occupations, and squandering our money? Is this
the efficacy of our interference, and the triumph of
our wisdom and our firmness? The Turks have at
length concluded a peace, of which they do not even
condescend to favour us with a copy, so that we know
what it is only by report, and the balance of Europe,
late in so much danger, and of so much importance, is
left for them to settle without consulting us! Is it
for this that we employed such men as Mr. Fawkener
and Mr. Whitworth? They were sent to negotiate
for the materials of a speech, and failed. But what
are the complaints that private friendship has a right
to make to those of an insulted publick? Half a mil.
lion of money is spent, the people alarmed and inter-
rupted in their proper pursuits by the apprehension
of a war, and for what? For the restoration of Ocza-
kow? No. Oczakow is not restored. To save the
Turks from being too much humbled? No. They
are now in a worse situation than they would have
been, had we never armed at all. If Russia had per-
severed in that system of encroachment of which she
is accused, we could, as I observed before, then have
assisted them unembarrassed. We are now tied down
by treaties and fettered by stipulations. We have
even guarantied to Russia what we before said it
would be unsafe for the Turks to yield, and dangerous
to the peace of Europe for Russia to possess. This is
what the publick have got by the armament. What
then was the private motive?

Scilicet, ut Turno contingat regia conjux,
Nos, anima viles, inhumata infletaque turba,
Sternamur campis

The minister gained, or thought he was to gain, an excuse for his rashness and misconduct, and to purchase this excuse was the publick money and the publick quiet wantonly sacrificed. There are some effects, which, to combine with their causes, is almost sufficient to drive men mad! That the pride, the folly, the presumption of a single person, shall be able to involve a whole people in wretchedness and disgrace, is more than philosophy can teach mortal patience to endure. Here are the true weapons of the enemies of

our constitution! Here may we search for the source of those seditious writings, meant either to weaken our attachment to the constitution, by depreciating its value, or that loudly tell us that we have no constitution at all. We may blame, we may reprobate such doctrines; but while we furnish those who circulate them with arguments such as these; while the example of this day shows us to what degree the fact is true, we must hot wonder if the purposes they are meant to answer be but too successfu'.

They argue, that a constitution cannot be right where such things are possible, much less so when they are practised without punishment. This, sir, is a serious reflection to every man who loves the constitution of England. Against the vain theories of men, who project fundamental alterations upon grounds of mere speculative objection, I can easily defend it: but when they recur to these facts, and show me how we may be doomed to all the horrours of war, by the caprice of an individual, who will not even condescend to explain his reasons, I can only fly to this house, and exhort you to rouse from your lethargy of confidence, into the active mistrust and vigilant control which is your duty and your office.

Without recurring to the dust to which the minister has been humbled, and the dirt he has been dragged through, if we ask for what has the peace of the publick been disturbed? For what is that man pressed and dragged like a felon to a service that should be honourable? We must be answered, for some three quarters of a mile of barren territory on the banks of the Dneister! In the name of all we value, give us, when such instances are quoted in derogation of our constitution, some right to answer, that these are not its principles, but the monstrous abuses intruded into its practice. Let it not be said, that because the executive power, for an adequate and evident cause, may adopt measures that require expense without consulting parliament, we are to convert the exception into a rule; to reverse the principle; and that it is now to be assumed, that the people's money may be spent for any cause, or for

VOL. IV.

Dd

none, without either submitting the exigency to the judgment of their representatives, or inquiring into it afterwards, unless we can make out ground for a criminal charge against the executive government. Let us disclaim these abuses, and return to the constitution. I am not one of those who lay down rules as universal and absolute; because I think there is hardly a political or moral maxim which is universally true; but I maintain the general rule to be, that before the publick money be voted away, the occasion that calls for it should be fairly stated, for the consideration of those who are the proper guardians of the publick money. Had the minister explained his system to parliament, before he called for money to support it, and parliament had decided that it was not worth supporting, he would have been saved the mortification and disgrace in which his own honour is involved, and by being furnished with a just excuse to Prussia for withdrawing from the prosecution of it, have saved that of his sovereign and his country, which he has irrecoverably tarnished. Is unanimity necessary to his plans? He can be sure of it in no manner, unless he explains them to this house, who are certainly much better judges than he is of the degree of unanimity with which they are likely to be received. Why then did he not consult us? Because he had other purposes to answer in the use he meant to make of his majority. Had he opened himself to the house at first, and had we declared against him, he might have been stopped in the first instance: had we declared for him, we might have held him too firmly to his principle, to suffer his receding from it as he has done. Either of these alternatives he dreaded. It was his policy to decline our opinions, and to exact our confidence, that thus having the means of acting either way, according to the exigencies of his personal situation, he might come to parliament, and tell us what our opinions ought to be; which set of principles would be most expedient to shelter him from inquiry, and from punishment. It is for this he comes before us with a poor and pitiful excuse, that for want of the unanimity he expected, there was reason to fear, if the war should go to a second campaign, that it might be obstructed. Why not speak out, and own the real fact? He feared that a second campaign might occasion the loss of his place. Let him keep but his place, he cares not what else he loses. With other men, reputation and glory are the objects of ambition; power and place are coveted but as the means of these. For the minister, power and place are sufficient of themselves. With them he is content; for them he can calmly sacrifice every proud distinction that ambition covets, and every noble prospect to which it points the way!

Sir, there is yet an argument which I have not sufficiently noticed. It has been said, as a ground for his defence, that he was prevented from gaining what he demanded by our opposition; and, but for this, Russia would have complied, and never would have hazarded a war. Sir, I believe the direct contrary, and my belief is as good as their assertion, unless they will give us some proof of its veracity. Until then, I have a right to ask them, what if Russia had not complied? Worse and worse for him! He must have gone on, redoubling his menaces and expenses, the empress of Russia continuing inflexible as ever, but for the salutary opposition which preserved him from his extremity of shame. I am not contending that armaments are never necessary to enforce negotiations; but it is one, and that not the least, of the evils attending the right honourable gentleman's misconduct, that by keeping up the parade of an armament, never meant to be employed, he has in a great measure deprived us of the use of this method of negotiating, whenever it may be necessary to apply it effectually. For if you propose to arm in concert with any foreign power, that power will answer: "What security can you give me that you will persevere in that system? You say you cannot go to war, unless your people are unanimous." If you aim to negotiate against a foreign power, that power will say: "I have only to persist the British minister may threaten, but he dare not act he will not hazard the loss of his place by a war." A right honourable gentleman* in excuse for withholding papers, asked what foreign power would negotiate with an English cabinet, if their secrets were likely to be developed, and exposed to the idle curiosity of a house of commons?-I do not dread such a consequence; but if I must be pushed to extremes, if nothing were left me but an option between opposite evils, I should have no hesitation in choosing. "Better have no dealings with them at all," I should answer, " if the right of inquiry into every part of a negotiation they think fit, and of knowing why they are to vote the money of their constituents, be denied the house of commons." But there is something like reason why no foreign power will negotiate with us, and that a much better reason than a dread of disclosing their secrets, in the right honourable gentleman's example. I declare, therefore, for the genius of our constitution, against the practice of his majesty's ministers: I declare that the duties of this house are, vigilance in preference to secrecy, deliberation in preference to despatch. Sir, I have given my reasons for supporting the motion for a vote of censure on the minister. I will listen to his defence with attention, and I will retract wherever he shall prove me to be wrong.