I must think that the danger of patching up a peace without any probable ground of permanency, is greater even than that of carrying on a war. With respect to the negociation at Lisle, I believed at that moment that the prosecution of the war was fraught with more danger to the country than the establishment of peace, if peace could have been concluded on such terms as were then proposed to the enemy. It was the result of a comparison between the farther prosecution of the war, and the then existing state of the country; a state different from that in which, I am happy to say, the country finds itself at this moment. I am free, Sir, to say, that the prevalence of jacobinical principles in France do not at present allow me to hope for a secure peace. As I declared upon a former occasion, without that attempt to obtain peace, we could not have made those subsequent exertions which have proved so successful. But because of our present increased means for carrying on war, I ask the honourable gentleman, is it fair in him to argue that I was insincere in labouring for peace at a time, when the circumstances of the country dictated the expedience of attempting it?

We are told, however, that our policy ought to be changed, as the Russians are no longer to co-operate with Austria. But may not the Russians be employed with advantage in the common. cause, though they no longer act immediately in conjunction with the Austrians? It is not for me to point out the particular way in which their force may be directed in conjunction with the moveable maritime force which this country possesses. I need not say how, while the frontiers of France are invested by a powerful military force, the Russians may co-operate in supporting those insurrections which actually prevail, and which threaten to break out in every part of France. May not these efforts produce a great and valuable diversion for the Russians? This is sufficient to show that their co-operation may still be extremely valuable. To say more would be no less improper than unneces

sary.

If, however, the Russians are not to assist the cause by their sfforts upon the continental frontier of France, does it not be

come the policy of England, does it not consist with the wisdom of parliament, to employ every means to supply the loss which their departure will occasion? The measure in question aims at that object. It aims at procuring such reinforcements to the military exertions of our allies as promise a vigorous and successful campaign. Upon a comparison, indeed, of the forces of France, with those which our allies will be enabled to bring against her, we will find that the latter are greatly superior. I cannot absolutely pledge myself that the forces of France shall not be encreas ed in such a manner as to equal, if not outnumber those of the allies, but on every ground of conjecture the allies will maintain that superiority which they possessed last campaign. The mcasure in question is intended to secure that effectual co-operation, those military exertions which promise success; and if the propriety of persevering in the contest be admitted, as it has been, by the house, I cannot conceive what argument can be used against that which seems so necessary to its favourable issue.

An honourable gentleman * stated with a gravity which seemed to testify his sincerity in what he advanced, that twelve millions will be necessary to procure that supply of grain which this country requires. I trust that it will appear in the consideration of the report of the corn committee, that there has already been a very considerable supply of corn obtained, and that there is not so much to be apprehended on the score of scarcity as some suppose. But, besides that, the honourable gentleman exaggerates the supply that will be required, he infers that we shall not be able to find pecuniary resources both for the war and to obviate the danger of scarcity. Doubtless, however, there is no difficulty in supplying both demands. No man who thinks the war right and politic will suppose that we ought to withhold those supplies which are necessary to support the contest with vigour, and bring it to a successful termination, because there happens to exist a scarcity which has no connexion with the war, and which the prosecution of it can in no way affect. The fallacy of ascribing that scarcity

*Mr. Nicholls.

to the war is no less unfounded in reasoning than it is mischiev

ous in its consequences.

It is for the house, then, to decide whether, in supporting this measure, we have judged on good grounds. If any man thinks he sees the means of bringing the contest to an earlier termination than by vigorous effort and military operations, he is justified in' opposing the measures which are necessary to carry it on with energy. Those who consider the war to be expedient, cannot, with consistency, refuse their assent to measures calculated to bring it to a successful issue. Even those who may disapprove of the contest, which they cannot prevent by their votes, cannot honestly pursue that conduct which could tend only to render its termination favourable to the enemy. God forbid I should ques

tion the freedom of thought, or the liberty of speech! but I cannot see how gentlemen can justify a language and a conduct which can have no tendency but to disarm our exertions, and to defeat our hopes in the prosecution of the contest. They ought to limit themselves to those arguments which could influence the house against the war altogether, not dwell upon topics which can tend only to weaken our efforts and betray our cause. Above all, nothing can be more unfair in reasoning, than to ally the present scarcity with the war, or to insinuate that its prosecution will interfere with those supplies which we may require. I am the more induced to testify thus blicly he disapprobation which ter such language exacts in my mi when I observe the insidious use

that is made of it, in promoting

certain measures out of doors;

a language, indeed, contrary to all honest principle, and repug

nant to every sentiment of public duty.

April 21, 1800.

THE house, pursuant to the order of the day, resolved itself into a committee, to consider of his Majesty's message relative to the propositions of the Irish parliament, for an incorporating Union with Great Britain; and Mr. Sylvester Douglas having taken the chair of the committee,

MR PITT rose :

Sir, The sentiments of this and the other house have been so clearly and decisively expressed in the vote which was given on this important subject during the last session of parliament, that I feel it altogether unnecessary to renew the arguments then advanced and acceded to with respect to the advantage, expedience, and necessity of the measure. Recollecting, that the grounds then offered for the union of both kingdoms were so solid and unalterable as to meet with an almost universal concurrence; and also recollecting that the subsequent discussions which have taken place in the parliament of the sister kingdom, must have confirmed and rivetted the decision so unequivocally manifested in this country, I shall only trouble the committee so far as to recall the magnitude of the question which is now submitted to their consideration, and to remind them, that it is not one partial consideration, not a single provision, however great it might be, which claims their attention, but a consideration in which the dearest and mo1⁄2 esserl interests of both countries are

most intimately connected. thee wish to accomplish the great

work that we have undertaken, we must look to the whole of this important and complicated question; we must look at it in a large and comprehensive point of view; we must consider it as a measure of great national policy, the object of which is effectually to counteract the restless machinations of an inveterate enemy, who has uniformly and anxiously endeavoured to effect a separation between two countries, whose connexion is as necessary for the safety of the one, as it is for the prosperity of the other. We must look to this as the only measure we can adopt which can calm the dissentions, allay the animosities, and dissipate the jealousies which have unfortunately existed; as a measure whose

object is to communicate to the sister kingdom the skill, the capital, and the industry, which have raised this country to such a pitch of opulence; to give to her a full participation of the commerce and of the constitution of England; to unite the affections and resources of two powerful nations, and to place under one public will the direction of the whole force of the empire :--We must consider this as a measure, Sir, the object of which is to afford an effectual remedy for those imperfections which exist in that precarious system that at present binds the two countries together; a system which, if an incorporate union should unfortu nately not take place, may ultimately tend to their separation. Sir, when these are the objects which are to be obtained by this measure, the committee will not, I am sure, consider it as a measure of partial or local convenience, or of partial or local sacrifice; but in forming their opinions they will consider its general effect upon the whole of the aggregate of the empire. In deciding on this question, we ought to be actuated by another feeling, a feeling which it is not necessary for me to state, because the magnanimity of every gentleman must have suggested it to his own mind. In the union of a great nation with a less, we must feel that we ought not to be influenced by any selfish policy, that we ought not to be actuated by any narrow views of partial advantage. We must refute by our conduct (what indeed we might have hoped our terms had already refuted, if what fell from an honourable gentleman this day did not unfortunately prove that a degree of unaccountable prejudice still existed) the idea that we have any other object in view than that of promoting the mutual advantage of both kingdoms. We must shew, that we are not grasping at financial advantages, that we are not looking for commercial monolopy; we must shew that we wish to make the empire more powerful and more secure, by making Ireland more free and more happy. These, Sir, are the views-these are the only views with which I could ever have proposed this mea▾ sure; and it is with these views alone that it can be rendered effectual to its object, and establish mutual harmony and confi. dence between the two nations.