on the oocafion were, I think, malice, hatred, and envy. Those who know me beft will, I believe, acquit me of harbouring any of those in my bofom, to any confiderable extent. I flatter myfelf that, as to envy, I have ever fhewn as little of it as most men ; and that as to malice and hatred, I have no more knowledge of them but as paffions which are incident in common to the human fpecies. I have been accufed too, Sir, by an Honourable Member on the Bench even with me, of arrogance. I hope, Sir, however, that I have not fhewn any arrogance in the mode and manner in which I have brought forward the present Motion. Is it arrogant for a Member of Parliament to differ in opinion with Minifters? Is it arrogant in a Member of Parliament to object to their measures? Is it arrogant for a Member of Parliament to ask a House of Commons in one Parliament to repeal an Act paffed by a preceding Parliament? Is it arrogant in a Member of Parliament to speak his fentiments of a majority of a former Parliament? If thefe, Sir, are acts of arrogance, away with all idea, all the idle dreams of the freedom of debate, and own at once that we have no right to speak but in praise and favour of the Evecutive Government and its fupporters. It is an awkward circumftance, Sir, for any man to speak in his own praife. If I may venture to compare with the Honourable Gentleman who spoke laft in any of thofe numerous endowments and accomplishments with which he is fo richly gifted-if I may suppose in any respect approaching to an equality with him in eloquence or in political fcience, in the art of speaking of myfelf I must own myself abundantly his inferior. The Honourable Gentleman who spoke last asks if I and those who act with me are really to be deemed Patriots, by faying we are Patriots. I tell him, candidly, no. I never look to be deemed a Patriot from any thing I either have faid or may fay. It is from my actions alone that I fhall ever expect to be thought deferving the character of a Patriot.

"A Gallant Officer (Colonel Fullarton) was alfo good enough to pass some strictures upon my public conduct; and though he feemed to have come prepared to extend his obfervations to the fubjects of this difcuffion, he ftopped fhort, after having expreffed his fentiments upon the opinions I held, and the conduct I purfued at the beginning of the war. At the time when thefe opinions were expreffed, and that line of conduct was marked out, he was generous and gallant enough, on account of the hoft of foes which I had to encounter, to fpare me the pain of his attack. Being then almoft run down by the ftream of eloquence in the Houfe, and of popular opinion in the country, he fcorned to enlift himself under the banner of my adverfaries. But now, when many have changed their opinion respecting the origin of

the

the war, and I am not fo fingular as I was, the Honourable Gentleman bravely, gallantly, and heroically comes forward in defence of the caule which he finds has loft fome of its fupporters, and much of its popularity. The Honourable Gentleman fays he never has had any intimacy with me; I am fure I was once happy in his acquaintance. He fays, that the Motion which I have had the honour to make this evening is a part of a fyftem upon which I began to act four years ago. I confefs it is a part of the fyftem which I have uniformly recommended, of repreffing fedition by conceffion, and of promoting the happiness and prosperity of the people by the extenfion of national liberty. If this be the fyftem upon which I am accused of having acted, I plead guilty to the charge, and I agree with the Honourable Gentleman that the repeal of the Acts named in the Motion belongs to that fyftem. It has been started alfo, as an objection, that this is an improper time for moving their repeal. But I fhould wish to know why it is improper? No reafon, that I recollect, has as yet been affigned to juftify the allegation. The fame Gentleman affirmed that my conduct has uniformly tended to render the country contemptible and infecure. If this, then, has really been the tendency of my conduct, as the measures which I have propofed have uniformly been rejected, the converfe of the propofition must be true; and the country, in confequence of the principles which have been acted upon, and the measures which have been adopted, must be in a ftate of the highest refpectability and most undoubted fecurity! If this is its fituation, fo much the better; but if, according to my humEle opinion, the country is neither refpećtable nor fecure, I may be allowed the fatisfaction of thinking that, at leaft, it is not owing to thofe me.fures which I have propofed and which the Houfe has rejected.

"A Noble Lord (Morpeth) who fpoke upon the question, as he did upon every fubject, in a manner which did him much honour, asked if this was the time for them to relax from their vigilance, and to fink into a state of fecurity; or, whether they ought not rather to fortify themselves behind their entrenchments? I must beg leave, however, to tell the Noble Lord, that, by adopting this mode of reasoning, he begged the queftion. Allowing that there is juft caufe for alarm it remains to be inquired whether the Bills which are the fubject of this evening's difcuffion are fortifications and fafeguards. If they were well conceived at firft, and if they operate as anodynes to the dicontent which may at prefent exift, then they ought not to be repealed. But the whole of my argument went to fhew that they tend to exafperate, and not to footh the wound; to increase, and not to diminish the fymptoms of the difeafe. The

fyftem

fyftem which I have recommended is---That Government ought to make partial facrifices of power to fecure the remainder, and to beware of encroaching on the liberty of the fubject left the fubject should be provoked to attack the prerogative of the Crown.

"I faid in my fpeech in the opening of this fubject--- Look at Ireland;' I was anfwered, by the Learned Sergeant, who defired you to decline taking any view of Ireland, but exhorted you to look at home; and then, in enumerating the advantages which he thinks have been produced by thefe Buils, he inftanced the ftop they had put to the correfpondence of certain focieties in this country with France. I cannot conceive how that can be faid to have been the effect of thefe Bills; for that correfpondence was antecedent by feveral years to the paffing of these Bills, at least the only correfpondence of that kind that I have ever heard of. I fpeak only of what I know; i do not know what the Learned Serg ant may have been made acquainted with in the courfe of his attendance in aid of the King's council in their inquiries into confpiracies. It was for that reason that I afferted that I knew of none of the discontents which thefe Bills had put an end to. I was, therefore, furprised to hear that fort of merit attributed to thefe Bills. That correspondence with France was over long before we heard any thing of these Bills; it was a correspondence of which you now apprehend no danger, and therefore there did not appear to me to be any neceffity of alluding to it; but the fituation of Ireland is not free from danger; and it did appear to me to be neceffary to allude to the ftate of that country when we have before us a question of policy, which has fome fimilarity to the measure which we are now difcuffing.

"The Learned Serjeant then proceeded to state, that the Bills in queftion were very much mifrepresented by those who oppofed them. Some mifreprefentation is, perhaps, an evil inseparable from any measure that is new, especially from that which is naturally alarming; thefe mifreprefentations have been magnified and mifapplied; that which would have been a mifreprefentation of the Bills after they were altered in the House of Commons was a fair description of them when they were introduced, for we cannot forget the very material alterations that were made in them. He has applied, what was justly faid of them at first, to what they were afterwards made, and then calls a misrepresentation a mode of difcuffing the fubject, which I could hardly have expected from the well known good fenfe, as well as candour, of the Learned Serjeant. But he says alfo, that when these Bills were read by the public, they were generally approved. I do not know how far that appobation extend

ed

ed, but I do know that there were aflociations entered into for the purpose of purfuing all legal means for obtaining their repeal. Of thofe affociations it cannot be expected I fhould exactly know the number, but I can affure the House they were confiderable for number, and highly refpectable for character. True it is they have not come to this Houfe in a regular way to exprefs their fenfe upon that fubject; but it must be remembered that the very nature of the Bills themiclves contributed to render any regular means to call for their repeal extremely difficult. I will admit, however, that thefe Bills are forgotten by the public. Why? Because events have crowded around fo haftily, that we have hardly had time to think fufficiently long upon any thing. I gave an early notice this feffion, which I have now fubmitted to the House. After that came the queftion of fending money to the Emperor without the confent of Parliament; before this could be properly confidered, came the ftoppage of payment at the Bank; then came the ftate of Ireland; then another fubject which we have lately been difuffing. Thefe were points which diverted the attention of this Houfe and the public from thefe Bills. I do admit that whatevever I may think of thefe Bills, Administration had made a powerful diverfion of the public mind upon them (not like their diverfions upon the Continent), they have contrived to give new evils, new difafters, new calamities almost every day as the day came ever fince the opening of the prefent feflion, and therefore there is no wonder that the House and the public have thought fo little lately upon the subject of thefe Bills.

"But I am told this night I have endeavoured to make this House contemptible in the eyes of the public. I want to know on what the Honourable Gentleman who accufes me founds that accufation? I have not been at any public meeting to declare the opinion which I entertain of this Houfe of Commons. Whenever I fhall be in a place where that is neceffary, I fhall declare what I think of this Houfe of Commons, and I fhall feel no difficulty in doing fo. And although I have been charged with arrogance this night, I feel as little difficulty in declaring that I do for myself and for thofe with whom I have the honour of acting with, and have endeavoured to draw the public to make a comparison between our conduct and that of those whom we have oppofed in the courfe of the prefent war. I fay we are arrogant enough to think that fuch comparin will be to our advantage. But the Honourable Gentleman thinks that the Houfe of Commons have done their duty, although, by way of parenthesis, he ftated that he thought in many points the MiniRers were to blame. How unfortunate it is that he has never

exprefied

expreffed by his fpeech, or even once by his vote, the points upon which he was fo convinced. The House of Commons, it feems, is a check upon Executive Government. It exercises a control over the expenditure of the public money. This is an affertion that comes from an Honourable Member who is offended with the freedom which is taken with this House, after it has refused to cenfure the Minifter for making a clandeftine and illegal Loan to the Emperor; after it is notorious that the Minifter told us that 18 millions were fufficient for the fervice of the year, and then we find that fix and thirty are infufficient, exceeding what Parliament ever did before, in the amount of the fum, and refufing to cenfure the Minifter for a clandeftine and illegal fending away of the public money; we are told that the Parliament is a check upon the Executive Government, that the Houfe of Commons has exercif.d, or ought to exercife, a control over the expenditure of the public money. The Honourable Gentleman, if he will have the words, has not made his way to my comprehenfion; I want either underflanding or credulity to keep pace with him, when he fays, that the House of Commons is a check and control over the Executive Government in the expenditure of the public money; I also want faith when he afks me to confider that thofe only are patriots who act as he does, who vote always with the Minifter, although they fee in his conduct many points that are to blame.

"But it is faid that the authority of Parliament must be fupported---that it fhould be efteemed by the public. If it be fo, the way to poffels that esteem is not for the majority to praise itself, and follow implicitly the dictates of a Minifter, but fhew its claim to that efteem by its actions; to be jealous and prone to inquiry, not confident in a Minifter, and careless of the tendency of his measures. It is contrary to the common fenfe of mankind in all the affairs of this world that confidence fhould follow failure. The Honourable Gentleman fays, that fuccefs cannot be commanded by human power; certainly not; but is mistake a ground of confidence? Is misfortune a ground of confidence? Is failure a ground of confidence? If they are, then Minifters are entitled to an ample share of it. But will the public allow that these are juft claims to confidence? When they fee that this House increases in its confidence in proportion as mistake, failure, and misfortune appear, they will be apt to think there is fome caufe which is not avowed by this Houfe for the confidence they place

in the Minifter.

"I cannot help purfuing this idea a little further, for this doctrine of confidence is affuming a new fhape. I well remember the Administration of the late Earl of Guildford. He failed in the progrefs of the late American war, but I do not recollect

that