cession, Mr. Canning rose, and delivered a maiden speech, of which the following is the substance:

He began by observing, "That if the question were to be argued on the mere narrow ground of taking the treaty into consideration abstractedly, and discussing it upon its particular merits, he should certainly have left it in other and abler hands; but the treaty having a much more extensive reference, and being to be considered, not as a mere mercantile transaction, in which the exact proportion of profit and loss of what was to be given, and what gained, were to be minutely balanced; he trusted he should be excused for presuming to offer himself to the attention of the House.

Looking at the treaty itself, there were but two possible objections which could be made to it; the one was, that under existing circumstances it ought not to be made at all, and therefore could not possibly be right; the other, that on comparing it with similar treaties that preceded it, it must be deemed bad, inasmuch as it proposed a greater price for similar advantages, or accepted of a less return for a similar reward. Upon the first of these grounds he had not heard any gentleman attempt to rely, and therefore it was wholly unnecessary for him to offer any argument in its support. With respect to the second objection, he had been at some pains in comparing the present with preceding treaties, and he was free to confess he was unable to discover those defects so strongly insisted on. He was ready to admit, that the treaty of Worms was not exactly similar in principle; but there was one treaty as yet untouched upon, which, he conceived, would in the most complete manner meet every principle upon which the present was founded. He alluded to the treaty of 1758, con. cluded between this country and the then King of Prussia; who, in the midst of a war in which he was involved, was actually subsidized by us to the amount of six hundred and seventy thousand pounds per annum, and the grounds upon which this subsidy was expressly stated to be granted were these three; that he was oppressed by enemies who had attacked him on all sides; that he was in appearance unable to resist them; and that his overthrow would be destructive to the balance of power in Europe. "Here then was a precedent, establishing both the principle

and fact upon which the present treaty was founded; a prece dent which, it must be remembered, was carried not only without opposition, but with triumph, through that house, and received the united suffrage of the whole nation. The question then was concerning the balance of power, and how far it was connected with the necessity of granting that subsidy. He would ask whether this question was more likely to avail in tak ing the money out of the pockets of our ignorant peasantry, than that which concerned their dearest interests, and on which depended their very existence? Could it have been stated to them, that the balance of power depended on their putting their hands in their pockets to assist a man comparatively as poor as themselves; or was it likely that they should understand the subject better than when told that in subsidizing the King of Sardinia they were contributing to their own immediate preservation? It having been admitted on all hands that the King of Sardinia was too poor, and too impotent, to carry on the war alone; the question was, whether we should support him, or whether inasmuch as it was supposed the Earl of Yarmouth had negociated best because he had cost us nothing, so we were to suppose the King of Sardinia would fight the better because he was left unpaid? He did not mean any personal disrespect to the Right Honourable Gentleman to whom he had alluded; but, according to his argument, the King of Sardinia ought to subsidize us: that is, finding that power weaker, and less able to defend herself than the rest of our allies, we should have said to her: You shall fight, and pay us for just doing nothing at all but looking on.' This precedent tending then evidently to justify the present treaty, both in principle and fact, the only possible objections that could be stated against it, Mr. Canning said, must arise from the war itself. Upon this head, not having the honour of a seat in that house at the commencement of the war, he begged their indulgence while he stated the grounds upon which he wished to give a decided voice in favour of the principles and necessity upon which that war was grounded.

"Mr. Canning then proceeded to justify the vote he meant to give, by a recapitulation of arguments in support of the necessity of the war, as well as the evils it was expected to avert, and which if not resisted eflectually, would make Great Britain a scene of the

same

same anarchy and irreligion, that at present rendered France a field of horror and bloodshed.

"Among other striking points in this part of his speech, was his remark, that, had it not been for the war, some Corresponding Revolutionary Society might possibly have been sitting on the benches of that House; or instead of debating on a treaty of alliance, they might have been debating on the means of raising a forced loan, demanded by some proconsular deputy from the French Convention. He had lately come, he added, from among people, where he had seen the utmost unanimity for prosecuting the war; and when he came among their representatives, he was happy to find that their sentiments were, as they ought to be, in unison with those of their constituents. He concluded with declaring, that considering the treaty as an essential part of an extensive system for bringing the war to a fortunate conclusion, it should have his support."

The member for Newport after this was accustomed to speak in most of the important debates; and as public affairs at this period had assumed a gloomy aspect, and ministers were supposed by their adversaries to have sometimes displayed more energy than argument, it cannot be doubted that his assistance proved in no common degree serviceable.

On the third reading of the bill for vesting new powers in government (May 17, 1794), Mr. Canning rose in reply to one of the leading members of opposition, and observed, "that the honourable gentleman who had just sat down, appeared to him to have argued the question upon grounds not only too narrow in themselves, but also inconsistent with those principles which he himself appeared to have adopted at an earlier stage of the

busines. He had formerly contended, that in cases of extraordinary emergency little attention ought to be paid to precedents; but on the present evening he had argued the question on precedents merely, without any general reasoning whatever.

"It was curious to observe how gentlemen shifted their ground, and passed over those precedents which made against their arguments. In that alluded to, of 1722, ministers had not the same support of which they could avail themselves on the present occasion, for then there was only a bare message from the crown; but now the message was followed up by a secret committee, the report of which evinced the necessity of suspending the Ha beas Corpus Act.

"There was a traiterous correspendence carrying on at that period, for the purpose of restoring the expelled family; but in the present instance its object was to subvert the constitution, and introduce republican anarchy on its ruins.

"Were we not, therefore, to imitate the caution of our ancestors, and to apply the same remedy to the one grievance which they had adopted in respect to the other? Or, even if there were no precedent in favour of such a measure, were we not justified in devising new and extraordinary remedies for singular and anheard-off offences? Good God! how could gentlemen oppose a measure that was so obviously necessary? Was the House to be told that these societies had no correspondence with foreign. enemies, whose object was to subvert and overturn the consti tution??

"What had been said of the precedent of 1777, so far from being in point, was diametrically opposite to the present subject, and was of singular importance. That differed from the present instance in this, that it had for its object the preventing a Congress in America; whereas this plan was designed to hinder one from assembling in Great Britain; and since the House had seventeen times declared their apprehensions of such an event, it was not requisite for him to add a single word upon the subject, especially after what had fallen from a respectable member (Mr. Baker),

(Mr. Baker), who had till this time given his support to the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fox.)

"When precedents made for gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, they were enforced with the utmost energy, animation, and pertinacity; but when they made against them, they were scouted and reviled. Thus it was during the war; if our troops, or our allies, obtained a victory, it was immediately said, that this was no uncommon case, and was a thing that even the enemy expected, but if any failure happened, it was magnified immediately into a defeat, and the measures of govern ment, and the conduct of our commanders, were implicated without the smallest delicacy or reservc. He was willing to grant them either argument; but he did not think it candid or fair, that, to serve their own purposes, they should prey upon both.

"He would not argue as to the proof of the danger that induced his Majesty's Ministers to suspend the Habeas Corpus act; the report of the Secret Committee justified the measure, and he was willing, for his part, to take the word of government. It was observed by gentlemen, that if time were given, petitions would crowd from all parts of the country, and cover the table of the House; and it had been also remarked by a learned Serjeant, that such petitions would not flow from the people legally assembled, but from those very persons whose conduct authorised the present measure.

"Mr. Canning then declared, that he was not to be intimi dated by petitions from any quarter, as long as he was convinced that he acquitted himself justly as a representative of the people, for the benefit of his country. He felt himself, so far, in a high and exalted situation, paramount to any such consideration; and as long as he exercised the authority delegated to him consistent with the dictates of his conscience, he was not to be biassed by any instructions, let them flow from whatever quarter they might.

"If ministers were to proceed in this business they were threatened with vengeance, and parliament was menaced with the diminution of its numbers; but he did not perceive the direful consequences that would result to the country if such threats were carried into execution. He was of opinion, that any such secession

Hh 4