a state of servitude and igno- 
 rance? Undoubtedly, sacrifices ought to be made for the attain- 
 ment of so great a good; but would I, on this account, strike at 
 the root of the system — a system the growth of ages — and un- 
 hesitatingly and rashly level it at a blow? Are we not all aware 
 that there are knots which cannot be suddenly disentangled, and 
 must not be cut — difficulties which, if solved at all, must be 
 solved by patient consideration and impartial attention, in order 
 that we may not do the most flagrant injustice by aiming at jus- 
 tice itself? 
 
 The honourable gentleman begins his resolution with a recital 
 which, I confess, greatly embarrasses me. He says, that " the 
 state of slavery is repugnant to the principles of the British Con- 
 stitution, and of the Christian religion." God forbid that he who 
 ventures to object to this statement, should therefore be held to 
 assert a contradiction to it, I do not say that the state of slavery 
 
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 403 
 
 is consonant to the principles of the British Constitution; still 
 less do I say that the state of slavery is consonant to the princi- 
 ples of the Christian religion. But though I do not advance 
 these propositions myself, nevertheless, I must say, that in my 
 opinion the propositions of the honourable gentleman are not 
 practically true. If the honourable gentleman means that the 
 British Constitution does not admit of slavery in that part of the 
 British dominions where the Constitution is in full play, undoubt- 
 edly his statement is true; but it makes nothing for his object. 
 If, however, the honourable member is to be understood to main- 
 tain that the British Constitution has not tolerated for years, nay 
 more, for centuries, in the colonies, the existence of slavery — a 
 state of society unknown in the mother country — that is a posi- 
 tion which is altogether without foundation, and positively and 
 practically untrue. In my opinion, when a proposition is sub- 
 mitted to this House for the purpose of inducing the House to 
 act upon it, care should be taken not to confound, as I think is 
 done in this Resolution, what is morally true with what is histor- 
 ically false. Undoubtedly the spirit of the British Constitution 
 is, in its principle, hostile to any modification of slavery. But 
 as undoubtedly the British Parliament has for ages tolerated, sanc- 
 tioned, protected, and even encouraged a system of colonial es- 
 tablishment, of which it well knew slavery to be the foundation. 
 In the same way, God forbid that I should contend that the 
 Christian religion is favourable to slavery. But I confess I feel a 
 Strong objection to the introduction of the name of Christianity, 
 as it were bodily, into any parliamentary question. Religion 
 ought to control the acts and to regulate the consciences of gov- 
 ernments, as well as of individuals; but when it is put forward to 
 serve a political purpose, however laudable, it is done, I think, 
 after the example of ill times; and I cannot but remem.ber the ill 
 objects to which in those times such a practice was applied. As- 
 suredly no Christian will deny that the spirit of the Christian re- 
 ligion is hostile to slavery, as it is to every abuse and misuse of 
 power. It is hostile to all deviations from rectitude, morality, 
 and justice. But if it be meant that in the Christian religion 
 there is a special denunciation against slavery — that slavery and 
 Christianity cannot exist together — I think the honourable gen- 
 tleman himself must admit that the proposition is historically 
 false; and again I must say, that I cannot consent to the confound- 
 ing, for a political purpose, what is morally true with what is his- 
 torically false. One peculiar characteristic of the Christian dis- 
 pensation, if I must venture in this place upon such a theme, is, 
 that it has accommodated itself to all states of society, rather than 
 that it has selected any particular state of society for the peculiar 
 exercise of its influence. If it has added lustre to the sceptre of 
 
-*04 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 the sovereign, it has equally been the consolation of the slave. It 
 applies to all ranks of life, to all conditions of men; and the suf- 
 ferings of this world, even to those upon whom they press most 
 heavily, are rendered comparatively indifferent by the prospect of 
 compensation in the world, of which Christianity affords the as- 
 surance. True it certainly is, that Christianity generally tends to 
 elevate, not to degrade, the character of man; but it is not true, 
 in the specific sense conveyed in the honourable gentleman's Res- 
 olution; it is not true, that there is that in the Christian religion 
 which makes it impossible that it should co-exist with slavery in 
 the world. Slavery has been known in all times, and under all 
 systems of religion, whether true or false. Non nieus hie sermo. 
 I speak but what others have written on this point; and I beg 
 leave to read to the House a passage from Dr. Paley, which is di- 
 rectly applicable to the subject that we are discussing. 
 
 " Slavery was a part of the civil constitution of most countries 
 Avhen Christianity appeared; yet no passage is to be found in the 
 Christian scriptures by which it is condemned and prohibited. 
 This is true, for Christianity, soliciting admission into all na- 
 tions of the world, abstained, as behoved it, from intermeddling 
 with the civil institutions of any. But does it follow from the 
 silence of scripture concerning them, that all the civil institutions 
 which then prevailed were right, or that the bad should not be 
 exchanged for better? Besides this, the discharging of all slaves 
 from all obligation to obey their masters, which is the consequence 
 of pronouncing slavery to be unlawful, would have no better ef- 
 fect than to let loose one half of mankind upon the other. Slaves 
 would have been tempted to embrace a religion which asserted 
 their right to freedom — masters would hardly have been persuaded 
 to consent to claims founded upon such authority; the most ca- 
 lamitous of all consequences, a helluni servile, might probably 
 have ensued, to the reproach, if not the extinction, of the Chris- 
 tian name. The truth is, the emancipation of slaves should be 
 gradual, and be carried on by the provisions of law, and under the 
 protection of civil government. Christianity can only operate as 
 an alterative. By the mild diffusion of its light and influence, the 
 minds of men are insensibly prepared to perceive and correct the 
 enormities which folly, or wickedness, or accident, have intro- 
 duced into their public establishments. In this way the Greek 
 and Roman slavery, and, since these, the feudal tyranny, had de- 
 clined before it. And we trust that, as the knowledge and author- 
 ity of the same religion advance in the world, they will abolish 
 what remains of this odious institution." 
 
 The honourable gentleman cannot wish more than I do, that, 
 under this gradual operation, under this widening diffusion of 
 light and liberality, the spirit of the Christian religion may effect 
 
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 405 
 
 all the objects he has at heart. But it seems to me that it is not, 
 for the practical attainment of his objects, desirable that that which 
 may be the influencing spirit, should be put forward as the active 
 agent. When Christianity was introduced into the world, it took 
 its root amidst the galling slavery of the Roman empire; more 
 galling in many respects (though not precisely of the same char- 
 acter) than that of which the honourable gentleman, in common, 
 I may say, with every friend of humanity, complains. Slavery 
 at that period gave to the master the power of life and death over 
 his bondsman: this is undeniable — known to every body. " Itu 
 servus homo esi f" are the words put by Juvenal into the mouth 
 of the fine lady who calls upon her husband to crucify his slave. 
 If the evils of this dreadful system nevertheless gradually vanished 
 before the gentle but certain influence of Christianity, and if the 
 great author of the system trusted rather to this gradual operation 
 of the principle than to any immediate or direct precept, I think 
 Parliament would do more wisely rather to rely upon the like 
 operation of the same principle, than to put forward the authority 
 of Christianity in at least a questionable shape. The name of 
 Christianity ought not to be thus used, unless we are prepared to 
 act in a much more summary manner than the honourable gentle- 
 man himself proposes. If the existence of slavery be repugnant 
 to the principles of the British Constitution and of the Christian 
 religion, how can the honourable gentleman himself consent to 
 pause even for an instant, or to allow any considerations of pru- 
 dence to intervene between him and his object? How can he pro- 
 pose to divide slaves into two classes, one of which is to be made 
 free directly, while he leaves the other to the gradual extinction 
 of their state of suffering? But if, as I contend, the British Con- 
 stitution does not, in its necessary operation, go to extinguish 
 slavery in every colony, it is evident that the honourable gentle- 
 man's proposition is not to be understood in the precise sense 
 which the honourable gentleman gives to it; and if the Christian 
 religion does not require the instant and unqualified abolition of 
 slavery, it is evident, I apprehend, that the honourable member 
 has mis-stated in his Resolution the principle upon which he him- 
 self is satisfied to act. But while I contend against the literal 
 sense and too positive language of the honourable gentleman's 
 Resolutions, and while I declare my unwillingness to adopt them 
 as the basis of our proceedings, let me not be misunderstood as 
 quarrelling with their intention. I admit as fully as the honour- 
 able gentleman himself, that the spirit both of the British Consti- 
 tution and of the Christian religion is in favour of a gradual ex- 
 termination of this unquestioned evil; and I am ready to proceed 
 with the honourable gentleman to all reasonable and practicable 
 measures for that purpose. 
 
406 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 On these principles I feel disposed to agree in much that the 
 honourable gentleman has said. To many of his measures of de- 
 tail I have not the slightest objection; without, however, admit- 
 ting the solidity of all his ingenious illustrations, or subscribing to 
 the correctness of all his arguments, I think the House will be of 
 my opinion, that at this time of day we must consider property 
 as the creature of law; and that, when law has sanctioned any par- 
 ticular species of property, we cannot legislate in this House as if 
 we were legislating for a new world, the surface of which was to- 
 tally clear from the obstruction of antecedent claims and obliga- 
 tions. If the honourable gentleman asks me, on the other hand, 
 whether I maintain the inviolability of property, so far as to af- 
 firm the proposition that the children of slaves must continue to 
 be slaves for ever — I answer, frankly, No. If, again, he asks me 
 how I reconcile my notions of reverence for the sacredness of 
 property with the degree of authority I am prepared to exercise 
 for the attainment of my object; I answer, with equal frankness, 
 in accomplishing a great national object, in doing an act of nation- 
 al justice, I do not think it right to do it at the exclusive expense 
 of any one class of the community. I am disposed to go gradu- 
 ally to work, in order to diminish both the danger to be risked and 
 the burden to be incurred. My opinion is also, and I am prepared 
 to state it (the honourable gentleman having made his appeal to 
 the Government on this question some weelcs ago) as the opinion 
 of my colleagues as well as my own — that in order that the ob- 
 ject which we have all in view may be undertaken safely and ef- 
 fectually, it is better that it should be left in the hands of the Ex- 
 ecutive Government. 
 
 With that view I have taken the liberty of preparing certain 
 Resolutions, which I shall propose to substitute for those of the 
 honourable gentleman. Between the two sets of Resolutions, the 
 substantial difference, it will be seen, is not very essential; but, 
 from the difference of responsibility between the honourable gen- 
 tleman and myself, I must of necessity lay down my principles 
 with greater caution than he has done, and proceed more coolly 
 and considerately, so as to avoid the liability to misrepresentation. 
 Not that I wish to shrink from particulars, so far as it may be ex- 
 pedient to enter into them. 
 
 I may say, then, that there are two or three points referred to 
 by the honourable gentleman, to which I cannot refuse my con- 
 currence. For instance, he asks if the present mode of working 
 — that which is described by the term, driving — the slaves, by 
 means of a cart-whip in the hand of one who follows them, ought 
 to be allowed? I reply, certainly not. But I go further; I tell the 
 honourable gentleman, that in raising any class of persons from a 
 servile to a civil condition, one of the first principles of improve- 
 
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 407 
 
 ment is in the observance paid to the difference of sexes. I would 
 therefore abolish, with respect to females, the use of the whip — 
 not only as a stimulant to labour in the field — I would abolish it 
 altogether as an instrument of punishment — thus saving the 
 weaker sex from indecency and degradation. I should further be 
 inclined to concur with the honourable gentleman as to the insuf- 
 ficiency of the time allowed to the negro for religious and moral 
 instruction, so long as the cultivation of his provision-ground and 
 his marketing occupy the greater part of the Sabbath. In this 
 point I am anxious to introduce improvement into the present 
 system. 
 
 These are points on which I have no hesitation in agreeing 
 with the honourable gentleman; but there are some others requir- 
 ing more mature consideration in practice, although, in principle, 
 I feel bound to say that I agree with him. I agree with him in 
 thinking that what is now considered, by custom, and, in point 
 of fact, the property of the negro, ought to be secured to him by 
 law. I agree with him in thinking that it would be beneficial if 
 the liberty of bequest were assured to him: perhaps it might be 
 made conditional upon marriage. I agree with him in thinking 
 that it may perhaps be desirable to do something with regard to 
 the admitting the evidence of negroes; but this I hold to be a 
 much more difficult question, and one requiring more thorough 
 deliberation than I have yet had time to give to it. It is a point 
 of such extreme delicacy, and demands so much local and practi- 
 cal knowledge, that I hardly feel justified in pronouncing at this 
 moment any decided oj)inion upon it. Thus far I concur, that it 
 well merits favourable and patient investigation; and for myself, 
 and those who act with me, I can say that we should commence 
 that investigation with a leaning to the view of the subject taken 
 by the honourable gentleman. More at present I will not say. 
 
 I agree further with the honourable gentleman in thinking, 
 that (though great difficulties may be experienced, not from the 
 moral but from the legal part of the question) the process of the 
 writ of venditioni exponcts, by which the slaves are sold sepa- 
 rately from the estates, ought, if possible, to be abolished. 
 
 I have mentioned these particulars as those which have most 
 immediately attracted the attention of His Majesty's servants. I 
 can assure the honourable gentleman and the House, that they 
 have looked at this subject with a sincere desire to render all 
 possible assistance to the undertaking of the honourable gentle- 
 man, and to co-operate in every practicable measure for amelio- 
 rating the condition of the negroes. 
 
 I should ill discharge my duty this day, after the warning of 
 the last few weeks, during which this great subject has been in 
 discussion, if I were not to say, that, upon most of the particulars 
 
408 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 which I have mentioned, if not upon all, there is every disposi- 
 tion among those who may be considered as representing the 
 colonial interests in this House and in this country, to give them 
 a fair, liberal, and candid consideration. 
 
 The immediate question before the House may therefore be 
 narrowed to this point — whether it is better to enter upon this 
 question in a temper of mind unembittered by the retrospect of 
 past evils and atrocities, and with a chance of carrying with us a 
 degree of consent on the part of those most interested and most 
 exposed to the hazard of injury from any change; or, at the risk 
 of angry discussions, which, however innoxious in this House, 
 yet, if echoed in other places, might be attended with the most 
 frightful consequences, to adopt at once the propositions of the 
 honourable gentleman. The question is, whether, upon the de- 
 claration of principles now made to the House, the honourable 
 gentleman and his friends will be contented with the Resolutions 
 which I shall have the honour to propose, or will press his mo- 
 tion to a division, at all the hazards which I would rather leave to 
 be imagined than describe. 
 
 There is, however, one point in the honourable gentleman's 
 statement upon which I certainly entertain a difference of opin- 
 ion: I mean, the proposal of fixing a period at which the children 
 of slaves shall be free. I doubt — not from any peculiar know- 
 ledge that I have of the subject, but upon the general principles 
 of human nature — whether the measure recommended by the 
 honourable gentleman would produce the degree of satisfaction 
 which he anticipates, and whether it might not produce feelings 
 of an opposite nature. I doubt whether in its operation it would 
 not prove at once the least efficient and the most hazardous mode 
 of attaining his own object. But I throw out these observations 
 with the same frankness and candour with which I have express- 
 ed myself in approval of those points of the honourable gentle- 
 man's propositions in which I have had the pleasure to concur. I 
 desire not to be bound by these observations any more than I feel 
 myself bound to carry into effect, at all risks, and at all hazards, 
 those points upon which I have given a favourable opinion. I 
 declare openly and sincerely my present impressions, formed af- 
 ter the best deliberation that there has been time to give to the 
 consideration of the subject. I trust and believe that I have not 
 spoken positively upon any thing upon which there is a probabil- 
 ity of my having hereafter to retract what I have said. I speak 
 doubtfully on some points, even where the bent of my opinion is 
 very strong: but the one thing I am most anxious to avoid is, the 
 declaration of any pledge of an abstract nature; the laying down 
 any principle, the construction of which is to be left to those 
 whose feelings, and prejudices, and passions must naturally be 
 
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 409 
 
 awake to these discussions, and who, when they learn, by a de- 
 claration of this House, that "the continuance of slavery, and the 
 principles of the Christian religion, are incompatible," might im- 
 agine they saw, in such a declaration, what, I say, in abstract 
 reasoning I have, I think, shown they would be fairly entitled to 
 see in it — their own immediate and unqualified emancipation. 
 Lay down such principles, I say, and those persons would have 
 a right to draw that conclusion, and when the House had once 
 made such a declaration, the qualification would come too late. 
 
 I am therefore peculiarly desirous that the qualification should 
 be embodied in the same vote which affirms the principle, and 
 that nothing should be left to inference and construction: that 
 even the hopes held out for the future should be qualified with 
 the doubts, with the delays, and with the difficulties to be sur- 
 mounted before they can possibly be realized. 
 
 I will now, with the leave of the House, read the resolutions 
 which I propose to submit to the House for its consideration. 
 
 1st. " That it is expedient to adopt effectual and decisive mea- 
 sures for ameliorating the condition of the slave population in His 
 Majesty's colonies. 
 
 2d. " That, through a determined and persevering, but at the 
 same time judicious and temperate, enforcement of such measures, 
 this House looks forward to a pi'ogressive improvement in the 
 character of the slave population, such as may prepare them for a 
 participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoy- 
 ed by other classes of His Ma.jesty's subjects. 
 
 3d. " That this House is anxious for the accomplishment of 
 this purpose, at the earliest period that shall be compatible with 
 the well-being of the slaves themselves, with the safety of the 
 colonies, and with a fair and equitable consideration of the inter- 
 ests of private property." 
 
 If the House should be inclined to adopt these Resolutions, I 
 shall then follow them up with moving, 
 
 4th. " That the said Resolutions be laid before His Majesty by 
 such members of this House as are of His Majesty's most hon- 
 ourable Privy Council." 
 
 There now remains but one point, which, after having so fully 
 expressed my sentiments to the House, I am peculiarly anxious 
 to impress upon its consideration: I mean the mode of execution, 
 the manner in which the Executive Government would have to 
 act in respect of these Resolutions, in the event of their adoption. 
 The House is aware, that over certain of the colonies in the West 
 Indies, the Crown exercises immediate power, without the inter- 
 vention of any colonial legislature. In their case, the agency of 
 the Crown, of course, will be more free and unfettered than in 
 colonies having their own separate government. At the same 
 
 54 LL 
 
410 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 time, I must declare, that we have a right to expect from the 
 colonial legislatures a full and fair co-operation. And, being as 
 much averse by habit, as I am at this moment precluded by duty, 
 from mooting imaginary points, and looking to the solution of ex- 
 treme though not impossible questions, I must add, that any re- 
 sistance which might be manifested to the express and declared 
 wishes of Parliament, any resistance, I mean, which should par- 
 take, not of reason, but of contumacy, would create a case (a case, 
 however, which I sincerely trust will never occur) upon which 
 His Majesty's Government would not hesitate to come down to 
 Parliament for counsel. 
 
 I will not prolong a discussion (which it has been my object to 
 bring to a close) by any general reflections further than this, that 
 giving every credit as I do to the motives which have actuated the 
 honourable gentleman, I am sure he will feel that it is perfectly 
 consistent with a complete sympathy with his moral feelings, and 
 consistent equally with my duty, that I should look at this sub- 
 ject more practically, more cautiously, and more dispassionately, 
 and (if the honourable gentleman will permit me to say so much) 
 more prudently than the honourable gentleman; whose warmth, 
 however, though I must not imitate, I do not mean harshly to 
 blame. 
 
 And further, I would assure those whose interests are involved 
 in this great question, that whatever may be the result of the 
 present discussion, I and my colleagues are not more anxious, on 
 the one hand, to redeem the character of the country, so far as it 
 may have suffered by the state of slavery in the colonies, than 
 we think ourselves bound, on the other, to guard and protect the 
 just interests of those who, by no fault of their own — by inher- 
 itance, by accident, by the encouragement of repeated acts of the 
 legislature — find their property vested in a concern exposed to 
 innumerable hazards and difficulties, which do not belong to prop- 
 erty of another character; such as, if they had their option (as 
 their ancestors had,) they would, doubtless, in most cases, have 
 preferred. If they have stood these hazards, if they have en- 
 countered these difficulties — and have to stand and encounter 
 them still — we may not be able to secure them against the conse- 
 quences of such a state of things; but at least we have no right 
 to aggravate the hazards or the difficulties which we cannot 
 relieve. 
 
 The original Resolution was tiien withdrawn ; the Speaker next put the 
 question upon Mr. Canning's amendment, which was carried nem. con.; and it 
 was ordered, "That the Resolutions (proposed by the right honourable Secre- 
 tary) should be laid before His Majesty, by such members of this House as are 
 of His Majesty's most honourable Privy Council." 
 
411 
 
 AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION 
 OF THE SLAVE POPULATION. 
 
 MARCH 16th, 1824. 
 
 Mr. Secretary Canning appeared at the bar with papers. 
 
 The Speaker. — Mr. Secretary Canning, what have you got therel 
 
 Mr. Secretary Canning. — Papers, Sir, by command of His Majesty. 
 
 The Speaker. — Please to bring them up. 
 
 Having been brought up, the Speaker put the question, " That the title of 
 these papers be now read;" which having been carried, the clerk read the title. 
 "Papers, in explanation of the measures adopted by His Majesty's Government 
 for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Slave Population in His Majesty's 
 dominions in the West Indies." 
 
 Mr. Secretary Canning proceeded to address the House as 
 follows: — Sir, I rise to discharge my duty to the House, both as 
 the mover of the Resolutions which were passed on the 16th of 
 May last year, and as the organ, in this House, of the Govern- 
 ment which undertook to carry the principles of those Resolutions 
 into effect. With a review of the measures which have been 
 adopted, and of the course which has been pursued by His Ma- 
 jesty's Government, in obedience to those Resolutions, it is my 
 intention to combine another subject, kindred in its nature — I 
 mean a proposition for the more effectual abolition of the odious 
 trade which furnished to the West Indian colonies that population, 
 the condition of which it is now our study to ameliorate. I shall 
 postpone, however, to the conclusion of what I have to state to 
 the House, the latter subject, on which I anticipate an entire con- 
 currence; and shall address myself, in the first instance, to the 
 contents of the papers which I have just laid upon the table. 
 
 I begin. Sir, with requesting that the Resolutions of the 16th 
 of May, 1823, may be read. 
 
 The Clerk then read the following Resolutions. 
 
 " Resolved, nemine contradicente, " That it is expedient to adopt effectual 
 and decisive measures for ameliorating the condition of the slave population in 
 His Majesty's colonies. 
 
 " That, through a determined and persevering, but at the same time judicious 
 and temperate, enforcement of such measures, this House looks forward to a 
 progressive improvement in the character of the slave population, such as may 
 prepare them for a participation in those civil rights and privileges which are 
 enjoyed by other classes of His Majesty's subjects. 
 
 " That this House is anxious for the accomplishment of this purpose at the 
 earliest period that shall be compatible with the well-being of the slaves them- 
 selves, with the safety of the colonies, and with a fair and equitable considera- 
 tion of the interests of private property." 
 
412 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 Mr. Secretary Canning continued. — I am desirous, Sir, that the 
 House should have present to its mind the text of these Resolu- 
 tions: because it is by the spirit and meaning of them, that the 
 conduct of His Majesty's Government has been guided. These 
 Resolutions, therefore, and not any more sweeping principle, or 
 any more wide-spread theory, constitute the criterion by which 
 the conduct of the Government is to be judged. 
 
 Undoubtedly, Sir, if there be a question at which it is impossi- 
 ble for any person, the most careless, to look with indiiference, 
 but which any man, who approaches it as a subject of legislation, 
 must view with the deepest awe, it is the question now before us. 
 To speak of the difficulties which encompass it, as compared with 
 almost any other question which has ever occupied the attention 
 of Parliament, would be to draw but a faint and feeble picture of 
 those difficulties: they are, indeed, apparent to the most casual ob- 
 servation; but he who has to probe and prove them, for the pur- 
 pose of applying a remedy, finds them thickening around him at 
 every step, and leaving him frequently nothing but a choice of 
 evils. Formidable, however, as the question is, in its present 
 shape, it is undoubtedly less so than it was last year, when first 
 propounded to the House. At that time we had to steer our 
 course amidst conflicting prejudices, and opposite extravagancies 
 of principles; beset on the one hand with theories, which would 
 not suffer fact or establishment to stand in their way; and on the 
 other hand, with long established interests, and inveterate habits 
 of thinking, sensitively jealous of any innovation or correction. 
 These contradictory impulses were alike opposed to any practical 
 step that could be taken to forward what all admitted to be expe- 
 dient — the amelioration of the condition of the negro slave. 
 
 The concurrence of the House in the Resolutions of last year 
 has considerably narrowed the ground of dispute. I hope 1 shall 
 not be considered as misrepresenting the collective sense of Par- 
 liament, and the general feeling of the country, when I describe 
 that sense and feeling to have been — an unequivocal abhorrence 
 of slavery in the abstract: an acknowledgment of the almost hope- 
 less difficulty of curing all its horrors, but a determination, never- 
 theless, to look the evil in the face, and to endeavour steadfastly 
 to apply to it such remedies as might mitigate, if they were not 
 powerful enough to extinguish it. But the repeated sanctions of 
 the legislature, the settled rights of inheritance, and the various 
 ramifications of property and of interest growing out of them, 
 create impediments which the House are not prepared to sweep 
 at once away, in order that we may have a clear stage for the ex- 
 hibition of theoretical experiments. I hope, therefore, I do not 
 misrepresent the sense of the House of Commons when I say 
 that, in passing the Resolutions of last y^ar there was no general 
 
THE SLAVE POI'ULATION. 413 
 
 disposition to encourage any thing like a sudden emancipation of 
 the negro; that the House looks forward to the termination of 
 slavery as the result of a gradual and general improvement in the 
 condition of the slaves, and not as the consequence of an instan- 
 taneous proclamation of general freedom. I hope I do not mis- 
 apprehend the feelings of the House and of the country in taking 
 their intention to be, that His Majesty's Ministers should consider 
 not only what may be right in theory, but what will be wise in 
 practice; not only how to do the greatest possible good, but how 
 to do it with the least possible mischief I hope I may add that, 
 in the opinions of the House and of the country upon this sub- 
 ject, there is no mixture of hostility or of ill-will towards indi- 
 viduals whose lot is cast in those distant regions, in which the 
 system of slavery exists; regions which, notwithstanding their 
 separation, are subject to the protection of the British Crown, and 
 entitled to the care of the British Parliament. While, with a de- 
 liberate purpose, and with a steady hand, we are carrying forward, 
 in its due course, an amelioration of the condition of the slave, I 
 hope and I believe, that we act in obedience to the feelings of the 
 House and of the country in taking especial care not to drive the 
 plough-share over the rights and possessions of our West Indian 
 fellow subjects. 
 
 These, Sir, are the principles on which His Majesty's Govern- 
 ment have acted; and by these principles, I say, they are desirous 
 to be judged. If there are those who think that enough has not 
 been done, or that more might have been done in the same time, 
 they will now have an opportunity of laying before the House 
 any schemes or propositions of their own. But I think I shall 
 be able to show, that we wisely made the Resolutions of this 
 House the rule of our conduct; and that, in the mode and in the 
 degree which was contemplated by the House, we have done 
 much for the welfare of the slave, with the least possible hazard 
 to the interests of his employer. 
 
 Amongst all the embarrassments attending the discussion of this 
 question, an obvious one is this, that not a phrase can be uttered 
 upon it by a responsible adviser of the Crown, which is not liable 
 to be seized by one or other of the conflicting parties, and wrest- 
 ed to their own purposes. Now, Sir, I declare in the outset, that, 
 if I know myself, I have considered this question in all its bear- 
 ings with the most scrupulous impartiality. If I have any par- 
 tial feeling at all arising from the habits of my early life, it is one 
 strongly favourable to the cause of general abolition. From the 
 time at which I first was honoured with a seat in this House, I 
 have been an humble, but a sincere and zealous labourer in that 
 cause. But although I have always been friendly to the abolition 
 of the Slave Trade, I, in common as I think with others, the most 
 
 Ll.* 
 
114 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 zealous friends of that abolition, have always kept that question 
 distinct from the one which is now introduced.. 
 
 I do not mean to say that I should be guilty of any breach of 
 faith, or that I or others who have been equally favourable to the 
 abolition of the Slave Trade, would be obnoxious to a charge of 
 inconsistency in now avowing the intention of abolishing slavery. 
 But I must be permitted to say, that the most zealous advocates 
 of the abolition of the trade, if they entertained this intention, 
 studiously concealed it: nay, not only concealed, but denied any 
 intention of aiming at an object which was indeed represented by 
 their adversaries as the natural and necessary consequence of the 
 success of abolition, I am sure that I have myself frequently de- 
 nied in debate that I looked to emancipation as the necessary con- 
 sequence of the abolition. Am I, therefore, an enemy to the 
 gradual relaxation of the system of slavery ? God forbid. — If I 
 am asked, whether I am for the permanent existence of slavery 
 in our colonies, I say. No. But if I am asked whether I am fa- 
 vourable to its immediate abolition, I say. No. And, if I am 
 asked which I would prefer, permanent slaver}^, or immediate 
 abolition, I do not know whether, under all the perplexing cir- 
 cumstances of the case, I must not say, I would prefer things re- 
 maining as they are: not, God knows! from any love of the exist- 
 ing state of things, but on account of the tremendous responsibility 
 of attempting to mend it by a sudden change. 
 
 Happily, however, we arc not driven to either of these ex- 
 tremes. Between the two, there is an open, debatable ground. 
 By gradual measures, producing gradual improvement, not only 
 may the individual slave be set free, but his very status may be 
 ultimately abolished. Such has been the progress of improve- 
 ment in nations of Europe, that once were most barbarous, and 
 are now most polished. But such a consummation is not a mea- 
 sure of single enactment and of instant effect. Much is to be 
 done, and much is to be forborne, before we can hope to arrive at 
 it. The co-operation of adverse parties, and the concurrence of 
 various circumstances are requisite for its accomplishment; — and 
 after all, the measure will eventually make its way rather by the 
 light of reason than by the coercion of authority. 
 
 The papers. Sir, which I have laid upon your table, consist, in 
 part of reports received from some of the West India Colonies, 
 and in part of explanations of the scheme which the Government 
 has devised, for carrying into operation the views of the House 
 as disclosed in the course of the last session. 
 
 Gentlemen are aware that the colonies are divided into two 
 classes; one of which (the smaller number,) are governed by the 
 Crown, without the intervention of local legislative assemblies; 
 the other and larger class have legislative assemblies framed in 
 
THE SLAVE POPULATION. 415 
 
 miniature after the model of those of the mother country. As 
 such assemblies are not a little jealous of the rights and privileges, 
 by the possession of which they resemble the institutions of the 
 parent state, the colonies of the first class are much the more 
 easily manageable. Experiments may therefore be tried with 
 greater facility in the colonies wholly governed by the Crown; 
 in Trinidad, for instance, in St. Lucie, or in Demerara. I name 
 these colonies in the order in which I conceive the existing state 
 of their laws to be favourable to such an experiment. Trinidad 
 formerly belonged to the Spaniards, whose general slave laws are 
 incomparably the mildest; St. Lucie, to the French, whose code 
 is in the next degree favourable to the slave population; and De- 
 merara, to the Dutch, whose treatment of their slaves is perhaps 
 the least favourable of the three; but whose laws provide, never- 
 theless, some institutions for the care and government of the 
 slave population, which may be employed and improved to ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 With respect to Trinidad, I cannot omit to observe, that, about 
 twenty years ago, I in this House called the attention of Govern- 
 ment to that colony, the possession of which was then recently 
 confirmed to us by the peace; and submitted a motion, to the ef- 
 fect that Trinidad should not be placed on the same footing as 
 our other colonies, by the grant of a legislative constitution; but 
 should be reserved under the unfettered dominion of the Crown, 
 for the purpose of experiments for the amelioration of the con- 
 dition of the slaves. One part of my proposition was, indeed, 
 that the importation of slaves into Trinidad should be entirely 
 discontinued. In that object I did not succeed; but I cannot for- 
 bear to congratulate myself and the House, if that motion of 
 mine, though not altogether successful, has had the effect of keep- 
 ing Trinidad in a state, in which an example may be set there by 
 the direction of the executive power uncontrollable by any legis- 
 lative assembly. 
 
 The course intended to be pursued with respect to the island 
 of Trinidad, will be shown by reference to an Order in Council, 
 which is to be found among the papers laid on the table. 
 
 With the permission of the House, I will state to them shortly 
 the different regulations which that Order in Council comprises. 
 The House will have the goodness to compare what is there done 
 with the statement which I made last session, of what ought to be 
 done: and I think it will appear that none of the points upon 
 which I dwelt, on that occasion, have been neglected. 
 
 In the first place, it is directed by this Order in Council, that 
 the shocking and unseemly practice of the chastisement of fe- 
 males by the whip, shall be entirely abolished. Here, Sir, it is 
 but justice to say, that the abolition of this punishment has also 
 
416 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 been recommended by the resolutions of the West India body in 
 this country, in the course of last year. It is also no more than 
 justice to add, that some of the colonies have adopted, some even 
 anticipated, the recommendation. To raise the weaker sex in self- 
 respect, as well as in the esteem of the stronger, is the first step 
 from barbarism to civilization. 
 
 The Order in Council next abolishes the use of the whip, when 
 applied to males, as a stimulus to labour; — that wanton and de- 
 grading use of it, which places the negro slave on a footing with 
 the cattle of the field. The whip is not to be carried into the 
 field by the driver, nor is it to be borne as a symbol of authority. 
 It is not in any case to be employed summarily; but it is not, as 
 to males, to be laid aside as an instrument of punishment. The 
 House will see that it is quite a dilferent thing, when brandished 
 as a symbol of authority, and applied to the brute nerves of the 
 nesro as an incitement to labour: or when used for the infliction 
 of a punishment, of which the reasoning faculties of the slave can 
 appreciate the justice. Even as to males, and as an instrument of 
 punishment, the whip is to be employed only under certain regu- 
 lations, both with respect to the amount of infliction, and to the 
 time. Delay of punishment for some time after the commission 
 of the offence is the best security against abuse from suddenness 
 of passion. It is further provided that witnesses shall be present 
 at the punishment of a slave; and that all punishments shall be 
 accurately recorded. These alterations at once raise the mass of 
 the negro population from the brute state to that of man. 
 
 To provide the means of religious instruction and worship is 
 an object first indeed in importance, but necessarily subsequent in 
 order to those which I have already mentioned; because it is not 
 till the slave population arc raised in the scale of nature that they 
 can be capable of comprehending, or fitted to receive, the bless- 
 ings of Christianity. It is intended to increase the amount, and 
 widen the basis of the ecclesiastical establishment in the West 
 Indies. That establishment was founded for the benefit of the 
 white population alone. It was no more calculated for the negro 
 than for the brute animal that shares his toils. I am not stating 
 this as a matter of charge, but as a matter of fact. This establish- 
 ment, though founded on the principles of the national church, 
 will not exclude other denominations of Christians. The author- 
 ity and the discipline of the national church will be lodged in 
 bishops, to be resident in the colonies. With religious worship 
 will be combined religious instruction. It is not my business on 
 the present occasion to trouble the House with details: but here, 
 again, I am bound to do justice to the West India body in this 
 country, who have declared their anxiety for the institution of 
 
THE SLAVE POPULATION. 417 
 
 religious instruction, and to more than one of the colonies which 
 have already acted upon that declaration. 
 
 Sir, after religious worship and religious instruction, naturally 
 come those charities of life, which religion promotes and sancti- 
 fies. The Order in Council enjoins the local Government of 
 Trinidad to encourage marriage. This injunction, I am again 
 bound to say, and I do so with much satisfaction, is in perfect 
 consonance with the recommendation of the persons most inter- 
 ested in the colonies who reside in this country, and has also re- 
 ceived a ready assent in many of the colonies. In consideration 
 of marriage, and of the other charities of life, which grow out of 
 that connexion, it is provided by the Order in Council, that in all 
 future sales, I fear that I must still use that word, famiJies shall 
 not be separated. In transferring slaves from one property to 
 another, care will be taken in future that husband and wife, or re- 
 puted husband and wife, and parent and child, shall not be sever- 
 ed from each other. 
 
 The influence of family ties will naturally beget in the mind 
 of the slave an increased desire of property. The Order in Council 
 gives the security of law to that possession of property which is 
 at present respected by custom; and enjoins that measures shall 
 be taken to secure to the slave the power of bequeathing it at his 
 death. In aid of these provisions it has been thought advisable, 
 (however singular it may appear, that a very late invention of a 
 country far advanced in civilization, should be supposed capable 
 of taking root in a rude society like that of the West Indies) — it 
 has been thought advisable, I say, to institute a bank, in which the 
 little savings of slaves may be accumulated. To the right of en- 
 joyment, and to the power of bequest, secured by law, will be 
 thus added the further security derived from the overwatching 
 eye of public observation. 
 
 Sir. when, by measures of this kind, new ideas are infused into 
 the mind of the negro, when he is lifted from a level with the 
 beast of the field, when he has been allowed to take his stand 
 amongst the human race — 
 
 " Ccelumque tueri 
 Jussus, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus; — " 
 
 when he has been taught to appreciate the endearments of family 
 connexions, the ties of kindred, and the blessings of property, — 
 when his nature, as well as his condition, has been thus improved, 
 — then comes the fit opportunity for considering a subject which 
 is surrounded by many practical difficulties — the admissibility of 
 the evidence of slaves in courts of justice. 
 
 It would be as wild to say, that the evidence of slaves should 
 be indiscriminately admitted in all cases, as it would be unjust to 
 exclude it in all cases. In this country, a person in the situation 
 55 
 
418 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 of a slave — I do not mean politically, but morally, — an infant, 
 whose mind is not sufficiently expanded to be able to estimate the 
 obligation of an oath, is not permitted to give evidence. It is 
 first ascertained, by examination, that the mind of the infant is in 
 fact so matured, as to be capable of comprehending that obligation. 
 It would be improper to admit the evidence of blacks without a 
 similar guard. It is proposed, therefore, that those persons who 
 are to have the care of instructing the negroes should have power 
 to certify, not with respect to a particular case in which the evi- 
 dence of a slave may be wanted, but generally, that such and such 
 slaves have made such advances in civilization as to be cognizant 
 of the nature of an oath. It is proposed, that a register of such 
 slaves shall be kept, constituting, as it were, a privileged class, and 
 presenting (what is the spring of all human action,) something 
 like an object of ambition to their fellow slaves. Under this ar- 
 rangement the competency of a slave to give evidence will not be 
 judged by subjecting him, at the moment, to an examination, 
 probing his intellect to the quick, by questions which he may not 
 be able to comprehend; but it will be known at once, when any 
 individual slave is proposed as a witness on a trial, whether he is 
 one of that class whose evidence has been certified to be admissi- 
 ble. It is just to state, that under certain qualifications, the evi- 
 dence of slaves is already admitted in the courts of justice ol 
 Dominica, Grenada, St. Vincent's, and I believe St. Christopher's, 
 and Tobago. 
 
 A natural consequence of the determination to impart religious 
 instruction to the slaves, will be the abolition of Sunday markets, 
 and of Sunday labour. The Order in Council prescribes this abo- 
 lition, so soon as the means of religious worship shall be estab- 
 lished. It prescribes immediately a restriction of the Sunday 
 market, within certain hours — ultimately, as I have said, its total 
 abolition. In some of the colonies this regulation is already par- 
 tially anticipated. 
 
 By this process, and by these degrees, may the slave be gradu- 
 ally fitted for the last grand consummation of benefit, the power 
 of acquiring his freedom. Heretofore the restraints on granting 
 manumissions were extremely numerous; but these are now con- 
 siderably reduced; several taxes and imposts have been removed 
 in different colonies; and in others a like disposition has been 
 manifested. The Order in Council, however, goes beyond what 
 has been hitherto at all generally practised in the colonies. It or- 
 dains that a negro, who has acquired sufficient property, shall, un- 
 der certain guards and regulations, therein set forth, be entitled to 
 purchase his own freedom, the freedom of his wife, or that of his 
 children. 
 
 I have thus, Sir, stated to the House the provisions of the Or- 
 
THE SLAVE POPULATION. 419 
 
 der in Council. I know, that, with respect to the last point, 
 namely, the purchase of freedom, great prejudice, great dislike, 
 great apprehension, prevail. I am far from saying that it is not 
 a perplexing question: but the principle has been admitted to a 
 certain extent in St. Kitts, and also in Trinidad. No principle 
 can be considered as impracticable which has, even in a single in- 
 stance, been voluntarily admitted in the West Indies, It is as- 
 tonishing how much good might be done by merely collecting, and 
 bringing to bear on one society, all the beneficial regulations which 
 are scattered through the different colonies. I admit, on the one 
 hand, that the existence of such beneficial regulations affords an 
 answer to the general declamation which has been heard about the 
 total neglect and abandonment of the negroes, by West Indian 
 Governments and proprietors: but I must, on the other hand, con- 
 tend, that the people of this country, who, on account of their 
 distance from the colonies, are compelled to look at them through 
 the eyes of others, are entitled to consider as good authority for 
 any improvement of which they recommend the introduction, the 
 fact, that what they wish to recommend has been by any one West 
 Indian community already voluntarily adopted. 
 
 I will now recapitulate the improvements which Government 
 propose to effect in the island of Trinidad: — First, abolition of 
 the use of the whip with regard to females entirely; — discontinu- 
 ance of the use of the whip as applied to males as a stimulus to 
 labour; — restrictions on the infliction on males of punishment by 
 the whip. Secondly, a religious establishment and religious in- 
 struction; — and, in order to give time for the acquirement of that 
 instruction, the abolition of the markets and of slave labour on 
 the Sunday. Thirdly, encouragement of marriage among the 
 slaves; — the keeping together of families of slaves, in sales or 
 transfers of estates; the securing to slaves the enjoyment of prop- 
 erty, and the right to distribute it at their death. Fourthly, the 
 admissibility of the evidence of slaves under certain regulations; 
 and, lastly, a power to the slave to purchase his own freedom, or 
 that of his wife or children. These are the chief objects of the 
 Order in Council. Such is the example which the Government 
 are disposed to set in the island of Trinidad; and it is hoped that 
 other colonies will follow an example so set, without the appre- 
 hension of danger. 
 
 I am aware that whilst with respect to the last point alluded to 
 in the Order in Council — the power to be given to slaves to pur- 
 chase their own freedom, or that of their wives or children — 
 Government has gone beyond the general assent of the West In- 
 dia body, they have fallen very short of the desires of some ex- 
 cellent and honourable persons, I know very well that the hon- 
 ourable gentleman (Mr. Buxton) opposite, last year stated that he 
 
420 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 was disposed to go a shorter way to work, and to enact the eman- 
 cipation of a particular generation of slaves. Sir, in the interval 
 which has elapsed since the debate of last May, I have turned that 
 matter in my mind with the most painful anxiety; and I feel 
 bound to declare, that with the most sincere desire to come to the 
 conclusion most favourable to the cause of humanity, I cannot 
 concur in the honourable member's proposition. If it were car- 
 ried into effect, it would in my opinion be productive of the great- 
 est injury, not only to the white population, but also to the blacks 
 themselves. — [Mr. Buxton here observed across the table, that he 
 only proposed to emancipate the children of the existing slaves, 
 not the slaves themselves.] 
 
 The honourable gentleman is not prepared to grant emancipa- 
 ,tion to the existing generation of slaves. Certainly not. To let 
 in the full light of freedom on eyes scarcely unsealed, eyes from 
 which the scales of bondage have not yet been purged away, 
 would indeed be a perilous experiment. But would it not be 
 scarcely less unwise to hold out the hope of emancipation to the 
 next generation of negroes? The slave would view the freedom 
 which was thus placed in prospect before him, as an infant views 
 any object of desire, without the faculty of calculating the dis- 
 tance which separates him from it. To hold out the prospect for 
 a future generation, might create dissatisfaction in the present race 
 of slaves, and render their actual existence intolerable. 
 
 The course which the Government proposes to pursue, is to ar- 
 rive at the liberation of the child through the instrumentality of 
 the parent. Enable the negro to purchase his own freedom — en- 
 able him equally to purchase that of his offspring — whenever he 
 shall have acquired the means of doing so; — and the option be- 
 tween himself and his child being left to his own feelings, how 
 probable is it that those feelings may lead him to prefer the liber- 
 ation of his child! — On the contrary, if we were to take the rising 
 generation of slaves, or those hereafter to be born, under the spe- 
 cial protection of the Legislature, as proposed by the honourable 
 member, parents might perhaps be tempted to look upon their off- 
 spring, with feelings, I will not say of envy, but with feelings far 
 other than those of unmixed satisfaction, with which a parent 
 ought to contemplate the happiness and prosperity of his child. 
 
 Immediate emancipation to the negro himself, I am most happy 
 to hear the honourable gentleman disclaim. It would indeed be 
 a fatal gift. To be safely enjoyed it must be gradually and dili- 
 gently earned. Haud facilem esse viam vohiit, is the condition 
 under which it has pleased Divine Providence that all the valuable 
 objects of human aspiration should be attained. This condition 
 is the legitimate stimulant of laudable industry, and the best cor- 
 rective of ambitious desire. No effort of an individual, and no 
 
THE SLAVE POPULATION. 421 
 
 enactment of a legislature, can relieve human nature from the 
 operation of this condition. To attempt to shorten the road be- 
 tween desire and attainment, is nine times out often to go astray, 
 and to miss the wished-for object altogether. I am fully persuaded 
 that freedom, when acquired under the regulations prescribed by 
 Government, will be a more delightful as well as a more safe and 
 more stable possession than if it were bestowed by a sudden ac- 
 clamation. 
 
 In dealing with the negro, Sir, we must remember that welire" 
 dealing with a being possessing the form and strength of a man, 
 but the intellect only of a child. To turn him loose in the man- 
 hood of his physical strength, in the maturity of his physical pas- 
 sions, but in the infancy of his uninstructed reason, would be to 
 raise up a creature resembling the splendid fiction of a recent ro- 
 mance; the hero of which constructs a human form, with all the 
 corporeal capabilities of man, and with the thews and sinews of a 
 giant; but being unable to impart to the work of his hands a per- 
 ception of right and wrong, he finds too late that he has only 
 created a more than mortal power of doing mischief, and himself 
 
 recoils from the monster which he has made. , ^ 
 
 Such would be the effect of a sudden emancipation, before the 
 negro was prepared for the enjoyment of well-regulated liberty, 
 I, therefore, Sir, would proceed gradually, because I would pro- 
 ceed safely. I know that the impulse of enthusiasm would carry 
 us much faster than I am prepared to go; I know it is objected 
 that all this preparation will take time. Take time, Sir! To be 
 sure it will; to be sure it should; to be sure it must! — Time, Sir? 
 — why, — what is it w^e have to deal with ? Is it with an evil of yes- 
 terday's origin? with a thing which is grown up in our time; — ofj 
 which we have watched the growth — measured the extent, and 
 which we have ascertained the means of correcting or controlling? 
 No; we have to deal with an evil which is the growth of centu- 
 ries, and of tens of centuries; which is almost coeval with the 
 deluge; which has existed under different modifications since man 
 was man. Do gentlemen, in their passion for legislation, think 
 that after only thirty years' discussion, they can now at once 
 manage as they will, the most unmanageable, perhaps, of all sub- 
 jects? or, do we forget. Sir, that in fact not more than thirty years 
 have elapsed since we first presumed to approach even the out- 
 works of this great question ! — Do we, in the ardour of our nas- 
 cent reformation, forget that during the ages for which this sys- 
 tem has existed, no preceding generation of legislators has ven- 
 tured to touch it with a reforming hand? and have we the vanity 
 to flatter ourselves that we can annihilate it at a blow? — No, 
 Sir, no: — we m.ust be contented to proceed, as I have already 
 said, gradually and cautiously; and what I have now laid before 
 
 MM 
 
422 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 the House, is, I flatter myself, sufficient for the first step in a pro- 
 cess which will widen, and strengthen as it goes. 
 
 It is the intention of the Government, Sir, after having estab- 
 lished the system which I have explained, in Trinidad, to extend 
 it to the other colonies in which the power of the Crown is un- 
 shackled. The same instructions which have been sent to Trini- 
 dad, are to be forwarded to St. Lucie; the only difierence will be, 
 that, as in Trinidad they are grafted on the Spanish law, in St. 
 Lucie the machinery of the French law will be employed for car- 
 rying them into operation. It is intended also to extend the ex- 
 periment to Demerara and its dependencies; where, indeed, it 
 would have been first tried, but for the intervention of the unfor- 
 tunate occurrences which have lately taken place in that colony. 
 
 I shall be asked what is likely to be the efiect produced by the 
 adoption of these measures in Trinidad, St. Lucie, and Demerara, 
 upon the other West Indian colonies which have legislatures of 
 their own, and by many of which the communication of the wishes 
 and intentions of Parliament has certainly been received with a 
 spirit any thing but conciliatory. I shall be asked what are the 
 intentions of the Government, as to those colonies; by what means 
 it is intended to bring them to reason, and to induce them to adopt 
 the views and second the determinations of Parliament? 
 
 Sir, if it were possible for me, on a question involving so many 
 important interests, so many perplexing considerations, and so 
 many contingencies requiring to be calculated with the utmost 
 coolness and deliberation; if it were possible to indulge, on such 
 an occasion, any personal feeling of irritation at the manner in 
 which His Majesty's Government, and among them, myself, as a 
 member of that Government, have been treated by some of the 
 West India Assemblies, I might be tempted to resort to measures 
 of reprehension and coercion. But, Sir, I can assure the House 
 that I am actuated by no such feeling; and that I am not inclined 
 to resort to any such measures. On the contrary, I should con- 
 sider it most unwise and most unbecoming to do so. In the ebul- 
 lition of anger (for I will call it nothing more) observable in the 
 proceedings of some of the legislative assemblies, I see much to 
 blame, indeed — much to excuse — something to pity, but nothing 
 to punish. Nothing I am aware would be easier than to put an 
 end to the dispute at once, by overwhelming power; but I see no 
 necessity, and I am sure I feel no inclination, for such a proceed- 
 ing. If, indeed, there were any thing like an equality of strength 
 between the legislature of this mighty kingdom, and the colonial 
 assemblies, as was the case in a struggle in which this country was 
 heretofore engaged with her colonies, then might Parliament, 
 roused by insult as well as opposition to a feeling of exasperated 
 
THE SLAVE POPULATION. 423 
 
 dignity, denounce vengeance against Jamaica. But as I do not 
 mean the thing, I will not use the language. 
 
 There are three possible modes in which Parliament might deal 
 with the people of Jamaica: first, as I have said, it might crush 
 them by the application of direct force; — secondly, it might harass 
 them by fiscal regulations, and enactments restraining their navi- 
 gation; and, thirdly, it may pursue the slow and silent course of 
 temperate, but authoritative admonition. Now, Mr. Speaker, if 
 I am asked which course I would advise, I am for first trying that 
 which I have last mentioned; I trust we shall never be driven to 
 the second; and with respect to the first, I will only now say that 
 no feeling of wounded pride, no motive of questionable ex^^edi- 
 ency, nothing short of real and demonstrable necessity, shall in- 
 duce me to moot the awful question of the transcendental power 
 of Parliament over every dependency of the British Crown. That 
 transcendental power is an arcanum of empire, which ought to be 
 kept back within the penetralia of the constitution. It exists, but it 
 should be veiled. It should not be produced upon trifling occasions, 
 or in cases of petty refractoriness and temporary misconduct. It 
 should be brought forward only in the utmost extremity of the 
 state, where other remedies have failed to stay the raging of some 
 moral or political pestilence. Undoubtedly, Sir, it would be easy to 
 select passages from the Jamaica Gazettes, which, according to all 
 legitimate inferences of reasoning, ought to put Parliament in a 
 towering passion: but I must confess, that upon a moment's reflec- 
 tion, I find my indignation restrained by consideration of the pow- 
 erlessness of the body from whom the offence comes, compared 
 with the omnipotence of that to which it is offered. The con- 
 sciousness of superior strength disarms the spirit of resentment. 
 I could revenge, but I would much rather reclaim. I prefer that 
 moral self-restraint so beautifully expressed by the poet, when he 
 represents Neptune as allaying the wild waters, instead of re- 
 buking the winds which had put them in a roar — 
 
 " Quos ego — sed motos prastat componere Jluctus." 
 
 If there be any gentleman in the Jamaica House of Assembly, 
 Avho meditates the acquisition of fame and popularity by opposing 
 what he pleases to call the encroachments of the mother country, 
 and who is preparing himself for his contemplated career, by 
 conning over the speeches of Gushing and Franklin, we shall act 
 most judiciously, by taking from him all lofty grounds of quarrel; 
 by disappointing his patriotic ardour of contentious topics of in- 
 flammation; and by leaving him to found his insurrection, if in- 
 surrection he will have, on an abstract admiration of the cart- 
 whip, and on a resolute claim of his free-born right to use that 
 instrument at his pleasure. 
 
424 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 I am convinced, Sir, that unless Parliament should injudiciously 
 supply fuel to the flame, this unprovoked ardour will gradually 
 expire. When the patriots discover that no parliamentary com- 
 missioner is coming out to control them, that no army is on its 
 way to subdue them, no navy to blockade their ports, they will 
 have leisure and temper to reflect calmly on what has passed; and 
 finding no just cause of offence and no plea for crying out against 
 oppression, they will, I doubt not, at no distant time, be con- 
 vinced of the reasonableness of the measures recommended to 
 their adoption, and will prepare themselves to act, by their own 
 power and discretion, consonantly to the wishes of this House. 
 
 Indeed, Sir, situated as Jamaica is between warnings and ex- 
 amples, having St. Domingo on the one side, and Columbia on 
 the other, with Trinidad, St. Lucie, and Demerara almost in her 
 view, I cannot believe that she will long hold out in her resist- 
 ance. I cannot believe that much time will elapse before we shall 
 learn that the planter of Jamaica is anxiously employed in emu- 
 lating the endeavours of the Government in Trinidad, to improve 
 the condition of his negroes. 
 
 In the full assurance that this will be the case, so far from en- 
 tertaining any hostile feeling towards those who have been so lib- 
 eral of their comments upon us, the Government is most anxious 
 that Jamaica should participate to the fullest extent in all the ad- 
 vantages likely to result from the proposed regulations. One of 
 the episcopal establishments is intended to be fixed at Jamaica; 
 the other in the Leeward Islands. 
 
 For the support of these establishments it will not be neces- 
 sary, for a time at least, that any demand should be made on the 
 finances of the islands. I will not now enter into any detailed 
 calculations upon this head, which do not indeed come properly 
 within this general view of the question; but I will merely ex- 
 press my hope, that for the first two years the expenses of these 
 episcopal establishments will not exceed the amount of the inter- 
 est of that sum which my right honourable friend has proposed 
 to appropriate to the erection of new churches in this country. 
 Two years will probably elapse before any portion of that fund 
 will be required for the purposes for which it is ultimately in- 
 tended. There is another fund also which may hereafter, when 
 gradually relieved of the burdens which now exist upon it, be 
 applied to the purposes of the proposed establishment, I mean the 
 four and a half per cent, or Leeward Island's fund. I am author- 
 ized to state the disposition of the Crown to refrain from grant- 
 ing any further pensions out of this fund, until the burdens now 
 upon it shall have been so far reduced, as to set free a portion of 
 it, applicable to the West Indian episcopal establishment. 
 
 Sir, I have now nearly done. Being desirous of putting the 
 
THE SLAVE POPULATION. 425 
 
 House generally in possession of the principle and plan upon 
 which the Government proposes to act, without exciting angry- 
 feelings on any side, I shall carefully and studiously abstain from 
 all unnecessary reflections upon this important and painful sub- 
 ject; important from the extent of the interests which it em- 
 braces, and painful, inasmuch as it involves the consideration of 
 the lot of so large a portion of our fellow- creatures, whose pres- 
 ent state in society cannot be contemplated without the deepest 
 feelings of commiseration. On the other hand, however, it is a 
 question full of hope, seeing that the attention of Parliament 
 and of the country has been directed to the subject; and seeing 
 that there exists on all hands a wish and determination to apply 
 remedies to the evil, not indeed with an indiscreet haste, which 
 would rather injure than benefit those whose welfare we are anx- 
 ious to promote, but with a temperate and well-considered zeal. 
 
 As one of the best modes of forwarding our object, I would 
 most earnestly conjure those honourable gentlemen both on one 
 side of the House and the other, who may take part in this dis- 
 cussion, whether from motives of personal interest, or from mo- 
 tives still more powerful than any considerations of interest, to 
 refrain from exaggerated statements, from highly-coloured pic- 
 tures of individual suffering, which can have no other effect than 
 to exasperate discussion into animosity. I entreat gentlemen to 
 reflect that any conflict on this subject in this House will not be 
 merely a war of words. If this night's debate should be angry 
 and intemperate, the inferences drawn from it elsewhere will be 
 fatal to the peace of the colonies. False hopes will be excited 
 among the slaves; a spirit of resistance will be engendered among 
 the planters; improvement in the lot of the negro will thus be 
 placed at a greater distance than ever; and the lives and proper- 
 ties of the white population of the colonies will be placed in 
 hazard and jeopardy. 
 
 I entreat honourable gentlemen particularly to bear in mind, 
 that in the discussion of this question in this place, we have, as if 
 by tacit agreement, spoken generally of slavery and of a slave 
 population, without adverting to one essential characteristic, 
 which distinguishes the slavery of the West Indies from all 
 others; I mean that physical alienation which arises from the in- 
 delible difference of colour. We who live not on the spot can 
 conceive but a faint idea of the nature of this alienation. But let 
 it not be forgotten that our debates are read with avidity in the 
 colonies by the diflferent classes, in which this principle is work- 
 ing with full force. 
 
 No gentleman comes into this House to take part in this ques- 
 tion, who is not in some way or other, more or less, connected 
 with individuals whose all is involved in the discussion. Let us 
 56 MM^ 
 
426 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 recollect what prodigious ruin one unguarded expression, dropt 
 in the heat of debate, may occasion to those whom we would not 
 willingly injure; — while it is at the same time clear that the most 
 ardent and enthusiastic eloquence cannot hasten the enjoyment 
 of freedom by those who are not yet in a fit state to receive the 
 boon. 
 
 If we are to do good (which I earnestly hope and sincerely 
 believe we m.ay,) it is not to be done by sudden and violent mea- 
 sures; — but by efforts of a patient and comparatively tame char- 
 acter; by measures slow in their progress, but steady and sure in 
 their operation; measures which must be carried into effect not 
 by a few individuals of rare talents, and conspicuous zeal; but by 
 the great body of those whom the advocates of the negro distrust 
 and seem disposed to put aside. 
 
 Yes, Sir, if the condition of the slave is to be improved, that 
 improvement must be introduced through the medium of his mas- 
 ter. The masters are the instruments through whom, and by 
 whom, you must act upon the slave population: — and if by any 
 proceedings of ours we shall unhappily place between the slave 
 and his master the barrier of insurmountable hostility, we shall 
 at once put an end to the best chance of emancipation or even of 
 amendment. Instead of difiusing gradually over those dark re- 
 gions a pure and salutary light, we may at once kindle a flame 
 only to be quenched in blood. 
 
 I am not aware, Sir, that it is necessary for me to detain the 
 House by entering more into detail, nor will I be induced to sin 
 against my own precept by diverging into general observations. 
 I therefore here take my leave of the existing state of the negro 
 population. 
 
 Connected, however, with that state from which we are endea- 
 vouring gradually to rescue so large a portion of our fellow-crea- 
 tures, is, (as I have stated at the outset of my speech,) the consid- 
 eration of the inhuman traffic by which they were brought into 
 their present condition; and for the total abolition of which, so far 
 as regards this country and her colonies, the friends of humanity 
 are indebted to the exertions of my honourable friend (Mr. Wil- 
 berforce) opposite. I am convinced that the Slave Trade is en- 
 tirely and effectually abolished with respect to our colonies. I 
 know that other persons entertain a different opinion; but after 
 the most anxious inquiries on the subject, I feel perfectly confi- 
 dent that with respect to the British West India Islands, the pro- 
 hibition against the introduction of slaves is sacredly observed. 
 It is, nevertheless, true that the introduction of slaves in foreign 
 colonies continues to an enormous extent. All the efforts of this 
 country to procure the active co-operation of other powers to put 
 down the traffic in slaves has been ineffectual. Among the plans 
 
THE SLAVE TOPULATION. 427 
 
 which have been suggested for that purpose, it has been frequently- 
 suggested that all persons guilty of slave-trading should be ren- 
 dered obnoxious to capture, not only by the vessels of their own 
 country, but by those of every other power, — in other words, 
 that the Slave Trade should be declared piracy, A good deal of 
 misapprehension, however, prevails upon this point. 
 
 It has been supposed by some persons that a Congress of Sov- 
 ereigns — the Congress of Verona, for instance — might have taken 
 upon itself to declare slave-trading a piratical offence, and thereby 
 to make the individuals engaged in it amenable to an universal 
 international law. This is a compleve mistake. England must 
 surely be the last country in the world to admit that any con- 
 gress of sovereigns could constitute a law, universal in its opera- 
 tion on states not party to its enactment. The only way in which 
 this desirable object could be obtained would be, that every na- 
 tion should for itself declare slave-trading to be a piratical offence 
 in its own subjects. We have in the law of England many statu- 
 table piracies. But, supposing such a law passed here in respect 
 to the Slave Trade, the effect upon the foreign Slave Trade would 
 be nothing, unless we could persuade other nations each to pass 
 the like law, and all to co-operate for its general execution. Now, 
 we have more than once proposed both to the Government of 
 France and to that of the United States, to give reciprocally by 
 treaty, a right of mutual visit and search in all cases of suspected 
 slave-trading. When it is considered how many delicate points 
 of national pride, of maritime law, and maritime right, are touch- 
 ed by such a proposition, the House will not be surprised that it 
 has been by no means cordially received. By France it has been 
 more than once rejected altogether. But it is with no small feel- 
 ing of gratification that I am now enabled to state to the House 
 that many days have not elapsed since a treaty was signed on the 
 part of this country by my right honourable friend near me, the 
 President of the Board of Trade, and a right honourable relation 
 of mine, His Majesty's Minister to the United States of America, 
 and on the part of the United States by the American Minister 
 in London, by which treaty Great Britain and the Government 
 of the United States concede mutually to each other, under cer- 
 tain regulations and restrictions, this long-sought right of visit. 
 
 This treaty authorizes the men-of-war of either nation to de- 
 tain the merchant vessels of the other, if suspected of being en- 
 gaged in slave-trading; provided, that both countries shall have 
 previously adopted the same law respecting that crime, by con- 
 stituting it by law a piracy. The House is probably aware that 
 the Legislature of the United States has already passed a law to 
 this effect. It is my intention to-night to propose, with the leave 
 of the House, to bring in a bill for the like purpose. Should that 
 
428 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 bill pass, the navies of Great Britain and of the United States 
 will henceforth act in co-operation, to extirpate, so far as regards 
 their two countries, this abominable traffic altogether. 
 
 The present is not the most convenient time for entering into 
 a detail of the provisions of the treaty; but those who recollect 
 the difficuhies which have hitherto obstructed the completion of 
 any such agreement, must rejoice to find that all these difficulties 
 have been adjusted. There are, on both sides, points of dignity 
 reserved: and care has been taken to preserve the general bound- 
 aries of maritime law: but upon the question of the Slave Trade, 
 the powers reciprocally given are ample, and I trust will be found 
 effectual. Each country reserves the administration of its own 
 national law for the punishment of its own subjects: but the right 
 of capture is common to both. For instance, if an American 
 man-of-war should capture a British slnve trader, (and God forbid 
 she should not, if such an one could be found,) or, vice ve7'sa, a 
 British man-of-war an American slave trader, — the captured ves- 
 sel is to be remitted to the nearest ship-of-war of its own nation, 
 or to its nearest native maritime port, for adjudication: — each 
 country thus aiding the other in detecting the crime; but each 
 judging its own subjects. I trust that the realization of this ar- 
 rangement between the contracting parties will not be the limit 
 of its beneficial operation: for when the two greatest maritime 
 nations in the world, — the two nations, I mean, who, by the ex- 
 tent of their commercial navies, expose the widest surface to the 
 operation of this new law, — so far compromise their maritime 
 pride, and subdue their deeply-rooted prejudices, as to submit 
 themselves to each other's vigilance and inquiry; it surely may 
 be hoped that in any future discussions for the universal abolition 
 of the Slave Trade, the joint representations of Great Britain and 
 America may be employed with peculiar force, and grace, and 
 consistency, to induce other nations to lay aside all feelings of re- 
 pugnance which may stand in the way of their accession to so 
 truly virtuous and beneficent a confederacy. 
 
 Sir, it only remains for me to thank the House for the patient 
 indulgence with which they have listened to me; and to conclude 
 with moving for leave to bring in a bill for the more effectual 
 suppression of the African Slave Trade. 
 
 A very protracted discussion took place on the motion of the right honoura- 
 ble gentleman. To questions soliciting information from some honourable 
 members, — and to objections to the course pursued by His Majesty's Govern- 
 ment, from others, — Mr. Canning replied : — 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — Had I not been called upon in so direct a 
 manner by some honourable gentlemen in the course of this de- 
 
THE SLAVE POPULATION. 429 
 
 bate, it was not my intention to have offered myself again to 
 your notice: and in addressing you at this late hour, Sir, and af- 
 ter so full a discussion, I am sure it will be agreeable to the 
 House to hear that it is by no means my intention to trespass 
 longer upon its time than may be necessary for replying to the 
 questions which have been put to me. 
 
 And first, Sir, in reply to the question of the honourable mem- 
 ber for Southwark (Sir R. Wilson.) The honourable gentleman 
 wishes to know whether the Order in Council forwarded to Trini- 
 dad, is to be communicated to the other colonies which he has 
 named? Communications have been made to the Cape of Good 
 Hope, and other eastern settlements, but of the result of those 
 communications I am yet without information. With regard to 
 the other question respecting the use of the whip, and the num- 
 ber of lashes which a master is to be authorised to inflict on his 
 slave as punishment for an offence; I have no hesitation in saying 
 that my construction of the words " at any time,'" which are to 
 be found in that order, is, for any one offence. 
 
 I come next. Sir, to the more important questions put to me by 
 my honourable friend the member for Bramber, and by the hon- 
 ourable member for Taunton. I confess it appears to me incor- 
 rect to call the Order in Council an experiment. The proper 
 term to apply to it, is an example; and I trust. Sir, it is an ex- 
 ample which the rest of the colonies will feel it both their inter- 
 est and their duty to follow, without any interference on the part 
 of the Government at home. With respect to such interference, 
 however, I wish to be understood as reserving to myself the right 
 of acting as circumstances may require. I have already described 
 the diflerent kinds and degrees of intei'ference which might be 
 employed towards the colonial legislatures, should such a course 
 become necessary; but I must repeat that I deprecate any such 
 interference, except by way of admonition and advice, unless as a 
 last resource, or in an urgent extremity. The power exists: — 
 but any practical application of it ought to be most cautiously 
 avoided, until all other means shall have been tried and found 
 unavailing. 
 
 The honourable member for Taunton, (Mr. Baring,) has charged 
 the Government with delay, with want of decision, with agitating 
 this great question, session after session, and still without any in- 
 telligible determination; with being, in short, like the honourable 
 gentleman himself, as much on the one side as the other. This 
 is the honourable gentleman's statement; now let us look at the 
 facts. In the month of May, 1823, this question was moved for 
 the first time by the honourable gentleman (Mr. Buxton) oppo- 
 site. The Government then also, for the first time, declared its 
 intention to take the question into its ovvn hands. Only nine 
 
430 ON THE CONDITION OF 
 
 short months have passed over since the question in its present 
 shape was first agitated; and the Government now comes forward, 
 and through me, its humble instrument, proposes a measure, 
 which, whatever other gentlemen may think of it, seems to be 
 so satisfactory to the honourable member for Taunton, that he 
 carries his approbation of it even beyond those who propose it; 
 he expects even more from it than the Government itself. Yet 
 after having bestowed this extraordinary share of approbation on 
 the measure proposed by the Government, the honourable gentle- 
 man assumes the lecturer's chair, and proceeds to censure us alike 
 for what we have done, and what we have omitted, and to tell us 
 what we ought and ought not to do. The honourable gentleman 
 on this, as on some other occasions, reminds me, Sir, of certain 
 members of this House, who were so well described by Mr. 
 Burke forty years ago: "There are (said that eloquent statesman) 
 a certain class of persons who when they rise in their places, no 
 man living can divine, from any known adherence to parties, to 
 opinions, or to principles, from any order or system in their poli- 
 tics, or from any sequel or connexion in their ideas, what part 
 they are going to take in any debate. It is astonishing how much 
 this uncertainty, especially at critical times, calls the attention of 
 all parties on such men. All eyes are fixed on them; all ears are 
 open to hear them; each party gapes and looks alternately for 
 their vote almost to the end of their speeches. Whilst the House 
 hangs in this uncertainty — now the hear, hears! rise from this 
 side — now they are re-bellowed from the other, and that party to 
 whom they at length fall, from their tremulous and dancing bal- 
 ance, always receive them in a tempest of applause." And now. 
 Sir, just as forty years ago, there are gentlemen who get up late 
 in the night, when the debate has reached a certain stage, and 
 make a speech so nicely balanced this way, and that way, a piece 
 of blame here, a piece of praise there, with censure and applause 
 so beautifully blended and contrasted, that no man can venture to 
 pronounce which ingredient predominates. To such gentlemen 
 nothing certainly could be so disagreeable as to find the Govern- 
 ment taking upon itself the part of mediator, and thus occupying 
 the situation which they considered as exclusively their own, and 
 which, it appears, on the present occasion, the honourable mem.- 
 ber for Taunton was particularly anxious to occupy. He would 
 fain have had the Government assume a different course, and say 
 to those who want all — you shall have nothing; and to those who 
 wish to retain every thing — you shall give up all; in order that 
 he might have had the opportunity of correcting the extrava- 
 gance of the Government, and saying, " No, you must make one 
 party concede this, and the opposing party, give up that; a gov- 
 ernment ought to avoid the excesses of a partisan." This, Sir, 
 
THE SLAVE POrULATION. 431 
 
 is exactly what the Government has done. It has, as I have said, 
 assumed the position of mediator; and the honourable gentleman 
 appears to be exceedingly disappointed that the situation which 
 he had marked out for himself is thus tilled. 
 
 The post of mediator being thus occupied, the honourable gen- 
 tleman is now all for extremes: " Why do you thus hesitate?" 
 says the honourable gentleman; "why temporize with the ques- 
 tion ? why not decide it once for all and settle it for ever ? If there 
 be danger in decision, you ought to meet it manfully, and look it 
 boldly in the face." This, Sir, is advice very easily given by 
 those who are not responsible for the consequences of following 
 it. But the honourable gentleman's advice and example are not 
 in exact accordance with each other. If, like him, we had bal- 
 anced between theory and practice, we should have done nothing. 
 But keeping his wisdom for himself, to us he gives advice which 
 would be sure to lead us into difficulties. " Look the dangere bold- 
 ly in the face," says he. Allow me to ask what does the honoura- 
 ble gentleman mean by looking the danger boldly in the face? for 
 I protest that I do not understand him. Does he mean that slavery 
 shall continue as it is? or does he mean to recommend immediate 
 emancipation ? If the honourable gentleman counsels either of 
 these extremes, and will have the goodness to say which of them 
 he means to counsel, he will be at least intelligible, he will have 
 recommended a decisive measure. The bold course of which he 
 speaks would undoubtedly be to adopt one of these extremes; but 
 in the most perfect sincerity, I declare I cannot make out which 
 of the two is his favourite. The Government, however, has 
 adopted a middle course; and this milder mode of proceeding is 
 precisely that, which, if we had adopted either of his bold courses, 
 the honourable member would have been delighted to have an op- 
 portunity of recommending. 
 
 The course now proposed by His Majesty's Government will, 
 as we believe, effect every thing which, after mature deliberation, 
 we believe can be safely attempted at this time. I know that 
 there are persons connected with the West Indies, who wish to 
 force the Government to say more on this subject; to extort from 
 us a further declaration of the views which we entertain for the 
 future. They wish us to give a pledge that no more shall ever be 
 done than is now proposed. But I will not commit myself on 
 this subject. 
 
 The honourable gentleman (Mr. Buxton) opposite, is not more 
 vehement in his abhorrence of slavery in the abstract than I am. 
 But I have a repugnance to abstract declarations. I am desirous 
 of acting on this, as I would do on all other occasions, on the best 
 information that I can obtain, with a view to practical benefit: I 
 am desirous of taking moderation, equity, justice, and sound pol- 
 
432 ON THE CONDITION OF, &c. 
 
 icy, for my guides. But I will not consent to be fettered by any 
 engagements express, or implied. I will not be led by either side, 
 or in either sense, to declarations from which it may be impossi- 
 ble to advance, and dangerous to retreat. If it would be improp- 
 er to declare an intention of stopping here, it would be equally 
 improper to hold out any pledge of ulterior and accelerated meas- 
 ures. The question is not — it cannot be made — a question of 
 right, of humanity, of morality merely. It is a question which 
 contemplates a change, great and difficult beyond example; one 
 almost beyond the power of man to accomplish; a change in the 
 condition and circumstances of an entire class of our fellow crea- 
 tures, the recasting, as it were, of a whole generation of mankind. 
 If this be not a question requiring deliberation, cautious and fear- 
 ful deliberation, I know not what can be so. Sir, we must pro- 
 ceed in it with the extremest circumspection; we must watch the 
 signs of the times, taking advantage of every favourable occur- 
 rence; but reserving a discretion and freedom of action, which it 
 would be madness wantonly to throw away. 
 
 Whatever, therefore, may be the opinion of the honourable 
 member for Taunton, I will not consent to depart from the course, 
 which, after the most mature consideration, the Government has 
 determined to adopt. I will cheerfully resign to him either of 
 the extremes, between which alone he conceives the choice to lie: 
 but I will not be shamed by any thing which the honourable gen- 
 tleman can say, out of our moderate and middle course of policy, 
 into one which, because we have not adopted it, he calls by the 
 name of decision, but which, if we had been unadvised enough to 
 engage in it, he would justly have characterized as rashness. 
 
 The question was then put, and leave was given to bring in a Bill for the 
 more effectual suppression of the African Slave Trade. 
 
433 
 
 STATE OF SLAVERY. 
 
 MAY 19th, 1826. 
 
 Mr. Brougham moved the following Resolution: — 
 
 " That this House has observed vfith deep regret that nothing effectual has 
 been done by the Legislatures of His Majesty's Colonies in the West Indies, 
 in compliance with the declared wishes of His Majesty's Government, and the 
 Resolutions of this House of the 15th of May, 182:3, touching the condition of 
 the Slaves ; and this House will, therefore, early in the next Session of Parlia- 
 ment, take into its most serious consideration such measures as may appear to 
 be necessary for giving effect to the said Resolutions." 
 
 Mr. Canning rose, and addressed the House to the following 
 effect: — The honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Denman) 
 who spoke last, Sir, has brought the question which is now before 
 the House, precisely to that point at which I am desirous of meet- 
 ing it. 
 
 The practical point to be decided is, whether the Resolution 
 now proposed for its adoption, is likely to be useful, or otherwise, 
 for the purposes for which I am bound to believe it is intended ? 
 That Resolution contains, indeed, some propositions, to which, as 
 abstract propositions, I have no difficulty, (with certain modifica- 
 tions) in subscribing. But the questions for the House, on the 
 present occasion, I take to be — not whether the Resolution be ab- 
 stractedly true, but whether the passing of any such Resolution 
 as this be either necessary or advisable ? and if it be neither ne- 
 cessary nor advisable, whether it may not be rather detrimental 
 than beneficial to the general object upon which the House has al- 
 ready expressed its determination. 
 
 In addressing myself to these questions, I must lay out of the 
 account much — indeed the greater part — of the speech of one 
 honourable and learned gentleman (Dr. Lushington;) because it 
 has been already determined by the House, and by the Govern- 
 ment, to proceed in this great measure, as far as possible, by means 
 of conciliation and recommendation; but the whole of the hon- 
 ourable and learned gentleman's speech was directed rather to 
 means of force and terror. That speech, therefore, I must pass 
 by, as entirely dissonant from the whole tone and temper in which 
 the discussion of this matter has been hitherto conducted; and es- 
 pecially from the laborious and temperate speech with which this 
 Resolution has been introduced for our deliberation. 
 
 I must assume. Sir, that the Resolutions passed by this House, 
 in May, 1823, constitute the rule which Parliament have agreed 
 
 57 NN 
 
434 STATE OF SLAVERY. 
 
 to take for their guidance; and I must also assume (the position 
 which I have just stated not being contradicted) that the several 
 measures which the Government have founded on those Resolu- 
 tions, are admitted to have been conceived in the spirit of those 
 Resolutions, and to have been framed in accordance with that 
 spirit. 
 
 If, Sir, there be those who think that a different course from 
 that which the House of Commons has pursued, ought to have 
 been adopted; if there be those who are even disposed to go back 
 to the year 1807, and to contend that the abolition of slavery in 
 the West Indies, ought to have been then enforced by the same 
 Act of Parliament which abolished the trade in slaves, I have 
 really only to say to them that they come too late into the field; 
 that Parliament has already taken its determination, and formed 
 its decision on that subject. I must remind them that Parliament 
 has already declared, in a way not to be misunderstood, that it 
 would not enact the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies; 
 that it looks to that result only through a sober and gradual course 
 of measures; that it will not be diverted from that course, except 
 by a degree of resistance, amounting to contumacy on the part 
 of the West Indian colonies, which it will not at present appre- 
 hend. 
 
 If there be those again who think that this important question, 
 involving, as it confessedly does, the lives, the interests, and the 
 property of our fellow subjects, is to be determined on the abstract 
 proposition — " That man cannot be made the property of man," 
 — I take the liberty of relegating them to the schools; and of tell- 
 ing them that they do not deal with this grave and complicated 
 matter as members of the British Parliament, or as members of a 
 society constituted like that in which we live, of long established 
 interests, of conflicting claims to protection, of modifications and 
 involutions of property, not to be changed and simplified by a 
 sudden effort, and of usages which, however undesirable, if the 
 question were as to their new institution, are too inveterately 
 rooted to be destroyed at a single blow. I must tell them. Sir, 
 that the practical adoption of their speculative notions would ex- 
 pose our West India possessions to ravage and desolation; which, 
 I think, those honourable gentlemen themselves would be as little 
 satisfied to behold, as I hope they are prepared, wilfully to pro- 
 duce them. 
 
 The learned civilian, referring to a former debate, has quoted a 
 passage of a speech of mine, wherein I stated " that the spirit of 
 the British Constitution was, in its principle, hostile to any modi- 
 fication of slavery." This reference compels me to set myself 
 right with the House. The learned civilian has read the extract 
 from the speech, but he has not given the context from which it 
 
STATE OF SLAVERY. 435 
 
 is torn. Sir, the honourable member for Weymouth had, on that 
 occasion, prefaced his proposed Resohition with a declaration, 
 that " the state of slavery was repugnant to the principles of 
 the British Constitution, and of the Christian religion." Did I 
 subscribe to that proposition? Can the sentence quoted by the 
 learned civilian be fairly understood in that sense? In order that 
 the House should rightly understand what I did say, I will read 
 that part of my speech of that day to which the quoted sentence 
 belongs. 
 
 " The honourable gentleman (it is the honourable member for 
 Weymouth to whom I am alluding) begins his Resolution with a 
 recital which I confess greatly embarrasses me. He says, that 
 ' the state of slavery is repugnant to the principles of the British 
 Constitution, and of the Christian religion.' God forbid that he 
 who ventures to object to this statement should therefore be held 
 to assert a contradiction to it! I do not say that the state of slavery 
 is consonant to the principles of the British Constitution: still 
 less do I say that the state of slavery is consonant to the princi- 
 ples of the Christian religion. But though I do not advance these 
 propositions myself, nevertheless, I must say, that in my opinion 
 the propositions of the honourable gentleman are not practically 
 true. If the honourable gentleman means that the British Con- 
 stitution does not admit of slavery in that part of the British do- 
 minions where the Constitution is in full play, undoubtedly his 
 statement is true; but it makes nothing for his object. If, how- 
 ever, the honourable member is to be understood to maintain that 
 the British Constitution has not tolerated for years, nay, more, for 
 centuries, in the colonies, the existence of slavery — a state of so- 
 ciety unknown in the mother country — that is a position which 
 is altogether without foundation, and positively and practically 
 untrue. In my opinion, when a proposition is submitted to this 
 House, for the purpose of inducing the House to act upon it, care 
 should be taken not to confound, as I think is done in this Reso- 
 lution, what is morally true with what is historically false. Un- 
 doubtedly, the spirit of the British Constitution is, in its princi- 
 ple, hostile to any modification of slavery; but as undoubtedly, 
 the British Parliament has for ages, tolerated, sanctioned, protect- 
 ed, and even encouraged a system of colonial establishment of 
 which it well knew slavery to be the foundation." 
 
 Here I do not say that slavery is sanctioned by the spirit of the 
 Christian religion; and as little do I say, that it is sanctioned by 
 the principles of the British Constitution. But, although I do not 
 advance any such proposition in opposition to that of the honour- 
 able member for Weymouth, still I do say, that his proposition is 
 not practically true. If the honourable and learned gentleman 
 meant to say, that the spirit of the British Constitution is adverse 
 
436 STATE OF SLAVERY. 
 
 to slavery, I admit the truth of his proposition; but it makes noth- 
 ing for his argument. If he meant to say, that the British Con- 
 stitution has not for years tolerated slavery in its colonies, then it 
 is quite evident that his proposition is positively and practically 
 untrue. I contended then, as I contend now, that cai-e ought to 
 be taken, in touching questions of this nature, not to mingle and 
 confound what is morally true with what is historically false. I 
 admitted, then, as I admit now, that the Constitution of this country 
 is adverse to the practice or principle of slavery; but, I affirmed 
 then, and I now repeat the affirmation, that the Parliament of this 
 country has protected, fostered, and encouraged establishments, 
 whose main support, it well knew, was derived from slavery. 
 Guarded then. Sir, as my declaration on this subject was at the 
 beginning, guarded as it was at the end, I think the learned gen- 
 tleman did not do quite fairly, — did not act, in respect to my 
 speech, as he would have acted professionally in the citation of any 
 document in a court of justice, — when he separated a single sen- 
 tence, or rather member of a sentence, from the rest, and present- 
 ed it to the House, as a simple, direct, substantive, and unqualified 
 proposition. 
 
 The learned gentleman seems, indeed, to think that he is at 
 liberty to construe my speech of three years ago by comparison 
 with something which passed the other day, in another place; of 
 Vv^hich, as stated by himself, I profess I do not see the practical 
 bearing upon my argument (such as I have now shown that argu- 
 ment to have been;) — but of which I know absolutely nothing 
 but what the assertion of the honourable and learned gentleman 
 conveys to me. The distinction I now wish to press upon the at- 
 tention of the House, is the same as I have always endeavoured 
 to maintain. I have before said, that theoretically true as it may 
 be, that the spirit of slavery is repugnant to the spirit of the Brit- 
 ish Constitution, yet this country, blessed though she has been 
 with a free Constitution herself, has encouraged in her colonies 
 the practice of slavery, however alien to her own domestic insti- 
 tutions; and this, too, be it remembered, at a time when her coun- 
 cils were guided by men, the acknowledged and boasted friends 
 of liberty. I will not stop to enter into a disquisition whether, 
 at the time to which I refer, the duties of governments, and the 
 rights of man, as man, were as fully understood as in the age in 
 which we have the happiness to live; whether the freedom of 
 England had then attained that moral maturity which it now ex- 
 hibits. Be that as it may, the simple Aict is, that this country, 
 notwithstanding her free Constitution, did found and maintain, 
 nay, more, did foster and prescribe a system, of which, not only 
 was slavery an ingredient, but which required an annual influx of 
 
STATE OF SLAVERY. 437 
 
 the black Stygian stream of slavery for its nutriment and susten- 
 tation. 
 
 But there was another part of the proposition put forth by the 
 honourable member for Weymouth, on the occasion to which the 
 learned civilian has alluded, viz. — that the state of slavery is re- 
 pugnant to the principles of the Christian religion. To this, Sir, 
 I objected, not, certainly, meaning thereby to degrade the Chris- 
 tian religion by the imputatian that it was tolerant of slavery; but 
 meaning to free this country from the necessity which would re- 
 sult from the adoption of the honourable gentleman's doctrine — 
 the necessity of proceeding, without pause or hesitation, not 
 merely to the immediate modification and gradual abolition of 
 slavery in the colonies, but to its instant and total extirpation. 
 What I meant to deny in the honourable member's proposition 
 was, that the Christian religion and slavery could not be in exist- 
 ence together. I said that the reverse is the fact; — that they have 
 co-existed from the very dawn of Christianity up to the present 
 day. Neither, therefore, am I forced to admit that it is a princi- 
 ple of the Christian religion to sanction slavery. The course of 
 the Christian religion has always been to adapt itself to the cir- 
 cumstances of the place and time in which it was seeking to make 
 a progress; to accommodate itself to all stations of life, to all va- 
 rieties of acting or of suffering; restraining the high, exalting the 
 lowly, by precepts applicable to all diversities of situation: and 
 alike contributing to the happiness of man, and providing for his 
 welfare, whether connected with his highest destinies, or descend- 
 ing with him to his lowest degradation, — whether mounting the 
 throne of the Caesars, or comforting the captive in his cell. 
 
 But while Christianity has thus blessed and improved man- 
 kind, its operation has not been direct, precipitate, or violent. It 
 has invaded no existing rights or relations, it has disturbed no es- 
 tablished modes of government or law. It has rendered and re- 
 commended obedience to temporal power, even where that power 
 was exercised with no light hand, and administered through no 
 mild or uncorrupted institutions. While the doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity were preaching in the streets of Rome, — " servi crucian- 
 tur^^ continued to be the ordinary form of process in the Forum, 
 not for the punishment of the slave who had been convicted of 
 a crime, but for extracting evidence from one produced as a 
 witness. 
 
 Then, Sir, it is not true, that the Christian religion prescribes 
 the extinction of slavery, with unsparing, uncompromising, in- 
 discriminating haste. It is not true that Christianity ordains the 
 extirpation of this great moral evil by other means than those 
 which are consonant with the just spirit of the British Constitu- 
 tion, — means of equity and good faith, as well as of well-under- 
 
 NN* 
 
438 STATE OF SLAVERY. 
 
 stood humanity; measures moderate in their character, and pro- 
 gressive in their operation. 
 
 Is there any thing, then, Sir, in what I have laid down to in- 
 culpate the spirit of Christianity or the principles of the British 
 Constitution ? If the British Government, and the British Parlia- 
 ment, have for a long series of years fostered that system upon 
 which we all now look with abhorrence, what is the fair infer- 
 ence? — Is it that we are to continue to foster and cherish it still? 
 — No, Sir; that is not what I maintain: but I do maintain that 
 we, having all concurred in the guilt of rearing and fostering the 
 evil, are not to turn round upon the planters, and say, '■'■you alone 
 shall suffer all the penalty; — we determine to get rid of this moral 
 pestilence, which infects our character as much as yours, which 
 lue have as much contributed to propagate as yoti; but you, as 
 spotted lepers, shall be banished from our society, and cast to ut- 
 ter ruin, to expiate our common crime." 
 
 Sir, I propose that we proceed with more deliberate counsel, 
 and a more even hand. The House has already resolved so to 
 proceed; and the question for decision, therefore, this night is, 
 whether the Resolution now offered for adoption is conceived in 
 that even spirit, and bears the stamp of that temperate delib- 
 eration ? 
 
 In order to decide this question, let us look where we now 
 stand. The Resolutions of May, 1823, form the ground upon 
 which we have hitherto proceeded: — Is there, then, reason to be- 
 lieve that the Government have acted upon those Resolutions 
 otherwise than in the most perfect sincerity ? and have not the 
 Government avowed their determination, if the colonies should 
 evince a contumacious resistance, to call upon Parliament for aid? 
 
 If we have acted with sincerity on the views sanctioned by 
 Parliament, and if we have not departed from the declaration of 
 our determination to come to Parliament for aid, if necessary, — 
 wherefore now adopt a Resolution, which, if it is not necessary 
 for the furtherance of the views of Government, must of neces- 
 sity perplex them ? We have already had, in the course of the 
 session, two motions connected with this subject. Upon one of 
 them, that relating to certain trials of slaves in the West Indies, 
 I moved an amendment, expressive of the disgust naturally felt 
 at some of the scenes brought under the notice of the House on 
 that occasion; and declaring that we saw in those scenes only 
 greater reason to adhere to the Resolutions of 1823, If, therefore, 
 the Resolution proposed to us this night were no more than a re- 
 newal of our former declarations, it would amount to nothing — it 
 would be powerless, it would be useless. 
 
 But it is no such thing. Let us examine what it is. In the 
 first place, it expresses regret at the proceedings of the W^.st In- 
 
STATE OF SLAVERY. 439 
 
 dian Legislatures. To this part of it I can have no objection, 
 further than that it would be a waste of time to record over again 
 what we have already recorded. But the second part of the Reso- 
 lution pledges the House to follow up this declaration with mea- 
 sures, not defined, in the ensuing session. To that part I have a 
 decided objection. I think that to pledge ourselves to such a de- 
 claration would be productive of positive mischief. 
 
 I, Sir, do not despair, that, in the course of the six or eight 
 months which may intervene between the present and ensuing 
 session, the West Indian Legislatures may adopt measures in the 
 spirit of the recommendations sent out to them. I think their 
 disposition to do this would be weakened by a pledge of the na- 
 ture proposed. They would argue, that we knew not our own 
 minds; that, dissatisfied with the course which we had already 
 taken, we now stood pledged to resort to some other undefined 
 mode of legislation; that whatever might have been, up to this 
 period, the views of Government, the House of Commons had 
 stepped in and changed them. In this way would the Jamaica 
 Legislature have a right to argue. Would it, then. Sir, be pru- 
 dent to abandon at once expectations which the West Indian' Leg- 
 islatures will not be so absurd and impolitic (to use no harsher 
 epithet) as to disappoint, by signifying to them that we are not 
 satisfied with our own course, and warning them thereby to wait 
 and see what further steps we may be disposed to take, on an- 
 other plan, and in a different direction? 
 
 An honourable friend of mine (Mr. C. Ellis,) Sir, who has 
 done himself so much credit by his speech to-night, has asked 
 me, whether he is to understand the Order in Council respecting 
 Trinidad as comprising the whole of the system of the Govern- 
 ment? My answer is, that so far as the Resolutions of this House 
 prescribe to Government the course to be pursed, so far the Order 
 in Council in question does comprise the intentions of Govern- 
 ment. If the Colonial Legislatures act bona fide up to the spirit 
 of that order, with a manifest desire not merely 
 
 " To keep the word of promise to the ear, 
 And break it to the hope;" 
 
 not by evasive or illusory enactments, — but with a full and fair 
 intention to carry substantially into effect the ameliorations re- 
 commended to them, I am convinced that the views of Parlia- 
 ment will be accomplished. It is to the spirit of the proceedings 
 of the West Indian Legislatures that we shall look; and the Gov- 
 ment, and, I believe, the Parliament, are disposed to look to it 
 with confidence and candour. 
 
 My honourable friend has particularly adverted to the clause 
 for compulsory manumission of slaves. It is undoubtedly the 
 main cause of the whole. It is the only one that is directly ope- 
 
440 STATE OF SLAVERY. 
 
 rative. All the rest go to mitigate, to improve, to regulate the 
 system of slavery; to render it more tolerable in its existence, 
 and to prepare its gradual decay. This clause is the way out of 
 that system, — the opening by which slavery itself may escape, 
 gradually, and, as it were, imperceptibly, without the shock of a 
 convulsion. 
 
 The great difference between the plans of His Majesty's Min- 
 isters and those of the honourable gentlemen who are desirous of 
 a more rapid progress is this, — that those honourable gentlemen 
 would risk great dangers — would risk even the frustration of 
 their own object, for the hope of arriving at it immediately; 
 whereas we would rather postpone a little the attainment of the 
 object, in order that we may arrive at it with a greater assurance 
 of safety. 
 
 I agree, Sir, in many particulars, with an honourable gentle- 
 man opposite (Mr. Bernal,) who has spoken with so much good 
 sense; but I differ from him widely on the subject of compen- 
 sation. 
 
 I think nothing could be more monstrous than to admit a 
 claim of compensation into a system of measures which are 
 purely measures of amelioration; and which all who look upon 
 the moral improvement of the slave as beneficial to the interests 
 of the master, must acknowledge to be calculated to create event- 
 ually an advance instead of a deterioration in the value of the 
 master's property in his slaves. I admit, at the same time, that 
 the principle of compulsory manumission, being one of force 
 (though qualified so as to guard against danger,) there it is that 
 the principle of compensation properly finds its place. The 
 price which the manumitted slave will have to pay to his owner, 
 — augmenting, as it naturally must do, in proportion to the im- 
 proved value of the slave, is the medium through which that just 
 compensation will be administered. 
 
 Sir, although the discussion upon this question has been long, 
 and although many foreign topics have been introduced into it, I 
 am not aware of any other practical points, beside those I have 
 already touched upon, which call for answer or explanation. Nor 
 would it be consistent with what I have said of the inopportune- 
 ness of these repeated discussions, to protract that of to-night 
 beyond the limits of the question on which the vote of the House 
 is to be taken. 
 
 I have endeavoured to show, that while I willingly admit that 
 the dictates of humanity, the principles of the Christian religion, 
 and the spirit of the British Constitution repudiate slavery, there 
 is nothing in that admission which calls upon us to abolish the 
 system, however odious, with a violence and precipitancy, the ef- 
 fect of which would be to bring down ruin upon so large a class 
 
STATE OF SLAVERY. 441 
 
 of our fellow subjects, and to exchange the evils of slavery for 
 those of anarchy and bloodshed. I hope that I have also shown 
 that the Government is sincere in its endeavour to carry into 
 effect the wishes of Parliament, wisely, temperately, soberly, in 
 the spirit in which those wishes were conceived. But I also 
 hope that I shall have made it clear to those whose interests are 
 more directly involved in this great question, and whose agency 
 is necessary to the satisfactory solution of it, that what we profess 
 to do with temperance and soberness, we are, at the same time, 
 determined to do, or to see done. I trust it will be understood, 
 that it is only because we do not like any thing which has the 
 appearance of menace, that I have not to-night distinctly re- 
 peated the declaration, that if, contrary to our hope, we should be 
 met by the colonies with contumacious opposition, we shall come 
 to Parliament for aid — an aid which Parliament will not hesitate 
 in granting, to carry into execution its own wholesome and holy 
 determination. 
 
 The House divided : — 
 
 For Mr. Brougham's Resolution . . 38 
 Against it 100 
 
 Majority 62 
 
 58 
 
442 
 
 THE KING'S MESSAGE. 
 
 DECEMBER 12th, 1826. 
 
 " George R. 
 
 " His Majesty acquaints the House of Commons that His Majesty has re- 
 ceived an earnest application from the Princess Regent of Portuga], claiming, 
 in virtue of the ancient obligations of alliance and amity between His Ma- 
 jesty and the Crown of Portugal, His Majesty's aid against an hostile aggres- 
 sion from Spain. 
 
 " His Majesty has exerted himself for some time past, in conjunction with 
 His Majesty's ally, the King of France, to prevent such an aggression: and 
 repeated assurances have been given by the Court of Madrid of the deter- 
 mination of His Catholic Majesty neither to commit, nor allow to be committed 
 from His Catholic Majesty's territory, any aggression against Portugal ; but 
 His Majesty has learned, with deep concern, that notwithstanding these as- 
 surances, hostile inroads into the territory of Portugal have been concerted in 
 Spain, and have been executed under the eyes of Spanish authorities by Por- 
 tuguese regiments, which had deserted into Spain, and which the Spanish Gov- 
 ernment had repeatedly and solemnly engaged to disarm and to disperse. 
 
 " His Majesty leaves no effort unexhausted to awaken the Spanish Govern- 
 ment to the dangerous consequences of this apparent connivance. 
 
 "His Majesty makes this communication to the House of Commons with the 
 full and entire confidence, that his faithful Commons will afford to His Majesty 
 their cordial concurrence and support in maintaining the faith of treaties, and 
 in securing against foreign hostility the safety and independence of the king- 
 dom of Portugal, the oldest ally of Great Britain. 
 
 "G. R." 
 
 Mr. Secretary Canning moved the Order of the Day, for taking into con- 
 sideration His Majesty's gracious Message. 
 
 The Message was then read.* 
 
 * At the time of the publication of the corrected report of this speech, it 
 was asserted that it differed materially from the speech, as originally spoken 
 by Mr. Canning. The Editor of this work happens to have in his possession 
 the original proof copy, submitted for correction, with Mr Canning's altera- 
 tions ; and though it cannot be denied that many alterations were made in it, 
 yet they are alterations rather of style and language than of sentiment. As a 
 fair test by which to determine the accuracy of this observation, the Editor 
 would refer to the latter half of the first speech of Mr. Canning on the affairs 
 of Portugal, which Count Chateaubriand, in the French Chamber of Peers, 
 quoted as the most objectionable passage in the speech. The report from 
 which the noble Peer quoted it was that which appeared in the Morning 
 Chronicle, in which journal the passage was reported by a gentleman who has 
 brought the very useful accomplishment of short-hand writing to the utmost 
 degree of perfection of which it is susceptible. On a comparison of this part 
 of the speech in the original and corrected reports, there will not be found a 
 single omission or alteration, except, as has been already remarked, an altera- 
 tion of style and language. — London Editor. 
 
THE king's message, &c. 443 
 
 Mr. Secretary Canning. — Mr. Speaker, — In proposing to 
 the House of Commons to acknowledge, by an humble and duti- 
 ful Address, His Majesty's most gracious message, and to reply 
 to it in terms which will be, in effect, an echo of the sentiments, 
 and a fulfilment of the anticipations of that message, I feel that, 
 however confident I may be in the justice, and however clear as 
 to the policy of the measures therein announced, it becomes me, 
 as a British Minister, recommending to Parliament any step 
 which may approximate this country even to the hazard of a war, 
 while I explain the grounds of that proposal, to accompany my 
 explanation with expressions of regret. 
 
 I can assure the House, that there is not within its walls any 
 set of men more deeply convinced than His Majesty's Ministers 
 — nor any individual more intimately persuaded than he who has 
 now the honour of addressing you — of the vital importance of the 
 continuance of peace, to this country and to the world. So strongly 
 am I impressed with this opinion — and for reasons of which I 
 will put the House more fully in possession before I sit down — that, 
 I declare, there is no question of doubtful or controverted policy 
 — no opportunity of present national advantage — no precaution 
 against remote difficulty — which I would not gladly compromise, 
 pass over, or adjourn, rather than call on Parliament to sanction, 
 at this moment, any measure which had a tendency to involve the 
 country in war. But, at the same time. Sir, I feel that which has 
 been felt, in the best times of English history, by the best states- 
 men of this country, and by the Parliaments by whom those 
 statesmen were supported — I feel that there are two causes, and 
 but two causes, which cannot be either compromised, passed over, 
 or adjourned. These causes are, adherence to the national faith, 
 and regard for the national honour. 
 
 Sir, if I did not consider both these causes as involved in the 
 proposition which I have this day to make to you, I should not 
 address the House, as I now do, in the full and entire confidence 
 that the gracious communication of His Majesty will be met by 
 the House with the concurrence of which His Majesty has de- 
 clared his expectation. 
 
 In order to bring the matter which I have to submit to you un- 
 der the cognizance of the House in the shortest and clearest man- 
 ner, I beg leave to state it, in the first instance, divested of any 
 collateral considerations. It is a case of law and of fact: — of na- 
 tional law on the one hand, and of notorious fact on the other; 
 such as it must be, in my opinion, as impossible for Parliament 
 as it was for the Government, to regard in any but one light; or 
 to come to any but one conclusion upon it. 
 
 Among the alliances by which, at different periods of our his- 
 tory, this country has been connected with the other nations of 
 
444 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 Europe, none is so ancient in origin, and so precise in obligation 
 — none has continued so long and been observed so faithfully — 
 of none is the memory so intimately interwoven with the most 
 brilliant records of our triumphs, as that by which Great Britain 
 is connected with Portugal. It dates back to distant centuries; 
 it has survived an endless variety of fortunes. Anterior in ex- 
 istence to the accession of the House of Braganza to the throne 
 of Portugal — it derived, however, fresh vigour from that event; 
 and never, from that epoch to the present hour, has the independ- 
 ent monarchy of Portugal ceased to be nurtured by the friend- 
 ship of Great Britain. This alliance has never been seriously 
 interrupted: but it has been renewed by repeated sanctions. It 
 has been maintained under difficLdties by which the fidelity of 
 other alliances were shaken, and has been vindicated in fields of 
 blood and of glory. 
 
 That the alliance with Portugal has been always unqualifiedly 
 advantageous to this country — that it has not been sometimes in- 
 convenient and sometimes burdensome — I am not bound nor pre- 
 pared to maintain. But no British statesman, so far as I know, 
 has ever suggested the expediency of shaking it off: and it is as- 
 suredly not at a moment of need, that honour, and what I may 
 be allowed to call national sympathy, would permit us to weigh, 
 with an over-scrupulous exactness, the amount of difficulties and 
 dangers attendant upon its faithful and steadfast observance. What 
 feelings of national honour would forbid, is forbidden alike by 
 the plain dictates of national faith. 
 
 It is not at distant periods of history, and in by-gone ages only, 
 that the traces of the union between Great Britain and Portugal 
 are to be found. In the last compact of modern Europe, the 
 compact which forms the basis of its present international law — I 
 mean the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 — this country, with its eyes 
 open to the possible inconveniences of the connexion, but with a 
 memory awake to its past benefits — solemnly renewed the previ- 
 ously existing obligations of alliance and amity with Portugal. I 
 will take leave to read to the House the third article of the Treaty 
 concluded at Vienna in 1S15, between Great Britain on the one 
 hand, and Portugal on the other. It is couched in the following 
 terms: — " The Treaty of Alliance concluded at Rio de Janeiro, 
 on the 19th of February, ISIO, being founded on circumstances 
 of a temporary nature, which have happily ceased to exist, the 
 said treaty is hereby declared to be void in all its parts, and of no 
 effect; without prejudice^ however, to the ancient treaties of 
 alliance, friendship, and guarantee, ivhich have so long and 
 so happily subsisted between the two Crowns, and which are 
 hereby renewed by the high contracting parties, and acknow- 
 ledged to be of full force and effect.^' 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 445 
 
 In order to appreciate the force of this stipulation, — recent in 
 point of time, recent also in the sanction of Parliament, — the 
 House will perhaps allow me to explain shortly the circumstances 
 in reference to which it was contracted. In the year 1807, when, 
 upon the declaration of Buonaparte, that the House of Braganza 
 had ceased to reign, the King of Portugal, by the advice of Great 
 Britain, was induced to set sail for the Brazils; almost at the very 
 moment of His Most Faithful Majesty's embarkation, a secret 
 convention was signed between His Majesty and the King of 
 Portugal, stipulating that, in the event of His Most Faithful Ma- 
 jesty's establishing the seat of his Government in Brazil, Great 
 Britain would never acknowledge any other dynasty than that of 
 the House of Braganza on the throne of Portugal. That conven- 
 tion, I say, was contemporaneous with the migration to the Bra- 
 zils; a step of great importance at the time, as removing from 
 the grasp of Buonaparte the sovereign family of Braganza. Af- 
 terwards, in the year 1810, when the seat of the King of Portu- 
 gal's Government was established at Rio de Janeiro, and when it 
 seemed probable, in the then apparently hopeless condition of 
 the affairs of Europe, that it was likely long to continue there, 
 the secret convention of 1807, of which the main object was ac- 
 complished by the fact of the emigration to Brazil, was abrogated, 
 and a new and public treaty was concluded, into which was trans- 
 ferred the stipulation of 1807, binding Great Britain, so long as 
 His Faithful Majesty should be compelled to reside in Brazil, not 
 to acknowledge any other sovereign of Portugal than a member 
 of the House of Braganza. That stipulation which had hitherto 
 been secret, thus became patent, and part of the known law of 
 nations. 
 
 In the year 1814, in consequence of the happy conclusion of 
 the war, the option was afforded to the King of Portugal of re- 
 turning to his European dominions. It was then felt that, as the 
 necessity of His Most Faithful Majesty's absence from Portugal 
 had ceased, the ground for the obligation originally contracted in 
 the secret convention of 1807, and afterwards transferred to the 
 patent Treaty of 1810, was removed. The Treaty of 1810 was 
 therefore annulled at the Congress of Vienna; and in lieu of the 
 stipulation not to acknowledge any other sovereign of Portugal 
 than a mem.ber of the House of Braganza, was substituted that 
 which I have just read to the House. 
 
 Annulling the Treaty of 1810, the Treaty of Vienna renews 
 and confirms, (as the House will have seen,) all former treaties 
 between Great Britain and Portugal, describing them as "ancient 
 treaties of alliance, friendship, and guarantee;" as having "long 
 and happily subsisted between the two crowns;" and as being al- 
 
 00 
 
446 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 lowed, by the two high contracting parties, to remain " in full 
 force and effect." 
 
 What then is the force — what is the effect of those ancient trea- 
 ties ? I am prepared to show to the House what it is. But before 
 I do so, I must say, that if all the treaties to which this article of 
 the Treaty of Vienna refers had perished by some convulsion of 
 nature, or had by some extraordinary accident been consigned to 
 total oblivion, still it would be impossible not to admit, as an in- 
 contestible inference from this article of the Treaty of Vienna 
 alone, that in a moral point of view, there is incumbent on Great 
 Britain, a decided obligation to act as the effectual defender of 
 Portugal. If I could not show the letter of a single antecedent 
 stipulation, I should still contend that a solemn admission, only 
 ten years old, of the existence at that time of " treaties of alli- 
 ance, friendship, and guarantee," held Great Britain to the dis- 
 charge of the obligations which that very description implies. 
 But fortunately there is no such difficulty in specifying the nature 
 of those obligations. All of the preceding treaties exist — all of 
 them are of easy reference — all of them are known to this coun- 
 try, to Spain, to every nation of the civilized world. They are 
 so numerous, and their general result is so uniform, that it may be 
 sufficient to select only two of them to show the nature of all. 
 
 The first to which I shall advert is the Treaty of 1661, which 
 was concluded at the time of the marriage of Charles the Second 
 with the Infanta of Portugal. After reciting the marriage, and 
 making over to Great Britain, in consequence of that marriage, 
 first, a considerable sum of money, and secondly, several import- 
 ant places, some of which, as Tangier, we no longer possess; but 
 others of which, as Bombay, still belong to this country, the 
 Treaty runs thus: — " In consideration of all which grants, so much 
 to the benefit of the King of Great Britain and his subjects in 
 general, and of the delivery of those important places to his said 
 Majesty and his heirs for ever, &c., the King of Great Britain 
 does profess and declare, with the consent and advice of his Coun- 
 cil, that he will take the interest of Portugal and all its dominions 
 to heart, defending the same with his utmost power by sea and 
 land, even as England itself f and it then proceeds to specify 
 the succours to be sent, and the manner of sending them. 
 
 I come next to the Treaty of 1703, a treaty of alliance contem- 
 poraneous with the Methuen Treaty, which has regulated, for up- 
 wards of a century, the commercial relations of the two countries. 
 The Treaty of 1703 was a tripartite engagement between the 
 States-General of Holland, England, and Portugal. The second 
 article of that Treaty sets forth, that " If ever it shall happen that 
 the Kings of Spain and France, either the present or the future, 
 that both of them together, or either of them separately, shall 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 447 
 
 make war, or giv^e occasion to suspect that they intend to make 
 war upon the kingdom of Portugal, either on the continent of Eu- 
 rope, or on its dominions beyond the seas; Her Majesty the Queen 
 of Great Britain, and the Lords the States-General shall use their 
 friendly offices with the said Kings, or either of them, in order 
 to persuade them to observe the terms of peace towards Portugal, 
 and not to make war upon it." The third article declares, that 
 in the event of these good offices not proving successful, but alto- 
 gether ineffisctual, so that war should be made by the aforesaid 
 kings, or by either of them upon Portugal, the above-mentioned 
 powers of Great Britain and Holland shall make war with all their 
 force upon the aforesaid Kings or King who shall carry hostile 
 arms into Portugal; and towards that war which shall be carried 
 on in Europe, they shall supply 12,000 men, whom they shall 
 arm and pay, as well when in quarters as in action; and the said 
 high allies shall be obliged to keep that number of men complete, 
 by recruiting it from time to time at their own expense." 
 
 I am aware, indeed, that with respect to either of the treaties 
 which I have quoted, it is possible to raise a question — whether, 
 variation of circumstances or change of times may not have some- 
 what relaxed its obligations. The Treaty of 1661, it might be 
 said, was so loose and prodigal in the wording — it is so unreason- 
 able, so wholly out of nature, that any one country should be ex- 
 pected to defend another, " even as itself;^' such stipulations are 
 of so exaggerated a character, as to resemble effi.isions of feeling, 
 rather than enunciations of deliberate compact. Again, with re- 
 spect to the Treaty of 1703, if the case rested on that treaty alone, 
 a question might be raised, whether or not, when one of the con- 
 tracting parties — Holland — had since so changed her relations 
 with Portugal, as to consider her obligations under the Treaty of 
 1703 as obsolete — whether or not, I say, under such circumstances, 
 the obligation on the remaining party be not likewise void. I 
 should not hesitate to answer both these objections in the nega- 
 tive. But without entering into such a controversy, it is suffi- 
 cient for me to say, that the time and place for taking such objec- 
 tions, was at the Congress at Vienna. Then and there it was, that 
 if you indeed considered these treaties as obsolete, you ought 
 frankly and fearlessly to have declared them to be so. But then 
 and there, with your eyes open, and in the face of all modern Eu- 
 rope, you proclaimed anew the ancient treaties of alliance, friend- 
 ship, and guarantee, " so long subsisting between the crowns of 
 Great Britain and Portugal," as still " acknowledged by Great 
 Britain," and still " of full force and effect." It is not, however, 
 on specific articles alone — it is not so much, perhaps, on either of 
 these ancient treaties, taken separately, as it is on the spirit and 
 understanding of the whole body of treaties, of which the es- 
 
448 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 sence is concentrated and preserved in the Treaty of Vienna, that 
 we acknowledge in Portugal a right to look to Great Britain as 
 her ally and defender. 
 
 This, Sir, being the state, morally and politically, of our obliga- 
 tions towards Portugal, it is obvious that when Portugal, in appre- 
 hension of the coming storm, called on Great Britain for assist- 
 ance, the only hesitation on our part could be — not whether that 
 assistance was due, supposing the occasion for demanding it to 
 arise, but simply, whether that occasion — in other words, whether 
 the casus foederis had arisen. 
 
 I understand, indeed, that in some quarters, it has been imputed 
 to His Majesty's Ministers, that an extraordinary delay inter- 
 vened between the taking of the determination to give assistance 
 to Portugal, and the carrying of that determination into effect- 
 But how stands the fact? On Sunday, the 3d of this month, we 
 received from the Portuguese Ambassador a direct and formal de- 
 mand of assistance against a hostile aggression from Spain. Our 
 answer was — that although rumours had reached us through 
 France, His Majesty's Government had not that accurate informa- 
 tion — that official and precise intelligence of facts — on which they 
 could properly found an application to Parliament. It was only 
 on last Friday night that this precise information arrived. On 
 Saturday His Majesty's confidential servants came to a decision. 
 On Sunday that decision received the sanction of His Majesty. 
 On Monday it was communicated to both Houses of Parliament 
 — and this day, Sir, at the hour in which I have the honour of 
 addressing you — the troops are on their march for embarkation. 
 
 I trust, then. Sir, that no unseemly delay is imputable to Gov- 
 ernment. But, undoubtedly, on the other hand, when the claim 
 of Portugal for assistance — a claim, clear indeed in justice, but 
 at the same time fearfully spreading in its possible consequences, 
 came before us, it was the duty of His Majesty's Government to 
 do nothing on hearsay. The eventual force of the claim was ad- 
 mitted; but a thorough knowledge of facts was necessary before 
 the compliance with that claim could be granted. The Govern- 
 ment here laboured under some disadvantage. The rumours 
 which reached us through Madrid were obviously distorted, to 
 answer partial political purposes; and the intelligence through the 
 press of France, though substantially correct, was, in particulars, 
 vague and contradictory. A measure of grave and serious mo- 
 ment could never be founded on such authority; nor could the 
 Ministers come down to Parliament until they had a confident as- 
 surance that the case which they had to lay before the Legislature 
 was true in all its parts. 
 
 But there was another reason which induced a necessary cau- 
 tion. In former instances, when Portugal applied to this country 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 449 
 
 for assistance, the whole power of the state in Portugal was vest- 
 ed in the person of the monarch. The expression of his wish, 
 the manifestation of his desire, the putting forth of his claim, 
 was sufficient ground for immediate and decisive action on the 
 part of Great Britain, supposing the casus foederis to be made 
 out. But, on this occasion, inquiry was in the first place to be 
 made whether, according to the new Constitution of Portugal, 
 the call upon Great Britain was made with the consent of all the 
 powers and authorities competent to make it, so as to carry with 
 it an assurance of that reception in Portugal for our army, which 
 the army of a friend and ally had a right to expect. Before a 
 British soldier should put his foot on Portuguese ground, nay, 
 before he should leave the shores of England, it was our duty to 
 ascertain that the step taken by the Regency of Portugal was 
 taken with the cordial concurrence of the Legislature of that 
 country. It was but this morning that we received intelligence 
 of the proceedings of the Chambers at Lisbon, which establishes 
 the fact of such concurrence. This intelligence is contained in a 
 despatch from Sir W. A'Court, dated 29th of November, of 
 which I will read an extract to the House. " The day after the 
 news arrived of the entry of the rebels into Portugal, the Minis- 
 ters demanded from the Chambers an extension of power for the 
 Executive Government; and the permission to apply for foreign 
 succours, in virtue of ancient treaties, in the event of their being 
 deemed necessary. The Deputies gave the requisite authority by 
 acclamation; and an equally good spirit was manifested by the 
 peers, who granted every power that the Ministers could possibly 
 require. They even went further, and rising in a body from their 
 seats, declared their devotion to their country, and their readiness 
 to give their personal services, if necessary, to repel any hostile 
 invasion. The Duke de Cadaval, President of the Chamber, was 
 the first to make this declaration: and the Minister who described 
 this proceeding to me, said it was a movement worthy of the 
 good days of Portugal!" 
 
 I have thus incidentally disposed of the supposed imputation 
 of delay in complying with the requisition of the Portuguese 
 Government. The main question, however, is this — Was it obli- 
 gatory upon us to comply with that requisition? In other words, 
 had the casus foederis arisen ? In our opinion it had. Bands of 
 Portuguese rebels, armed, equipped, and trained in Spain, had 
 crossed the Spanish frontier, carrying terror and devastation into 
 their own country, and proclaiming sometimes the brother of the 
 reigning sovereign of Portugal, sometimes a Spanish Princess, 
 and sometimes even Ferdinand of Spain, as the rightful occupant 
 of the Portuguese throne. These rebels crossed the frontier, not 
 at one point only, but at several points: for it is remarkable that 
 59 oo* 
 
450 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 the aggression, on which the original application to Great Britain 
 for succour was founded, is not the aggression with reference to 
 which that application has been complied with. 
 
 The attack announced by the French newspapers was on the 
 north of Portugal, in the province of Tras-os-Montes; an official 
 account of which has been received by His Majesty's Govern- 
 ment only this day. But on Friday an account was received of 
 an invasion in the south of Portugal, and of the capture of Villa 
 Viciosa, a town lying on the road from the southern frontier to 
 Lisbon. This new fact established even more satisfactorily than 
 a mere confirmation of the attack first complained of would have 
 done, the systematic nature of the aggression of Spain against 
 Portugal. One hostile irruption might have been made by some 
 single corps escaping from their quarters, — by some body of 
 stragglers, who might have evaded the vigilance of Spanish au- 
 thorities; and one such accidental and unconnected act of vio- 
 lence might not have been conclusive evidence of cognizance and 
 design on the part of those authorities; but when a series of at- 
 tacks are made along the whole line of a frontier, it is difficult to 
 deny that such multiplied instances of hostility are evidence of 
 concerted aggression. 
 
 If a single company of Spanish soldiers had crossed the fron- 
 tier in hostile array, there could not, it is presumed, be a doubt as 
 to the character of that invasion. Shall bodies of men, armed, 
 clothed, and regimented by Spain, carry fire and sword into the 
 bosom of her unoffending neighbour, and shall it be pretended 
 that no attack, no invasion has taken place, because, forsooth, 
 these outrages are committed against Portugal by men to whom 
 Portugal had given birth and nurture.-' What petty quibbling 
 would it be to say, that an invasion of Portugal from Spain was 
 not a Spanish invasion, because Spain did not employ her own 
 troops, but hired mercenaries to effect her purpose ? And what 
 difference is it, except as aggravation, that the mercenaries in this 
 instance were natives of Portugal ? 
 
 I have already stated, and I now repeat, that it never has been 
 the wish or the pretension of the British Government to inter- 
 fere in the internal concerns of the Portuguese nation. Questions 
 of that kind the Portuguese nation must settle among themselves. 
 But if we were to admit that hordes of traitorous refugees from 
 Portugal, with Spanish arms — or arms furnished or restored to 
 them by Spanish authorities — in their hands, might put off their 
 country for one purpose, and put it on again for another — put it 
 off for the purpose of attack, and put it on again for the purpose 
 of impunity — if, I say, we were to admit this juggle, and either 
 pretend to be deceived by it ourselves, or attempt to deceive Por- 
 tugal, into a belief that there was nothing of external attack, no- 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 451 
 
 thing of foreign hostility, in such a system of aggression — such 
 pretence and attempt would perhaps be only ridiculous and con- 
 temptible; if they did not require a much more serious character 
 from being employed as an excuse for infidelity to ancient friend- 
 ship, and as a pretext for getting rid of the positive stipulations 
 of treaties. 
 
 This, then, is the case which I lay before the House of Com- 
 mons. Here is, on the one hand, an undoubted pledge of national 
 faith — not taken in a corner — not kept secret between the parties 
 — but publicly recorded amongst the annals of history, in the 
 face of the world. Here are, on the other hand, undeniable acts 
 of foreign aggression, perpetrated, indeed, principally through 
 the instrumentality of domestic traitors; but supported with for- 
 eign means, instigated by foreign councils, and directed to foreign 
 ends. Putting these facts and this pledge together, it is impossi- 
 ble that His Majesty should refuse the call that has been made 
 upon him; nor can Parliament, I am convinced, refuse to enable 
 His Majesty to fulfil his undoubted obligations. I am willing to 
 rest the whole question of to-night, and to call for the vote of the 
 House of Commons upon this simple case, divested altogether of 
 collateral circumstances; from which I especially wish to separate 
 it, in the minds of those who hear me, and also in the minds of 
 others, to whom what I now say will find its way. If I were to 
 sit down this moment, without adding another word, I have no 
 doubt but that I should have the concurrence of the House in the 
 Address which I mean to propose. 
 
 When I state this, it will be obvious to the House, that the vote 
 for which I am about to call upon them, is a vote for the defence 
 of Portugal, not a vote for war against Spain. I beg the House 
 to keep these two points entirely distinct in their consideration. 
 For the former I think I have said enough. If, in what I have 
 now farther to say, I should bear hard upon the Spanish Govern- 
 ment, I beg that it may be observed, that, unjustifiable as I shall 
 show their conduct to have been — contrary to the law of nations, 
 contrary to the law of good neighbourhood, contrary, I might 
 say, to the laws of God and man — with respect to Portugal — still 
 I do not mean to preclude a locus poenitentix, a possibility of re- 
 dress and reparation. It is our duty to fly to the d"^fence of Por- 
 tugal — be the assailant who he may. And, be it remembered, 
 that, in thus fulfilling the stipulation of ancient treaties, of the ex- 
 istence and obligation of which all the world are aware, we, ac- 
 cording to the universally admitted construction of the law of na- 
 tions, neither make war upon that assailant, nor give to that as- 
 sailant, much less to any other power, just cause of war against 
 ourselves. 
 
 Sir, the present situation of Portugal is so anomalous, and the 
 
452 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 recent years of her history are crowded with events so unusual, 
 that the House will, perhaps, not think that I am unprofitably 
 wasting its time, if I take the liberty of calling its attention short- 
 ly and succinctly to those events, and to their influence on the po- 
 litical relations of Europe. It is known that the consequence of 
 the residence of the King of Portugal in Brazil, was to raise the 
 latter country from a colonial to a metropolitan condition; and that 
 from the time when the King began to contemplate his return to 
 Portugal, there grew up in Brazil a desire of independence that 
 threatened dissension, if not something like civil contest, between 
 the European and American doininions of the House of Braganza. 
 It is known also that Great Britain undertook a mediation between 
 Portugal and Brazil, and induced the King to consent to a separa- 
 tion of the two Crowns — confirming that of Brazil on the head 
 of his eldest son. The ink with which this agreement was 
 written was scarcely dry, when the unexpected death of the 
 King of Portugal produced a new state of things, which re- 
 united on the same head the two Crowns which it had been the 
 policy of England, as well as of Portugal and of Brazil to sepa- 
 rate. On that occasion, Great Britain, and another European 
 Court closely connected with Brazil, tendered advice to the Em- 
 peror of Brazil, now become King of Portugal, which advice it 
 cannot be accurately said that His Imperial Majesty followed, be- 
 cause he had decided for himself before it reached Rio de Janeiro; 
 but in conformity with which advice, though not in consequence 
 of it. His Imperial Mgjesty determined to abdicate the Crown of 
 Portugal in favour of his eldest daughter. But the Emperor of 
 Brazil had done more. What had not been foreseen — what 
 would have been beyond the province of any foreign power to 
 advise — His Imperial Majesty had accompanied his abdication of 
 the Crown of Portugal with the grant of a free constitutional char- 
 ter for that kingdom. 
 
 It has been surmised that this measure, as well as the abdication 
 which it accompanied, was the offspring of our advice. No such 
 thing — Great Britain did not suggest this measure. It is not her 
 duty nor her practice to offer suggestions for the internal regula- 
 tion of foreign states. She neither approved nor disapproved of 
 the grant of a constitutional charter to Portugal: her opinion upon 
 that grant was never required. True it is, that the instrument of 
 the constitutional charter was brought to Europe by a gentleman 
 of high trust in the service of the British Government. Sir C. 
 Stuart had gone to Brazil to negotiate the separation between that 
 country and Portugal. In addition to his character of Plenipo- 
 tentiary of Great Britain, as the mediating power, he had also 
 been invested by the King of Portugal with the character of His 
 Most Faithful Majesty's Plenipotentiary for the negotiation with 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 453 
 
 Brazil. That negotiation had been brought to a happy conclusion; 
 and therewith the British part of Sir C. Stuart's commission had 
 terminated. But Sir C. Stuart was still resident at Rio de Janeiro, 
 as the Plenipotentiary of tlie King of Portugal, for negotiating 
 commercial arrangements between Portugal and Brazil. In this 
 latter character it was, that Sir C. Stuart, on his return to Europe, 
 was requested by the Emperor of Brazil to be the bearer to Por- 
 tugal of the new constitutional charter. His Majesty's Govern- 
 ment found no fault with Sir C. Stuart for executing this commis- 
 sion: but it was immediately felt, that if Sir C. Stuart were allowed 
 to remain at Lisbon, it might appear, in the eyes of Europe, 
 that England was the contriver and imposer of the Portuguese 
 Constitution. Sir C. Stuart was, therefore, directed to return 
 home forthwith: in order that the Constitution, if carried into ef- 
 fect there, might plainly appear to be adopted by the Portuguese 
 nation itself, not forced upon them by English interference. 
 
 As to the merits, Sir, of the new Constitution of Portugal, I 
 have neither the intention, nor the right to offer any opinion. Per- 
 sonally, I may have formed one; but as an English Minister, all I 
 have to say is, — " May God prosper this attempt at the establish- 
 ment of constitutional liberty in Portugal! and may that nation 
 be found as fit to enjoy and to cherish its new-born privileges, as 
 it has often proved itself capable of discharging its duties amongst 
 the nations of the world!" 
 
 I, Sir, am neither the champion nor the critic of the Portuguese 
 Constitution. But it is admitted on all hands to have proceeded 
 from a legitimate source — a consideration which has mainly re- 
 conciled continental Europe to its establishment: and to us, as 
 Englishmen, it is recommended, by the ready acceptance which 
 it has met with from all orders of the Portuguese people. To 
 that Constitution, therefore, thus unquestioned in its origin, even 
 by those who are most jealous of new institutions — to that Con- 
 stitution, thus sanctioned in its outset by the glad and grateful ac- 
 clamations of those who are destined to live under it — to that 
 Constitution, founded on principles in a great degree similar to 
 those of our own, though differently modified — it is impossible 
 that Englishmen should not wish well. But it would not be for us 
 to force that Constitution on the people of Portugal, if they were 
 unwilling to receive it, or if any schism should exist amongst the 
 Portuguese themselves, as to its fitness and congeniality to the 
 wants and wishes of the nation. It is no business of ours to fight 
 its battles. We go to Portugal in the discharge of a sacred obli- 
 gation, contracted under ancient and modern treaties. When 
 there, nothing shall be done by us to enforce the establishment of 
 the Constitution; — but we must take care that nothing shall be 
 done by others to prevent it from being fairly carried into efi'ect. 
 
454 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 Internally, let the Portuguese settle their own affairs; but with re- 
 spect to external force, while Great Britain has an arm to raise, it 
 must be raised against the efforts of any Power that should at- 
 tempt forcibly to control the choice, and fetter the independence 
 of Portugal. 
 
 Has such been the intention of Spain ? Whether the proceed- 
 ings which have lately been practised or permitted in Spain, were 
 acts of a Government exercising the usual power of prudence and 
 foresight, (without which, a Government is, for the good of the 
 people which live under it, no Government at all,) or whether 
 they were the acts of some secret illegitimate Power — of some 
 furious fanatical faction, over-riding the counsels of the ostensible 
 Government, defying it in the capital, and disobeying it on the 
 frontiers — I will not stop to inquire. It is indifferent to Portugal, 
 smarting under her wrongs — it is indifferent to England, who is 
 called upon to avenge them — whether the present state of things 
 be the result of the intrigues of a faction, over which, if the 
 Spanish Government has no control, it ought to assume one as 
 soon as possible — or of local authorities, over whom it has con- 
 trol, and for whose acts it must, therefore, be held responsible. It 
 matters not, I say, from which of these sources the evil has arisen, 
 In either case, Portugal must be protected; and from England that 
 protection is due. 
 
 It would be unjust, however, to the Spanish Government, to 
 say, that it is only amongst the members of that Government that 
 an unconquerable hatred of liberal institutions exists in Spain. 
 However incredible the phenomenon may appear in this couutry, 
 I am persuaded that a vast majority of the Spanish nation enter- 
 tain a decided attachment to arbitrary power, and a predilection 
 for absolute government. The more liberal institutions of coun- 
 tries in the neighbourhood have not yet extended their influence 
 into Spain, nor awakened any sympathy in the mass of the Span- 
 ish people. Whether the public authorities of Spain did or did 
 not partake of the national sentiment, there would almost neces- 
 sarily grow up between Portugal and Spain, under present cir- 
 cumstances, an opposition of feelings, which it would not require 
 the authority or the suggestions of the Government to excite and 
 stimulate into action. Without blame, therefore, to the Govern- 
 ment of Spain, — out of the natural antipathy between the two 
 neighbouring nations — the one prizing its recent freedom, the 
 other hugging its traditionary servitude — there might arise mu- 
 tual provocations, and reciprocal injuries which, perhaps, even the 
 most active and vigilant ministry could not altogether restrain. I 
 am inclined to believe that such has been, in part at least, the ori- 
 gin of the differences between Spain and Portugal. That in their 
 progress they have been adopted, matured, methodized, combined, 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 455 
 
 and brought into more perfect action, by some authority more 
 united and more efficient than the mere feehng disseminated 
 through the mass of the community, is certain; but I do believe 
 their origin to have been as much in the real sentiment of the 
 Spanish population, as in the opinion or contrivance of the Gov- 
 ernment itself. 
 
 Whether this be or be not the case, is precisely the question 
 between us and Spain. If, though partaking in the general feel- 
 ings of the Spanish nation, the Spanish Government has, never- 
 theless, done nothing to embody those feelings, and to direct 
 them hostilely against Portugal; if all that has occurred on the 
 frontiers, has occurred only because the vigilance of the Spanish 
 Government has been surprised, its confidence betrayed, and its 
 orders neglected — if its engagements have been repeatedly and 
 shamefully violated, not by its own good will, but against its re- 
 commendation and desire — let us see some symptoms of disap- 
 probation, some signs of repentance, some measures indicative of 
 sorrow for the past, and of sincerity for the future. In that case, 
 His Majesty's Message, to which I propose this night to return 
 an answer of concurrence, will retain the character which I have 
 ascribed to it, — that of a measure of defence for Portugal, not a 
 measure of resentment against Spain. 
 
 With these explanations and qualifications, let us now proceed 
 to the review of facts. Great desertions took place from the Por- 
 tuguese army into Spain, and some desertions took place from the 
 Spanish army into Portugal. In the first instance, the Portuguese 
 authorities were taken by surprise; but, in every subsequent in- 
 stance, where they had an opportunity of exercising a discretion, 
 it is but just to say, that they uniformly discouraged the deser- 
 tions of the Spanish soldiery. — There exists between Spain and 
 Portugal specific treaties, stipulating the mutual surrender of de- 
 serters. Portugal had, therefore, a right to claim of Spain that 
 every Portuguese deserter should be forthwith sent back. I 
 hardly know whether from its own impulse, or in consequence 
 of our advice, the Portuguese Government waved its right under 
 those treaties; very wisely reflecting, that it would be highly in- 
 convenient to be placed by the return of their deserters, in the 
 difficult alternative of either granting a dangerous amnesty, or 
 ordering numerous executions. The Portuguese Government, 
 therefore, signified to Spain that it would be entirely satisfied if, 
 instead of surrendering the deserters, Spain would restore their 
 arms, horses, and equipments; and, separating the men from their 
 ofticers, would remove both from the frontiers into the interior 
 of Spain. Solemn engagements wei'e entered into by the Spanish 
 Government to this effect — first with Portugal, next with France, 
 and afterwards with England. Those engagements, concluded one 
 
456 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 day, were violated the next. The deserters, instead of being dis- 
 armed and dispersed, were allowed to remain congregated to- 
 gether near the frontiers of Portugal; where they were enrolled, 
 trained, and disciplined, for the expedition which they have since 
 undertaken. It is plain that in these proceedings, there was per- 
 fidy somewhere. It rests with the Spanish Government to show, 
 that it was not with them. It rests with the Spanish Government 
 to prove, that if its engagements have not been fulfilled — if its 
 intentions have been eluded and unexecuted, the fault has not been 
 with the Government; and that it is ready to make every repara- 
 ion in its power. 
 
 I have said that these promises were made to France and to 
 Great Britain, as well as to Portugal. I should do a great injus- 
 tice to France if I were not to add, that the representations of 
 that Government upon this point with the Cabinet of Madrid, 
 have been as urgent, and, alas! as fruitless, as those of Great 
 Britain. Upon the first irruption into the Portuguese territory, 
 the French Government testified its displeasure by instantly re- 
 calling its Ambassador; and it further directed its Charge d'Af- 
 faires to signify to His Catholic Majesty, that Spain was not to 
 look for any support from France against the consequences of 
 this aggression upon Portugal. I am bound, I repeat, in justice 
 to the French Government, to state, that it has exerted itself to 
 the utmost, in urging Spain to retrace the steps which she has so 
 unfortunately taken. It is not for me to say whether any more 
 efficient course might have been adopted to give efiect to their ex- 
 hortations: but as to the sincerity and good faith of the exertions 
 made by the Government of France, to press Spain to the execu- 
 tion of her engagements, I have not the shadow of a doubt: — 
 and I confidently reckon upon their continuance. 
 
 It will be for Spain, upon knowledge of the step now taken by 
 His Majesty, to consider in what way she will meet it. The 
 earnest hope and wish of His Majesty's Government is, that she 
 may meet it in such a manner as to avert any ill consequences to 
 herself, from the measure into which we have been driven by the 
 unjust attack upon Portugal. 
 
 Sir, I set out with saying, that there were reasons which en- 
 tirely satisfied my judgment that nothing short of a point of na- 
 tional faith or national honour, would justify at the present mo- 
 ment, any voluntary approximation to the possibility of war. Let 
 me be understood, however, distinctly, as not meaning to say that 
 I dread war in a good cause, (and in no other may it be the lot 
 of this country ever to engage!) from a distrust of the strength 
 of the country to commence it, or of her resources to maintain 
 it. I dread it, indeed — but upon far other grounds: I dread it 
 from an apprehension of the tremendous consequences which 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 457 
 
 might arise from any hostilities in which we might now be en- 
 gaged. Some years ago, in the discussion of the negotiations 
 respecting the French war against Spain, I took the liberty of 
 adverting to this topic. I then stated that the position of this 
 country in the present state of the world, was one of neutrality, 
 not only between contending nations, but between conflicting prin- 
 ciples; and that it was by neutrality alone that we could maintain 
 that balance, the preservation of which, I believed to be essential 
 to the welfare of mankind. I then said, that I feared that the 
 next war which should be kindled in Europe, would be a war not 
 so much of armies, as of opinions. Not four years have elapsed, 
 and behold my apprehension realized! It is, to be sure, within 
 narrow limits that this war of opinion is at present conlined: but 
 it is a war of opinion, that Spain, (whether as Government or as 
 nation) is now waging against Portugal; it is a war which has 
 commenced in hatred of the new institutions of Portugal. How 
 long is it reasonable to expect that Portugal will abstain from re- 
 taliation ? If into that war this country shall be compelled to en- 
 ter, we shall enter into it, with a sincere and anxious desire to 
 mitigate rather than exasperate — and to mingle only in the 
 conflict of arms, not in the more fatal conflict of opinions. But 
 I much fear that this country, (however earnestly she inay en- 
 deavour to avoid it,) could not, in such case, avoid seeing ranked 
 under her banners all the restless and dissatisfied of any nation 
 with which she might come in conflict. It is the contemplation 
 of this new power in any future war, which excites my most 
 anxious apprehension. It is one thing to have a giant's strength, 
 but it would be another to use it like a giant. The consciousness 
 of such strength is, undoubtedly a source of confidence and se- 
 curity; but in the situation in which this country stands, our 
 business is not to seek opportunities of displaying it, but to con- 
 tent ourselves with letting the professors of violent and exagge- 
 rated doctrines on both sides feel, that it is not their interest to 
 convert an umpire into an adversary. The situation of England, 
 amidst the struggle of political opinions which agitates more or 
 less sensibly different countries of the world, may be compared 
 to that of the Ruler of the Winds, as described by the poet: — 
 
 " Celsa, sedet J<]olus arce, 
 
 Sceptra tenens ; mollitque animos et temperat iras ; 
 Ni faciat, maria ac terras coelumque profundum 
 Quippe ferant rapidi secum, verrantque per auras." 
 
 The consequence of letting loose the passions at present chained 
 and confined, would be to produce a scene of desolation which 
 no man can contemplate without horror; and I should not sleep 
 easy on my couch, if I were conscious that I had contributed to 
 precipitate it by a single moment. 
 60 pp 
 
458 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 This, then, is the reason — a reason very different from fear — 
 the reverse of a consciousness of disability — why I dread the re- 
 currence of hostilities in any part of Europe; why I would bear 
 much, and would forbear long; why I would (as I have said) put 
 up with almost any thing that did not touch national faith and 
 national honour; — rather than let slip the furies of war, the leash 
 of which we hold in our hands — not knowing whom they may 
 reach, or how far their ravages may be carried. Such is the love 
 of peace which the British Government acknowledges; and such 
 the necessity for peace which the circumstances of the world in- 
 culcate. I will push these topics no farther. 
 
 I return, in conclusion, to the object of the Address. Let us 
 fly to the aid of Portugal, by whomsoever attacked; because it 
 is our duty to do so: and let us cease our interference where that 
 duty ends. We go to Portugal not to rule, not to dictate, not to 
 prescribe constitutions — but to defend and to preserve the inde- 
 pendence of an ally. We go to plant the standard of England 
 on the well-known heights of Lisbon. Where that standard is 
 planted, foreign dominion shall not come. 
 
 The Speaker read the Address, which was received with much applause, 
 and put the question that it be adopted. 
 
 Sir Robert Wilson — No man was more fully persuaded than himself, that, 
 on an occasion like the present, His Majesty was actuated by the just pride of 
 a British King, conscious that he was ruling a people who esteemed the main- 
 tenance of good faith and national honour the brightest gem of his Crown. 
 As, however, the King could only act by his confidential advisers, he (Sir R. 
 W.) felt great anxiety upon this subject, and knowing, as he did, the unexam- 
 pled treachery and continued aggressions by Spain upon Portugal, he had been 
 unable to control his impatience, and had, therefore, given notice of a motion, 
 the chief object of which was to obtain information. After the statement of 
 to-night, proving at once the vigour, decision, and energy of Ministers, his 
 anxiety only was, to see them carry their own purposes into execution, and 
 thus save him the pain of an accusatory attack. At the same time, he thought 
 Great Britain was bound to require of France that siie should march her troops 
 out of Spain, as a first step to the defence of Portugal. She had entered 
 Spain merely to release the King, and to restore peace, and that object had 
 long ago been accomplished. 
 
 Mr. Hume opposed the Address, principally on the ground that this country 
 was not in a situation to enter tipon, and long maintain a war on a great scale. 
 He further contended, that war should not be entered into, unless a strong case 
 of necessity was made out. He had the admission of the right honourable 
 gentleman for saying this, and it was highly inconsistent in him, who was the 
 advocate of this doctrine in 1823, to precipitate the country into a war now, 
 without cither affording sufficient time for deliberation, or establishing a case 
 of unavoidable necessity to enter into it. The honourable member moved an 
 amendment, " that the House be called over this day week." 
 Mr. Wood, (of Preston,) seconded the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Baring observed, that when the possibility of our being soon engaged 
 in a war came to be considered, he had much dreaded the hazard of being 
 plunged into a war on one day, which the country might have to lament on an- 
 other; and he had been most anxious that some means of evasion could have 
 
AFFAIRS OF FORTUCiAL. 459 
 
 been found out, by which war might liave been avoided. But, such a very 
 strong case had been made out, that he was not surprised at the approbation 
 with which the proposition of this night had been almost unanimously received. 
 He asked what great nation had ever accomplished any valuable purpose by an 
 over submissive and pusillanimous policy ! They need not talk to him about 
 a property tax, and bank restriction acts. The question was, whether our faith 
 was bound? and if it was, then we must fulfil our obligations. If the House 
 had the baseness to declare itself broken-hearted, and afraid of war, sure be 
 was that such a resolution would be disgusting and revolting to the feelings of 
 the country. But still he confessed he could not understand how we could 
 fully discharge our duty to Portugal, and yet avoid committing aggressions on 
 Spain. Suppose Government were to send out Mina with a train of artillery, 
 would not that be an aggression on Spain ! In addition to the general question, 
 as one of public faith, there was another consideration important to this country. 
 No doubt we were bound to Portugal by solemn engagements, from which, 
 whether burthensome or not, it was impossible for us at this moment to release 
 ourselves. But, if we were not, it would not the less be a great essential para- 
 mount act of policy on the part of this country to maintain and uphold the in- 
 dependence of Portugal. He had viewed, with the greatest possible jealousy 
 and disgust, the state in which the Peninsula had been during the last four 
 years. He could not help regretting that Government had looked so passive- 
 ly on the invasion of Spain in 1823. If, at that time, the same resolution 
 had been shown in the case of Spain, as was at this time in the case of Portu- 
 gal, Europe would have been saved from that calamity, into which, at some 
 time or other, he firmly believed that invasion would draw it. The French 
 Minister, it appeared, had left Madrid; all the forms had been duly gone 
 through ; the only question was, the sincerity of the French Government. He 
 suspected there was a party behind, whether French or Russian, he knew not, 
 telling the Spanish party, "Never mind what we say, we are really your 
 friends and will back you." Whether France was sincere or not, it was the 
 duty of the British Government to take the course that good faith marked 
 out to it. The resources of the country had been alluded to ; but that was a 
 question which, on such an occasion as this, could never be raised while the 
 country remained a power worth speaking of. When a case was fairly made 
 out, involving our honour, it was impossible to suffer any consideration to be 
 put in competition with it. But he could not view the possession of Spain by 
 France, continued year after year, without feeling that it was extremely dan- 
 gerous to this country. Spain was evidently just as far from getting rid of her 
 subjection to France, as she was the first year of her occupation. If, then, 
 this country suffered the invasion of Portugal, the whole coast of the Penin- 
 sula would fall under the influence of France ; and thus Portugal, through 
 Spain, and Spain through France, would be under subjection to that power 
 from which England had the most dread. The friendly disposition of any 
 country was but a bad security for the national interests of this. We had the 
 assurance of France that that power would remain at peace; but that was 
 what he would not be satisfied with. Could he trust to the family of Bourbon 
 to refrain from effecting that which had constituted the highest object of the 
 ambition of Louis XIV., and afterwards of Napoleon, and which at this time 
 seemed almost secured to them by accident, perhaps, but he believed also in 
 some degree by design T To what degree the war, once commenced, might 
 spread, in point of expense and extent, there was no saying beforehand. He 
 did not apprehend it would be of any very enormous description; and when 
 the House bore in mind the taxes repealed since the conclusion of the war, he 
 denied that the pressure at this time could be such as to render us incapable of 
 bearing the burthens war would bring upon us. The right honourable gentle- 
 man, he was satisfied, had taken the only course that was open to him. 
 
460 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 Mr. Bankes, senior, was of opinion that tlie House sliould be assured that 
 the war was qiiile indispensable, before they rushed into it. Not all the elo- 
 quence of the right honourable Secretary had satisfied him that that was the 
 case. The disturbances in Portugal were of a political character, and connect- 
 ed with its internal arrangements. He did not shrink from war because he 
 despaired of the resources of the country, and, therefore, he would not sup- 
 port the amendment, but neither could he vote tor the original motion. 
 
 Mr. Brougham supported the Address in an eloquent and impressive speech. 
 Adverting to the ground on which the amendment was principally supported, 
 he said, " The honourable members (Messrs. Hume and Wood) must recollect, 
 and the House and the country must bear in mind, that the question is not at 
 present whether, even at the expense of your character for good faith, you will 
 consent to bear hereafter among mankind a stained reputation, and a forfeited 
 honour. The question is not whether you will do so, and by so doing avert a 
 war. I should say no, even if this choice were within your reach; but the 
 question is, whether, for a little season of miserable, insecure, precarious, dis- 
 honourable, unbearable truce — I cannot call it peace, for it has notiiing of the 
 Jionour and the comfort which make the name of peace proverbially sweet — I 
 say, the question is, whether for this wretched, precarious, disgusting, and in- 
 tolerable postponement of hostilities, you will be content hereafter to have re- 
 course to war, when war can no longer be avoided, and when its horrors will 
 fall upon you — degraded and ruined in character in the eyes of ail the nations 
 of Europe, and, what is ten thousand times worse, degraded and ruined in your 
 own. I say. Sir, degraded and ruined in reputation, and what may appear 
 worse to those to whose minds such topics do not find so easy an access, the 
 war will fall with tenfold weight upon our resources; for a small sum spent 
 now in due time, may be the means of saving us an expenditure of ten times 
 that amount, with interest — aye, and compound interest accumulated upon it. 
 The risking of a thousand men, dreadful as the alternative is, may prevent the 
 renewal of the horrors of war on a more extended scale; it may avert a war 
 in which we may have to engage hereafter with crippled resources — a war of 
 boundless expenditure, in which other powers, as well as Spain, may be pre- 
 pared to take part; a war, of which it may indeed be said, that when it is once 
 begun no man can pretend to prescribe its limits. I entirely agree in all that 
 has been said of the hazards and difficulties inseparable from war, and I was cer- 
 tainly one of those who held, some years ago, that looking to the burthens un- 
 der which this country laboured, we were under severe recognizances to keep 
 the peace. I know the severity of these burthens; but if I feel their weight — 
 if I feel apprehensive (as who must not]) of their effect, in case this most ne- 
 cessary measure — a measure which, upon all reasonable probabilities, must 
 prove effectual — should unhappily fail, I cannot but rely on those sound, en- 
 lightened, liberal, and truly English principles — principles worthy of our best 
 times, and of our most distinguished statesmen, which now govern the councils 
 of this country in her foreign policy, and inspire the eloquence of the right 
 honourable Secretary with a degree of fervour, energy, and effect, extraordi- 
 nary and unprecedented in this House — unprecedented (I can give it no higher 
 praise) even in the eloquence of the right honourable gentleman. I feel that 
 in these principles, now adopted and avowed by the organs of our Government, 
 we have a strong and impregnable bulwark, which will enable us not only to 
 support our burthens, and, should the day of trial come upon us, to meet the 
 combined world in arms, but which will aflord the strongest practical security 
 against future danger, and render it eminently improbable that we shall 
 ever have that combined world to contend with, so long as those principles are 
 maintained. Our burthens may remain, but our Government know that when 
 the voice of the people is in their favour, they have a lever, if not within their 
 hands, within their grasp. I will imitate the discretion of the Secretary, and 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 461 
 
 go no further. We know, because we have experienced, the extent of that 
 power ; our enemies that would be, but who, on this account, will not be so, 
 know it, because they see its effect here, and dread its effect among them- 
 selves. If, however, that catastrophe, which His Majesty's Ministers have 
 taken the best means to avert, and which, in all human probability, will be 
 averted, should unhappily fall upon us, whatever may be our burthens, what- 
 ever may be the difficulties with which we may have to contend, let but His 
 Majesty's Government act steadily up to the principles they have avowed, and 
 let the country but remain true to itself, and I have no fear of the rest. 
 
 Mr. Bright contended that no act of aggression against Portugal had been 
 avowed by Spain, and that consequently no casus foederis existed, and we were 
 not bound by the terms of the treaty to embark in hostilities. The occupation 
 of Portugal by 5000 men would amount to nothing more than an armed neu- 
 trality. Now, by the terms of the treaty, we were only bound to assist Por- 
 tugal in the event of actual hostilities having been commenced, and then we 
 were bound to attack Spain with all our might. 
 
 MR. CANNING'S REPLY. 
 
 I rise, Sir, for the purpose of making a few observations, not 
 so much in answer to any general arguments, as in reply to two 
 or three particular objections which have been urged against the 
 Address which I have had the honour to propose to the House. 
 
 In the first place, I frankly admit to my honourable friend (Mr. 
 Bankes,) the member for Dorsetshire, that I have understated the 
 case against Spain — I have done so designedly — I warned the 
 House that I would do so — because I wished no further to impeach 
 the conduct of Spain, than was necessary for establishing the casus 
 foederis on behalf of Portugal. To have gone further — to have 
 made a full statement of the case against Spain — would have been 
 to preclude the very object which I have in view; that of enabling 
 Spain to preserve peace without dishonour. 
 
 The honourable gentleman (Mr. Bright) who spoke last, in- 
 deed, in his extreme love for peace, proposes expedients which, 
 as it appears to me, would render war inevitable. He would avoid 
 interference at this moment, when Spain may be yet hesitating as to 
 the course which she shall adopt; and the language which he would 
 hold to Spain is, in effect, this — " You have not yet done enough 
 to implicate British faith, and to provoke British honour. You 
 have not done enough, in merely enabling Portuguese rebels to 
 invade Portugal, and to carry destruction into her cities; you have 
 not done enough in combining knots of traitors, whom, after the 
 most solemn engagements to disarm and to disperse them, you 
 carefully reassembled, and equipped and sent back with Spanish 
 arms, to be plunged into kindred Portuguese bosoms. I will no* 
 stir for all these things. Pledged though I am by the most sol- 
 emn obligations of treaty to resent attack upon Portugal as inju- 
 
 pp* 
 
4G2 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 rious to England, I love too clearly the peace of Europe to be 
 goaded into activity by such trifles as these. No. But give us a 
 good declaration of war, and then I'll come and fight you with all 
 my heart." — This is the honourable gentleman's contrivance for 
 keeping peace. The more clumsy contrivance of His Majesty's 
 Government is this: — "We have seen enough to show to the 
 world that Spain authorized, if she did not instigate, the invasion 
 of Portugal;" and we say to Spain, " Beware, we will avenge the 
 cause of our ally, if you break out into declared war; but, in the 
 mean time, we will take effectual care to frustrate your concealed 
 hostilities." I appeal to my honourable friend, the member for 
 Dorsetshire, whether he does not prefer this course of His Majes- 
 ty's Government, the object of which is to nip growing hostili- 
 ties in the ear, to that of the gallant and chivalrous member for 
 Bristol, who would let aggressions ripen into full maturity, in or- 
 der that they may then be mowed down with the scythe of a 
 magnificent war. 
 
 My honourable friend (Mr. Bankes) will now see why it is that 
 no papers have been laid before the House. The facts which call 
 for our interference in behalf of Portugal, are notorious as the 
 noon-day sun. That interference is our whole present object. To 
 prove more than is sufficient for that object, by papers laid upon 
 the table of this House, would have been to preclude Spain from 
 that locus penitentise which we are above all things desirous to 
 preserve to her. It is difficult, perhaps, with the full knowledge 
 which the Government must in such cases possess, to judge what 
 exact portion of that knowledge should be meted out for our pres- 
 ent purpose, without hazarding an exposure which might carry us 
 too far. I know not how far I have succeeded in this respect; 
 but I can assure the House, that if the time should unfortunately 
 arrive when a further exposition shall become necessary, it will 
 be found, that it was not for want of evidence that my statement 
 of this day has been defective. 
 
 An amendment has been proposed, purporting a delay of a 
 week, but in effect, intended to produce a total abandonment of 
 the object of the Address; and that amendment has been justified 
 by a reference to the conduct of the Government, and to the lan- 
 guage used by me in this House, between three or four years ago. 
 It is stated, and truly, that I did not then deny that cause for war 
 had been given by France in the invasion of Spain, if we had 
 then thought fit to enter into war on that account. But it seems 
 to be forgotten that there is one main difference between that case 
 and the present — which difference, however, is essential and all- 
 sufficient. We were then free to go war, if we pleased, on grounds 
 of political expediency. But we were not then bound to inter- 
 fere, on behalf of Spain, as we now are bound to interfere on be- 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 463 
 
 half of Portugal, by the obligations of treaty. War might then 
 have been our free choice, if we had deemed it politic: interfer- 
 ence on behalf of Portugal is now our duty, unless we are prepared 
 to abandon the principles of national faith and national honour. 
 
 It is a singular confusion of intellect which confounds two cases 
 so precisely dissimilar. Far from objecting to the reference to 
 1S23, I refer to that same occasion to show the consistency of the 
 conduct of myself and my colleagues. We were then accused of 
 truckling to France, from a pusillanimous dread of war. We 
 pleaded guilty to the charge of wishing to avoid war. We de- 
 scribed its inexpediency, its inconveniences, and its dangers — 
 (dangers, especially of the same sort with those which I have 
 hinted at to-day;) but we declared that, although we could not 
 overlook those dangers, those inconveniences, and that inexpedi- 
 ency, in a case in which remote interest and doubtful policy were 
 alone assigned as motives for war, we would cheerfully affront 
 them all, in a case — if it should arrive — where national faith or 
 national honour were concerned. Well, then, a case has now 
 arisen, of which the essence is faith — of which the character is 
 honour. And when we call upon Parliament, not for offensive 
 war — which was proposed to us in 1823 — but for defensive ar- 
 mament, we are referred to our abstinence in 1823, as disqualify- 
 ing us for exertion at the present moment: and are told, that be- 
 cause we did not attack France on that occasion, we must not 
 defend Portugal on this. I, Sir, like the proposers of the amend- 
 ment, place the two cases of 1823 and 1826, side by side, and de- 
 duce from them, when taken together, the exposition and justifi- 
 cation of our general policy. I appeal from the warlike prepara- 
 tions of to-day, to the forbearance of 1823, in proof of the pacific 
 character of our counsels; I appeal from the imputed tameness of 
 1823, to the Message of to-night, in illustration of the nature of 
 those motives, by which a Government, generally pacific, may 
 nevertheless be justly roused into action. 
 
 Having thus disposed of the objections to the Address, I come 
 next to the suggestions of some who profess themselves friendly 
 to the purpose of it, but who would carry that purpose into effect 
 by means which I certainly cannot approve. It has been suggest- 
 ed. Sir, that we should at once ship off the Spanish refugees now 
 in this country, for Spain; and that we should, by the repeal of the 
 Foreign Enlistment Act, let loose into the contest all the ardent 
 and irregular spirits of this country. Sir, this is the very sugges- 
 tion which I have anticipated with apprehension, in any war in 
 which this country might be engaged, in the present unquiet state 
 of the minds of men in Europe. These are the expedients, the 
 tremendous character of which I ventured to adumbrate rather 
 than to describe, in the speech with which I prefaced the present 
 
464 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 motion. Such expedients I disclaim. I dread and deprecate the 
 employment of them. So far, indeed, as Spain herself is con- 
 cerned, the employment of such means would be strictly, I might 
 say, epigrammatically just. The Foreign Enlistment Act was 
 passed in the year 1819, if not at the direct request, for the espe- 
 cial benefit of Spain. What right, then, would Spain have to 
 complain if we should repeal it now, for the especial benefit of 
 Portugal ? 
 
 The Spanish refugees have been harboured in this country, it 
 is true; but on condition of abstaining from hostile expeditions 
 against Spain; and more than once, when such expeditions have 
 been planned, the British Government has interfered to suppress 
 them. How is this tenderness for Spain rewarded ? Spain not 
 only harbours, and fosters, and sustains, but arms, equips, and 
 marshals the traitorous refugees of Portugal, and pours them by 
 thousands into the bosom of Great Britain's nearest ally. So far, 
 then, as Spain is concerned, the advice of those who would send 
 forth against Spain such dreadful elements of strife and destruc- 
 tion, is, as I have admitted, not unjust. But I repeat, again and 
 again, that I disclaim all such expedients; and that I dread espe- 
 cially a war with Spain, because it is the war of all others in 
 which, by the example and practice of Spain herself, such expe- 
 dients are most likely to be adopted. Let us avoid that war if we 
 can — that is, if Spain will permit us to do so. But in any case, let 
 us endeavour to strip any war — if war we must have — of that for- 
 midable and disastrous character which the honourable and learn- 
 ed gentleman (Mr. Brougham) has so eloquently described; and 
 which I was happy to hear him concur with me in deprecating, 
 as the most fatal evil by which the world could be afflicted. 
 
 Sir, there is another suggestion with which I cannot agree, al- 
 though brought forward by two honourable members (Sir R. Wil- 
 son and Mr. Baring,) who have, in the most handsome manner, 
 stated their reasons for approving of the line of conduct now pur- 
 sued by His Majesty's Government. Those honourable members 
 insist that the French army in Spain has been, if not the cause, 
 the encouragement, of the late attack by Spain against Portugal; 
 that His Majesty's Government were highly culpable in allowing 
 that army to enter Spain; that its stay there is highly injurious to 
 British interests and honour; and that we ought instantly to call 
 upon France to withdraw it. 
 
 There are. Sir, so many considerations connected with these 
 propositions, that were I to enter into them all, they would carry 
 me far beyond what is either necessary or expedient to be stated on 
 the present occasion. Enough, perhaps, it is for me to say, that I 
 do not see how the withdrawing of the French troops from Spain, 
 could effect our present purpose. I believe. Sir, that the French 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 465 
 
 army in Spain is now a protection to that very party which it was 
 originally called in to put down. Were the French army sudden- 
 ly removed at this precise moment, I verily believe that the im- 
 mediate effect of that removal would be, to give full scope to the 
 unbridled rage of a fanatical faction, before which, in the whirl- 
 wind of intestine strife, the party least in numbers would be swept 
 away. 
 
 So much for the Immediate effect of the demand which it is pro- 
 posed to us to make, if that demand were instantly successful. But 
 when, with reference to the larger question of a military occupa- 
 tion of Spain by France, it is averred, that by that occupation the 
 relative situation of Great Britain and France is altered; that 
 France is thereby exalted and Great Britain lowered, in the eyes 
 of Europe; — I must beg leave to say, that I dissent from that 
 averment. The House knows — the country knows — that when 
 the French army was on the point of entering Spain, His Majes- 
 ty's Government did all in their power to prevent it; that we re- 
 sisted it by all means, short of war. I have just now stated some 
 of the reasons why we did not think the entiy of that army into 
 Spain, a sufficient ground for war; but there was, in addition to 
 those which I have stated, this peculiar reason, — that whatever 
 effect a war, commenced upon the mere ground of the entry of a 
 French army into Spain, might have, it probably would not have 
 had the effect of getting that army out of Spain. In a war against 
 France at that time, as at any other, you might, perhaps, have ac- 
 quired military glory; you might, perhaps, have extended your 
 colonial possessions; you might even have achieved, at great cost 
 of blood and treasure, an honourable peace; but as to getting the 
 French out of Spain, 'that would have been the one object which 
 you, almost certainly, would not have accomplished. How seldom, 
 in the whole history of the wars of Europe, has any war between 
 two great Powers ended, in the obtaining of the exact, the iden- 
 tical object, for which the war was begun! 
 
 Besides, Sir, I confess I think, that the effects of the French 
 occupation of Spain have been infinitely exaggerated. 
 
 1 do not blame those exaggerations; because I am aware that 
 they are to be attributed to the recollections of some of the best 
 times of our history; that they are the echoes of sentiments, which 
 in the days of William and of Anne, animated the debates and dic- 
 tated the votes of the British Parliament. No peace was in those 
 days thought safe for this country while the crown of Spain con- 
 tinued on the head of a Bourbon. But were not the apprehen- 
 sions of those days greatly overstated ? — Has the power of Spain 
 swallowed up the power of maritime England ? — Or does Eng- 
 land still remain, after the lapse of more than a century, during 
 which the crown of Spain has been worn by a Bourbon, — niched 
 61 
 
466 king's message RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 in a nook of that same Spain — ^Gibraltar; an occupation which 
 was contemporaneous with the apprehensions that I have de- 
 scribed, and which has happily survived them? 
 
 Again, Sir — is the Spain of the present day the Spain of which 
 the statesmen of the times of William and Anne were so much 
 afraid? Is it indeed the nation whose puissance was expected to 
 shake England from her sphere ? No, Sir, it was quite another 
 Spain — it was the Spain, within the limits of whose empire the 
 sun never set — it was Spain " with the Indies^' that excited the 
 jealousies and alarmed the imaginations of our ancestors. 
 
 But then. Sir, the balance of power! — The entry of the French 
 army into Spain disturbed that balance, and we ought to have 
 gone to war to restore it! I have already said, that when the 
 French army entered Spain, we might, if we chose, have resisted 
 or resented that measure by war. But were there no other means 
 than war for restoring the balance of power? — Is the balance of 
 power a fixed and unalterable standard ? Or is it not a standard 
 perpetually varying, as civilization advances, and as new nations 
 spring up, and take their place among established political com- 
 munities? The balance of power a century and a half ago was to 
 be adjusted between France and Spain, the Netherlands, Austria, 
 and England. Some years afterwards, Russia assumed her high 
 station in European politics. Some years after that again, Prus- 
 sia became not only a substantive, but a preponderating monarchy. 
 — Thus, while the balance of power continued in principle the 
 same, the means of adjusting it became more varied and enlarged. 
 They became enlarged, in proportion to the increased number of 
 considerable states — in proportion, I may say, to the number of 
 weights which might be shifted into the one or other scale. To 
 look to the policy of Europe, in the times of William and Anne, 
 for the purpose of regulating the balance of power in Europe at 
 the present day, is to disregard the progress of events, and to 
 confuse dates and facts which throw a reciprocal light upon each 
 other. 
 
 It would be disingenuous, indeed, not to admit that the entry 
 of the French army into Spain was in a certain sense, a dispar- 
 agement — an affront to the pride — a blow to the feelings of Eng- 
 land: — and it can hardly be supposed that the Government did 
 not sympathize, on that occasion, with the feelings of the people. 
 But I deny that, questionable or censurable as the act might be, 
 it was one which necessarily called for our direct and hostile oppo- 
 sition. Was nothing then to be done? — Was there no other mode 
 of resistance, than by a direct attack upon France — or by a war 
 to be undertaken on the soil of Spain? What, if the possession of 
 Spain might be rendered harmless in rival hands — harmless as re- 
 garded us — and valueless to the possessors? Might not compensa- 
 
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 467 
 
 tion for disparagement be obtained, and the policy of our ances- 
 tors vindicated, by means better adapted to the present time? If 
 France occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoid the 
 consequences of that occupation — that we should blockade Cadiz ? 
 No. I looked another way — I sought materials of compensation 
 in another hemisphere. Contemplating Spain, such as our ances- 
 tors had known her, I resolved that if France had Spain, it should 
 not be Spain " with the IndiesP I called the New World into 
 existence, to redress the balance of the Old. 
 
 It IS thus, Sir, that I answer the accusation brought against His 
 Majesty's Government, of having allowed the French army to 
 usurp and to retain the occupation of Spain. That occupation, I 
 am quite confident, is an unpaid and unredeemed burden to France. 
 It is a burden of which, I verily believe, France would be glad to 
 rid herself. But they know little of the feelings of the French 
 Government, and of the spirit of the French nation, who do not 
 know, that, worthless or burdensome as that occupation may be, 
 the way to rivet her in it would be, by angry or intemperate rep- 
 resentations, to make the continuance of that occupation a point 
 of honour. 
 
 I believe. Sir, there is no other subject upon which I need enter 
 into defence or explanation. The support which the address has 
 received, from all parties in the House, has been such as would 
 make it both unseemly and ungrateful in me to trespass unneces- 
 sarily upon their patience. In conclusion, Sir, I shall only once 
 more declare, that the object of the Address, which I propose to 
 you, is not war: — its object is to take the last chance of peace. 
 If you do not go forth, on this occasion, to the aid of Portugal, 
 Portugal will be trampled down, to your irretrievable disgrace: — 
 and then will come war in the train of national degradation. If, 
 under circumstances like these, you wait till Spain has matured 
 her secret machinations into open hostility, you will in a little 
 while have the sort of war required by the pacificators: — and 
 who shall say where that war shall end ? 
 
 The Amendment was then put and negatived, there appearing only three or 
 four supporters for Mr. Hume's proposition; and the original question was then 
 put and carried, with only the same number of dissentients. 
 
468 
 
 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT LIVERPOOL AFTER HAVING BEEN CHAIRED, ON SATURDAY, 
 THE 17th OP OCTOBER, 1812. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I congratulate you on your final success; for it is your victory, 
 and not mine. The contest has been a contest of principles, not 
 of persons; although I should belie my own feelings if I were 
 not to confess, that, to the latest hour of my life, I shall be proud 
 that the battle has been fought in my person, and that my name 
 has been associated with your exertions, and illustrated by your 
 triumph. You, gentlemen, have done me the honour to select 
 me, not, undoubtedly, for any individual merits of my own, (I 
 know that I can pretend to none,) but in order that, by returning 
 me to represent your opinions in Parliament, you might vindi- 
 cate the freedom of your choice, the loyalty of your principles, 
 and the consistency of your character. 
 
 Gentlemen, I wish that those theorists of reform, who think 
 nothing right in the practice of our Constitution, could witness 
 the scene which I have now the delight to survey: those who 
 presume that every popular feeling must belong to themselves 
 alone; who imagine that a zealous and ardent exercise of popular 
 rights, and an enthusiastic expression of popular sentiments, are 
 incompatible with an equally enthusiastic attachment to all the 
 monarchical principles of the Constitution. When will such men 
 learn, that what they call exclusively popular principles are not 
 the princi])les of the people? Can they look this day at the 
 peaceful triumph of Liverpool, as they have looked for the last 
 three years at the glorious and bloody struggles of Spain, and yet 
 doubt the possibility of a combination of all that is national in 
 feeling, with all that is loyal in principle; of a spirit of democ- 
 racy sufficient to give energy to a state, with a devotedness to 
 monarchy sufficient to secure its conservation ? 
 
 Gentlemen, some persons have endeavoured to persuade you, 
 that in giving your suffrages to a man who has been the uniform 
 supporter of a war, glorious in itself, but only glorious inasmuch 
 as it is necessary and unavoidable, you are deferring the day of 
 peace. Fortunately, for the clear understanding of such reason- 
 ings, they have sometimes been coupled with prophecy. Let us 
 compare, where we have an opportunity, what has happened with 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 469 
 
 what was foretold; and then judge what weight is to be assigned 
 to the same reasonings in future. 
 
 The honourable gentleman (Mr. Brougham) who left your 
 hustings yesterday, (of whom, as an individual, I have spoken, 
 and mean to speak with the utmost respect,) on or about the 16th 
 of last June, proposed, in the House of Commons, a specific con- 
 cession to America; and pledged himself, that if that concession 
 were made, peace would be preserved or restored. By a singular 
 coincidence, on or about the same day on which that motion was 
 made, the declaration of war by America against Great Britain 
 passed the Senate of the United States. 0! but the concession 
 was to heal all. The Ministers, whether swayed by the honour- 
 able gentleman's eloquence, or participating in his expectations, I 
 know not, gave way; and the concession was made. Confident, 
 from this triumph, as might naturally be expected, the honoura- 
 ble gentleman, the prophet of American reconciliation, presents 
 himself (I ought rather to say, is presented, by some among you) 
 to be chosen as your representative in Parliament. Yesterday he 
 left your town, disappointed of this honourable object: and, by 
 another singular coincidence, the defeat of the prophecy upon 
 which his expectations were founded, is made known here on the 
 very day of the defeat of those expectations. For, yesterday, 
 the declaration, the tardy declaration of war by this country 
 against America, arrives here; and tells us, in terms too plain to 
 be misunderstood, that to seek peace through humiliation, is a 
 course neither of honour nor of advantage. 
 
 It has been further attempted to deter you from the choice, 
 which you have done me the honour to make, by saying that I 
 had been in office, and am likely to be in office again. I have 
 been in office. How soon, if ever I may be in office again, I 
 neither know, nor do I very much care, for any other reason than 
 as it might afford me greater opportunities of promoting the in- 
 terests of the country, of which your interests constitute so es- 
 sential a part. 
 
 But, gentlemen, what is meant by this imputation ? Are they 
 who urge it so little read in the principles, the democratical prin- 
 ciples, of the British Constitution, as not to know that it is one 
 of the peculiar boasts of this country, one of the prime fruits of 
 its free Constitution, and one main security for its continuing 
 free, that men as humble as myself, with no pretensions of wealth, 
 or title, or high family, or wide-spreading connexions, may yet 
 find their way into the Cabinet of their Sovereign, through the 
 fair road of public service, and stand there upon a footing of 
 equality with the proudest aristocracy of the land ? 
 
 Is it from courtiers of the people, from admirers of republican 
 virtue and republican energy, that we hear doctrines which would 
 
 QQ 
 
470 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 tend to exclude from the management of public affairs all who are 
 not illustrious by birth, or powerful from hereditary opulence? 
 Why, gentlemen, in this limited monarchy, there are undoubt- 
 edly contests for office, contests which agitate the elements of 
 the Constitution, and which keep them alive and active, without 
 endangering the Constitution itself. A republic is nothing but 
 one continual struggle for office in every department of the state. 
 
 Mad, indeed, and desperate would be the reform which should 
 exclude from the House of Commons, as some ignorant theorists 
 advise, every man who has possessed, or who possesses office: 
 separating thereby the service of the Crown from that of the 
 people; as if they were not identified in interests, and mutually 
 dependant on each other. 
 
 Gentlemen, if I have held office, I hope I have held it honour- 
 ably: I will never hold it again but on the same terms. It is not 
 my fault that I must state facts, in my own defence, which might 
 appear to be stated ostentatiously; but I mean them simply as 
 defensive. It is entirely my own fault, gentlemen, that I am not 
 now addressing you with the seals of Secretary of State in my 
 pocket. Twice, in the course of the last six months, have the 
 seals of the office of Secretary of State been tendered to my ac- 
 ceptance; and twice have I declined them. Is this like hanker- 
 ing after office? I declined them, not because I was unwilling to 
 render any services of which my poor abilities were capable to 
 my country; not because I did not acknowledge, with all due 
 gratitude and humility, the gracious disposition of my Prince; 
 not because I shrink from the difficulties of the times, to the en- 
 countering and overcoming of which I should feel myself, from 
 the public situation in which I have had the honour to stand, 
 bound to render whatever aid was in my power, if I could do so 
 with effect, by doing so with credit. I declined office, gentlemen, 
 because it was tendered to me on terms not consistent, as I 
 thought, and as my immediate friends agreed in thinking, with 
 my personal honour; because, if accepted on such terms, it 
 would not have enabled me to serve the public with efficiency. 
 
 Gentlemen, I presume not to trouble you with any details upon 
 this subject; but what I have stated, and what is before the 
 world, is, I hope, sufficient to justify me against the accusation 
 of hankering after office. Whether you will ever see me in of- 
 fice again, I cannot tell; but of this I can assure you, that it shall 
 not be in a way dishonourable to myself or to you. I dare not, 
 indeed, reckon upon the continuance of such unmerited partiality 
 and affection as you now so kindly heap upon me; but this I can 
 answer for, that neither in nor out of office, shall you have cause 
 to be ashamed of me. 
 
 Gentlemen, I stated to you, two nights ago, my opinion of the 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 471 
 
 conduct of my adversary, Mr. Brougham, in determining, at that 
 time, not to decline the contest. I told you, that I thought he 
 could not do otherwise than act upon the opinions and persua- 
 sions of his friends; and that he had explained his motives with 
 the utmost candour and fairness. I think so still. I myself know 
 nothing to the contrary. But I have certainly heard, that speeches 
 delivered in another place were very different, indeed, from those 
 which were delivered at the hustings. And, while I beg not to 
 be understood as intending to give any colour of my own to ex- 
 pressions which I did not hear, and cannot vouch for, there is 
 one topic, which is represented as having made considerable im- 
 pression, which I owe it to the Government of the country (how- 
 ever myself unconnected with it) not to suffer to pass unnoticed. 
 The declaration of war against America has, as I am informed, 
 been stated to have been delayed by the Government of this 
 country for the sake of sweeping into the royal chest a lai'ge sum 
 of the Droits of Admiralty, to be disposed of at the pleasure of 
 Ministers, for purposes of prodigality and corruption. Gentle- 
 men, I would fain believe that this assertion cannot have been 
 made. An account of the distribution of the Droits of Admi- 
 ralty has, as is well known, been submitted to the House of Com- 
 mons the last two years; and, surely, to attribute a measure of 
 peace or war to a desire on the part of Government to disappoint 
 our own captors, for the sake of getting possession of a sum, of 
 which the disposal is, after all, to be made public, is to attribute 
 motives not only altogether unworthy, but utterly inadequate 
 and absurd. 
 
 I say this the rather, because I must fairly own, that differing 
 as I do entirely as to the causes to which the delay is to be attrib- 
 uted, I am inclined to agree that the declaration of war against 
 America has been delayed too long. When all hopes of preserv- 
 ing peace were vanished, nothing remained, in my opinion, for 
 this Government but prompt and vigorous war. It was the only 
 course becoming this great country. It would have afforded the 
 best chance of bringing the American Government to their senses. 
 
 The opinions which I now express are in unison with those 
 which I took the liberty of expressing in my place in Parliament, 
 when that concession was agreed to by the Ministers, at Mr. 
 Brougham's suggestion, upon the strength of which Mr. Broug- 
 ham has been presented to your choice. I then ventured to state 
 my doubts, whether that concession would propitiate America; 
 whether it would not rather tend to confirm the hostile policy of 
 that Government, and to enhance its pretensions. In fact, how 
 is it that our concession has been met? By reciprocal concession, 
 by abated pride, assuaged malice, and returning good-will ? No 
 such thing. They have risen in their terms, as unreasonable con- 
 
472 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 cession will always induce and encourage an unreasonable enemy 
 to do. 
 
 Gentlemen, you see that I speak to you as freely of the con- 
 duct and policy of our Government as of the conduct of those to 
 whom I am politically opposed. To one man, while he lived, I 
 was devoted with all my heart and with all my soul. Since the 
 death of Mr. Pitt, I acknowledge no leader. My political alle- 
 giance lies buried in his grave. But I have, though not his im- 
 mediate counsels to follow, his memory to cherish and revere. 
 So far as I knew his opinions, on subjects which were, in his 
 time, as well as now, of great public interest, I have adhered and 
 shall adhere to those opinions as the guides of my public con- 
 duct. Where I can only reason from analogy on new questions 
 which may arise, I shall endeavour to apply to those questions, 
 whatever they may be, the principles which I imbibed and in- 
 herit from him; principles which, I well know, have alone re- 
 commended me to your choice this day. 
 
 Of the cause of good government, in whatever hands the ad- 
 ministration of Government may be placed, even if in the hands 
 of those to whom I have been politically opposed, I shall always 
 be a faithful and steady supporter. But I do not pledge myself 
 to you, I will never pledge myself to any man, to be the blind 
 and subservient supporter of the Administration in any hands 
 whatever. My general disposition is to support the Government. 
 What I find amiss, however, I shall blame with freedom; though 
 I will not do so with any intention to excite discontent, nor at 
 the hazard of mischief to the country. 
 
 Gentlemen, if I did not retain the independence of my own 
 judgment in the House of Commons, I should be but an un- 
 worthy representative of the independent and enlightened com- 
 munity which sends me thither. It may happen, that your judg- 
 ment may occasionally come in conflict with my own. Men of 
 independent minds may honestly differ on subjects which admit 
 of a variety of views. In all such cases, I promise you, not in- 
 deed wholly to submit my judgment to yours; you would despise 
 me if I made so extravagcnt a confession; but I promise you that 
 any difference of opinion between us will always lead me to dis- 
 trust my own views, carefully to examine, and, if erroneous, 
 frankly to correct them. Gentlemen, our judgments may clash, 
 but our interest never: no interests of mine shall ever come in 
 competition with yours. I promise you further, that, hoping, as 
 I earnestly do, that the connexion, of which the foundation is this 
 day auspiciously laid, may last to the end of my political life — 
 yet if, unfortunately, occasions should occur, (I cannot foresee or 
 imagine any such,) ou which there should arise between us, on 
 points of serious importance, a radical and irreconcilable differ- 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 473 
 
 ence of opinion, I will not abuse my trust, but will give you the 
 earliest opportunity of recalling or reconsidering your delegation 
 of it. 
 
 Gentlemen, with the most heartfelt acknowledgment; with 
 feelings of gratitude which words are too weak to convey, and 
 of pride, which I dare not trust myself with expressing; with a 
 sense of the honour which you have conferred upon me, less 
 gratifying only than my sense of the kindness with which you 
 have overwhelmed me; with sentiments such as till this day I 
 never knew, but which I shall recollect with delight until the 
 latest hour of my life, I take my leave of you for the present; 
 praying that Providence may so direct my conduct as never to 
 give you cause, in your better judgment, to look back with re- 
 gret upon the choice which you have made. 
 
 62 QQ^ 
 
474 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ON MONDAY, THE IOtH OF JANUARY, 1814, AT THE LIVERPOOL 
 
 , arms hotel, after his health had been drunk. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 As your guest, I thank you, from my heart, for the honourable 
 and affectionate reception which you have given me. As the 
 representative of Liverpool, I am most happy in meeting my 
 constituents again, after a year's experience of each other, and a 
 year's separation; a year, the most eventful in the annals of the 
 world, and comprising, within itself, such a series of stupendous 
 changes as might have filled the history of an age. 
 
 Gentlemen, you have been so good as to couple with my name 
 the expression of your acknowledgments for the attention which 
 I have paid to the interests of your town. You, gentlemen, I 
 have no doubt, recollect the terms upon which I entered into 
 your service; and you are aware, therefore, that I claim no par- 
 ticular acknowledgment at your hands for attention to the inter- 
 ests of Liverpool, implicated as they are with the general inter- 
 ests of the country. I trust, at the same time, that I have not 
 been wanting to all or to any of you, in matters of local or indi- 
 vidual concern. But I should not do fairly by you, if I were 
 not to take this opportunity of saying, that a service (which cer- 
 tainly, I will not pretend to describe as without some burden in 
 itself) has been made light to me, beyond all example, by that 
 institution which your munificence and provident care have estab- 
 lished: I mean, the office in London, through which your corres- 
 pondence with your members is now carried on. I had no preten- 
 sion, gentlemen, to this singular mark of your consideration: but 
 neither will it, I hope, be thought presumptuous in me to confess, 
 that I might not have been able to discharge the service which I 
 owe you in a way which would have satisfied my own feelings as 
 well as yours — that I might, in spite of all my endeavours, have 
 been guilty of occasional omissions, if I had not been provided 
 with some such medium of communication with my constituents. 
 Of an absent and meritorious individual it is as pleasing as it is 
 just to speak well: and I do no more than justice to the gentle- 
 man (Mr. John Backhouse) whom you have appointed to conduct 
 the office in question, (with whom I had no previous acquaint- 
 ance,) in bearing public testimony to his merit, and in assuring 
 you, that it would be difficult to find any one who would surpass 
 him in zeal, intelligence, and industry. 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 475 
 
 Having despatched what it was necessary for me to say on 
 these points, I know, gentlemen, that it is your wish, and I feel it 
 to be my duty, that I should now proceed to communicate to you 
 my sentiments on the state of public affairs, with the same frank- 
 ness which has hitherto distinguished all our intercourse with 
 each other. That duty is one which it does not now require any 
 effort of courage to perform. To exhort to sacrifices, to stimu- 
 late to exertion, to shame despondency, to divert from untimely 
 concession, is a duty of a sterner sort, which you found me not 
 backward to discharge, at a period when, from the shortness of 
 our acquaintance, I was uncertain whether my freedom might not 
 offend you. My task of to-day is one at which no man can take 
 offence. It is to mingle my congratulations with your rejoicings 
 on the events which have passed and are passing in the world. 
 
 If, in contemplating events so widely (I had almost said so tre- 
 mendously) important, it be pardonable to turn one's view, for a 
 moment, to local and partial considerations, I may be permitted 
 to observe, that, while to Great Britain, while to all Europe, while 
 to the world and to posterity, the events which have recently 
 taken place are matter of unbounded and universal joy, there is 
 no collection of individuals who are better entitled than the com- 
 pany now assembled in this room (in great part, I presume, iden- 
 tically the same, and altogether representing the same interests 
 and feelings as that of which I took leave, in this room, about 
 fourteen months ago) to exult in the present state of things, and 
 to derive from it, in addition to their share of the general joy, a 
 distinct and special satisfaction. 
 
 We cannot forget, gentlemen, the sinister omens and awful pre- 
 dictions under which we met and parted in October, 1812. The 
 penalty denounced upon you for your election of me was, embar- 
 rassment to the rich, and famine to the poor. I was warned, that, 
 when I should return to renew my acquaintance with my constit- 
 uents, I should find the grass growing in your streets. In spite 
 of that denunciation, you did me the honour to elect me; in spite 
 of that warning, I venture to meet you here again. It must be 
 fairly confessed, that this is not the season of the year to estimate 
 correctly the amount of superfluous and unprofitable vegetation 
 with which your streets may be teeming; but, without presuming 
 to limit the power of productive nature, it is at least satisfactory 
 to know, that the fields have not been starved to clothe your quays 
 with verdure; that it is not by economizing in the scantiness of 
 the harvest that nature has reserved her vigour for the pastures 
 of your Exchange. 
 
 But, gentlemen, I am sure you feel with me, that these are 
 topics which I treat with levity only because they are not, nor 
 were, at the time when they were seriously urged, susceptible of 
 
476 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 a serious argument; they did not furnish grounds on which any 
 man would rest his appeal to your favour, or on which your choice 
 of any man could be justified. If I have condescended to revert 
 to them at all, it is because I would leave none of those recollec- 
 tions untouched which the comparison of our last meeting with 
 the present, I know, suggests to your minds as well as to my own; 
 and because I would, so far as in me lies, endeavour to banish 
 from all future use, by exposing their absurdity, topics which are 
 calculated only to mislead and to inflame. That the seasons would 
 have run their appointed course, that the sun would have shone 
 with as genial a warmth, and the showers would have fallen with 
 as fertilizing a moisture, if you had not chosen me for your repre- 
 sentative, is an admission which I make without much appre- 
 hension of the consequence. Nor do I wish you to believe, that 
 your choice of any other than me would have delayed the return 
 of your prosperity, or prevented the revival of your commerce, 
 
 I make these admissions without fear, so far as concerns the 
 choice between individuals. But I do not admit, that it was 
 equally indifierent upon what principles that choice should be de- 
 termined. I do not admit, that, if the principles which it was 
 then recommended to you to countenance had unfortunately pre- 
 vailed in Parliament, and, through the authority of Parliament, 
 had been introduced into the counsels of the country, they would 
 not have interfered with fatal operation, not indeed to arrest the 
 bounty of Providence, to turn back the course of the seasons, and 
 to blast the fertility of the earth, but to stop that current of politi- 
 cal events which, " taken at the flood," has placed England at 
 the head of the world. 
 
 Gentlemen, if I had met you here again on this day in a state 
 of public affairs as doubtful as that in which we took leave ot 
 each other; if confederated nations had been still arrayed against 
 this country, and the balance of Europe still trembling in the scale, 
 I should not have hesitated now, as I did not hesitate then, to de- 
 clare my decided and unalterable opinion, that perseverance, under 
 whatever difficulties, under whatever privations, afforded the only 
 chance of prosperity to you, because the only chance of safety to 
 your country; and the only chance of safety to the country, be- 
 cause the only chance of deliverance to Europe. Gentlemen, I 
 should be ashamed to address you now in the tone of triumph, if 
 I had not addressed you then in that of exhortation. I should be 
 ashamed to appear before you shouting in the train of success, if 
 I had not looked you in the face and encouraged you to patience 
 under difficulties. It is because my acquaintance with you com- 
 menced in times of peril and embarrassment, and because I then 
 neither flattered nor deceived you, that I now not only offer to 
 you my congratulations, but put in my claim to yours, on the ex- 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 477 
 
 tinction of that peril, on the termination of that embarrassment, 
 and on the glorious issue to which exertion and endurance have 
 brought that great struggle in which our honour and our happi- 
 ness were involved. 
 
 Gentlemen, during the course of a political life, nearly coeval 
 with the commencement of the war, I have never given one vote, 
 I have never uttered one sentiment, which had not for its object 
 the consummation now happily within our view. 
 
 I am not ashamed, and it is not unpleasing or unprofitable, to 
 look back upon the dangers which we have passed, and to com- 
 pare them with the scene which now lies before us. We behold 
 a country, inferior in population to most of her continental neigh- 
 bours, but multiplying her faculties and resources by her own ac- 
 tivity and enterprise, by the vigour of her constitution, and by 
 the good sense of her people; we behold her, after standing up 
 against a formidable foe, throughout a contest, in the course ot 
 which every one of her allies, and, at times, all of them together, 
 have fainted and failed — nay, have been driven to combine with 
 the enemy against her — we behold her, at this moment, rallying 
 the nations of Europe to one point, and leading them to decisive 
 victory. 
 
 If such a picture were merely the bright vision of speculative 
 philosophy, if it were presented to us in the page of the history 
 of ancient times, it would stir and warm the heart. But, gentle- 
 men, this country is our own; and what must be the feelings 
 which arise, on such a review, in the bosom of every son of that 
 country? What must be the feelings of a community such as I 
 am now addressing, which constitutes no insignificant part of the 
 strength of the nation so described; which has suffered largely in 
 her privations, and may hope to participate proportionably in her 
 reward? What (I may be permitted to add) must be the feelings 
 of one who is chosen to represent that community, and who finds 
 himself in that honourable station at the moment of triumph, only 
 because he discountenanced despair in the moment of despon- 
 dency ? 
 
 From the contemplation of a spectacle so mighty and magnifi- 
 cent as this, I should disdain to turn aside to the controversies of 
 party. Of principles, however, it is impossible not to say some- 
 thing; because our triumph would be incomplete, and its blessings 
 might be transient, if we could be led astray by any sophistry; if 
 we could consent, in a sort of compromise of common joy, to 
 forget or to misstate the causes from which that triumph has 
 sprung. All of one mind, I trust and believe we are, in exulting 
 at the success of our country; all of one mind, I trust, we now 
 are throughout this land, in determining to persevere, if need be, 
 in strenuous exertion to prosecute, and I hope, to perfect the great 
 
478 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 work so happily in progress. But we know, that there are some 
 of those who share most heartily in the public exultation, who 
 yet ascribe effects, which happily cannot be disputed, to causes 
 which may justly be denied. No tenderness for disappointed 
 prophecies, gentlemen, ought to induce us thus to disconnect ef- 
 fect and cause. It would lead to errors which might be danger- 
 ous, if unwarily adopted and generally received. 
 
 We have heard, for instance, that the war has now been suc- 
 cessful, because the principles on which the war was undertaken 
 have been renounced; that we are, at length, blessed with victory, 
 because we have thrown away the banner under which we entered 
 into the contest; that the contest was commenced with one set of 
 principles, but that the issue has been happily brought about by 
 the adoption of another. Gentlemen, 1, know of no such change. 
 If we have succeeded, it has not been by the renunciation, but by 
 the prosecution of our principles: if we have succeeded, it has not 
 been by adopting new maxims of policy, but by upholding, under 
 all varieties of difficulty and discouragement, old, established, in- 
 violable principles of conduct. 
 
 We are told, that this war has, of late, become a ivar of the 
 people, and that, by the operation of that change alone, the power 
 of imperial France has been baffled and overcome. Nations, it is 
 said, have, at length, made common cause with their sovereigns, 
 in a contest which, heretofore, had been a contest of sovereigns 
 only. Gentlemen, the fact of the change might be admitted, 
 without, therefore, admitting the argument. It does not follow, 
 that the people were not at all times equally interested in the war, 
 (as those who think as I do, have always contended that they 
 were,) because it may be and must be admitted, that the people, in 
 many countries, were for a time deluded. They who argue against 
 us, say, that jarring interests have been reconciled. We say, that 
 gross delusions have been removed. Both admit the fact, that 
 sovereigns and their people are identified. But it is for them 
 who contend that this has been effected by change of principles, 
 to specify the change. What change of principles or of govern- 
 ment has taken place among the nations of Europe ? We are the 
 best judges of ourselves — what change has taken place here? Is 
 the Constitution other than it was, when we were told, (as we 
 often were told in the bad times,) that it was a doubt whether it 
 were worth defending? Is the Constitution other than it was, 
 when we were warned that peace on any terms must be made, as 
 the only hope of saving it from popular indignation and popular 
 reform ? 
 
 There is yet another question to be asked. By what power, 
 in what part of the world, has that final blow been struck, which 
 has smitten the tyrant to the ground? I suppose, by some enlight- 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 479 
 
 ened republic; by some recently regenerated government of pure 
 philanthropy and uncorrupted virtue: I suppose, by some nation 
 which, in the excess of popular freedom, considers even a repre- 
 sentative system as defective, unless each individual interferes di- 
 rectly in the national concerns; some nation of enlightened pa- 
 triots, every man of whom is a politician in the coffee-house, as 
 well as in the senate: I suppose it is from soine such government 
 as this that the conqueror of autocrats, the sworn destroyer of 
 monarchical England, has met his doom. I look through the Eu- 
 ropean world, gentlemen, in vain: I find there no such august 
 community. But in another hemisphere I do find such a one, 
 which, no doubt, must be the^political David by whom the Goliah 
 of Europe has been brought down. What is the name of that 
 glorious republic, to which the gratitude of Europe is eternally 
 due — which, from its innate hatred to tyranny, has so persevering- 
 ly exerted itself to liberate the world, and, at last, has successfully 
 closed the contest ? Alas, gentlemen, such a republic I do indeed 
 find; but I find it enlisted, and (God be thanked!) enlisted alone, 
 under the banner of the despot. But where was the blow struck ? 
 Where? Alas for theory! In the wilds of despotic Russia. It 
 was followed up on the plains of Leipsic — by Russian, Prussian, 
 and Austrian arms. 
 
 But let me not be mistaken. Do I, therefore, mean to contend 
 — do I, therefore, give to our antagonists in the argument the ad- 
 vantage of ascribing to us the base tenet, that an absolute monar- 
 chy is better than a free government? God forbid! What I mean 
 is this, that, in appreciating the comparative excellence of politi- 
 cal institutions, in estimating the force of national spirit, and the 
 impulses of national feeling, it is idle — it is mere pedantry, to 
 overlook the affections of nature. The order of nature could not 
 subsist among mankind, if there were not an instinctive patriot- 
 ism; I do not say unconnected with, but prior and paramount to, 
 the desire of political amelioration. It may be very wrong that 
 it should be so. I cannot help it. Our business is with fact. 
 And, surely, it is not to be regretted, that tyrants and conquerors 
 should have learned, from the lessons of experience, that the first 
 consideration suggested to the inhabitant of any country, by a 
 foreign invasion, is, not whether the political constitution of the 
 state be faultlessly perfect or not; but, whether the altar at which 
 he has worshipped — whether the home in which he has dwelt 
 from his infancy — whether his wife and his children — whether 
 the tombs of his forefathers — whether the place of the sovereign, 
 under whom he was born, and to whom he therefore, owes (or, if 
 it must be so stated, fancies that he, therefore, owes) allegiance, 
 shall be abandoned to violence and profanation. 
 
 That, in the infancy of the French revolution, many nations in 
 
480 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 Europe were, unfortunately, led to believe and to act upon a dif- 
 ferent persuasion, is undoubtedly true; that whole countries were 
 overrun by reforming conquerors, and flattered themselves with 
 being proselytes till they found themselves victims. Even in this 
 country, as I have already said, there have been times when we 
 have been called upon to consider, whether there was not some- 
 thing at home which must be mended, before we could hope to 
 repel a foreign invader with success. 
 
 It is fortunate for the world, that this question should have been 
 tried, if I may so say, to a disadvantage; that it should have been 
 tried in countries where no man in his senses will say, that the 
 frame of political society is such as, according to the most moder- 
 ate principles of regulated freedom, it ought to be; — where, I will 
 venture to say, without hazarding the imputation of being myself 
 a visionary reformer, political society is not such as, after the suc- 
 cesses of this war, and from the happy contagion of the example 
 of Great Britain, it is sure gradually to become. It is fortunate 
 for the world, that this question should have been tried on its own 
 merits; that, after twenty years of controversy, we should be au- 
 thorized, by undoubted results, to revert to nature and to truth, 
 and to disentangle the genuine feelings of the heart from the ob- 
 structions which a cold, presumptuous, generalizing philosophy 
 had wound around them. 
 
 One of the most delightful poets of this country, in describing 
 the various proportions of natural blessings and advantages dis- 
 pensed by Providence to the various nations of Europe, turns 
 from the luxuriant plains and cloudless skies of Italy to the rug- 
 ged mountains of Switzerland, and inquires whether there, also, 
 in those barren and stormy regions, the " patriot passion" is found 
 equally imprinted on the heart? He decides the question truly in 
 the affirmative; and he says, of the inhabitant of those bleak 
 wilds, 
 
 " Dear is that shed to which his soul conforms, 
 And dear that hill which lifts him to the storms; 
 And, as a child, when scaring sounds molest, 
 Clings close and closer to the mother's breast, 
 So the loud torrent and the whirlwind's roar 
 But bind him to his native mountains more." 
 
 What Goldsmith thus beautifully applied to the physical varie- 
 ties of soil and climate, has been found no less true with respect 
 to political institutions, A sober desire of improvement, a ra- 
 tional endeavour to redress error, and to correct imperfection in 
 the political frame of human society, are not only natural, but 
 laudable in man. But it is well that it should have been shown, 
 by irrefragable proof, that these sentiments, even where most 
 strongly and most justly felt, supersede not that devotion to na- 
 tive soil which is the foundation of national independence. And 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 481 
 
 it is right that it should be understood and remembered, that the 
 spirit of national independence alone, aroused where it had slum- 
 bered, enlightened where it had been deluded, and kindled into 
 enthusiasm by the insults and outrages of an all-grasping invader, 
 has been found sufficient, without internal changes and compro- 
 mises of sovereigns or governments with their people — without 
 relaxations of allegiance and abjurations of authority, to animate, 
 as with one pervading soul, the different nations of the continent; 
 to combine, as into one congenial mass, their various feelings, pas- 
 sions, prejudices; to direct these concentrated energies, with one 
 impulse, against the common tyrant; and to shake (and, may we 
 not hope ? to overthrow) the Babel of his iniquitous power. 
 
 Gentlemen, there is another argument, more peculiarly relating 
 to our own country, which has, at times, been interposed to dis- 
 courage the prosecution of the war. That this country is suffi- 
 cient to its own defence, sufficient to its own happiness, sufficient 
 to its own independence; and that the complicated combinations 
 of continental policy are always hazardous to our interests, as 
 well as burdensome to our means, has been, at several periods of 
 the war, a favourite doctrine, not only with those who, for other 
 reasons, wished to embarrass the measures of the Government, 
 but with men of the most enlightened minds, of the most benev- 
 olent views, and the most ardent zeal for the interests as well as 
 the honour of their country. May we not flatter ourselves, that, 
 upon this point also, experience has decided in favour of the course 
 of policy which has been actually pursued ? 
 
 Can any man now look back upon the trial which we have 
 gone through, and maintain that, at any period during the last 
 twenty years, the plan of insulated policy could have been adopt- 
 ed, without having, in the event, at this day, prostrated England 
 at the foot of a conqueror? Great, indeed, has been the call upon 
 our exertions; great, indeed, has been the drain upon our resour- 
 ces; long and wearisome has the struggle been; and late is the 
 moment at which peace is brought within our reach. But, even 
 though the difficulties of the contest may have been enhanced, 
 and its duration protracted by it, yet is there any man who seri- 
 ously doubts whether the having associated our destinies with the 
 destinies of other nations be or be not that which, under the bless- 
 ing of Providence, has eventually secured the safety of all ? 
 
 It is at the moment when such a trial has come to its issue, that 
 it is fair to ask of those who have suffered under the pressure of 
 protracted exertion, (and of whom rather than of those who are 
 assembled around me — for by whom have such privations been felt 
 more sensibly?) — it is now, I say, the time to ask whether, at any 
 former period of the contest, such a peace could have been made 
 
 63 RR 
 
482 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 as would at once have guarded the national interests, and corres- 
 ponded with the national character? I address myself now to such 
 persons only as think the character of a nation an essential part of 
 its strength, and, consequently, of its safety. But if, among per- 
 sons of that description, there be one who with all his zeal for the 
 glory of his country, has yet, at times, been willing to abandon 
 the contest in mere weariness and despair, of such a man I would 
 ask, whether he can indicate the period at which he now wishes 
 that such an abandonment had been consented to by the Govern- 
 ment and the Parliament of Great Britain ? 
 
 Is it when the continent was at peace — when, looking upon the 
 map of Europe, you saw one mighty and connected system, one 
 great luminary, with his attendant satellites circulating around 
 him; at that period could this country have made peace, and have 
 remained at peace for a twelvemonth ? What is the answer ? Why, 
 that the experiment was tried. The result was the renewal of 
 the war. 
 
 Was it at a later period, when the continental system had been 
 established? When two-thirds of the ports of Europe were shut 
 against you? When but a single link was wanting to bind the 
 continent in a circling chain of iron, which should exclude you 
 from intercourse with other nations? At that moment peace was 
 most earnestly recommended to you. At that moment, gentle- 
 men, I first came among you. At that moment I ventured to re- 
 commend to you perseverance, patient perseverance; and to ex- 
 press a hope that, by the mere strain of an unnatural effort, the 
 massive bonds imposed upon the nations of the continent might, 
 at no distant period, burst asunder. I was heard by you with in- 
 dulgence — I know not whether with conviction. But is it now 
 to be regretted, that we did not, at that moment, yield to the pres- 
 sure of our wants, or of our fears? What has been the issue? 
 The continental system was completed, with the sole exception 
 of Russia, in the year 1812. In that year the pressure upon this 
 country was undoubtedly painful. Had we yielded, the system 
 would have been immortal. We persevered, and, before the con- 
 clusion of another year, the system was at an end: at an end, as 
 all schemes of violence naturally terminate, not by a mild and 
 gradual decay, such as waits upon a regular and well-spent life, 
 but by sudden dissolution; at an end, like the breaking up of a 
 winter's frost. But yesterday the whole continent, like a mighty 
 plain covered with one mass of ice, presented to the view a drear 
 expanse of barren uniformity: to-day, the breath of heaven un- 
 binds the earth, the streams begin to flow again, and the inter- 
 course of human kind revives. 
 
 Can we regret that we did not, like the fainting traveller, lie 
 down to rest — but, indeed, to perish — under the severity of that 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER STEECHES. 483 
 
 inclement season ? Did we not more wisely, to bear up, and to wait 
 the change ? 
 
 Gentlemen, I have said that I should be ashamed, and in truth 
 I should be so, to address you in the language of exultation, if it 
 were merely for the indulgence, however legitimate, of an ex- 
 uberant and ungovernable joy. But they who have suffered great 
 privations have a claim not merely to consolation, but to some- 
 thing more. They are justly to be compensated for what they 
 have undergone, or lost, or hazarded, by the contemplation of 
 what they have gained. 
 
 We have gained, then, a rank and authority in Europe, such as, 
 for the life of the longest liver of those who now hear me, must 
 place this country upon an eminence which no probable reverses 
 can shake. We have gained, or rather we have recovered, a 
 splendour of military glory, which places us by the side of the 
 greatest military nations in the world. At the beginning of this 
 war, while there was not a British bosom that did not beat with 
 rapture at the exploits of our navy, there were few who would 
 not have been contented to compromise for that reputation alone; 
 to claim the sea as exclusively our province, and to leave to France 
 and the other continental powers the struggle for superiority by 
 land. That fabled deity, whom I see pourtrayed upon the wall,* 
 was considered as the exclusive patron of British prowess in bat- 
 tle; but, in seeming accordance with the beautiful fiction of ancient 
 mythology, our Neptune, in the heat of contest, smote the earth 
 with his trident, and up sprang the fiery war-horse, the emblem 
 of military power. 
 
 Let Portugal, now led to the pursuit of her flying conquerors 
 — let liberated Spain — let France, invaded in her turn by those 
 whom she had overrun or menaced with invasion, attest the tri- 
 umphs of the army of Great Britain, and the equality of her mili- 
 tary with her naval fame. And let those who, even after the 
 triumphs of the Peninsula had begun, while they admitted that 
 we had indeed wounded the giant in the heel, still deemed the 
 rest of his huge frame invulnerable — let them now behold him 
 reeling under the blows of united nations, and acknowledge, at 
 once, the might of British arms, and the force of British example. 
 
 I do not say that these are considerations with a view to which 
 the war, if otherwise terminable, ought to have been purposely 
 protracted; but I say that, upon the retrospect, we have good rea- 
 son to rejoice, that the war was not closed ingloriously and inse- 
 curely, when the latter events of it have been such as have estab- 
 lished our security by our glory. 
 
 I say we have reason to rejoice, that, during the period when 
 
 * A figure of Neptune. 
 
484 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 the continent was prostrate before France — that, especially during 
 the period when the continental system was in force, we did not 
 shrink from the struggle; that we did not make peace for present 
 and momentary ease, unmindful of the permanent safety and great- 
 ness of this country; that we did not leave unsolved the momen- 
 tous questions, whether this country could maintain itself against 
 France, unaided and alone; or with the continent divided; or with 
 the continent combined against it; whether, when the wrath of the 
 tyrant of the European world was kindled against us with seven- 
 fold fury, we could or could not walk unharmed and unfettered 
 through the flames? 
 
 I say we have reason to rejoice, that, throughout this more than 
 Punick war, in which it has so often been the pride of our ene- 
 my to represent herself as the Rome, and England as the Car- 
 thage, of modern times, (with at least this colour for the compari- 
 son, that the utter destruction of the modern Carthage has uni- 
 formly been proclaimed to be indispensable to the greatness of her 
 rival,) — we have, I say, reason to rejoice, that, unlike our assigned 
 prototype, we have not been diverted by internal dissensions from 
 the vigorous support of a vital struggle; that we have not suffered 
 distress nor clamour to distract our counsels, or to check the ex- 
 ertions of our arms. 
 
 Gentlemen, for twenty years that I have sat in Parliament, I 
 have been an advocate of the war. You knew this when you did 
 me the honour to choose me as your representative. I then told 
 you that I was the advocate of the war, because I was a lover of 
 peace; but of a peace that should be the fruit of honourable exer- 
 tion, a peace that should have a character of dignity, a peace that 
 should be worth preserving, and should be likely to endure. I 
 confess I was not sanguine enough, at that time, to hope that I 
 should so soon have an opportunity of justifying my professions. 
 But I know not why, six weeks hence, such a peace should not 
 be made as England may not only be glad, but proud to ratify. 
 Not such a peace, gentlemen, as that of Amiens — a short and fe- 
 verish interval of unrefreshing repose. During that peace, which 
 of you went or sent a son to Paris, who did not feel or learn that 
 an Englishman appeared in France shorn of the dignity of his 
 country; with the mien of a suppliant, and the conscious prostra- 
 tion of a man who had consented to purchase his gain or his ease 
 by submission? But let a peace be made to-morrow, such as the 
 allies have now the power to dictate, and the meanest of the sub- 
 jects of this kingdom shall not walk the streets of Paris without 
 being pointed out as the compatriot of Wellington; as one of that 
 nation, whose firmness and perseverance have humbled France 
 and rescued Europe. 
 
 [s there any man that has a heart in his bosom who does not 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 485 
 
 find, in the contemplation of this contrast alone, a recompense for 
 the struggles and the sufferings of years? 
 
 But, gentlemen, the doing right is not only the most honoura- 
 ble course of action — it is also the most profitable in its result. 
 At any former period of the war, the independence of almost all 
 the other countries, our allies, would have been to be purchased 
 with sacrifices profusely poured out from the lap of British vic- 
 tory. Not a throne to be re-established, not a province to be 
 evacuated, not a garrison to be withdrawn, but this country would 
 have had to make compensation, out of her conquests, for the 
 concessions obtained from the enemy. Now, happily, this work 
 is already done, either by our efforts or to our hands. The Pen- 
 insula free — the lawful commonwealth of European states already, 
 in a great measure, restored, Great Britain may now appear in 
 the congress of the world, rich in conquests, nobly and rightfully 
 won, with little claim upon her faith or her justice, whatever 
 may be the spontaneous impulse of her generosity or her moder- 
 ation. 
 
 Such, gentlemen, is the situation and prospect of affairs at the 
 moment at which I have the honour to address you. That you, 
 gentlemen, may have your full share in the prosperity of your 
 country, is my sincere and earnest wish. The courage with which 
 you bore up in adverse circumstances, eminently entitles you to 
 this reward. 
 
 For myself, gentlemen, while I rejoice in your returning pros- 
 perity, I rejoice also that our connexion began under auspices so 
 much less favourable; that we had an opportunity of knowing 
 each other's minds in times when the minds of men are brought 
 to the proof — times of trial and difficulty. I had the satisfaction 
 of avowing to you, and you the candour and magnanimity to ap- 
 prove, the principles and opinions by which my public conduct 
 has uniformly been guided, at a period when the soundness of 
 those opinions, and the application of those principles, was matter 
 of doubt and controversy. I thought, and I said, at the time of 
 our first meeting, that the cause of England and of civilized Eu- 
 rope must be ultimately triumphant, if we but preserved our 
 spirit untainted, and our constancy unshaken. Such an assertion 
 was, at that time, the object of ridicule with many persons: a sin- 
 gle year has elapsed, and it is now the voice of the whole world. 
 
 Gentlemen, we may, therefore, confidently indulge the hope, 
 that our opinions will continue in unison; that our concurrence 
 will be as cordial as it has hitherto been, if, unhappily, any new 
 occasion of difficulty or embarrassment should hereafter arise. 
 
 At the present moment, I am sure, we are equally desirous to 
 bury the recollection of all our diflferences with others in that gen- 
 eral feeling of exultation in which all opinions happily combine. 
 
 RR* 
 
486 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT LIVERPOOL, AFTER HAVING BEEN CHAIRED, THE 12tH OP 
 JUNE, 1816. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 If I could forget all the trouble and inconvenience which have 
 been occasioned to you, and could contemplate the result of this 
 day only as it affects myself, what reason should I not have to 
 pour forth my gratitude to those men who have laboured against 
 me with so vexatious an opposition! For, with whatever spirit and 
 design they may have acted, I will venture to affirm, that never 
 did the most anxious and active friendship procure for any indi- 
 vidual such a triumph as their hostility has earned for me this 
 day. They laboured to separate us from each other; and they 
 have united us more closely than before. They hoped to efface 
 the memory of that victory which crowned your former exertions 
 in my favour: and they have, if not effaced, yet thrown it into the 
 shade, by the transcendant splendour of this day's triumph, by 
 the increased and overpowering demonstrations of your unwearied 
 kindness and regard. Indebted to my opponents for the excite- 
 ment which has called forth these demonstrations, what a heart 
 must I have, gentlemen, if I did not bless their beneficent en- 
 mity ! 
 
 But, gentlemen, proud as I naturally must be of what I have 
 experienced this day, and exalted as I cannot but feel myself by 
 the contemplation of the magnificent scene which is now before 
 me, by the view of those countless multitudes, among which 
 every eye is turned upon me with an expression of benignity; 
 yet I do assure you, gentlemen, and there are those around me 
 who can vouch for the truth of what I say, that I was most anx- 
 ious — that it was my fixed purpose and determination, to entreat 
 you to spare yourselves the trouble of this day's ceremony. I 
 did not think that the occasion of returning your representative, 
 on a re-election, called for any peculiar expression of triumph; 
 nor did I think, that a victory over a non-existing, or non-appear- 
 ing adversary, justified the same marks of exultation as when 
 able, substantial antagonists had been driven from the field. 
 
 But, gentlemen, my mind was changed, and I yielded to the 
 wishes of my friends, upon information which I have received to- 
 day. The nature of that information I will state to you. I am 
 assured from London, and upon testimony from which it is im- 
 possible for me to withhold my belief, that there were among our 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 487 
 
 antagonists some who reckoned upon intimidation as an instru- 
 ment of success. In the first moments of transport, at the prom- 
 ising commencement of the riots, they communicated this hope 
 to their friends in the metropohs. They fondly flattered them- 
 selves that you, gentlemen, could be scared from my side, and 
 that I should be forced to retire. Intimidation! how little do 
 they know either me or you! After this information, I felt that 
 it would be a false delicacy to abstain from any expression of ex- 
 ultation, and that our conduct might be liable to misconstruction, 
 if we abridged, by a single formality, the triumph of this day. 
 
 Gentlemen, with the election, let the local topics, the local en- 
 mities, the local disagreements of the election cease. But cease 
 not with the election the principles upon which your choice has 
 been founded, on whomever, at any time hereafter, your choice 
 may fall, whether on myself or on a worthier object. For, gen- 
 tlemen, I know how little I ought to consider myself as contri- 
 buting to the glorious result of this contest. Much less important 
 is it to whom, individually, you commit your representation in 
 Parliament, than that you should fix steadily in your minds the 
 standard by which that representative shall be tried. Let him 
 be a man true to the principles of the constitution, not as under- 
 stood in the new-fangled doctrines of the day, but as transmitted 
 to us from older times, before the pure current of British free- 
 dom had been contaminated by the influx of foreign theories. 
 
 Gentlemen, we all know, that, on the former occasion, in 1812, 
 the eyes of England were, in a great measure, fixed upon Liver- 
 pool, as the arena in which the contest between two sets of po- 
 litical principles was to be decided. But on that occasion, gen- 
 tlemen, though you occupied a great space in the public attention, 
 you could not completely monopolize it. There was then a gen- 
 eral election. The interest excited, indeed, by the Liverpool 
 contest, was pretty widely diffused, but the actual war was among 
 ourselves; no stranger had leisure to mingle in our battle. Among 
 other consequences of this state of things, one was, that we 
 were tolerably free from imported calumny; and that, consid- 
 ering the vehemence of the contest, there was, so far as I know, 
 little of personal malignity mixed with it. In the present in- 
 stance, Liverpool alone has fixed the undistracted attention of 
 both parties, and upon me, in particular, have the full phials of 
 whiggish wrath been discharged. 
 
 Standing thus exposed, I have had what some would call the 
 misfortune, but what I must now esteem the singular happiness, 
 of being a mark for the attacks of every political enemy that I 
 have in the world. I do Liverpool the justice to acknowledge, 
 gentlemen, that the grossest and foulest calumnies are not of na- 
 tive produce, but have been rolled down, in one tide of filth. 
 
488 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 from the fountain head of whiggish detraction in London. All 
 the approved practices of the libellers of former periods have 
 been resorted to: my private history ransacked for topics of 
 abuse; every action, every inconsiderate word, of earlier life 
 raked up, and recorded with malignant industry; and invention 
 called in aid where research could find no theme of invective: — 
 
 " The lie, so oft o'ertbrown, 
 
 Th' imputed trash and nonsense, not my own ;" 
 
 — all, all has been exhausted: and what is the result? That here 
 I stand. 
 
 Gentlemen, amongst other charges, one of fair hostility, but 
 whimsically chosen, considering the quarter from which it comes, 
 is that of my being about to act in public life with men from 
 whom I have occasionally differed in opinion. Gentlemen, the 
 charge is substantially unfounded. It is unfounded, because, 
 though, on particular questions, I may have differed from many 
 of my present colleagues (as what two men may not occasionally 
 differ, if each has an opinion of his own?) yet, upon all the 
 great outlines of our political system, and upon every main prin- 
 ciple affecting the foreign policy of England, our opinions have 
 generally concurred. Those opinions I have, to the best of my 
 power, supported, in whatever hands the government of the coun- 
 try has been placed. I have supported them not less strenuously 
 when m3^self out of office, than when I formed a part of the Ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 Gentlemen, I am really alarmed at the state of pressure in 
 which I see great part of the multitude below. Had I not better 
 take leave of you, and entreat you to disperse?* 
 
 Perhaps, gentlemen, I was the more alive to the danger to 
 which I apprehended you to be exposed, and the more anxious to 
 dismiss you before any accident had happened, from recollecting, 
 that one of the charges most frequently, of late, preferred against 
 me is, my habit of addressing you. And yet, gentlemen, I am 
 old enough to remember, when the great idol of whiggism him- 
 self! (of whom I mean to speak with all reverence and honour,) 
 in the plenitude of his glory, and in the maturity of his mighty 
 powers, did not disdain to mount various rostra, and to descant, 
 not to his constituents only, but to whoever would come to hear 
 him, upon oppression, grievance, tyranny, taxes, and war, and all 
 other matters best calculated to rouse the passions of the populace. 
 Nor are there wanting imitators in our days, who pursue the 
 same course, whenever the people will listen to them. 
 
 * Mr. Canning retired for a few moments, until the pressure of 'the crowd 
 had, in some measure, diminished ; and then, being loudly and repeatedly called 
 for, again came forward. 
 
 f The Right Honourable Charles James Fox. 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 489 
 
 But, gentlemen, the self-styled whigs have a most convenient, 
 though somewhat arbitrary, mode of argument. To them every 
 mode of political warfare is lawful; but to them only: the people 
 are their property; and wo be to the unlicensed intruder who 
 presumes to trespass upon the manor. Or is this the distinction 
 to be taken against me? Am I vilified, not because I address the 
 people, but because I address them on the side of tranquillity 
 and good order? That, instead of seeking out every topic of de- 
 lusion and inflammation, I am more solicitous to bring before 
 them grounds for contentment, and motives of attachment to their 
 country, — to inculcate their duties as well as their rights, and to 
 hold them firm in their allegiance to the constitutional monarchy 
 of England? Am I arraigned on an inverted construction of the 
 rules of civilized warfare, not because I scatter arrows among the 
 people, but because my arrows are not poisoned ? 
 
 But, gentlemen, to recur to the point at which I was inter- 
 rupted by my alarm for your safety. By the organ of what 
 party is it that I am accused of inconsistency, for acting with 
 men from whom I may have occasionally differed ? Why, gen- 
 tlemen, by the organ of a party whose birth and growth, whose 
 essence and element, are coalition; a party which sprung from 
 the coalition between Lord North and Mr. Fox, and which has 
 been revived, within all our memories, by the coalition between 
 Lord Grenville and Lord Grey; a party of which, in spite of all 
 its coalitions, the members are, in reality, so little coalescent, 
 that, but last year, on the greatest question which ever the Gov- 
 ernment of this country was called upon to decide and its Parlia- 
 ment to sanction — on the question of the renewal of the war 
 against Buonaparte — they were divided half and half: and all 
 that was of most weight or ornament in their party, fought the 
 battle of the Ministers against the remainder. The remainder, 
 indeed, true to their old creed, would have extended the doctrine 
 of coalition to Buonaparte. But you, gentlemen, I know, have 
 candour enough to do justice to public men, of whatever party, 
 when they stand up fairly for their country; and you remember, 
 with just acknowledgment, that the manly and consistent elo- 
 quence of Lord Grenville, the splendid enthusiasm of Grattan, 
 and the commanding energy of Plunkett, were exerted, on that 
 memorable occasion, in defence of that system of measures, by 
 which, in defiance of the whig policy, this country and Europe 
 have been preserved. 
 
 Gentlemen, there is yet a heavier charge than either of those 
 which I have stated to you. It is, gentlemen, that I am an ad- 
 venturer. To this charge, as I understand it, I am willing to plead 
 guilty. A representative of the people, I am one of the people; 
 and I present myself to those who choose me only with the 
 64 
 
490 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 claims of character, (be they what they may,) unaccredited by 
 patrician patronage or party recommendation. Nor is it in this 
 free country, wliere, in every walk of life, the road of honoura- 
 ble success is open to every individual — I am sure it is not in 
 this place, that I shall be expected to apologize for so presenting 
 myself to your choice. I know there is a political creed, which 
 assigns to a certain combination of great families a right to dictate 
 to the sovereign and to influence the people; and that this doc- 
 trine of hereditary aptitude for administration is, singularly 
 enough, most prevalent among those who find nothing more 
 laughable than the principle of legitimacy in the Crown. 
 
 To this theory I have never subscribed. If to depend directly 
 upon the people, as their representative in Parliament; if, as a 
 servant of the Crown, to lean on no other support than that of 
 public confidence — if that be to be an adventurei-, I plead guilty 
 to the charge, and I would not exchange that situation, to what- 
 ever taunts it may expose me, for all the advantages which might 
 be derived from an ancestry of a hundred generations. 
 
 Gentlemen, I will not detain you longer. I have said, that I 
 will not go back to any of the events of the election. Suffice it, 
 that, whatever may be my opinion with respect to the opposition 
 which has been made to your wishes in my favour, I can truly 
 say for myself, that I carry no resentments away with me. Even 
 were I disposed to entertain any such feelings, my heart would 
 not, at this moment, have room for them, so full is it of the 
 sense of your kindnesses, of acknowledgment, and of exultation. 
 
491 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT THE PUBLIC DINNER AT LIVERPOOL, IN THE MUSIC HALL, 
 ON MONDAY, THE 29tH OF JUNE, 1818, AFTER HIS HEALTH 
 
 had been drunk. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 It was at my suggestion, that your worthy chairman had the 
 goodness to make a slight aheration in the order of the toasts as 
 they stand on the printed card, and to propose, before my health, 
 which you have just done me the honour to drink, the health of 
 those persons by whose suffrages I have been elevated to the 
 situation of your representative, and of those who, had their suf- 
 frages been wanted, would have contributed to that elevation. It 
 is in the natural order of things, gentlemen, that cause should 
 precede effect; and, before you expressed your rejoicing on my 
 return, I was anxious that due acknowledgment should have 
 been paid to those whose votes, or whose intentions to come for- 
 ward, — intentions as notorious and as efficacious as their votes, — 
 gave effect to the wishes of this great community in my favour. 
 
 Gentlemen, six years have elapsed since I was first placed in 
 that envied situation. Search the records of history, where shall 
 we find six years so fertile in events; and in events not only of 
 such immense importance, but of such various character, — at one 
 time so awful and appalling, at another so full of encouragement 
 and of glory? We have, within this period of time, had war — 
 peace — war again — and again a peace, which, I flatter myself, is 
 now settling itself for a long duration. 
 
 In many of those changes, gentlemen, as they were taking 
 place, and with respect to all of them while they were yet in 
 doubtful futurity, the opinions which I hold with you, and by 
 holding which with you I am alone worthy to represent you, have 
 been controverted by predictions which, in prospect, it would 
 have been presumptuous to dispute, but which, in retrospect, it is 
 now pleasant to contemplate. 
 
 When I first, in obedience to your call, presented myself before 
 you, it was at that period of a war, already of near twenty years' 
 duration, in which the crisis of the fate of nations seemed to be 
 arrived. It was at that period of the campaign, destined to be 
 decisive of that war, in which the enemy appeared in his most 
 gigantic dimensions, and had begun to run his most extravagant 
 career. It would be little disparagement to the stoutest heart to 
 say, that it shrunk from the contemplation of a might so over- 
 
492 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 whelming; and it required, perhaps, as much courage as sagacity 
 to derive, from the ill-compounded materials of the colossus, a 
 hope or an expectation of its fall. We were, indeed, loudly told 
 at that time, that resistance was altogether hopeless; and you, 
 gentlemen, were encouraged to believe, that if, by rejecting me, 
 whose politics were supposed to be identified with the prosecu- 
 tion of the war, and by returning to Parliament, as your repre- 
 sentatives, those who then solicited your suffrages in opposition 
 to me, you would mark your disapprobation of the continuance 
 of so hopeless a contest, you would, by this demonstration of the 
 opinion of so considerable a part of the British empire, infallibly 
 produce a peace, with all its attendant blessings. 
 
 Against these fallacious but inviting assurances, with all the re- 
 sponsibility that belonged to the anticipation of brighter prospects 
 in the midst of overwhelming gloom, and to the denial of associa- 
 tions familiar in the mouths and in the minds of men, I ventured 
 to tell you that peace was not in your power, except through the 
 road of victory; and I ventured to tell you further, that peace, if 
 sought through any other path, would not be lasting; and that, 
 come when it might, it would not come, in the first instance, with 
 all the blessings of ordinary peace in its train. 
 
 At the end of the period which has elapsed, compare what I 
 then said to you with what has actually taken place. 
 
 If, at the time of which I am speaking, in 1812, this great town 
 had contributed its share towards forcing a change in the national 
 councils, by rejecting the man whose political existence was iden- 
 tified with the success of the war, and by choosing others in his 
 room whose reputation depended upon its failure; and if, gentle- 
 men, you had had the misfortune to succeed in forcing such a 
 change, I ask you whether you believe that England would have 
 stood erect, as she has done, with her enemy prostrate at her feet, 
 and with Europe saved by her assistance ? 
 
 But, gentlemen, as if to defeat and discredit the professors of 
 political prophecy, you have had also a trial of peace, not wholly 
 corresponding with their anticipations. I told you, in 1812, that 
 nothing was easier than to draw flattering views of distant pros- 
 pects; but that there were circumstances to be taken into account 
 in the estimate of war and peace which baffled calculation. I told 
 you that the war (not war generally, as has falsely been impu- 
 ted, but THE WAR in which we were then engaged) was, from its 
 peculiar character, one in which, though the common characteris- 
 tics of peace — such as tranquillity and absence of bloodshed, and 
 freedom from alarm, were necessarily suspended, yet the springs 
 of enterpise were not cut off', nor the activity of commerce alto- 
 gether paralyzed: nor would the restoration of peace necessarily 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 493 
 
 and at once restore the state of things which so long and so ex- 
 traordinary a war had interrupted. 
 
 And why, gentlemen ? Because I was desirous, as was, I say, 
 falsely imputed to me, of dissociating the natural combinations of 
 war and peace from their respective attributes? — of holding out 
 war as, for its own sake desirable, and peace as, in itself, unlove- 
 ly? No, gentlemen; but because I wished to represent to you 
 things as they really were, or, at least, as, in my own honest judg- 
 ment, I saw them; because I wished to dissipate the prejudices 
 which were attempted to be raised against a war on the issue of 
 which our national existence depended, by pressing into the ser- 
 vice those common-place arguments against war which, however 
 abstractedly true, were not true as to the war in question; and by 
 holding out all those common-place inducements to peace, which, 
 though also true in the abstract, could not have been true of any 
 peace concluded on ignominous terms, and have not been found 
 true of the first years of a peace succeeding to a war of such un- 
 exampled effort and protraction. 
 
 That the war had had the effect of opening unusual channels of 
 commercial enterprise; that it had given a new and extraordinary 
 stimulus to commercial activity and enterprise; that the war had 
 created — I do not say a wholesome, I do not say a substantial, 1 
 do not say a permanent prosperity; but that it had created a pros- 
 perity peculiar to itself, and which atoned, in some measure, for 
 its evils, and enabled the country, in some measure, to bear up 
 against the difficulties incident to war; all these were matters of 
 fact, which, as such, I stated to you — and stated them as affording, 
 not motives, but consolations — not inducements to prolong, be- 
 yond necessity, a war which might be safely terminated at will, 
 but reasons for bearing patiently evils to which it was not in our 
 power to put an end. That this was a forced and unnatural state 
 of things, neither I nor any man pretended to deny; but whether 
 we alone could enjoy a sound and natural repose, in the forced 
 and unnatural state of Europe — wheth^r any peace which could 
 be made by us, while all Europe remained under the control of 
 our enemy, would be a peace worthy of the name; this was a 
 question which might fairly be mooted, without depreciating the 
 blessings of peace, or denying the general preferableness of peace 
 to war. Our adversaries represented the war as uncompensated 
 evil and voluntary self-infliction: peace, as unqualified prosperity, 
 and as immediately within our grasp. My business — the business 
 of truth — was to show, that the war — though all war is full of 
 evil — had yet mitigations, and, besides, would not cease at our 
 bidding; that peace would not come at our call, and, besides, that 
 when it came, it would bring with it its privations. The stimulus 
 of the war withdrawn, manufacturing industry would necessarily 
 
 ss 
 
494 ELECTION AND IJINJSEU SPEECHES. 
 
 languish: the channels of commerce, forced open by the war, 
 having closed, commercial enterprise must necessarily be checked 
 till new channels were explored; and the mere cessation of the 
 " trade of war" itself, in all its various branches, must both dis- 
 continue the occupation of a population which it had created, and 
 throw additional crowds on occupations already overstocked. 
 Here were causes sufficient for the inevitable privations and de- 
 rangements of a first year of peace after any war, but much more 
 after a war of such extraordinary magnitude and extension. 
 
 It required no great sagacity to forsee these things; but, in 
 those who did forsee them, it would have been, at least, disingen- 
 uous to assert — or to suffer the assertions to go uncontroverted — 
 that the war was our single and voluntary suffering, and that peace 
 was not only attainable, but would be an instant and perfect cure. 
 
 Such, gentlemen, is the true account of that temporary stagna- 
 tion of commercial industry and enterprise which has been insid- 
 iously imputed to national exhaustion; of the difficulty in provi- 
 ding employment for an exuberant population (the harvest of a 
 long war) upon the sudden return of peace, and before the world 
 had yet righted itself after all its convulsions. 
 
 Either our antagonists foresaw these immediate and necessary 
 consequences of the discontinuance of war, or they did not. If 
 they did forsee them, would it not have been fair to have shaded 
 a little more carefully the bright prospects which they painted of 
 the peace to come? If not, would it not be fair in them to ac- 
 knowledge, that they had been too sanguine in their anticipa- 
 tions? But, what surely is not fair nor reasonable is, that no 
 sooner was the peace which they had so long clamoured for ob- 
 tained, than they proceeded with as much pathos as they had 
 bestowed upon the evils of war, to deplore the sufferings of that 
 moment which they had predicted as one of unqualified happi- 
 ness. 
 
 They began their lamentations over languishing industry, and 
 stinted commerce, and unemployed population; as if these evils 
 were not the natural and necessary consequences of unavoidably 
 operating causes; as if they were the creation of some malignant 
 influence, which, whether in war or in peace, blighted the desti- 
 nies of the country. 
 
 Is it intended to maintain this proposition, that, in order to pro- 
 duce the blessings with which peace ought to be accompanied, 
 the war ought to have been concluded with defeat, and the peace 
 to have been a peace of humiliation ? If so, I can understand the 
 arguments and acknowledge the consistency of those who pretend 
 to have been disappointed at the tardy reappearance of the bless- 
 ings which they promised us; for, undoubtedly, the war was con- 
 cluded with triumphs, which must have deranged all the anticipa- 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 495 
 
 tions which were founded on the basis of unconditional surrender 
 and submission. 
 
 But, gentlemen, labouring as I do under the imputation of beino- 
 a great lover of war, I am almost afraid to say, that there are some 
 things in the war which I regret, and some things in the peace which 
 I like as little as even those privations of which we have been 
 speaking, but which are, happily, in a course of daily diminution. 
 The war divided the political parties of the country on one great 
 question, which involved and absorbed all minor considerations. 
 With war, party has not ceased; but our differences are of a sort 
 more ignoble and more alarming. The line of demarcation dur- 
 ing the war was — resistance or non-resistance to a foreign enemy: 
 the line of demarcation now is — maintenance or subversion of our 
 internal institutions. 
 
 Gentlemen, it does seem somewhat singular, and I conceive 
 that the historian of future times will be at a loss to imagine how 
 it should happen, that, at this particular period, at the close of a 
 war of such unexampled brilliancy, in which this country had acted 
 a part so much beyond its physical strength and its apparent re- 
 sources, there should arise a sect of philosophers in this country, 
 who begin to suspect something rotten in the British Constitu- 
 tion. The history of Europe for the last twenty-five years, is 
 something like this. A power went forth, animated with the 
 spirit of evil, to overturn every community of the civilized world. 
 Before this dreadful assailant, empires, and monarchies, and re- 
 publics bowed: some were crushed to the earth, and some bought 
 their safety by compromise. In the midst of this wide-spread 
 ruin, among tottering columns and falling edifices, one fabric alone 
 stood erect and braved the storm; and not only provided for its 
 own internal security, but sent forth, at every portal, assistance 
 to its weaker neighbours. On this edifice floated that ensign, 
 [pointing to the English ensign,] a signal of rallying to the com- 
 batant, and of shelter to the fallen. 
 
 To an impartial observer — I will not say to an inhabitant of 
 this little fortress — to an impartial observer, in whatever part of 
 the world, one should think something of this sort would have 
 occurred. Here is a fabric constructed upon soine principles not 
 common to others in its neighbourhood; principles which enable 
 it to stand erect while every thing is prostrate around it. In the 
 construction of this fabric there must be some curious felicity, 
 which the eye of the philosopher would be well employed in in- 
 vestigating, and which its neighbours may profit by adopting. 
 This, I say, gentlemen, would have been an obvious inference. 
 But what shall we think of their understandings who draw an in- 
 ference directly the reverse ? and who say to us — " You have stood 
 when others have fallen; when others have crouched, you have 
 
496 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 borne yourselves aloft; you alone have resisted the power which 
 has shaken and swallowed up half the civilized world. We like 
 not this auspicious peculiarity. There must he something wrong 
 in your internal conformation." With this unhappy curiosity, and 
 in the spirit of this perverse analysis, they proceed to dissect our 
 Constitution. They find that, like other states, we have a monarch; 
 that a nobility, though not organized like ours, is common to all 
 the great empires of Europe; but that our distinction lies in a pop- 
 ular assembly, which gives life, and vigour, and strength to the 
 whole frame of the Government. Here, therefore, they find the 
 seat of our disease. Our peccant part is, undoubtedly, the House 
 of Commons. Hence our presumptuous exemption from what was 
 the common lot of all our neighbours: the anomaly ought forthwith 
 to be corrected; and, therefore, the House of Commons must be 
 reformed. 
 
 Gentlemen, it cannot but have struck you as somewhat extra- 
 ordinary, that whereas, in speaking of foreign sovereigns, our re- 
 formers are never very sparing of uncourtly epithets; that where- 
 as, in discussing the general principles of government, they seldom 
 omit an opportunity of discrediting and deriding the privileged 
 orders of society; yet, when they come to discuss the British 
 Constitution, nothing can be more respectful than their language 
 towards the Crown; nothing more forbearing than their treatment 
 of the aristocracy. With the House of Commons alone they take 
 the freedom of familiarity; upon it they pour out all the phials of 
 their wrath, and exhaust their denunciations of amendment. 
 
 Gentlemen, this, though extraordinary, is not unintelligible. 
 The reformers are wise in their generation. They know well 
 enough — and have read plainly enough in our own history, that 
 the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the peerage 
 would be but as dust in the balance against a preponderating 
 democracy. They mean democracy, and nothing else. And, give 
 them but a House of Commons constructed on their own princi- 
 ples — the peerage and the throne may exist for a day, but may 
 be swept from the face of the earth by the first angry vote of such 
 a House of Commons. 
 
 It is, therefore, utterly unnecessary for the reformers to declare 
 hostility to the Crown ; it is, therefore, utterly superfluous for 
 them to make war against the peerage. They know that, let but 
 their principles have full play, the Crown and the peerage would 
 be to the Constitution which they assail, but as the baggage to the 
 army — and the destruction of them but as the gleanings of the 
 battle. They know that the battle is with the House of Commons, 
 as at present constituted; and that, that once overthrown, and 
 another popular assembly constructed on their principle, as the 
 creature and depository of the people's power, and the unreason- 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 497 
 
 ing instrument of the people's will, there would be not only no 
 chance, but (I will go further for them in avowal, though not in 
 intention, than they go for themselves) there would not be a 
 pretence for the existence of any other branch of the Constitution. 
 
 Gentlemen, the whole fallacy lies in this: the reformers reason 
 from false premises, and, therefore, are driving on their unhappy 
 adherents to false and dangerous conclusions. The Constitution 
 of this country is a monarchy, controlled by two assemblies; the 
 one hereditary, and independent alike of the Crown and the 
 people; the other elected by and for the people, but elected for 
 the purpose of controlling and not of administering the Govern- 
 ment. The error of the reformers, if error it can be called, is, 
 that they argue as if the Constitution of this country was a broad 
 and level democracy, inlaid (for ornament sake) with a peerage, 
 and topped (by sufferance) with a Crown. 
 
 If they say, that, for such a Constitution, that is, in effect, for 
 an uncontrolled democracy, the present House of Commons is not 
 sufficiently popular, they are right; but such a Constitution is not 
 what we have or what we desire. We are born under a monarchy, 
 which it is our duty, as much as it is for our happiness, to pre- 
 serve; and which there cannot be a shadow of doubt that the 
 reforms which are recommended to us would destroy. 
 
 I love the monarchy, gentlemen, because, limited and control- 
 led as it is in our happy Constitution, I believe it to be not only 
 the safest depository of power, but the surest guardian of liberty. 
 I love the system of popular representation, gentlemen; — who can 
 have more cause to value it highly than I feel at this moment — 
 reflecting on the triumphs which it has earned for me, and address- 
 ing those who have been the means of achieving them ? But of 
 popular representation, I think, we have enough for every pur- 
 pose of jealous, steady, corrective, efficient control over the acts 
 of that monarchical power, which, for the safety and for the peace 
 of the community, is lodged in one sacred family, and descendible 
 from sire to son. 
 
 If any man tell me, that the popular principle in the House of 
 Commons is not strong enough for effective control, nor diffused 
 enough to ensure sympathy with the people, I appeal to the whole 
 course of the transactions of the last war; I desire to have cited 
 to me the instances in which the House of Commons has failed, 
 either to express the matured and settled opinion of the nation, 
 or to convey it to the Crown. But I warn those who may under- 
 take to make the citation, that they do not (as, in fact, they almost 
 always do) substitute their own for the national opinion, and then 
 complain of its having been imperfectly echoed in the House of 
 Commons. 
 
 If, on the other hand, it be only meant to say, that the House of 
 65 ss* 
 
49S ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 Commons is not the whole govermnent of the country — which, 
 if all power be not only for but in the people, the House ot 
 Commons ought to be, if the people were adequately represented 
 — I answer, thank God it is not so! — God forbid it should ever 
 aim at becoming so! 
 
 But they look far short of the ultimate effect of the doctrines of 
 the present day, who do not see that their tendency is not to 
 make a House of Commons such as, in theory, it has always been 
 defin\:-d — a third branch of the legislature; but to absorb the legis- 
 lative and executive pov/ers into one; to create an immediate 
 delegation of the whole authority of the people — to which, prac- 
 tically, nothing could, and, in reasoning, nothing ought to stand 
 in opposition. 
 
 Gentlemen, it would be well if these doctrines were the ebul- 
 litions of the moment, and ended with the occasions which natu- 
 rally give them their freest play; I mean, with the season of 
 popular elections. But, unfortunately, disseminated as they are 
 among all ranks of the community, they are doing permanent and 
 incalculable mischief. How lamentably is experience lost on 
 mankind! for when — in what age, in what country of the world — 
 have doctrines of this sort been reduced to practice, without 
 leading, through anarchy, to military despotism! The revolution 
 of the seasons is not more certain than is this connexion of events 
 in the course of moral nature. 
 
 Gentlemen, to theories like these you will do me the justice to 
 remember that I have always opposed myself; not more since I 
 have had the honour to represent this community, than when I 
 was uncertain how far my opinions on such subjects might coin- 
 cide with yours. 
 
 For opposing these theories, gentlemen, I have become an object 
 of peculiar obloquy; but I have borne that obloquy with the con- 
 sciousness of having discharged my duty; and with the consola- 
 tion, that the time was not far distant when I should come here 
 among you, (to whom alone I owe an account of my public con- 
 duct,) — when I should have an opportunity of hearing from you, 
 whether I had (as I flattered myself) spoken the sense of the 
 second commercial community in England; and when, if — unfor- 
 tunately and contrar}'^ to my belief— I had separated myself in 
 opinion from you, I should learn the grounds of that separation. 
 
 Gentlemen, my object, in political life, has always been, rather 
 to reconcile the nation to the lot which has fallen to them (surely 
 a most glorious and blessed lot among nations!) than to aggravate 
 incurable imperfections, and to point out imaginary and unattain- 
 able excellencies for their admiration. I have done so, because, 
 though I am aware that more splendidly popular systems of gov- 
 ernment might be devised than that which it is our happiness to 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 499 
 
 enjoy, it is, I believe in my conscience, impossible to devise one 
 in which all the good qualities of human nature should be brought 
 more beneficially into action — in which there should be as much 
 order and as much liberty — in which property (the conservative 
 principle of society) should operate so fairly, with a just but not 
 overwhelming weight — in wliich industry should be so sure of its 
 reward, talents of their due ascendancy, and virtue of the general 
 esteem. 
 
 The theories of preternatural purity are founded on a notion of 
 doing away with all these accustomed relations — of breaking all 
 the ties by which society is held together. Property is to have no 
 influence — talents no respect — virtue no honour, amongtheir neigh- 
 bourhood. Naked, abstract political rights are to be set up against 
 the authorities of nature and of reason: and the result of suffrages, 
 thus freed from all the ordinary influences ]tvhich have operated 
 upon mankind from the beginning of the, world, is to be — the 
 erection of some untried system of politics, of which it may be 
 sufiicient to say, that it could not last a day — that, if it rose with 
 the mists of the morning, it would dissolve in the noontide sun. 
 
 Gentlemen, one ill consequence of these brilliant schemes, even 
 where they are the visions of unsound imagination, rather than the 
 suggestions of crafty mischief, is, that they tend to dissatisfy the 
 minds of the uninformed with the actual Constitution of their 
 country. 
 
 To maintain that Constitution has been the unvarying object of 
 my political life: and the maintenance of it, in these latter days, 
 has, as I have said, exposed me to obloquy and to hatred; to the 
 hatred of those who believe either their own reputation for saga- 
 city, or their own means of success, to be connected with a change 
 in the present institutions of the country. 
 
 We have heard something of numbers in the course of the 
 present election: and there is in numbers, I confess, a coincidence 
 which gratifies and pleases me. The number of three hundred 
 was that of the majority which assured my return. It is the num- 
 ber, I am informed, of those who are assembled here to greet me 
 this day. The last time that I heard of the number three hundred, 
 in a way at all interesting to myself, was in an intimation, publicly 
 conveyed to me, that precisely that number of heroes had bound 
 themselves, by oath to each other, to assassinate me. Gentlemen, 
 against my three hundred assassins I put my three hundred friends, 
 and I feel neither my life nor my popularity in danger. 
 
 Mr. Canning concluded by expressing his acknowledgments 
 for the honour done him in drinking his health, and by proposing 
 that of the worthy chairman. 
 
500 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT THE PUBLIC DINNER AT LIVERPOOL, GIVEN IN HONOUR OF MR. 
 canning's RE-ELECTION, IN THE MUSIC HALL, ON SATURDAY, 
 MARCH 18, 1820. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 Short as the interval is since I last met you in this place on a 
 similar occasion, the events which have filled up that interval have 
 not been unimportant. The great moral disease which we then 
 talked of as gaining ground on the community has, since that pe- 
 riod, arrived at its n^ost extravagant height; and, since that period, 
 also, remedies have been applied to it, if not of permanent cure, 
 at least of temporary mitigation. 
 
 Gentlemen, with respect to those remedies — I mean with re- 
 spect to the transactions of the last short session of Parliament 
 previous to the dissolution — I feel that it is my duty, as your re- 
 presentative, to render to you some account of the part which I 
 took in that assembly to which you sent me; I feel it my duty 
 also, as a member of the Government by which those measures 
 were advised. Upon occasions of such trying exigency as those 
 which we have lately experienced, I hold it to be of the very es- 
 sence of our free and popular Constitution, that an unreserved in- 
 terchange of sentiment should take place between the representa- 
 tive and his constituents; and if it accidentally happens, that he 
 who addresses you as your representative, stands also in the situ- 
 ation of a responsible adviser of the Crown, I recognize in that 
 more rare occurrence a not less striking or less valuable peculiar- 
 ity of that Constitution under which we have the happiness to live, 
 — by which a Minister of the Crown is brought into contact with 
 the great body of the community; and the service of the King 
 is shown to be a part of the service of the people. 
 
 Gentlemen, it has been one advantage of the transactions of the 
 last session of Parliament, that while they were addressed to meet 
 the evils which had grown out of charges heaped upon the House 
 of Commons, they have also, in a great measure, falsified the 
 charges themselves. 
 
 I would appeal to the recollection of every man who now hears 
 me, — of any, the most careless estimator of public sentiment, or 
 the most indifferent spectator of public events, whether any coun- 
 try, in any two epochs, however distant, of its history, ever pre- 
 sented such a contrast wnth itself as this country in November, 
 1819, and this country in February, 1820 ? Do I exaggerate when 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 501 
 
 I say, that there was not a man of property who did not tremble for 
 his possessions? — that there was not a man of retired and peaceable 
 habits who did not tremble for the tranquillity and security of his 
 home? — that there was not a man of orderly and religious principles 
 who did not fear that those principles were about to be cut from 
 under the feet of succeeding generations? Was there any man 
 who did not apprehend the Crown to be in danger? Was there 
 any man, attached to the other branches of the Constitution, who 
 did not contemplate with anxiety and dismay the rapid, and, ap- 
 parently, irresistible diffusion of doctrines hostile to the very ex- 
 istence of Parliament as at present constituted, and calculated to 
 excite, not hatred and contempt merely, but open and audacious 
 force, especially against the House of Commons? — What is, in 
 these respects, the situation of the country now ? Is there a man 
 of property who does not feel the tenure by which he holds his 
 possessions to have been strengthened ? Is there a man of peace 
 who does not feel his domestic tranquillity to have been secured ? 
 Is there a man of moral and religious principles who does not look 
 forward with better hope to see his children educated in those 
 principles? — who does not hail, with renewed confidence, the re- 
 vival and re-establishment of that moral and religious sense which 
 had been attempted to be obliterated from the hearts of mankind ? 
 
 Well, gentlemen, and what has intervened between the two 
 periods? A calling of that degraded Parliament; a meeting of 
 that scofied-at and derided House of Commons; a concurrence of 
 those three branches of an imperfect Constitution, not one of 
 which, if we are to believe the radical reformers, lived in the 
 hearts, or swayed the feelings, or commanded the respect of the 
 nation; but which, despised as they were while in a state of sepa- 
 ration and inaction, did, by a co-operation of four short weeks, re- 
 store order, confidence, a reverence for the laws, and a just sense 
 of their own legitimate authority. 
 
 Another event, indeed, has intervened, in itself of a most pain- 
 ful nature, but powerful in aiding and confirming the impressions 
 which the assembling and the proceedings of Parliament were 
 calculated to produce. I mean the loss which the nation has sus- 
 tained by the death of a Sovereign, with whose person all that is 
 venerable in monarchy has been identified in the eyes of success- 
 ive generations of his subjects; a Sovereign whose goodness, 
 whose years, whose sorrows and sufferings, must have softened 
 the hearts of the most ferocious enemies of kingly power; whose 
 active virtues, and the memory of whose virtues, when it pleased 
 Divine Providence that they should be active no more, have been 
 the guide and guardian of his people through many a weary and 
 many a stormy pilgrimage; scarce less a guide, and quite as much 
 
502 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 a guardian, in the cloud of his evening darkness, as in the bright- 
 ness of his meridian day. 
 
 That such a loss, and the recollections and reflections naturally 
 arising from it, must have had a tendency to revive and refresh 
 the attachment to monarchy, and to root that attachment deeper 
 in the hearts of the people, might easily be shown by reasoning; 
 but a feeling, truer than all reasoning, anticipates the result, and 
 renders the process of argument unnecessary. So far, therefore, 
 has this great calamity brought with it its own compensation, and 
 conspired to the restoration of peace throughout the country with 
 the measures adopted by Parliament. 
 
 And, gentlemen, what was the character of those measures ? — 
 The best eulogy of them I take to be this: it may be said of them, 
 as has been said of some of the most consummate productions of 
 literary art, that, though no man beforehand had exactly antici- 
 pated the scope and the details of them, no man, when they were 
 laid before him, did not feel that they were precisely such as he 
 would himself have suggested. So faithfully adapted to the case 
 which they were framed to meet, so correctly adjusted to the de- 
 gree and nature of the mischief they were intended to control, 
 that, while we all feel that they have done their work, I think 
 none will say there has been any thing in them of excess or su- 
 pererogation. 
 
 We were loudly assured by the reformers, that the test, through- 
 out the country, by which those who were ambitious of seats in 
 the new Parliament would be tried, was to be — whether they had 
 supported those measures, I have inquired, with as much dili- 
 gence as was compatible with my duties here, after the proceed- 
 ings of other elections; and, I protest I know no place yet, besides 
 the hustings of Westminster and Southwark, at which that men- 
 aced test has been put to any candidates. To me, indeed, it was 
 not put as a test, but objected as a charge. You know how that 
 charge was answered: and the result is to me a majority of 1,300 
 out of 2,000 voters upon the poll. 
 
 But, gentlemen, though this question has not, as was threatened, 
 been the watchword of popular elections, every other effort has, 
 nevertheless, been industriously employed to persuade the people, 
 that their liberties have been essentially abridged by the regula- 
 tion of popular meetings. Against that one of the measures pass- 
 ed by Parliament, it is that the attacks of the radical reformers 
 have been particularly directed. Gentlemen, the first answer to 
 this averment is, that the act leaves untouched all the constitu- 
 tional modes of assembly which have been known to the nation 
 since it became free. We are fond of dating our freedom from 
 the Revolution. I should be glad to know in what period, since 
 the Revolution (up to a very late period indeed, which I will 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 503 
 
 specify) — in what period of those reigns growing out of the 
 Revolution — I mean, of the first reigns of the House of Bruns- 
 ■vvick — did it enter into the head of man, that such meetings could 
 be holden, or that the legislature would tolerate the holding of such 
 meetings, as disgraced this kingdom for some months previous to 
 the last session of Parliament? When, therefore, it is asserted, 
 that such meetings were never before suppressed, the simple an- 
 swer is — they were never before systematically attempted to be 
 holden. 
 
 I verily believe, the first meeting of the kind that was ever at- 
 tempted and tolerated (I know of none anterior to it) was that 
 called by Lord George Gordon, in St. George's fields, in the year 
 1780, which led to the demolition of chapels and dwelling-houses, 
 the breaking of prisons, and the conflagration of London. Was 
 England never free till 1780? Did British liberty spring to light 
 from the ashes of the metropolis? What! was there no freedom 
 in the reign of George the Second ? None in that of George the 
 First? None in the reign of Queen Anne or of King William? 
 Beyond the Revolution I will not go. But I have always heard, 
 that British liberty was established long before the commence- 
 ment of the late reign; nay, that in the late reign (according to 
 popular politicians) it rather sunk and retrograded: and yet never 
 till that reign was such an abuse of popular meetings dreamt of, 
 much less erected into a right, not to be questioned by magis- 
 trates, and not to be controlled by Parliament. 
 
 Do I deny, then, the general right of the people to meet, to 
 petition, or to deliberate upon their grievances? God forbid J 
 But social right is not a simple, abstract, positive, unqualified 
 term. Rights are, in the same individual, to be compared with 
 his duties; and rights in one person are to be balanced with the 
 rights of others. Let us take this right of meeting in its most 
 extended construction and most absolute sense. The persons who 
 called the meeting at Manchester tell you, that they had a right 
 to collect together countless multitudes to discuss the question of 
 parliamentary reform: to collect them when they would and 
 where they would, without consent of magistrates, or concurrence 
 of inhabitants, or reference to the comfort or convenience of the 
 neighbourhood. May not the peaceable, the industrious inhabi- 
 tant of Manchester say, on the other hand, " I have a right to 
 quiet in my house; I have a right to carry on my manufactory, 
 on which not my existence only and that of my children, but that 
 of my workmen and their numerous families depends. I have a 
 right to be protected in the exercise of this my lawful calling; I 
 have a right to be protected, not against violence and plunder 
 only, against fire and sword, but against the terror of these calam- 
 ities, and against the risk of these inflictions; against the intimi- 
 
504 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 dation or seduction of my workmen; or against the distraction of 
 that attention and the interruption of that industry, without which 
 neither they nor I can gain our livelihood. I call upon the laws 
 to afford me that protection; and, if the laws in this country can- 
 not aiford it, depend upon it, I and my manufacturers must emi- 
 grate to some country where they can." Here is a conflict of 
 rights, between which what is the decision ? Which of the two 
 claims is to give way? Can any reasonable being doubt? Can 
 any honest man hesitate? Let private justice or public expedi- 
 ency decide, and can the decision by possibility be other, than 
 that the peaceable and industrious shall be protected — the turbu- 
 lent and mischievous put down? 
 
 But what similarity is there between tumults such as these, and 
 an orderly meeting, recognised by the law for all legitimate pur- 
 poses of discussion or petition ? God forbid, that there should 
 not be modes of assembly by which every class of this great na- 
 tion may be brought together to deliberate on any matters con- 
 nected with their interest and their freedom. It is, however, an 
 inversion of the natural order of things, it is a disturbance of the 
 settled course of society, to represent discussion as every thing, 
 and the ordinary occupations of life as nothing. To protect the 
 peaceable in their ordinary occupations, is as much the province 
 of the laws, as to provide opportunities of discussion for every 
 purpose to which it is necessary and properly applicable. The 
 laws do both ; but it is no part of the contrivance of the laws, that 
 immense multitudes should wantonly be brought together, month 
 after month, and day after day, in places where the very bringing 
 together of a multitude is of itself the source of terror and of 
 danger. 
 
 It is no part of the provision of the laws, nor is it in the spirit 
 of them, that such multitudes should be brought together at the 
 will of unauthorized and irresponsible individuals, changing the 
 scene of meeting as may suit their caprice or convenience, and 
 fixing it where they have neither property, nor domicil, nor con- 
 nexion. The spirit of the law goes directly the other way. It 
 is, if I may so express myself, eminently a spirit of corporation. 
 Counties, parishes, townships, guilds, professions, trades, and call- 
 ings, form so many local and political subdivisions, into which 
 the people of England are distributed by the law: and the perva- 
 ding principle of the whole is that of vicinage or neighbourhood; 
 by which each man is held to act under the view of his neigh- 
 bours; to lend his aid to them, to borrow theirs; to share their 
 councils, their duties, and their burdens; and to bear with them 
 his share of responsibility for the acts of any of the members of 
 the community of which he forms a part. 
 
 Observe, I am not speaking here of the reviled and discredited 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 505 
 
 statute law only, but of that venerable common law to which our 
 reformers are so fond of appealing on all occasions, against the 
 statute law by which it is modified, explained, or enforced. Guid- 
 ed by the spirit of the one, no less than by the letter of the other, 
 what man is there in this country who cannot point to the portion 
 of society to which he belongs? If injury is sustained, upon 
 whom is the injured person expressly entitled to come for redress? 
 Upon the hundred, or the division in which he has sustained the 
 injury. On what principle? On the principle, that as the indi- 
 vidual is amenable to the division of the community to which he 
 specially belongs, so neighbours are answerable for each other. 
 Just laws, to be sure, and admirable equity, if a stranger is to col- 
 lect a mob which is to set half Manchester on fire; and the burnt 
 half is to come upon the other half for indemnity, while the stran- 
 ger goes off, unquestioned, to excite the like tumult and produce 
 the like danger elsewhere! 
 
 That such was the nature, such the tendency, nay, that such, in 
 all human probability, might have been the result, of meetings 
 like that of the 16th of August, who can deny ? Who that weighs 
 all the particulars of that day, comparing them with the rumours 
 and the threats that preceded it, will dispute that such might have 
 been the result of that very meeting, if that meeting, so very le- 
 gally assembled, had not, by the happy decision of the magistrates, 
 been so very illegally dispersed ? 
 
 It is, therefore, not in consonance, but in contradiction to the 
 spirit of the law, that such meetings have been holden. The law 
 prescribes a corporate character. The callers of these meetings 
 have always studiously avoided it. No summons of freeholders 
 — none of freemen — none of the inhabitants of particular places 
 or parishes — no acknowledgment of local or political classifica- 
 tion. Just so at the beginning of the French Revolution: the 
 first work of the reformers was to loosen every established politi- 
 cal relation, every legal holding of man to man; to destroy every 
 corporation, to dissolve every subsisting class of society, and to 
 reduce the nation into individuals, in order, afterwards, to con- 
 gregate them into mobs. 
 
 Let no person, therefore, run away with the notion, that these 
 things were done without design. To bring together the inhab- 
 itants of a particular division, or men sharing a common franchise, 
 is to bring together an assembly, of which the component parts 
 act with some respect and awe of each other. Ancient habits, 
 which the reformers would call prejudices; preconceived attach- 
 ments, which they would call corruption; that mutual respect 
 which makes the eye of a neighbour a security for each man's 
 good conduct, but which the reformers would stigmatize as a con- 
 federacy among the few for dominion over their fellows; — all 
 
 66 TT 
 
506 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 these things make men difiicult to be moved, on the sudden, to 
 any extravagant and violent enterprize. But bring together a 
 multitude of individuals, having no permanent relation to each 
 other — no common tie, but what arises from their concurrence as 
 members of that meeting, a tie dissolved as soon as the meeting 
 is at an end; in such an aggregation of individuals there is no 
 such mutual respect, no such check upon the proceedings of each 
 man from the awe of his neighbour's disapprobation; and, if ever 
 a multitudinous assembly can be wrought up to purposes of mis- 
 chief, it will be an assembly so composed. 
 
 How monstrous is it to confound such meetings with the genu- 
 ine and recognised modes of collecting the sense of the English 
 people! Was it by meetings such as these that the Revolution 
 was brought about, that grand event, to which our antagonists are 
 so fond of referring? Was it by meetings in St. George's-fields? 
 in Spa-fields? inSmithfield? Was it by untold multitudes col- 
 lected in a village in the north? No! It was by the meeting of 
 corporations, in their corporate capacity; — by the assembly of re- 
 cognised bodies of the state; by the interchange of opinions among 
 portions of the community known to each other, and capable of 
 estimating each other's views and characters. Do we want a more 
 striking mode of remedying grievances than this ? Do we require 
 a more animating example? And did it remain for the reformers 
 of the present day to strike out the course by which alone Great 
 Britain could make and keep herself free? 
 
 Gentlemen, all power is, or ought to be, accompanied by re- 
 sponsibility. Tyranny is irresponsible power. This definition 
 is equally true, whether the power be lodged in one or many; — 
 whether in a despot, exempted by the form of government from 
 the control of the law; or in a mob, whose numbers put them be- 
 yond the reach of law. Idle, therefore, and absurd, to talk of 
 freedom where a mob domineers! Idle, therefore, and absurd, to 
 talk of liberty, when you hold your property, perhaps your life, 
 not indeed, at the nod of a despot, but at the will of an inflamed, 
 an infuriated populace! If, therefore, during the reign of terror 
 at Manchester, or at Spa-fields, there were persons in this country 
 who had a right to complain of tyranny, it was they who loved 
 the Constitution, who loved the monarchy, but who dared not ut- 
 ter their opinions or their wishes until their houses were barri- 
 caded, and their children sent to a place of safety. That was ty- 
 ranny ! and, so far as the mobs were under the control of a leader, 
 that was despotism! It was against that tyranny, it was against 
 that despotism, that Parliament at length raised its arm. 
 
 All power, I say, is vicious that is not accompanied by propor- 
 tionate responsibility. Personal responsibility prevents the abuse 
 of individual power: responsibility of character is the security 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 507 
 
 against the abuse of collective power, when exercised by bodies 
 of men whose existence is permanent and defined. But strip 
 such bodies of these qualities, you degrade them into multitudes, 
 and then what security have you against any thing that they may 
 do or resolve, knowing that, from the moment at which the meet- 
 ing is at an end, there is no human being responsible for their 
 proceedings? The meeting at Manchester, the meeting at Bir- 
 mingham, the meeting at Spa-fields or Smithfield, what pledge 
 could they give to the nation of the soundness or sincerity of their 
 designs ? The local character of Manchester, the local character 
 of Birmingham, was not pledged to any of the proceedings to 
 which their names were appended. A certain number of ambu- 
 latory tribunes of the people, self-elected to that high function, 
 assumed the name and authority of whatever place they thought 
 proper to select for a place of meeting; their rostrum was pitched, 
 sometimes here, sometimes there, according to the fancy of the 
 mob, or the patience of the magistrates; but the proposition and 
 the proposer were in all places nearly alike; and when, by a sort 
 of political ventriloquism, the same voice had been made to issue 
 from half a dozen different corners of the country, it was impu- 
 dently assumed to be a concord of sweet sounds, composing the 
 united voice of the people of England ! 
 
 Now, gentlemen, let us estimate the mighty mischief that has 
 been done to liberty by putting down meetings such as I have de- 
 scribed. Let us ask, what lawful authority has been curtailed; 
 let us ask, what respectable community has been defrauded of its 
 franchise; let us ask, what municipal institutions have been vio- 
 lated by a law which fixes the migratory complaint to the spot 
 whence it professes to originate, and desires to hear of the griev- 
 ance ffom those by whom that grievance is felt; — which leaves to 
 Manchester, as Manchester, to Birmingham, as Birmingham, to 
 London, as London, all the free scope of utterance which they 
 have at any time enjoyed for making known their wants, their feel- 
 ings, their wishes, their remonstrances; — which leaves to each of 
 these divisions its separate authority — to the union of all or of 
 many of them the aggregate authority of such a consent and co- 
 operation; but which denies to any itinerant hawker of griev- 
 ances the power of stamping their names upon his wares; of pre- 
 tending, because he may raise an outcry at Manchester or at Bir- 
 mingham, that he therefore speaks the sense of the town which 
 he disquiets and endangers; or, still more preposterously, that be- 
 cause he has disquieted and endangered half a dozen neighbour- 
 hoods in their turn, he is, therefore, the organ of them all, and, 
 through them, of the whole British people. 
 
 Such are the stupid fallacies which the law of the last session 
 
508 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 has extinguished ! and such are the object and effect of the mea- 
 sures which British liberty is not to survive! 
 
 To remedy the dreadful wound thus inflicted upon British 
 liberty, — to restore to the people what the people have not lost 
 — to give a new impulse to that spirit of freedom which nothing 
 has been done to embarrass or restrain, we are invited to alter the 
 constitution of that assembly through which the people share in 
 the legislature; in short, to make a radical reform in the House 
 of Commons. 
 
 It has always struck me as extraordinary, that there should be 
 persons prepared to entertain the question of a change in so im- 
 portant a member of the Constitution, without considering in what 
 way that change must affect the situation of the other members, 
 and the action of the Constitution itself. 
 
 I have, on former occasions, stated here, and I have stated else- 
 where, questions on this subject, to which, as yet, I have never 
 received an answer. " You who propose to reform the House of 
 Commons, do you mean to restore that branch of the legislature 
 to the same state in which it stood at some former period? or do 
 you mean to re-construct it on new principles?" 
 
 Perhaps a moderate reformer or whig will answer, that he 
 means only to restore the House of Commons to what it was at 
 some former period. I then beg to ask him — and to that ques- 
 tion, also, I have never yet received an answer — " At what period 
 of our history was the House of Commons in the state to which 
 you wish to restore it?" 
 
 The House of Commons must, for the purpose of clear argu- 
 ment, be considered in two views. First, with respect to its 
 agency as a third part in the Constitution: secondly, with respect 
 to its composition, in relation to its constituents. As to its agency 
 as a part of the Constitution, I venture to say, without hazard, as 
 I believe, of contradiction, that there is no period in the history 
 of this country in which the House of Commons will be found to 
 have occupied so large a share of the functions of Government as 
 at present. Whatever else may be said of the House of Commons, 
 this one point, at least, is indisputable, that from the earliest in- 
 fancy of the Constitution, the power of the House of Commons 
 has been growing, till it has almost, like the rod of Aaron, ab- 
 sorbed its fellows. I am not saying whether this is or is not as it 
 ought to be. I am merely saying why I think that it cannot be 
 intended to complain of the want of power, and of a due share in 
 the Government, as the defect of the modern House of Commons. 
 
 I admit, however, very willingly, that the greater share of 
 power the House of Commons exercises, the more jealous we 
 ought to be of its composition; and I presume, therefore, that it 
 is in this respect, and in relation to its constituents, that the state 
 
ELECTION AND UrNNEIl SPEECHES. 509 
 
 of that House is contended to want revision. Well, then, at what 
 period of our history was the composition of the history of the 
 House of Commons materially different from what it is at present? 
 Is there any period of our history in which the rights of election 
 were not as various, in which the influence of property was not 
 as direct, in which recommendations of candidates were not as 
 efficient, and some boroughs as close as they are now ? I ask for 
 information; but that information, plain and simple as it is, and 
 necessary, one should think, to a clear understanding, much more 
 to a grave decision of the point at issue, I never, though soliciting 
 it with all humility, have ever yet been able to obtain from any 
 reformer, radical or whig. 
 
 The radical reformer, indeed, to do him justice, is not bound 
 to furnish me with an answer to this question, because with his 
 view of the matter, precedents (except one, which I shall mention 
 presently) have nothing to do. The radical reformer would, pro- 
 bably, give to my first question an answer very different from 
 that which I have supposed his moderate brother to give. He 
 will tell me fairly, that he means not simply to bring the House of 
 Commons back, either to the share of power which it formerly 
 enjoyed, or to the modes of election by which it was formerly 
 chosen; but to make it what, according to him, it ought to be — 
 a direct, effectual representative of the people; representing them 
 not as a delegate commissioned to take care of their interests, but 
 as a deputy appointed to speak their will. Now to this view of 
 the matter, I have no other objection than this: — that the British 
 Constitution is a limited monarchy; that a limited monarchy is, 
 in the nature of things, a mixed government; but that such a 
 House of Commons as the radical reformer requires would, in 
 effect, constitute a pure democracy; a power, as it appears to me, 
 inconsistent with any monarchy, and unsesceptible of any limit- 
 ation. 
 
 I may have great respect for the person who theoretically pre- 
 fers a republic to a monarchy. But, even supposing me to agree 
 with him in his preference, I should have a preliminary question 
 to discuss, by which he, perhaps, may not feel himself embarras- 
 sed; which is this, whether I, born as I am (and as / think it is 
 my good fortune to be) under a monarchy, am quite at liberty to 
 consider myself as having a clear stage for political experiments; 
 whether I should be authorized, if I were convinced of the expe- 
 ediency of such a change, to withdraw monarchy altogether from 
 the British Constitution, and to substitute an unqualified democra- 
 cy in its stead: or whether, whatever changes I may be desirous 
 of introducing, I am not bound to consider the Constitution which 
 I find as at least circumscribing the range, and, in some measure, 
 prescribing the nature, of the improvement. 
 
510 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 For my own part, I am, undoubtedly, prepared to uphold the 
 ancient monarchy of the country, by arguments drawn from what 
 I think the blessings which we have enjoyed under it; and by 
 arguments of another sort, if arguments of another sort shall ever 
 be brought against it. But all that I am now contending for is, 
 that whatever reformation is proposed, should be considered with 
 some reference to the established Constitution of the country. 
 That point being conceded to me, I have no difficulty in saying, 
 that I cannot conceive a Constitution of which one-third part shall 
 be an assembly delegated by the people — not to consult for the 
 good of the nation, but to speak, day by day, the people's will — 
 which must not, in a few days' sitting, sweep away every other 
 branch of the Constitution that might attempt to oppose or con- 
 trol it. I cannot conceive how, in fair reasoning, any other branch 
 of the Constitution should pretend to stand against it. If Go- 
 vernment be a m.atter of will, all that we have to do is to collect 
 the will of the nation, and, having collected it by an adequate 
 organ, that will is paramount and supreme. By what pretension 
 could the House of Lords be maintained in equal authority and 
 juj'isdiction with the House of Commons, when once that House 
 of Commons should become a direct deputation, speaking the peo- 
 ple's will, and that will the rule of the Government? In one way 
 or other the House of Lords must act, if it be to remain a concur- 
 rent branch of the legislature. Either it must uniformly affirm 
 the measures which come from the House of Commons, or it must, 
 occasionally, take the liberty to reject them. If it uniformly af- 
 firm, it is without the shadow of authority. But to presume to 
 reject an act of the deputies of the whole nation! — by what as- 
 isumption of right could three or four hundred great proprietors 
 set themselves against the national will ? Grant the reformers, 
 then, what they ask, on the principles on which they ask it, and 
 it is utterly impossible that, after such a reform, the Constitution 
 should long consist of more than one body, and that one body a 
 popular assembly. 
 
 Why, gentlemen, is this theory? or is it a theory of mine? 
 If there be, among those who hear me, any man who has been 
 (as in the generous enthusiasm of youth any man may blamelessly 
 have been) bitten by the doctrines of reform, I implore him, be- 
 fore he goes forward in his progress to embrace those doctrines 
 in their radical extent, to turn to the history of the transactions 
 in this country in the year 1648, and to examine the bearings of 
 those transactions on this very question of radical reform. He 
 will find, gentlemen, that the House of Commons of that day 
 passed the following resolution: — 
 
 "Resolved, that the people are, under God, the original of all just power." 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 511 
 
 Well! — can any sentiment be more just and reasonable? Is it 
 not the foundation of all the liberties of mankind ? Be it so. Let 
 us proceed. The House of Commons followed up this resolution 
 by a second, which runs in something like these terms: — 
 
 " Resolved, that the Commons of England, assembled in Parliament, being 
 chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme authority of this na- 
 tion." 
 
 In this resolution the leap is taken. Do the radical reformers 
 deny the premises or the inference ? or do they adopt the whole 
 of the tempting precedent before them ? 
 
 But the inference did not stop there. The House of Commons 
 proceeded to deduce, from these propositions, an inference, the 
 apparently logical dependence of which upon these propositions 
 I wish I could see logically disproved. 
 
 "Resolved, (without one dissenting voice,) That whatsoever is enacted and 
 declared law by the Commons of England, assembled in Parliament, hath the 
 force of law, and all the people of this nation are included thereby, although 
 the consent and concurrence of the King and House of Peers be not had 
 thereunto."^ 
 
 Such was the theory: the practical inferences were not tardy 
 in their arrival, after the theory. In a few weeks the House of 
 Peers* was voted useless. We all know what became of the 
 Crown. 
 
 Such, I say, were the radical doctrines of 1648, and such the 
 consequences to which they naturally led. If we are induced to 
 admit the same premises now, who is it, I should be glad to know, 
 that is to guarantee us against similar conclusions? 
 
 These, then, are the reasons why I look with jealousy at schemes 
 of parliamentary reform. I look at them with still more jealousy, 
 because, in one of the two classes of men who co-operate in sup- 
 port of that question, I never yet found any two individuals who 
 held the same doctrines: I never yet heard any intelligible theory 
 of reform, except that of the radical reformers. Theirs, indeed, it is 
 easy enough to understand. But as for theirs, I certainly am not 
 yet fully prepared. I, for my part, will not consent to take 
 one step, without knowing on what principle I am invited to take 
 it, and (which is, perhaps, of more consequence,) without declaring 
 on what principle, I will 7iot consent that any step, however 
 harmless, shall be taken. 
 
 What more harmless than to disfranchise a corrupt borough in 
 Cornwall, which has exercised its franchise amiss, and brought 
 shame on itself, and on the system of which it is a part? — Noth- 
 
 * " The same day (January 30, 1648-9) the Lords desired a conference with 
 the Commons about settling the Government, and the administration of justice, 
 the judges' commissions being determined by the death of the King. The 
 Commons, without answering the messenger, voted the Lords to be useless and 
 dangerous, and therefore to be abolished."— iJapin,/o. vol ii. p. 574. 
 
513 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 ing. I have no sort of objection to doing, as Parliament has often 
 done in such cases, (supposing always the case to be proved,) — 
 to disfranchising the borough, and rendering it incapable of abu- 
 sing its franchise in future. But though I have no objection to 
 doing this, I will not do it on the principle of speculative im- 
 provement. I do it on the principle of specific punishment for 
 an offence. And I will take good care, that no inference shall be 
 drawn from my consent in this specific case, as to any sweeping 
 concurrence in a scheme of general alteration. 
 
 Nay, I should think it highly disingenuous to suffer the radical 
 reformers to imagine that they had gained a single step towards 
 the admission of their theory, by any such instance of particular 
 animadversion on proved misconduct. I consent to such disfran- 
 chisement; but I do so, not with a view of furthering the radical 
 system — rather of thwarting it. I am willing to wipe out any 
 blot in the present system, because I mean the present system to 
 stand. I will take away a franchise, because it has been practi- 
 cally abused; not because I am at all disposed to inquire into the 
 origin or to discuss the utility of all such franchises, any more 
 than I mean to inquire, gentlemen, into your titles to your estates. 
 Disfranchising Grampound, (if that is to be so,) I mean to save 
 Old Sarum. 
 
 Now, Sir, I think I deal fairly with the radical reformers; more 
 fairly than those who would suflTer it to be supposed by them, 
 that the disfranchisement of Grampound is to be the beginning of 
 a system of reform: while they know, and I hope mean as well 
 as I do, not to reform (in the sense of change) but to preserve 
 the Constitution. I would not delude the reformers, if I could; 
 and it is quite useless to attempt a delusion upon persons quite as 
 sagacious in their generation as any moderate reformers or anti- 
 reformers of us all. They know full well, that the whigs have 
 no more notion than I have of parting with the close boroughs. 
 Not they, indeed ! A large, and perhaps the larger, part of them 
 are in their hands. Why, in the assembly to which you send me, 
 gentlemen, some of those who sit on the same side with me re- 
 present, to be sure, less popular places, than Liverpool — but on 
 the bench immediately over against me, I descry, amongst the 
 most eminent of our rivals for powCr, scarce any other sort of 
 representatives than members for close, or if you will, for rotten 
 boroughs. To suppose, therefore, that our political opponents have 
 any thoughts of getting rid of the close boroughs, would be a 
 gross delusion; and, I have no doubt, they will be quite as fair 
 and open with the reformers on this point as I am. 
 
 And why, gentlemen, is it that I am satisfied with a system 
 which, it is said, no man can support who is not in love with cor- 
 ruption ? Is it that I, more than any other man, am afraid to face 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 513 
 
 a popular election ? To the last question 5'ou can give the an- 
 swer. To the former, I will answer for myself. I do verily be- 
 lieve, as I have already said, that a complete and perfect demo- 
 cratical representation, such as the reformers aim at, cannot exist 
 as part of a mixed government. It may exist, and for aught I 
 know or care, may exist beneficially as a whole. But I am not 
 sent to Parliament to inquire into the question, whether a demo- 
 cracy or a monarchy be the best. My lot is cast under the British 
 monarchy. Under that I have lived — under that I have seen my 
 country flourish — under that I have seen it enjoy as great a share 
 of prosperity, of happiness, and of glory as I believe any modifi- 
 cation of human society to be capable of bestowing; and I am not 
 prepared to sacrifice or to hazard the fruit of centuries of experi- 
 ence, of centuries of struggles, and of more than one century of 
 liberty, as perfect as ever blessed any country upon the earth, for 
 visionary schemes of ideal perfectibility, or for doubtful experi- 
 ments even of possible improvement. 
 
 I am, therefore, for the House of Commons as a part, and not 
 as the whole, of the Government And as a part of the Govern- 
 ment, I hold it to be frantic to suppose, that from the election of 
 members of Parliament you can altogether exclude, by any con- 
 trivance, even if it were desirable to do so, the influence of pro- 
 perty, rank, talents, family connexion, and whatever else, in the 
 radical language of the day, is considered as intimidation or cor- 
 ruption. I believe that if a reform, to the extent of that demanded 
 by the radical reformers, were granted, you would, before an 
 annual election came round, find that there were new connexions 
 grown up which you must again destroy, new influence acquired 
 which you must dispossess of its authority; and that in these 
 fruitless attempts at unattainable purity, you were working against 
 the natural current of human nature. 
 
 I believe, therefore, that, contrive how you will, some such 
 human motives of action will find room to operate in the election 
 of members of Parliament. I think that this must and ought to 
 be so, unless you mean to exclude from the concerns of the nation 
 all inert wealth, all inactive talent, the retired, the aged, and the 
 infirm, all who cannot face popular assemblies or engage in busy 
 life; in short, unless you have found some expedient for disarm- 
 ing property of influence, without (what I hope we are not yet 
 ripe for) the abolition of property itself. 
 
 I would have by choice — if the choice were yet to be made — 
 I would have in the House of Commons great variety of interests, 
 and I would have them find their way there by a great variety of 
 rights of election; satisfied that uniformity of election would pro- 
 duce any thing but a just representation of various interests. As 
 to the close boroughs, I know that through them have found their 
 6" 
 
514 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 way into the House of Commons, men whose talents have been 
 an honour to their kind, and whose names are interwoven with 
 the brightest periods in the history of their country. I cannot 
 think that system altogether vicious which has produced such 
 fruits. Nor can I think that there should be but one road into 
 that assembly, or that no man should be presumed fit for the de- 
 liberations of a senate, who has not had the nerves previously to 
 face the storms of the hustings. 
 
 I need not say. Gentlemen, that I am one of the last men to 
 disparage the utility and dignity of popular elections. I have good 
 cause to speak of them in far different language. But, among num- 
 berless other considerations which endear to me the favours which 
 I have received at your hands, I confess it is one, that,- as your 
 representative, I am enabled to speak my genuine sentiments on 
 this (as I think it) vital question of parliamentary reform, without 
 the imputation of shrinking from popular canvass, or of seeking 
 shelter for myself in that species of representation which, as an 
 element in the composition of Parliament, I never shall cease to 
 defend. 
 
 In truth, Gentlemen, though the question of reform is made the 
 pretext of those persons who have vexed the country for some 
 months, I verily believe, that there are very few even of them 
 who either give credit to their own exaggerations, or care much 
 about the improvements which they recommend. Why, do we 
 not see that the most violent of the reformers of the day are aim- 
 ing at seats in that assembly, which, according to their own theo- 
 ries, they should have left to wallow in its own pollution, dis- 
 countenanced and unredeemed? It is true, that if they found 
 their way there, they might endeavour to bring us to a sense of 
 our misdeeds, and to urge us to redeem our character by some 
 self-condemning ordinance; but would not the authority of their 
 names, as our associates, have more than counterbalanced the force 
 of their eloquence as our reformers? 
 
 But, Gentlemen, I am for the whole Constitution. The liberty 
 of the subject as much depends on the maintenance of the consti- 
 tutional prerogatives of the Crown — on the acknowledgment of 
 the legitimate power of the other House of Parliament, as it does 
 in upholding that supreme power (for such is the power of the 
 purse, in one sense of the word, though not in the sense of the 
 resolution of 164S) which resides in the democratical branch of 
 the Constitution. Whatever beyond its just proportion was gained 
 by one part, would be gained at the expense of the whole; and 
 the balance is now, perhaps, as nearly poised as human wisdom 
 can adjust it. I fear to touch that balance, the disturbance of 
 which must bring confusion on the nation. 
 
 Gentlemen, I trust there are few, very few, reasonable and en- 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 515 
 
 lightened men ready to lend themselves to projects of confusion. 
 But I confess I very much wish, that all who are not ready to do so 
 would consider the ill effect of any countenance given, publicly 
 or by apparent implication, to those whom, in their hearts and 
 judgments, they despise. I remember that most excellent and 
 able man, Mr. Wilberforce, once saying, in the House of Com- 
 mons, that he "never believed an opposition really to wish mis- 
 chief to the country; that they only wished just so much mischief 
 as might drive their opponents out, and place themselves in their 
 room." Now, Gentlemen, I cannot help thinking that there are 
 some persons tampering with the question of reform something in 
 the same spirit. They do not go so far as the reformers; they 
 even state irreconcilabe differences of opinion; but to a certain 
 extent they agree, and even co-operate with them. They co-ope- 
 rate with them in inflaming the public feeling not only against the 
 Government, but against the support given by Parliament to that 
 Government, in the hope, no doubt, of attracting to themselves 
 the popularity which is lost to their opponents, and thus being 
 enabled to correct and retrieve the errors of a displaced adminis- 
 tration. Vain and hopeless task to raise such a spirit and then to 
 govern it. They may stimulate the steeds into fury, till the 
 chariot is hurried to the brink of a precipice; but do they flatter 
 themselves that they can then leap in, and, hurling the incompe- 
 tent driver from his seat, check the reins just in time to turn from 
 the precipice and avoid the fall? — I fear they would attempt it in 
 vain. The impulse, once given, may be too impetuous to be 
 controlled; and, intending only to change the guidance of the 
 machine, they may hurry it and themselves to irretrievable de- 
 struction. 
 
 May every man who has a stake in the country, whether from 
 situation, from character, from wealth, from his family, and from 
 the hopes of his children — may every man who has a sense of the 
 blessings for which he is indebted to the form of Government 
 under which he lives, see that the time is come, at which his de- 
 cision must be taken, and, when once taken, steadfastly acted upon 
 — for or against the institutions of the British monarchy! The 
 time is come at which there is but that line of demarcation. On 
 which side of that line we, Gentlemen, shall range ourselves, our 
 choice has long ago been made. In acting upon that our comm.on 
 choice, with my best efforts and exertions, I shall at once faith- 
 fully represent your sentiments and satisfy my own judgment 
 and conscience. 
 
516 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT THE PUBLIC DINNER AT LIVERPOOL, IN THE LYCEUM ROOM, 
 ON FRIDAY, THE 30tH OF AUGUST, 1822. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 Often as I have had occasion to express my thanks to my 
 constituents, I never rose under feelings so oppressive as those 
 which I experience at the present morpent. It is not that the 
 manifestation of your kindness is new or strange, for it began 
 with your first unsolicited selection of me, and has grown with the 
 growth of our acquaintance; but the more than usual — the crown- 
 ing kindness of this moment, when I come among you to return 
 thanks for the past, and to terminate our connexion for the future, 
 is really overcoming, and almost takes from me the faculty of 
 expressing the excess of acknowledgment which it inspires. 
 
 Gentlemen, let those who doubt the practical excellence of the 
 political institutions of Great Britain look at the scene which this 
 assembly exhibits; and when they see how far an humble indi- 
 vidual, without personal distinction or personal claims of any kind 
 on the consideration or good-will of a great community, can earn 
 their good opinion, and, I may venture to say, their affection, 
 simply by the performance of his public duty as their representa- 
 tive, let them consider what gurautees there must be for the 
 security of a country in which such connexions are formed, and 
 for a Constitution under which such a public interchange of re- 
 ciprocal esteem and reciprocal obligations is maintained. Never 
 can such a country sink under the vainly apprehended danger of 
 of despotism; never, I trust can such a Constitution be made the 
 victim of that opposite and equally formidable danger — of anar- 
 chy, which would involve not only the ruin of all that is venera- 
 ble in our establishments, but the extinction of all that is estimable 
 in social life. 
 
 Gentlemen, there are, indeed, other roads to popularity. Power 
 may, perhaps, be gained, and its continued tenure secured, by a 
 subserviency without limit or heistation: and there is a cheap, but 
 dazzling, popularity for those who will either invent a catalogue 
 of imaginary evils, or, attributing to man the acts of Providence, 
 will promise instant relief to sufferings arising out of inevitable ne- 
 cessity, and to calamities which endurance only can cure; who will 
 challenge all existing institutions as misgovernment, and mount 
 and ride in the whirlwind of reform. But, gentlemen, neither of 
 these courses have I ever thought it consistent with honour or with 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. '517 
 
 duty to pursue. He may, perhaps, he held a timid and unwise 
 politician, who will not unscrupulously lend himself to objects 
 which he cannot approve ; and he may be sometimes an unpopu- 
 lar representative, who does not lay the foundation of his popu- 
 larity in flattery of the passions of the people. For the people are 
 open to flattery as well as kings; and that language is not more 
 remote from truth which exalts prerogative beyond the bounds of 
 reason, than that which speaks incessantly of popular rights, with- 
 out reference to corresponding duties. But, gentlemen, no such 
 sacrifices of truth have been necessary to obtain and retain your 
 good-will. I have found in this enlightened community, — com- 
 prehending, as it necessarily does, conflicting opinions, as well 
 as, in a certain degree, conflicting interests — I have found a sin- 
 gular temperance in your differences of political opinion. I have 
 found generally prevalent among you a warm but reasoning loy- 
 alty, consistent with perfect independence of thought; and an 
 ardent love of liberty, combined with a determined hostility to 
 all the excesses of faction. It is in sympathizing with these your 
 feelings, and participating in these your sentiments, that I have 
 acquired the share which I have the happiness to hold in your 
 good opinion: though sure I am, that, with all my endeavours to 
 earn it, I cannot have succeeded in deserving that excess of it 
 which you have been pleased to manifest to me on this occasion. 
 Gentlemen, on former occasions, when I have had the honour 
 to address meetings like the present, the task has been much more 
 easy. The topics on which I then had to dilate belonged to the 
 feelings of the moment. We have, on those occasions, had great 
 struggles to animate us, we have had great victories to celebrate; 
 and we all know, that, in the celebration of these municipal vic- 
 tories, some exaggeration of triumph is not only permitted, but 
 is freely and frankly allowed by one party to the other. But on 
 the present occasion, warmly as I feel all that my immediate 
 friends and supporters have done for me and expressed towards 
 me, I stand peculiarly circumstanced ; a peculiarity glorious, I 
 think, to the town as well as to myself; — I stand in the peculiar 
 circumstance of not knowing that I have among you, at this mo- 
 ment, even a political enemy. I have, gentlemen, in the course of 
 this day — pardon the boast, for the cause of it lies, as it well may, 
 very near to my breast — I have received this morning, from the 
 associated commercial bodies of the town, an address, acknow- 
 ledging, in terms far beyond the merit of any services which I 
 have laboured to perform, my conduct as representative from 
 Liverpool. Among the signatures to that address, representing, 
 as those signatures do, all the various classes into which this ex- 
 tensive commercial community is divided — among these signa- 
 tures, I say, every second name is the name of some individual 
 
 vv 
 
518 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 who has taken an active part against me in some, if not in every 
 election. That I have deserved this unfexampled concurrence of 
 approbation, I do not pretend; that I have received it, will be, to 
 the latest hour of my life, a pride beyond what I should be war- 
 ranted in expressing here; and a pride, gentlemen, which I shall 
 transmit to my children. 
 
 Such a testimony as this disables me from referring, with any 
 thing like an adverse feeling, to those whose political opinions we 
 have combated, heretofore, with licensed animosity — an animosity, 
 however, which never survived the contest which gave birth to it. 
 While I maintain, unshaken, my own political opinions, and while 
 I feel myself called upon to render to you, this day, an account 
 of those opinions, I beg to be understood as saying nothing in hos- 
 tility to any man who may differ from me, or who may have op- 
 posed me. 
 
 Gentlemen, it so happens that I can render this account with 
 the greater impartiality, because, in addition to those general sub- 
 jects upon which, retrospectively, we are all now tolerably well 
 agreed — to the war in which the country was engaged when I 
 first came amongst you, and of which, while the success was 
 doubtful, the policy was naturally enough disputed, but with re- 
 spect to which all memory of difference has been since nearly ex- 
 tinguished in acclamations at its final triumph; in addition, I say, 
 to that great question, and to the questions which grew out of it, 
 there were, when I came amongst you, and there are still, two 
 great national questions, upon one of which I have the misfortune 
 to differ from the great body of my most respectable friends and 
 supporters in this town, almost as widely as, on the other, L differ 
 with their adversaries: I allude, gentlemen, to the Catholic ques- 
 tion as the first, and to the question of parliamentary reform as 
 the second, of those national questions. 
 
 Gentlemen, on the first of these questions, you are well aware 
 of my opinions; for, on one of the earliest occasions on which I 
 had the honour to address the inhabitants of Liverpool, I told 
 them fairly, that, in accepting my services, they accepted the ser- 
 vices of one who, on that question, had taken his part; and who 
 could not, in deference to their opinions or prejudices, call them 
 which you will, abate a jot of his anxiety for its success. Accord- 
 ingly, gentlemen, at the different periods and under the various 
 modifications under which that question has come to be discussed, 
 I have given it my most strenuous support. But I have, in all 
 such cases, dealt honestly by you, gentlemen; for I have rarely, 
 if ever, given my support to that measure in the House of Com- 
 mons, without openly acknowledging, that, in so doing, I spoke 
 against what I believed to be the prevailing sense of my constitu- 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 519 
 
 ents. I have not, therefore, misused the weight of your authority, 
 nor compromised any opinion of yours adverse to my own. 
 
 Gentlemen, if I were remaining in this country, and continuing 
 to take my part in Parliament, I should continue to walk in the 
 same direction; but I think (and, as I may not elsewhere have 
 an opportunity of expressing this opinion, I am desirous of ex- 
 pressing it here) — I think that, after the experience of a fruitless 
 struggle of more than ten years, I should, as an individual (speak- 
 ing for none but myself, and not knowing whether I carry any 
 other person's opinion with me,) be induced, from henceforth, or, 
 perhaps, after one more general trial, to seek upon that question 
 a liberal compromise, rather than persevere in fighting, perhaps 
 ten years more, in vain for unqualified concession. 
 
 I might have had some hesitation, under other circumstances, 
 in making this avowal, knowing that it is generally an easier, as 
 well as a prouder, course to persevere, even in what is hopeless, 
 than fairly to avow a disposition to compromise. But, in what I 
 say on this occasion, I can have no other object than to declare a 
 sincere opinion, I alluded, in recent debates, in the House of 
 Commons, to the policy of accepting partial concessions, and to 
 my regret that I had once been myself a party to the refusal of 
 them. I have since revolved the subject much in my mind: and 
 I confess, that, next to the immediate success of the whole mea- 
 sure, which I have as much as ever at heart, I should wish, as well 
 for the benefit of those most immediately concerned, as for the 
 general peace of the kingdom, to see such an arrangement as 
 should remove all practical cause of complaint on the one side, 
 without inciting vague and indefinite apprehensions on the other; 
 referring to a more favourable opportunity, and to the progress of 
 public opinion, that complete and final settlement, of which I shall 
 never cease to maintain the expediency as well as the justice. 
 
 I turn now. Gentlemen, to the second question, with which, as 
 much as with the former, my name has been connected in popular 
 observation, and often in popular obloquy. I am mistaken, Gen- 
 tlemen, — I mean, I am mis-represented, my purpose is mistaken, 
 if it is supposed that I impute to those who support the question 
 of parliamentary reform a distinct apprehension of the conse- 
 quences to which, I think, their doctrines lead, and a design to 
 promote those consequences. It is with their doctrines that I 
 quarrel, and not with their motives; and it has been my desire 
 always to discuss the question argumentatively rather than angrily, 
 with those who are opposed to me in opinion. I wish them to state 
 to me — to me? I wish them to state to themselves, distinctly, the 
 object which they have in view, and the means they think they have 
 to attain it. Why, Gentlemen, what are the general arguments by 
 which we are urged to admit a change in the constitution of the 
 
520 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 House of Commons ? These arguments are derived from expen- 
 sive wars, from heavy taxes, and from severe enactments, consti- 
 tuting, as is affirmed, so many outrageous inroads upon the Con- 
 stitution. Granted, for argument's sake, that all these charges 
 are true. Granted that all the proceedings of Parliament, for 
 many years past, have been reprehensible. But were they the 
 proceedings of the House of Commons alone? Does the British 
 Constitution act by a single organ ? Has there been no concur- 
 rence in the maintenance of those wars, no consent to the impo- 
 sition of those taxes, no co-operation in the passing of those en- 
 actments? Is there no other assembly in existence which partook 
 of the opinions on which the House of Commons has proceeded, 
 and which would make therefore, the reform of the House of 
 Commons nugatory for the professed purposes, unless the co-or- 
 dinate authority was also reformed ? If you reform the House of 
 Commons, on the grounds of past misconduct, what will you do 
 with the House of Lords? If the House of Commons is to be 
 reformed, because it sanctioned the war with America ; if it is to 
 be reformed, because it maintained the war with France — (sink- 
 ing, for a moment, the undoubted fact, that the war with America 
 was a favourite measure with the people of this country as much 
 as with the Government; sinking, for a moment, the undoubted 
 fact, that the war with France was emphatically the war of the 
 nation;) — if the House of Commons, I ask, is to be reformed, be- 
 cause it approved and supported those wars; if it is to be reformed, 
 because it passed laws for the suppression of internal disturbance, is 
 the House of Lords to go free, which consented to those wars, and of 
 those acts consented to all, while some of them, and those not the 
 least severe, it originated ? If no such reform is to be applied to 
 the House of Lords, what is the supposed effect upon that House 
 of a reform of the House of Commons? Let us fairly speak out: 
 — Is the unreformed House of Lords to continue in full vigour, 
 to counteract the will of the reformed House of Commons ? Where, 
 then, is the use of the reform ? Or, is the reformed House of 
 Commons to act upon the House of Lords by intimidation and 
 compulsion? Aye! — That, to be sure, is what must be meant, 
 if there be truth in the argument; but that is what no man will say. 
 My quarrel, then, with this course of argument is — not that it 
 aims at an alteration — at an improvement, if you please, in the 
 House of Commons; but — that it aims at quite another thing than 
 the House of Commons as a part of a legislature. The legislative 
 authority of the state, according to the Constitution as it stands, is 
 shared between two houses of Parliament; — the suggested reform 
 goes to provide a single instrument, which shall not only do its 
 own work, but inevitably control the working of the other; which, 
 if the object of the reform is obtained, must act so powerfully, 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 521 
 
 that it must, in the very nature of things, reject any co-ordinate 
 power, and speedily act alone. 
 
 I have never stated it as a beauty of the Constitution, that Old 
 Sarum should have but as many voters as representatives. Let it 
 have two thousand, with all my heart. I have never stated it as 
 a beauty and perfection of the Constitution, that this or that great 
 peer should be able to return persons of his choice as the repre- 
 sentatives of the people in Parliament. I have never said, that 
 detected corruption should not be punished. In God's name, dis- 
 franchise other corrupt boroughs as you disfranchised Grampound. 
 But I have said, and I repeat, that I see no way of counteracting 
 the influence of property, and that I can imagine no process of 
 amputation of close boroughs — on the ground, not of practical 
 punishment, but of speculative improvement, and on the principle 
 that the House of Commons ought to speak the direct sense of 
 the people — which does not lead, by inevitable inference, to a 
 total alteration of the functions of the House of Commons. If by 
 "people" is meant the nation (and it is in the equivocal use of 
 this word that much of the fallacy of the argument lies;) — if an 
 assembly, "representing the people," is meant to be the un- 
 doubted, exclusive organ of national will — I ask, when the nation 
 has once such an organ, what room is there for another legislative 
 establishment? How can a second exist, and what is it to do? 
 
 Gentlemen, on a recent occasion, in a neighbouring county, a 
 most respectable gentleman, respectable from family, respectable 
 from private character and from talents, has done me the honour 
 to refer to my opinions with some expressions of surprise. Mr. 
 Fawkes (I name him with due honour, for what I believe to be 
 his individual worth) expressed great surprise, that I, being the 
 representative of the second commercial town in this great king- 
 dom, should feel any anxiety for the fate of the close parts of the 
 representation. Surprise for surprise. For I may, in my turn, 
 be surprised, that a gentleman of Yorkshire, in which county the 
 clamour for reform began, some years ago, on the ground of the 
 inadequacy of its own particular representation, should seize the 
 present moment, when that representation has just been doubled 
 by Parliament, for agitating anew the question of parliamentary 
 reform. I know no grievance, in the present constitution of Par- 
 liament, which has been so constantly dinned into my ears, from 
 my very youth, as the destitute state of Yorkshire in being al- 
 lowed to send only two of her sons to Parliament. She has been 
 long, "like Niobe, all tears" on this account: but now the griev- 
 ance is remedied; and, at the very moment when this is done, 
 one of the most gifted of the sons of this unhappy matron comes 
 forward, and, instead of returning thanks in behalf of his parent 
 county, expatiates loudly, in her name, on the inadequate repre- 
 68 uu* 
 
522 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 sentation of England! A Yorkshire-man might have been too 
 well pleased with the recent attention to her long-neglected claims 
 to be in a humour to find fault with Parliament just at this mo- 
 ment. But, Gentlemen, why am I, more than Mr. Fawkes, to 
 confine my attention to my own particular share of the represen- 
 tation ? So far from my situation, as representative of the second 
 town in the empire, stifling my voice on this subject, I have not 
 the slightest hesitation in saying, that if I were member for Old 
 Sarum, I should, more probably, hold my tongue upon it. It is 
 because I am a member for Liverpool; because I can have no 
 shadow of personal interest in maintaining that more imperfect 
 species of representation, which I do, nevertheless, conscientiously 
 maintain; — it is because my opinion cannot be questioned, as in- 
 fluenced by motives of individual convenience, that I feel a con- 
 fidence, which I otherwise might not feel, in exposing what I 
 think the fallacy of those doctrines which push the principle of 
 direct personal representation to an extent such as, if adopted, 
 must change the Constitution. 
 
 Let any man say, that his views of reform go no farther than 
 to the removal of blots, and I am with him. But it is because the 
 arguments for reform tend much further; — it is because they tend 
 not to remedy, but to destroy; not to correct what may be amiss 
 in a system of representation which combines all species of prop- 
 erty, admits all species of industry, opens the door to all species 
 of talent; — it is because they appear to me to tend to a system to 
 be founded exclusively on what is called the power of the people; 
 a power which, if recognised in the sense in which they proclaim 
 it, must act, not in concert with other powers, not by a conflict 
 and compromise of different interests; but by its own uncontrolled 
 authority, supreme and alone; it is for this reason that I think 
 it right to oppose, m limine, projects of parliamentary reform. 
 
 Gentleman, it is said, however, that, besides the faulty compo- 
 sition of the House of Commons, there is an influence of the 
 Crown which perverts and parylzes all its functions. My first 
 answer to this proposition is the same which I have made to the 
 proposition for alteration in the House of Commons. How rarely 
 does the House of Lords differ from the other House in its de- 
 cisions! — How much more rarely does it differ in a more popular 
 sense! Is it the influence of the Crown which predominates in 
 the House of Lords too ? If it is — do you mean to leave the 
 House of Lords still subject to the same influence, and still with 
 an equal voice in the decision of every national question ? If not 
 — is not the project still, though upon another pretext, to erect an 
 instrument which will make the operation of the House of Lords 
 completely nugatory; to place in a new, an untried organ, the 
 whole practical energy of the Constitution ? 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 523 
 
 I do verily and sincerely believe, that there is no proposition 
 more false, than that the influence of the Crown, any more than 
 its direct power, has increased comparatively with the increasing 
 strength, wealth, and population of the country. To these, if the 
 Crown be good for any thing at all in the Constitution, it is neces- 
 sary that its power and influence should bear some reasonable pro- 
 portion. I deny that, in the House of Commons — I deny that, 
 in the House of Lords, such an increase can be shown; but fur- 
 ther I contend, that, in speculating upon the practical play of our 
 Constitution, we narrow our view of its efficient principles, of its 
 progress, and of the state in which it now stands, if we do not 
 take into account other powers, extrinsic to the two Houses of 
 Parliament, which are at work in the moral and political world, 
 and which require to be balanced and counterpoised in their 
 operation. 
 
 What should we think of that philosopher, who, in writing, at 
 the present day, a treatise upon naval architecture and the theory 
 of navigation, should omit wholly from his calculation that new 
 and mighty power — new, at least, in the application of its might 
 — which walks the water like a giant rejoicing in his course; — 
 stemming alike the tempest and the tide; — accelerating inter- 
 course, shortening distances; — creating, as it were, unexpected 
 neighbourhoods, and new combinations of social and commercial 
 relation; — and giving to the fickleness of winds and the faithless- 
 ness of waves the certainty and steadiness of a highway upon the 
 land? Such a writer, though he might describe a ship correctly, 
 though he might show from what quarters the winds of heaven 
 blow, would be surely an incurious and an idle spectator of the pro- 
 gress of nautical science, who did not see in the power of steam 
 a corrective of all former calculations. So, in political science, 
 he who, speculating on the British Constitution, should content 
 himself with marking the distribution of acknowledged technical 
 powers between the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and 
 the Crown, and assigning to each their separate provinces — to the 
 Lords their legislative authority — to the Crown its veto (how 
 often used?) — to the House of Commons its power of stopping 
 supplies (how often, in fact, necessary to be resorted to?) — and 
 should think that he had thus described the British Constitution 
 as it acts and as it is influenced in its action; but should omit from 
 his enumeration that mighty power of public opinion, embodied 
 in a free press, which pervades, and checks, and, perhaps, in the 
 last resort, nearly governs the whole; — such a man would, surely, 
 give but an imperfect view of the Government of England as it 
 is now modified, and would greatly underrate the counteracting 
 influences against which that of the executive power has to 
 contend. 
 
524 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 Gentlemen, there is one plain test, which I think it wholesome 
 to apply to all speculative projects of political improvement. I 
 consider, first, not how they might operate for the general benefit 
 of mankind: — that is a wide consideration, indeed, and fit to be 
 deeply studied at leisure; but is not, as it appears to me, the im- 
 mediate business of the British statesman, providing for British 
 interests: and, I confess, that as, in private life, I generally look 
 with caution on that difi'usive benevolence which neglects the 
 circle immediately around it; so I look with some little suspicion 
 to that spirit of general improvement which is ready to sacrifice, 
 to a general principle, the immediate and particular safety of one's 
 own country. I inquire, rather, how such projects are likely to 
 operate on the British Constitution; which I find to be a mon- 
 archy — a monarchy qualified, indeed, with establishments, which 
 limit, which restrain, which control it — but, fundamentally and 
 essentially, a monarchy. I do not think myself bound to enter 
 the lists to show why the British Constitution should be a mon- 
 archy. I am not called upon to demonstrate, a priori, that it 
 was necessary that the British Constitution should be a monarchy, 
 any more than that Great Britain should be an island. It is quite 
 sufficient for me that I find these things so; it is quite sufficient 
 for me to know that Providence has ordained the one, and that 
 the acts of our ancestors, from immemorial time, acquiesced in 
 and confirmed by a long succession of generations, have clearly 
 ascertained the other; and have thus, although without any indi- 
 vidual vote or consent, imposed upon me the duty of allegiance 
 to the monarchy under which I have been born. 
 
 I know how tame, and servile, and abject this sort of reasoning 
 sounds, in an age when it is so much more the fashion to appeal 
 to theory than to fact; to try every existing establishment by 
 some abstract model of excellence. But, Gentlemen, against a 
 popular assembly, constituted on the principles on which parlia- 
 mentary reform is alleged to be necessary (the effective conse- 
 quence of which principles does, I willingly admit, go beyond 
 either the avowal, or, I dare say, the intention of those who pro- 
 fess them) — I say, against a popular assembly, so constituted, no 
 monarchy could stand. Such a government must be, practically, 
 whatever it be in name, a republic. I do not think myself at 
 liberty to discuss the question, whether that be a better kind of 
 Government. I feel myself, I confess, circumscribed within the 
 limits of the existing Constitution. 
 
 " Spartam nactus es, banc exorna." 
 
 Improve, as you can, the Constitution which has fallen to your 
 lot. The attempt to alter by force that Constitution, is one which 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 525 
 
 the law has branded in disagreeable terms. I agree with the law, 
 and would endeavour to prevent that from being done through 
 inadvertence, which, undoubtedly, there is no danger of any one's 
 attempting to do by design. In short, in all improvements we 
 must conform to the nature of the country to which we belong. 
 Like the King of Bohemia, who had an extreme desire to be a 
 naval power, but whose laudable ambition was checked by this 
 only impediment, that there was no sea-port in his kingdom. 
 
 So much. Gentlemen, as to the principles of parliamentary re- 
 form; and as to the principles of my resistance to it, as a general 
 proposition. Let me now call your attention, for a short time, to 
 the practical uses to which parliamentary reform is by its advo- 
 cates proposed to be applied. Five or six years ago there was 
 great suffering among the labouring classes. Provisions were at 
 such a price, as to be almost unattainable by the poorest order of 
 the people. The grievance in which these sufferings originated, 
 was alleged to be the corn bill. The corn bill was passed by the 
 influence of the landholders. The remedy was in some change 
 which would put that influence down; and we all remember 
 what a clamour was then raised for parliamentary reform. Well ! 
 — times come round; there is now such a plenty, such a glut of 
 provisions, that the humblest classes of society are enjoying com- 
 parative affluence. In the manufacturing districts, there is con- 
 stant and steady employment; at wages somewhat reduced, it is 
 true, but sufficient, in general, for comfortable maintenance. And 
 these blessings are further felt in a reduction of the poor-rates, 
 and, God be thanked, in a remarkable diminution of crime. I 
 do not know. Gentlemen, whether all these particulars consti- 
 tute a flourishing state of the community; but I do know, that the 
 absence of them was considered as constituting a state of things 
 too bad to bear; and I cannot but think, that whatever partial 
 evils accompany these blessings, those who, five or six years ago, 
 thought the Parliament good for nought, because the landholders 
 had passed a corn bill, and because the poor-rates were augmented, 
 and because the calendars were swelled with crime, must now con- 
 sent to sympathise with prosperity which grows out of the reverse 
 of the evils of which they complained. But, gentlemen, while the 
 labouring classes of the people are in this state of enjoyment, while 
 work is plenty, while the poor-rates and crimes are diminishing, 
 the growers of corn are suffering. And what is the remedy? 
 Parliamentary reform! So that, in the year 1817, when you suf- 
 fered under high prices, Parliamentary reform was the cure for 
 that calamity; and now, when the landholders are suffering under 
 cheapness, parliamentary reform is necessary the other way! And 
 for what purpose? To restore, I suppose, the good old times of 
 1817. Let me not be understood as underrating the pressure of 
 
526 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 either of these evils; in both states of things there is much to 
 lament, and in that which now exists there is much which I wish 
 to God I could see the way to cure. But as to Parliamentary 
 reform, as the remedy for either — much more as the remedy for 
 both — I will ask any man, whether there is common sense in such 
 a proposition — whether the double clamour for it be not a pre- 
 sumption rather in favour of the impartiality Avith which Parlia- 
 ment has acted in both these painful extremes ? 
 
 But parliamentary reform is the panacea for every evil. I read, 
 a few days ago, (I cannot immediately recollect where,) a story 
 of an artist who had attained great eminence in painting, but who 
 had directed his art chiefly to one favourite object. That object 
 happened to be a red lion. His first employment was at a public 
 house, where the landlord allowed him to follow his fancy. Of 
 course the artist recommended a red lion. A gentleman in the 
 neighborhood, having a new dining-room to ornament, applied to 
 the artist for his assistance; and, in order that he might have full 
 scope for his talents, left to him the choice of a subject for the 
 principal compartment of the room. The painter took due time 
 to deliberate; and then, with the utmost gravity and earnestness 
 — "Don't you think," said he to his employer, "that a handsome 
 red lion would have a fine effect in this situation ?" The gentle- 
 man was not entirely convinced, perhaps ; however, he let the 
 painter have his way in this instance; determined, nevertheless, 
 that in his library, to which he next conducted the artist, he would 
 have something of more exquisite device and ornament. He show- 
 ed him a small panel over his chimney-piece. " Here," says he, 
 I must have something striking. The space, you see, is but small, 
 the workmanship must be proportionably delicate." "What think 
 you," says the painter, after appearing to dive deep into his ima- 
 gination for the suggestion, "what think you of a small red lion?^^ 
 Just so it is with parliamentary reform. Whatever may be the 
 evil, the remedy is a parliamentary reform; and the utmost vari- 
 ety that you can extort from those that call themselves " mode- 
 rate reformers" is, that they will be contented with a small red 
 lion ! 
 
 Gentlemen, I wish that these theories were only entertaining; 
 but they have mischief in them; and I wish that against them the 
 country should be on its guard. I confess I am against even the 
 smallest of these rerf lions; 1 object not to the size, but to the 
 species. I fear the smallest would be but the precursor of the 
 whole menagerie; and that, if once, propitiated Ijy his smallness, 
 you open the door for his admission, you will find, when you 
 wanted him to turn out again, that he had been pampered to a 
 formidable size in his cage. 
 
 Gentlemen, in the times in which we live, there is (disguise it 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 527 
 
 how we may) a struggle going on, — in some countries an open, 
 and in some a tacit struggle, between the principles of monarchy 
 and democracy. God be praised, that in that struggle we have 
 not any part to take. God be praised, that we have long ago 
 arrived at all the blessings that are to be derived from that which 
 alone can end such a struggle beneficially, — a compromise and 
 intermixture of those conflicting principles. It is not, as it appears 
 to me, the duty of this country to side either with the assailants, 
 where they aim at too much, nor with those who stand on the 
 defensive, when they will grant nothing. England has only to 
 maintain herself on the basis of her own solid and settled Consti- 
 tution, firm, unshaken, — a spectatress interested in the contest only 
 by her sympathies: — not a partisan on either side, but, for the sake 
 of both, a model, and ultimately, perhaps, an umpire. Should we 
 be led, by any false impulse of chivalrous benevolence, to parti- 
 cipate in the struggle itself, we commit, and thereby impair, our 
 authority; we abandon the position in which we might hereafter 
 do most good, and may bring the danger of a foreign struggle 
 home to our own hearths and to our own institutions. 
 
 Gentlemen, with an audience less enlightened than that which 
 I have had the honor to address, I should have avoided topics of 
 such general interest, and confined myself to the particulars of 
 our local connexion. But, gentlemen, our connexion is one of 
 principle; it had its foundation in principle; on that it has been 
 raised and cemented. Gentlemen, whatever may be my future 
 destination, it will be a comfort unspeakable to me to have laid, 
 in that connexion, the foundation, I trust, of mutual and lasting 
 regard, which has cheered every stage of our intercourse, and will 
 long survive our separation. 
 
 Gentlemen, it may, perhaps, be expected of me, especially after 
 the speech of my worthy friend, your president, that I should say 
 a few words to you on the topics to which he has alluded. I have 
 doubted much and long whether I should refer to those topics at 
 all, or should persevere in the silence which I have hitherto pre- 
 scribed to myself upon them; whether I should incur the risk, on 
 the one hand, of being supposed not to have dealt openly with 
 you; or, on the other hand, the risk of that misconstruction, of 
 various sorts, to which a public man, who speaks of himself, must 
 expect to be exposed. On full reflection, I have determined to 
 brave the latter danger rather than the former. I prefer submit- 
 ing to any misconstruction, to any inconvenience, rather than that 
 it should ever be thought that I had repaid your unbounded con-: 
 fidence with any thing like concealment or distrust. Gentlemen, 
 after this preface, you will, perhaps, be, in one sense, disappointed 
 to hear, that all that I have to say is, that, upon my honour, I have 
 nothing to tell. But it is as necessary for me to make that con- 
 
528 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 fession, as it would have been to make a communication, had I 
 any to make. I do assure you, that I know as little as any man 
 that now listens to me, of any arrangements likely to grow out of 
 the present state of things. I cannot pretend ignorance, indeed, 
 of rumours which are in every one's mouth; but I assure you, 
 that, upon my honour, at the moment at which I am speaking to 
 you, I have nothing either to tell or to conceal. 
 
 Gentlemen, you will not expect that I shall enter into any 
 explanation as to what might be the decision which I might think 
 it right to take upon any such occurrence as these rumors have in 
 contemplation. This only, gentlemen, I can frankly declare to 
 you, that, in any such case, my decision would be founded upon 
 an honest and impartial view of public considerations alone, and 
 that it would be determined, not by a calculation of interests, but 
 by a balance and comparison of duties. 
 
 Enough, gentlemen, on a topic to which I doubt whether I 
 should, even now, have alluded, but for the most unexpected, 
 although amicable provocation of my worthy friend in the chair j. 
 and I have only now to hope, that having been, as I learn, mis- 
 construed on account of my silence in another place, I shall not 
 be misconstrued in an opposite direction on account of what I 
 have said here. From my silence then, it has been inferred, that 
 I intended ostentatiously to declare a determination to refuse office 
 at home, if it should be proposed to me. I beg I may not be 
 misconstrued now in an opposite sense, as intending to express, 
 eras feeling, in the slightest degree, any anxiety, any expectation, 
 or desire for such a proposal. My only, anxiety, I most solemnly 
 declare, is to state the truth to those who have a right to know it, 
 inasmuch as their kindness and attachment to me give them an 
 interest in whatever concerns me. 
 
 Gentlemen, wherever my lot may be cast, may this great com- 
 munity continue to flourish in the prosperity now happily begin- 
 ning to be restored to it, after the fluctuations of war and peace; — 
 in the principles from which it has never swerved, since I have 
 had the honour to be acquainted with it; in the honourable and 
 liberal spirit which pervades all classes of its society, and which 
 marks even its political divisions; — and in that cordial union which 
 binds all its membei'S together, without distinction of party, in any 
 thing which relates to the interest of your town, or to the benefit 
 of the humbler part of its population. May it flourish, an image 
 of splendid commercial greatness, unalloyed by the besetting vices 
 which sometimes grow to such greatness; an image of those 
 princely merchants whose history one of your own body has 
 illustrated; mixing, like them, with the pursuits of trade, the 
 cultivation of liberal science ; decorating your town with the 
 works of art, as much as it is enriched by enterprise and industry; 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 529 
 
 and placing it, by the variety of its useful, and the munificence 
 of its charitable establishments, among the most celebrated cities 
 of the world. May you flourish in the happiness and renown to 
 which these qualities entitle you; and, when you look for another 
 individual to occupy the station which I have, for ten years, filled, 
 may you find one more competent lo the task than I have been: 
 — one more devoted to your interests, more anxious for your 
 prosperity, or more thankful for your kindness, I am sure you 
 cannot find. 
 
 69 
 
5M 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT A PUBLIC DINNER IN THE TOWN-HALL IN 1823, ON THE 
 OCCASION OF PROPOSING THE HEALTH OP MR. HUGHES, THE 
 REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICA, AT THE COURT OF SWEDEN. 
 
 Mr. Canning said, that, with the kind permission of the chair, 
 he rose to propose a toast, which, he felt confident, would be 
 received by the company with the most sincere and cordial satis- 
 faction. He alluded to the health of the distinguished stranger 
 then near him, who was on his way to Sweden, as the represent- 
 ative of his country, the United States of America. He was most 
 happy to avail himself of this opportunity, amidst so large an 
 assemblage of some of the first merchants of England, of congrat- 
 ulating that gentleman on the full and uninterrupted intercourse 
 which now existed between his country and our own; an inter- 
 course, of which the value could be nowhere so well understood as 
 in this great town, which was, both in point of local situation and 
 of spirit and enterprize, so pre-eminently qualified to derive from 
 that intercourse every possible advantage. On such an occasion 
 he might be permitted to express the gratification which he felt, 
 in common with the great mass of the intelligent and liberal men 
 of both countries, to see the animosities necessarily attendant on 
 a state of hostility so rapidly wearing away, and giving place to 
 feelings so much more consonant to the true interests of two 
 nations united by a common language, a common spirit of commer- 
 cial enterprize, and a common regard for well-regulated liberty. It 
 appeared to him, that of two such states the relative position was 
 not wholly unlike that which occasionally occurred in families; 
 where a child having, perhaps, displeased a parent — a daughter, 
 for instance, in contracting a connexion offensive to that parent's 
 feelings, some estrangement would for a while necessarily ensue; 
 but, after a lapse of time, the irritation is forgotten, the force of 
 blood again prevails, and the daughter and the mother stand to- 
 gether against the world. That all causes of dissension may have 
 now ceased forever between two countries so strongly bound to 
 each other, and with so clear a community of interests, he most 
 sincerely hoped; and he trusted, that, in whatever part of the 
 world Mr. Hughes might represent his country, he would feel, 
 that in no part of it could that country's merits be more truly 
 appreciated than in this. 
 
53] 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ON THE 16th of APRIL, 1816, AT A DINNER GIVEN TO MR. CAN- 
 NING BY THE BRITISH MERCHANTS RESIDENT AT LISBON. 
 
 I AM deeply sensible, gentlemen, of the honour done me by 
 this meeting, and I am highly flattered by the sentiments with 
 which you have been pleased to couple my name. 
 
 To have been a disciple of Mr. Pitt, and to have been a sharer 
 in those councils, in which originated the struggle for the salvation 
 of Portugal, are the two circumstances in my political life, on 
 which, if on any, I look back with pride and gratification. 
 
 It is a pride to me to have imbibed the principles of Mr. Pitt, 
 and a gratification to receive your testimony of the just applica- 
 tion of those principles to the measures by which this country was 
 saved: principles of which the characteristic was to cherish order 
 and industry at home, as the true sources of commercial opulence 
 and national strength abroad; to consider the peace, and power, 
 and safety of Great Britain, as bound up with the security and 
 independence of other nations. From this system of internal and 
 external policy. Great Britain derived the means, and imposed 
 upon herself the duty, of sustaining the long contest with France, 
 which preceded the war of the Peninsula. 
 
 In pursuance of that policy, those who had the direction of the 
 British councils, at the moment when the grasping hand of France 
 was extended to seize the crown and liberties of Portugal, did not 
 hesitate to fly to her assistance. 
 
 The good sense, the feeling, and the generosity of the British 
 nation, went with their Government in the undertaking. But 
 sanguine and visionary enthusiasts, I well remember, were they 
 deemed to be, who thought that from the struggle for Portugal, 
 might issue the deliverance of Europe. Such an enthusiast I was, 
 and always avowed myself to be. 
 
 I made this avowal, even in times when the contest was most 
 doubtful, and by many held to be desperate. 
 
 True it was, that clouds and darkness occassionally gathered on 
 the horizon: but even through those clouds and through that dark- 
 ness, I saw, or fondly fancied I saw, a ray of light which promised 
 to pierce the gloom, and which might hereafter lighten the nations. 
 
 It is not at this time of day, not in this spot that I am called 
 upon to justify these hopes against the imputation of extravagance. 
 
 Whether as a just and natural consequence of perseverance in a 
 good cause, or whether by the special favour of Providence, true 
 it is, in fact, that from this nook of Europe proceeded the impulse 
 
532 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 by which its mightiest kingdoms have been set free. True it is, that 
 in this sterile and unpromising soil was deposited the seed of that 
 security, whose branches now overshadow mankind. 
 
 From these recollections and associations, the land in which we 
 are assembled, derives an animating and classic interest, even in 
 the eyes of the most indifferent observer. 
 
 For my own part, I cannot view this city, in which for so many 
 months of horror and anxiety, amidst a condensed and suffering, 
 but unmurmuring population, the hopes of Europe lay trembling 
 for their doom; — I could not traverse those mighty fastnesses of 
 nature, which fence this capital, those bulwarks, behind which 
 Victory herself retired, to new-plume her wings for a flight more 
 soaring and more sustained; — I could not contemplate those holy 
 ruins, amongst which I have lately been wandering, where an awful 
 curiosity pauses to inquire, whether the surrounding destruction 
 has been wrought by ancient convulsions of nature, or by the 
 sportive sacrilege and barbarous malignity of the foe? — I cannot 
 behold the traces of desolation in this country, and of suffering 
 among the people, without rendering a just homage to the char- 
 acter of a nation, which by all that it has done, and still more by 
 all that it has endured, has raised itself to a pitch of moral emi- 
 nence, so far beyond the porportion of its territory, population, or 
 power. 
 
 I cannot consider all these things without blessing that wise and 
 benificent policy, which brought England with timely speed, to 
 the aid of such a nation; to call forth its energies, to marshal its 
 resources, to support and invigorate its unyielding constancy, and 
 after its own deliverance was achieved, to lead it forth in pursuit 
 of its oppressor. 
 
 To have fought together in such a cause, to have mingled ban- 
 ners, and to have mingled blood in battles for such interests, and 
 leading to such results, must, undoubtedly, cement an eternal 
 union between the British and Portuguese nations. 
 
 You will observe, gentlemen, that I am anxious to state the 
 principle of our connexion, and of our claims upon each other, in 
 terms not of comparison, but of equality. 
 
 I do so with sincerity, because I believe that statement to be 
 just; I might do so from policy, even if I doubted of its justness. 
 Portugal would not have been saved without England, it is true: 
 but Portugal was to England a main instrument for the mightier 
 task which England had to perform. 
 
 We brought hither councils and arms, and British discipline, 
 and British valour; we found here willing hearts and active hands, 
 a confiding Government, a people brave and enduring, docile in 
 instruction, faithful in following, patient under privations, not to 
 be subdued by disaster, and not to be intoxicated by success. 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 533 
 
 The arm of England was the lever that wrenched the power of 
 Buonaparte from its basis — Portugal was the fulcrum on which 
 that lever moved — England fanned and fed the sacred fire, but 
 Portugal had already reared the altar on which that fire was 
 kindled, and from which it mounted, brightening and widening, 
 until the world was illumined with its blaze. 
 
 I have said, that even from motives of policy, I would state 
 as nearly equal as possible, the balance between Portugal and 
 England. There is a principle of disunion in unequal connec- 
 tions. Active beneficence is a virtue of easier practice than for- 
 bearance after having conferred, or than thankfulness after having 
 received, a benefit. 
 
 I know not, indeed, whether it be a greater and more difficult 
 exercise of magnanimity for the one party, to act as if he had for- 
 gotten, or for the other, as if he constantly remembered the 
 obligation. 
 
 On the part of Great Britain, let us bear in mind that the feel- 
 ings to which we addressed ourselves in Portugal, were those of 
 national pride and independence. If those feelings we found 
 equal to the occasion, what wonder, or what regret that they 
 should have survived it ? It is naturally to be expected that, hav- 
 ing accomplished the overthrow of its enemies, the genius of the 
 nation should carry itself with somewhat of a bolder and freer 
 port, even towards its friends. We have no right to feel this 
 sorely. It would be neither just nor becoming in us so to do. We 
 should respect, even in its excess, an independence which we 
 have vindicated, and should pardon even the waywardness of a 
 spirit which we have raised. 
 
 To Portugal, on the other hand, I would say, that there is no 
 humiliation in the sentiment of national gratitude; — that a grate- 
 ful mind is at once indebted and discharged, and recovers its level 
 by a just acknowledgement, that there is no room for either com- 
 mercial or political jealousy between Great Britain and Portugal; 
 — that the world is large enough both for Portuguese and British 
 Commerce; — and that Great Britain, while she has never been 
 wanting to her ally in time of need, seeks no other reward for all 
 her exertions, and all her sacrifices, than mutual confidence and 
 common prosperity. 
 
 I am sure that I shall be rightly understood by all those in 
 whose presence I speak, not only as to my meaning, but as to 
 my motives. 
 
 The delicacy and difficulty of the situation in which the local 
 Government of this kingdom is placed; the weight of their re- 
 sponsibility, and the anxiety which (as I have witnessed) neces- 
 sarily attends it, entitle them to peculiar consideration. I have 
 no fear of their disavowing the assurance which I give you of 
 
534 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 their friendly disposition towards this meeting, and I venture, 
 therefore, to propose to you, Gentlemen, in the condfience that 
 you will receive it cordially, and that your cordiality will be duly 
 estimated and returned, " The health of their Excellencies the 
 Governors of the Kingdom." 
 
535 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 at plymouth, in the year 1823, upon the occasion of being 
 presented with the freedom of that town. 
 
 Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen, 
 
 I accept with thankfulness, and with greater satisfaction than I 
 can express, this flattering testimony of your good opinion and 
 goodwill, I must add, that the value of the gift itself has been 
 greatly enhanced by the manner in which your worthy and hon- 
 ourable Recorder has developed the motives which suggested it, 
 and the sentiments which it is intended to convey. 
 
 Gentlemen, your Recorder has said very truly, that whoever, 
 in this free and enlightened state, aims at political eminence, and 
 discharges political duties, must expect to have his conduct scruti- 
 nized, and every action of his public life sifted with no ordinary 
 jealousy, and with no sparing criticism; and such may have been 
 my lot as much as that of other public men. But, gentlemen, 
 unmerited obloquy seldom fails of an adequate, though perhaps 
 tardy, compensation. I must think myself, as my honourable 
 friend has said, eminently fortunate, if such compensation as he 
 describes, has fallen to me at an earlier period than to many 
 others; if I dare flatter myself (as his partiality has flattered me,) 
 that the sentiments that you are kind enough to entertain for me, 
 are in unison with those of the country; if, in addition to the jus- 
 tice done me by my friends, I may, as he has assured me, rely 
 upon a candid construction, even from political opponents. 
 
 But, gentlemen, the secret of such a result does not lie deep. 
 It consists only in an honest and undeviating pursuit of what one 
 conscientiously believes to be one's public duty — a pursuit which, 
 steadily continued, will, however detached and separate parts of 
 a man's conduct may be viewed under the influence of partialities 
 or prejudices, obtain for it, when considered as a whole, the ap- 
 probation of all honest and honourable minds. Any man may 
 occasionally be mistaken as to the means most conducive to the 
 end which he has in view; but if the end be just and praise-wor- 
 thy, it is by that he will be ultimately judged, either by his con- 
 temporaries or by posterity. 
 
 Gentlemen, the end which I confess I have always had in view, 
 and which appears to me the legitimate object of pursuit to a Bri- 
 tish statesman, I can describe in one word. The language of 
 modern philosophy is wisely and diflTusely benevolent ; it pro- 
 fesses the perfection of our species, and the amelioration of the 
 
536 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 lot of all mankind. Gentlemen, I hope that my heart beats as 
 high for the geaeral interest of humanity — I hope that I have as 
 friendly a disposition towards other nations of the earth, as any 
 one who vaunts his philanthropy most highly; but I am contented 
 to confess, that in the conduct of political affairs, the grand object 
 of my contemplation is the interest of England. 
 
 Not, gentlemen, that the interest of England is an interest 
 which stands isolated and alone. The situation which she holds 
 forbids an exclusive selfishness; her prosperity must contribute to 
 the prosperity of other nations, and her stability to the safety of 
 the world. But, intimately connected as we are with the system 
 of Europe, it does not follow that we are therefore called upon to 
 mix ourselves on every occasion, with a restless and meddling 
 activity, in the concerns of the nations which surround us. It is 
 upon a just balance of conflicting duties, and of rival, but some- 
 times incompatible, advantages, that a government must judge 
 when to put forth its strength, and when to husband it for occa- 
 sions yet to come. 
 
 Our ultimate object must be the peace of the world. That 
 object may sometimes be best attained by prompt exertions — 
 sometimes by abstinence from interposition in contests which we 
 cannot prevent. It is upon these principles that, as has been most 
 truly observed by my worthy friend, it did not appear to the Go- 
 vernment of this country to be necessary that Great Britain should 
 mingle in the recent contest between France and Spain. 
 
 Your worthy Recorder has accurately classed the persons who 
 would have driven us into that contest. There were undoubtedly 
 among them those who desired to plunge this country into the 
 difficulties of war, partly from the hope that those difficulties 
 would overwhelm the Administration; but it would be most 
 unjust not to admit that there were others who were actuated by 
 nobler principles and more generous feelings, who would have 
 rushed forward at once from the sense of indignation at aggres- 
 sion, and who deemed that no act of injustice could be perpetrated 
 from one end of the universe to the other, but that the sword of 
 Great Britain should leap from its scabbard to avenge it. But as 
 it is the province of law to control the excess even of laudable 
 passions and propensities in individuals, so it is the duty of Gov- 
 ernment to restrain within due bounds the ebullition of national 
 sentiment, and to regulate the course and direction of impulses 
 which it cannot blame. Is there any one among the latter class 
 of persons described by my honourable friend (for to the former 
 I have nothing to say,) who continues to doubt whether the Gov- 
 ernment did wisely in declining to obey the precipitate enthusi- 
 asm which prevailed at the commencement of the contest in Spain ? 
 Is there any body who does not now think, that it was the office of 
 
ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 537 
 
 Government to examine more closely all the various bearings of so 
 complicated a question, to consider whether they were called upon 
 to assist a united nation, or to plunge themselves into the internal 
 feuds by which that nation was divided — to aid in repelling a 
 foreign invader, or, to take part in a civil war. Is there any man 
 that does not now see what would have been the extent of bur- 
 dens that would have been cast upon this country ? Is there any 
 one who does not acknowledge that, under such circumstances the 
 enterprise would have been one to be characterized only by a 
 term borrowed from that part of the Spanish literature with which 
 we are most familiar, — Quixotic; an enterprise, romantic in its 
 origin, and thankless in the end? 
 
 But while we thus control even our feelings by our duty, let 
 it not be said that we cultivate peace, either because we fear, or 
 because we are unprepared for, war; on the contrary, if eight 
 months ago the Government did not hesitate to proclaim that the 
 country was prepared for war, if war should be unfortunately 
 necessary, every month of peace that has since passed, has but 
 made us so much the more capable of exertion. The resources 
 created by peace are means of war. In cherishing those resources, 
 we but accumulate those means. Our present repose is no more 
 a proof of inability to act, than the state of inertness and in- 
 activity in which I have seen those mighty masses that float 
 in the waters above your town, is a proof that they are devoid 
 of strength, and incapable of being fitted out for action. You 
 well know, gentlem.cn, how soo7i one of those stupendous mas- 
 ses, now reposing on their shadoivs in perfect stillness, — hoic 
 soon, upon any call of patriotism, or of necessity, it would 
 assume the likeness of an animated thing, instinct with life 
 and motion — how soon it would ruffle, as it were, its sivelling 
 plumage — how quickly it would put forth all its beauty and 
 its bravery, collect its scattered elements of strength, and 
 aioaken its dormant thunder. Such as is one of these magnif- 
 icent machines when springing from inaction into a display 
 of its might — such is England herself, ivhile apparently pas- 
 sive and motionless she silently concentrates the power to be 
 put forth on an adequate occasion. But God forbid that that 
 occasion should arise. After a war sustained for near a quarter 
 of a century — sometimes single-handed, and with all Europe ar- 
 ranged at times against her or at her side, England needs a period 
 of tranquillity, and may enjoy it without fear of misconstruction. 
 Long may we be enabled, gentlemen, to improve the blessings of 
 our present situation, to cultivate the arts of peace, to give to com- 
 merce, now reviving, greater extension and new spheres of em- 
 ployment, and to confirm the prosperity now generally diffused 
 throughout this island. Of the blessing of peace, gentlemen, I 
 70 
 
538 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 trust that this borough, with which I have now the honour and 
 happiness of being associated, will receive an ample share. I trust 
 the time is not far distant, when that noble structure of which, as 
 I learn from your Recorder, the box with which you have hon- 
 oured me, through his hands, formed a part, that gigantic barrier 
 against the fury of the waves that roll into your harbour, will 
 protect a commercial marine not less considerable in its kind, than 
 the warlike marine of which your port has been long so distin- 
 guished an asylum, when the town of Plymouth will participate 
 in the commercial prosperity as largely as it has hitherto done in 
 the naval glories of England. 
 
539 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT THE DINNER GIVEN BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANV, 
 TO SIR JOHN MALCOLM, ON HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE PRESIDENCY OF 
 BOMBAY, ON THE 13tH OF JUNE, 1827. 
 
 After the Chairman had proposed the health of the Right 
 Honourable George Canning and His Majesty's Ministers, which 
 he prefaced, by expressing his hope, that their eminent talents, 
 unwearied zeal, and assiduity, would earn for them the highest 
 reward — public gratitude — to which their services to the country 
 could entitle them, Mr. Canning rose, amidst loud cheers, which 
 lasted for some minutes, and spoke nearly as follows: — * 
 
 Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen, 
 
 On behalf of my colleagues and myself, whom you have associ- 
 ated in the toast now drank, allow me to thank this company for 
 the manner in which it has been received. We neither can deserve 
 any support, nor do we claim any, but on the condition coupled 
 by the worthy Chairman, with the expression of his and your kind 
 disposition towards us, that to the best of our ability, we consult 
 and promote the general welfare and happiness of the people. 
 Gentlemen, there is no body of men in the country, from whom 
 such a compliment as that you have now bestowed, could come 
 to us with greater welcome. 
 
 I believe there is no example in the history of the world, on 
 the one hand, of the existence of an imperial corporation, such as 
 your Chairman represents, or on the other of the concurrence of 
 two co-ordinate authorities, for so long a series of years, in con- 
 ducting without shock or conflict, the administration of the won- 
 derful, I had almost said the tremendous, empire, over which the 
 East-India Company and the Crown jointly preside. 
 
 Gentlemen, the construction and maintenance of that vast empire 
 are, indeed, as fearful as extraordinary. It is a disproof of the 
 common adage, that little wisdom is required for governing man- 
 kind, to consider how such a machine has been gradually formed 
 — how a varied population of nearly 100,000,000 of souls is kept 
 together under a government so anomalous — and distant thou- 
 sands of miles — with so much comparative happiness, and so little 
 of internal confusion. But, gentlemen, the greatness of the con- 
 
 * This was the last speech pronounced on any public occasion (out of Par- 
 liament) by Mr. Canning. It is now published for the first time, in a corrected 
 form. 
 
540 ELECTION AND DINNER SPEECHES. 
 
 cern to be administered has had its natural effect: it has produced 
 a race of men adequate to its administration. I venture to say, 
 that there cannot be found in Europe any monarchy, which within 
 a given time has produced so many men of the first talents, in civil 
 and military life, as India has within the same period, first reared 
 for her own use, and then given to their native country. 
 
 Gentlemen, if the compliment paid by you to His Majesty's 
 Ministers be pleasing from the East India Company, it is doubly 
 so on an occasion like the present, when that Company, with the 
 concurrence, and full approbation of His Majesty's Government, 
 is sending back to India a man whom you have brought home for 
 a time, that lie might rest in the career of his honourable labors, 
 and whom you now restore to an enlarged sphere of activity, alike 
 for the advantage of your service and the completion of his own 
 reputation. It is perfectly true, as the gallant officer has himself 
 stated, that, seven or eight years ago, — being then connected with 
 the department of the Government whose duty it is to watch over 
 your affairs, — I recommended Sir John Malcolm to your notice, 
 I believe, for the very post to which he is now destined. I recom- 
 mended him as one of three individuals then in your service, whose 
 respective merits, all eminent in an extraordinary degree, were so 
 equally balanced, that it became a task of difficulty to choose be- 
 tween them — I speak of Mr. Elphinstone, Sir Thomas Munro, and 
 the gallant officer whose appointment we are now met to celebrate. 
 The selection then made was one rather of circumstances, than 
 of preference. Sir John Malcolm, I well remember, acquiesced, 
 with a generous promptitude, in the advancement of his compet- 
 itors, so worthy of him; and if he has in consequence been for a 
 while thrown behind them in opportunity of serving you, and 
 still further distinguishing himself, I have no doubt that he will 
 speedily overtake them both in deeds and in renown. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 SELECTIONS PROM THE WRITINGS OF MR. CANNING. 
 
 THE SLAVERY OF GREECE. 
 
 Unrivaird Greece ! thou ever-honour'd name, 
 Thou nurse of heroes dear to deathless fame ! 
 Though now to worth, to honour all unknown, 
 Thy lustre faded, and thy glories flown, 
 Yet still shall memory with reverted eye 
 Trace thy past worth, and view thee with a sigh. 
 
 Thee Freedom cherish'd once with fostering hand. 
 And breathed undaunted valour through the land. 
 Here the stern spirit of the Spartan soil 
 The child of poverty inured to toil. 
 Here, loved by Pallas and the sacred nine, 
 Once did fair Athens' towery glories shine. 
 To bend the bow, or the bright falchion wield. 
 To lift the bulwark of the brazen shield, 
 To toss the terror of the whizzing spear. 
 The conquenng standard's glittering glories rear, 
 And join the maddening battle's loud career. 
 How skill'd the Greeks ; confess what Persians slain 
 Were strew'd on Marathon's ensanguined plain ; 
 When heaps on heaps the routed squadrons fell, 
 And with their gaudy myriads peopled hell. 
 What millions bold Leonidas withstood. 
 And seal'd the Grecian freedom with his blood ; 
 Witness Thermopylae ! how fierce he trod. 
 How spoke a hero, and how moved a god. 
 The rush of nations could alone sustain. 
 While half the ravaged globe was arm'd in vain. 
 Let Leuctra say, let Mantinea tell. 
 How great Epaminondas fought and fell ! 
 
 Nor war's vast art alone adorn'd thy fame 
 " But mild philosophy endear'd thy name." 
 Who knows not, sees not, with admiring eye. 
 How Plato thought, how Socrates could die 1 
 
 To bend the arch, to bid the column rise, 
 And the tall pile aspiring pierce the skies, 
 The awful fane, magnificently great. 
 With pictured pomp to grace, and sculptured state. 
 This Science taught ; on Greece each science shone, 
 Here the bold statue started from the stone ; 
 
 XX 541 
 
542 APPENDIX. 
 
 Here warm with life the swelling canvas glow'd ; 
 Here big with thought the poet's raptures flow'd ; 
 Here Homer's lip was touch'd with sacred fire, 
 And wanton Sappho tuned her amorous lyre ; 
 Here bold Tyrtseus roused the enervate throng, 
 Awaked to glory by the aspiring song; 
 Here Pindar soar'd a nobler, loftier way, 
 And brave Alcaeus scorn'd a tyrant's sway ; 
 Here gorgeous Tragedy, with great control, 
 Touch'd every feeling of th' impassion'd soul ; 
 "While in soft measure tripping to the song 
 Her comic sister lightly danced along. — 
 
 This was thy state ! but oh ! how changed thy fame, 
 And all thy glories fading into shame ! 
 What ! that thy bold, thy freedom-breathing land 
 Should crouch beneath a tyrant's stern command ! 
 That servitude should bind in galling chain. 
 Whom Asia's millions once opposed in vain ; 
 Who could have thought 1 who sees without a groan 
 Thy cities mouldering, and thy walls o'erthrown. 
 That where once tower'd the stately solemn fane. 
 Now moss-grown ruins strew the ravaged plain, 
 And unobserved but by the traveller's eye, _ 
 Proud, vaulted domes in fretted fragments lie, 
 And the fallen column on the dusky ground 
 Pale ivy throws its sluggish arms around. 
 
 Thy sons (sad change !) in abject bondage sigh ; 
 Unpitied toil, and unlamented die : 
 Groan at the labours of the galling oar. 
 Or the dark caverns of the mine explore. 
 The glittering tyranny of Othman's sons. 
 The pomp of horror which surrounds their thrones, 
 Has awed their servile spirits into fear. 
 Spurned by the foot they tremble and revere. 
 The day of labour, night's sad sleepless hour. 
 The inflictive scourge of arbitrary power 
 The bloody terror of the pointed steel. 
 The murderous stake, the agonizing wheel. 
 And (dreadful choice !) the bowstring, or the bowl, 
 Damps their faint vigour and unmans the soul. 
 Disastrous fate I still tears will fill the eye. 
 Still recollection prompt the mortal sigh ; 
 When to the mind recurs thy former fame, 
 And all the horrors of thy present shame. 
 
 Some tall rock, whose bare, broad bosom high 
 Towers from the earth, and braves the inclement sky ; 
 On whose black top the blackening deluge pours. 
 At whose wide base the thundering ocean roars ; 
 In conscious pride its huge gigantic form 
 Surveys imperious and defies the storm. 
 Till worn by age, and mouldering to decay. 
 The insidious waters wash its base away. 
 It falls, and falling cleaves the trembling ground. 
 And spreads the tempest of destruction round. 
 
APPENDIX. 543 
 
 FROM THE MICROCOSM— 1808. 
 
 Jurare — et fallere Numen. — Virgil. 
 To swear and forswear. 
 
 Nee sine uUa mehercule ironia loquor. — Cicero. 
 To speak ironically. 
 
 " Having, in my former paper, fully, and I hope satisfactorily, explained 
 the nature and tendency of this work, and as far as I could foresee them, an- 
 swered, if not obviated, all the objections most likely to be started against an 
 undertaking of the kind, I shall forbear detaining my readers by any farther 
 prefatory observations, and proceed immediately in the execution of my plan ; 
 premising only, that should it appear to the elder part of my readers, that the 
 subject now before them is too lightly treated, I would not have them con- 
 clude from thence, that I am not well aware of its intrinsic weight and im- 
 portance. Let them however be sensible, that Gregory Griffin does not, with 
 the self-assumed arrogance of an universal censurer, commit to the public these 
 his lucubrations as dictatorial lectures on morality, but as the reflections of an 
 impartial observer of all transactions, principally indeed those of this lesser 
 world, of which he boasts himself a citizen. These, as they afforded both 
 entertainment and instruction to him in their formation, he presumes to hope 
 may be the source of the one or the other to some of his readers. In this 
 character I would wish them to consider me in the following paper, and withal 
 to keep in their minds a maxim, indisputable perhaps from the weight of its 
 authority, 
 
 Ridiculum acri 
 
 Fortius ac melius magnas plerumque secat res. 
 
 Where moral precepts fail, 
 
 The sneer of ridicule will oft prevail. 
 
 " It has often occurred as a matter of surprise to me and a few friends, who 
 like myself, can find pleasure in such speculations as arise more immediately 
 from common occurrences, that among the crowds of pretenders who profess 
 to teach every accomplishment, necessary or unnecessary, to form the charac- 
 ter of a complete gentleman, no one has as yet attempted to give instructions 
 in a science, the use of which is more generally adopted, by all ranks of peo- 
 ple, than perhaps any other imder the sun. The reader will probably guess 
 that I allude to the noble art of swearing. 
 
 " So universally, indeed, does this practice prevail, that it pervades all sta- 
 tions and degrees of men, from the peer to the porter, from the minister to the 
 mechanic. It is the bond of faith, the seal of protestations (the oaths of lovers, 
 indeed, are a theme too trite to need discussion here), and the universal suc- 
 cedaneum for logical or even rational demonstration. And here I cannot for- 
 bear reflecting on the infinite improvements made by moderns in the method 
 of elucidating and confirming all matters of opinion. A man now-a-days has 
 need but to acquire one quality, impudence, and to get rid of a troublesome 
 companion, conscience, to establish whatever maxims he may take in his 
 head. Let him but confirm with an oath the most improbable conjectures, 
 and if any one calls his honour in question, the manner of settling all such 
 disputes is too obvious to need explanation. And by these means how much 
 unnecessary trouble does he save the rational talents of his auditors ! what a 
 world of useless investigation ! Who can help lamenting that this method 
 of arguing was not long ago adopted ] We should then probably have es- 
 caped being pestered by the eternal disputations of that useless set of creatures 
 called philosophers ; as any tolerable swordsman might have settled the uni- 
 versal system according to his own plan, and made the planets move by what 
 regulations he pleased, provided he was ready, in the Newgate phrase, ' to 
 swear through thick and thin.' 
 
544 APPENDIX. 
 
 ' But this is a small part only of the advantages attendant on the extensive 
 practice of this art. In the councils of the cabinet, and the wrangiings of the 
 bar, it adds weight to the most striking arguments, and by its authority en- 
 forces conviction. 
 
 " It is an old proverbial expression, that ' there go two words to a bargain ;' 
 now I should not a little admire the ingenuity of that calculator who could 
 define, to any tolerable degree of exactness, how many oaths go to one in these 
 days; for I am confident that there is no business carried on, from the wealth- 
 iest bargains of the exchange to the sixpenny chafferings of a St. Giles's 
 huckster, in which swearing has not a considerable share. And almost every 
 tradesman, 'meek and much a liar,' will, if his veracity be called in question, 
 coolly consign to Satan some portion of himself, payable on demand, in case 
 his goods be not found answerable to his description of their quality. 
 
 " I remember to have heard of a person of great talents for inquiry, who, to 
 inform himself whether the land or the water bore the greater proportion in the 
 globe, contrived to cut out with extreme nicety from a map the different por- 
 tions of each, and by weighing them together decided it, in favour of which 
 it is not now material. Could this experiment be made with regard to the 
 proportion which oaths bear to the rest of our modern conversation, I own I 
 am not without my suspicions, that the former scale would in some cases pre- 
 ponderate ; nay, certain I am, that these harmless expletives constitute consi- 
 derably the weightiest part in the discourse of those who either by their own 
 ignorant vanity, or the contemptuous mock-admiration of others, have been 
 dignified with the title of bucks. And this indeed, as well in that smaller 
 circle which falls more immediately under my observation, as in the more en- 
 larged society of men ; among whom, to a buck who has the honour to serve 
 his majesty, a habit of swearing is an appendage as absolutely essential as a 
 cockade or a commission : and many a one there is among this order who 
 will sit down with equal ardour and self-complacency to devise the cut of a 
 coat, or the form of an execration. 
 
 " Nay, even the female sex have, to their no small credit, caught the happy 
 contagion ; and there is scarce a mercer's wife in the kingdom but has her in- 
 nocent unmeaning imprecations, her little oaths 'softened into nonsense,' and, 
 with squeaking treble, mincing blasphemy into odsbodikins, slitterkins, and such 
 like, will ' swear you like a sucking dove, ay, an it were any nightingale.' 
 
 " That it is one of the accomplishments of boys is more than sufficiently 
 obvious, when there is scarce one, though he be but five years old, that does 
 not lisp out the oaths he has heard drop from the mouths of his elders ; while 
 the happy parent congratulates himself on the early improvement of his 
 offspring, and smiles to discover the promising seeds of manly wit in the 
 sprightly sallies of puerile execration. On which topic I remember to have 
 heard an honest Hibernian divine, whose zeal for morality would sometimes 
 hurry him a little beyond the limits of good grammar or good sense, in the 
 height of declamation declare, that 'the little children that could neither 
 speak nor walk run about the streets blaspheming.' 
 
 " Thus, then, through all ranks and stages of life, is swearing the very 
 hinge of conversation ! It is the conclusive supplement to argument, the 
 apology for wit, the universal medium through which every thought is con- 
 veyed ; and as to the violent passions, it is (to use the words of the poet) ' the 
 very midwife of the mind ;' and is equally serviceable in bringing forth the 
 sensations of anger or kindness, hope or fear ; the ecstacies of extravagant 
 delight, or the agonies of comfortless despair. What mortal among us is 
 there, that when any misfortune comes on him unexpectedly, does not find 
 himself wonderfully lightened of the load of his sorrow, by pouring out the 
 abundance of his vexation in showers of curses on the author of his calamity ? 
 What gamester, who has reduced himself from opulence to beggary, by the 
 intemperate indulgence of a mad infatuation, does not, after sitting down and 
 
APPENDIX. 545 
 
 venting his execrations for half an hour against his ill fortune and his folly, 
 get up again greatly relieved by so happy an expedient 1 
 
 " Since, then, the advantages arising from an early initiation into the prac- 
 tice of swearing must so evidently appear to every person unprejudiced against 
 it by notions (now indeed almost out of date) of religion and morality, I can- 
 not but be surprised, that no one has yet attempted to reduce to system, and 
 teach the theory of an art, the practical part of which is so universally known 
 and adopted. An undertaking of this kind could not surely fail of success ; 
 especially in an age like this, when attempts of a much more arduous nature 
 are every day presented to our notice ; when pigs are brought to exercise all 
 the functions of rationality ; and Hibernians profess to teach the true pronun- 
 ciation of the English tongue. 
 
 " It is not so very far removed, but that some of my readers must recollect 
 the time when the noble art of boxing was, by the ever-memorable Figg and 
 Broughton, reduced to a complete and perfect system ; and the nobility and 
 gentry were taught, theoretically as well as practically, to bruise the bodies, 
 and (to use a technical term) darken the day-lights of each other with the 
 vigour of a Hercules, tempered with the grace of an Apollo. And it is but a 
 little time since a celebrated foreigner actually instructed some persons of no 
 inconsiderable rank of both sexes in the art of eating soup with ease and dex- 
 terity, (though, in my humble opinion, few people could need a preceptor to 
 show them the way to their mouths.) Of much more utility, and surely not 
 less successful, would be the plan I recommend. Many there were, who 
 from tenderness of age, or delicacy of constitution, were precluded from the 
 diversion of boxing : to many the science of soup-eating was useless and im- 
 practicable — merely from having none to eat ; but all have their oaths in their 
 own power, and of them, neither emptiness of pocket, nor corporeal or mental 
 imbecility, prevents the free and uncontrolled use; and almost everybody, 
 however niggardly he may be in parting with any other of his possessions, 
 scatters these with the most liberal profusion. 
 
 " Thus then, if fostered by the hand of a skilful linguist, this science might 
 perhaps in time come nearer than any other to realize the extravagant idea of 
 the ingenious but romantic Bishop Wilkins, of an universal language. At 
 present, indeed, there are some slight inconveniences attending the project, 
 among which no small one is, that according to their present general usage, 
 oaths, like Yorick's French friseur, by expressing too much, generally mean 
 nothing ; insomuch that I now make it a rule to lessen my belief to every as- 
 sertion, in proportion to the number of needless corroborative oaths by which it 
 is supported. Nor am I indeed unreasonable in this ; and in most cases how 
 can I do otherwise 1 Is it in human nature to suppose, that when one of my 
 friends declares his joy at seeing me, and his kind concern for my health, by 
 intimating a hearty wish of my eternal perdition, that he really means what 
 he says 1 
 
 " It has been observed by some ancient philosopher, or poet, or moralist, 
 (no matter which,) that nothing could be more pernicious to mankind than the 
 fulfilling of their own wishes. And in truth I am inclined to be of his opi- 
 nion : for many a friend of mine, many a fellow-citizen of this lesser world, 
 would, had his own heedless imprecations on himself taken effect, long ere 
 this have groaned under the complication of almost every calamity capable of 
 entering a human imagination. And with regard to the world at large, were 
 this to be the case, I doubt whether there would be at this present time a leg 
 or limb of any kind whole in his majesty's service. So habitual indeed was 
 this custom become to an officer of my acquaintance, that though he had lost 
 one of his eyes in the defence of his country, he could nor forego his favourite 
 execration, but still used to vent his curses on them both, with the same ease 
 and indifference as when they were both in his possession : so blind was he 
 rendered to his own defects by the continued practice of this — amusement ; 
 71 XX* 
 
546 APPENDIX. 
 
 for in no other light than as an amusement or a polite accomplishment can it 
 be considered by those who practise it. Did they consider it as a vice, they 
 could not, I am sure, persevere in the indulgence of one which has not even 
 the common excuse of having for its aim the pursuit of pleasure or the gratifi- 
 cation of a darling appetite. I cannot believe they would so disinterestedly 
 damn themselves, and vent in public company such imprecations as in dark- 
 ness and solitude they would tremble to conceive. 
 
 " As an accomplishment, therefore, and as an agreeable indication of youth- 
 ful gayety, it must no doubt be considered ; and should any one take the hint 
 here offered him, and commence instructor in this noble science, I need not, I 
 believe, caution him against being an Englishman; or (should he have the 
 misfortune to be born in this country) remind him of the easy transformation 
 of our commonest homespun names into the more fashionable French or more 
 musical Italian ; as, for instance, that of Peters into Pedro, Nichols into 
 Nicolini, or Gerard into Geradot, and so on. Having thus un-Englished him- 
 self, let him get his advertisement drawn up in the Grahamic style, if not by 
 the doctor himself, professing that,— 
 
 " Having added to the early advantages of a Billingsgate education, the 
 deepest researches, and most indefatigable industry, &c. &c. he now stands 
 forth as an apt and accomplished teacher of the never-to-be-sufficiently-extol- 
 led, the all-expressive, all-comprehensive, &c. &c. art of Swearing. Ladies 
 and gentlemen instructed in the most fashionable and elegant oaths ; the most 
 peculiarly adapted to their several ages, manners, and professions, &c. &c. 
 He has now ready for the press a book entitled 'The Complete Oath Regis- 
 ter, or Every Man his own Swearer,' containing oaths and imprecations for 
 all times, seasons, purposes, and occasions. Also ' Sentimental Oaths for the 
 Ladies.' Likewise, ' Execrations for the year 1786.' 
 
 "Let him I say do this, and he may, I believe, assure himself of no little 
 encouragement among the world at large ; though far be it from me to pre- 
 sume to promise him any extraordinary countenance in that smaller circle 
 which comes more immediately under the inspection of the Microcosmopolitan." 
 
 FEOM THE ANTI-JACOBIN EXAMINER. 
 
 NEW MORALITY. 
 
 From mental mists to purge a nation's eyes ; 
 To animate the weak, unite the wise ; 
 To trace the deep infection that pervades 
 The crowded town, and taints the rural shades ; 
 To mark how wide extends the mighty waste 
 O'er the fair realms of science, learning, taste ; 
 To drive and scatter all the brood of lies. 
 And chase the varying falsehood as it flies ; 
 The long arrears of ridicule to pay. 
 To drag reluctant Dulness back to day ; 
 Much yet remains. — To you these themes belong, 
 Ye favour'd sons of virtue and of song ! 
 
 Say, is the field too narrow 1 Are the times 
 Barren of folly, and devoid of crimes'? 
 
 Yet, venial vices, in a milder age, 
 Could rouse the warmth of Pope's satiric rage ; 
 The doting miser, and the lavish heir. 
 The follies and the foibles of the fair. 
 
APPENDIX. 547 
 
 Sir Job, Sir Balaam, and old Euclio's thrift, 
 And Sappho's diamonds with her dirty shift. 
 Blunt, Charteris, Hopkins, — meaner subjects fired 
 The keen-eyed poet; while the muse inspired 
 Her ardent child, — entwining, as he sate, 
 His laurelled chaplet with the thorns of hate. 
 
 But say, — indignant does the muse retire. 
 Her shrine deserted, and extinct its fire 1 
 No pious hand to feed the sacred flame. 
 No raptured soul a poet's charge to claim 1 
 
 Bethink thee, GiflTord ; when some future age 
 Shall trace the promise of thy playful page ; — 
 " The hand which brush'd a swarm of fools away* 
 Should rouse to grasp a more reluctant prey !' 
 Think then, will pleaded indolence excuse 
 The tame secession of thy languid Muse ? 
 
 Ah ! where is now that promise 1 why so long 
 Sleep the keen shafts of satire and of song 1 
 Oh ! come, with Taste and Virtue at thy side. 
 With ardent zeal inflamed, and patriot pride ; 
 With keen poetic glance direct the blow, 
 And empty all thy quiver on the foe : — 
 No pause — no rest — till weltering on the ground 
 The poisonous hydra lies, and pierced with many a wound. 
 
 Thou too ! — the nameless bard,f whose honest zeal 
 For law, for morals, for the public weal. 
 Pours down impetuous on thy country's foes 
 The stream of verse, and many-languaged prose ; 
 Thou too ! — though oft thy ill-advised dislike 
 The guiltless head with random censure strike, — 
 Though quaint allusions, vague and undefined, 
 Play faintly round the ear, but mock the mind ; 
 Through the mix'd mass yet truth and learning shine. 
 And manly vigour stamps the nervous line : 
 And patriot warmth the generous rage inspires, 
 And wakes and points the desultory fires ! 
 
 Yet more remain unknown : for who can tell 
 What bashful genius, in some rural cell, 
 As year to year, and day succeeds to day. 
 In joyless leisure wastes his life away ? 
 In him the flame of early fancy shone ; 
 His genuine worth his old companions own ; 
 In childhood and in youth their chief confess'd. 
 His master's pride, his pattern to the rest. 
 Now, far aloof retiring from the strife 
 Of busy talents, and of active life. 
 As, from the loop-holes of retreat, he views 
 Our stage, verse, pamphlets, politics, and news, 
 
 * See the motto prefixed to " The Baviad," a satirical poem, by W. Gifibrd, Esq. ; un- 
 questionably the best of its kind, since the days of Pope. 
 
 Nunc in ovilia 
 
 Mox in reluctantes dracones. 
 
 t The author of " The Pursuits of Literature." 
 
548 APPENDIX. 
 
 He loathes the world, — or with reflection sad 
 Concludes it irrecoverably mad ; 
 Of taste, of learning, morals, all bereft, 
 No hope, no prospect to redeem it left. 
 
 Awake ! for shame ; or ere thy noble sense 
 Sink in the oblivious pool of indolence ! 
 Must wit be found alone on falsehood's side, 
 Unknown to truth, to virtue unallied 1 
 Arise ! nor scorn thy country's just alarms ; 
 Wield in her cause thy long neglected arms ; 
 Of lofty satire pour th' indignant strain, 
 Leagued with her friends, and ardent to maintain 
 'Gainst learning's, virtue's, truth's, religion's foes, 
 A kingdom's safety, and the world's repose. 
 
 If vice appal thee, — if thou view with awe 
 Insults that brave, and crimes that 'scape the law ; 
 Yet may the specious bastard brood, which claim 
 A spurious homage under virtue's name, 
 Sprung from that parent of ten thousand crimes, 
 The New Philosophy of modern times. 
 Yet these may rouse thee ! With unsparing hand 
 Oh lash the vile impostures from the land ! 
 
 First, stern Philanthropy : — not she who dries 
 The orphan's tears, and wipes the widow's eyes ; 
 Not she, who, sainted Charity her guide. 
 Of British bounty pours the annual tide : — 
 But French Philanthropy ; — whose boundless mind 
 Glows with the general love of all mankind ; 
 Philanthropy, — beneath whose baneful sway 
 Each patriot passion sinks and dies away. 
 
 Taught in her school t' imbibe thy mawkish strain, 
 Condorcet, filter'd through the dregs of Paine, 
 Each pert adept disowns a Briton's part. 
 And plucks the name of England from his heart. 
 
 What ! shall a name, a word, a sound control 
 Th' aspiring thought, and cramp th' expansive soul 1 
 Shall one half-peopled island's rocky roun 
 A love that glows for all creation bound 1 
 And social charities contract the plan 
 Framed for thy freedom, universal man ? 
 No — through th' extended globe his feelings run. 
 As broad and general as th' unbounded sun ! 
 No narrow bigot he ; his reason'd view 
 Thy interests, England, ranks with thine, Peru ! 
 France at our doors, he sees no danger nigh. 
 But heaves for Turkey's woes th' impartial sigh ; 
 A steady patriot of the world alone, 
 The friend of every country — but his own. 
 
 Next comes a gentler virtue. — Ah ! beware 
 Lest the harsh verse her shrinking softness scare. 
 Visit her not too roughly ; — the warm sigh 
 Breathes on her lips ; — the tear-drop gems her eye. 
 
APPENDIX. 549 
 
 Sweet Sensibility, who dwells enshrined 
 
 In the fine foldings of the feeling mind ; 
 
 With delicate mimosa's sense endued, 
 
 Who shrinks instinctive from a hand too rude ; 
 
 Or like the anagallis, prescient flower. 
 
 Shuts her soft petals at th' approaching shower. 
 
 Sweet child of sickly Fancy ! — Her of yore 
 From her loved France Rousseau to exile bore ; 
 And, while midst lakes and mountains wild he ran, 
 Full of himself, and shunn'd the haunts of man. 
 Taught her o'er each lone vale and Alpine steep 
 To lisp the story of his wrongs, and weep ; 
 Taught her to cherish still, in either eye. 
 Of tender tears a plentiful supply. 
 And pour them in the brooks that babbled by ; 
 Taught by nice scale to mete her feelings strong, 
 False by degrees, and exquisitely wrong ; 
 For the crush'd beetle, first, the widow'd dove, 
 And all the warbled sorrows of the grove ; 
 Next for poor suffering guilt ; and, last of all. 
 For parents, friends, a king and country's fall. 
 
 Mark her fair votaries, prodigal of grief. 
 With cureless pangs, and woes that mock relief. 
 Droop in soft sorrow o'er a faded flower ; 
 O'er a dead jack-ass pour the pearly shower : 
 But hear, unmoved, of Loire's ensanguined flood, 
 Choked up with slain ; of Lyons drench'd in blood ; 
 Of crimes that blot the age, the world, with shame, 
 Foul crimes, but sicklied o'er with Freedom's name ; 
 Altars and thrones subverted, social life 
 Trampled +o earth, — the husband from the wife. 
 Parent from child, with ruthless fury torn, — 
 Of talents, honour, virtue, wit, forlorn, 
 In friendless exile, — of the wise and good 
 Staining the daily scaffold with their blood, 
 Of savage cruelties, that scare the mind. 
 The rage of madness with hell's lusts combined — 
 Of hearts torn reeking from the mangled breast, — 
 They hear — and hope that all is for the best. 
 
 Fond hope I but Justice sanctifies the prayer — 
 Justice ! — Here, Satire, strike ; 'twere sin to spare ! 
 Not she in British courts that takes her stand, 
 The dawdling balance dangling in her hand, 
 Adjusting punishments to fraud and vice, 
 With scrupulous quirks, and disquisition nice : 
 But firm, erect, with keen reverted glance, 
 Th' avenging angel of regenerate France, 
 Who visits ancient sins on modern times, 
 And punishes the Pope for Caesar's crimes.* 
 
 Such is the liberal Justice which presides 
 In these our days, and modern patriots guides ; 
 
 * The manes of Vercengetorix are supposed to have been very much gratified by the inva- 
 sion of Italy and the plunder of the Roman territory. The defeat of the Burgundians is to be 
 revenged on the modern inhabitants of Switzerland. But the Swiss were a free people, 
 defending their liberties against a tyrant. Moreover, they happened to be in alliance with 
 
550 APPENDIX- 
 
 Justice, whose blood-stain'd book one sole decree, 
 
 One statute fills — "The people shall be free." 
 
 Free by what means 1 by folly, madness, guilt. 
 
 By boundless rapines, blood in oceans spilt ; 
 
 By confiscation, in whose sweeping toils 
 
 The poor man's pittance with the rich man's spoils, 
 
 Mix'd in one common mass, are swept away. 
 
 To glut the short-lived tyrant of the day ; — 
 
 By laws, religion, morals all o'erthrown : — 
 
 — Rouse then, ye sovereign people, claim your own ; — 
 
 The license that enthrals, the truth that blinds. 
 
 The wealth that starves you, and the power that grinds. 
 
 — So Justice bids. — ' Twas her enlighten'd doom, 
 
 Louis, thy holy head devoted to the tomb ! 
 
 'Twas Justice claim'd, in that accursed hour, 
 
 The fatal forfeit of too lenient power. 
 
 — Mourn for the man we may ; — but for the king, — 
 
 Freedom, oh ! Freedom's such a charming thing ! 
 
 " Much may be said on both sides." — Hark ! I hear 
 A well-known voice that murmurs in my ear, — 
 The voice of Candour. — Hail! most solemn sage, 
 Thou driveling virtue of this moral age. 
 Candour, which softens party's headlong rage ; 
 Candour, — which spares its foes ; — nor e'er descends 
 With bigot zeal to combat for its friends. 
 Candour, — which loves in see-saw strain to tell 
 Of acting foolishly, but meaning well ; 
 Too nice to praise by wholesale, or to lalame 
 Convinced that all men's motives are the same ; — 
 And finds, with keen discriminating sight. 
 Black's not so black ; nor white so very white. 
 
 " Fox, to be sure, was vehement and wrong : 
 But then Pitt's words, you'll own, were rather strong. 
 Both must be blamed, both pardon'd ; — 'twas just so 
 With Fox and Pitt full forty years ago ; 
 So Walpole, Pulteney ; — factions in all times 
 Have had their follies, ministers their crimes." 
 
 Give me th' avow'd, the erect, the manly foe, 
 Bold I can meet, — perhaps may turn his blow ; 
 But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send, 
 Save, save, oh ! save me from the candid friend ! 
 
 " Barras loves plunder, — Merlin takes a bribe, — 
 What then ? — Shall Candour these good men proscribe 1 
 No ! ere we join the loud-accusing throng. 
 Prove, — not the facts, but, that they thought them wrong. 
 
 "Why hang O'Quigley 1 — he, misguided man, 
 In sober thought his country's weal might plan. 
 And, while his deep-wrought treason sapped the throne. 
 Might act from taste in morals, all his own." 
 
 France at the time. No matter, Burgundy is since become a province of France, and the 
 French have acquired a property in alt the injuries and defeats which the people of that 
 country may have sustained, together with a title to revenge and retaliation, to be exercised 
 in the present, or any future centuries, as may be found most glorious and convenient- 
 
APPENDIX. 551 
 
 Peace to such reasoners ! let them have their way ; 
 Shut their dull eyes against the blaze of day. 
 Priestley's a saint, and Stone a patriot still : 
 And La Fayette a hero, if they will. 
 
 I love the bold uncompromising mind, 
 Whose principles are fix'd, whose views defined : 
 Who scouts and scorns, in canting Candour's spite. 
 All taste in morals, innate sense of right, 
 And nature's impulse, all uncheck'd by art. 
 And feelings fine, that float about the heart: 
 Content, for good men's guidance, bad men's awe, 
 On moral truth to rest, and gospel law. 
 Who owns, when traitors feel th' avenging rod, 
 Just retribution, and the hand of God ; 
 Who hears the groans through Olmutz' roofs that ring. 
 Of him who mock'd, misled, betray'd his king — 
 Hears unappall'd : — though faction's zealots preach — 
 Unmoved, unsoften'd by F*tzp*tr*ck's speech 
 
 That speech on which the melting commons hung,* 
 " While truths divine came mended from his tongue" — 
 How loving husband clings to duteous wife, — 
 How pure religion soothes the ills of life, — 
 How popish ladies trust their pious fears 
 And naughty actions in their chaplain's ears. 
 Half novel and half sermon, on it flow'd ; 
 With pious zeal the opposition glow'd ; 
 As o'er each the soft infection crept, 
 Sio-h'd as he whined, and as he whimper'd wept; 
 E'en C**w*n dropt a sentimental tear, 
 And stout St, A*dr*w yelp'd a softer " hear !" 
 
 O ! nurse of crimes and fashions ! which in vain 
 Our colder servile spirits would attain. 
 How do we ape thee, France ! but blundering still 
 Disgrace the pattern by our want of skill. 
 The borrow'd step our awkward gait reveals : 
 (As clumsy C**rtn*yf mars the verse he steals.) 
 
 * The speech of General F-tzp-tr-ck, on his motion for an address of the house of com- 
 mons to the emperor of Germany, to demand the deliverance of M. La Fayette from the 
 prison of Olmutz, was one of the most damty pieces of oratory that ever drew tears from a 
 crowded gallery, and the clerks at the table. It was really quite moving to hear the gene- 
 ral talk of religion, conjugal fidelity, and " such branches of learning." There were a few 
 vv'ho laughed indeed, but that was thought hard-hearted and immoral, and irreligious, and 
 God knows what. Crying was the order of the day. Why will not the opposition try 
 these topics again >. La Fayette indeed (the more's the pity) is out. But why not a motion 
 for a general jail-delivery of all state prisoners throughout Europe ? 
 
 t See Anti-Jacobin, vol. i. p. 376, in the note, for a theft more shameless, and an applica- 
 tion of the thing stolen more stupid, than any of those recorded of Irish story-tellers by Joe 
 
 Miller. , ^ , I J J 
 
 The following is the note alluded to. It illustrates the words " Courtney s kidnapped 
 
 rhymes," in a severe reply " to the author of the Epistle to the editors of the Anti-Jacobin,' 
 
 which epistle appeared in the Morning Chronicle. . „ j t. u 
 
 " This is a serious charge against an author, and ought to be well supported. 1 o the 
 
 proofs then ! 
 
552 APPENDIX. 
 
 How do we ape thee, France ! nor claim alone 
 
 Thy arts, thy tastes, thy morals for our own. 
 
 But to thy worthies render homage due, 
 
 Their* " hair-breadth 'scapes" with anxious interest view ; 
 
 Statesmen and heroines whom this age adores, 
 
 Though plainer times would call them rogues and whores. 
 
 See Lou vet, patriot, pamphleteer, and sage, 
 Tempering with amorous fire his virtuous rage. 
 Form'd for all tasks, his various talents see, 
 The luscious novel, the severe decree. 
 Then mark him weltering in his nasty stye, 
 Bare his lewd transports to the public eye. 
 Not his the love in silent groves that strays. 
 Quits the rude world, and shuns the vulgar gaze- 
 In Lodoiska's full possession blest, 
 One craving void still aches within his breast ; 
 Plunged in the filth and fondness of her arms. 
 Not to himself alone he stints her charms; 
 Clasp'd in each other's foul embrace they lie. 
 But know no joy unless the world stands by. 
 The fool of vanity, for her alone 
 He lives, loves, writes, and dies, but to be known. 
 
 His widow'd mourner flies to poison's aid. 
 Eager to join her Louvet's parted shade 
 In those bright realms where sainted lovers stray 
 But harsh emetics tear that hope away.f 
 Yet, hapless Louvet ! where thy bones are laid, 
 The easy nymphs shall consecrate the shade.:): 
 
 "In an Ode of the late Lord Nugent's are the following spirited lines:— 
 
 ' Though Cato lived — though Tully spoke- 
 Though Brutus dealt the godlike stroke, 
 Yet perish'd fated Rome I' 
 " The author above-mentioned saw these lines, and liked them— as well he might : and 
 as he had a mind to write about Rome himself, he did not scruple to enlist them into his 
 service ; but he thought it right to make a small alteration in their appearance, which he 
 managed thus : — Speaking of Rome, he says it is the place 
 ' Where Cato lived.' 
 " A sober truth : which gets rid at once of all the petry and spirit of the original, and 
 reduces the sentiment from an example of manners, virtue, patriotism, from the vitai exem- 
 pla dedil of Lord Nugent, to a mere question of inhabitancy. Vbi habitavit Cato— where he 
 was an inhabitant householder, paying scot and lot, and had a house on the right-hand side 
 of the way, as you go down Esquiline Hill, just opposite to the poulterer's.— But to proceed— 
 'Where Cato lived ; where Tully spoke. 
 Where Brutus dealt the godlike stroke— 
 By which his glory rose .'.'.'' 
 
 " The last line is not borrowed. 
 
 " We question whether the history of modern literature can produce an instance of a 
 theft so shameless, and turned to so little advantage." 
 
 * See Reeit de mes Perils, by Louvet. Memoires d'un Detenu, by Riouffe, &c. The 
 avidity with which these productions were read, might, we should hope, be accounted for 
 upon principles of mere curiosity, (as we read the Newgate Calendar and the History of the 
 Buccaneers,) not from any interest in favour of a set of wretches infinitely more detestable 
 than all the robbers and pirates that ever existed. 
 
 t Every lover of modern French literature, and admirer of modern French characters, 
 must remember the rout which was made about Louvet's death and Lodoiska's poison. 
 The attempt at self-slaughter, and the process of the recovery, the arsenic and the castor oil 
 were served up in daily messes from the French papers, till the public absolutely sickened. 
 
 } Faciles Napese. 
 
APPENDIX. 553 
 
 There, in the laug^hing morn of genial spring, 
 Unwedded pairs shall tender couplets sing; 
 Eringoes o'er the hallow'd spot shall bloom. 
 And flies of Spain buzz softly round the tomb.* 
 
 But hold ! severer virtue claims the Muse — 
 Roland the just, with ribands in his shoes — f 
 And Roland's spouse, who paints with chaste delight 
 The doubtful conflict of her nuptial night; 
 Her virgin charms what fierce attacks assail'd, 
 And how the rigid minister:); prevailed. 
 
 And ah ! what verse can grace thy stately mien, 
 Guide of the world. Preferment's golden queen, 
 Neckar's fair daughter, — Stael the epicene ! 
 Bright o'er whose flaming cheek and pumple§ nose 
 The bloom of young desire unceasing glows! 
 Fain would the muse — but ah ! she dares no more ; 
 A mournful voice from lone Guyana's shore|| 
 — Sad Quatremere — the bold presumption checks, 
 Forbid to question thy ambiguous sex. 
 
 To thee proud Barras bows ; thy charms control 
 Rewbell's brute rage, and Merlin's subtle soul ; 
 Raised by thy hands, and fashioned to thy will, 
 Thy power, thy guiding influence governs still. 
 Where at the blood-stain'd board expert he plies, 
 The lame artificer of fraud and lies ; 
 He with the mitred head and cloven heel : 
 Doom'd the coarse edge of Rewbell's jests to feel ;^ 
 To stand the playful buffet, and to hear 
 The frequent inkstand whizzing past his ear; 
 While all the five directors laugh to see 
 " The limping priest so deft at his new ministry."** 
 
 Last of th' anointed five behold, and least, 
 The directorial lama, sovereign priest, — 
 Lepaux : — whom atheists worship ; — at whose nod 
 Bow their meek heads the men without a god.f f 
 
 * See Anthologia passim. 
 
 t Such was the strictness of this minister's principles, that he positively refused to go to 
 court in shoe-buckles. — See Dumourier's Memoirs. 
 
 t See Madame Roland's Memoirs—" Rigide Ministre," Brissot a ses Commetans. 
 
 § The " pumple"-nosed attorney of Furnival's Inn. — Congreve's Way of the World. 
 
 II These lines contain the secret history of Quatremere's deportation. He presumed in 
 the council of Five Hundred to arraign Madame de Stael's conduct, and even to hint a 
 doubt of her sex. He was sent to Guyana. The transaction naturally brings to one's mind 
 the dialogue between Falstaffand Hostess Quickly in Shakspeare's Henry the IVth. 
 
 " Falslaff. Thou art neither fish nor flesh — a man cannot tell where to have thee. 
 
 " Quickly. Thou art an unjust man for saying so — thou or any man knows where to have 
 me." 
 
 ^ For instance, in the course of a political discussion, Rewbell observed to the ex-bishop — 
 " that his understanding was as crooked as his legs" — " Vil emigre, tu n'as pas le sens plus 
 droit que les pieds" — and therewith threw an inkstand at him. It whizzed along, as we 
 have been informed, like the fragment of a rock from the hand of one of Ossian's heroes ; 
 but the wily apostate shrunk beneath the table, and the weapon passed over him, innocu- 
 ous and guiltless of his blood or brains. 
 
 ** See Homer's description of Vulcan, first Iliad : 
 
 Inextinguibilis vero exoriebatur risus beatis numinibus 
 Ut viderunt Vulcanum per domos minislrantem. 
 
 ttThe men without a god — one of the new sects. — Their religion is intended to consist 
 in the adoration of a great book, in which all the virtuous actions of the society are to be 
 
 72 YY 
 
554 APPENDIX. 
 
 Ere long, perhaps, to this astonish'd isle. 
 Fresh from the shores of subjugated Nile, 
 Shall Bonaparte's victor fleet protect 
 The genuine theo-philanthropic sect, — 
 The sect of Marat, Mirabeau, Voltaire, — 
 Led by their pontiff, good La Reveillere. 
 Rejoiced our clubs shall greet him, and install 
 The holy hunchback in thy dome, St. Paul ! 
 While countless votaries thronging in his train 
 Wave their red caps, and hymn this jocund strain : 
 
 " Couriers and Stars, sedition's evening host, 
 Thou Morning Chronicle, and Morning Post ! 
 Whether ye make the rights of man your theme, 
 Your country libel, and your God blaspheme, 
 Or dirt on private worth and virtue throw. 
 Still blasphemous or blackguard, praise Lepaux. 
 
 " And ye five other wandering bards that move 
 In sweet accord of harmony and love, 
 C*****dge and S**th*y, L***d, and L**b and Co. 
 Tune all your mystic harps to praise Lepaux ! 
 
 " Pr***tl*y and W***f**ld, humble holy men, 
 Give praises to his name with tongue and pen ! 
 
 " Th*lw*l, and ye that lecture as ye go. 
 And for your pains get pelted, praise Lepaux ! 
 
 " Praise him, each jacobin, or fool, or knave, 
 And your cropped heads in sign of worship wave ! 
 
 " All creeping creatures, venomous and low, 
 Paine, W*ll**ms, G*dw*n, H*lcr*ft— praise Lepaux! 
 
 " And thou leviathan ! on ocean's brim 
 Hugest of living things that sleep and swim ; 
 Thou in whose nose by Burke's gigantic hand 
 The hook was fix'd to drag thee to the land ; 
 
 With , , and * in thy train. 
 
 And wallowing in the yeasty main — f 
 
 Still as ye snort, and puff, and spout, and blow. 
 In puffing and in spouting, praise Lepaux !" 
 
 Britain, beware ; nor let th' insidious foe. 
 Of force despairing, aim a deadier blow. 
 
 entered and registered. " Tn times of civil commotion they are to come forward, to exhort 
 the citizens to unanimity, and to read them a chapter out of the great book. When op- 
 pressed or proscribed, they are to retire to a burying ground, to wrap themselves up in their 
 great coats, and wait the approach of death," &c. 
 
 * The reader is at liberty to fill up the blanks according to his own opinion, and after the 
 chances and changes of the times. It would be highly unfair to hand down to posterity, as 
 followers of leviathan, the names of men who may, and probably will soon, grow ashamed 
 of their leader. 
 
 t Though the yeasty sea 
 Consume and swallow navigation up. 
 
 Macbeth. 
 
APPENDIX. 555 
 
 Thy peace, thy strength, with devilish wiles assail, 
 
 And when her arms are vain, by arts prevail. 
 
 True, thou art rich, art powerful I — through thine isle 
 
 Industrious Skill, contented Labour, smile ; 
 
 Far seas are studded with thy countless sails ; 
 
 What wind but wafts them, and what shore but hails'? 
 
 True, thou art brave ! — o'er all the busy land 
 
 In patriot ranks embattled myriads stand ; 
 
 Thy foes behold with impotent amaze, 
 
 And drop the lifted weapon as they gaze ! 
 
 But what avails to guard each outward part, 
 If subtlest poison, circling at thy heart. 
 Spite of thy courage, of thy power, and wealth. 
 Mine the sound fabric of thy vital health ! 
 
 So thine own oak, by some fair streamlet's side, 
 Waves its broad arms, and spreads its leafy pride, 
 Towers from the earth, and rearing to the skies 
 Its conscious strength, the tempest's wrath defies. 
 Its ample branches shield the fowls of air. 
 To its cool shade the panting herds repair. — 
 The treacherous current works its noiseless way, — 
 The fibres loosen, and the roots decay ; 
 Prostrate the beauteous ruin lies ; and all 
 That shared its shelter, perish in its fall. 
 
 O thou ! — lamented sage ! — whose prescient scan 
 Pierced through foul anarchy's gigantic plan, 
 Prompt to incredulous hearers to disclose 
 The guilt of France, and Europe's world of woes; — 
 Thou, on whose name posterity shall gaze. 
 The mighty sea-mark of these troubled days ! 
 O large of soul, of genius unconfined. 
 Born to delight, instruct, and mend mankind ! — 
 Burke ! in whose breast a Roman ardour glow'd 
 Whose copious tongue with Grecian richness flow'd ; 
 Well hast thou found (if such thy country's doom) 
 A timely refuge in the sheltering tomb ! 
 
 As, in far realms, where eastern kings are laid, 
 In pomp of death, beneath the cypress shade. 
 The perfumed lamp with unextinguish'd light 
 Flames through the vault, and cheers the gloom of night : — 
 So, mighty Burke ! in thy sepulchral urn. 
 To fancy's view, the lamp of truth shall burn. 
 Thither late times shall turn their reverent eyes, 
 Led by thy light, and by thy wisdom wise. 
 
 There are, to whom (their taste such pleasures cloy) 
 No light thy wisdom yields, thy wit no joy. 
 Peace to their heavy heads, and callous hearts. 
 Peace — such as sloth, as ignorance imparts ! — 
 Pleased may they live to plan their country's good, 
 And crop with calm content their flowery food ! 
 
 What though thy venturous spirit loved to urge 
 The labouring theme to reason's utmost verge, 
 
556 APPENDIX. 
 
 Kindling and mounting' from th' enraptured sight; — 
 Till anxious Wonder watch'd thy daring flight ! 
 While vulgar souls, with mean malignant stare, 
 Gazed up, the triumph of thy fall to share. 
 Poor triumph ! price of that extorted praise. 
 Which still to daring genius envy pays. 
 
 Oh ! for thy playful smile, — thy potent frown, 
 T' abash bold vice, and laugh pert folly down 
 So should the muse, in humour's happiest vein. 
 With verse that flow'd in metaphoric strain, 
 And apt allusions to the rural trade. 
 Tell, of what wood young jacobins are made ; 
 How the skill'd gardener grafts, with nicest rule, 
 The slip of coxcomb on the stock of fool ; — 
 Forth in bright blossom bursts the tender sprig, 
 A thing to wonder at — perhaps* a whig. — 
 Should tell, how wise each half-fledged pedant prates 
 Of weightiest matters, grave distinctions states — 
 That rules of policy, and public good. 
 In Saxon times were rightly understood ; 
 That kings are proper, may be useful things, 
 But then some gentlemen object to kings ; 
 That in all times the minister's to blame ; 
 That British liberty's an empty name. 
 Till each fair burgh, numerically free. 
 Shall choose its members by the rule of three. 
 
 So should the Muse, with verse in thunder clothed, 
 Proclaim the crimes by God and nature loathed. 
 Which — when fell poison revels in the veins — 
 (That poison fell which frantic Gallia drains 
 From the crude fruit of freedom's blasted tree) 
 Blot the fair records of humanity. 
 
 To feebler nations let proud France afford 
 Her damning choice, — the chalice or the sword, — 
 To drink or die ; — oh fraud ! oh specious lie ! 
 Delusive choice ! for if they drink, they die. 
 
 The sword we dread not : — of ourselves secure. 
 Firm were our strength, our peace and freedom sure. — 
 Let all the world confederate all its powers, 
 " Be they not back'd by those that should be ours," 
 High on his rock shall Britain's genius stand, 
 Scatter the crowded hosts, and vindicate the land. 
 
 Guard we but our own hearts : with constant view, 
 To ancient morals, ancient manners true, 
 True to the manlier virtues, such as nerved 
 Our father's breasts, and this proud isle preserved 
 For many a rugged age : — and scorn the while, — 
 Each philosophic atheist's specious guile, — 
 
 * i. e. Perhaps a member of the Whig Club — a soniely that has presumed to monopolize 
 to itself a title to whirli it never had any claim, but from the tharacter of those who have 
 now withdrawn themselves from it. — " Perhaps, signifies that even the Whig Club some- 
 times rejects a candidate, whose principles Irisiim leneatis .') it affects to disapprove. 
 
APPENDIX. 557 
 
 The soft seductions, the refinements nice, 
 
 Of gay morality, and easy vice: — 
 
 So shall we brave the storm ; — our 'stablish'd povper 
 
 Thy refuge, Europe, in some happier hour. — 
 
 But, French in heart — though victory crown our brow, 
 
 Low at our feet though prostrate nations bow, 
 
 Wealth gild our cities, commerce crowd our shore, — 
 
 London may shine, but England is no more. 
 
 THE FRIEND OF HUMANITY AND THE KNIFE-GRINDER. 
 
 Friend of Humanity, 
 " Needy knife-grinder ! whither are you going 1 
 Rough is the road, your wheel is out of order — 
 Bleak blows the blast ; — your hat has got a hole in't, 
 
 So have your breeches ! 
 
 " Weary knife-grinder ! little think the proud ones. 
 Who in their coaches roll along the turnpike- 
 Road, what hard work 'tis crying all day, ' Knives and 
 
 Scissars to grind O !' 
 
 ' Tell me, knife-grinder, how came you to grind knives ? 
 Did some rich man tyrannically use you ; 
 Vas it the squire] or parson of the parish ? 
 
 Or the attorney ? 
 
 " Was it the squire for killing of his game ? or 
 wovetous parson, for his tithes distraining ? 
 Or roguish lawyer, made you lose youx little 
 
 All in a lawsuit! 
 
 " (Have you not read the Rights of Man, by Tom Paine?) 
 Drops of compassion tremble on my eyelids. 
 Ready to fall, as soon as you have told your 
 
 Pitiful story." 
 
 Knife-Grinder. 
 ■• Story ! God bless you ! I have none to tell, sir, 
 3nly last night a drinking at the Chequers, 
 This poor old hat and breeches, as you see, were 
 
 Torn in a scuffle. 
 
 ■' Constables came up for to take me into 
 Custody ; they took me before the justice ; 
 Justice Oldmixon put me in the parish- 
 stocks for a vagrant. 
 
 " I should be glad to drink your honour's health in 
 A pot of beer, if you will give me sixpence ; 
 ilut for my part, I never love to meddle 
 
 With politics, sir. 
 Friend of Humanity. 
 " /give thee sixpence ! I will see thee damn'd first — 
 Wretch ! whom no sense of wrongs can rouse to vengeance — 
 Sordid, unfeeling, reprobate, degraded. 
 
 Spiritless outcast !" 
 Kicks the Knife-grinder, overturns his ivheel, and exit in a transport 
 of republican enthusiasm and universal philanthropy. 
 VY* 
 
558 APPENDIX. 
 
 OCCASIONAL COMPOSITIONS. 
 
 Mr, Addington was designated the doctor, because his father kept a private 
 madhouse in Berkshire. Mr. Hiley Addington is the brother of the premier, 
 for whom, during his administration, he had provided the situation of pay- 
 master. 
 
 THE GRAND CONSULTATION. 
 
 Amhuhaiarum Collegia PharmacopolcB. — Horace. 
 
 If the health and strength, and the pure vital breath 
 Of old England, at last, must be doctor''d to death 
 Oh ! why must we die of one doctor alone? 
 And why must that doctor be just such a one 
 As Doctor Henry Addington 1 
 
 Oh ! where is the great Doctor Dominicetti, 
 With his stews and his flues, and his vapours to sweat ye ? 
 O ! where is that Prince of all Mountebank fame, 
 With his baths of hot earth, and his beds of hot name 1 
 Oh ! where is Doctor Graham 1 
 
 Where are Somnambule Mesmer's convulsions magnetic ? 
 Where is Myersbach, renown'd for his pills diuretic ? 
 Where is Perkins, with tractors of magical skill 1 
 Where is the anodyne necklace of Basil Burchell ? 
 Oh ! where is the great Van Butchell ? 
 
 Where's Sangrado Rush, so notorious for bleedings ? 
 Where's Rumford, so famed for his writings and readings ; 
 Where's that Count of the Kettle, that friend to the belly, 
 So renown'd for transforming old bones into jelly ] 
 Where, too, is the great Doctor Kelly 1 
 
 While Sam Solomon's lotion the public absterges, 
 He gives them his gold* as well as his purges ; 
 But our frugal doctor this practice to shun. 
 Gives his pills to the public, the Pells to his Son. 
 
 Oh ! fie ! fie ! Doctor Addington ! 
 
 Oh ! where is Doctor Solomon % 
 
 Where are all the great doctors ? No longer we want 
 This farrago of cowardice, cunning and cant; 
 These braggarts ! that one moment know not what fear is, 
 And the next moment, trembling, no longer know where is — 
 Lord Hawkesbury'sf march to Paris ■? 
 
 Then for Hobart and Sullivan, Hawkey and Hervey, 
 For Wallace and Castlereagh, Bleke and Glenbervie, 
 For Sergeant, Vansittart, Monkhouse, and Lee, 
 Give us Velno and Anderson, Locke, Spilsbury, 
 
 Doctor Ball, Doctors Brodum, and Bree. 
 
 And instead of the jack-pudding bluster of Sherry, 
 With his " dagger of lath," and his speeches so merry !:J: 
 
 * Vide daily papers : Doctor Solomon's Charitable Subscriptions and Abstergent Lotion. 
 + Now Lord Liverpool. 
 
 t See Mr. Gilray's admirable Caricature, enlilled "Dramatic Loyalty; or the Patriotic 
 ourage of Sherry Andrew." 
 
APPENDIX. 559 
 
 Let us bring to the field'— every foe to appal — 
 Aldini's galvanic deceptions — and all 
 
 The sleight-of-hand tricks of Conjuror Val. 
 
 So shall Golding and Bond, the Doctor's tall yeomen, 
 Dame Hiley, Dame Bragge, and the other old Women, 
 For new mountebanks changed, their old tricks bid farewell to, 
 And the famed d'lvernois his arithmetic sell to 
 
 The wonderful wonder, the great Katterfelto ! 
 
 So shall England, escaped from her "sq/e politicians," 
 Such an army array of her quacks and physicians. 
 Such lotions and potions, pills, lancets, and leeches, 
 That Massena shall tremble our coast when he reaches, 
 And the Consul himself 
 
 THE PILOT THAT WEATHER'D THE STORM. 
 
 If hush'd the loud whirlwind that ruffled the deep ; 
 
 The sky, if no longer dark tempests deform ; 
 When our perils are past, shall our gratitude sleep ? 
 
 No ! — Here's to the Pilot that weather'd the storm ! 
 
 At the footstool of Power let Flattery fawn, 
 
 Let Faction her idols extol to the skies ; 
 To Virtue, in humble resentment withdrawn, 
 
 Unblamed may the merits of gratitude rise. 
 
 And shall not his memory to Britain be dear. 
 Whose example with envy all nations behold 
 
 A statesman unbiass'd by interest or fear. 
 By power uncorrupted, untainted by gold 1 
 
 Who, when terror and doubt through the universe reigii'd. 
 While rapine and treason their standards unfurl'd. 
 
 The heart and the hopes of his country maintain'd, 
 
 And one kingdom preserved 'midst the wreck of the world. 
 
 Unheeding, unthankful, we bask in the blaze. 
 While the beams of the sun in full majesty shine ; 
 
 When he sinks into twilight, with fondness we gaze. 
 And mark the mild lustre that gilds his decline. 
 
 Lo ! Pitt, when the course of thy greatness is o'er, 
 
 Thy talents, thy virtues, we fondly recall ! 
 Now justly we prize thee, when lost we deplore ; 
 
 Admired in thy zenith, but loved in thy fall ! 
 
 O ! take, then — for dangers by wisdom repell'd. 
 For evils, by courage and constancy braved — 
 
 O take ! for a throne by thy counsels upheld. 
 The thanks of a people thy firmness has saved ! 
 
 And O ! if again the rude whirlwind should rise ! 
 
 The dawnings of peace should fresh darkness deform, 
 The regrets of the good, and the fears of the wise. 
 
 Shall turn to the Pilot that weather'd the storm ! 
 
560 APPENDIX. 
 
 ODE TO THE " DOCTOR." 
 
 How blest, how firm the statesman stands, 
 (Him no low intrigue e'er shall move,) 
 
 Circled by faithful kindred bands, 
 And propp'd by fond fraternal love. 
 
 When his speeches hobble vilely, 
 
 What " Hear hims" burst from brother Hiley ; 
 
 When the faltering periods lag, 
 
 Hark to the cheers of brother Bragge. 
 
 When the faltering periods lag. 
 Or his yawning audience flag. 
 When his speeches hobble vilely, 
 Or the house receives him dryly. 
 Cheer, O ! cheer him, brother Bragge ! 
 Cheer, O ! cheer him, brother Hiley ! 
 
 Each a gentleman at large. 
 Lodged and fed at public charge, 
 Paying (with a grace to charm ye) 
 This the fleet, and that the army. 
 
 Brother Bragge and brother Hiley, 
 Cheer him ! when he speaks so vilely 
 Cheer him ! when his audience flag. 
 Brother Hiley, brother Bragge. 
 
 MODERATE MEN AND MODERATE MEASURES. 
 
 Praise to placeless proud ability. 
 
 Let the prudent muse disclaim ; 
 And sing the Statesman — all civility — 
 
 Whom moderate talents raise to fame. 
 He, no random projects urging. 
 
 Makes us wild alarms to feel ; 
 With moderate measures, geikly purging 
 
 Ills that prey on Britain's weal. 
 
 CHORUS. 
 
 Gently purging. 
 
 Gently purging. 
 
 Gently purging Britain's weal.* 
 
 Addington, with measured motion. 
 
 Keep the tenor of thy way ; 
 To glory yield no rash devotion. 
 
 Led by luring lights astray ; 
 Splendid talents are deceiving ; 
 
 Tend to councils much too bold ; 
 Moderate men we prize, believing 
 
 All that glisters is not gold. 
 
 GRAND CHORUS. 
 
 All that glisters. 
 
 All that glisters, 
 
 All that glisters is rot gold.f 
 
 * Ere human statute purged the general weal. — Shakspeare. 
 t Nor all that glisters gold.— Gray. 
 
APPENDIX. 561 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE SPEECHES OF MR. CANNING. 
 
 ON THE ARMY ESTIMATES. DEC. 8, 1802. 
 
 But if I am pushed to the wall, and forced to speak my opinion, I have no 
 disguise nor reservation ; I do think that this is a time vs'hen the administra- 
 tion of the government ought to be in the ablest and fittest hands ; I do not 
 think the hands in which it is now placed answer to that description ; I do 
 not pretend to conceal in what quarter I think that fitness most eminently re- 
 sides ; I do not subscribe to the doctrines which have been advanced, that in 
 times like the present the fitness of individuals for their political situation is 
 no part of the consideration to which a member of parliament may fairly turn 
 his attention. I know not a more solemn or important duty that a member of 
 parliament can have to discharge, than by giving, at fit seasons, a free opinion 
 upon the character and qualities of public men. Away with the cant of 
 "measures, not men !" the idle supposition that it is the harness and not the 
 horses that draw the chariot along ! No, sir, if the comparison must be made, 
 if the distinction must be taken, men are every thing, measures comparatively 
 nothing. I speak, sir, of times of difficulty and danger ; of times when sys- 
 tems are shaken, when precedents and general rules of conduct fail. ' Then it 
 is, that not to this or that measure, however prudently devised, however 
 blameless in execution, but to the energy and character of individuals, a state 
 must be indebted for its salvation. Then it is that kingdoms rise or fall in 
 proportion as they are upheld, not by well-meant endeavours, (laudable though 
 they may be,) but by commanding, overawing talents ; by able men. And 
 what is the nature of the times in which we live 1 Look at France, and see 
 what we have to cope with, and consider what has made her what she isl A 
 man. You will tell me that she was great, and powerful, and formidable, 
 before the days of Bonaparte's government ; that he found in her great phy- 
 sical and moral resources ; that he had but to turn them to account. True, 
 and he did so. Compare the situation in which he found France with that to 
 which he has raised her. I am no panegyrist of Bonaparte ; but I cannot shut 
 my eyes to the superiority of his talents, to the amazing ascendant of his ge- 
 nius. Tell me not of his measures and his policy. It is his genius, his cha- 
 racter, that keeps the world in awe. Sir, to meet, to check, to curb, to stand 
 up against him, we want arms of the same kind. I am far from objecting to 
 the large military establishments which are proposed to you. I vote for them 
 with all my heart. But for the purpose of coping with Bonaparte, one great 
 commanding spirit is worth them all. This is my undisguised opinion. 
 
 ON THE STATE OF THE EMPIRE. JUNE 24, 1808. 
 
 America, sir, is the next subject of the honourable gentleman's speech 
 which I shall notice. Of nearly all that has passed between the two coun- 
 tries, the house and the public have been put in possession by the publications 
 of the American government. I presume that the honourable gentleman does 
 not intend to blame his majesty's ministers for not having made similar com- 
 munications to parliament; for if he had thought such communications neces- 
 sary, he would doubtless have moved for them. Without censuring their 
 production by the American government, his majesty's ministers have felt 
 that the transaction being pending, any appeal from government to parliament 
 would look as if it were concluded. I shall only state, that in the whole 
 conduct of the British government, with respect to the affair of the Chesa- 
 73 
 
562 APPENDIX. 
 
 peake, we have endeavoured to keep in vievs^ the principle upon v^^hich we set 
 out : namely, to make ample reparation for that which was a decidedly wrong 
 act; but to make that reparation under a firm determination not to surrender a 
 right which the great majority of the country has ever considered as essential 
 to its dearest interests. Sir, I may boldly appeal to the country to determine 
 whether, from the correspondence on the table of the house, any such disposi- 
 tion on the part of his majesty's ministers has appeared through the whole 
 transaction. That the rupture of the negotiation on this subject was not 
 attended with any hostile feeling on either side is an incontrovertible truth. 
 The reparation was not accepted by America, because America would not 
 fulfil the condition on which alone it was tendered ; namely, the revocation of 
 that proclamation by which British ships were not allowed to enter the har- 
 bours of America, while those of the enemy visited them at pleasure. But, 
 sir, the manner in which the British reparation was tendered to America by a 
 special mission, was, to all the feelings of nice honour, an effective repara- 
 tion ; and so, in fact, we have every reason to believe that it was considered 
 by the American government. With respect, sir, to the embargo, and to the 
 probable effects of the orders in council in producing its abandonment, the 
 honourable gentleman has mis-stated my right honourable friend's proposi- 
 tions. The honourable gentleman declares my right honourable friend to have 
 predicted that the orders in council would do away the embargo; whereas my 
 right honourable friend only argued, in opposition to the honourable gentleman 
 on the other side, that the orders in council did not produce the embargo ; 
 that they were not substantively known in America when the embargo took 
 place ; and that they were not included in the complaint made by the Ameri- 
 can government to congress, on which complaint the embargo was founded. 
 Nor, sir, do I think that the orders in council themselves could have produced 
 any irritation in America. If I were not disposed on this occasion to avoid 
 making any observations that might be suspected of a party feeling, I would 
 say, that I do think the irritation in America may have been produced by the 
 echo of the discussions in this house. Sir, since the return of Mr. Rose, no 
 communication has been made by the American government, in the form of 
 complaint, or remonstrance, or irritation, or of any description whatever. I 
 mention this particularly, because it is notorious that there have been several 
 arrivals from America supposed to be of great importance, and that several 
 special messengers have reached this country from thence, after having 
 touched at France. But, sir, if the honourable gentleman, in the execution 
 of his public duty, had thought fit to move for any communications that had 
 been made by the American government since the departure of Mr. Rose, my 
 answer must have been, not that his majesty's government were disinclined 
 to make them, but that absolutely there were none to make. If it be askea 
 why 1 I am unable satisfactorily to reply. I can only conjecture that America 
 has entered into negotiations with France, which are expected to lead to some 
 result, and that the communications of America to this country are to be con- 
 tingent on that result. This, sir, is conjecture alone ; but it is founded on the 
 extraordinary circumstance of so many arrivals without any communication. 
 It cannot be expected of me, that I should state prospectively what are the 
 views of his majesty's government on this subject. The principle by which 
 they have hitherto been guided, they will continue invariably to pursue. 
 They attach as much value to the restoration, and to the continuance of cor- 
 diality, and perfect good understanding with America, as any men can do ; 
 they are ready to purchase that advantage by every justifiable conciliation ; 
 they have proved that readiness by the act of the present session, in which 
 the trade of America has been placed on the most favourable footing ; but, 
 sir, they are not ready to purchase that advantage, great as they acknowledge 
 it to be, at the price of the surrender of those rights, on which the naval power 
 and preponderance of Great Britain are immutably fixed. 
 
APPENDIX. 563 
 
 ON THE STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 It appears to be a measure of party to run down the fame of Mr. Pitt. 
 I could not answer it to my conscience or to my feelings if I had suffered 
 repeated provocations to pass without notice. Mr. Pitt, it seems, was not a 
 great man. Is it then that we live in such heroic times — that the present is 
 a race of such gigantic talents and qualities as to render those of Mr. Pitt, in 
 the comparison, ordinary and contemptible ] Who, then, is the man now liv- 
 ing — is there any man now sitting in this House, who by taking the measure 
 of his own mind, or of that of any of his contemporaries, can feel himself 
 justified in pronouncing that Mr. Pitt was not a great man ■? I admire as much 
 as any man the abilities and ingenuity of the honourable and learned gentle- 
 man who promulgated this opinion. I do not deny to him many of the quali- 
 ties which go to constitute the character which he has described. But I think 
 I may defy all his ingenuity to frame any definition of that character 
 which shall not apply to Mr. Pitt — to trace any circle of greatness from which 
 Mr. Pitt shall be excluded. 
 
 I have no manner of objection to see placed on the same pedestal with Mr. 
 Pitt, for the admiration of the present age and of posterity, other distinguished 
 men, and amongst them his great rival, whose memory is, T have no doubt, as 
 dear to the honourable gentlemen opposite, as that of Mr. Pitt is to those who 
 loved him living, and who revere him dead. But why should the admiration 
 of one be incompatible with justice to the other ? Why cannot we cherish the 
 remembrance of the respective objects of our veneration, leaving to each other 
 a similar freedom 1 For my own part, I disclaim such a spirit of intolerance. 
 Be it the boast and the characteristic of the school of Pitt, that, however pro- 
 voked by illiberal aad unjust attacks upon his memory, whether in speeches 
 in this House, or in calumnies out of it, they will never so far forget the 
 respect due to him or to themselves, as to be betrayed into reciprocal illiberality 
 and unjustice — that they disdain to retaliate upon the memory of Mr. Pitt's 
 great rival. 
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. MARCH 11, 1818. 
 
 How often have we heard in this House heart-rending declamations about 
 the cruelty of despotism, and the selfishness of warriors, which sacrificed my- 
 riads at the altar of ambition. Nay, sometimes even, though rarely, gentle- 
 men on the other side of the House, have expressed their indignation at Bona- 
 parte himself, who considered the inhabitants of a great empire as mere raw 
 materials for working out his own false glory. AH this is certainly bad 
 enough : but what can be said of those, who even without the apology of this 
 motive, which, pernicious as it is, has yetitsdazzlingcharms for weak humaa 
 nature, what shall be said of those who, with cold calculation, enter the cot- 
 tage of poverty, not to sympathize with the condition of the wretched inhabi- 
 tant and his starving family, and to relieve it, but calmly to guage his misery, 
 that they may ascertain his capacity for mischief; not to rescue him from 
 ruin, but in hopes that they may find him fitted to be an agent to assist in the 
 ruin of his country ^ These are the men against whom the crime of violating 
 the constitution is chargeable ; these are the men against whom the suspen- 
 sion of the habeas corpus was aimed ; and yet these are the men who are to 
 be put in the judgment seat, while ministers are to be tried on their accusa- 
 tion, and condemned by their evidence. And this is recommended to the 
 House as the due course of retributive justice ! 
 
 But the honourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett) has made, it seems, a most 
 ingenious discovery ; he has found out, that as the whole nation were deter- 
 mined on parliamentary reform, ministers had no other means of saving them- 
 selves from the consequences of that miffhty change, than by inventing plots. 
 
564 APPENDIX- 
 
 and fomenting conspiracies. Does the honourable baronet imagine that he can 
 persuade any one that this is the real state of the case ] Does he imagine, 
 that by any mode of division or multiplication, which he may adopt for his 
 reform petitions, whether he presents them in tens, signed by thousands, or in 
 thousands, signed by tens, does he really flatter himself that he can persuade 
 the House, or himself, that parliamentary reform is a favourite measure with 
 the people of England "! Does he suppose that the great body of the nation 
 cares one jot about his wild plans of annual parliaments, and universal suf- 
 frage ? Nay, can he reconcile to himself the justice or consistency of his 
 plan of universal suffrage, as it is called ] How can he excuse the omission 
 of females, and of the insane, from the classes of electors and representatives'? 
 Oh ! calumniated females ! Oh ! calumniated insane ! Is it from dread of 
 the power of the female sex — or from jealousy of the wisdom of insanity ] 
 For my part, I feel assured, that whatever measure of exclusion may be dealt 
 to the women, the insane portion of the community have been excluded from 
 the petitions hitherto presented, only that they may come forward hereafter, 
 W'ith more weight and effect, in a petition, subscribed exclusively by them- 
 selves ; and that the day is not far distant, when the honourable baronet shall 
 present a petition for reform from the inhabitants of the receptacle near Ken- 
 nington, vouching for the respectful tenor of its language, and pledging him- 
 self for the constitutional temperance of its argument. 
 
 But, sir, if this would be consistent in the honourable baronet, what shall 
 be said of the honourable and learned gentleman who has just sat down, (Mr. 
 Brougham,) who, in his heart, laughs at all these schemes of reform, and 
 looks with the profoundest scorn on all who entertain them : — of him, who 
 knows that every petition on this subject comes either from deluders or de- 
 luded ; yet, under a pretence that he is a friend to something like a reform, 
 will, every now and then, support such petitions for the mere purpose of popu- 
 larity. That honourable and learned gentleman has apologized for pronounc- 
 ing an eloquent panegyric on the constitution, which he apprehends to have 
 been brought into danger by the acts of this House. If the constitution was 
 in danger, sure, very sure am I, that it was a danger of a very different sort 
 from any which could be cured by inflaming and maddening the people. 
 "Who are the best friends of the people 1 those who are always ringing in 
 their ears the extent and imprescriptibility of their rights, orthose who, while 
 they tell them of their rights, tell them they have duties also? I would say 
 to the real friends of the people, instruct, enlighten them, and then there will 
 be no danger ; but do not teach them to nourish an envious jealousy of wealth, 
 a hatred of rank, and a general malignity at all superiority. It is, indeed, the 
 proud boast of our glorious constitution, that the poorest peasant may emerge 
 from the meanest hut, and himself, or in his descendants, rise to the highest 
 rank of the state. But let there at least remain high ranks for them to rise to. 
 To level ranks would not be to equalize, but to destroy, to confound the ele- 
 ments of society, and to produce universal degradation. But I ask whether 
 every man who hears me does not know that either in his own immediate 
 neighbourhood, or in districts of which he has knowledge, a sedulous and 
 wicked activity has been employed in disseminating the doctrines of discon- 
 tent, and exasperating suffering into malignity 1 I ask whether hatred to go- 
 vernment, as government, not merely to particular individuals, (a tax which 
 those who fill ostensible situations in the state must make up their minds to 
 bear as they may,) but to government by whomsoever administered, to emi- 
 nence as eminence, to rank as rank, have not been industriously inculcated 1 
 Whether the crown and its ministers have not been proscribed as the natural 
 enemies of the people 1 And this House held up to peculiar detestation and 
 horror, as the tyrants of the commons, whom they are especially bound to 
 protect] The starving artizan is told, by his mischievous seducer, that all 
 his distress arises from an imperfect representation in parliament. If this 
 
APPENDIX. 565 
 
 assertion means any thing, it must mean this — that parliament, as at present 
 constituted, encourages unnecessary wars ; that unnecessary wars produce 
 extravagant expenditure; that extravagant expenditure produces exorbitant 
 taxation; and that exorbitant taxation produces overwhelming misery. Now 
 what is the inference of the parliamentary reformers ] Is it that parliament, 
 more popularized, more democratically constituted, would be less inclined to 
 war ] I appeal to all history, ancient or modern, whether democratic states 
 have not always been fondest of war. Look at Athens, look at Rome, look 
 at the petty republics of more modern times. Was not the appetite for war 
 in all these governments perpetually excited and perpetually indulged? 
 Would the case be different among ourselves? Is it not notorious that the 
 humblest peasants in this country have been used to sympathize with the vic- 
 tories of its warriors, and to feel themselves partakers in their honour? True 
 it is that of late a chill philosophy has been busy in numbing even this, the 
 natural enthusiasm of a brave people ; in sophisticating their feelings and be- 
 wildering their reason ; in rendering them dead to the glories of Waterloo, 
 but tremblingly alive to the imperfections of Old Sarum. But it will not do; 
 and I must say that I distrust the sense of any man who can build a hope of 
 discomfiture to ministers on the popularity of parliamentary reform. 
 
 It is not against parliamentary reform, but against the frantic follies circu- 
 lated under that pretext, and the mischiefs attempted to be perpetrated under 
 the shadow of its name, that government appealed to parliament, and that par- 
 liament had recourse to the Suspension Act. That act is happily at an end. 
 I am not disposed to undervalue the evil of its enactment, whether in itself or 
 whether considered as a precedent for other times. But they surely read but 
 ill the signs of the present times, who think that in or out of parliament there 
 is a leaning against popular rights and feelings. How strangely do topics 
 survive the occasions which produce them. Not more idle was it in the 
 rhetoricians of imperial Rome to make declamations in favour of Brutus, ages 
 after the extinction of Roman liberty, than it is in the patriots of these days to 
 pretend an apprehension of arbitrary power, and to rail against enslaved par- 
 liaments and an usurping crown. 
 
 The dangers which now threaten society are of a different kind, and come 
 in an opposite direction ; and it is the duty of parliament to provide with 
 equal watchfulness not only against the blast of the lightning from above, but 
 against the destructive explosion from below. 
 
 But let us hope that these dangers are for the present passed away. If, in 
 the hour of peril, the statue of liberty has been veiled for a moment, let it be 
 confessed in justice that the hands whose painful duty it was to spread that 
 veil, have not been the least prompt to remove it. If the palladium of the 
 constitution has for a moment trembled in its shrine, let it be acknowledged 
 that through the vigilance and constancy of those whose duty it was to see 
 that the fabric took no harm, the shrine itself has been preserved from profa- 
 nation, and the temple stands firm and unimpaired. 
 
 ON THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. JUNE 22, 1812. 
 
 We read, sir, in the history of ancient Rome, that when one of the armies 
 of the republic had fallen into the power of the enemy, and was surrounded 
 by the Samnites at the Caudine Forks, the victorious general, desirous to 
 make the most of the advantage which he had obtained, despatched a message 
 to his father, a senator celebrated for his wisdom, to counsel him as to the 
 most expedient mode of disposing of his captives. — " Dismiss them unran- 
 somed and unmolested," was the answer of the aged senator. This was a 
 strain of generosity too high for the comprehension of the son. He re-de- 
 spatched his messenger to consult his oracle again. The answer then was, 
 " Exterminate them to the last man." This advice was so unlike the former, 
 
566 APPENDIX. 
 
 that it excited a suspicion that the old man's intellects were deranged : he 
 was brought to the camp to explain the discordancy of his counsel. " By my 
 first advice," said he, " which was the best, I recommended to you to ensure the 
 everlasting gratitude of a powerful people; by my second, which was the 
 worst, I pointed out to you the policy of getting rid of a dangerous enemy. 
 There is no third way. Tertium nullum comilium." When asked, what if a 
 middle course should be taken, what if they should be dismissed unhurt, but 
 if at the same time harsh laws should be imposed upon them as a conquered 
 enemy 1 " Ida quidem senlentia,'''' said the old man, "m e&t, rjuaeneque amicos 
 parat neque inimicos tollit." The son, however, unhappily for his country, 
 thought himself wiser than his father; the middle course was adopted: he 
 neither liberated the Romans, nor exterminated them ; he passed their necks 
 under the yoke, and sent them home. 
 
 Of the cruelties exercised against the first reformers by the ancient church, 
 then struggling for the maintenance of its authority, history speaks with just 
 horror and indignation. But can any man now entertain a serious apprehen- 
 sion that it is necessary to be on our guard against their recurrence ■? Good 
 God, sir, what should we say if the early violences of the reformation itself 
 were to be arrayed against Protestants as a lasting and inexpiable reproach ] 
 If the outrages and extravagancies of the Anabaptists of Munster — the tyran- 
 nical caprices of Henry VIII. — the severities of the latter part of the reign of 
 Elizabeth — the burning of Servetus, by Calvin, at Geneva — the coarse and 
 sacrilegious fury of John Knox and his followers in Scotland — nay, and the 
 oath taken by King William himself — were to be alleged as evidence that the 
 several descriptions of reformed religion are necessarily and eternally of a vio- 
 lent and sanguinary character ■? We should object to such an inference as 
 absurd and unjustifiable ; and may not the Catholics of the present day pro- 
 test in like manner against conclusions being drawn against them, from the 
 crimes and cruelties, the perfidies and atrocities, of those who held the same 
 faith two hundred years ago ] 
 
 I have been shocked at seeing exposed to sale, in the shop-windows of this 
 metropolis, an address to the worst passions of the vulgar, entitled " An Aw- 
 ful Warning, or the Massacre of St. Bartholomew." Who the writer is I 
 know not. It is not right to attribute bad motives to any man, but I am at a 
 loss to conceive a good one for such a publication as this which I hold in my 
 hand. Why publish such a narrative at the present moment? What pur- 
 pose, what legitimate feeling can it be intended to gratify 1 What have the 
 public now to do with Charles the Ninth and Admiral Coligny ] By what 
 sentiment can any one feel himself called upon at this time of day to narrate 
 that the Guises sprinkled themselves with the blood of their unfortunate vic- 
 tim, and that the Duke d'Angouleme viewed his butchered corpse with emo- 
 tions of delight] Why represent these horrid scenes to the eyes of the popu- 
 lace ■? What good can it do to recall the memory of them 1 If the torch of 
 religious animosity could be rekindled at the present moment, what would the 
 effect be but to risk the safety of the British empire 1 This mischievous pub- 
 lication is illustrated by plates, to heighten the horrors of the narrative. In 
 one is exhibited the assassination of Coligny, in another the Duke d'Angou- 
 leme dipping his handkerchief in his blood. Does not this mode of illustra- 
 tion clearly show to what description of readers the publication is peculiarly 
 addressed ] upon what class of understandings it is intended to operate 1 
 
 But neither are there wanting other indications of the same purpose ; among 
 these is the dedication. It is dedicated to the memory of that eminent and 
 virtuous man whose loss in this house we are still deploring, and who, had 
 he been alive, warm as he was in his resistance to the question now before 
 the house, would assuredly have disdained and discountenanced such a mode 
 of resisting it. The dedication is as follows : — " Sacred to the memory of the 
 Right Honourable Spencer Perceval, prime minister of these realms, whose 
 
APPENDIX. 567 
 
 relative situation in respect of the established reliorion of the united kingjdom, 
 was similar to that of De Coligny in France." What does this mean ■? How 
 was Mr. Perceval's situation, with respect to the established religion of this 
 kingdom, similar to that of De Coligny with respect to the established religion 
 of France ? So much for the accuracy of the fact. This circumstance is one 
 which also clearly shows for what scale of intellect this writer calculated his 
 publication. On human beings, capable of investigation and discussion, he 
 knew that he should make no impression; he therefore directed his efforts to 
 infuriate the mob — not, I hope, in this day, to be infuriated by such unhallow- 
 ed means. The dedication proceeds, after this comparison between the situ- 
 ation of Mr. Perceval and that of the Admiral De Coligny, to say that Mr. 
 Perceval "fell like him, a martyr to his duty to his king, to his country, and 
 to his God." History, we know, is sufficiently liable to misrepresentation 
 and perversion ; but so shameless an attempt as this, within one short month 
 after the transaction to which it refers, I should think is not to be found in 
 the records of historical falsification. 
 
 If, sir, with a deep sense of a dispensation so awful and afflicting as that 
 with which we have recently been visited, it may yet be permitted to us to 
 render thanks to Providence for having intermixed some qualification of mercy 
 in its wrath, that gratitude is justly due, when we imagine to our minds the 
 mischiefs that might have been occasioned, had the desperate wretch who 
 committed this detested deed been either a Catholic or an Irishman. It is 
 very possible that he might have been either, or both, and yet not have been 
 influenced by any motive of religious fanaticism. But I appeal to the common 
 sense of the house, whether, if by accident, the assassin of Mr. Perceval had 
 been born in the sister island, if by accident he had been a Roman Catholic, 
 (as, in the paragraph I have just read to them, it is not asserted indeed, but, 
 with Jesuitical ambiguity, is more than insinuated ;) whether, I say, the same 
 blind zeal which is manifested in this publication, would not in all probability 
 have availed itself of that circumstance to stir up a furious and fanatical spirit, 
 which might have laid both countries in blood 1 * * * 
 
 The mention of the name of Mr. Burke, and of that of my late right honoura- 
 ble friend, naturally suggests the consideration of the authorities by which the 
 view that I take of the great question now before us, has been supported or 
 opposed. No man can deem more highly than I do of the sagacity, the in- 
 tegrity, the force of my late right honourable friend's understanding; of the 
 purity of his mind, the charity of his temper, and the unaffected piety by 
 which he was so eminently distinguished. But, considering this, as I must 
 always do, as a great state question, I hope I may be excused if I cannot put 
 his authority in competition with the united authorities of so many great men 
 who have preceded him; with the authority, not of Mr. Burke alone, who, 
 on this as well as on other subjects, outran with a prophetic celerity the pro- 
 gress of the public sentiment, and had arrived many years ago at that opinion 
 in which I believe it may be said that the generality of the public are now 
 agreed ; not only of Mr. Fox, whose general love of liberty, and whose ardent 
 and hardy and uncomprising spirit naturally inclined him to extend to the 
 widest range the limits of freedom and toleration ; not only, I say, with the 
 authorities of these great m.en — men who, being of a warm and sanguine tem- 
 perament, might be subjected to the accusation of adopting too eagerly every 
 proposition which tended towards the liberty of mankind : but to these are to 
 be added the name of Mr. Windham, whose mind was cast in a different 
 mould, whose disposition, so far from being rash and sanguine, inclined him 
 rather to view every approach to an enlargement of popular privilege with 
 jealousy, and to suspect all general propositions of fallacy and danger. 1 
 must add also the great and venerable name of Mr. Pitt, whose generous phi- 
 lanthropy, whose attachment to civil and religious liberty, were as warm and 
 (jincere as those of any man that ever lived; but in whom these feelings were 
 
568 APPENDIX. 
 
 tempered and disciplined by early habits of business and long practical expe- 
 rience, which had taught him to examine specious theories with distrust, and 
 to build his plans for the public good on sure and solid foundations. If then 
 the question were to rest upon authority, I could have no apprehension as to 
 the decision. 
 
 But it is not the intluence of the clergy alone that is an object of apprehen- 
 sion. The great body of Irish Catholics are, it is said, in the hands of agitators, 
 who wish to keep their discontents alive ; who care rot for the professed ob- 
 ject of Catholic desire, but look to ulterior purposes of mischief, to separation 
 and revolution. If this be so, we can only defeat the evil intentions of such 
 men in two ways : either by correcting their disposition, or by taking away 
 their means. The former is beyond human power. Let us avail ourselves 
 of the latter. Let us remove tiiose circumstances which, operating upon the 
 feelings of the Catholics, render them fit instruments in the hands of agitators 
 for the promotion of such dangerous designs. I am inclined to believe that 
 there are those who have ulterior views and objects. Of those who are liie 
 most clamorous for concession, there are some, I do believe, who would be 
 most disappointed if that concession were granted. And next to the gratifica- 
 tion which I should feel in tranquillizing a loyal and high-minded people, by 
 the introduction of that equality of rights, without which there can be no 
 reciprocal liking and confidence, is that of disappointing the guilty hopes of 
 those who delight not in tranquillity and concord, but in grievances and re- 
 monstrance ; who use their sincere and warm-hearted countrymen as screens 
 to their own ambitious purposes ; and who consider a state of turbulence and 
 discontent as best suited to the ends which they have in view. That state it 
 may be their wish to prolong, but so much the rather is it our interest and our 
 duty to terminate it as speedily as possible. 
 
 ON FOREIGN TREATIES. NOV. 17, 1813. 
 
 With reference, however, to the vote of this night, as far as it may be con- 
 sidered prospective, as to the exertions we are called upon in future to make, 
 I must observe, that even if our hopes of peace should be postponed, or even 
 disappointed, is it nothing to reflect upon the posture we are enabled to 
 assume, by the achievements we have already performed 1 Is it nothing 
 to look back upon the fallen, the crouching attitude of enslaved Europe, at a 
 period not long distant, and compare it with the upright, free, undaunted posture 
 in which she now stands ] Living memory can recall no period when she was 
 entitled to bold her head so high, and to bid such bold defiance to her enemy. 
 What, let me ask, is the first and brightest fruit of the late successful con- 
 flict? First, that continuity of system, that instrument of not wholly ineffec- 
 tual hostility against Great Britain, which, until lately, was supposed to be 
 growing in strength and perfection, has been destroyed ; that complex ma- 
 chine directed against our trade has received a blow which has shivered it to 
 atoms ! The enemy is doubly defeated ; his arms and his artifices have 
 failed : burdened as it was, still there is something in the incompressible na- 
 ture of commerce which rises under the weight of the most powerful tyranny ; 
 his efforts have been exhausted ; his monarchy was reduced to sink our com- 
 merce ; but, rising with tenfold vigour, it has defied his puny efforts, never 
 to be repeated. The next point that we have attained is, the destruction of 
 his own darling system of confederation ! I mean, that system by which he 
 had formed all the states of continental Europe into satellites of the French 
 empire, that moved only as it moved, and acted only by its influence. They 
 are now emancipated ; the yoke has been removed from their shoulders ; the 
 nations rise superior to themselves, 
 
 " Free, and to none accountable, preferring 
 
 Hard liberty, before the easy yoke 
 
 Of servile pomp." 
 
APPENDIX. 56^9 
 
 But, since all the events of war are precarious, is it impossible, that after 
 TPtiring awhile, the tyrant of Europe (now no longer its tyrant) may again 
 burst forward, and again, with desolation in his train, awhile victorious, 
 atiempt to collect the fragments of that system, and to reconstruct that mighty 
 engine which we have shattered, but which once, guided by his hand, hurled 
 destruction on his foes'? It is impossible. After the defeats that he has sus- 
 tained, all confidence between him and his vassal states must be annihilated. 
 Admitting that they may be compelled again to act, can he rely upon their 
 exertions, or can they depend upon his support] He may go forth like that 
 foul idol, of which we heard so much in the last year, crushing his helpless 
 victims beneath his chariot wheels ; but he never again can yoke them to his 
 car as willing instruments of destruction. Even if Austria, by base submis- 
 sion to the sacrifice of her honour, were to add the sacrifice of another daugh- 
 ter, and of another army of 30,000 men, that mutual confidence which existed 
 at the commencement of the last campaign can never be restored. 
 
 So much for the present state of Europe : but has this country gained no- 
 thing by the glorious contest, even supposing peace should be far distant'? Is 
 it nothing to Great Britain, even purchased at the high price stated by the 
 noble lord, that under all the severity of her sufferings, while her trade de- 
 clined, her military character has been exalted '? Is it no satisfaction, no 
 compensation to her, to reflect that the splendid scenes displayed on the con- 
 tinent are owing to her efforts 1 that the victories of Germany are to be attri- 
 buted to our victories in the peninsula '? That spark, often feeble, sometimes 
 so nearly extinguished as to excite despair in all hearts that were not above it, 
 which we lighted in Portugal, which was fed and nourished there, has at 
 length burst into a flame that has dazzled and illuminated Europe. Shall it 
 then be said, that this struggle has had no effect upon the military character 
 of Great Britain '? At the commencement of this war, our empire rested upon 
 one majestic column, our naval power. In the prosecution of the war, a hero 
 has raised another stupendous pillar of strength to support our monarchy — 
 our military pre-eminence. It is now that we may boast not only of supe- 
 riority at sea, but on shore : the same energy and heroism exist in both the 
 arms of Great Britain; they are rivals in strength, but inseparable in glory. 
 If, at a future period, by successes which we cannot foresee, and by aggres- 
 sions which we cannot resist, war should again be threatened upon our own 
 shores, what consolation will the reflection afford, that out of the calamities 
 and the privations of war has arisen a principle of safety, that, superior to all 
 attacks, shall survive through ages, to which even our posterity shall look 
 forward ! Compare the situation of England with her condition even at the 
 beginning of the last campaign, much more with her condition at the renewal 
 of the war. Were we not then threatened by the aggressions of an enemy 
 even upon our own shores ; were we not then trembling for the safety and 
 sanctity even of our homes '? Now contemplate Wellington encamped on the 
 Bidassoa ! I know that a sickly sensibility prevails abroad, which leads 
 some to doubt whether the advance of Lord Wellington was not rash and pre- 
 cipitate. Of the political expediency of that advance I can entertain but one 
 opinion : I cannot enter into that refinement which induces those who affect 
 to know much, to hesitate upon the subject; I cannot look with regret at a 
 British army encamped upon the fertile plains of France : I cannot believe 
 that any new grounds for apprehension are raised by an additional excitement 
 being afforded to the irritability of the French people : I foresee no disadvan- 
 tage resulting from entering the territories of our enemy, not as the con- 
 quered but the conquerors : I cannot believe that there are any so weak as to 
 imagine that England wishes to maintain a position within the heart of the 
 enemy's country, or that Spain will attempt to extend her dominion beyond 
 that vast chain of impregnable mountains that seem to form her natural 
 boundary. What is the fact? The Portuguese are now looking upon the 
 74 zz* 
 
570 APPENDIX. 
 
 walls of Bayoiine, " that circles in those wolves" which would have devas- 
 tated their capital ; the Portuguese now behold, planted on the towers of 
 Bayonne, that standard which their enemy would have made to float upon the 
 walls of Lisbon. I cannot think it a matter of regret that Spaniards are now 
 recovering, from the grasp of an enemy on his own shores, that diadem which 
 was stripped from the brow of the Bourbons, to be pocketed by an usurper. 
 I cannot think it a matter of regret that England, formerly threatened with 
 invasion, is now the invader — that France, instead of England, is the scene 
 of conflict : 
 
 " Ultro Inachias venisset ad urbes 
 
 Dardanus, et versis lugeret Graecia fatis." 
 
 I cannot think all this matter of regret; and of those who believe that the 
 nation or myself are blinded by our successes, I entreat that they will leave 
 me to my delusion, and keep their philosophy to themselves. There are 
 other observations, growing not only out of the proceedings of the last year, 
 but since the commencement of the war, that to my mind are highly con- 
 soling. It is a fact acknowledged by all, that our enemy, who has enslavea 
 the press, and made it contribute so importantly to his own purposes of ambi- 
 tion, at various periods, during the hostilities, has endeavoured to impress 
 upon all those who are likely to be our allies, a notion, that Great Britain 
 only fought to secure her own interest, that her views were completely selfish. 
 That illusion is now destroyed, and the designs of this country are vindicated 
 by recent events. We call on all the powers with whom we are at war, to 
 do us justice in this respect : above all, we claim it of America, with which, 
 as much as any man, I wish for reconciliation. If she were now hesitating 
 and wavering, which of the two great contending parties she should join, 
 would not the conduct of England now decide the doubt? I ask her to 
 review her own, and the policy of this country, and to acknowledge that we 
 are deserving, not only of her confidence, but of the support of mankind. 
 Now she can behold Bonaparte in his naked deformity, stripped of the false 
 glory whicli success had cast around him — the spell of his invincibility is 
 now dissolved — she can now look at him without that awe which an uninter- 
 rupted series of victories had created. Were she now to survey him as he is, 
 what would be the result ? She would trace him by the desolation of em- 
 pires, and the dismemberment of states; she would see him pursuing his 
 course over the ruins of men and of things : slavery to the people, and de- 
 struction to commerce — hostility to literature, to light, and life, were the prin- 
 ciples on which he acted. His object was, to extinguish patriotism, and to 
 confound allegiance — to darken as well as to enslave — to roll back the tide of 
 civilization — to barbarize, as well as to desolate mankind. Then let America 
 turn from this disgusting picture, these scenes of bloodshed and horror, and 
 compare with them the effect of British interference ! She will see that 
 wherever this country has exerted herself, it has been to raise the fallen and 
 to support the falling — to raise, not to degrade the national character — to 
 rouse the sentiments of patriotism which tyranny had silenced — to enlighten, 
 to reanimate, to liberate. Great Britain has resuscitated Spain, and recreated 
 Portugal. Germany is now a nation as well as a name, and all these glorious 
 effects have been produced by the efforts and by the example of our country. 
 If to be the deliverers of Europe; if to have raised our own national charac- 
 ter, not upon the ruins of other kingdoms ; if to meet dangers without shrink- 
 ing, and to possess courage rising with difficulties be admirable, surely we 
 may not unreasonably hope for the applause of the world. If we have founded 
 our strength upon a rock, and possess the implicit confidence of those allies 
 we have succoured when they seemed beyond relief, then, I say, that our ex- 
 ertions during the last year, all our efforts during the war, are cheaply pur- 
 chased. If we have burdened ourselves, we have relieved others, and we 
 
APPENDIX. 571 
 
 have the inward, the soul-felt, the proud satisfaction of knowing that a selfish 
 charge is that which, with the faintest shadow of justice, cannot be brought 
 against us. 
 
 NEGOTIATION RELATIVE TO SPAIN. APRIL 14, 1824. 
 
 With regard to the independence of the Spanish colonies in America, he 
 also wished to say a few words by way of explanation. Undoubtedly it would 
 have been much more agreeable to him not to be called upon to give an expla- 
 nation upon an event which might only be contingent. Unfortunately, how- 
 ever, no choice was left him at the present moment. As long as peace pre- 
 vailed on the continent, and Spain had no enemy in Europe to contend with, 
 so long it was a matter of discretion with the British government, whether it 
 would or would not call the attention of Spain to the undeniable fact, that she 
 had lost all her influence in her American provinces — that all her efforts to 
 regain it have been, and still were, useless and ineffectual ; and that her wisest 
 policy was to enter, as soon as possible, into an accommodation with them — an 
 accommodation founded, indeed, upon the basis of recognising their indepen- 
 dence, but qualified with any advantages which the mother country might 
 think proper to stipulate, and the colonies in return to grant. Indeed, advice 
 to that effect had already been given to her by this country. We had told her 
 that we should ask of her colonies no commercial advantages, as we conceived 
 the superiority should be reserved to her as the mother country ; and all 
 that we were inclined to demand was, that we should be placed in the same 
 situation with other favoured nations. More than onc^e it had been hinted to 
 us, that our good offices between Spain and her colonies would be favourably 
 received by the mother country. The answer which had been invariably 
 returned to such applications was, that we were willing to interfere with our 
 good offices, if our recognition of the independence of the colonies were not 
 to be made determinable on the issue of the negotiations. At present, how- 
 ever, the case was entirely changed. As Spain had now an active and power- 
 ful European enemy, it became necessary for England to declare in what light 
 she looked upon the struggling provinces of South America : for as Spain 
 still retained the dominion dejure over them, though she had lost the domi- 
 nion de facto ; as France might send forth her fleets and armies to seize and 
 conquer them ; and as, at the conclusion of the war, arrangements might be 
 made between the two nations regarding the conquest or the cession of them, 
 the British government had felt itself called upon to state, that it considered 
 the separation of the colonies from Spain to have been effected to such a de- 
 gree, that it would not tolerate for an instant any cession which Spain might 
 make of colonies over which she did not exercise a direct and positive influence. 
 To such a declaration the British government had at last been forced. With- 
 out staying to examine whether it had been made prematurely or not, he would 
 once more repeat, that to such a declaration we had at length, by necessity, 
 been driven, and that the justice and propriety of it had not yet been disputed 
 by either party. 
 
 FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL. APRIL 16, 1823. 
 
 Good God ! is it to become a maxim with this country that she is ever to be 
 a belligerant? Is she never, under any possible state of circumstances, to 
 remain neutral 1 If this proposition be good for any thing, it must run to this 
 extent — that our position, insulated as it is from all the rest of the world, 
 moves us so far from the scene of continental warfare, that we ought always 
 to be belligerant — that we are bound to counteract the designs of Pro- 
 vidence, to reject the advantages of nature, and to render futile and 
 erroneous the description of, the poet, who has said to our honour 
 that we were less prone to war and tumult, on account of our happy situa- 
 
572 APPENDIX. 
 
 tion, than the neighbouring- nations that lie conterminous with one an- 
 other. But wherefore this dread of a neutrality] If gentlemen look to the 
 page of history, they will find that for centuries past, whenever there has been 
 a war in Europe, we have almost always been belligerant. The fact is un- 
 doubtedly so; hut I am not prepared to lay it down as a principle, that if, at 
 the beginning of a war, we should happen to maintain a species of neutrality, 
 it was an unnatural thing that we should do so. Gentlemen say, that we must 
 be drawn into a war, sooner or later. Why, then, I answer, let it be later. I 
 say, if we are to be drawn into a war, let us be drawn into it on grounds clearly 
 British. I do not say — God forbid I should — that it is no part of the duty 
 of Great Britain to protect what is termed the balance of power, and to aid 
 the weak against the insults of the strong. I say, on the contrary, that to do 
 so is her bounden duty; but I affirm also, that we must take care to do our 
 duty to ourselves. The first condition of engaging in any war — thesme qua 
 non of every such undertaking — is, that the war must be just ; the second, 
 that being just in itself, we can also with justice engage in it; and the third, 
 that being just in its nature, and it being possible for us justly to embark in it, 
 we can so interfere without detriment or prejudice to ourselves. I contend 
 that he is a visionary politician who leaves this last condition out of the ques- 
 tion ; and I say further, that though the glorious abandonment of it may sound 
 ■well in the generous speech of an irresponsible orator — with the safety of a 
 nation upon his lips, and none of the responsibility upon his shoulders — it is 
 matter deeply to be considered ; and that the minister who should lay it out of 
 his view, in calling on the country to undertake a war, would well deserve that 
 universal censure and reprobation with which the noble lord opposite has this 
 night menaced me. If it be wise for a government, though it cannot prevent 
 an actual explosion, to endeavour to circumscribe the limits, and to lessen the 
 duration of a war, then I say that the position we have taken in the present 
 instance is of more probable efficacy than that in which we should have stood 
 had we suffered ourselves to be drawn into a participation in the contest. 
 Participation, did I say ] Sir! is there any man who hears me — is there any 
 man acquainted with the history of the country for the last twenty years, who 
 does not know the way in which Great Britain has been accustomed to parti- 
 cipate in a war 1 Do not gentlemen know that if we now enter into a war, we 
 must take the whole burden of it upon ourselves, and conduct the whole force 
 and exertions of the peninsula 1 But, supposing such to be our course, how 
 different must be our situation, as compared with former periods. When we 
 last became the defenders of Spain, we fought for and with a united people. 
 What would be the case at present] Any interference on our parts in favour 
 of Spain, must commence with an attempt to unite contending factions, and 
 to stimulate men of opposite interests and opposite feelings, to one grand and 
 simultaneous effort. Now, I do not hesitate to say, that the man who would 
 undertake to do this under present circumstances, must either be possessed of 
 supernatural means of information, or of a hardihood which I may envy, but 
 shall not attempt to imitate. I say that those men will not consult the true dig- 
 nity of the country, who, finding fault with the part we have adopted, wish 
 to indemnify themselves by endeavouring to make us perform that part amiss. 
 Our course is neutralit}^ — strict neutrality; and, in the name of God, let us 
 adhere to it. If you dislike that course — if you think it injurious to the honour 
 or interests of the country — drive from their places those neutral ministers 
 who have adopted it ; but until you are prepared to declare war, you are bound 
 to adhere to and to act upon the system which ministers have laid down. 
 
 I stated a few evenings ago that we could have no difficulty in the course 
 which we had to pursue, in observance of a strict neutrality. We have spent 
 much time in teaching other powers the nature of a strict neutrality; and 
 generally speaking, we found them most reluctant scholars. All 1 now call 
 upon the house to do, is to adopt the same course which it has recommended 
 
APPEISDIX. 573 
 
 to neutral powers upon former occasions. If I wished for a guide in a system 
 of neutrality, I should take that laid down by America, iti the days of the pre- 
 sidency of Washington, and the secretaryship of Jefferson. 
 
 ADDRESS ON THE KINg's SPEECH. 1824. 
 
 He knew that it was maintained by some, that England ought to set her- 
 self up as a barrier for all Europe, against principles of a despotic tendency ; 
 but he could not be persuaded that it was the policy of England to do lightly 
 any act which might plunge herself and all Europe into a bloody and unceas- 
 ing war. Of all the wars — and unhappily we had experienced but too many 
 varieties of them — of all the wars which we had seen, and which had brought 
 desolation in their train, the wars of opinion had been decidedly the most 
 fatal ; and a single spark, flashing unhappily from the hasty zeal of England, 
 might light up a conflagration on the continent, which no after exertions could 
 extinguish — might lead to a contest of opinions and principles which would 
 divide all the nations of Europe, and only terminate, probably, with the total 
 destruction of one of the contending factions. Was this, then, an object for 
 England to aim at ] Was this to be laid down as the intent by which minis- 
 ters were to regulate their conduct] Or, might they be allowed to say, that 
 their object was peace, be the component parts of that peace more or less 
 perfect] — to see England moving steadily on in her own orbit, without look- 
 ing too nicely to the conduct of the powers in alliance with her — to see her 
 content with her own glory, and by that glory exciting other nations to arrive 
 at the same advantages which her peculiar system had bestowed upon her; 
 but not, by a wild crusade or endeavour, to force those advantages upon free 
 countries, converting blessings into curses as respected them, and courting 
 danger and difficulty as regarded herself? It was this course which he took 
 to be the true policy of England. It was with this view to peace, while 
 peace might be maintained, that his majesty's government had acted, and 
 were prepared to act. But it did not follow, because they forbore to seek for 
 difference, that when it came, it would not find them on the alert; or that the 
 strength which had slumbered would be the less effective when called into 
 action. 
 
 ON THE king's SPEECH. FEB. 15, 1825. 
 
 I NOW turn to that other part of the honourable and learned gentleman's 
 speech, in which he acknowledges his acquiescence in the passages of the 
 address echoing the satisfaction felt at the success of the liberal commercial 
 principles adopted by this country, and at the steps taken for recognising the 
 new states of America. It does happen, however, that the honourable and 
 learned gentlemen being not unfrequently a speaker in this house, nor very 
 concise in his speeches, and touching occasionally, as he proceeds, on almost 
 every subject within the range of his imagination, as well as making some 
 observations on the matter in hand — and having, at different periods proposed 
 and supported every innovation of which the law or constitution of the country 
 is susceptible — it is impossible to innovate, without appearing to borrovv from 
 him. Either, therefore, we must remain for ever absolutely locked up as in 
 a northern winter, or we must break our way out by some mode already sug- 
 
 fested by the honourable and learned gentleman, and then he cries out, " Ah, 
 was there before you ! That is what I told you to do ; but, as you would 
 not do it then, you have no right to do it now." In Queen Anne's reign 
 there lived a very sage and able critic, named Dennis, who, in his old age, 
 was the prey of a strange fancy, that he had himself written all the good 
 things in all the good plays that were acted. Every good passage he met 
 with in any author, he insisted was his own. "It is none of his," Dennis 
 
574 APPENDIX. 
 
 would always say ; " no, it's mine !" He went one day to see a new trag-edy. 
 Nothing particularly good to his taste occurred, till a scene in which a great 
 storm was represented. As soon as he heard the thunder rolling over head, 
 he exclaimed, "That's my thunder!" So it is with the honourable and 
 learned gentleman ; it's all his thunder. It will henceforth be impossible to 
 confer any boon, or make any innovation, but he will claim it as his thunder. 
 But it is due to him to acknowledge that he does not claim every thing; he 
 will be content with the exclusive merit of the liberal measures relating to 
 trade and commerce. Not desirous of violating his own principles, by claim- 
 ing a monopoly of foresight and wisdom, he kindly throws overboard to my 
 honourable and learned friend (Sir J. Mackintosh) near him, the praise of 
 South America. I should like to know whether, in some degree, this also is 
 not his thunder. He thinks it right itself; but lest we should be too proud, 
 if he approved our conduct in tuio, he thinks it wrong in point of time. I 
 differ from him essentially; for if 1 pique myself on any thing in this affair, 
 it is the time. That, at some time or other, states which had separated them- 
 selves from the mother country, should or should not be admitted to the rank 
 of independent nations, is a proposition to which no possible dissent could be 
 o-iven. The whole question was one of time and mode. There were two 
 modes : one a reckless and headlong course, by which we might have reached 
 our object at once, but at the expense of drawing upon us consequences not 
 highly to be estimated ; the other was more strictly guarded in point of prin- 
 ciple ; so that, while we pursued our own interests, we took care to give no 
 just cause of offence to other powers. 
 
 ON UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND. FEB. 15, 1825. 
 
 In the next place, are we prepared to say that these and other acts of the 
 Catholic Association have no tendency to excite and inflame animosities 1 I 
 affirm, without hesitation, that they have directly that tendency ; and in sup- 
 port of this affirmation I must beg leave to recur, however solemnly warned 
 against the recurrence, to an expression which I was the first to bring to the 
 notice of the house, but which has been since the subject of repeated animad- 
 version ; I mean the adjuration " by the hate you bear to Orangemen," which 
 was used by the association in their address to the Catholics of Ireland. 
 
 Various and not unamusing have been the attempts of gentlemen who take 
 the part of the association, to get rid of this most unlucky phrase, or at least 
 to dilute and attenuate its obvious and undeniable meaning. It is said to be 
 unfair to select one insulated expression as indicating the general spirit of the 
 proceedings of any public body. Granted ; — if the expression had escaped in 
 the heat of debate, if it had been struck out by the collision of argument, if it 
 had been thrown forth in haste, and had been upon reflection recalled : but if 
 the words are found in a document which was prepared with care and consi- 
 dered with deliberation— if it is notorious that they were pointed out as ob- 
 jectionable when they were first proposed by the framers of the address, but 
 were nevertheless upon argument retained— surely we are not only justified in 
 receiving them as an indication at least of the animus of those who used 
 them ; but we should be rejecting the best evidence of that animus, if we 
 passed over so well weighed a manifestation of it. 
 
 Were not this felt by honourable gentlemen on the other side to be true, 
 we should not have seen them so anxious to put forced and fanciful construc- 
 tions on a phrase which is as plain in its meaning as any which the hand of 
 man ever wrote or the eye of man ever saw. The first defence of this phrase 
 viras by an honourable member from Ireland, who told us that the words do 
 not convey the same meaning in the Irish language, which we in England 
 naturally attach to them. I do not pretend to be conversant with the Irish 
 language ; and must therefore leave that apology to stand, for what it maybe 
 
APPENDIX. 575 
 
 worth, on the honourable gentleman's erudition and authority. I will not fol- 
 low every other gentleman who has strained his faculties to explain away 
 this unfortunate expression ; but will come at once to my honourable and 
 learned friend, (Sir James Mackintosh,) the member for Knaresborough, to 
 whom the palm in this contest of ingenuity must be conceded by all his com- 
 petitors. My honourable friend has expended abundant research and subtilty 
 upon this inquiry, and having resolved the phrase into its elements in the 
 crucible of his philosophical mind, has produced it to us purified and refined 
 to a degree that must command the admiration of all who take delight in 
 metaphysical alchemy. My honourable and learned friend began by telling 
 us, that, after all, hatred is no bad thing in itself. " I hate a tory," says my 
 honourable friend — "and another man hates a cat; but it does not follow 
 that he would hunt down the cat, or I the tory." Nay, so far from it — hatred, 
 if it be properly managed, is, according to my honourable friend's theory, no 
 bad preface to a rational esteem and affection. It prepares its votaries for a 
 reconciliation of differences — for lying down with their most inveterate ene- 
 mies, like the leopard and the kid, in the vision of the prophet. 
 
 This dogma is a little startling, but it is not altogether without precedent. 
 It is borrowed from a character in a play which is, I dare say, as great a 
 favourite with my learned friend as it is with me — I mean the comedy of The 
 Rivals ; — in which Mm, Muluprop, giving a lecture on the subject of marriage 
 to her niece, (who is unreasonable enough to talk of liking as a necessary 
 preliminary to such a union,) says, "What have you to do with your likings 
 and your preferences, child ? depend upon it, it is safest to begin with a little 
 aversion. I am sure I hated your poor dear uncle like a blackamoor before 
 we were married ; and yet you know, my dear, what a good wife I made 
 him." Such is my learned friend's argument to a hair. 
 
 But finding that this doctrine did not appear to go down with the house so 
 glibly as he had expected, my honourable and learned friend presently changed 
 his tack ; and put forward a theory, which, whether for novelty or for beauty, 
 I pronounce to he incomparable ; and, in short, as wanting nothing to recom- 
 mend it but a slight foundation in truth. " True philosophy," says my 
 honourable friend, " will always contrive to lead men to virtue by the instru- 
 mentality of their conflicting vices. The virtues, where more than one exist, 
 may live harmoniously together ; but the vices bear mortal antipathy to one 
 another, and therefore furnish to the moral engineer the power by which he 
 can make each keep the other under control." Admirable ! — but, upon this 
 doctrine, the poor man who has but one single vice must be in a very bad 
 way. No fulcrum, no moral power for effecting his cure. Whereas his 
 more fortunate neighbour, who has two or more vices in his composition, is 
 in a fair way of becoming a very virtuous member of society. I wonder how 
 my learned friend would like to have this doctrine introduced into his domes- 
 tic establishment. For instance, suppose that I discharge a servant because he 
 is addicted to liquor, I could not venture to recommend him to my honourable 
 and learned friend ; it might be the poor man's only fault, and therefore clearly 
 incorrigible ; but if I had the good fortune to find out that he was also ad- 
 dicted to stealing, might I not, with a safe conscience, send him to my learned 
 friend with a very strong recommendation, saying — I send you a man whom 
 I know to be a drunkard : but I am happy to assure you he is also a thief: 
 you cannot do better than employ him : you will make his drunkenness coun- 
 teract his thievery, and no doubt you will bring him out of the conflict a very 
 moral personage. My honourable and learned friend, however, not content 
 with laying down these new rules for reformation, thought it right to exem- 
 plify them in his own person, and like Pope's Longinus, to be "himself the 
 great sublime he drew." My learned friend tells us that Dr. Johnson was 
 what he (Dr. Johnson himself) called « good hater ; and that among the qua- 
 lities which he hated most were two which rny honourable friend unites in 
 
576 APPENDIX. 
 
 his own person — that of Whig and that of Scotchman. " So that," says my 
 honourable friend, " if Dr. Johnson were alive, and were to meet me at the 
 club, of which he was a founder, and of which 1 am now an unworthy mem- 
 ber, he would probably break up the meeting rather than sit it out in such 
 society." — No, sir, not so. My honourable and learned friend forgets his own 
 theory. If he had been only a Whig, or only a Scotchman, Dr. Johnson 
 might have treated him as he apprehends ; but being both, the great moralist 
 would have said to my honourable friend, " Sir, you are too much of a Whig 
 to be a good Scotchman ; and, sir, you are too much of a Scotchman to be a 
 good Whig," It is no doubt from the collision of these two vices in my 
 learned friend's person, that he has become what I, and all who have the hap- 
 piness of meeting him at the club, find him — an entirely faultless character. 
 
 For my own part, however, 1 must say, that I cannot see any hope of ob- 
 taining the great moral victory which my learned friend has anticipated — of 
 winning men to the practice of virtue by adjurations addressed to their 
 peculiar vices. I believe, after all these ratiocinations and refinements, we 
 must come back to the plain truth, which is felt even while it is denied — that 
 the phrase, " by the hate you bear to Orangemen," is an indefensible phrase; 
 that it is at least — what alone I am contending that it is — incontestable evi- 
 dence of the allegation that the Catholic Association does excite animosities 
 in Ireland. It is an expression calculated to offend, provoke, and exasperate 
 the Orangemen ; however palatable to those whose hatred of Orangemen it 
 predicates, and, to say the least, does not disapprove. 
 
 ON THE STATE OF THE SILK TRADE. FEB. 24, 1826. 
 
 It cannot be denied, sir, that under cover of the measure which the honour- 
 able gentleman opposite (Mr. Ellice) has thought proper to bring forward — 
 and that he has brought it forward in the sincerity of his heart, and with the 
 view solely to the relief of the sufferers whose cause he advocated, the house 
 must feel convinced — but it cannot be denied that, under cover of that motion, 
 an opportunity has been taken, not by the honourable member, but by others, 
 to attack the commercial regulations now in progress; measures more seri- 
 ously deliberated upon, and introduced with the more universal consent of 
 all those whose judgments were likely to be best enlightened on such mat- 
 ters, than any other acts of our public policy within my recollection. 
 
 The honourable gentleman who introduced the motion was of opinion, that 
 it was advisable to adopt a sound and settled system of commercial policy. 
 But the honourable and learned gentleman who seconded the motion, (Mr. J. 
 Williams,) addressed you with a very different feeling, and in a very different 
 spirit. That honourable and learned member, departing from those profes- 
 sional topics, in descanting upon which he had so often arrested the attention 
 of the house, disported himself upon this, to him novel subject, certainly with 
 all the confidence of a novice, but at the same time in a manner which evinced 
 a total incapability of using his weapons, as he was wont to do in his more 
 practised exhibitions. The honourable and learned member has not disdained 
 to call to his aid, in the course of his address, all the vulgar topics of ribald 
 invective with which my right honourable friend has been assailed else- 
 where ; and in the spirit of these attacks has attributed to him feelings un- 
 known to his heart, and sentiments utterly alien from his nature. And why, 
 I ask, has my right honourable friend been subjected to these attacks ? Be- 
 cause, sir, with an industry and intelligence never exceeded, and rarely 
 equalled, he has devoted his daily labour and his nightly toil to the improve- 
 ment of the commercial system of his country. Sir, when this attack was 
 made, the house felt, as one man, the injustice done to my right honourable 
 friend ; and if, in addition to the conscious rectitude of his own mind, and to 
 the gratifying acknowledgment by this house, of his splendid exertions, h© 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Sll 
 
 wished for another ^ratification, he had it in the universal feeling of indigna- 
 tion at the attempt so wantonly made to lower him and his measures in the 
 public opinion. And then, forsooth, came the assertion that nothing personal 
 was meant. Nothing personal, sir ! Did we not hear mention made of hard- 
 hearted metaphysics, and of the malignity of the devil? Nothing personal ! 
 certainly nothing personal to the devil — who, by the way — and it is a curious 
 coincidence — is, according to an old proverb, the patron saint of the city (Lin- 
 coln) which the honourable and learned gentleman represents. But could 
 any one fail to understand that the fiend-like malignity, the coldness of heart, 
 the apathy of feeling, that all these abstract qualities, which the learned gen- 
 tleman had described as distinguishing features of those who indulged in 
 abstract speculations, were intended by the learned gentleman to be embodied 
 in the person of my right honourable friend ; qualities especially calculated 
 to render a man contemptible in the performance of his public duties, and 
 odious in the eyes of his fellow-citizens, for whose benefit those duties are 
 discharged ] These topics, sir, are as vulgar as they are unjust. Why is it 
 to be supposed that the application of philosophy — (for I will use that odious 
 word) — why was it to be supposed that to apply the refinement of philosophy 
 to the aflfairs of common life, indicates obduracy of feeling or obtuseness of 
 sensibility ■? We must deal with the aff'airs of men on abstract principles, 
 modified, however, of course according to times and circumstances. Is it not 
 the doctrine and the spirit which now animate those who persecute my 
 right honourable friend, the same which, in former times, stirred up persecu- 
 tion against the best benefactors of mankind ] Is it not the same doctrine 
 and spirit which imbittered the life of Turgot ? Is it not a doctrine and a 
 spirit such as this, which consigned Galileo to the dungeons of the inquisi- 
 tion ? Is it not a doctrine and a spirit such as these which have, at all 
 times, been at work to stay public advancement, and to roll back the tide of 
 civilization? A doctrine and a spirit actuating the little minds of men, who, 
 incapable of reaching the heights from which alone extended views of human 
 nature can be taken, console and revenge themselves by calumniating and 
 misrepresenting those who have toiled to those heights for the advantage of 
 mankind. 
 
 Sir, I am not to learn that there is a faction in the country — I mean not a 
 political faction — I should, perhaps, rather have said a sect, small in numbers 
 and powerless in might, who think that all advances towards improvement are 
 retrogradations towards Jacobinism. These persons seem to imagine that, 
 under no possible circumstances, can an honest man endeavour to keep his 
 country upon a line with the progress of political knowledge, and to adapt its 
 course to the varying circumstances of the world. Such an attempt is branded 
 as an indication of mischievous intentions, as evidence of a design to sap the 
 foundations of the greatness of the country. 
 
 Sir, I consider it to be the duty of a British statesman, in internal as well 
 as external affairs, to hold a middle course between extremes ; avoiding alike 
 extravagances of despotism, or the licentiousness of unbridled freedom — re- 
 conciling power with liberty ; not adopting hasty or ill-advised experiments, 
 or pursuing any airy and unsubstantial theories ; but not rejecting, neverthe- 
 less, the application of sound and wholesome knowledge to practical affairs, 
 and pressing, with sobriety and caution, into the service of his country any 
 generous and liberal principles, whose excess, indeed, may be dangerous, but 
 whose foundation is in truth. This, sir, in my mind, is the true conduct of a 
 British statesman ; but they who resist indiscriminately all improvement as 
 innovation, may find themselves compelled at last to submit to innovations 
 although they are not improvements. 
 
 My right honourable friend has been actuated by the spirit which I have 
 endeavoured to describe. Convinced in his own mind of the justice and ex- 
 pediency of the measure which he has proposed for the improvement of our 
 
 75 A.AA 
 
578 APPENDIX. 
 
 commercial system, he has persuaded the house to legislate in that sense ; 
 and, as the fruits of that legislation, I anticipate increasing prosperity and 
 growing strength to the country. 
 
 Two objections have been stated to the course which his majesty's minis- 
 ters are pursuing under the guidance of my right honourable friend : we are 
 charged with having abandoned the principles of Mr. Pitt, and of having bor- 
 rowed a leaf from the book of Whig policy. If the latter accusation refers to 
 the useful and honourable support which we have received on questions of 
 commerce from some of those who are habitually our antagonists in politics, 
 I have only to admit the fact, and to declare the satisfaction which I derive 
 from it. God forbid, sir, that I should withhold due praise from those who, 
 forgetting political animosities and the vulgar divisions of party, have concur- 
 red with us in attempting to do public good. 
 
 But if it is meant to say that the commercial policy which we recommend 
 to the country is founded on the principles of Whiggism, history proves that 
 proposition to be untrue : I mean neither praise nor blame of Whig or Tory, 
 in adverting to matters which passed long before the political existence of the 
 present generation; but, historically speaking, I must say, that freedom of 
 commerce has, informer times, been the doctrine rather of Tories than of 
 Whigs. If I look back, for instance, to the transactions between this country 
 and France, the only commercial treaty which I can find, besides that which 
 was signed by me and my right honourable friend, but the other day, since 
 the peace of Utrecht, is the convention of 1786. With respect to the treaty, 
 the house need not be afraid that I am now going to discuss the principles of 
 the treaty of Utrecht. But, by whom was the convention of 1786 proposed 
 and supported 1 By Mr. Pitt. By whom was it opposed 1 By Mr. Fox. I 
 will not go into the arguments which might be used on either side. I enter 
 not into the question, who was right or wrong. I mention the circumstance 
 only to show how easily facts are perverted for particular purposes of vitupe- 
 ration. It is an old adage, that when a man wishes to beat a dog he has no 
 difficulty in finding a stick ; but the stick, in the present instance, has been 
 unfortunately chosen. 
 
 Equally false are the grounds of the charge brought against us, of having 
 deviated from the principles of our great master. Sir, I deny that we have 
 departed from the general principles of Mr. Pitt. It is true, indeed, that no 
 man, who has observed the signs of the times, can have failed to discover in 
 the arguments of our opponents, upon this occasion, a secret wish to renew 
 the bank restriction ; and it is upon that point, and with respect to measures 
 leading in our apprehension to that point, that we are accused, and not un- 
 justly, in differing from those who accuse us. We are charged with a devia- 
 tion from the principles of Mr. Pitt, because we declared our determination 
 not to renew an expedient which, though it was forced upon Mr. Pitt by the 
 particular circumstances of the times, is one that ought not to be dragged into 
 a precedent. It never surely can be quoted as a spontaneous act of deliberate 
 policy ; and it was an act, be it remembered, of which Mr. Pitt did not live 
 to witness those consequences which effectually deter his successors from the 
 repetition of it. But it is singular to remark how ready some people are to 
 admire in a great man the exception rather than the rule of his conduct. 
 Such perverse worship is like the idolatry of barbarous nations, who can see 
 the noonday splendour of the sun without emotion ; but who, when he is in 
 eclipse, come forward with hymns and cymbals to adore him. Thus there 
 are those who venerate Mr. Pitt less in the brightness of his meridian glory, 
 than under his partial obscurations, and who gaze on him with the fondest 
 admiration when he has accidentally ceased to shine. 
 
 My admiration "on this side only of idolatry" of that great man, is called 
 forth by the glorious course which he ran, and for the illumination which he 
 shed over his country. But I do not think it the duty of a most zealous wor- 
 
APPENDIX. 579 
 
 shipper to adopt even the accidental faults of the illustrious model whom we 
 vainly endeavour to imitate. I do not think it a part of fealty to him to adopt, 
 without necessity, measures which necessity alone forced upon him. Tread- 
 ing, with unequal pace, in his steps, I do not think it our duty to select, by pre- 
 ference, those footmarks in which, for a moment, and from the slipperiness of 
 the times, he may have trodden awry. 
 
 COPY OF A NOTE, 
 
 Addressed by ihe Right Hon. George Canning, his Majesfy^s Principal 
 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Chevalier De Los Rigs, 
 Minister Plenipote7itiary of his most Catholic Majesty. 
 
 Foreign-Office, March 25. 
 
 The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign 
 affairs, is commanded by his sovereign to deliver to the Chevalier De Los 
 Rios, for the purpose of being transmitted to his court, the following reply to 
 the official note addressed by his excellency M. Zea to his majesty's charge 
 d'affaires at Madrid, on the 21st of January. 
 
 So large a portion of the official note of M. Zea was founded upon a denial 
 of the facts which had been reported to the British government, with respect 
 to the state of the several countries of Spanish America, and upon an anticipa- 
 tion of events expected by the court of Spain to take place in those countries, 
 by which the credibility of the reports transmitted to the British government 
 would be effectually disproved, that it has been thought advisable to await the 
 issue of the expected events in Spanish America rather than to confront evi- 
 dence with evidence, and to discuss probabilities and conjectures. Of that 
 decisive issue, as it appears to be, the undersigned is directed to say, that it 
 is a great satisfaction to the British government that it had actually taken 
 place before the intentions of the British government towards Spanish Ame- 
 rica were announced. Those intentions, therefore, cannot pos.sibly have had. 
 the slightest influence upon the result of the war in Peru. 
 
 With this single observation the undersigned is directed to pass over all that 
 part of M. Zea's note which turns upon the supposed incorrectness of the 
 information on which the decision of the British government was founded. 
 
 The questions which remain to be examined are, whether in treatino- with 
 d£ facto governments, now established beyond the danger of any external 
 assailment. Great Britain has violated either any general principle of interna- 
 tional law, or any positive obligation of treaty. 
 
 To begin with the latter, as the most specific accusation. 
 
 M. Zea brings forward repeatedly the general charge of violated treaties ; 
 but as he specifies only two — that of 1809 and that of 1814 — it maybe pre- 
 sumed that he relies on them alone to substantiate his charge. 
 
 First as to the treaty of 1809. 
 
 That treaty was made at the beginning of the Spanish struggle against 
 France, and was directed wholly, and in terms not to be misapprehended, to the 
 circumstances of the moment at which it was made. It was a treaty of peace 
 putting an end to the war in which we had been since 1801 engaged with 
 Spain. It is expressly described in the first article as a tr.^aty of "alliance 
 during the war," in which we were engaged jointly with Spain against France. 
 All the stipulations of the treaty had evident reference to the declared determi- 
 nation of the then ruler of France to uphold a branch of his own family upon 
 the throne of Spain and of the Indies; and they undoubtedly pledged us to 
 Spain not to lay down our arms until that design should be defeated in Spain, 
 and the pretension altogether abandoned as to America — a pledge which it is 
 
580 APPENDIX. 
 
 not and cannot be denied that Great Britain amply redeemed. But those 
 objects once accomplished, the stipulations of the treaty were fulfilled, and its 
 obiio^ations necessarily expired, together with the matter to which they related. 
 In effect, at the happy conclusion of the war in the Peninsula, and after the 
 restoration, by British assistance, of his Catholic majesty to the throne of his 
 ancestors, the treaty of 1809 was replaced by the treaty of 1814. And what 
 does that treaty contain 1 First, the expression of an earnest wish on the part 
 of his majesty, that Spanish America may be reunited to the Spanish monar- 
 chy ; and, secondly, an engagement to prohibit British subjects from supplying 
 the Spanish Americans with munitions of war. This engagement was in- 
 stantly carried into effect by an order in council of 1814. And in furtherance 
 of the like object, beyond the obligation of the treaty, an act of parliament 
 was passed in 1819, prohibiting the service of British subjects in the ranks of 
 the resisting colonies. 
 
 That the wish expressed in this treaty was sincere, the proof is to be found 
 not only in the ineasures above mentioned, but in the repeated offers of Great 
 Britain to mediate between Spain and her colonies. Nor were these offers of 
 mediation, as M. de Zea alleges, uniformly founded on the single basis of the 
 admission by Spain of the independence of the Spanish provinces. 
 
 Years had elapsed, and many opportunities had been missed of negotiating 
 on better terms for Spain, before that basis was assumed to be the only one on 
 which negotiation could be successfully opened. 
 
 It was not assumed in 1812, when our mediation was offered to the Cortes. 
 It was not assumed in 1815, when Spain asked our mediation, but refused to 
 state the terms to which she was willing to agree. 
 
 It was not assumed in 1818, in the conferences at Aix-la-Chapelle, in which 
 conferences the question of an arrangement between Spain and her Americas 
 was for the first and last time discussed between the great powers of Europe. 
 
 After the silence, indeed, which Spain observed as to the opinion of the 
 powers assisting at those conferences, when laid before her, two things be- 
 came perfectly clear ; the first, that Spain had at that time no serious inten- 
 tion of offering any terms such as the Spanish American provinces were likely 
 to accept; the second, that any subsequent reference of the subject to a 
 congress must be wholly fruitless and unsatisfactory. From that time forth, 
 Great Britain abstained from stirring the subject of negotiation with the colo- 
 nies, till, in the month of May, 1822, Spain spontaneously announced to Great 
 Britain that she had measures in contemplation for the pacification of her 
 Americas on a basis entirely new, — which basis, however, was not explicitly 
 described. 
 
 Ill answer to that notification, Spain was exhorted by Great Britain to has- 
 ten, as iTiuch as possible, her negotiation with the colonies, as the course of 
 events was evidently so rapid as not to admit of a much longer delay ; but 
 no suggestion was even then brought forward by Great Britain as to the adop- 
 tion of the basis of independence. 
 
 The first sugorestion of that basis came, in fact, from the government of 
 !~^pain itself, in the month of November, 1822, when the British minister at 
 Madrid received an intimation that the Cortes meditated opening negotiations 
 v.'ith the colonies on the basis of colonial independence; negotiations whicb 
 were in fact subsequently opened, and carried to a successful termination, 
 with Buenos Ayres, though they were afterwards disavowed by his Catholic 
 majesty. 
 
 It was not till after this last-mentioned communication from the Spanish go- 
 vernment that Great Britain expressed the opinion which she entertained as to 
 the hopelessness of negotiating upon any other basis than that then first sug- 
 gested by the Spanish government. 
 
 This opinion, stated (as has been said) in the first instance confidentially to 
 Spain, was nearly a twelvemonth afterwards — that is to say, in the month of 
 
APPENDIX. 581 
 
 October, 1823 — mentioned by the undersigned in a conference with the French 
 ambassador in London, the substance of which conference was communicated 
 to Spain and to the other powers. It was repeated and enforced in the despatch 
 from the undersigned to Sir William A'Court, in January, 1824. 
 
 Nothing, therefore, can be less exact than the supposition that Britain has 
 uniformly put forward the basis of independence as the sine qua non condition 
 of her counsel and assistance to Spain in negotiating with her colonies. 
 
 To come now to the second charge against Great Britain — the alleged vio- 
 lation of general international law. Has it ever been admitted as an axiom, or 
 ever been observed by any nation or government as a practical maxim, that no 
 circumstances and no time should entitle a de facto government to recognition ] 
 or should entitle third powers, who may have a deep interest in defining and 
 establishing their relations with a de facto government, to do sol 
 
 Such a proceeding on the part of third powers undoubtedly does not decide 
 the question of right against the mother country. 
 
 The Netherlands had thrown off the supremacy of Spain long before the 
 end of the 16th century; but that supremacy was not formally renounced by 
 Spain till the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Portugal declared in 1640 her 
 independence of the Spanish monarchy; but it was not till 1668 that Spain 
 by treaty acknowledged that independence. 
 
 During each of these intervals the abstract rights of Spain may be said to 
 have remained unextinguished. But third powers did not in either of these 
 instances wait the slow conviction of Spain, before they thought themselves 
 warranted to establish direct relations, and even to contract intimate alliances 
 with the republic of the United Netherlands, as well as with the new monar- 
 chy of the house of Braganza. 
 
 The separation of the Spanish colonies from Spain has been neither our 
 work nor our wish. Events, in which the British government had no partici- 
 pation, decided that separation — a separation which we are still of opinion 
 might have been averted if our counsels had been listened to in time. But 
 out of that separation grew a state of things, to which it was the duty of the 
 British government (in proportion as it became the plain and legitimate inte- 
 rest of the nation whose welfare is committed to its charge) to conform its 
 measures, as well as its language, not hastily and precipitately, but with due 
 deliberation and circumspection. 
 
 To continue to call that a possession of Spain, in which all Spanish occu- 
 pation and power had been actually extinguished and effaced, could render no 
 practical service to the mother country ; but it would have risked the peace of 
 the world. For all political communities are responsible to other political 
 communities for their conduct — that is, they are bound to perform the ordi- 
 nary international duties, and to afford redress for any violation of the rights of 
 others by their citizens or subjects. 
 
 Now either the mother country must have continued responsible for acts over 
 which it could no longer exercise the shadow of a control, or the inhabitants 
 of those countries, whose independent political existence was, in fact, esta- 
 blished, but to whom the acknowledgment of that independence was denied, 
 must have been placed in a situation in which they were either wholly respon- 
 sible for all their actions, or were to be visited for such of those actions as 
 might furnish ground of complaint to other nations with the punishment due 
 to pirates and outlaws. 
 
 If the former of these alternatives — the total irresponsibility of unrecog- 
 nised states — be too absurd to be maintained, and if the latter, the treatment of 
 their inhabitants as pirates and outlaws, be too monstrous to be applied for 
 an indefinite length of time to a large portion of the habitable globe, no other 
 chance remained for Great Britain, or for any country having intercourse with 
 Spanish American provinces, but to recognise, in due time, their immediate 
 existence as states, and thus to bring them within the pale of those rights and 
 
 A 
 
582 APPENDIX. 
 
 duties which civilized nations are bound mutually to respect, and are entitled 
 reciprocally to claim from each other. 
 
 The example of the late revolution in France, and of the ultimate happy 
 restoration of his majesty Louis 18th, is pleaded by M. Zeain illustration of 
 the principle of unextinoruishable right in a legitimate sovereign ; and of the 
 respect to which that right is entitled from all foreign powers ; and he calls 
 upon Great Britain, in justice to her own consistency, to act with the same 
 reserve towards the new states of Spanish America, which she employed so 
 much to her honour towards revolutionary France. 
 
 But can M. Zea need to be reminded that every power in Europe, and 
 specifically Spain amongst the foremost, not only acknowledged the several 
 successive governments de facto by w^hich the house of Bourbon was first 
 expelled from the throne of France, and afterwards kept for near a quarter of 
 a century out of possession of it, but contracted intimate alliances with them 
 all ; and above all, with that which M. Zea justly describes as the strongest 
 of de facto governments, the government of Bonaparte ; against whom, not 
 any principle of respect for the rights of legitimate monarchy, but his own 
 ungovernable ambition, finally brought combined Europe into the field ? 
 
 There is no use in endeavouring to give a specious colouring to facts which 
 are now the property of history. 
 
 The undersigned is therefore compelled to add, that Great Britain herself 
 cannot justly accept the praise which M. Zea is willing to ascribe to her in this 
 respect, nor can she claim to be altogether exempted from the general charge 
 of having treated with the powers of the French revolution. 
 
 It is true, indeed, that up to the year 1796, she abstained from treating with 
 revolutionary France, long after other powers of Europe had set her the exam- 
 ple. But the reasons alleged in parliament and in state papers for that absti- 
 nence was the unsettled state of the French government. And it cannot be 
 denied that both in 1796 and 1797 Great Britain opened a negotiation for peace 
 with the directory of France — a negotiation, the favourable conclusion of 
 which would have implied a recognition of that form of government ; that in 
 1801 she m'ade peace with the consulate; that if in 1806 she did not conclude 
 a treaty with Bonaparte, emperor of France, the negotiation was broken off 
 merely on a question of terms ; and that if from 1808 to 1814, she steadily 
 refused to listen to any overtures from France, she did so declaredly and noto- 
 riously on account of Spain alone, whom Bonaparte pertinaciously refused to 
 admit as party to the negotiation. 
 
 Nay, further, it cannot be denied that even in 1814, the year In which the 
 Bourbon dynasty was eventually restored, peace would have been made by 
 Great Britain with Bonaparte if he had not been unreasonable in his demands; 
 and Spain cannot be ignorant that even after Bonaparte was set aside, there 
 was question among the allies of the possible expediency of placing some 
 other than a Bourbon on the throne of France. 
 
 The appeal, therefore, to the conduct of the powers of Europe and even to 
 that of Great Britain herself, with respect to the French revolution, does but 
 recall abundant instances of the recognition of de facto governments by Great 
 Britain, perhaps later and more reluctantly than by others, but by Great Bri- 
 tain herself, however, reluctant, after the example set to her by the other pow- 
 ers of Europe, and especially by Spain. 
 
 There are two other points in M. Zea's note which appear to call for particu- 
 lar attention. 
 
 M. Zea declares that the king of Spain will never recognise the new states 
 of South America, and that his majesty will never cease to employ the force 
 of arms against his rebellious subjects in that part of the world. 
 
 We have neither the pretension nor the desire to control his Catholic 
 majesty's conduct; but this declaration of M. Zea comprises a complete jus- 
 tification of our conduct in having taken the opportunity, which to us seemed 
 
APPENDIX. 583 
 
 ripe, for placing our relations with tlie new states of America on a definite 
 footing. For this declaration plainly shows that the complaint against us is 
 not merely as to the mode or the time of our advances towards those states; 
 It shows that the dispute between us and Spain is not merely as to the question 
 of fact, whether the internal condition of any of those states be such as to 
 justify the entering into definite relations with them ; that it was not merely a 
 reasonable delay for the purpose of verifying contradictory reports, and of af- 
 fording opportunity for friendly negotiation that was required of us: it shows 
 that no extent ot forbearance on our part would have satisfied Spain, and that, 
 defer our advances towards the new states as long as we mio-ht, Ave should 
 still have had to make them without the consent of Spain ; fo'r that Spain is 
 determined against all compromise, under any circumstances, and at any time 
 and is resolved upon interminable war with her late colonies in America ' 
 M.Zea concludes with declaring that his Catholic majesty will protest, in 
 the most solemn manner, against the measures announced by the British govern- 
 nient as violating existing treaties, and the imprescriptible rights of the throne 
 of Spain. '^ 
 
 Against what will Spain protest? 
 
 It has been proved that no treaties are violated by us ; and we admit that 
 no question of right is decided by our recognition of the new states of America 
 But if the argument on which this declaration is founded be true, it is eter- 
 nal ; and the oflfence of which we are guilty in placing our intercourse with 
 those countries under the protection of treaties is one of which no time and 
 circumstance could, in the view of Spain, have mitigated the character 
 
 Having thus entered with great pain and unwillingness into the several 
 topics of M. Zea s note, the undersigned is directed, in conclusion, to express 
 tlie anxious hope of his government that a discussion, now wholly without 
 object, may be allowed here to close. The undersigned is directed to declare 
 to the Spanish minister, that no feeling of ill-will or even of indifference to 
 the interests of his Catholic majesty has prompted the steps which his majes- 
 ty s government has taken— that his majesty still cherishes an anxious wish 
 
 for the welfare of Spain— and that his majesty still retains the disposition, and 
 commands the undersigned again to renew to his Catholic majesty's o-overn- 
 ment the offer, to employ his majesty's good offices for the brino-ing about of 
 any amicable arrangements which may yet be practicable between his Catho- 
 lic majesty and the countries of America which have separated themselves 
 from Spain. 
 
 (Signed) Geo. Canning. 
 
 THE END. 
 
LRBMy?9 
 
 ^-