Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAP. XIII.

-

Lord

Debates in both Houses of Parliament on the conduct of Ministers-In the Lords,-Speeches of Earl Fitzwilliam-Limerick-Grosvenor Mulgrave Earl of Caernarvon.-Lord Ellenborough - MelvilleHobart-Grenville.-Resolutions for the censure of Ministers negatived by a great Majority.-Debates the following day in the Commons, on similar resolutions, moved by Colonel Patten.-Colonel Bastard, and Mr. Hawkins Browne, vindicate the conduct of Ministers.-Lord Kensington-Earl Temple-Mr. Hobhouse-Mr. C. IV. Wynne-Mr. Courtenay-Mr. T, Grenville-Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Pitt-Lord Hawkesbury-Mr. Canning.-Resolutions negatived by a great Majority. In the Lords,-Earl Fitzwilliam moves for censure on the Ministers.-Supported by Lord Minto, and Lord Grenville.— Opposed by the Duke of Clarence,-The Lord Chancellor, and Lord Hobart.Motion lost.-Observations.

HE country having been, by his majesty's declaration; by the rejection of Russian interference; and the irretrievable errors of administration; fully committed in warfare with France and her dependencies, Holland and the Italian republic; it was not to be supposed, that that portion of the legislature, whose exposition of the weakness and misconduct of ministers had been as unceasing, as their predictions of their calamitous consequences were prophetic, could look on with acquiescence and complacency, at the conduct of public affairs being committed to the identical hands of those, who had first signed and sealed to the dishonor of their country; and who still aspired to the task of extricating her from the difficulties and dangers incurred solely by their want

of experience, political science, and steadiness of principle. Accordingly, in both the chambers of parliament, resolutions of the strongest and most decided tendency towards the inculpation of ministers, were brought forward, by personages of the most distinguished integrity, rank in society, and temperance in political discussion.

In consequence, on the second day of June,

Earl Fitzwilliam, in the house of lords, brought forward certain resolutions, condemning the general conduct of ministers, in having held forward to the nation a confident expectation of a permanent peace, during the time that France was pursuing a hostile system towards this country. His lordship prefaced his motion by a long and

able

able speech, in which he first pointed the attention of the house to the conduct of our ministers and of France, at the time of the treaty of Amiens. During the negociation, the first consul, in contempt of decency, pursued his constant system of aggression. It was then that he made himself president of the Italian republic: changed Piedmont into a military arrondissement; annexed Parma and Placentia to France; and it was after France had thus aggrandized herself, that our ministers consented to cede the conquered colonies also. When the consul next seized upon Switzerland, our ministers sent a person over to that country with offers of assistance, which could evidently be productive of no advantage to the Swiss. Numerous insults and aggressions had been passed over, without any spirited remonstrance, until, at length, the report of colonel Sebastiani forced government to retain Malta. He considered the uniform conduct of the present ministry to be such, as neither to command respect at home, nor abroad, and that they had proved themselves utterly unworthy of the confidence of the public. He then moved his first resolution, which described the conduct of France in nearly the same terms as had been expressed in his Majesty's declaration.

The earl of Limerick vindicated the conduct of administration, in the several points which had been alluded to by the noble mover.As to their conduct with respect to the treaty of Amiens, it had been so fully discussed, both at the moment that the preliminary and definitive treaties were considered, that it would be a waste

of time to discuss it over again.As to their conduct with respect to Switzerland, it was not their fault, that the continental powers would not interfere to save it. In the negociation which had ended in war, he thought they deserved approbation instead of censure; they had avoided war as long as it was possible to avoid it with honor. He concluded by dwelling, with great animation, on the rooted hostility of the first consul towards this empire, and his desire to remove from the neighbourhood and eyes of the French people, the image of a free country.

Earl Grosvenor defended the conduct of ministers, and moved the previous question on Lord Fitzwilliam's resolutions.

Lord Mulgrave, thought the present time improper for such discussions, as the greatest unanimity was now required; he therefore moved the question of adjourn

ment.

The earl of Caernarvon deprecated an adjournment, and condemned with the utmost severity, the conduct of Ministers. They had found the country at the time they had the presumption to undertake its government, in the pos session of many valuable acquisitions, which had been the fruit of former victories. These they had abandoned to France! Whatever private virtues ministers might possess, he considered the want of talents to be as highly criminial in those who have the direction of state affairs, as he did the want of courage to be in an officer.

Lord Ellenborough said, he could not sit still in his place, when he heard the capacity of mi

M

misters

-nisters arraigned by those who were themselves most incapable, and when he saw ignorance itself, pretending to decide on the knowledge possessed, by others. He warmly vindicated the firmness and ability displayed by ministers in the whole of the negociation, and during the whole course of their administration.

Lord Melville, supported the question of adjournment, as he thought it was better not to discuss the question, than to discuss it partially. He expressed a strong disapprobation of many parts of the conduct of ministers, but thought it would be a dangerous time, to address his majesty to remove them, as this was not a season in which the country could bear to be any time without an administration; and there might be a considerable difliculty in agreeing who should be the new ministers, even were the present now removed.

Lord Hobart, complained of the manner in which ministers had been treated. It would be evident that the adjournment would be an indirect censure upon ministers.

Lord Grenville, although he disapproved in a variety of instances of the conduct of ministers, said, that he had hitherto abstained from expressing his disapprobation, for fear we might appear to the enemy, not so firmly united as we ought be. Of all the various acts of misconduct of the present, administration, there were none which he condemned more severely, than their uniform system of withholding the

necessary information from parlia

ment.

At half past four, in the morn ing, the question of adjournment and the previous question were put and negatived by a majority of 86 to 17. Some of the original resolutions were then put and negatived also.*

The next day, in the house of commons, a set of resolutions of a similar tendency, were brought forward by colonel Patten. The principal charges he urged against ministers, were, that they had not only withheld from parliament the information they ought to have given, but had deceived it by giving false statements of the situa tion of the country, and in no instance more remarkably so, than in his majesty's message, which stated great preparations in the ports of France, which were not known to lord Whitworth.

He then dwelt with considerable force on the situation of Holland and Switzerland, in which he thought we were deeply implicated. He concluded, by expressing strongly his opinion, that, in the present crisis, the best talents of the nation, ought to be called forward for its defence: and that a feeble administration was not suited to the character of the times. He then moved his resolutions.

After the first resolution was read from the chair,

Colonel Bastard and Mr. Hawkins Browne briefly vindicated the conduct of ministers; and lord Kensington defended that of the late administration, which he thought

For a copy of the resolutions, vide state papers.

attacked

attacked by the observations of the gentleman who preceded him in debate.

[ocr errors]

Lord Temple then spoke as follows: "With regard to the first resolution, little remains to be said. His majesty's declaration speaks for itself, and, in this house, is only to be considered as the language of his majesty's ministers. They have observed, and they have lamented, that the system of aggression, violence, and aggrandizement, which characterize the different governments of France, during the war, has been continued, with as little disguise, since its termination.' At length, then, we have a bold avowal of the opinion which his majesty's ministers have held respecting the conduct of the French government, during the peace. At length, we are told, that every species of fraud, of violence, and of rapine, upon which the different sanguinary governments have acted, at the different periods of the revolution, have been at all times the rule of conduct of him who now holds in his hands the reins of power in that country. We are told that the same detestable system of policy, which dictated that ambitious and boastful menace, that France and England should never exist together in the same hemisphere; which sent' Bonaparte to seize, by force of arms, a country, the possessions of power, then in amity with France, for the avowed purpose of striking a blow at the Indian interests of this country; who secured his entrance into that country, by disavowing his faith, by boasting that he had been the means of overturning its altars, and dispersing the

ministers of his religion; by trampling on the bible, and swearing by the koran; who secured his retreat from that country, by destroying, in cold and deliberate cruelty, the miserable prisoners who had fallen into his hands, and by poisoning his own wounded and defenceless soldiers. The same feelings which dictated, and the same revenge which prompted the execution, of every act of hostility, of rapine, and of horror, against this country and the world, during the different periods of his power, have existed at every moment since the peace. How his majesty's ministers can justify this tardy avowal; how they can presume to come down to this house, with the declarations in their hands, with the confessions unwillingly drawn from them, of the existence of proceedings which they now say they have seen and felt ever since the peace was signed; how they came to tell us now, that nothing but hostility and aggression existed at periods when they told us that nothing but harmony and profound peace prevailed, remains for their farther ingenuity to explain. A reference to their parliamentary conduct ever since the treaty of Amiens, will shew, that instead of putting us upon our guard against dangers,which we now find, they knew, existed; instead of stimulating our watchfulness, and encouraging our vigilance; they have universally, at the different periods I allude to, tried to lull the country into a security, which they now tell us was not warranted by the fact, and inspire us with hopes, which they now declare, they knew to be fallacious. Nov. 23d, 1802, the chancellor of the exchequer

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

declared in this house, that there was nothing that indicated the renewal of hostilities with France. Look to the events of that period, as collected in your papers upon your table; recollect the public circumstances of Europe at that time; and then say whether ministers were justified in what they asserted. At that very moment,. there is scarce a circunstance which is now declared to be a cause of war, or collectively, with others, to form a cause of war, which did not exist in its full force. Not one of the articles of the treaty of Amiens, had been executed by France.Parma was annexed to her dominiens by public proclamation, dated the 23d of Oct. The system of commercial agents which has justly been made a cause of war, existed in full force, at the period I allude to. With the exception of one only, every instance of aggression, complained of, as being committed by France against the commerce of this country, had occurred long before the 23d Nov. It appears from the printed papers, that from June, to Oct. 1802. Mr. Merry repeatedly informed ministers of the different acts of violence committed against our merchants and their ships. On the 25th of Oct. Mr. Merry informed government of the most violent and flagrant breach of treaty that ever existed, the case of the ship George; when the ship was condemned with all her cargo, because her captain had on -board, for his own private use, knives, forks, and plates, of British manufacture. October the 13th is. the date of Mr. Liston's first dispatch on a subject which is made another ground for war-

the occupation the occupation of Holland by French troops. On October the 29th, his second dispatch is sent, notifying that the French troops had begun their march out of the Batavian territories; but that, instead of evacuating them, they had halted on the frontiers, and occupied Breda, Bois-le-Duc, and Bergen-op-zoom. This was all that appeared upon the subject, in the papers first laid upon your table; but the noble secretary of state, finding that more information was wanting, produced, after much scach among the pigeon-holes of his bureau, another dispatch from Mr. Liston, dated a few days after the last, in which he says, that the Batavian minister at Paris had made a remonstrance on the subject of the occupation of his country by the French, and that he had written a most able letter to the French minister for foreign affairs; that in consequence of this most persuasive and most argumentative letter, the first consul has been pleased to do-what? To cause the French troops to evacuate the country? No! but to direct them to remain where they were, in the occupation of the barrier towns of Holland, in possession of the strongest fortresses on the frontier, by which means they had the key of the country in their hands; and this at a period, when both the Batavian and the English governments, as well as Mr. Liston, knew, that the project of France at that instant, was to sieze upon those towns, for the purpose of ultimately making Holland an integral part of the French republic. And Mr. Liston concludes by saying, that, upon this occasion it was thought adviseable to humour

the

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »