friction of laws, the obligations of religion, the mutual dependence and fubordination of fettled fociety, and man becomes as ferocious as the tyger in the foreft. I do not adopt the philofophy of Mr Hobbes, or any of the theorifts, as to the original ftate of nature; I only fpeak of man breaking loofe from the bonds of fociety, in which cafe the different difpofitions and genius of different countries have always affimilated, and affimilated in ferocity. If the French have murdered their king, fa. crificed their priests on their altars, and exterminated their beft citizens, we cannot forget the banishment of Ariftides, or the death of Socrates, or the ridiculous cruelty that banished Timotheus, only for adding four ftrings to the lyre. Popular domination has ever been cruel and unjutt; and every friend to freedom and to order, to virtue and happiness, fhould guard against its approaches with as much vigilance as we should guard the roads that lead to life or death. In the year 1789, the era of the first reform in France, the elective franchife was afcertained, and confined to acLive citizens, men of certain qualifications of age, and property; this was the bafis of their first great reform. But this reform was foon thought inadequate, as the right hon. member's reform would foon be thought here: Conceffion proved but the parent of demand, and the redress of grievances the approbation of discontent. The people felt fuccefs as a teftimony of power, and began to fpeculate instead of to enoy: They perceived that in their twentyfix millions of people there were not three millions of active citizens, and that the mmediate eleétors were not in the proportion of one to an hundred of the people. The great majority of the people, who confidered themselves as the authors and the object of the reform, began to discover that they were unreprefented, and being unreprefented, their new philofophy taught them that they were flaves, and that perfonal reprefentation was neceffary to liberty; and by the ufual revolutionary expedients of clubs and conventions, and armed citizens, they speedily accomplished their objedt, an equal representation of all the people,and with that the democracy of France.' You fee, Sir, that the temperate reform was the rudiments of all that followed; it was the first prize of political difpofition, it was the first trophy of popular fuccefs. However, it was not the end, but the means; it was the inftrument and not the object. And to fhow you how rapid are the frides of innovation, when it is once

6

fet in motion, permit me to obferve, that even the democracy of France was of short duration; it paffed away like the whirlwind of the wilderness, defolating but tranfitory, and foon yielded as every popular infurrection has ever done, to the predominant tyranny of fome of the most contemptible of its leaders, who, however, had the dexterity" to ride in that whirlwind and direct the ftorm." What then became of the fathers of temperate reform Where is the Duke de Rochefoucault, the Duke de Briffac, the eloquent Clermont Tonnere, the learned and acute advocate M. de Pafcalis? They are no more! neither their talents northeir virtues, nor the fplendid rafinefs of their firft enterprize, could atone for their fubfequent moderation; they fell victims to the spirit of innovation which themselves had inspired. With fuch an example before your eyes, will you at this day talk of a temperate reform! Or do you imagine your temperate bill, which out of four millions of people leaves 3,800,000 people unreprefented (nineteen in twenty of the people), do you imagine it would fatisfy this great majority of the people, whom it does not comprehend? No! no! you would only inspire their hopes, whilft you disappoint their wishes, and animate their efforts by flattering their pretenfions. The people who were clamorous for reform would despise your temperate plan, except only as one ftage gained in the grand career. I fay they would defpife it, because they have said fo themfelves, they have, over and over again, demanded and defined their ultimatum of reform, "an equal representation of all the people." In the laft feflion, I gave you at large a detail of their requifitions on the fubject, taken from the minutes of their affociations, and their clubs, and their armed citizens, in which they have told you explicitly, "they will not lay down their arms till they have procured an equal reprefentation of all the people;" and a recent publication by a fociety called the United Irifhmen, is not more explicit in the recommendation of their own plan than in the contempt of yours. They tell you," they firmly believe adminiftration and oppofition are equally averfe to the measure of adequate reform." They fay," If they had no other reafon for that opinion, the plan laid before Parliament the last feffion (the prefent bill), under the aufpices of oppofition, might convince them of the melancholy truth." As to their own plan they have given you a full and faithful delineation of it. It is found

ed on a decided principle, and goes to a decided purpose, perfonal representation detached from property, universal fuffrage and pure democracy.

I know very well the right hon. gentleman who propofed this meafure, and the hon. gentlemen who affociate with him in its fupport, have too great a stake in the country, too high a public character, too much of perfonal integrity, to fuffer themfelves to become acceffory to fuch danger ous motions; at the fame time if they give the authority of partial conceffion to extravagant demand, they will find, that neither their interests, nor their character, refpectable as I know they are, will have authority to reprefs its growth, or controul its excefs. It is impoffible to look into the peculiar fituation of this country, and the condition of the world around us, without feeing that this is not the time to agitate questions of political experiment. We know that the most indefatigable industry has been employed to corrupt the minds of the people, to infpire them with new notions of government, new models of conftitution, and new conditions of obedience. We know that innovation has been held out to the reftlefs, commotion to the difaffected, and the poor have had the falfe gofpel of equality preached unto them. We know that the moft populous nation in Europe bas declared hottility against every fettled government exifting; that they have added the force of enthufiafm to the tury of an unholy war; a fort of anti-crufade, in which they bear the guillotine againft the crofs, and with the impetuofity of a fpurious chivalry, endeavour to spread their arms and their infidelity all over the world. It is of little confequence to us what fpecies of government or anarchy they may chufe for themfelves, if they would keep it to themfelves; but the liberality of their zeal difdains Tuch monopoly; they fend out miffionaries to propagate, their doctrines, and in this country, as well as in Great Britain, they muft have made fome profelytes; because in every country there are many to be found:quos ad perturbandom Rempublicam inopia, atque mali mores ftimulant." And they further tell you, "that this invation of your principles, fhall be followed by an invalion of your land." We read in their public records, that the minifter of juftice propofes" a committee of infurrection, for the exprefs purpose of overturning every exifting monarchy in Europe." They vote, "That the national convention of France be a comit

tee of infurrection against all the kings in the universe," and they actually appoint a chofen band to be their affaffins. They decree, in the name of the French nation, "That they will affift every country who wish to recover their liberty;" and they charge the executive power, in a decree tranilated into all languages, "To give the commanders of the French armies orders to protect the citizens of every coun try who may be difturbed or vexed for the caufe of their liberty; inviting all nations, who wish to recover their rights, "To apply to their generals for afliftance," which is to folicit revolt in all countries. The perfeverance of their activity was equal to the boldness of their princi. ples, and, in violation of their disclaiming of conqueft, they made Savoy an 84th de partment of France.

Is it then poflible, at this time, and under all the circumftances of the world, we fhould, for a moment, engage ourfelves in problematical experiments, on a conftitution which we know is competent to all the ends of civil liberty and progreffive happinefs: That we should turn the minds of the people from the duties of a critical fituation: That we should, as it were, tamper with turbulence, and favour dif quifitions which would make the people politicians inftead of hufbandmen, and agitators instead of defenders of their country. As to the objections of the bill itfelf, though I think them great and numerous, I yet think they are loft in the predominant objection to your agitating the queftion at all at this time. As the bill is the bill of the laft feffion, in entering into particulars, I fhould only repeat what I faid before. I objected it to then as I do now, that it is incompetent to the end propofed, and would be utterly unfatisfactory to the people it profeffes to gra tify; that it does not improve or extend the bafis of reprefentation; that it renders the reprefentation of the people ftill more unequal; and that, on the whole, it is a transfer of power, and not a reform of parliament. And as to the House of Commons, conftituted and compofed as it is at prefent, although the waste of fome places, and the growth of others, muft perpetually vary the proportions of its own conftituency, I am yet bold to fay, it is, at this day, an adequate reprefentation of the property of the kingdom: That in its proceedings you cannot trace any provocotion to change it, because you know, that for feweral years paft, it has been engaged in the uniform practice, fef

and merchandize to be difpofed of only at the prices, and for the purposes, they chofe to fix on, This they bad done in Flanders, this they had done in Savoy, and would continue to do wherever they attained any territorial acquifitions. The fubjugation of one state enabled them to conquer another.

Upon thefe grounds, it was neceffary to draw all the nations of Europe into a league against the common enemy. His Lordship lamented that there were not more treaties; he wished there were more nations to form alliances with. He defended the treaty with Sardinia as one of the most judicious; for it was of the utmoft importance to prevent the French from obtaining poffeffion of a country which was the key of Italy! Were they once mafters of that, what would become of our trade there? His Lordfhip, animadverted on the proceedings of the neutral states, particularly Denmark and Genoa, that had neither of them fufficient corn for their own fubfiftence, and yet were continually fupplying France with it: It was the intereft of the nations of Europe to ftop this. His Lordship concluded, by giving his decided vote against the motion, as the treaties were neither inimical to the interefts of this country, nor contrary to the motives of the war.

Lord Carnarvon entertained fimilar opinions.

Lord Lauderdale defended the motion, and he spoke much of that government intended to be forced on France; and faid, that if all the powers at war with France were to be indemnified for their expences by a relinquishment of territory, very little would remain to mend a government.

Earl Mansfield spoke against the motion. The Marquis of Lanfdowne fupported it. The Duke of Leeds faid a few words in favour of the treaties.

After which, the queftion being loudly called for, the Houfe divided, when there appeared,

Contents 8-Proxies I-9 Non-contents 71-Proxies 25-96 Majority-87. 24. The Marquis Cornwallis having taken his seat, and the oaths on his promotion, was thanked for his conduct in India by the Lord Chancellor, agreeable to an unanimous vote of the House, it being a part of the vote, that the noble marquis fhould receive thofe thanks in his place.

MESSAGE FROM MAJESTY. 26. The addrefs of thanks was moved by Lord Grenville,

Lord Lauderdale regretted that it was not framed in such terms as to produce a perfect unanimity in the Houfe, as he could not allow that the prefent war was either neceffary or jutt. In this he was fupported by Lord Guildford and Lord Derby, who were opposed by Lords Sydney and Grenville. The arguments on both fides were fimilar to thofe used in the Houfe of Commons. The addrefs was voted almost unanimously.

28. The order of the day was called for, to take into confideration the motion refpecting the circular letter to the Lords Lieutenants of counties, of which Lord Lauderdale had given notice.

Lord Lauderdale rose to submit to the House his motion, which he prefaced by a speech of confiderable length; the queftion before the Houfe, he faid, he confidered as of great magnitude and importance to the country, and the late conduct of minifters as very dangerous to the liberties of the people and of Parliament. After hearing from thofe in oftentible fituations, that it was legal to introduce troops without the confent of Parliament being first obtained, and now feeing fubfcriptions carrying forward for raifing troops without the affent of Parliament, he thought there was a settled system for extending the prerogative of the crown, already too great, fince it had been voted that its influence had increased, was increafing, and ought to be diminished. From a review of the acts paffed regarding benevo lences, he contended, that for the crown to receive them, without the sanction of Parliament, was illegal, and againft the fpirit of the conftitution. The prefent circular letters, he afferted, effentially dif fered from that of Lord Chatham to the city of London, or any ever used on former occafions. The fecurity which the people thought they enjoyed, from the fanctions of Parliament being necessary to the raifing of money, by this measure was taken from them. He reprobated the policy of it, and was glad to find that four counties, Effex, Oxford, Warwick, and Surry, had rejected it. He concluded with moving, "That it is a dangerous and unconftitutional measure, for the executive government to raise money for the embo dying of forces, without the confent of Parliament."

Lord Hawkesbury replied, that in every act which had been quoted, the words exprefsly related to the levying of money by compulfion, which he confidered as the interpretation of the word levying. The letter here complained of only recommend

ed

ed a voluntary contribution. His Lordship moved the previous queftion.

Lord Derby infifted that here there was a compulfion on the mind; for he that refused to fubfcribe was branded as a Jacobin, and an enemy to his country. He recommended to minifters to bring in a bill to legalize the measure.

When the Houfe divided, there were for the previous queftion,

Contents 82-Proxies 22-104 Not Contents 6-Proxy I-7

Majority -97.

April 3. Lord Hawkesbury called the attention of the Houfe to fome new claufes he propofed fhould be introduced into the navigation act, which were not to take effect till the conclufion of the prefent war. In the laft navigation act it was provided that British fhips fhould not navigate, unlefs two-thirds of the crew were English. This claufe had been much evaded: one inftance in particular, his Lordship mentioned of a hip laden with gunpowder, which was entered as belonging to an English owner, but, upon examination, it appeared that all the crew, except the mafter, were foreigners. In the present bill, therefore, care was taken to prevent fuch evafions in future. It was alfo enacted, by the former bill, that all veffels employed in the coafting trade hould be navigated by a crew confifting, of at least three-fourths Englishmen: in the prefent bill he introduced a claufe, by which, instead of three-fourths, the whole of the crew were to be English. His motive for introducing this claufe was, that he thought it extremely improper that foreigners fhould be permitted, in that manner, to become acquainted with the coafts of this country: another motive which influenced him was, that as, at the conclufion of the war, a very great number of feamen muft neceffarily be difcharged, they might find employment in the coafting trade.

4. The order of the day for the Lords to be fummoned being read, Lord Stanhope rofe to make his motion refpecting the interference of minifters in the internal government of France, a measure he confidered as both impolitic and immoral. Not trufting to his own fentiments, he came fortified with a high authority, the Bishop of Norwich. Here he read part of that prelate's fermon, delivered before the Houfe on the day for the national faft. He had heard, in that House, a propofition which he did reprobate, viz. "that were it poffible for this country to reftore monarchy in France, no fum could be too

great to be expended." He disapproved of fuch language. He always had heard that minifters difclaimed every intention of interfering in the internal government of France; but Lord Hood's declaration had given them the lie. Much had been faid of religion, and that for the fake of it, we were now engaged in war. If the reestablishment of monarchy was meant, he could prove, from holy writ, that religion had nothing to do in the combat. His Lordship here read a part of the 8th chap. of the 1ft book of Samuel, and from chap. 12, from which he infifted, that in a religious light it was a heinous offence to impofe a monarchial government on any nation. The chemists of France had made a difcovery of vaft importance to them, as it afforded the means of profecuting the war; by a certain procefs they had prepared, for the fervice of the campaign, no jefs than 24,000,000 pound weight of gunpowder. He cautioned ministers not to interfere in the internal government of France, left France fhould retaliate, which might be attended with dangerous confequences. His Lordship concluded by moving certain refolutions; to which was prefixed a preamble, recapitulating the various doctrines afferted in the course of his Lordship's fpeech; the fubftance of the refolutions was, that any interference by the minifters of this country, in the internal affairs of France, would meet with the difapprobation of that House.

Lord Grenville confidered the motion as too indecent to deferve notice. He felt too much for his own dignity, and for that of the Houfe to answer it. He thought, however, that such a motion would be a difgrace to the journals. He fhould therefore move for expunging it.

The Lord Chancellor wifhed to collect the fenfe of the Houfe, whether he was to undergo the pain of repeating the whole of the motion to their Lordships, and which, had it been spoken in any other place, or printed, would not have failed to have been generally reprobated, and feverely punished. His Lordship then prt the motion, without the preamble, and it was negatived.

8. Upon reading the Volunteer corps bill, Marquis of Lanfdowne rofe and faid, that as there was a fuppofed fimilitude between the fubfcriptions now fet on foot, and the measure he propofed in 1782, without taking up their Lordships' time, he would only move, "That an humble addrefs be prefented to his Majefty, praying he would be graciously pleafed to give

Rea