Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

the debt of this country 150 millions. By his miscalculations rivers of human blood had been made to flow all over the world. The minister now talked of peace. He hoped in God we should soon enjoy that blessing; but as the minister was so fond of his own calculations, he wished he would some day or night sit down in his closet and calculate what a sum of human happiness he had destroyed by his false calculations already; what a waste of human life he had occasioned, because he could not sooner discover that the French were capable of maintaining the accustomed relations of peace and amity with other powers." He did not wish to distress the minister with any unseasonable applications, but he believed he should puzzle him a good deal were he to ask, at what period the French became more capable of maintaining the accustomed relations of peace and amity with other powers than they were at the moment when we entered into this contest.-Here Mr. Fox took notice of the great difference between the ministers of the elector of Hanover and those of the king of Great Britain, with respect to the prudence of all powers making peace with the French republic. He had heard it often said, that the spirit of the people of this country was very great. He believed it to be so. He gloried in that spirit. But if the system on which this war was carried on was to be continued much longer, he had his doubts of the continuance of that spirit. A great people, who saw hundreds of thousands of their fellow subjects fall, their national debt increased above 150 millions, their credit sinking, the necessaries of life becoming, by their price, almost entirely out of the reach of the labouring class, and all this merely because one man, or a few men in the country made false calculations, were not likely to preserve their old spirit. Such were the evils which the minister had already occasioned by his false calculations! To these charges he hoped the right hon. gentleman would have an opportunity of answering at the bar of the public. The national debt was now above 400 millions. He had not calculated exactly what portion of it was owing to this war altogether; still less was he able to guess what part of it was accumulated at particular periods of the war; but he was now ready to declare, what he had often declared, and still oftener felt, that he thought this war

unjust in its commencement, and impolitic in its progress, and he believed there was not one man of sense in the country, who had any wishes for its welfare, who did not from his heart wish it was at an end. This he was sure was the general wish of the people of this country. It was the wish even of that House, else he was strangely deceived. This brought to his mind what had been lately published by a gentleman whose talents he always admired, and for whom, notwithstanding every thing that had happened, he had still great esteem, he meant Mr. Burke; that gentleman had lately published it as his opinion, that the minority in Parliament speak the sentiments of the people of England at this hour, and that they have done so for some time past. On the subject of the war, Mr. Fox said, he had no doubt that the minority spoke the sentiments of the people. On the subject of the war, at least, he would maintain that to be the case: he believed it to have been so ever since the time of Robespierre; but he would defy any man to show that peace was not the wish of this country only, but also that it was not the general wish of all Europe at this hour. He would go farther, and say, that in the opinion of Europe at large, nothing had impeded the arrival of general tranquillity for a long time, but the opinion of the minister of this country. All this arose from the miscalculation of the right hon. gentleman. However, that very minister now talked of peace; but let him consider on what terms we are likely to obtain it, and compare such terms with those which we might have obtained a great while ago, and then let him endeavour to calculate the mischief which his false calculations have brought, not upon this country only, but upon all Europe. Perhaps he might think the Cape of Good Hope an equivalent for all we had suffered. If he did, neither his humanity nor his judgment were to be envied. He was afraid, there was no point to be stated in the resolu tions of this night that brought in question the propriety of lending money to the emperor, without the consent of parliament, and therefore he could not manifest, by his vote, his opinion upon that subject. However, when it should come before the House, he should certainly meet it with his direct negative, for it was a violent and daring attack on the British Constitution. It was essential for the House to come to a vote upon the question,

whether the minister was to be permitted | to apply money for foreign alliances without the consent of parliament? and that we should know whether we were in a free country, or were mocked only with the name of freedom?

The resolutions were put and carried.

Dec. 8. The Resolutions of the committee of Ways and Means were reported to the House. On the motion "That the said Resolutions be now read a second time,"

a traitor to the public were I to vote one shilling, or one man, for the service of the crown, without the consent of parliament. We have been in the practice of hearing, for some time past, very warm eulogiums upon the constitution of the country, notwithstanding all the wounds which it has lately received; but I always thought that, whatever differences of opinion might subsist upon some points, there were others on which we were all agreed. Though we might differ in sentiment respecting the preponderance of power in Mr. Fox rose and said:-It is not my one branch of the constitution over anintention, Sir, on this evening, to enter other, and in affixing precise limits to into any detailed argument upon the reso- each, I thought and believed that there lutions. I wish particularly to call the was no man who would maintain that it attention of the House to the degraded was right and proper for the executive to situation in which the Commons of Great usurp the legislative power; or, that it Britain stand, in relation to the execu- was just and lawful for the crown to supercutive government of the country. It sede the office of parliament.-But, let will be easily perceived that I allude to us consider the nature of the transaction the 1,200,000l. which has been granted to before us. Had ministers, when parliathe Emperor by ministers without the ment was not sitting, found themselves consent of parliament; a grant which I called upon by an imperious sense of duty, contend to be contrary to positive law, dictated by a combination of urgent and and a flagrant violation of the constitution unforeseen circumstances, to grant a cerof parliament. I certainly should have tain pecuniary aid to the Emperor, and expected, since the right hon. gentleman had they taken the earliest opportunity did not think it worth his while to apply upon the meeting of parliament, to subto the House before he advanced such amit the whole of the business to its consum to a foreign power, that when he informed them of the circumstance, he would have accompanied it with some explanation. But from the mode in which the money was given, as well as from the speech of the minister on opening the budget, I perceive that the whole af fair has been conducted, not for the convenience of ministers, or the advantage which they might imagine would result from it (though, God knows, this would have been bad enough!) but for the purpose of setting a precedent, from which the public money is to be understood as being at the disposal, not of the representatives of the people, but of the minister of the crown. When I returned home last night and reflected upon the various subjects which had passed under discussion, I felt hurt at the idea of having appeared to give my assent to resolutions so extremely unconstitutional. I considered myself as having been guilty of a neglect of duty, and as called upon to come forward this day, and enter my solemn protest against a measure which I regard as an infringement of the rights of the people, and of the privileges of this House: for I should look upon myself as

sideration, then would have been the time for the House to pass a decision upon their conduct, after a candid and impar tial review of the situation in which they were placed. But the present case is wholly different. In the course of the last three months of the last parliament, repeated applications were made to them respecting their intentions of granting pecuniary assistance to the Emperor; and, from their silence, it was natural to infer, that they would not grant such assistance without the previous concurrence of parliament. In fact, however, we find that a great part of the money has been granted without that concurrence, not during the parliamentary recess, but when parliament was actually sitting. If parliament had not been sitting, and ministers had thought it prudent to grant pecuniary assistance to the Emperor, I say it ought to have been assembled for the purpose of deliberating upon it; but when parliament was sitting, in God's name, why was not application made to the House? Was it because ministers were afraid that the House wanted confidence in them? The whole course of their experience taught them the contrary. No: it was

because the right hon. gentleman thought himself better qualified to judge of the propriety of the time, and the extent of such assistance, than the House of Commons. I shall not dispute with him at present, whether he was or not. The constitution says, he was not, and under this authority he was bound to act. We yesterday heard something like an apology from the right hon. gentleman, which, to me, appeared as unsatisfactory as the conduct which it was brought forward to justify is unconstitutional. It consisted of two parts: in the first place, that parliament was not so good a judge of the amount of the assistance to be granted to the Emperor as the right hon. gentleman; and, secondly, that from the discussions to which the publicity of the transaction would lead, considerable mischief might have taken place. With respect to the first, it takes the point at issue for granted, by supposing that an absolute is preferable, to a limited monarchy; and that our free constitution would be much better were it transformed into a despotism. As to the danger to be apprehended from the publicity of the transaction, the pretence may be used upon other occasions as well as upon this, till at last we come to the old exploded argument, that the money of the people ought to be vested with the king's ministers, and not with their own representatives. In short, the right hon. gentleman tells you, he did not think it worth while to acknowledge you at all in the matter, because you were neither fit judges of the propriety of the quantum, nor of the period for granting the money. He takes care, however, that you shall finally be informed of it. But when? When it comes to be paid.-Let us see, also, from what fund this loan has been raised. One part of it has been raised upon a vote of credit, and another part has been taken from the money voted for paying the extraordinaries of the year, and of course certain services of which parliament approved, and for which it made provision, remain unpaid. In what situation, then, is the House placed? If they refuse to make good the debt, which I hope and trust they will, a part of the public service will remain in arrears. They are reduced, therefore, to this dilemma, either to discharge a debt, in contracting which they were not ac knowledged, and for which they are not responsible, or by refusing to discharge it, to leave services which were sanctioned

by their approbation unpaid. Were I to put the question to any man at all acquainted with the constitution of the country, When expenses are to be incurred, who are the best judges of the propriety of incurring them? he would answer, the Commons of Great Britain. And were I to add, When the propriety of incurring certain expenses is decided, who are the best judges of the extent to which they ought to be incurred? he would not hesi tate also to reply, the Commons of Great Britain. When we give up these two strong holds, the constitution is lost. What, then, are we to think of the minister who wrests them out of our possession? Or what will be said by future historians of that parliament which tamely gave them up without one syllable of remonstrance, or one threat of defiance? I hope the present parliament will vindicate its own dignity and importance at the outset, and show the ministers that if they are advisers of the measures of the crown, the House of Commons are the guardians of the public purse. On the present evening I shall think it my duty to take the sense of the House upon every question, whether of supply or of ways and means; and if I succeed I will move on an early day, that ministers, in granting a loan to the Emperor without the consent of parliament, have been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor. I hope the subject will be taken up out of doors, that the people will, in every part of the country, express their abhorrence of the doctrine last night delivered by the right hon. gentleman, and that the House of Commons will be obliged (I do not mean by force, but by the voice of the country) to assert those rights which they have pusillanimously surrendered. For my own part, I consider this as a more serious attack upon the constitution of the country, than any that have been conveyed through the writings of Paine, or of any man whatever. The nature of a libel is explained by its tendency to bring into hatred and contempt the constitution. Were I upon a jury, deciding upon any composition containing the speech of the right hon. gentleman last night, I would not hesitate to pronounce it a libel upon the constitution; for if the doctrines laid down in it are constitutional, ours is a most vile and detestable constitution. Even after all the attacks which have been made upon it, and all the wounds which it has

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Pitt said: There is something peculiarly singular, in the manner in which the new constitutional light has broken in upon the right hon. gentleman. This declaration of mine, which has infused so deadly an alarm into the mind of the right hon. gentleman was made yesterday, in a way the most clear and distinct. This declaration, which he now feels to be so fatal to the liberties of the country, as to render it incumbent upon him to make it the ground of an extraordinary proceeding, did not yesterday strike him as of so much importance as immediately to call him up. After an interval of debate, it had deranged none of the calculations of the right hon. gentleman, nor had it deterred him from allowing the resolutions to be carried with an una nimous vote. But after the right hon. gentleman had slept upon the subject, he discovers that the speech which he yesterday heard with so much indifference, contains principles of such dreadful tendency, as to lead him not merely to propose a reprobation of the particular measure; and the punishment of the person by whom it was uttered; but to take revenge for the error or the guilt of a minister, by giving his negative to resolutions which have no relation to the particular measure in question, and to suspend those supplies which are to give confidence to the negotiations for peace, or in case of being reduced to that alternative, energy to the operations of war. Such is the length to which the proposition of the right hon. gentleman goes. I cannot, however, but hope, that when the right hon. gentleman has viewed the subject with more consideration, when he has again slept upon his wrath, he will recur to that coolness which he first experienced, and that his vehemence and his alarm will subside. The right hon. gentleman says, that if he succeeds in his present motion, he will move the House against his majesty's ministers for the part they have acted upon this occasion. I hope the right hon.

gentleman will not defer for a single moment the step which he has threatened; that he will confine his efforts to that object; and that he will not combine with the vengeance he pursues, a measure that involves the ruin of his country. The rest of the right hon. gentleman's observations are so exclusively confined to myself, that I am at a loss in what way to proceed. The right hon. gentleman stated the general principle which constituted the chief security of our liberties-the power of controlling the public expenditure; and I hope there is little difference of opinion upon this subject. But although the general principle be admitted, it cannot be disputed that it is subject to limitation. The principle of extraordinaries has prevailed under every administration during the three last reigns, and in the most approved periods of constitutional liberty. It is impossible, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman can have correctly stated this argument. The right hon. gentleman chooses to overlook in one instance what he alludes to in another part of his speech. Did it never occur to him that parliament had sometimes committed to his majesty, not new, but special powers, which superseded all general questions? In reality this discretionary power is expressly committed to his majesty. The vote of credit bill last year actually invests the executive government with the discretionary power of applying the sums granted in the manner that may best suit the public exigencies, and the money applied to the service of the Emperor is within the amount of the grant. I do not mean to say that the discretion thus vested in the crown is absolute and independent of the control of parliament, or that the minister, who exercises it in an improper manner, is exempted from censure; but in what manner I understand this limitation, I will state when I am called upon to make my defence. Whatever may be the issue of this discussion, I cannot forbear observing, even at the risk of incurring the imputation of arrogance, that I would rather be convicted of having acted a principal part in the measure of granting a supply by which the salvation of Austria was secured, and the independence of Europe maintained, than be acquitted for withholding that aid, by which the cause of our allies was sacrificed and the general interests of mankind compromised. At present, however, the

question is not, whether the conduct of ministers was proper or improper; but whether we shall announce to France that the supplies of the year are to be stopped, and the exertions of the executive power suspended?

Sir W. Pulteney said, it was with concern and astonishment he had heard, on the preceding evening, that the minister had taken upon him to appropriate so large a sum of the public money, without the consent of parliament. The control of the House of Commons over the public purse was the main point upon which our constitution rested. The present case was one of the very last importance. The justification offered by the chancellor of the exchequer was grounded upon two arguments, drawn from the words in which the vote of credit was expressed: first, that it was meant to defray the extraordinary expenses of the year. Undoubtedly it was, and unfortunately it happened that extraordinaries and a vote of credit must be granted in every year of a war. But surely it never was intended, that subsidies to foreign powers should be supplied by a vote of credit. New circumstances might doubtless occur to render it proper for ministers to exercise their discretion; but here the circumstances were foreseen, and had been laid before parliament. The fact that this sum had been advanced, came out in a very suspicious manner indeed. There seemed to have been a desire of conceal ing the fact as long as possible, and a disclosure was only compelled by necessity: He could not go the length of stopping the supplies, though he was of opinion that a strong mark of censure ought to be inflicted by the House. By neglecting to consult parliament at a time when it was sitting, the minister appeared to set himself above their control. As to the influence which a parliamentary sanction to this measure might have had upon public credit at an earlier period, he thought it too trifling a consideration to weigh against the fundamental principles of the constitution; and, with regard to the credit which the minister assumed for acting advantageously when he concealed from the enemy the intention of affording supplies to our ally, he considered that concealment as having had a very different effect; for it was clear to him that it was in a great measure on the supposition that this country had refused supplies to the Emperor, that the French had made

redoubled efforts, and advanced so far into the heart of Germany. The right hon. gentleman asked, whether, in order to pass a previous censure on this conduct, the House would stop the supplies of the nation? It was this dilemma which, in his mind, aggravated the misconduct of the minister, who put the House in that situation, that it must either acquiesce in an expenditure made in so blameable a manner, or bring danger on the country by stopping the supplies. He trusted that this proceeding would not pass the House without receiving some strong marks of its disapprobation.

Mr. Grey said, that if the obsequiousness and servility of the House had not encouraged the designs of the minister, they never would have seen this daring invasion of their rights. When at last. however, they were sensible of the danger, if the outrage was not expiated by the punishment of the right hon. gentleman, he would maintain that there no longer was any law or constitution in England. How must the astonishment and indignation of the House be increased, when they found, that when parliament was sitting, these advances had been made! The whole system of the right hon. gentleman indicated a desire to conceal this matter as long as possible. The right hon. gentleman will rest his defence on the general principle of army extraordinaries; he will tell us that a case of real exigency, is a case that ought to supersede the inferior demands of economical, or even legislative prudence. But let me tell him that no financial exigency can be paramount to the constitution; that no duty is so sacred as the maintenance of it. The existence of the constitution depends on the vigilance of a discerning House of Commons over the acts of ministers. Such a House will not be satisfied, on great constitutional questions, with pompous denunciations of the opposers of ministerial arrogance, of the foes of ministerial profusion. It will not be satisfied with retrospective and unconstitutional measures of any kind; but will in every situation evince, by the conduct of its members, that there is still a barrier to encroachments, a line beyond which not even his majesty's ministers can extend their predatory efforts. In the present case, it cannot for a moment be argued, that it was not the duty of ministers to come to parliament with a specific proposition, before the money of

« ZurückWeiter »