power in the present situation of the country, to obtain a radical parliamentary reform and total change of system, according to his acceptation of those expressions? It becomes, therefore, of great consequence to ascertain what that acceptation is; and if any ambiguity or uncertainty exists from loose and indefinite expressions, the true meaning will be found to arise no less from the colour and complexion of circumstances which accompany, precede, and follow his professions, than logical distinctions and the context of words. Now I wish to put it seriously to the house, whether, notwithstanding the explanations for the first time given this night by the right honourable gentleman of the extent of his meaning in this respect, a very considerable portion of uncertainty, as to their extent, does not yet remain, and whether all the exertion he himself admits as necessary for the salvation of the country, is to be suspended till objects so general, loose, and indefinite, are obtained? for such is the partial result of all he has now advanced.

But to descend to the few particulars he has mentioned.-A change of ministers, he says, is absolutely necessary before any peace, consistent with the welfare and security of the country, can be expected. Yet how was this attempted to be proved. I do not consider myself much indebted to the right honourable gentleman's candour in admitting, that at least ministers were sincere in the last negociation for peace. No men, in or out of the house, could venture to entertain a doubt of a fact so plain and manifest. The internal evidences of the treaty itself, and every circumstance by which it was attended, sets every suspicion on that subject at defiance. The purity and zeal of ministers throughout the whole of their conduct on that occasion, is established beyond the possibility of doubt. It is not now for me to enter into the discussion how far in 1794 and 1795, France was capable of preserving the relations of peace and amity. Every thing that the right honourable gentleman could urge on this subject, was advanced when the facts of that question were recent, and regularly before the house, which, after full enquiry and deliberation, gave an opinion contrary to that which he

maintained.

Every step that ministers have taken, relative to peace, has been submitted to parliamentary discussion, and is fully before the public: and I can assert with confidence, that no man can reflect upon their conduct in that respect, or deny that they have done every thing to obtain peace, short of sacri. ficing the honour and welfare of the country. According to the right honourable gentleman's own view of the subject, it is a singular mode of reasoning, to threaten ministers with dismission, that peace might be obtained, because they had not done every thing in their power to obtain it before, though there is no doubt they have since been, and were still disposed so to do. The reasoning is still more curious if followed further. Suppose the measure recommended by the right honourable gentleman were adopted, is it likely that any new administration could suc ceed in negociation with the enemy, after a considerable suspen sion of exertion and comparative weakness, when the present administration, backed with the whole strength of the country, and having done every thing consistent with their duty to oppose the wrath of the enemy, had failed? Who will undertake that, in case of an appointment of a new administration, by means at least injurious to our strength, the enemy will be inclined to give terms of peace which they denied to the present ministers, when their conduct was admitted by all to be such, as this new administra tion could alone adopt? What ground of probability is there to expect such an event? But if the right honourable gentleman's argument has any weight, it is at best ill-timed at present, and should have been argued two months ago, on the first termina, tion of the treaty.

The right honourable gentleman has attempted to draw a distinction between the responsibility of those in office, and those who are not so. In this, however, I do not see any marks of that impartiality which should equally guide both the one and the other. He seems to think, that, while he has a perfect right to arraign the conduct of public men in office, he, being a private member of parliament, is not answerable to any account. I certainly know of no sanction that any man in office has, that should.

exempt him from auimadversion on his conduct; and as little am I acquainted with any exemption that private gentlemen may 1 have from reprehension, when their conduct is such as to deserve it justice, prudence, and expediency, as little exempt the one as the other. I therefore cannot but behold the right honourable gentleman as amenable in his conduct as any other person, whether I consider his character, in relation to domestic concerns at home, or the situation of the enemy abroad. With specious professions of humility, he has doubtless declared himself a simple individual, and expressed a determination to abstain from the risk and fatigue of public office. But what does this amount to? It is not certain that, thinking as many around him do, the country can be saved by him alone. Thinking so, I say, if a change of administration should take place, will they not feel themselves bound to overcome his scruples, and insist, as a matter of public duty, that he should take upon him the burden of office? Nay, I put it to them, whether they would not consider it as the pride and glory of their lives, by any means in their power, to place him in the situation to which they think his talents entitle him? and if they think so, they will, in so doing do no more than what, according to their view of the subject, is right, and highly laudable in them to effect. Nevertheless those who might differ from them in that opinion, and, though admitting the brilliancy and extent of the right honourable gentleman's talents, think that the practical application of them is not conducive to the welfare of the country-such persons must be allowed to look to that event with repugnance and alarm. Upon this subject I have no hesitation of declaring, that were I obliged to plead guilty to every other charge against my colleagues and myself, or from any motive should wish to relinquish my present station, yet, while I wish such a peace as is consistent with the security and welfare of this kingdom, I should feel it as a bounden and over-ruling duty, if the right honourable gentleman had any chance of succeeding me, to remain in office at any risk, and with every sacrifice, in order to prevent an effect so fatal and ruincus to the safety and consequence of this country, as thè

gratification of the wishes of him and his friends. I have yet to learn what is the nature of that confidence, which the enemy are to have in an administration supportedby that right honourable gentleman. I have on a former occasion said, that I do not envy those whose boast it is that they stand high in the confidence of the enemy. It is maintained, that in case of a change of administration, the house and the country would have the most unlimited confidence as to the sincerity of the negociation for peace, and if it could not be obtained on terms adequate to a just and reasonable expectation, that in such a case the war would be continued with incalculable advantage. Will those who think in this way, attempt to deny that the right honourable gentleman and all his friends have uniformly, since the commencement of the war, maintained the cause of the enemy, at least so far as to contend that they acted on the defensive, and retained a right of inflicting vengeance, and that we were the aggressors ? Throughout the whole course of the war they have asserted the justice of the enemy's cause and the insufficiency of our resources. How, in case of such men succeeding to offices, terms favourable or just to this country are to be expected, or how, if the war is to be continued, the enemy are to be convinced of the energy of the kingdom and the permanency of our means, I leave, with no doubt of its decision, to the prudence of the house. The next point of attack against his Majesty's ministers is their general misconduct in respect to general constitutional doctrines; and then, that they are bad financial ministers, and incompetent to preserve the combination, which, as to the prosecution of the war, they had so much relied upon. These points, I must observe, which are wholly irrelevant to the present question, have repeatedly been discussed and decided in this house, and may be decided again after this is determined, as they have been before. These I do not in the least consider myself bound to enter into at present, and if I did, the decision, either one way or the other, would not affect this bill. Upon these subjects, however, it is obvious that the strength of the right honourable gentleman's arguments lay in this: he says, you, the

administration of the country, are incompetent and ignorant; you rely on foreign alliances; these alliances desert you. You grant subsidies, you guarantee loans; we told you this would not secure you allies. You are fools, and we are wise. This I believe is not a weak summary of his charge against those he is inclined to condemn in every act, and impeach the motives when he cannot deny the effect. I ask, however, and put to the recollection of the house, whether those loans, subsidies, and alliances, were ever maintained on any such principle as that it was impossible to be deceived. In the nature of the thing, no independent state can have security against another, from want of foresight and prudence. It is no imputation against our ally, that another might not see so acutely its own true permanent interest and safety. In the case of our acting with greater wisdom and resolution than others, we are not to let our regret at their misconduct over-rule our own satisfaction in our own prudence and sagacity. Even to this very moment I do not regret those loans, subsidies, and alliances, of which the right honourable gentleman complains. They were entered into with correct views of the real and permanent interest of the country: and though I could have wished that other powers had had a true sense of their own interest; yet as a matter of policy, I do not regret the advantage we derived even at the expense at which it was purchased.

When it is considered that the conduct of ministers with respect to peace, was such as those who wish for a change themselves approve, it is pretty certain that the real cause for their retirement is not that which is ostensibly assigned; but whether the motives be real or pretended, it can be no reason for postponing the present bill, as whether the present administration continue, or yield their places to others, this bill, as a measure essential to the security of the country from the menaces and designs of a rancorous enemy, would be equally expedient and necessary. Suppose the right honourable gentleman was at the head of a new formed administration, would he tell the house that he would expect any success in his treaty, should the na