1

sible for them to exercise their functions with advantage to their constituents, or to detect the abuse of ministers, if abuse of public confidence had been practised, since, as his honourable friend had well observed, he must be a bad minister, indeed, who in such a case could not gloss over his conduct, and make his friends say, that, upon the face of a treaty, it bore proofs that it was a good treaty for this country, and that to attempt to enquire into it would be to interfere with the most essential prerogative of the crown. If they had stood on the privileges of that House, as the trustees of the public purse, with as much firmness as the gentlemen on the other side had that day stood on the prerogative of the crown, they could not have voted what they did last year, but there would have been on one side a dry maintenance of privilege, and a stiff adherence to prerogative on the other, to the serious inconvenience of the public, and to the extreme injury of their interests. When they gave confidence, they ought to receive information in return, and the time was now arrived when information might be given without danger. In order to illustrate the impossibility of their joining in a vote in favour of the convention, as it lay upon the table unexplained, Mr. Fox declared that he would state an hypothesis exactly different from his real opinion, and suppose Spain to have granted terms highly advantageous to this country; how could he know whether they were so or not, before he examined the convention, and the grounds upon which it had been settled? How could he give praise to ministers before he knew whether the convention was good or not? It could not be said to be good, unless we had attained something and lost nothing; unless we had procured something for nothing, it must remain a matter of great doubt whether it was good or bad. How could he tell whether Spain was not inclined to disarm much earlier than we had consented to do? And report said, that Spain had long since signified her inclination to disarm, provided this country would do the same. An honourable gentleman had expressed a hope that the minister would not suffer his "vanity to be piqued." He would not talk of any man's vanity; but if the minister, Mr. Fox said, had any honourable pride, what satisfaction could he have in that praise which came from those who knew not the grounds of it, who could neither tell whether the thing done could not have been done at a less expence, or in less time? It was better to be content with the praise of his own mind, since the right honourable gentleman knew more of the matter than they did, and consequently his approbation was of ten times the value of theirs. The honourable gentleman having feared that pre

ΙΟ

cedent would fail him, had abandoned precedents to have recourse to authority. He himself, Mr. Fox declared, approved authority: but how did he know what information the city of London was possessed of respecting the convention? If they approved of it without inquiry, was that a reason for the House to praise it without inquiry? And was the conduct of the city of London to be brought forward as an infallible example for that House? He reverenced the authority of the city of London, and had often supported it against the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer, who was not always in the humour to favour the conduct of the city. He believed that it could not be denied, that the authority of the city of London on the shop-tax and the tobacco-bill, was as much to be depended on, as upon a subject which the House of Commons must not enquire into. But it had been said by an honourable and learned gentleman, who had spoken early in the debate, (Serjeant Watson,) that it might revive grievances. What, he would ask, was to have this serious effect? Why, letting the House of Commons know what the courts of Spain and of Great Britain knew full well already! The Spaniards, said a noble lord (Belgrave,) were a proud, haughty people, but they were slow and tedious and operose, and, of course, forced us to make a great preparation for war, when one would naturally imagine that the very reverse would have been the consequence of such a character as the noble lord had been pleased to give them. Let not the House, therefore, upon such arguments as these, negative a motion founded in true wisdom; and, above all, let them not give to administration that base and treacherous confidence which had been recommended that day; a confidence founded in ignorance, which was a disgrace to their understandings, and a breach of trust to their constituents. Another noble lord (Carysfort) had stated rather a whimsical hypothesis, and had said, that possibly when they came to consider the merits of the convention, they might disapprove of it, and then it would be right to call for the papers. Let them see what a curious situation following the noble lord's advice would probably place them in? They would reject the present motion, and when, upon investigation of the convention, they should see ground for censure, they would then stand convicted of having rashly and prematurely negatived a motion, which they had found that they ought to have adopted in the first instance. If they approved the convention, trying it by the true test, the information the papers would afford, they would escape incurring so ridiculous a dilemma. During the last session of parliament, when these papers had been asked for, and another motion for other papers had been made by

him, the words "during a pending negotiation" were as common in the mouths of the minister's friends, who opposed the motion, as "Mr. Speaker," and "I rise, Sir," were common in the forms of address, as words of course, in that House. There was not a single speaker who did not lay great stress on the pending negociation. What was the natural inference? that the production of the papers was to be objected to during the pending negociation, and that when the negociation should be brought to a termination, the objection would be done away. How was this reconcileable with the négative of the majority of that House, which the right honourable gentleman had, a few days since, in so extraordinary a manner anticipated? In the debates relative to the affair of Falkland Island, the very sort of papers then asked for had been granted; and why should they not be granted at present? The honourable gentleman, who first opposed the motion, contended, that in the debates on the Falkland Island affair, impeachments, and axes, and gibbets, were mentioned. Was that all? He had thought that, exclusive of the able and masterly manner in which his honourable friend had opened the ground of his motion, one great and striking merit of his speech had been, that, although he laid proper energy on each argument necessary to support the question, he had strictly confined himself to saying what the subject required, and had not gone out of the case beyond its due limits. If his honourable friend had talked widely of impeachments, and gibbets, and axes, the two cases, to use a vulgar phrase, would have run upon all fours, and he might probably have succeeded; but the untimely omission had proved fatal to his motion. With regard to those axes and gibbets, those elegant expressions, those beautiful tropes and figures of speech -according to the honourable gentleman's argument, it was to be understood that the House, at that time, having voted for axes and gibbets, occasioned the papers to be called for, and their not having done so in this instance, was the true reason why the motion was likely to be negatived. One ho-nourable gentleman had talked of the necessity of having a strong administration. When the affairs of Europe wore a critical aspect, a strong administration was highly necessary; but if by what he had said on this head, the honourable gentleman meant an administration which could do strong things, without being subject to the control of parliament, he must say, that this strength led to the excess of weakness, and would ultimately prove fatal to the existence of our constitution. If such praise was pleasing to the present minister, and he conceived conduct of that sort tended to the glory of the country, the glory of the country would bring on its destruction. If

such, therefore, was the minister's relish, Mr. Fox declared that, though no personal friend to that minister, he had ever thought better of him, than to suppose him capable of receiving satisfaction from such gross flattery: he must, indeed, have a very low mind for so exalted a situation! Mr. Fox exclaimed, "Oh! what a better word was the old English parliamentary term jealousy,' to express the duty of that House, than the modern substitute confidence,' which had of late been adopted!" Formerly, the first great duty of every member of the House of Commons was, that he should regard every act of the administration with jealousy, and watch their conduct with the utmost vigilance and attention. Now, blind confidence was dwelt upon as the great function of that House, and they were desired to extend the degree of credit which they gave the minister to such an extravagant length, as to vote away millions of their constituents' money, without expecting to know in what manner it had been expended. In fact, their duty was not only to judge whether the minister was an honest minister, but (what they had also a right to expect) a bold, an able, a prudent, and a wise minister. The way to have a bold, an able, a prudent, and a wise minister, was to let him know, that he was to be responsible to that House for all his measures, and that his conduct was to be, from time to time, enquired into. An ingenuous mind would court inquiry, and be proud to have every public measure which he brought forward scrupulously investigated. The moment, therefore, in which the House abandoned that part of its duty, the conduct of administration became dangerous and delusive; because a minister, who knew that his conduct would not be enquired into, might be tempted to pursue bad measures, till at last he involved his country in irretrievable ruin. The honourable gentleman who first opposed his honourable friend's motion, Mr. Fox said, had left the other side of the House a hole to creep out at, in defence of the negative to the motion, by saying, "for these and other reasons he should oppose the motion." If, therefore, the motion was to be negatived, he hoped it would be for the unmentioned reasons, and not for those unconstitutional reasons which had been insisted upon. Mr. Fox alluded to what Mr. Wilberforce had observed relative to the information he had received from his constituents, of their being satisfied with the convention, declaring that he should be glad to hear that the manufacturers had reason to think Spain more ready to encourage their goods than heretofore, but report had talked very differently upon the subject, and inferred, that a higher duty had lately been imposed on all English manufactures imported into Spain than ever.

The motion was also supported by Mr. Windham, Mr. Jekyll, Mr. Lambton, Lord North, and Mr. Powys; and opposed by Lord Belgrave, Sir W. Young, Mr. Serjeant Watson, Lord Carysfort, Mr. Drake, and Mr. Pitt. On a division, the numbers were,

THIS day, Mr. Duncombe moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, assuring his majesty that his faithful Commons have proceeded to an attentive consideration of the declarations exchanged between his majesty's ambassador and the minister of the catholic king, and of the convention which has since been concluded, and which his majesty has been graciously pleased to lay before us. That they are eager to embrace the first opportunity of offering to his majesty their cordial congratulations on so satisfactory an issue of the late negociation, which has continued to these kingdoms the blessings of peace, has maintained the honour of his majesty's crown, by providing an adequate reparation for the violence which was committed at Nootka, and has secured to his majesty's subjects the exercise of their negociation, commerce, and fisheries in those parts of the world which were the subject of discussion; and that they observe, at the same time, with peculiar pleasure, the happy prospect which is afforded by this amicable arrangement, avoiding future occasions of misunderstanding with the court of Spain, and of preserving that harmony which must so essentially promote the interest of the two countries."-After the address had been supported by Aldermen Watson and Curtis, Mr. Stanley, Sir William Young, Mr. Dundas, Colonel Phipps, Lord Muncaster, and Mr. Ryder; and opposed by Mr. Pulteney, Mr. Loveden, Mr. Windham, and by Mr. Grey, who moved an adjournment,

Mr. Fox rose and prefaced a most able discussion of the merits of the convention, and the general policy of Great Britain with respect to foreign powers, with some remarks on the singular manner in which the debate had been opened. It was hardly worth while to notice particular modes of speaking, except when, by frequent repetition, they grew into a sort of fashion, and seemed to convey ideas not strictly constitutional. It was perfectly fair for any gentleman to say that he had the ho