January 29. 1784. THE order of the day for resuming the committee on the State of the Nation was, on the motion of Mr. Fox, adjourned till Monday. In reply to Mr. Fox's observations, which severely inveighed against ministers for retaining their situations in direct opposition to the sense of the House, Mr. PITT declared he did not rise to oppose the motion of the right honourable gentleman, but was called up in very express terms to state his objections to the mode of arraignment thus constantly adopted by those on the opposite side of the House.Against all that very high language thus personally addressed to him, he would only oppose his simple assertion, as he should affect no more argument on one side than was used on the other. Indeed he doubted not the House would think with him, that such a torrent of criminating assertions could not by any facts whatever be established. He was conscious to himself no part of his public life or official conduct stood in the least need of any apology. The delicacy of his present situation required discretion. He was determined to sustain it with as much firmness and decency as he could. This resolution was the result of deliberation; and no invective or aspersion which the right honourable gentleman could throw out should divert him from that sort of behaviour he had already pursued; he could only act as his own judgment directed him. This direction, he trusted, would not lead him into any very palpable mistake; and while he retained a confidence of this kind, it was in vain to expect he would be the dupe of any other. The right honourable gentleman, in saying they did not possess the requisites of a legal administration, was wrong, as they certainly had every formality which belonged to them as the servants of the public. These epithets, so well calculated to throw an odium on them, were therefore improperly applied; for whatever the right honourable gentlemen might think of a majority, he would not allow that, in every case, a majority was to prescribe do. He did not believe there was a power in the House of Commons for the control of the prerogative. He rather thought every branch of the legislature was instituted to secure the legal and constitutional exercise of the other. He hoped, therefore, that it would never be contended, that the sovereign, in creating peers, or chusing his ministers, must first ask leave of the House. The right honourable gentleman had said too, that there was now no government in the country: an allegation to which he would give an open and avowed negative. What! Were ministers of no use but to attend their duty in parliament? Was there no official business to transact of a public and national description without the walls of the House of Commons? And whether these measures or schemes which depended on the assistance and concurrence of parliament, were or were not suspended, undoubtedly other matters, however inferior they might be thought, came under their inspection and control. He wished, however, the right honourable gentleman would speak out. If His Majesty's ministers were as criminal as he would insinuate, there were only two ways of rendering them amenable to their country by criminating their conduct, or turning them out of place or power. Why does not the right honourable gentleman come boldly forward, and do one or other of these? The charge of disturbing the tranquillity of the country, or impeding public business, he considered as invidious and groundless. This he might retort, but he would not adopt the language of recrimination. The throne was still as accessible as ever, and would still listen to the voice of reason and necessity. But it was as futile as it was improper to be coming down from time to time to the House, sounding the minds of gentlemen, and exciting them to opposition against a ministry whom they had it so much in their power to remove. It would be more manly as well as candid, to come at once to some specific charge, and decide the fate of a ministry. thus obnoxious and uncomplying. As for his own part, he regarded all threatenings of that sort with great indifference. The right honourable gentleman had un doubtedly exerted his utmost to paint his conduct in the worst light; but still he was willing to stand forth in his own vindication. Nothing could be imputed to him for which he had any reason to be ashamed. His heart, his principles, his hands were pure: and while he enjoyed the conscious satisfaction of his own mind, not language of the right honourable gentleman, no clamour, no artifice of party, no unfounded imputations, should affect him. He had already stated his conduct fairly and explicitly to the House. He hoped it was not necessary to repeat his former declarations. By these reasons he wished to abide, and he trusted the House would not dissent from him in presuming that the motives which he assigned for whatever might seem peculiar in his situation, were not frivolous, but satisfactory. February 20. 1784. Mr. Powys, after adverting to certain resolutions passed by the House for the removal of His Majesty's ministers, which, however, His Majesty had not thought proper to comply with, moved, "That this House, impressed with the most dutiful sense of His Majesty's paternal regard for the welfare of his people, relies on His Majesty's royal wisdom, that he will take such measures as may tend to give effect to the wishes of his faithful Commons, which have already been most humbly represented to His Majesty." To which was afterwards added, on the suggestion of Mr. Eden, "by removing any obstacle to forming such an administration as the House has declared to be requisite in the present critical and arduous situation of affairs.” Mr. PITT rose the moment Mr. Fox sat down, and spoke in substance as follows: The right honourable gentleman*, Sir, has gone through so vast an expanse of matter, he has embarked the House in so wide an ocean of politics, that it is impossible for me to follow him through the whole course of his speech. I beg leave, however, while both the House and myself are fresh in the recollection of it, to press upon them again what the right honourable gentleman himself, at the close of his speech, has this day at last been driven to confess, though I had long laboured, and, as I began to fear, had laboured in vain, to convince him of it; namely, that if the right honourable gentleman and the noble lord in the blue ribbon should regain their situation, should expel all His Majesty's present ministers, and resume their old measures, their restoration would not ensure the restoration of peace, of happiness, and of content to this distracted country. The right honourable gentleman now confesses it; and yet, Sir, he ought also to confess, and to know and feel, that his present measures do most directly tend to the reestablishment of that coalition, to the certain exclusion of His Majesty's present ministers, and to that very calamity which he himself now begins to dread, and with the dread of which, I had so strenuously endeavoured to inspire the House. Procrastination is now become his plan. I wish not to be understood as calling out for violent measures: but this I will say, that merely to temporise is no man's duty at the present moment. If, therefore, every violence is intended against this administration, let us not keep the country in suspense, but let us advance like men to the issue of this contest; the present question is weak and feeble, compared with those which have gone before it; and I dare say, therefore, every gentleman must expect that it will be without effect. The right honourable gentleman, Sir, has appeared to-night in a character perfectly new to him, but which he has supported (as, indeed, he supports every one of his characters) with wonderful dexterity; he is to-night the champion of the majority of this House against the voice of the people. Imposture was the word used by his learned friend; the right honourable gentleman improves upon the idea, and tells you that imposture was a word used merely by way of civility, it is by way of complimenting the people of England, that the right honourable gentleman says their opinions are founded in imposture; and then, by way of libelling these addresses, and of libelling this reign, he recals to your mind the addresses offered in the infamous reign of King Charles the Second, affecting to furnish the House with a case somewhat in point, and warning them not to trust at all to the most unanimous addresses of the people of England, by summarily mentioning those which were offered to that monarch, requesting the crown to take into its hands and protection the several charters of this country. Sir, I beg these allusions may not pass off unexplained: the case was this- After many cruel and scandalous decisions in the courts against chartered companies, in a fit of desperation, the several corporations offered their charters to the crown, as the only protection against this tyranny and shall I hear this cited by way of libelling addresses of the people at this time? I believe, in truth, Sir, the right honourable gentleman is surprised and exasperated at the manly spirit of the people in these times, who will not wait till their charters are prostituted to the purposes of ministers, and then seek relief by yielding them to the crown; but who boldly resist the violation in the first instance, and who are as hardy in their resistance, as the right honourable gentleman has been in his attack. But, says the right honourable gentleman, how should the people understand the India bill? Do they know all the abuses in India? True, Sir, the people may not have read all your voluminous reports, neither, perhaps, have one half of the members of this House read them: but, Sir, they know that no abuses in India that the very loss of India-that the annihilation of India, could not compensate for the ruin of this constitution. The plain sense of this country could see that objection to the India bill, which I could never persuade the right honourable gentleman to advert to: they could see, that it raised up a new power in this constitution, that it stripped at once the crown of its prerogative, and the people of their chartered rights, and that it created that right honourable gentleman to be the dictator of his King and his country. But, Sir, the right honourable gentleman ventures still to deny that the addresses have sufficiently marked what is the opinion of the people; and then he talks of battles at Reading, of battles at Hackney, and battles at Westminster. At Reading, Sir, I under |