Mr. W. Smith read the passages in Hatsell's Precedents quoted by Mr. Fox, which he thought were stronger than any precedents which could be produced. From these, he was of opinion that the minister had acted wrong; and the amend ledgment which would, he thought, prevent the error from being repeated. the minister in his wishes to overturn the | to the enemy, which might be attended constitution! He wished to know what with great evil. In the other event, it security the people would have in that might be injurious to our pecuniary incase for the constitution? Bad precedents terests. Whereas, by the mode which ought to be resisted at all times, and the the minister adopted, the inconveniencies House ought to watch over them with of either extreme were avoided. When jealousy, but more particularly in good he considered the matter fully, he was times, for it was then the public were surprised that gentlemen should persist in least liable to suspicion, and consequently their opposition to it. it was then they were most likely to be carried. Precedents which were passed in good times might be made very dangerous use of in bad ones. On this account it was that he had taken so much alarm at this measure. He had attended to all that the minister had said upon the sub-ment itself contained a kind of acknowject, and he thought him by no means justified from what had appeared in the discussion of the subject. The amendment, in his opinion, although it came from a gentleman who defended the minister, implied a degree of censure upon his conduct in this matter: he was content with any degree of censure, rather than have none. He thought there should be some mark set upon such conduct to denote the disapprobation of the House. Mr. Wilberforce said, it had been proved to be the general practice of parliament to give to the minister power by a vote of credit. That power was afterwards to be revised and confirmed by parliament; and until so confirmed, it was not complete. The minister, in arguing these points, had referred to precedents. He had adduced instances of money being given to foreign princes, as this had been given to the Emperor, without the previous knowledge of parliament. It remained for the minister, then, only to prove, that in so doing, he had acted from the necessity of the case. This he had done by explaining to them the situation of affairs upon the continent, and at home. Had the minister disclosed the matter sooner than he did, he would have been guilty of doing that which he could not have honestly avowed at the time; because he could not, as minister, honestly avow that which would be injurious to the country. But the gentleman on the other side did not understand how this could be more difficult to be done publicly than privately. Upon this he could only say, that if done publicly, it must have been done at once, which was liable to this objection, either the sum might be too large or too small for the purpose intended to be answered by it. In the case of being too small, it might operate as a declaration of weakness Mr. Fox, in reply, adverted to the allusions which had been made to himself. The right hon. gentleman had not thought it sufficient to defend himself, but he had chosen to accuse his accusers. The right hon. gentleman had said that his character was hostile to that of the last parliament, and that because he was generally in opposition to the majority of parliament, he was to be considered as disqualified from vindicating their privileges. So that, according to the right hon. gentleman, every member was disqualified from discussing constitutional questions who did not enjoy the smiles of the minister, and who did not prove his regard for the liberties of his country by his subserviency to the administration for the time being. Where could the House really look for the defenders of the constitution but among those who, disdaining the considerations of places and pensions, titles and ribbands, devoted such talents as Providence had endowed them with, to the services of the public, in an honest vigilance with respect to the measures of government, with no view to reward but the approbation of their consciences? The right hon. gentleman attacked his enemies without any regard to his friends; for if it were true that to have been long in opposition disqualified a person from asserting the character of parliament, and vindicating the constitution, what must be the situation into which he put his new friends? What would become of the duke of Portland and Mr. Burke ? For himself he took the imputation of hostility to government, and to the Parliaments that had supported government, as a compli ment. He gloried in having been hostile to the parliament that spent above one hundred million in subjugating America, and to the last parliament, who supported the minister in undertaking a war, unnecessary, and unprovoked. He certainly thought himself, upon comparison, better entitled than the right hon. gentleman to defend the constitution; he, who, at the end of the fourth campaign of a most wasteful war, could only boast that "we had achieved a chance for saving the constitution." With him, the standard of merit was political servility, and, he the man who voted with independence, was pronounced to be hostile to the constitution. If the question were, whether parliament was to be defended against some pretended faction out of doors, the right hon. gentleman might have a superior title to be its advocate, because, as the minister of the crown, he had chosen to bid defiance to every thing in the popular form of our system; but when the question at issue was between the crown and the parliament, it surely could be no moot point which of the two had the best claim to be the advocate of the privileges of that House. It was not now a complaint of a Mr. Paine-it was not now an alarm about the many innocent persons whom the minister had brought to trial, and who, thank God! had been protected by the laws of the country; a more formidable enemy to the privileges of parliament now presented itself the executive branch armed with all the powers which it had lately obtained. What passage of his life, Mr. Fox demanded, could they select as a proof that he was not the man to support the constitution against such an enemy, rather than the right hon. gentleman, whose whole life almost, had been devoted to the encroachments of the crown? Let him ask his new friends, even the right hon. gentleman then at his side (Mr. Windham), whether, if they wanted an associate-not an associate to carry on a war for the purpose of crushing liberty in France, not an associate to carry on a war along with the despots of Europe, for the purpose of reducing all nations to slavery, since for such an associate they would naturally look to the right hon. gentleman; but if they wanted an associate to defend the constitution of EngJand against all attacks, whether they would not rather, even yet, come over to his side of the House, than look to the right hon. gentleman? Whether they would not rather look to him, who had never once abandoned the cause of the people and of parliament, than to the right hon. gentleman, who had in no one instance supported them? He had been forced to say thus much in answer to the usual declamatory attack which the right hon. gentleman had made upon him personally, which was his favourite topic, and in the present session his constant resource. He should now come back to the question before the House. He had said on the first day this unconstitutional measure was made known, that it was fraught with danger; that if admitted, it went to the doctrine, that during war the constitution ought to be suspended, and the minister of the crown be appointed dictator. Yet now it was asserted, that he had spoken of it at first as merely an objectionable measure. He had spoken of it from the first moment in the same terms. He had put the question hypothetically he had said that, even admitting that Germany had been saved by the succour given to the Emperor, and, with Germany, that even admitting Great Britain had been saved, still the measure was not justified, because the same succour might have been given by constitutional means. Parliament might have been consulted, and the whole done in a way that would have saved us from this outrage on our best security. Since the first opening of the business, it had been discovered that a great part of the money had gone to the maintenance of the prince of Condé's army. Now surely there could have been no danger in avowing this to parliament. It did not even appear in the distribution paper of the vote of credit, that the money had been sent for the maintenance of the prince of Condé's army, though it was now thought adviseable to state it in that way. Here, then, was proof on the face of it of juggling and fraud; for, finding it taken up by the House, the right hon. gentleman had chosen to put it into the vote of credit; but, said the right hon. gentleman, it is a superficial view of the subject to take the account of the remittances from the dates of the issues-they ought to be taken from the period of the engagements being formed; and therefore though the morey appeared to be paid during the sitting of parliament, the engagements were entered into during the recess. He should have a very contemptible opinion of the understanding of the House, and of the people of England, if they permitted themselves to be cajoled by so trifling and unfounded a distinction, and if they did not express their resentment at the insult which it conveyed upon them. For what did it amount to? That the chancellor of the exchequer first promises, what he has no right to promise, namely, succours to a foreign power to be advanced from time to time. Parliament a meets before those succours came to be sent. A constitutional minister, conscious of having done an extraordinary thing, which, however, the pressing necessity of the case might warrant, would have taken the very first moment to communicate what he had done, to lay the whole circumstances of the case before them, and to request a bill of indemnity. But no such thing! He did not think it wise and safe to trust the secret to parliament until he had fulfilled his engagements. Perhaps a greater outrage on the dignity of the House could not be offered than was contained in this explanation. He, the chancellor of the exchequer, could only safely be trusted with the disposition of the money of the people of England; and to give to their representatives even hint of what he was doing with it, might have utterly defeated the very end of the measure! Parliament might have viewed the measure in three ways. They might have thought the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, in the engagements he had formed, perfectly proper, and have declared their approbation of the measure; or they might have thought the measure improper and indiscreet in itself, but yet being undertaken, unwise and dangerous, to stop its execution; in either of these two ways, there would have been no essential inconvenience in making known the matter to parliament on the first day of the meeting. But there was a third mode of viewing the subject. They might have thought it a measure so utterly unwise and improper, so injurious and fatal, that they not only would have censured the minister for making the engagements, but have prevented their execution. But this he had taken care to provide against. "No, no," said he, "you may censure me; you may attack my character; but I have taken care that you shall not save your money. Thank God, your money is gone to Germany! You cannot get it back again, whatever you do with me. My life is not implicated in the proceeding, but my honour is in your hands, and I abide the responsibility of the measure." Was this language to be endured? Was [VOL. XXXII.] it not an insult to parliament, to say that they were not fit to be consulted on the disposition of the money of their constituents? Was it not to say, that he was a better judge than the House of Commons? Or did he think that it would have degraded his dignity, in the eyes of foreign statesmen, and foreign cabinets, to own that he must consult the British parliament before he parted with British money? This was exactly what the constitution imposed upon a British minister -what every man who venerated that constitution wished to see enforced-that a British minister should be forced to make known to foreign statesmen and foreign despots, that however they might trample on their miserable people, and rob and plunder them at their pleasure, there was one enviable spot on the surface of the earth, where men had asserted their rights, and would not be treated as slaves. -If it was done for the pretext of secrecy, such secrecy was as false in policy as it was odious in morality. The ignorance of the extent of the remittances would increase the terror of the transport of our specie, and accordingly, when the rumour of these remittances got abroad, the scarcity of money was the greatest. Was it to be believed that the succour to the Emperor would not have been more effica cious if known to all Europe? What was there in the right hon. gentleman that they should confide in him such monstrous powers? And yet he should rather confide in him personally, than he would in office. It was not the man, so much as the chancellor of the exchequer, that he dreaded. If a chancellor of the exchequer might give away to a foreign prince 1,200,000l. without making it even known to parliament, what might he not do?Mr. Fox then animadverted on the amendment, which, he said, was inapplicable, since it left out one compleat branch of the charge, the money sent to the prince of Conde's army; and it talked of not drawing the practice into a precedent, except in cases of necessity, which wanted no precedent at all, since obvious and imperious necessity must bring its own justification.-He then went over the prece dents, and showed that they were all inapplicable. In the case of Mr. Pelham, whom the chancellor of the exchequer had exultingly described as a constitutional minister, the money sent abroad, was sent when the parliament was not sitting; in the present case, it was done while parlia [4 R] Mr. Fox Biddulph, R. ment was sitting. In the case of Mr. | Beauclerk, C. G. Milbank, R. Plumer, W. Pulteney, sir W. Pulteney, sir J. Russell, lord W. Sheridan, R. B. Tarleton, general Taylor, M. A. Townshend, lord J. Vane, sir F. Walwyn, J. TELLERS. Combe, Alderman Debate on General Fitzpatrick's Motion respecting the Detention of General La Fayette, &c.] Dec. 16. General Fitzpatrick rose and said :-The French revolution is, Sir, an event of such prodigious magnitude, that there is no circumstance, either immediately or remotely connected with it, which does not, in some degree, affect the interests and policy of all other nations; more especially of such as have, in consequence of it, found themselves engaged in war. According to my conception, therefore, the subject which it is my present purpose to bring under the deliberation of the House, cannot be considered as foreign to the jurisdiction or is now nearly three years since I moved cognizance of the British parliament. It to address his majesty to beseech his gracious interposition with a power, then an ally of this country, to obtain some mitigation of the unjust and cruel treat * See Vol. 31, p. 28. from all examples afforded by history of countries in a similar situation; namely, that although there appeared a total decay of public virtue, the private virtue of the nation had been at no period more conspicuous. I must acknowledge, that the grounds upon which my hon. friend founded his opinion did not immediately suggest themselves to my mind; but without coinciding altogether with him, I could not but observe, that the fate of the motion I am this day renewing, afforded a striking illustration of the justice of it. When the subject I am now speaking of was first mentioned within these walls the humane feelings of every individual seemed to sympathize in an universal abhorrence of such detestable tyranny. But when, en I brought forward a proposition with a view of giving effect to these benevolent sensations, no sooner did the minister step forward in opposition to it, than the voice of private virtue, but a few days before so audible, was hushed into a total silence; and the motion was negatived by a considerable majority; among whom must have been many, who, in their individual capacities, had expressed their disapprobation of that oppression which, in their public character they did not hesitate to countenance by their votes. ment of certain distinguished members of the French constituent assembly, whom, not the chance of war, but the eventful circumstances of the times had thrown into the hands of the powers then leagued in a war against their country-I mean general La Fayette, together with two other respectable persons, at that time languishing in the prisons of our ally, the king of Prussia, and now, as I am well informed, experiencing a fate still more rigorous, in the dungeons of another of our allies, the emperor of Germany. Having upon that occasion thought it necessary to enter at some length, into a detail of the conduct of the unfortunate persons concerned, I shall spare the House the trouble of hearing any repetition of those particulars; contenting my-couraged by these promising appearances, self with remarking, that among such as have been able to preserve their minds free from the contagion of violence and prejudice which has too generally prevailed, and have looked at the revolution, in its commencement or its progress, with any thing of a dispassionate view, there have not been found any reasons for withholding from these persons the full credit of purity and rectitude of intention. I urged the House to the adoption of that motion upon the joint ground of policy and humanity. The circumstance of our having now relinquished all hopes of conciliating a party in France, by some may possibly be thought to have weakened the first of these pleas. Were this so, which I am by no means inclined to admit, the time which has elapsed, and the aggravated hardships of the unhappy sufferers, must be allowed proportionably to have added strength to the latter. But I have said that I by no means admit the first of these pleas to be weakened, because in a moment when questions of the highest political nature are, from the circumstances of the times, occupying the public mind of every civilised nation, I consider it to be a most fatal policy for those who are desirous of creating a preponderance of opinion in favour of monarchical forms, to exhibit to the world a flagrant instance of barbarity and oppression, which cannot fail to excite an indisposition towards those governments under whose authority it is exercised. I recollect, that an hon. friend of mine (Mr. Sheridan), in the last parliament, when he was drawing a melancholy picture of the declining state of this country, observed, that one remarkable circumstance seemed to distinguish it In the grounds of his opposition to that motion, the minister did not attempt to defend, or even palliate the enormity which he was sensible so many of his supporters shrunk back from the contempla · tion of with horror. There was but one member (Mr. Burke) who ventured to go that length: and the splendid abilities of that member were, at that time, exerted in support of so many wild and eccentric doctrines, doctrines at this day abandoned, and which ought to be looked back to with regret and contrition by those who encouraged them, that one may not unreasona bly indulge a hope that this may prove one of those excesses where his eloquence seduced our predecessors into a conduct we shall not be disposed to imitate. The minister, however, was too judicious to adopt such a line of opposition. He enter ed into a defence of the original grounds of the detention of La Fayette, and expatiated upon the impropriety of our interference in the concerns of a foreign independent sovereign. I do not feel it necessary to revive the discussion of those points which have been so long before the public, I retain the opinion I then sup |