what a state of whimsical contradiction does he | mony that happily reigns in all the departments stand! During the whole course of his admin- of the executive power? Is it the reciprocal afistration, and particularly during the course of fection that subsists between the government and the present war, every prediction that he has the people? Is it in the energy with which the made, every hope that he has held out, every people are eager to carry into execution the prophecy that he has hazarded, has failed; he measures of the administration, from the hearthas disappointed the expectations that he has felt conviction that they are founded in wisdom, raised; and every promise that he has given has favorable to their own freedom, and calculated proved to be fallacious; yet, for these very dec- for national happiness? Is it because our relarations, and notwithstanding these failures, we sources are flourishing and untouched, because have called him a wise minister. We have given our vigor is undiminished, because our spirit is him our confidence on account of his predictions, animated by success, and our courage by our and have continued it upon their failure. The glory? Is it because government have, in a only instance in which he really predicted what perilous situation, when they have been obliged has come to pass, we treated with stubborn in- to call upon the country for sacrifices, shown a credulity. In 1785, he pronounced the awful conciliating tenderness and regard for the rights prophecy," Without a parliamentary reform the of the people, as well as a marked disinterestednation will be plunged into new wars; without ness and forbearance on their own parts, by which a parliamentary reform you can not be safe they have, in an exemplary manner, made their against bad ministers, nor can even good minis- own economy to keep pace with the increased ters be of use to you." Such was his predic- demands for the public service? Are these the tion; and it has come upon us. It would seem as sources of the strength of government? I forif the whole life of the right honorable gentleman, bear, sir, to push the inquiry. I forbear to alfrom that period, had been destined by Provi- lude more particularly to symptoms which no dence for the illustration of his warning. If we man can contemplate at this moment without were disposed to consider him as a real enthu-grief and dismay. It is not the declarations of siast, and a bigot in divination, we might be apt to think that he had himself taken measures for the verification of his prophecy; for he might now exclaim to us, with the proud fervor of success, "You see the consequence of not listening to the oracle. I told you what would happen; it is true that your destruction is complete; I have plunged you into a new war; I have exhausted you as a people; I have brought you to the brink of ruin, but I told you beforehand what would happen; I told you that, without a reform in the representation of the people, no minister, however wise, could save you; you denied me my means, and you take the consequence!"

Answer to the

The right honorable gentleman speaks, sir, of the strength of government. But what argument from symptom of strength does it exhibit? strength of the Is it the cordiality of all the branches of the national force ?6 Is it the har

the supposed

government.

The keenness of the sarcasm involved in these questions will be seen by adverting to the state of the country at this time, which was partially referred to in the Introduction. About a month before, the fleet at Spithead had broken out into a general mutiny, and, notwithstanding the measures of Parliament designed to remove their discontent, they had renewed the mutiny only four days previous to the delivery of this speech. The King, as head of the "executive power,' felt so much pressed by the unpopularity of Mr. Pitt, that he was supposed to be seriously con templating a change of ministers. Mr. Fox also alludes to the wide-spread commercial embarrassments, the suspension of specie payments, the general distress which prevailed among the people, their loss of energy and spirit as the natural consequence, the diminished resources of the government, and the victories of France on the Continent, which had left England to continue the war alone. In addition to this, he refers to the lavish expenditures of the government, and the favoritism shown to their friends and adherents.

right honorable gentlemen that constitute the strength of a government. That government is alone strong which possesses the hearts of the people; and will any man contend that we should not be more likely.to add strength to the state, if we were to extend the basis of the popular representation? Would not a House of Commons freely elected be more likely to conciliate the support of the people? If this be true in the abstract, it is certainly our peculiar duty to look for this support in the hour of difficulty. What man who foresees a hurricane is not desirous of strengthening his house? Shall nations alone be blind to the dictates of reason? Let us not, sir, be deterred from this act of prudence by the false representations that are made to us. France is the phantom that is constantly held out to terrify us from our purpose. Look at France; it will not be denied but that she stands on the broad basis of free representation. Whatever other views the government of France may exhibit, and which may afford just alarm to other nations, it can not be denied that her representative system has proved itself capable of vigorous exertion.

Argument for reform from the largovernments cients and in

energy of popuamong the an

France.

Now, sir, though I do not wish you to imitate France; and though I am persuaded you have no necessity for any terror of such imitation being forced upon you, yet I say that you ought to be as ready to adopt the virtues as you are steady in averting from the country the vices of France. If it is clearly demonstrated that gennine representation alone can give solid power, and that in order to make government strong, the people must make the government, you ought to act on this grand maxim of political wisdom thus demonstrated, and call in the people, according to the original principles of your system, to the strength of your government. In doing

health which it would be sure to give? When we see the giant power that it confers upon others, we ought not to withhold it from Great Britain. How long is it since we were told in this House that France was a blank in the map of Europe, and that she lay an easy prey to any power that might be disposed to divide and plunder her? Yet we see that, by the mere force and spirit of this principle, France has brought all Europe to her feet. Without disguising the vices of France, without overlooking the horrors that have been committed, and that have tarnished the glory of the Revolution, it can not be denied that they have exemplified the doctrine that if you wish for power you must look to liberty. If ever there was a moment when this maxim ought to be dear to us, it is the present. We have tried all other means; we have had recourse to every stratagem that artifice, that influence, that cunning could suggest; we have addressed ourselves to all the base passions of the nation; we have addressed ourselves to pride, to avarice, to fear; we have awakened all the interested emotions; we have employed every thing that flattery, every thing that address, every thing that privilege could effect: we have tried to terrify them into exertion, and all has been unequal to our emergency. Let us try them by the only means which experience demonstrates to be invincible; let us address ourselves to their love; let us identify them with ourselves; let us make it their own cause as well as ours! To induce them to come forward in support of the state, let us make them a part of the state; and this they become the very instant you give them a House of Commons which is the faithful organ of their will. Then, sir, when you have made them believe and feel that there can be but one interest in the country, you will never call upon them in vain for exertion. Can this be the case as the House of Commons is now constituted? Can they think so if they review the administration of the right honorable gentleman, every part of which must convince them that the present representation is a mockery and a shadow?

this, you will not innovate, you will not imitate. the benefit which the wisdom of our ancestors reIn making the people of England a constituent solved that it should confer on the British Conpart of the government of England, you do no stitution? With the knowledge that it can be more than restore the genuine edifice designed reinfused into our system without violence, withand framed by our ancestors. An honorable out disturbing any one of its parts, are we bebaronet spoke of the instability of democracies, come so inert, so terrified, or so stupid, as to hesand says that history does not give us the exam-itate for one hour to restore ourselves to the ple of one that has lasted eighty years. Sir, I am not speaking of pure democracies, and therefore his allusion does not apply to my argument. Eighty years, however, of peace and repose would be pretty well for any people to enjoy, and would be no bad recommendation of a pure democracy. I am ready, however, to agree with the honorable baronet, that, according to the experience of history, the ancient democracies of the world were vicious and objectionable on many accounts; their instability, their injustice, and many other vices, can not be overlooked. But surely, when we turn to the ancient democracies of Greece, when we see them in all the splendor of arts and of arms, when we see to what an elevation they carried the powers of man, it can not be denied that, however vicious on the score of ingratitude or injustice, they were, at least, the pregnant source of national strength, and that in particular they brought forth this strength in a peculiar manner in the moment of difficulty and distress. When we look at the democracies of the ancient world, we are compelled to acknowledge their oppression of their dependencies, their horrible acts of injustice and of ingratitude to their own citizens; but they compel us also to admiration by their vigor, their constancy, their spirit, and their exertions in every great emergency in which they were called upon to act. We are compelled to own that this gives a power of which no other form of government is capable. Why? Because it incorporates every man with the state, because it arouses every thing that belongs to the soul as well as to the body of man; because it makes every individual feel that he is fighting for himself, and not for another; that it is ais own cause, his own safety, his own concern, his own dignity on the face of the earth, and his own interest in that identical soil which he has to maintain; and accordingly we find that whatever may be objected to them on account of the turbulency of the passions which they engendered, their short duration, and their disgusting vices, they have exacted from the common suffrage of mankind the palm of strength and vigor. Who that reads the Persian war-what boy, whose heart is warmed by the grand and sublime actions which the democratic spirit produced, does not find in this principle the key to all the wonders which were achieved at Thermopyla and elsewhere, and of which the recent and marvelous acts of the French people are pregnant examples? He sees that the principle of liberty only could create the sublime and irresistible emotion; and it is in vain to deny, from the striking illustration that our own times have given, that the principle is eternal, and that it belongs to the heart of man. Shall we, then, refuse to take the benefit of this invigorating principle? Shall we refuse to take

sentation of the

ed by the con

There has been, at different times, a great deal of dispute about virtual representa- A real and not tion. Sir, I am no great advocate a virtual tepre of these nice subtleties and special people demandpleadings on the Constitution; much duct of recent depends upon appearance as well as Parliaments. reality. I know well that a popular body of five hundred and fifty-eight gentlemen, if truly independent of the Crown, would be a strong barrier to the people. But the House of Commons should not only be, but appear to be, the representatives of the people; the system should satisfy the prejudices and the pride, as well as the reason of the people; and you never can expect to give that

just impression which a House of Commons | a scandal on our character, which not merely ought to make on the people, until you derive it degrades the House of Commons in the eyes of unequivocally from them. It is asked why gen- the people; it does more, it undermines the very tlemen who were against a parliamentary re- principles of integrity in their hearts, and gives form on former occasions should vote for it now. a fashion to dishonesty and imposture. They Ten years ago men might reasonably object to hear of a person receiving four or five thousand any reform of the system, who ought now, in my pounds as the purchase-money of a seat for a opinion, to be governed by motives that are irre- close borough; and they hear the very man who sistible in its favor. They might look back with received and put the money into his pocket make something like satisfaction and triumph to former a vehement speech in this House against bribery! Parliaments, and console themselves with the re- They see him move for the commitment to prisflection that, though in moments of an ordinary on of a poor, unfortunate wretch at your bar, kind, in the common course of human events, Par- who has been convicted of taking a single guinea liament might abate from its vigilance, and give for his vote in the very borough, perhaps, where ministers a greater degree of confidence than he had publicly and unblushingly sold his influwas strictly conformable with representative duty ence, though, under the horrors of a war which -yet there was a point beyond which no artifice he had contributed to bring upon the country, that of power, no influence of corruption, could carry miserable guinea was necessary to save a family them; that there were barriers in the British from starving! Sir, these are the things that parConstitution over which the House of Commons alyze you to the heart; these are the things that never would leap, and that the moment of dan- vitiate the whole system; that spread degenerager and alarm would be the signal for the return cy, hypocrisy, and sordid fraud over the counof Parliament to its post. Such might have been try, and take from us the energies of virtue, and the reasoning of gentlemen on the experience of sap the foundations of patriotism and spirit. The former Parliaments; and with this rooted trust system that encourages so much vice ought to in the latent efficacy of Parliament, they might be put an end to; and it is no argument, that have objected to any attempt that should cherish because it lasted a long time without mischief, hopes of a change in the system itself. But what it ought now to be continued when it is found to will the same gentlemen say after the experi- be pernicious; it has arisen to a height that deence of the last and the present Parliament? feats the very end of government; it must sink What reliance can they have for any one vestige under its own weakness. And this, sir, is not a of the Constitution that is yet left to us? Or case peculiar to itself, but inseparable from all rather, what privilege, what right, what securi- human institutions. All the writers of eminence ty, has not been already violated? "Quid intac- upon forms of government have said that, in order tum nefasti liquimus ?" And seeing that in no to preserve them, frequent recurrence must be one instance have they hesitated to go the full had to their original principle. This is the opinlength of every outrage that was conceived by ion of Montesquieu, as well as of Machiavelli. the minister; that they have been touched by no Gentlemen will not be inclined to dispute the scruples, deterred by no sense of duty, corrected authority of the latter, on this point at least; and by no experience of calamity, checked by no ad- he says, that without this recurrence they grow monition or remonstrance; that they have never out of shape, and deviate from their general form. made out a single case of inquiry; that they have It is only by recurring to former principles that never interposed a single restraint upon abuse; any government can be kept pure and unabused. may not gentlemen consistently feel that the re- But, say gentlemen, if any abuses have crept into form which they previously thought unnecessary our system, have we not a corrective whose effiis now indispensable? cacy has been proved, and of which every body We have heard to-day, sir, all the old argu- approves? Have we not Mr. Grenville's bill, as ments about honor on the one side be- an amendment to the Constitution? An amendto be derived ing as likely as honor on the other; ment it is; an amendment which acknowledges sonal honor that there are good men on both sides the deficiency. It is an avowal of a defective of the House; that a man upon the practice. It is a strong argument for reform, one side of the House as well as upon because it would not be necessary if the plan of the other, may be a member for a close borough; representation were sufficient. But, sir, there is and that he may be a good man, sit where he a lumping consideration, if I may be Danger from may. All this, sir, is very idle language; it is allowed the phrase, which now more age of the not the question at issue. No man disputes the than ever ought to make every man a ministry. existence of private and individual integrity; convert to parliamentary reform; there is an anbut, sir, this is not representation. If a man nual revenue of twenty-three millions sterling comes here as the proprietor of a burgage ten-collected by the executive government from the ure, he does not come here as the representative of the people. The whole of this system, as it is now carried on, is as outrageous to morality as it is pernicious to just government; it brings

No argument

from the per

of borough representaLives.

7 What, in our wickedness, have we left untouch ed?

the patron

people. Here, sir, is the despot of election; here is the new power that has grown up to a magnitude, that bears down before it every defensive barrier established by our ancestors for the protection of the people. They had no such tyrant to control; they had no such enemy to oppose. Against every thing that was known, against

get many persons to subscribe to the justice of his comparison. But probably he alludes to the fate of Holland. If this be the object to which he wishes to turn our eyes, he does it unjustly. Holland acted under the despotic mandate of that right honorable gentleman; and Holland, whatever she has suffered, whatever may be her present situation, lays her calamities to the charge of England. I can not, then, admit of the argument, that our situation is comparatively better than that of the nations who altogether kept out of the war; or, being drawn into it in the first instance, corrected their error, and restored to themselves the blessings of peace.

every thing that was seen, they did provide; but | to that of war have fallen into a severer calamiit did not enter into the contemplation of those ty than ourselves? Does he mean to say that who established the checks and barriers of our Sweden, or that Denmark, has suffered more by system, that they would ever have to stand observing an imprudent neutrality, than England against a revenue of twenty-three millions a or Austria by wisely plunging themselves into a year! The whole landed rental of the kingdom war? Or does he mean to insinuate that Prusis not estimated at more than twenty-five mill- sia has been the victim of its impolicy, in getting ions a year, and this rental is divided and dis- out of the conflict on the first occasion? If this persed over a large body, who can not be sup- be the interpretation of the right honorable genposed to act in concert, or to give to their pow-tleman's argument, I do not believe that he will er the force of combination and unity. But it is said, that though the government is in the receipt of a revenue of twenty-three millions a year, it has not the expenditure of that sum, and that its influence ought not to be calculated from what it receives, but from what it has to pay away. I submit, however, to the good sense, and to the personal experience of gentlemen who hear me, if it be not a manifest truth that influence depends almost as much upon what they have to receive as upon what they have to pay? And if this be true of the influence which individuals derive from the rentals of their estates, and from the expenditure of that rental, how much more so is it true of government, who, both in the receipt and expenditure of this enormous revenue, are actuated by one invariable principle-that of extending or withholding favor in exact pro-it. portion to the submission or resistance to their measures, which the individuals make? Compare this revenue, then, with that against which our ancestors were so anxious to protect us, and compare this revenue with all the bulwarks of our Constitution in preceding times, and you must acknowledge that, though those bulwarks were sufficient to protect us in the days of King William and Queen Anne, they are not equal to the enemy we have now to resist.

Benefits to

But it is said, what will this reform do for us? Will it be a talisman sufficient to reJe expected trieve all the misfortunes which we from reform. have incurred? I am free to say that it would not be sufficient, unless it led to reforms of substantial expense, and of all the abuses that have crept into our government. But at the same time, I think it would do this, I think it would give us the chance, as I said before, of recovery. It would give us, in the first place, a Parliament vigilant and scrupulous, and that would insure to us a government active and economical. It would prepare the way for every rational improvement, of which, without disturbing the parts, our Constitution is susceptible. It would do more; it would open the way for exertions infinitely more extensive than all that we have hitherto made. The right honorable gentleman says that we have made exertions. True. But what are they in comparison with our necessity? The right honorable gentleman says, that when we consider our situation compared with that of countries which have taken another line of conduct, we ought to rejoice. I confess, sir, that I am at a loss to conceive what country the right honorable gentleman has in view in this comparison. Does he mean to assert that the nations who preferred the line of neutrality

Reform pro

Mr. Gray.

I come now to consider the specific proposition of my honorable friend, and the arguments that have been brought against posed by Let me premise, that however averse gentlemen may be to any specific proposition of reform, if they are friendly to the principle, they ought to vote for the present question, because it is merely a motion for leave to bring in a bill. An opposition to such a motion comes with a very ill grace from the right honorable gentleman, and contradicts the policy for which he strenuously argued. In 1785, he moved for leave to bring in a bill on a specific plan, and he fairly called for the support of all those who approved of the principle of reform, whatever might be the latitude of their ideas on the subject; whether they wished for more or less than his proposition, he thought that they should agree to the introduction of the bill, that it might be freely discussed in the committee, in hopes that the united wisdom of the House might shape out something that would be generally acceptable. Upon this candid argument I, for one, acted. I did not approve of his specific proposition, and yet I voted with him for leave to bring in the bill. And this, sir, has generally happened to me on all the former occasions, when proposi tions have been made. Though I have constantly been a friend to the principle, I have never before seen a specific plan that had my cordial approbation. That which came nearest, and of which I the least disapproved, was the plan of an honorable gentleman who is now no more [Mr. Flood]. He was the first person who sug gested the idea of extending what might be proper to add to representation, to housekeepers, as to a description of persons the best calculated to give efficacy to the representative system. My honorable friend's plan, built upon this idea. is an improvement of it, since it is not an attempt even to vary the form and outline, much less to now-model the representation of the peo

ple; it keeps every thing in its place; it neither | land. varies the number, nor changes the name, nor diverts the course of any part of our system; it corrects without change; it extends without destruction of any established right; it restores simply what has been injured by abuse, and reinstates what time has moldered away; no man can have a right to complain of genuine property assailed; no habit even, no mode of thinking, no prejudice, will be wounded; it traces back the path of the Constitution from which we have wandered, but it runs out into no new direction.