MR. PITT'S SPEECH,

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON THE THIRD READING OF THE BILL FOR THE NEW ASSESSED TAXES.

1

IT has already been remarked in the introducțion

to this debate, that the bill encountered a vehement resistance in every stage of its progress. The leading members as well of the opposition, as the ministry mutually availed themselves of the privilege of each reading of the bill to attack or to defend it. In the speech of the chancellor of the exchequer, with which the discussion was closed, is exhibited a very luminous summary of the objections urged by those in hostility to the tax, and, a confutation of them, which at once eclipsed all the bright hopes that were entertained of its impairing the popularity of the administration. But it did not require the exertion of Mr. Pitt's eloquence to effect this purpose. To demonstrate the expediency and the faultlessness of the measure, the course pursued by the opposition was alone sufficient.

Disciplined as that phalanx were in this species of contention, which had wonderfully quickened their natural perspicacity to espy and to expose the lurking errours of any measure, we find nevertheless, in the speeches of the most acute and experienced of its members, even of Fox, and Sheridan, not a critical analysis of the principles, or clear development of the evil tendency of the bill, but a desperate resort to a wild, loose, and desultory discussion of extraneous

topicks, which having been often before examined and decided by parliament, had become the hackneyed themes of vulgar invective and popular clamour.

MR. SPEAKER,

SPEECH, &c.

AFTER the great length of time that has been consumed in the debate, the house, I am sure, will not be surprised if I should desire to avoid, as much as possible, the vast mass of extraneous matter that has been brought forward on the present occasion, and select from the numerous topicks that present themselves to my view, such as bear directly on the subject under our immediate consideration. With this design I shall endeavour to guide the attention of the house through the various irrelevent and contradictory arguments that have been used, and fix it more exclusively on those leading and practical points, which alone can determine the question we are now called upon to decide. I should have thought it, sir, unnecessary to enter at any length into this argument, after the admission made by the several gentlemen who most vehemently oppose this measure, if I did not find that the principle they conceded in name is afterwards recalled in substance, and treated as a matter foreign to their consideration, and wholly inapplicable to the case now before them. The principle I allude to is this: Whether, in the present circumstances of this country, there is or is not an occasion to make a great and unexampled exertion to defeat the projects of the enemy, and secure our own national independence and honour?

The affirmative of this proposition has been uniformly admitted and openly avowed. Unless, therefore, the house, influenced by what has been advanced in the course of this night's debate, should think proper expressly to retract that opinion, I have a right to take it as the fundamental point that will govern their determination. This is not an opinion

hastily adopted, and lightly considered. It is the language which, after full deliberation and inquiry, the house, at the commencement of the session, presented at the foot of the throne. Such, at that time, was their opinion, and the facts on which it was founded, have in the interval which has elapsed, been neither weakened nor denied..

So far from any thing having been advanced contrary to this position, in the course of this debate, the right honourable gentleman has unequivocally admitted, that a great military and financial exertion is indispensable in the present situation of the country. Now, having advanced so much it was natural to expect he would disclose the nature of those exertions, the necessity of which he did not deny; and if he disapproved of the present mode of raising so considerable a part of the supplies within the year, that he would point out how that end might be obtained, by means less objectionable. The question, as now argued by the right honourable gentleman, is, whether after a delay of six weeks since the first agitation of this subject, and two months since the issue of the negotiation, from which period the necessity of the exertions he admits must be dated; whether, after such a delay, all exertions should not be suspended on the part of the country, till the house should obtain the dismission of his majesty's present ministers, a radical parliamentary reform, and a total change of system? Such is the ground, if I followed the right honourable gentleman, and understood him right, on which he wishes the present question to be determined.

In his opinion the guilt of the present administration is so enormous, their general and particular misconduct so manifest and great, that all the faculties of government should be suspended till they are removed. Their removal alone, however, will not do, and he has no hopes of security without a radical reform in parliament, and a total change of system; and, unless

* Mr. Fox.

these latter points are conceded, he professes that he will not take any share in any new administration that may be formed. With a view of persuading the house to pursue these objects, much time and much eloquence had been consumed, to convince them that they had a regular constitutional right to withhold the supplies till the grievances of which they might think proper to complain were redressed. But time and eloquence appear to me to have been wholly misemployed. No one that I know of ever doubted of the validity of that doctrine. The true question now was, according to the right honourable gentleman's mode of reasoning, not whether they had a right under the constitution of withholding supplies till grievances were redressed, but whether the house and country look upon those things as grievances which the right honourable gentleman does; and whether they will make such an exercise of 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, whether a very considerable portion of uncertainty, as to their extent, does not yet remain, and whether all the exertion he himself admits 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. 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 se

curity 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 negotiation for peace. No man, 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 cir cumstance by which it was attended, set every suspi cion 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 inquiry 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 publick. 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 sacrificing 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 measures recommended by the right honourable gentleman were adopted, is it likely that any new administration could succeed in negotiation with the enemy, after a considerable suspension of exertion and comparative weakness, when the present administration, backed with the whole strength of the Ff

VOL V.