Sir Jofeph

and that his worthy colleague ftill entertained fo determined a diflike of the coalition. He had, for his part, fupported that measure, because he thought it calculated for the public good, and he now fupported those who formed the coalition, from a conviction that their endeavours were Taudably aimed at the furtherance of the public welfare. Mr. Coke concluded with moving,

"That it is the opinion of this House, that the continuance of the prefent Minifters in power, after the refolution of this Houfe, is an obftacle to a firm, efficient, extended and united Administration, which could alone fave this country.

Mr. Minchin feconded this motion.

Sir Jofeph Mawbey rofe to oppose the motion. Sir Jofeph Mawbey. fpoke for fome time, and chiefly on the fubject of Lord North's conduct as a Minister; but there was fo much noife and coughing while Sir Jofeph was upon his legs, that we could not hear him with fufficient diftin&tness to be able to repeat his argument.

Mr. Hammett.

Mr. Dundas

Mr. Fox.

Mr. Dundas

Mr. Hammett made a fhort fpeech, in which he earnestly reconimended the right honourable gentleman to withdraw the prefent motion, and to move to refcind the refolution already on the Journals, as he thought both the one and the other would prevent that union which seemed to be the with of all the independent gentlemen in that House. He faid the very idea of its being likely to take place had raised the public credit.

Mr. Dundas defired to know, before he ftated the few obfervations that he meant to offer to the House, what the motion was to be followed up with, not imagining that it was intended to let it remain a dead letter on their Journals.

After a paufe, Mr. Fox rose to speak to order; he said hé did not think it neceffary for the difcuffion of the prefent queftion, that it fhould be ftated what was to be the next queftion moved upon it. If the Houfe fhould adopt it, it would then remain open, either for his honourable friend who had moved it, or for any other person to ground any motion he might think proper upon it.

Mr. Dundas rofe again, and faid, a refufal to answer his queftion was just the fame to him as giving him the moft ample anfwer. Since the right honourable gentleman therefore did not chufe to 'fatify the House what was his intention with refpect to the prefent queftion, if carried,

hc

1

he fhould confider it as an addrefs, or as a matter by fome means or other to be carried up to the foot of the Throne. Having laid down this pofition, he begged the attention of the House to a few remarks upon the fubject; and firft he faid, he was ready to subscribe to all the doctrine, that the House had a right to advife his Majefty as to the appointment or removal of Minifters, in as ample a manner as any perfon could defire him, Nothing could be more clearly conftitutional, nor could any thing be more certain, than that if the Crown or the other branch of the Legislature attempted to encroach on the rights of the, people, the people could only look up to that House for protection. These things being admitted, it behoved that House to make a difcreet and wife exercife of its power, at all times, left they should provoke the people to go to the foot of the Throne, and implore the Crown to interfere and refcue them from the tyranny of that House. Mr. Dundas explained his meaning as to this pofition very fully :. he faid, no man, he believed, could lay his hand to his heart and fay, that the prefent Ministers had not the confidence of the people;, that they had, it was pretty evident, from the number of addreffes that had already been carried in from different parts of the kingdom,, thanking His Majefty for having removed the late Minifters and appointed the prefent; and more addreffes of a fimilar nature, he had no doubt, would foon come from other counties and cities, and from all parts of the kingdom... Now though he was firmly perfuaded, that conftitutionally the voice of the people could only be collected through the medium of their, reprefentatives, yet it was pretty evident, that the prefent, Miniftry had the public confidence in a very eminent and honourable degree. Ought that Houfe therefore, under fuch circumstances to run before the addreffes to which he had alluded, and precipitately to vote a refolution which a very short time might prove to be directly contrary to the opinion of their conftituents? The right honourable gentleman must know this; or why was he in fuch a hurry. that day to vote what he had not ventured to propofe, from the day that the refolution paffed till that moment? Having ftated this very forcibly, and dwelt upon the neceffity of paying a due regard to the fenfe of the people, he warned the House from incurring the rifque of irritating their conftituents, by coming fpeedily and without due

H 2

con

confideration to a motion which they might hereafter wish had never been adopted.

It is, fays he, the fpirit and conftitution of the government of this country, that the people must look up to this House for the defence and regulation of their privileges. This is a doctrine which I have always understood to be found, and which, as fuch, I have uniformly fupported. It is the dignity, it is the duty of this Houfe to practife on this fyftem; but in doing fo, ought they not to attend to the voice of their conftituents, not merely as expreffed within, but also without thefe walls? Is it not in fuch manner that members can but difcharge their duty to their conftituents and to the public? It is in this way only that they can most effectually guard the privileges of the community, and prevent thofe diftrufts which arife in the minds of the conftituent body of this country? Is it not, therefore, proper for the Houfe to examine in this view the sentiment of the public, before it adopts a motion so oppofite to general opinion? How could members answer to their constituents for profecuting a different line of conduct? Would not their acting otherwise be declaring war against thofe who made them? And how dangerous and fruitless would the execution of fuch a scheme prove both to themselves and the public.

A House of Commons may prevail against the other Houfe of Parliament; a Houfe of Commons may prevail against the Crown and the prerogative, but in no instance can it promise itself fuccefs when it is in open conteft with the people. In fuch circumftances then, is it safe for this House to levy war on the public, by reprobating a Ministry who poffefs the general efteem? Would not the adoption of fuch a measure convey this idea to the nation at large that there exifted a combination against them amongst their reprefentatives, and that they wished to arrogate to themselves powers hoftile to their privileges and interefts? What would be the confequence of fuch apprehenfions? All confidence in the dignity, the honour, and the juftice of the House would be forfeited, and mankind would pass the door of it, not with fentiments of veneration and respect, but with expreffive marks of derifion and contempt.

But waving all thefe confiderations, there is ftill another point which strikes me, and which I am convinced must

ftrike

ftrike every one who compares the prefent with the former motion. It is the object of the former motion to promote an unity of parties, and an unity of Administration. But does not the motion on the table tend directly to defeat thefe ends? How can my right honourable friend (Mr. Pitt) being difgraced by a refolution which must eventually compel him to relinquifh his fituation, unite himself afterwards to men who have driven him from them by fuch acts of indelicacy and violence? It has always been the intention and wish of my right honourable friend to promote meafures of harmony and unanimity. Thefe, however, the prefent propofition has an evident tendency to destroy, and inftead of attaching, to alienate him from men, ambitious to establish themselves on grounds independent of him and his friends. The motion, therefore, on the table I confider as hoftile to that fcheme of union which it was the intention of the former to erect, and is cutting down with one breath, what has already been fet up by another. Much has been faid of the mode of removing Minifters, and of the pretences under which fuch measures have been conducted; but in the effectuating of them, has it not always been alledged, that these Minifters were unpopular? I refer to the hiftories of Parliament on this ground, [Here he quoted the cafe of Sir. R. Walpole and Sir J. Barnard] and I will defy any person to point me out an inftance where fuch a measure has been purfued and accomplished on or under a different pretext. But how does this principle apply to the cafe of the prefent Adminiftration? Surely in no refpect. The Ministry, now the objects of removal, are confided in, loved, and careffed by the people. There is no fociety of a hundred perfons in the country, out of which ninety-nine are not their firm and their avowed friends. In what a dilemma then, and under how many embarrassments must an addrefs for the difmiffion of fuch favourites of the people place the Sovereign? And muft not the difficulties of the monarch be heightened on this fubject, by the_addreffes which have been carried to the Throne in their favour, as there are no grounds nor any fhadow of argument employed by the House against them. I hope, therefore, members who have voted for the last motion, will fee an obvious contradiction in it to the prefent; will confider it as unfriendly to the principles of unanimity, and find it impoffible to give it their concurrence on these grounds.

2

Mr.

Mr. Fox was happy to find that the learned gentleman who spoke last, had of late become fo attentive to the fentiments of his conftituents, and of the elective body of this kingdom. Time was when he had afferted that the voice of the people was no where to be heard but within these walls; and that was the period when the table was loaded with petitions to the Houfe from all parts of this kingdom. It was at this time that the learned gentleman had infulted the dignity of his conftituents and of the nation, by afferting the dignity and the independence of the Houfe of Commons. Now a different mode of reafoning fuits him better, and he has adopted it. But where is that popularity of the prefent Administration on which the noble Lord refts? Upon what evidences does it fland? If this point is fo fixed, why are not the proofs of it more obvious and decided? Why do not gentlemen call meetings, mufter the friends and partizans of Ministry, and carry their addreffes to the Throne? Till this is done, till the fact is proved, I for one will question its truth.

But though the popularity of the prefent Administration is not afcertained, yet I will not hesitate to affirm, that there is intention in Minifters to establish themselves on a foundation unfriendly to the conftitutional privileges of this House. They court the affection of the people, and on this foundation they wish to support themselves in oppofition to the repeated refolutions of this Houfe. Is not this declaring themfelves independent of Parliament? Is not this feparating the Houfe of Commons from its conftituents, annihilating our importance, and avowedly erecting a monarchy on the basis of an affected popularity, independent of and uncontrolable by Parliament Such a scheme I can view under no other afpect but as a fyftem of the bafeft tyranny, and calculated to accomplish the ruin of the liberties of the country.

Such a fyftem of defpotism is indeed the most likely to originate in men who carry on their fchemes by the machinations of dark intrigue, of men who have stabbed the Conftitution, by means of a Secret Influence in one department of Government, and are now prepared to perpetrate fimilar affaffinations, by methods of the bafeft corruption, in ano→ ther. I hope, however, that members will attend to thefe defigns of Minifters, mafked under the most dangerous and impofing appearances, and that they will refcue the country from the hands of thofe who are only diftinguished by the dirtinefs of their political intrigue, and their violations of the privileges of the Houfe. I hope that fuch Minifters will finally