at the beginning of the debate. Much as I differ from that honourable gentleman as to the extent of the abatement, and the nature of the scale of contribution he proposed, I was glad to hear the manly and decided manner in which he enforced the necessity of great exertion, and the propriety of raising a considerable sum, without recurring to the system of funding. I am convinced that the sentiments he expressed were congenial to the feelings of a great majority of his constituents and of the country; and I could not help remarking the contrast between the language he held, and the tone of the honourable gentleman* on the other side, compared with the sentiments of their respective constituents, in the indiscriminate opposition to every part of the plan, which characterized the speeches of both the honourable gentlemen.

Having made these observations on the question of delay, I shall proceed shortly to consider some of the other topics on which the honourable gentlemen insisted. I do not complain of the wide field of argument which they took up; I know that in a parliamentary sense they were regular : whether they were justifiable in the use they made of this privilege, and whether they made a proper choice of the topics which they introduced on the present subject, I shall leave for the house to determine. The object of this bill shortly is, an extraordinary grant of money for the support of the war; it proposes to raise within the year a certain part of the supplies, by a tax on income, on the visible criterion of the assessed taxes, subject to modification as circumstances may require. In considering the whole of the case, then, the first question that occurs is, whether it is proper to grant any money at all? Then, whether the principle of raising a certain part within the year ought to be admitted? And, thirdly, whether by this criterion attaching to income in the course of expenditure, the burden would in general be fairly apportioned ?

1

As to the first point, whether any money at all ought to be granted, the honourable gentleman, † though he did not say so in

1

very words, by the whole of his argument supposed the negative. The right honourable gentleman who spoke last distinctly argued, that while ministers continued in power, he could not agree to any supplies being granted. In stating this to have been their meaning, I am endeavouring to do justice to their mode of reasoning. Unless upon this idea, more than three-fourths of their observations were irrelevant to the subject now before the house. If they do not contend that peace cannot be obtained by the present ministers, that they ought to be dismissed before any scheme of supply can at all be a fit subject for discussion, the greater part of their argument is quite foreign to the matter now under consideration.

The right honourable gentleman, while he argues that my honourable friend* considered the majority of the house and his Majesty's ministers as the same, forgets that his honourable friend†, when he talked of our going out of our places, did not address himself to the house, but gave it, as a very friendly advice no doubt, personally to us. It was expressed with a hope that we would of ourselves abandon the offices we held, as the means of obtaining peace. The honourable gentleman then must settle this inconsistency with his honourable friend beside him. But before the honourable gentleman, with all his talents, can demonstrate the propriety of our dismissal, he ought to shew that the nine persons, whom he proposes to pick up between London and Windsor, will administer the public affairs better than those by whom they are now administered; he must bring forward something more conclusive and more convincing than any thing he had to offer when the dismissal of ministers was last discussed, the failure of which attempt had induced him to quit the service of his constituents, and his despair of success had led him to abdicate his public character. If I understand him right, he considers as preliminary to every measure of public defence, to every exertion in support of the war, a radical change is necessary. What the right honourable gentleman means by this preliminary, expressed in a manner so large and comprehensive, * Mr. Dundas. + Mr. Sheridan.

in terms no less obscure than undefined; whether a parliamentary reform is to be only a part of this sweeping change; how this change of system is to operate as a means of saving the country; how this unlimited change is to conduce to the public safety in preparing exertion and in repelling danger, I am really at a loss to conceive. In considering the propriety of such a change of system, or such a preliminary as the introduction of new men into office, it certainly will be important for the house to ascertain, whether such a change of ministers is calculated to secure us against the dangers with which we are threatened, whether it is calculated to check the ambition of the enemy, and to procure a peace that will satisfy the honour of the nation, and preserve the sources of the public wealth and prosperity.

But the honourable gentleman says, that the whole tenor of our language at the beginning of the present contest was, that no peace could be made with the jacobin republic, and that France is thus justified in refusing to make peace with the present administration. At no period of the war did we ever express such a sentiment, or even entertain the idea that no peace could be made with republican France. I remember the quotation from Virgil to which he has alluded, and as far as I can recollect it was used in one of those debates in which the right honourable gentleman proposed that overtures should be made for peace at a period when we contended that no security for peace could be obtained, and that the evils of war were not to be compared to the inadequate peace which then could have been concluded. The right honourable gentleman then urged the question, whether no extremity of danger could induce us to make such overtures? I then answered, that this must ever be a question of comparison, that we must decide as circumstances might arise, and at least we ought to persevere till our means were exhausted, till we could support the contest no longer, and we could say,

Toto certatum est corpore regni.

The honourable gentleman says, that the meaning of Virgil cannot be explained away, but he seemed to think that Virgil's lan

guage might be improved. The honourable gentleman urged the propriety of making overtures even at that period, and con tended, as he often had done, that if reasonable terms of peace were refused, it would unite England and divide France. He then retorted, that after such overtures were rejected,

Toto certandum est corpore regni.

The honourable gentleman has now seen these overtures made and rejected; and now, when he wishes to bind me down to the meaning of Virgil, I think he ought not to forget his Latin: pledge.

If the honourable gentleman has seen that all attempts at negociation have been unavailable, if he can look to any period in which he is called upon to fulfil his pledge, if he means to ani mate the public exertions, to exhort to perseverance, to stimu late their zeal for the maintenance of the national honour and the national safety, at a moment when these objects are thus unequivocally stated, he would not, as he now does, attempt to disarm their courage and to distract their efforts. What did the honourable gentleman expect from the overtures he proposed? What degree of insult and contumely did he lay his account to endure before he was to be roused to energy and to honour? Did he expect any thing more insulting than the reception our overtures had obtained, any thing more repulsive, more haughty, more injurious, than the proceedings of the enemy; any thing more decisive of their determined spirit of hostility than their refusal to discuss the terms we proposed, or to propose any terms in their turn, on which they were willing to conclude a peace? If any thing can meet the honourable gentleman's ideas of insult, sufficiently humiliating to require him to act upon his pledge, let him look to the negociation at Lisle, and the con duct of the enemy upon that occasion. The honourable gentleman, though he admitted formerly that there might be occa sions to demand unanimity and exertion, thinks himself freed from his pledge, because ministers were never sincere in their exertions for peace, and France was justified in refusing to treat

VOL. 11L

with them. But when did the honourable gentleman discover this? When did the light flash upon his mind, that ministers originally were hostile to the repúblican government of France, and therefore could not be sincere? It is somewhat surprising that this never occurred to the honourable gentlemán before the pledge was given, instead of discovering it as our apology for eluding the pledge after it was given. If the dislike of ministers to French principles proves their aggression, and justifies the hostility of the enemy, this cannot be a new discovery; it certainly would as well have justified the honourable gentleman in distrusting any efforts they might make, even while they urged the overtures, on the refusal of which they promised unanimity, as now when they have seen their overtures made without effect. The declaration of France, at the beginning of the contest, proved that on their side it was a war of aggression, and on our's a war of necessity and good faith towards our allies.. If ministers did at first see the danger of French principles, without embarking in the contest, must they have been the aggressors when they saw their fears realized in the actual aggression, in which the principles they had apprehended finally terminated? At no pes riod of the contest did we say there could be no peace with republican France. We said, that for peace we would not agree to prostrate the nation at the feet of the enemy; that we could not agree to give up what was essential to the safety of the country. If the honourable gentleman can prove that we have applied for peace, disowning the justice of our cause, abandoning the principles on which the present safety and future prosperity of the country are founded, he would prove that we considered the period arrived when every exertion had been made, and when the struggle was to be given up, because it could no longer be supported. The honourable gentleman, however, does not say that we have acted in this manner. What then are the opinions of those who have uniformly, or rather with growing zeal and devotion, contended that the war was just on the part of France, and unjust upon the side of this country? Have they not repeatedly said, on former occasions, that our ordinary