own good intentions every body was convinced of, but in whofe Minifters that House had no confidence. That it had ever been an established and understood maxim, that Ministers ought not to remain in office, who had not the confidence of that House, was to be proved by a reference to the moft remote periods of our hiftory. So long ago as the reign of Henry the Fourth, when the nature of our Conftitution was but little known, an application had been made to that monarch from Parliament, for the removal of certain of his Minifters, when Henry, with the spirit of a British King, had faid, "He knew of no crime his Minifters had committed, but it was enough for him that his Commons defired their removal; he would therefore difmifs them his fervice, or any other of his Minifters of whom his Commons dif approved." This anfwer, which would have done honour to a monarch in more modern times, when the constitutional privileges of that House, as the reprefentative of the Commons of England, were fo much better understood, clearly evinced how effential it had ever been confidered that there fhould exift a mutual confidence between that House and the Minifters who were entrusted with the executive govern→ ment. With regard to the argument that ftopping the fupplies would be attended with confufions and diftractions, that depended entirely upon His Majefty's Minifters; good Minifters, who wifhed well to the peace and quiet of their country, would always prevent them, by refigning before that House had proceeded to fuch a vote. Upon this ground he was convinced it was, that Lord Camelford had two years ago acted, when he propofed ftopping the fupplies, but the Minifters of that day knew their duty too well to suffer fuch a motion; they prevented it by a timely refignation.

Having amply difcuffed the confideration of withholding the fupplies, he observed, that it had been stated in the course of the debate, that the unpopularity of the late Minifters arofe from three circumftances; from the Receipt Tax, from the India Bill, and from the Coalition. With regard to the former, it was a good tax, and it was evident that the right honourable gentleman thought fo, by his voting for that bill, in fupport of which he had not chofen to fay one fyllable: why the right honourable gentleman had given a filent vote on that occafion, the House, he doubted not, were fufficiently aware. But popular or unpopular as the Receipt tax might be, every body muft admit that a tax largely productive was neceffary, and no better tax had yet been propofed in its ftead. VOL. XIII. Bb

The

The Eaft India bill also had been another ground of odium and of obloquy; the Houfe would recollect, that he had opened that bill as a strong measure, and had expreffly stated, that the enormity of the abuses could alone justify so violent a remedy. This bill had been much complained of without doors. Why? Because the people had not understood it. An honourable gentleman (Governor Johnstone) had said in a late debate, "What, cannot the people tell when charters are invaded? Do they not know when their rights are taken away; when their books, their papers, their warehouses, their property, are feized on? Undoubtedly they could, and undoubtedly they did." But this was only to understand the remedy, and not to know the complaint. The complaint was known to that House, and that Houfe by a confiderable majority decided that the extent of the mischief justified the violence of the cure. Thus the patient who was to undergo an amputation, might fay to his furgeon, "Don't cut off my leg, the pain and anguish of the operation are excruciating." The furgeon alone could tell whether the ampu tation was neceffary. So the people without doors faw that the remedy the India bill applied was a harfh one, but they knew not the extent of the abuses that made fuch a remedy neceffary. That remedy, as he had already faid, was approved of by a moft refpectable majority of that House, and loft by a majority of the other. Not by a refpectable majority however, because if ever there were circumftances which rendered a majority lefs refpectable at one time than another, thofe circumftances had attended the majority of the other Houfe, in procuring their decifion against the India bill. The bill had been loft by about a majority of eight. How that majority had been obtained was a matter too well known to render his enlarging upon it neceffary. That bill, however, need no longer be the fubje&t of difpute, becaufe although he was not, nor could he be supposed to be willing, to leave the patronage, that had given fuch alarm, to the unreferved difpofal of the right honourable gentleman, as an honourable and refpectable member (Mr. Marfham) had ftated, yet he had brought his mind to that point upon the subject, that there could fcarcely be an arrangement of the patronage fuggefted, either by that right honourable gentleman or any other enemy of the former bill, to which he did not think he could confent. With regard to the Coalition, much, he obferved, had been faid against it in every debate, and it had been renewed in that. He had upon former occafions expreffed

2

himfelf

himself fully upon that fubject. He had not, he faid, heen unaware of the effects, nay of the obloquay that might attend that measure, when it was firft meditated. It had been undertaken upon both fides with caution, it had been deliberated upon with anxiety; nay, he was not afraid to fay, it had been begun with all that diffidence and doubt natural among perfons, who had long differed upon great public topics; but from the moment it was decided and determined upon, he would venture to fay that there never had exifted any thing but mutual confidence, mutual faith, the most perfect concord and firm reliance on each other's honour. There had not been in it any of that undermining jealoufy, that secret and hidden diftruft which he had known exift, where there were strong reafons to fuppofe that mutual intercourfe and agreement would have been productive of faith and honour. Had the laft Adminiftration been fuffered to remain, he was confident it was that ftrong and vigorous Administration which was calculated to have carried into effect those plans that were abfolutely neceffary to the prefent fituation of this country. He recollected to have seen a beautiful speech of a near relation of the right honourable gentleman over against him, in which, in order to difcredit a coalition formerly made between the Duke of Newcastle and a noble relation of his, with that force and brilliancy of imagination which he poffeffed in fo eminent a degree, that coalition had been compared to the junction of the Rhone and the Soane. Whatever the effect and truth and dread of that comparison might have been at that time, and upon that occafion, he was not at all afraid of it then. He would not have admitted that great and illuftrious perfon, were he now living, to have. compared the late coalition to the Rhone and the Soane, where they join at Lyons, where the one may be faid to be too calm, and tranquil, and gentle, the other to have too much violence and rapidity, but would have advised him to take a view of those rivers a hundred miles lower down, where after having mingled and united their waters, instead of the contraft they exhibited at their junction, had become a broad, great, and moft powerful ftream, flowing with the useful velocity, that does not injure, but adorns and benefits the country through which it paffes. This was a juft type of the late coalition; and he could venture to affert, after mature experience, that whatever the ene mies of it might have hoped, it was as impoffible to difunite or feparate its parts, as it was to feparate the waters of thofe Bb 2 united

united rivers he had juft mentioned. It had been mentioned that night, that it had been observed repeatedly, with all that applaufe that was due to fo noble and difinterested a conduct, that though his noble friend had declared he would not retire to gratify the impertinent prejudices of any individual, yet he was ready to give way, whenever it fhould be neceffary for the public good, and his retiring fhould be likewife to promote union, and obtain the defirable object, the formation. of a firm, efficient, extended, united Adminiftration. When the noble Lord had made this declaration, understanding him as he had understood him, his noble friend had acted a part highly to be applauded, because highly dignified and refpec table. How different was the conduct of the right honourable gentleman over the way? That right hon. gentleman, fo far from following the example of his noble friend, who upon the first infinuation, that he was an obstacle to union, had declared his readiness to retire, the right honourable gentleman refifts the repeated, and hitherto uncontradicted, declarations of that Houfe, who had again and again afferted, that they had no confidence in him, and that it was incumbent on him to refign, before the honour of the House and the Conftitution could be fatisfied. The right honourable gentleman, with a fullen obftinacy peculiar to himself, refifts, and pretends that his honour and his feelings would be wounded, were he to refign, in obedience to that Houfe, and agreeable to the invariable and uniform practice of the Conftitution, from the glorious period of the Revolution to the prefent time. How was the honour of that right honourable gentleman concerned? How dared he put his honour in competition with the honour of the Houfe? Did the right honourable gentleman or any of his friends pretend to fay that his noble friend had difgraced himself by declaring his readiness to retire, to make way for union? Was his noble friend's honour forfeited by the facrifice, he had offered? On the contrary, was it not purer, brighter, and more perfect than ever? Would the right honourable gentleman pretend to say that what every body had praised and honoured his noble friend for doing, when hinted by an individual, would injure or contaminate the right honourable gentleman, when done by him in obedience to the constitutional requifition of that Houfe? Understanding the noble Lord as he had understood him, understanding him to have meant that he would not quit a fcene where he was fo powerful, fo ufeful, and fo eminent, that he would not leave a party fo defervedly and fo

inde.

independently attached to him, but that he would, if public tranquillity or impertinent prejudice required it, do all in his power to promote that tranquillity, he had acted a part highly praiseworthy, and that ought to be followed by all to whom there was any exception. But if his noble friend could be supposed to have meant,' by what he faid, what he knew he had not meant, viz. "that he would relinquifh all farther exertion in that House, that he would quit a scene in which he formed fo material and important a character, there was no perfon who would blame fuch a conduct more than he fhould; because he knew that fuch a conduct would take away a great and principal mean by which a ftrong, vigorous, and effectual Government could alone be formed in this country." He proceeded to take notice of the addreffes, upon which fo much ftrefs had been laid in the courfe of the debate. An honourable and learned friend of his had in a late debate declared, that these addreffes were procured by impoftures, and the expreffion had been called in question, but in his opinion, with very little reafon. His honourable and learned friend had not meant to apply the word impoftures to the addreffers, but to account for their having been induced to addrefs. When any person thought another acted in the wrong, he knew not a more civil way of telling him fo, than by afferting that he had been imposed on and deluded. Thus it was ufual, when bad measures were carried on by bad Minifters, to declare, that the Prince upon the Throne had been deluded and deceived, and it had never yet been held, that fuch language was either indecent or unconftitutional; he could' not therefore conceive that his honourable and learned friend's expreffion had been fuch as conveyed any rudeness in it to those who had figned any of the addreffes lately fent up to His Majefty. That he difregarded the opinions of the peo ple no man would imagine; it had been the business of his life to court popularity; but there were circumstances in which the people might err, and under fuch circumstances it became an act of duty to refift them. That he was ready to refift them, and he thought it right to oppose their madness, he had already fhewn by his conduct during the riots in 1780; and whenever they carried their paffions, and prejudices to ant extreme equally dangerous, he would endeavour to ftem the torrent, and restore peace and regularity. The voice of the people ought always to meet with attention, though it did not always equally claim obedience; as perfons who had a will of their own might be allowed to exercife that will even

to