tional, were then thought to be necessary; and they were thought also to be sufficient to keep the French from attempting the desperate measure of an invasion. Are the French now more likely to make that desperate attempt than they were then? Or are we not now in a better situation than we were then? I conceive that ministers themselves would answer these questions in a manner very consolatory to the people of this country. Such was our state in 1794. What is it now, and what the difference between the two situations? Ministers now tell us that an intention has been manifested on the part of the enemy to invade these kingdoms. I am too much accustomed to the artifice of ministers to receive any very deep impression from what they say. Did they not say formerly what they say now, that the enemy had some intention of invading this country? Certainly they did, and they were entrusted with force sufficient to prevent that calamity.

66

But, says the right honourable gentleman who spoke last, "I am of opinion, that, as it may be necessary for this country to carry on an offensive war, this measure may be of great advantage, inasmuch as we may thereby be the better able to avail ourselves of our forces." To this, as a general proposition, I do not object. It is true. But then I say to ministers, Bring before us the facts on which you say this measure is necessary. What I object to is your duplicity. If you really want this force, and to the extent you say you do, shew me the reason for it, and I will grant it cheerfully. All I want is, that you state to me the reasons. You did so when you called for the augmentation of the navy, and you had it; but do not ask any thing to carry on the war abroad under the mask of defending us at home; for in that case you are asking under a false title what, under a real one, the people of this country would not grant to you; for, I know, they will grant to you, to prevent an invasion at home, what they would refuse with indignation, if asked to carry on the war abroad."

But, Sir, it seems we are to have the responsibility of ministers for the due application of the grant which they now call for. Look at the extent to which the principle of voting such extraordinary measures as these, upon the idea of responsibility, may lead you. By it you will introduce a practice that must deprive the people of all their rights and all their property. If it should turn out (not an extravagant hypothesis), that all this story about an invasion is a mere pretence to gain the consent of the people to the measure now proposed, and that the real object is extremely different, what then will become of the boasted responsibility of ministers? How are

may

we to make them responsible? We may say, and say truly, that "the event has proved there was no danger of an invasion when this measure was adopted." To which the ministers may answer, and be assured they will," True, there was no invasion, but then it was owing to the very measures which we proposed, and you adopted, that the invasion was prevented." How, then, are we to make ministers responsible for what they do under such a measure as this? The idea of responsibility in such a case is perfectly ridiculous. Why, Sir, at this rate you may go on and do every thing that the minister ask you, until you have totally destroyed the constitution; the principles have already been too much invaded by the measures of the present ministers. There are some inconveniences that necessarily arise out of a free constitution. I know that many authors of great eminence have pointed out those inconveniencies. I do not deny it, although I have never seen them in so strong a light as the authors I allude to say they did; but the advantages resulting from a free constitution are so great, so numerous, and to me so clear, that I cannot patiently argue upon them, when they are put in the scale against the supposed advantages of a contrary form. Be that as it may in the opinion of others, I say, you cannot argue that subject in this House; for the people of this country have made their election: they have chosen a free government, and it is your duty to preserve it with all its inconveniences, if there be any that are worth mentioning. If, therefore, when ministers pretend an alarm, you are to give them whatever power they may ask for, when it is impossible you can attach any responsibility to them, as I have proved already in this case you cannot, why then you desert the point on which the people of the country have already made their election; and, instead of the blessings which your ancestors intended for you, you take what may appear to you, but what never appeared to me, the advantages of despotism. This would be a fraud upon the people of this country.

I know the eloquence that has often been employed to shew, or in attempting to shew, by a flourishing antithesis, that we possess all the advantages of a free government and those of a despotic monarchy, by possessing the wisdom which arises from a free discussion of the representatives of the people and the promptitude and dispatch of an unlimited monarchy. Such an antithesis may answer the purpose of an ingenious orator, and aid him in the course of a florid declamation; but it can avail but little to any man who wishes for the safety of our constitution. I am of opinion, that our constitution, in its true spirit, cannot mix with any thing despotic. Have recourse to experience, the only unerring guide; read the

history of this country, and then shew me out of what page it is that you have discovered how and when it was, that the maxims of a free government have been united with the principles of despotism. I know it cannot be done. I know also, that if you attend to history, and take it as a lesson, you will return to your ancient distrust and jealousy of ministers, whoever they may be, and that you will examine minutely into their conduct. Reflect on the consequences of the contrary practice. You see now before you the effect of it. Confidence, in the first instance, renders confidence necessary in the second. Confidence in ministers induces them to take measures which they cannot continue without farther confidence; they are obliged to call for it in their own defence; in that career you may proceed until you have confided away the whole spirit of our constitution. I am afraid you have advanced in that career much too far already. In my opinion, the spirit of the constitution has been almost entirely set at rest for a time, by the measures of the last parliament. Let it be the practice, for it is the duty, of the present to revive it. There was an expression in the speech of the right honourable gentleman to which I cannot help alluding. He said, "if the present negociation should be unsuccessful, then the present measure will be advantageous to this country." No man wishes more heartily than I do that it may be successful. I wish it from every motive that can actuate a man; but I am not sure that the same feelings are entertained by his majesty's ministers. I hope they are. I say this by way of caution, lest the world should suppose I am such a devotee to the present administration as to suppose that any negociation in which they may fail may render peace to this country totally unattainable. Notwithstanding there are many new members in this House, they know, I believe, enough of me and of my opinion of this war to be well satisfied that I abhorred its commencement. That feeling remains completely unchanged; and whatever opinion the people may have upon the propriety of the measure which is now proposed for the defence of this island from an invasion, I trust this country will never relinquish the opinion, that the war was in its principle and commencement unjust, unnecessary and diabolical. If it shall unhappily become our lot to defend ourselves against an invasion, ourselves we must defend; but whether the proposed measure is more or less than we ought to agree to, or one that we ought to try, are questions of detail, and therefore to that detail shall I defer them. I cannot, however, permit the particular parts of the measures to pass without taking notice of some of them. That part of the plan which refers to the game-keepers appears to me to be a measure of violent injustice

to a class of persons who, as far as the tax which they bear goes, already contribute pretty handsomely to the support of the state.

There is another part of the plan which I cannot pass by in silence. The navy of this country is so much and so justly, the favourite service of it, that no man is willing to find fault with it. I am the last man in the kingdom who would wish to do so, or to say any thing against any service that contributes so much to the greatness of this nation, as I know the navy does. I feel, and I know I only feel in common with all my countrymen, gratitude to the navy; but the circumstance of impressing men, even into that service, great and valuable as it is, would not be a part which a judicious friend to it would select for the subject of his panegyric. I am not now arguing the policy of the practice, for great as the grievance may be to the individuals who are the objects of it, the discussion will be unseasonable until we shall find a better mode for providing for that service, and therefore upon that subject I shall say nothing. But upon the subject of forcing men into the land service the case is widely different; so much so, that I have never yet heard it defended in this country; and yet this measure seems to me to have that tendency, for out of the force which is proposed to be raised, there is to be a certain proportion for the navy and a certain proportion for the land service. I cannot, for one, conceive any danger to which this country, under all its circumstances, can be exposed, that would make me ready to assent to a measure that had for its object the impressing the subjects of this country into the land service. I cannot assent to any measure that has for its object the increase of the military force of the kingdom in that manner. This is entering into the very spirit of the French requisitions, which we decry so much. The chancellor of the exchequer says, that only one-sixth part of them shall be exercised at a time, that is, only 10,000, and that they will not be called to the service but in case of actual exigency. Now, are not these words (abating the difference between a speech and the authority of the legislature) the very words of the act of parliament with regard to the militia, which says, "unless in case of invasion or imminent danger thereof?" The consequence will be that the military force thus raised will be subject to military law. I wish to know whether it was the opinion of those who passed the act respecting the militia, that they should be subject to regulations, to which they now submit? Certainly it was not; and as it has been found expedient to call upon them to conform to the rules now adopted in that service, it would have been more manly in parliament

to alter the law in that particular. We are here told, that the military force which is now proposed to be raised, is only to act in case of emergency. What is that to be? Until the French shall land upon our coast? No such thing; I know that such a restriction cannot, and ought not to be imposed upon executive goverment; because you should repel the danger when you are threatened by it. Why, then, it will amount to this, that whenever ministers shall think fit to allege there is danger, the whole of this military power to be entrusted to them for the internal defence of this country in case of invasion, will be entirely at their disposal. What security have we that no abuse will take place, respecting the application of this enormous force? What security have we that we are not now voting for a force, said to be intended for one purpose, but which is really to be applied for a different object? What security have we for trusting that this great military force is not intended to supply the place of other troops, who are intended to be sent abroad? The right honourable gentleman alluded to the safety of these kingdoms. I do not chuse to follow him in that course, for I only speak of the safety of Great Britain, when I canvass the measure which is now before us. It is to that object, and to that only, that I intend it to be applied.

I do not know what information ministers may have respecting the intention of the French to attempt an invasion of this country. I have none, except what I derive from newspapers. I believe that the idea of an invasion is as visionary as that of succeeding in it. I believe the French have no such intention; for they have a government which is likely to be much better informed of the disposition of the people and the situation of the country, than to be led to any hopes of success in such an attempt, therefore do I believe they will not be guilty of the rashness to attempt it. But supposing they had such desperate intentions; supposing they should attempt to carry them into execution, I have no doubt of the issue. My hopes upon that subject are as sanguine as those of any other man in this country. But what should we do in the mean time? What is the duty of this House at this moment? To cherish the spirit of freedom in the people of this country. Restore to them that for which their ancestors have bled. Make the ministers really responsible. Let their parliament not be confiding in the servants of the crown, but watchful and jealous of the exercise of their power. Restore to them the right of popular discussion. Allow them to state freely the grievances they feel. Repeal those laws which have forbidden the exercise of their most invaluable rights. In one word, instead of amusing them with panegyrics upon the form,