beg leave to folicit the attention of the Houfe, while he endeavoured to ftate, with as much brevity as poffible, the reafons on which he felt it his duty, as an independent mem ber of Parliament, to give his decided fupport to thefe refolutions. He expreffed his unwillingnets to offer many ob. fervations on the objections which had been adduced by moft of the Members who had spoken that night. He was ftill lefs willing to detain the attention of the House by replying to falfe, malicious, and unfounded infinuations, which had been thrown out in certain quarters against those Gentlemen who, from confiderations of public duty, were determined to fupport the refolutions which had been proposed by the hon. Member who began the difcuffion. The motion had been afcribed to mean confiderations of party fpirit; to the merc wifh of one fet of Gentlemen to drive others from confidential fituations under Government, with the view of occupying their places. For himself he muft moft unequivocally reprobate fuch infinuations, and he would not fo far forget what he owed to the House and to his own character, as make them the fubject of any greater length of animadverfion. But having adverted to this objection, he had only to fay a few words to the only other which had been adduced in the course of the difcuffion. It had been argued that the prefent was not the time for bringing forward refolutions of the nature which had that evening been fubmitted to the Houfe. This country was now engaged in a conteft where unanimity among all ranks and orders in the State was of the higheft importance, and when, confequently, it was highly to be wished for that no difcuffion might be provoked which might have the appearance of a with to difturb this unanimity. Of all the poffible objections which could be urged, he had no difficulty in faying that he confidered this as one of the most extraordinary. He could hardly bring himself to believe that that evening he had heard it gravely ftated by an hon. Member on the other fide (Sir T. Metcalf), that by agreeing to the refolutions, or, even by preffing the difcuffion, information might be conveyed to the enemy. It was not very eafy to fee what was the fpecies of information to which the hon. Member. alluded. For himfelf, he had no fort of difficulty in faying, that a principal object which he had in view by supporting the refolutions, was to convey both to the enemy and to the people of this country information which, at a crifis like the prefent, was in all points of view fo important. He

was

was anxious that, at a moment when we were engaged in a conteft more trying and more hazardous, in a conteft in which great exertions and great facrifices would be more powerfully required than in any former ftruggle in which the country was ever engaged, that an inquiry fhould be instituted into the capacity of those who were to direct the application of the national refources, and the national ftrength; to ascertain whether the battle which was to be fought would be fought with proportionate energy and courage; to fee that every department of the public fervice was properly administered; to take care, that if the country was to fubmit to extraordinary facrifices, the exertions which were made were directed by thofe to whom all ought to look up with confidence. In this fenfe he certainly withed that the enemy and the people of Great Britain fhould be put in poffeffion of that, which it was the object of the refolutions to procure. Having faid this, he would not pretend to deny that the object of the refolutions was to call in queftion the conduct of Ministers throughout the whole of the negotiations and difcuffions which had taken place between the two Governments, from the time that the definitive treaty of peace was concluded. To have a full and fair view of this fubject it would, however, be in the first place neceffary, briefly to advert to the fituation of the country at the time when the treaty was concluded. By the 2d of the refolutions it was declared, that Minifters had not made to Parliament fuch full and ample communications as could lead to any eftimate of the real fituation of the country, and therefore the House was debarred of the conftitutional right of giving any opinion on the ftate of public affairs. A difpofition had been manifested to lay a great deal of ftrefs on particular expreffions. He was not at any time difpofed to queftion the words which gentlemen themselves were difinclined to difavow, but he would contend that it was perfectly parliamentary to draw an inference from the general fpirit and complexion of the language employed by thofe in official fituations, which gave to that language a degree of weight and confequence which it did not otherwife poffefs; which was the foundation of important conclufions, and which was confequently in all cales more narrowly canvaffed. He was defirous, therefore, of diftinctly recollecting and ftating to the Houfe the views and expectations which had been held out at the time of the fignature of the definitive treaty. He could not better explain what thofe views and expectations were at that period,

than

than by referring to the language which had then been employed by the right hon. Gentleman on the other fide (Mr. Addington), when the merits of the definitive treaty were fo fully difcuffed. [The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the debate on the 14th of May 1802.] At that time, in anfwer to fome arguments to prove that the peace could not poffibly be of long duration, the right honourable Gentleman had faid, "I am impreffed with a thorough conviction that the peace which has now been concluded will, in all probability, be of as long duration as any of the pacifications concluded at various periods of the laft century. I fee nothing in the appearance of the prefent times, in the prefent Government of France, or the character of the individuals of whom that Government is compofed, which at all induces me to think that the peace will not be lafting." On that occafion he was among the fmall number of thofe who, fortunately or unfortunately was not then to be confidered, had uniformly argued in favour of the propriety of an addrefs to his Majefty, recommending an immediate fettlement of the various points which the treaty had left open to difcuffion, and from which we anticipated a rupture at no very diftant period, unless an adjustment was effected. This propofition had, however, been refifted by Minifters and rejected by the House. What then was the ftate of the information which Minifters communicated to Parliament? The fact was, that no information of any kind was communicated to the laft Parliament after the fignature of the treaty, except what was communicated through his Majefty's gracious speech at the conclufion of the feffion. In that speech an expectation was certainly held out that there was a profpect of the continuance of peace, and a recommendation was given to cultivate the advantage which a ftate of peace prefented. With this general impreffion the laft Parliament was diffolved. He certainly had never heard it afferted, and he could in no cafe admit the pofition, that the profpect of a speedy diffolution of Parliament at all leffened the obligation of Minifters to communicate full and fair explanation of the ftate of public affairs.

In this ftate the matter continued till the opening of the new Parliament on the 23d of November, and then, as before, all communication was withheld. Here, however, it became important to inquire what were the facts which had occured during the interval. When those who fupported the refolutions contended that no information of the real ftate of the country was laid before Parliament, at the

opening

opening of the feffion in his Majefty's fpeech from the throne, they at the fame time argued that every one of the grounds of war enumerated in his Majefty's declaration had then taken place, and were as well known to Minifters as at the period when the declaration was publifhed. To fhew that this affertion was well founded, he thould beg leave to direct the attention of the Houfe to a few of the principal grounds of complaint and aggreffion which the declaration contained. The firft to which he would advert, was the complaints of the moleftation to which our commerce was expofed. From documents now on the table, it appeared, that from December 1801, to the fame period in the following year, a feries of thefe complaints had been preferred to Minifters, and no fpirited remonftrance had taken place on the fubje&t. The vifit of the military confuls was known before his Majefty's fpeech was delivered, for it appeared by a paper which was a few days fince laid before the Houfe, that the inftructions of Talleyrand to Fauvelet, who had been sent to take foundings of the harbour of Dublin, that they were dated at an early part of the month of November, and confequently were known to Minifters when Parliarent was opened. That the defigns of the First Conful of France with refpect to Switzerland were known, was a matter of general notoriety. Minifters themfelves had prefented a remonftrance long before that period. On this part of the fubject he should, before he fat down, fubmit fome important confiderations. With the annexation of Piedmont to France, Minifters were not unacquainted. The confifcation of the revenue of the Spanish priories of the Order of Malta, there was also every reason to think that Minifters were ac quainted with even before the definitive treaty was concluded. The miffion of Sebaftiani, Minifters were fully apprized of long before they thought proper publicly to allude to it. They were not ignorant of the time when he left France, and on the 29th of November a difpatch from General Stewart announced his arrival in Egypt. Thus did it appear, that all the principal grounds of the declaration were per fealy well known to Minifters long before the declaration made its appearance. But, he would not confine himself to these circumstances, but would refer to others of not lefs importance, though they were not introduced into the declaration, and very materially implicated the conduct of Minifters. The first of thefe points to which he begged leave to allude, was the arrangement of the German indemnities, which VOL. IV. 1802-3.

E

10

to a confiderable degree involved British interefts. When he faid this, he meant to allude to the infult which had been offered to his Majefty, by muleting a part of his Hanoverian dominions to fatisfy the avarice of the greater powers. Complete mystery had almost wholly covered the whole businefs of the indemnities to the Houfe of Orange For this arrangement an article had been introduced into the treaty; but till the papers were laid on the table the Houfe had been totally ignorant in what train the negotiation on this fubject had been left by Minifters. The whole business about the order for the evacuation of the Cape, and its fubfequent retention, was entirely paffed over in filence. By papers fubfequently called for, it appeared, that on the 16th of October, Minifters had dispatched orders to retain the Cape, though, by a folemn treaty, it was to be given up within a limited period. Minifters, by this treaty, entered into a ftipulation, which stated, that within a certain period the Cape fhould be furrendered to the Batavian Republic. The treaty containing this ftipulation had been laid before both Houfes of Parliament, and had received their approbation. Under fuch circumstances, Minifters had taken on themfelves to violate a direct ftipulation of the treaty. They had chofen particularly to difpatch orders to fufpend the execution of the treaty, and of confequence to declare the country in a ftate of war. At what time, he defired the Houfe to confider, was it that this extraordinary step had been taken by Minifters? It was just about one month from the time that Parliament affembled. Did Minifters, when Parliament affembled, inform the Houfe of the extraordinary measure to which they had reforted? They had not said a fingle word on the fubject. In a very few weeks after, it had appeared' proper to them to evacuate the Cape, and then a war virtually intervened; ftill Minifters continued to obferve the fame filence. Some hon. Members, and particularly an hon. Gentleman under the gallery (Mr. I. H. Browne), whom he must ever esteem, had commended Minifters for the filence they had fo long obferved on the ftate of public affairs. He could not at all accede to this doctrine. The fyftem purfued by Minifters would, under the cloak of refponfibility, deftroy every conftitutional principle of parliamentary right, of difcuffion, and inquiry. He fincerely believed, for himfelf, that if the negotiation, which had lately terminated, had taken a favourable turn, we should have heard nothing of the whole of the orders and counter-orders of Miniflers;

the