Such were the resources from which he proposed to draw the necessary sums to provide for the interest of the enormous expense of the year. The new duties, he said, were diffused over so many articles

that they would operate with equality, and yet would not bear hard on the poor. By the production of the taxes it might be inferred, that the war had not materially injured the sources of our prosperity.

of }

years was

On the side of supply he had taken but the sum of 3,000,000l. to meet the further extraordinaries for the

L.

14,012,000

13,855,000

furnished by the board, was

December

1,000,000

Mr. Pitt then alluded to an expense of a particular nature which had been incurred during the interval of parliament; the assistance which ministers had thought proper to grant to the emperor without a public discussion: the reasons which he gave for this conduct were, that in the critical situation of the country, it might have been matter of extreme delicacy to have brought forward a public discussion on the propriety of advancing a sum to a foreign court; and the consequences might have been to have suggested a grant too small for the wants of our ally, or too large for the means of the country. A sum of about twelve hundred thousand pounds had, he believed, been allotted to his imperial majesty; a future opportunity would be afforded for the discussion of this topic, which he only mentioned, that no circumstance connected with the national expenditure might be kept 1797.

back on this occasion. He should propose a sum of three millions, with a view of enabling ministers to make advances to our allies, if we were compelled to persevere in the war; at the same time we were not to consider such sums as lost to the country; we had seen too many of those qualities, the inherent companions of good faith and honour, in his imperial majesty, to entertain any suspicions with respect to his conduct: he should therefore propose (he said) the vote of three millions.

Mr. Fox reprobated, with his usual energy, this unconstitutional mode of proceeding. The minister now, he said, had spoken out plainly; he had acknowledged that he had given to the emperor, without the consent of parliament, twelve hundred thousand pounds, and that he was to continue to do it if he thought it necessary! Those who were members of the last parC

liament

liament could not have forgotten, that for the last three months of that parliament, not a week had elapsed in which some question was not put to the minister, in which he was called to declare, whether he intended to grant any pecuniary assistance to the emperor. Did he mean to say, that he intended to give it, but that, his own authority for that purpose was sufficient? that it was superfluous to submit such a subject to parliament, and that he could issue the money of his own authority Perhaps he did: he might borrow an example from his own conduct to keep the measure in countenance. It was of a piece with his advice to his majesty to continue him as his minister against the declared opinion of the house of commons in the year 1784. Now he had gone one step farther, and shewn to the people of Great Britain that he was a better judge than the parliament of Great Britain, to whom their money, and how much of it also, should be given. "If," said Mr. Fox," these are the sentiments to be acted upon in this country; if the minister be permitted to carry them into effect, I declare, for myself, that the constitution is not worth fighting for. On the 27th of December, 1795, you met: did he give you any intimation of his having advanced the money before you were called together? did he give you any intimation before this very night? Not a word. For this conduct he ought to be impeached. He has had it in his power to consult you long ago upon this subject, as it was his duty. He has neglected to do so, by which he has manifested a determination to dispose of the money of the people without consulting their representatives. What reason can be assigned for

this, but that he thinks his judg ment better than the judgment of the representatives of the people of Great Britain? The minister says, that we should feel the utmost confidence in lending our money to the emperor, because we have seen in the emperor those heroic qualities which usually accompany good faith. Now, supposing heroism to be a just criterion of good faith in pecuniary concerns, I should like to try the effect of this mode of reasoning. Suppose for a moment that we were in a state of neutrality with the French republic, and it was proposed that we should lend money to the French, would the minister say we should lend them money? certainly he would not; and yet, if good faith in pecuniary engagements was to be measured by heroic qualities, there are none to whom we ought to be more ready to lend; for of their valour they have given abundant proofs." Mr. Fox then proceeded to state the situation of the emperor and the French at this moment; in which he maintained, that, with all the successes of the Austrians in the latter part of the present campaign, another could not be opened under circumstances of more advantage to the emperor than those in which he had been placed at the commencement of the last. He here took notice of the successes of the French in Italy, and, by way of answering the praises bestowed on the good qualities of the house of Austria, he instanced the cruelties that had been exercised on La Fayette, which he said had excited horror all over Europe.

He then observed the minister's calculations of events: year after year he had calculated upon the events of the war, and year after

year

year the public had been misled by his calculations. At one time he was sure the navy debt would only be a million and a half; after that, he calculated the same debt at four millions; then at six or seven millions, and now it was stated to be above sixteen millions. What security had the house and the public that the minister would not miscalculate in future as he had already done in the course of the present war? By his miscalculations he had added to the debt of this country one hundred and fifty millions, and rivers of human blood had been made to flow all over the world.

The minister now talked of peace; but as he was so fond of his own calculations, he wished he would some day sit down in his closet and calculate what a sum of human happiness he had destroyed already; what a waste of human life he had occasioned, because he could not sooner discover that the French were capable of maintaining the accustomed relations of peace and amity with other powers. Here Mr. Fox took notice of the difference between the ministers of the elector of Hanover and those of the king of Great Britain, with respect to the prudence of making peace with the French republic. He had heard it said, that the spirit of the people of this country was great; he believed it to be so; he gloried in that spirit; but if the system on which this war was carried on, was to be continued much longer, he had his doubts, he said, of the continuance of that spirit.

A great people, who saw hun"dreds of thousands of their fellowcreatures fall, their national debt increased above one hundred and fifty millions, their credit sinking, the necessaries of life becoming, by their price, almost entirely out of the reach of the labouring class (and

all this because one man, or a few men, in the country, made false calculations), were not likely to preserve their ancient spirit.

The national debt was now above four hundred millions; he had not calculated exactly what portion of it was owing to this war altogether, but he was now ready to declare what he often had declared, and still oftener felt, that it was unjust at its commencement, impolitic in its progress, and he believed there was not one man of sense who had any wishes for his country's welfare, who did not from his heart wish it at an end. Perhaps the minister might think the Cape of Good Hope an equivalent for all we had suffered: if he did, neither his humanity nor his judgment was to be envied. Mr. Fox said he was afraid that no question would be stated that night on the propriety of lending money to the emperor without the consent of parliament, and therefore he could not manifest by his vote his opinion upon the subject: however, whenever it came before the house he should meet it with his direct negative, for it was ན་ a violent and daring attack upon the British constitution."

The resolutions were then put and carried.

On the 8th of December Mr. Hobart brought up the report of the committee of ways and means, which was read a first time, and on the question being put for its being read a second,

Mr. Fox rose. He said it was his ardent wish that every member of the house might pay the most serious attention to the subject, under a strong conviction that the greatest exertions would be necessary to put the finances of this country in a proper situation; but this was not the point to which he proposed to call the attention of the house: it

C 2

was

was to the degraded state in which the commons of Great Britain stood relative to the executive government. He alluded, he said, to the 1,200,000l. granted to the emperor without the consent of parliament; a grant contrary to positive laws, and a flagrant violation of the constitution of parliament. From the mode in which the money had been given, it was evident that the whole affair had been conduct ed for the purpose of setting a precedent in the annals of the constitution, that it might be understood the public money was not at the disposal of the representatives of the people, but of the ministers of the crown. But he would consider the nature of the transaction. Had ministers, when parliament was not sitting, found themselves called upon by an imperious sense of duty, dictated by urgent and unforeseen circumstances, to grant a certain pecuniary aid to the emperor, and had they taken the earliest opportunity upon the meeting of parliament to submit the whole of the business to their consideration; then would have been the time for the house to have passed a decision upon their conduct; but the present case was wholly different. In the course of the last three months of the last parliament, repeated applications were made to them respecting their intentions of granting or withholding pecuniary assistance to the emperor; and from the silence which they persevered in preserving on the subject, it was natural to infer, that they would not grant it without the previous concurrence of parliament.

But

we now find a great part of the money had been granted to his imperial majesty without that concurrence, not during the parliamentary recess, but when parliament was

actually sitting. Why was not proper application made to the house? It was, because the right honourable gentleman fancied himself better qualified to judge of the propriety of the time, and the extent of the assistance, than the house of

commons.

The constitution says he was not: it says, that the public money is at the disposal, not of the crown, but of the parliament; and therefore he had no right to dispose of it without its consent. The question now was, not whether the constitution be good or bad, whether this be a wise or unwise arrangement, but it was his duty, as the minister of a free constitution, to adhere to the principles which it had laid down, and to the rules which it had prescribed; the first, and most important of which was, that the disposal of the public money is vested not in the king, but in the people. Something, indeed, we heard like an apology from the right honourable gentleman; but it was as unsatisfactory as the conduct it was brought forward to justify was unconstitutional. It consisted of two parts: first, that parliament was not so good a judge as himself; and, secondly, that from the discussions to which the publicity would lead, considerable mischief might have taken place. With respect to the first, it takes the point for granted, by supposing that an absolute is preferable to a limited monarchy, and that our free constitution would be much better were it transformed into a despotism: and as to the other, of danger from its publicity, this pretence may be used till we come to the old exploded argument, that the granting of money ought to be vested in. the king's ministers, not in the people's representatives. In short, con

tinued Mr. Fox, the right honourable gentleman tells us, that he did not think it worth while to acknowledge you at all in the matter, because you were not fit judges of the propriety of the quantum, nor of the period for granting the money he takes care, however, that you shall be finally informed of it: but when? when it comes to be paid.

But from what fund had this, loan been raised? one part of it from a vote of credit, and another had been taken from the money voted for defraying the extraordinaries of the year; and of course certain services, of which parliament had approved, and for which it had made provision, must remain unpaid. In what situation then was the house of commons placed? If they refused to make good the debt, which he hoped and trusted they would, part of the public service would continue in arrears. They were reduced then to this dilemma, either to discharge a debt, in contracting which they were not acknowledged, and for which they were not responsible; or, by refusing to discharge it, to leave services which were sanctioned by their approbation, unpaid. Should the question be put to any man at all acquainted with the constitution of this country, when expenses are to be incurred, who are the best judges of the propriety of incurring them, he would answer, the commons of Great Britain. Who are the best judges of the extent to which they ought to be incurred? He would not hesitate also to reply, the commons of Great Britain, When these two strong holds were given up, the constitution was lost. What then would posterity think of that minister who had wrested them out of our possession, or of

that parliament which had tamely given them up without one syllable of remonstrance, without one threat of defiance? It was true, the house had so far relaxed from the rigorous exercise of their privilege, as to give a vote of credit to the minister that he might be enabled to meet unforeseen emergencies; this, however, was always to a limited extent; but, in the present instance, the right honourable gentleman had thought the commons were as little qualified to judge of the extent of the assistance to be given to the emperor, as of the propriety of giving it. With regard to this parliament, Mr. Fox hoped, that it would vindicate its own dignity and importance at the onset, and shew the ministers of the country, that if they be the advisers of the measures of the crown, the house of commons are the guardians of the public purse. But if, on the other hand, they patiently acquiesced in the most daring incroachments on their rights, how would they answer to their country for those liberties which they had wantonly sacrificed at the shrine of unprincipled ambition? He considered it as a more serious attack upon the constitution than what was conveyed through the writings of Paine, or of any man whatever. Were I (said Mr. Fox) upon a jury, deciding upon the speech of the right honourable gentleman last night, I should pronounce it a libel upon the constitution; for if the doctrines laid down in it are constitutional, ours is a most vile and detestable constitution. Even after all the attacks which have been made upon it, we should still shed our blood in its defence; but if this new defalcation is to be added to what we formerly were robbed of, what is there left to interest our

feelings,