negatived, not certainly from any solicitude about his own personal views, for the present time was not fit for such considerations; but that he might remain in a situation that would enable him to give his hearty support to the measures of the executive government for the benefit and happiness of the community. The noble duke, in deploring the calamities of the present war, and in enumerating the distresses produced by it, had merely stated arguments which would apply with equal force against the prosecution of any war whatever. Such a mode of reasoning would go against the system of warfare altogether, however just, however called for by the most imperious necessity. But, did the noble duke's argument apply to the present war, which had not only been commenced on the ground of absolute necessity, but had been approved of by a vast majority of the country, and prosecuted, through all its stages, with the approbation of parliament? He believed the noble duke was the first man that ever proceeded to move a vote of censure against ministers without giving them some previous notice of it. But he had chosen to act a part peculiar to himself, and had thought proper to ground his accusation on the excess of expenses, which, from their nature it was totally impossible to foresee, or to provide for by certain estimates. The noble lords opposite considered it as a settled point, that the removal of ministers would be grateful to the public mind; but would they also affirm, that it would be equally grateful to the public mind, if they themselves were to occupy the place of administration. The conduct of his majesty's ministers had succeeded in preventing that anarchy to which the language of those who opposed them strongly tended. He had often heard, that revolutionary principles had made a considerable progress in the country, but to what bold lengths they extended, he had, until that night, little conception. What was the conduct of the same noble lords with respect to Ireland? They rashly proposed a direct interference in the internal concerns of that kingdom, after a most unqualified recognition of its independence. If their lordships had a right to interfere in any case, that case could only consist in an interference to protect and maintain the rights of his majesty, and of the parliament of Ireland; and if the government here had been able to send | any force for the purpose of saving Ireland from confusion, rapine, and desolation, such a conduct was, in his opi nion, a fresh cause for unity and amity between both nations. A noble marquis had, in the warmth of expression, called Ireland an oppressed country. But what was the nature of that oppression? Was it oppression, in the mind of the noble marquis, to suffer the legislature of that country to make laws for itself? The noble marquis professed to talk of conciliation, yet while he dealt in professions he sought out with uncommon industry every principle of latent evil, and showed his rooted desire to frustrate the great end of conciliation.-When, therefore, he con sidered the present situation of public affairs, and the consequences likely to result from a servile compliance with the leading doctrines of the day, he should boldly say, that ministers would not tamely desert the honourable post which they filled, but would continue to direct all their efforts to the preservation of the constitution, and the happiness of the people. A reform of parliament was the chief measure proposed by noble lords. That measure he had ever opposed as a complete alteration of the constitution. To noble lords who so strongly held forth its necessity, he would calmly appeal, in the first place, whether any two persons were agreed as to the plan? And, secondly, if they were, whether that plan could be carried into effect without any thing farther being pursued? For his part, he was fully convinced of the danger of innovation. He knew that what commenced with reform, ended in revolution. He had even opposed a temperate reform; but the one offered for discussion was above all others peculiarly objectionable. It went to pluck up by the roots every right planted by the constitution-it went to destroy the most essential principles of liberty and property-it went to disfranchise corporations, to destroy chartered rights, to establish districts, or to characterize them more properly, departments, throughout the whole country, and as one member could only represent one department, it went to change every election over the kingdom into the nature of a Westminster election, with the benefits of which every one of their lordships was fully acquainted. At this moment it was the duty of every member of each House, instead of weakening the hands of government by ill timed motions, to rally round fore wished reform to be made while it could be done gradually, and not to delay its necessity till it would burst all bounds. On this point, the marquis particularly recommended a wise book, just published on the French Revolution, by M. Neckar, who gave it as his opinion, that if the king of France had conceded in time, the revolution would not have taken place; but the French court, like the English cabinet refused to make popular reforms till it was too late. the throne, to give additional strength to the executive power, and by an example at once dutiful and glorious, support that constitution, which had been framed by our ancestors, and which we were bound to transmit unaltered to our latest posterity. Speculation was sure to open the way to the horrors of revolution, and who could stop the torrent when once it burst? The reform proposed would destroy every corporation in the country, would be the ruin of every establishment, would have a tendency to divide the country into districts and departments, and in short introduce all the anarchy of an unqualified, and furious democracy. His lordship observed that the present mode of voting gave, by some means or other, an influence at elections to every man; but that universal suffrage would destroy itself. Parliament, he would again and again contend, did not possess so unlimited, so extraordinary a power, as to authorize such a reform. He entreated their lordI ships to reflect, that if they once opened the flood-gate to innovation, the torrent of anarchy would spread so forcibly and so wide, that it would not be in the power of their lordships, by opposing their feeble hands as a barrier to destruction, to prevent the constitution from being overwhelmed in general ruin. From the levity displayed by the noble marquis in the early part of his speech, and by his even condescending to mimicry, he had been led to think that the noble marquis designed to cheer the minds of their lordships by acting a farce after the deep tragedy that had been exhibited by the noble duke, who spoke before him; but the serious and alarming manner in which the noble marquis immediately afterwards treated several of the most delicate and dangerous topics ever touched on in debate, soon dissipated the smiles his ludicrous manner had excited. The Marquis of Lansdown rose to explain, and said he had forgot the question of reform in his first speech. He had been a friend to the measure even before the noble duke who made the motion was born, and he was happy to leave it in such hands as those of his grace and of a res pectable member for one of the universities in the other House (sir W. Dolben), who had lately been made a convert. He applauded Mr. Grey's motives and manner of proposing his plan; but he was of opinion, that any other than a gradual reform would be dangerous, and he there The Duke of Leeds rose to repel the idea that the existence of the constitution was inseparably connected with the continuance of the present ministry in power. The constitution, he hoped and believed, depended on itself alone, and that, with regard to its permanency, it was almost equally indifferent who held the reins of administration. His majesty's ministers had certainly been unfortunate, to say no more of it, in the conduct and consequences of the war, but he still gave them credit for their intentions. There was a wide distinction between misfortune and incapacity, and candour required that this distinction should ever be held in mind. The noble duke took notice of the distinction to be drawn between those who opposed particular measures and upon principle, and those who uniformly were in opposition to every administration. He mentioned having himself been in opposition once, when a member of the House of Commons; and he had learnt at that time, that the motives of every man in opposition were not always to be justified; "necessity makes men acquainted with strange bedfellows." He then formed one in a very mixed circle, and acquired some political intelligence which he should not easily forget. That the war was provoked, and was therefore just and necessary he had always conceived; that it was ill-conducted, he felt but too much reason to assert. One cause of the misfortunes of the country had never been mentioned, and the very naming of it would, he was aware, appear singular. It was that sentiment was the ground of proceeding. He knew it was an odd use of the term, and perhaps the first time that sentiment ever was supposed to be the cause of such serious mischief. With regard to the idea of parliamentary reform, he had ever considered it as a most dangerous remedy to resort to. It was a popular theme easy to expatiate upon, but difficult indeed to be put in execution. He had uniformly opposed every proposition of that ten-sures would be of no avail; there was but dency, from a conviction of its impracticability. He The Earl of Moira could not admit that the king's servants had a right to take credit for that prosperity antecedent to the war, which indisputably arose from the energy and enterprise of our merchants, which in favourable times would even give vigour to our commerce, and which could only fail when cramped by the perverse conduct of ministers. The noble secretary of state complained of the motion as inflicting a heavy censure and penalty on ministers; it was meant in that view, since ministers had incurred a heavy penalty by the subversion of our credit, the disappointment of our hopes, and the failure of every object, with the attainment of which they had flattered the country. The noble secretary of state opposed the motion on the ground that, if it were acceded to, the constitution would probably be overturned. would ever object to that mode of argument; it went to identify ministers with the constitution, to sink the confidence of the country in its own resources, and in the frame and form of its government. With regard to the war, he had from its origin disapproved of it; but finding that the country had engaged in it, he thought it his duty to offer every assistance in his power; he had done so, but he could not but think the war had been grossly misconducted. If instead of employing sir Charles Grey and sir John Jervis, with so many troops in the West Indies,' they had been sent to assist the royalists in La Vendée, the country had long since been in possession of peace. With respect to Ireland, of which he would speak with caution, the number of those in that kingdom who wished for a separation from Great Britain were few indeed; but very different measures from those of coercion were necessary to conciliate the discontented of other descriptions. That the Catholics were well inclined was evident from the display of their loyalty when the French fleet visited Bantry Bay. And what was the return? After openly acknowAfter openly acknowledging their public spirit, the minister for Ireland almost immediately came to the House of Commons and roundly told them, that they were to expect no favour, for none would be granted them. Was it in human nature to sit down quietly under such treatment? In order to conciliate the different parties in Ireland, half mea one method to be taken to grant the Roman Catholics the extent of their de mands, with an openness calculated to satisfy their minds, and prevent the pos sibility of suspicion, of delusion, and to quiet the discontents of the Protestants with a moderate parliamentary reform. Earl Spencer objected to the motion, because it was connected in its object with a change of measures, which he firmly believed, would prove ruinous to the country. If our situation was dangerous, and if awful changes were at hand, as a noble earl had predicted, it behoved every one to come to a rallying point, and stand by the established constitution, The tendency of the motion, so far from obviating existing difficulties, would, in his opinion, hasten the ruin of the country. He lamented that the affair of the seamen had been alluded to again. Whatever the noble mover might imagine, he could assure him, that his indiscreet men. tion of the subject in that House on a former day, and the misrepresentation of it, had done infinite mischief. It was one of those questions which ought not to come before parliament. The Earl of Darnley was of opinion, that the public had more confidence in ministers than in the present opposition, whose invariable objection to every mea sure of government, proving that they acted more from party motives than on principle, disgusted the country; and of two evils they chose the least. With regard to Ireland, he was afraid the situation of affairs there had changed for the worse; a circumstance which he thought might not unfairly be imputed to the unguarded and inflammatory speeches delivered in that House. Though ministers had been extremely unfortunate, he could not therefore consider them as criminal, and on that ground should vote against the address. The Lord Chancellor said, that the arguments of the noble duke and his motion directly contradicted each other. Their lordships had heard the noble duke's ar guments which applied personally to mi nisters, and tended to establish a proof of the charge of that "miserable incapacity" in ministers, which the motion more than once imputed, but at the same time asserted, that it was not to that "miserable incapacity," but to the effect of a system of government, destructive of the exertions, and hostile to the constitution, that all the misfortunes of the war were to be attri- | entreated noble lords, therefore, to pause; and seeing that the avowed tendency of the motion was to introduce not merely a change of men but of system, and eventually of the constitution, he doubted not but they would agree with him in giving it their decided negative. votes as private property, because they were bought and sold? It was a right which, so far from being injured by being extended, would be improved; since extention would make it effectual. The House divided on the duke of Bedford's motion: Contents, 12, Proxies, 2— 14. Not contents, 65; Proxies 26-91. Majority 77. Protests against the Rejection of the Duke of Bedford's Motion for the Dismission of his Majesty's Ministers.] The following Protests were entered on the Journals: "Dissentient, buted. What, however, was this system of government so much complained of? Was it to be imputed as matter of crimination in ministers that the parliament of Ireland was permitted to judge for itself what was fit to be done for that country. That they did not attempt to inter- The Duke of Bedford refuted the infere with the independence of the Irish terpretations put by the learned lord legislature, and to violate a solemn com- on the plan of reform, and alluded to pact made with the people of that coun- the fallacy of comparing the elective try? From other parts of the motion it franchise, a right possessed by individuals was evident that a change in the system, for the good of the whole, to private prounder the pretext of forwarding a parlia-perty. Did the learned lord consider mentary reform, was the great object: that it led to a system wilder than even that of universal suffrage, which went to disfranchise all corporations, to empower *the House of Commons to uncreate their creators, and to disfranchise those who sent the members to parliament. If this sort of reform would at one sweep annihialate all lay corporations, ecclesiastical corporations would be gone of course. The @term "freeholder" had hitherto been the pride of the best part of the nation; but by the plan proposed, this was to give way to the more favourite term of " pot-boilers;" they were expected to cut up by the roots whatever entered into the nature of franchise property, or privilege, and to introduce in its stead the principle of an Agrarian law. But it was said, "we do not take away any man's right of voting, but only extend it to others who are now without." He asked how the noble duke would like the application of this doctrine to his own estates-if they were taken away from him, and an equal right given to every pot-boiler in his village in common with himself? Would it satisfy the noble duke to have it said, it is true we took away your estate, but we give it back again. We give you as much land to possess as any man can reasonably desire, and as to the estate, we only let in the pot-boilers and cottagers in the vicinage to share it with you. Or, to illustrate it with respect to the livery of London, would it be satisfactory to them to be told that they still would enjoy their rights and franchises as liverymen, and the only difference was, that every pot-boiler in London would enjoy the same with them. He would remind the noble duke, and others of what had happened in France in 1789 and 1790; those who were foremost in revolutionizing the country were the first victims of the maxims and prejudices which they had laboured to infuse. He 1. "Because, acting according to the ancient practice of the British constitution, and in conformity with its true principles, we hold the advisers of the crown to be responsible for the condition of the state; responsible for its internal peace, and general good government; for the preservation of all its ancient fundamental rights and liberties; for the protection of its commerce, of its credit, and the various sources of its prosperity and wealth; for the observance of order, discipline, and obedience in all the departments of the public force; for the honour and success of our arms (if unfortunately engaged in war); for the preponderance of the British power, and for the glory and splendor of the British name. Instead of recognizing in his majesty's ministers, that ability, foresight, and integrity, by which these its dearest interests are preserved, we have seen throughout a course of years, the affairs of the nation conducted with that incapacity, perfidy, and corruption, by which all great empires, from the be. ginning of the world, have found their ruin; and which in the particular state and situation of Great Britain, have nearly exhausted its resources and its credit, and annihilated its constitution, which have brought shame upon its character in the eyes of foreign nations, and diffused largely among its subjects, mistrust in the intentions of their governors, hatred of their power, and contempt for their debility. ready kindled, by their odious prosecution of the catholics in Ireland, the flames of civil discord in that country. We be lieve that an immediate change of men and of measures would yet preserve the common ties by which the two countries are united. If, unhappily, measures of intolerance are to be sustained by the sword, and if that oppressed country be torn from the British crown, as America was severed from our empire, rather than that these ministers should incur the loss of their offices, we are unable to see in what Great Britain would be the gainer. If an invasion of these realms should be the result of delaying to open a sincere negotiation for peace, fully as we rely upon the zeal and bravery of our countrymen for the event, we do not conceive that the mischief of such an attempt would in any degree be compensated by finding, at the close of it, those ministers still in their offices. Above all things, we deem it highly inexpedient that any numerous or important class of the people should, in so perilous a moment, conceive themselves to be placed in the alternative between foreign conquest, and domestic usurpation. We think that in this crisis, no excuse is left for not calling forth the whole wisdom, and all that remains of the energy of the British nation; that it is among the crimes of these ministers that they have exhausted, in idle alarms for factious purposes, those resources which ought to have been preserved whole and unbroken, to meet the disasters which are impending over us; and for having set up a cry of loyalty against liberty, to the destruction of that real strength, by which alone our shores and our altars can, in the last extremity, be defended. 2. "Because encouraged by the uniform, implicit, and fatal confidence of this House in the conduct of ministers, a system of government has arisen, which, if it be farther persevered in, will render the fortunes of these realms utterly irretrievable, even should wisdom and virtue succeed in the minds of those ministers to ignorance and wickedness. That system is governed by principles the very reverse of those by which states and societies have hitherto been kept together. It is grounded on the doctrinethat honour and reward is to attend on crime and folly: and that men are to be entrusted with power in proportion to their disposition to abuse it. Such pervert. ed maxims of policy take from government all the support it derives from opinion. The opinion of its consistency is lost by ministers adopting and rejecting, as it suits the purpose of their power, systems which they alternately recommend and revile. The opinion of its justice is destroyed from seeing that power depends on a principle which confounds the first distinctions of right and wrong. All opinion of its vigour and efficiency is lost in the daily insults to its authority, to which they are compelled to submit. Every species of disorder is hence introduced. The example of those who govern is followed by those who obey. Nothing regular or orderly is found in the intercourse between subject and sovereign. State necessity, instead of being reserved for occasions of the last emergency, is resorted to as the constant, and every day practice of executive administration. In such 4. "Because such a system is dangera system there is neither order nor free-ous to our present safety and existence as dom; and it is the energy of freedom an independent state, and the support alone that can resist with effect the zeal uniformly given to it, tends to degrade of fancied superiority of military means. and vilify this House in the opinion of the Where no power is left to correct the people. For the first time in our history, vices of an ill-administered commonwealth, the continuance of a minister in office, nothing will remain to oppose to the en- seems to be made a condition of the conterprises of a foreign enemy. stitution. If that minister, after having reduced his country to the lowest ebb of shame and misery, shall continue to receive and to dispense all trusts, honours, and emoluments, and to be supported in his abandoned courses by this House, no motive will remain to love and reverence a constitution exhibited in these colours to the people, through the medium of this House. Feeling no interest in our 3. "Because to suffer ourselves to be found by a foreign enemy in this distracted condition, when we have the means of avoiding it, seems to us highly impolitic, and wantonly to call down destruction upon the state. We see nothing in the present ministers so valuable as to induce us to risk, for their preservation, any part of the common interest. They have al |