allow them to possess the spirit of the old constitution of England: then will you indeed see the energy of the people of England, and then you will have no occasion for adding to your internal military force, for then even an invasion would never be formidable. These are your real resources; the rest are all imaginary. I shall give no opposition to the plan that is now before the committee in its present stage; but I think it fair to say, that some of the parts of it are such as, in the detail, I shall think it my duty to oppose.

Mr. Pitt obtained leave to bring in three bills: viz. 1. A bill for raising a certain number of men in the several counties of England, and in the several counties, stewartries, royal burghs and towns in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, for the service of his majesty's army and navy: 2. A bill for providing an augmentation to the militia, to be trained and exercised in the manner therein directed, and for enabling his majesty to cause the same to be embodied in case of necessity, for the defence of these kingdoms: 3. A bill for enabling his majesty to raise a provisional force of cavalry, and to require the military service of persons therein described, to be embodied in case of necessity, for the defence of these kingdoms.

October 31.

On the order of the day for taking into consideration the report of the committee on the militia augmentation bill, the measure was strongly opposed by Mr. Curwen, and defended by Mr. Pitt. After which,

Mr. Fox said:-I rise, Sir, to offer a few observations upon the doctrines that have fallen from the right honourable gentleman who has just set down; doctrines, which if they be true, we had better do that in words, which the present administration have been constantly doing in actions; we had better declare that the constitution of the country is only good for praise and for oratorical flourish, but that it is not proper for a state of warfare; we had better say that when ministers have brought the country into peril, that peril is a sufficient ground for confidence in them, and that when they have involved us in difficulty and danger, it is the business of the people to surrender all their vigilance, to repose complete faith in them, or in other words, to suspend the constitution, and to make the government of the country an armed monarchy. We are told that it is enough for the king to acquaint us that danger exists, and for us to declare that if it exists, we will put the country in a situation to resist it; we are told, I say, that it is enough for us to pledge ourselves at once to such bills as these; bills which impose upon the people greater

pecuniary burdens than any that were ever imposed for any purpose of government; this, however, we are informed we must do, or forfeit our pledge to the king.

Sir, the speech of the king I shall always consider, and it is usual so to consider it, as the speech of the ministers. They tell us there is danger of an invasion. I may be willing for a time to suspend any inquiry into the causes that have involved us in this difficulty and disgrace. I may be willing to suspend for a time an inquiry into the conduct of those who have brought us into this danger; but must I not know what it is? Must the mere bringing us into danger be of itself a sufficient claim to confidence? For one, I am of opinion, that from external causes there is no particular apprehension of an invasion; but still more am I of opinion, that if, under the pretence of strengthening the country, ministers are only doing as they have formerly done, strengthening themselves and their principles; if they are expressing their apprehensions of danger only to produce this effect, why then I should hesitate whether I would apply any remedy at all; but even should the danger really exist, I should hesitate much before I applied such a remedy as this. We are not, Sir, so young in the House as to imagine that, because we approve of the speech from the throne, we pledge ourselves to all the measures which the minister may think proper to adopt, or that the vote we came to upon the first day of the session, bound us to pass such bills as these. With respect to the bills, I see some parts of them more objectionable in their principle and provisions than others. Sir, the calling upon so many men in the country, the putting them under martial law, and under officers of the crown, without those safeguards which are contained in the old militia acts, and at a time when the erection of barracks all over the country evinces the system of separating the soldiery from the people, and according to the ingenious reasoning of some gentlemen, making the soldiers deaf if the people cannot be made dumb; Sir, the doing these things is a grievous hardship and oppression. It is no light thing to make the people imbibe military notions and military prejudices under officers of the crown, without any of those checks and guards, which, I repeat it, are contained in the former regulations relative to the militia. It has lately been too much the fashion to forget old prejudices and old principles. Sir, I have no difficulty, much as the term has been ridiculed, in confessing myself an alarmist. I am alarmed at the situation of the country. I believe that there is a faction in it, whose wish and endeavour are to increase the power of the crown, at the expence of the liberties of the people. I believed it in common, once, with those who are

now converts from that belief; who think now that ministers, whose measures they formerly so much reprobated, are so satiated with power, so glutted with patronage and emoluments, as to have lost all those marks and features that rendered them the objects of their former dread and detestation. I am not one of these; I am not one who think that the lesser evil is

and, good God! what is this lesser evil?-the fear of the liberties and rights of the people being lost in the power of the crown! With these feelings about me, can I be brought to think that raising such a force, as that proposed by the bill, is not a most alarming circumstance, to which nothing short of the necessity of risking every thing, could possibly reconcile me?

And now, Sir, a word or two on the bills themselves; and first, with respect to the present bill, by which men are to be raised in the different parishes. Without entering into the policy of the bill, I must contend that the general burden will be very considerable. Do I mean to contend by this that burdens ought not to be imposed in times of difficulty and peril? By no means; but if we are now to provide against an existing danger, we are not to provide against a general danger, but against a specific danger of an invasion of Great Britain by the enemy. Such is my opinion. Why then, I say, it does give me no good idea of the present ministers, when I see them always bringing forward false pretences. When I see them, under these bills, providing that the different parishes shall raise men, not for the specific purpose of resisting an invasion, but for general military purposes; when I see this, I must think that the real motive of the measure is not for domestic service, but for the purpose of carrying on offensive war abroad; and in this opinion I am a good deal influenced by what fell from a right honourable gentleman high in office (Mr. Dundas). I do not like to quote the words of any person in his absence, but, Sir, words that drop from ministers are not in the nature of expressions from common men; they come with authority and in an official shape. I cannot forget that right honourable gentleman's speech on a former night, when he said that the present plan was highly eligible, inasmuch as it would enable his majesty's ministers to prosecute the war abroad. If this be the fact, I would advise gentlemen not to be so active in their approbation of the measure. Do not be so impatient, as the right honourable gentleman has recommended you to be in your testimonies of support. You will have opportunities enough of voting hundreds, thousands, and millions, I have no doubt, for carrying on offensive war abroad. This, therefore, is what I complain of; and I cannot help thinking the present alarm with respect

to invasion, to be one of those pretences which ministers do not believe, but which they bring forward in order to get strength for purposes which they do not chuse to state. The bill for the raising a force of cavalry is objectionable in all its shapes. If an invasion were certain, I should object to it as impracticable and tyrannical, and as tending to lay such enormous taxes upon the people as would be almost intolerable. And at what period are we called upon for such taxes? Before the minister has opened what is usually called his budget. When, Sir, I consider the conversation that passed in the former part of this day, and the excess that has occurred in our expenditure, have I not ample reason to suppose that we shall in the ensuing budget be called upon to bear burdens equally heavy at least, with any that have been laid upon us in the former years of the war? When to those burdens, the burden that will be imposed upon the country by this bill for the raising an additional force of cavalry is added, I feel that I cannot consent to it without trying if any other measure can be adopted less oppressive in its operation, and equally effectual in its consequences.

The right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer, in recurring to what fell from my honourable friend, (Mr. Curwen,) has alluded to what he stated respecting his disbelief of the present alarm, because all former alarms propagated by ministers have been proved to be false. The right honourable gentleman contends, that that disbelief is against evidence, and contrary to the opinion of nine-tenths of the people. Sir, I remember when an inquiry into the existence or non-existence of any cause for alarm was demanded. That demand was refused. Should that inquiry ever be entered into, I maintain, that not only will it be found, that no reason existed for any alarm, but that ministers, when they called out the militia and summoned the parliament in 1792, disbelieved the alarm themselves. Sir, that measure of calling out the militia and summoning the parliament, will be a measure to be deplored to the latest posterity. It occasioned more rivers of blood to be shed and more treasure to be expended, than ever were shed or expended during the reign of that despot Louis XIV. On the subject of alarms, a great deal of ingenuity, and I think misapplied ingenuity, has been exerted on different occasions. Some gentleman were alarmed about the operation of French principles, and the consequences that would result in this country from the French victories. That being mere matter of reasoning, I have candour enough to believe, that though the danger appeared to me to be very trifling, if any existed at all, yet that persons who entertained those apprehensions

were sincere; but that is not the alarm we are speaking of. I am speaking of the calling regiments to the capital, and the fortifying of the Tower, as if an immediate insurrection were apprehended. Since that period, many innocent men have been arraigned by his majesty's government for high treason. However certain persons may be inclined to blame the want of diligence in the lawyers, I think no complaint will be urged against them for not bringing a quantum of evidence, and that too of a date considerably remote. Yet, though these lawyers had access to all the sources of government, though they ransacked and rummaged all the records possessed by administration, yet they never produced a single proof - I do not say to satisfy themselves - yet they never produced a single proof to satisfy the jury, that, when the Tower was fortified, any of those desperate traitors entertained such projects of insurrection as those that have been alluded to. I did not think that I should have been under the necessity of entering into these particulars this day; but when the right honourable gentleman says, that our belief is contrary to the belief of nine-tenths of the people, it becomes incumbent upon me to maintain, that no solid ground of alarm existed at the time when these extraordinary precautions were taken. I wish gentlemen to refer to the trials for high treason. I wish gentlemen to read them, and tell me if they find the slightest trace of that insurrection, affected to be so much dreaded in December 1792. Upon these trials some have expressed an opinion that they are the disgrace of the country; others have said that they contribute to its honour. Strange as it may seem, I agree in both those opinions. I think that they were disgraceful[Mr. Yorke here said, that he was obliged to call the right honourable gentleman to order, as he conceived he had wandered from the question, and if such latitude of discussion were indulged, the present question would not be decided that night. The Speaker said, that he conceived Mr Fox to be perfectly in order. He opposed the re-commitment of the present bill, upon the ground that the alarm of an invasion had been raised upon false pretences; a proposition which he illustrated by recurring to the history of former alarms. He admitted, however, that he was rather too particular upon some of these points; but he did not consider himself as called upon to interrupt him.] Mr. Fox in continuation-I am not quite satisfied, Sir, with the mode in which I was called to order. We have not yet imbibed such a detestation of equality, as not to have some regard for impartiality, and we have not yet established the custom of deciding by a hammer or a bell at what particular hour the debate shall be closed, however it