Debate on Mr. Grey's Motion for an Address to restore Peace with France.] Feb. 21. Mr. Grey rose and said, that in moving the address to his majesty, which he should now have the honour to propose to the House, he would not take up their time by any previous speech. He could hardly entertain a hope, after what had passed, that his proposition ing that line of conduct which the French had proposed by their decree of the 19th of November. In justifying, on a former occasion, the riots of Birmingham, he had adopted the reasoning of Robespierre, when he vindicated the massacres of the 2nd of September that the persons who had suffered, had indeed done no mischief, but that had they not been crushed, they might have become ex-would be acceded to, though he wished tremely dangerous. It was not because they considered a negociation as useless, that certain gentlemen who supported the minister had disapproved of treating at all with France, but because they considered France as not negociable. Ministers, in what they had said of a proposed confer-ments, and to court the distinction of beence between general Dumourier and lord Auckland, had stated that it was perfectly consistent to treat with a general in time of war. So then we were to go to war for the sole purpose of making an opening for negociation. Mr. W. Smith disapproved of a war, whether the object was to oppose French arms or French principles. In both cases, he considered a war as tending to increase the danger. The previous question being put, that that question be now put; the House divided: most ardently that it were possible, as it might still, perhaps, be the means of averting the calamities of war: but whatever might be its fate, he was anxious to come forward with an explicit declaration and avowal of his senti ing recorded as one of those who had, with every possible exertion, opposed those impolitic measures, whereby we had been plunged into a war, which was likely to be so ruinous and calamitous to this country. He then moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty to assure his majesty that his faithful Commons, animated by a sincere and dutiful attachment to his person and family, and to the excellent constitution of this kingdom, as well as by an ardent zeal for the interest and honour of the nation, will at all times be ready to support his majesty in any measures which a due observance of the faith of treaties, the dignity of his crown, or the security of his dominions, may compel him to undertake. "That feeling the most earnest solici tude to avert from our country the calamities of war, by every means consistent with honour and with safety, we expressed to his majesty, at the opening of the present session, our sense of the temper and prudence which had induced his majesty to observe a strict neutrality with respect to the war on the continent, and uniformly to abstain from any interference in the internal affairs of France; and our hope that the steps his majesty had taken would have the happy tendency to render a firm and temperate conduct effectual for preserving the blessings of peace.' That, with the deepest concern, we now find ourselves obliged to relinquish that hope, without any evidence having been produced to satisfy us that his majesty's ministers have made such efforts as it was their duty to make, and as, by his majesty's most gracious speech, we were taught to expect, for the preserva : tion of peace it is no less the resolution than the duty of his majesty's faithful Commons to second his efforts in the war thus fatally commenced, so long as it shall continue; but we deem it a duty equally incumbent upon us to solicit his majesty's attention to those reasons or pretexts, by which his servants have laboured to justify a conduct on their part which we cannot but consider as having contributed, in a great measure, to produce the present rupture. 1 satisfactory or not, they at least left the question open to pacific negociation; in which the intrinsic value of the object, to any of the parties concerned in it, might have been coolly and impartially weighed against the consequences, to which all of them might be exposed, by attempting to maintain it by force of arms. "We have been called upon to resist views of conquest and aggrandizement entertained by the government of France, at all times dangerous to the general interests of Europe, but, asserted to be peculiarly so, when connected with the propagation of principles, which lead to the violation of the most sacred duties, and are utterly subversive of the peace and order of all civil society.' "We admit, that it is the interest and duty of every member of the commonwealth of Europe to support the established system and distribution of power among the independent sovereignties, which actually subsist, and to prevent the aggrandizement of any state, especially the most powerful, at the expense of any other; and, for the honour of his majesty's councils, we do most earnestly wish, that his ministers had manifested a just sense of the importance of the principle to which they now appeal, in the course of late events, which seemed to us to threaten its entire destruction. "Various grounds of hostility against France have been stated, but none that appeared to us to have constituted such an urgent and imperious case of necessity as left no room for accommodation, and made war unavoidable. The government of France has been accused of having violated the law of nations, and the stipulations of existing treaties, by an attempt to deprive the republic of the United Provinces of the exclusive navigation of the Scheldt. No evidence, however, has been offered to convince us that this exclusive navigation was, either in itself or in the estimation of those who were alone interested in preserving it, of such importance as to justify a determination in our government to break with France on that account. If, in fact, the States general had shown a disposition to defend their right by force of arms, it might have been an instance of the truest "When Poland was beginning to recover friendship to have suggested to them, for from the long calamities of anarchy, comtheir serious consideration, how far the bined with oppression; after she had esassertion of this unprofitable claim might, tablished an hereditary and limited moin the present circumstances of Europe, narchy like our own, and was peaceably tend to bring into hazard the most es-employed in settling her internal governsential interests of the republic, But when, on the contrary, it has been acknowledged that no requisition on this subject was made to his majesty, on the part of the States general, we are at a loss to comprehend on what grounds of right or propriety we take the lead in asserting a claim, in which we are not principals, and in which the principal party has not, as far as we know, thought it prudent or necessary to call for our interposition. ment, his majesty's ministers, with apparent indifference and unconcern, have seen her become the victim of the most unprovoked and unprincipled invasion; her territory overrun, her free constitution subverted, her national independence annihilated, and the general principles of the security of nations wounded through her side. With all these evils was France soon after threatened, and with the same appearance either of supine indifference, or of secret approbation, his majesty's ministers beheld the armies of other powers (in evident concert with the oppressor of Poland) advancing to the in "We must farther remark, that the point in dispute seemed to us to have been relieved from a material part of its difficulty, by the declaration of the mi-vasion and subjugation of France, and the nister of foreign affairs in France, that the French nation gave up all pretensions to determine the question of the future navigation of the Scheldt. Whether the terms of this declaration were perfectly march of those armies distinguished from the ordinary hostilities of civilised nations by manifestoes, which, if their principles and menaces had been carried into practice, must have inevitably produced the ' return of that ferocity and barbarism in ‹ war, which a beneficent religion, and 'enlightened manners, and true military honour, have for a long time banished 'from the Christian world.' "No effort appears to have been made to check the progress of these invading armies; his majesty's ministers, under a pretended respect for the rights and independence of other sovereigns, thought fit at that time to refuse even the interposition of his majesty's councils and good offices, to save so great and important a portion of Europe from falling under the dominion of a foreign power. But no sooner, by an ever-memorable reverse of fortune, had France repulsed her invaders, and carried her arms into their territory, than his majesty's ministers, laying aside that collusive indifference which had marked their conduct during the invasion of France, began to express alarms for the general security of Europe, which at it appears to us, they ought to have seriously felt, and might have expressed, with great justice, on the previous successes of her powerful adversaries. points which were in dispute between his ministers and the government of France appear to us to have been incapable of being adjusted by negociation, except that aggravation of French ambition, which has been stated to arise from the political opinions of the French nation. These indeed, we conceive, formed neither any definable object of negociation, nor any intelligible reason for hostility. They were equally incapable of being adjusted by treaty, or of being either refuted or confirmed by the events of war. "We need not state to his majesty's wisdom, that force can never cure delusion; and we know his majesty's goodness too well to suppose that he could ever entertain the idea of employing force to destroy opinions by the extirpation of those who hold them. "The grounds, upon which his majesty's ministers have advised him to refuse the renewal of some avowed public intercourse with the existing government of France, appeared to us neither justified by the reason of the thing itself, nor by the usage of nations, nor by any expediency arising from the present state of circumstances. In all negociations or discussions whatsoever, of which peace is the real object, the appearance of an amicable disposition, and of a readiness to offer and to accept of pacific explanations on both sides, is as necessary and useful to ensure success as any arguments founded on strict right. Nor can it be denied that claims or arguments of any kind, urged in hostile or haughty language, however equitable or valid in themselves, are more likely to provoke than to conciliate the opposite party. Deploring, as we have ever done, the melancholy event which has lately happened in France, it would yet have been some consolation to us to have heard that the powerful interposition of the British nation on this subject had at least been offered, although it should unfortunately have been rejected. But, instead of receiving such consolation from the conduct of his majesty's ministers, we have seen them, with extreme astonishment, employing, as an incentive to hostilities, an event, which they had made no effort to avert by negociation. This inaction they could only excuse on the principle, that the internal conduct of nations (whatever may be our opinion "After a review of all those conside-of its morality) was no proper ground for rations, we think it necessary to represent to his majesty, that none of the "We will not dissemble our opinion, that the decree of the National Convention of France of the 19th of November, 1792, was in a great measure liable to the objections urged against it; but we cannot admit that a war, upon the single ground of such a decree, unaccompanied by any overt acts, by which we or our allies might be directly attacked, would be justified as necessary and unavoidable. Certainly not, unless, upon a regular demand made by his majesty's ministers of explanation and security in behalf of us and our allies, the French had refused to give to his majesty such explanation and security. No such demand was made. Explanations, it is true, have been received and rejected. But it well deserves to be remarked and remembered, that these explanations were voluntarily offered on the part of France, not previously demanded on ours, as undoubtedly they would have been, if it had suited the views of his majesty's ministers to have acted frankly and honourably towards France, and not to have reserved their complaints for a future period, when explanations, however reasonable, might come too late, and hostilities might be unavoidable. interposition and remonstrance from foreign states-a principle, from which it must still more clearly follow that such in- | decided negative to the motion of the ternal conduct could never be an admis- hon. gentleman. sible, justifying reason for war. "We cannot refrain from observing, that such frequent allusions as have been made to an event (confessedly no ground of rupture) seemed to us to have arisen from a sinister intention to derive, from the humanity of Englishmen, popularity for measures which their deliberate judgment would have reprobated, and to influence the most virtuous sensibilities of his majesty's people into a blind and furious zeal for a war of vengeance. "His majesty's faithful Commons, therefore, though always determined to support his majesty with vigour and cordiality in the exertions necessary for the defence of his kingdoms, yet feel that they are equally bound by their duty to his majesty, and to their fellow-subjects, to declare, in the most solemn manner, their disapprobation of the conduct of his majesty's ministers throughout the whole of these transactions-a conduct which, in their opinion, could lead to no other termination but that to which it seems to have been studiously directed, of plung. ing their country into an unnecessary The calamities of such a war must be aggravated, in the estimation of every rational mind, by reflecting on the peculiar advantages of that fortunate situation which we have so unwisely abandoned, and which not only exempted us from sharing in the distresses and afflictions of the other nations of Europe, but converted them into sources of benefit, improvement, and prosperity to this country. war. "We, therefore, humbly implore his majesty's paternal goodness to listen no longer to the councils which have forced us into this unhappy war, but to embrace the earliest occasion, which his wisdom may discern, of restoring to his people the blessings of peace." Major Maitland seconded the motion. Mr. Pitt said, it was obvious that the substance of the address was nothing more than a repetition of those arguments which had been already brought forward in that House by gentlemen who opposed the measures of government. It was only, therefore, necessary for him to say, that he, as well as every gentleman who had concurred in the late proceedings of that House, and in giving their support, in the present crisis, to the executive government, must, of necessity, give their 1 Mr. Drake said, that, to this voluminous, elaborate, circuitous, address, which had been brought forward by the hon. gentleman in the way of a protest, the best answer which he could give was his decided no. To the proceedings of gentlemen on the other side of the House he had no doubt the people were nearly unanimous in uttering their no, while to the measures of ministers they joined in emphatically pronouncing their aye. The motion was then negatived. Debate in the Commons on bringing up the Nottingham Petition for Reform.] Mr. R. Smith read a Petition signed by about 2,500 inhabitants of Nottingham, stating, among other things, that as the constitution now stands, with respect to representation in parliament, the country is amused with the name of a representation of the people, when the reality is gone; that the right of election had passed away from the people almost altogether, and that thereby the confidence of the people with respect to parliament was weakened, if not destroyed. The petition, therefore, prayed the House to consider of the proper mode to effectuate a reform in parliament, and suggested, as one part of a general plan of reform, that the right of election should be in proportion to the number of adult males in the kingdom.-On the question being put for bringing up the petition, Mr. Pitt said, that it was certainly extremely fair in the hon. gentleman who presented the petition to read the precise words of it to the House. It was with the House, however, to consider whether, after having heard it read, they could possibly allow it to be brought up, consistently with their own dignity. He by no means intended to say any thing as to the propriety of what was demanded in the prayer of this petition: it was his decided opinion that every class of the people had a fair right to petition for the redress of any supposed wrong, and that such petition ought to be received, what ever the House might think as to the propriety of the demand made in it; but this demand ought surely to be made in a style of respect to the House, and of reverence for the constitution. There were some passages in this petition which he thought he had heard read by the hon. gentleman that appeared to him highly objectionable, and, on comparing what he had heard with a printed copy of the petition, which he had got on coming into the House, he found that he had not been mistaken. The first passage he alluded to was that which stated, that the country was amused with the name of a representation of the people, when the reality was gone: the second stated that the right of the people had passed from them into other hands, and, in fact, denied both the right and power of that House as at present constituted: and the third declared, that the confidence of the people with respect to parliament was thereby weakened, if not entirely destroyed. These were expressions so disrespectful to the House, and so irreverent to the constitution, that it appeared to him impossible that the House, consistently with dignity or propriety, could allow the petition to be brought up in its present form, though he would not certainly think it right to refuse receiving any petition, whatever might be the object of its prayer, if expressed in proper and respectful terms. Mr. For thought that the House ought not to be over nice in examining petitions presented from its constituents; it ought not to be anxious to find out disrespect, where disrespect did not too glaringly appear to have been intended. He was of opinion, that the right hon. gentleman had rather tortured the expressions of the petition, and given them a meaning, which might not have been within the contemplation of the petitioners. The passages alluded to, appeared to him to have a necessary connexion with the prayer. When they said that the people were not represented, they certainly did not mean to say that we had no constitution, and that parliament did not possess legislative authority; they said that the right of electing members had been taken from a great portion of the people, and usurped by another; or in other words, that men, who had a right so to vote, had excluded others who were as well entitled to it, and monopolized it to themselves. In this sense it would appear that they admitted the House of Commons to be elected by persons who had unquestionably a right to elect; and they complained only that they had excluded others, whose right was as good; but still it followed that the electors were legal electors, that the House was a legal House of Commons, and consequently that its acts were legal, solid, and binding. The petition construed this way, did not speak a disrespectful language; and therefore ought to be received. As to the prayer of it, "that all male adults may be admitted to exercise the right of voting," it undoubtedly appeared to the full as extravagant in his eyes as it did in those of the right hon. gentleman; but surely it ought not to be deemed a crime in the inhabitants of Nottingham, that they entertained an opinion respecting the right of voting, precisely similar to that which was publicly professed by one of the most distinguished of his majesty's ministers, he meant the duke of Richmond. He remembered, in his early political life, a debate upon a remonstrance which the city of London had presented to the king, and which the then House thought ought not to pass uncensured, on account of opinions contained in that petition, respecting the legality of the acts of the House, subsequent to its decision in the case of the Middlesex election.* He remembered, on that occasion, that some very distinguished members, particularly the late Mr. George Grenville, maintained that the right of the subject to petition any branch of the legislature was so sacred, that no expression, however extravagant or disrespectful, contained in the petition, could justify the person or body to whom it was presented, in refusing to receive it. Mr. Fox observed, that he himself considered this was giving an unwarrantable latitude to petitioners, and he for one could by no means go so far; but he quoted this case merely to show, that the House ought not to be so very nice, as to be anxious to find out a disrespectful meaning in a petition, unless it was so glaring that no one could possibly overlook or mistake it. The present petition went no such lengths as that to which he had just alluded. On these grounds it was, and not because he approved of the plan of reform pointed to in it, that he was for receiving the petition. Mr. Lambton reminded the House of a case in which, though the disrespect was more glaring than in the present one, the House had not thought it a sufficient ground for refusing to receive the petition. The case to which he alluded was that of Mr. Horne Tooke, who, in his pe * For the Debates on the Remonstrance of the city of London to the King, see Vol. 16. p. 874. |