partiality to his Majesty's Minifters. No man lamented more fincerely than himfelf the delay which had taken place in prefenting the estimate to Parliament, or the caufe of that delay, whatever it might have been; but he did not fee any reason why Minifters fhould be cenfured by that Houfe on this occafion; it was in every point of view fo directly contrary to the interests of Minifters, that they could not, in his opinion, be supposed, with the leaft confiftency, guilty of having occafioned that delay. That plain confideration formed in his mind an unanfwerable argument in their favour. He alfo thought it neceffary to remark, in their juftification, that though the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Pitt) was afked and reminded by Gentlemen on this fide of the Houfe, to ftate a time when he intended to bring forward a Motion refpecting the mutiny in the fleet, he did not, for his part, recollect that any Gentleman had fuggefted or pointed out to him at the fame time, the probable dangers which might arife from any delay, of his in bringing forward that Motion. He fhould, therefore, on thefe grounds, give his negative to the Motion, unless he were convinced, by tronger reafons than those which were then offered to his.confideration.

Sir W. Geary faid, that he acquiefced moft willingly in the opinion expreffed by the Honourable Gentleman who spoke laft. In his mind, fome additional reafons, and thefe of more forcible weight, fhould have been adduced in fupport of the prefent Motion, and more time fhould have been allowed in order to enable the tribunal before whom the cause was brought, to pronounce maturely and difpaffionately, when criminality of fo grave a complexion was charged upon his Majefty's Ministers. If the Houfe, impreffed and carried away by the eloquence of the Honourable Gentleman who made the Motion, fhould come haftily and intemperately to a decifion on fo ferious a point, they would afterwards repent it, and be the first to condemn the precipitancy of their own conduct. He would, therefore, again, and again, exprefs his wifh, that the Motion might be poftponed, especially as the Honourable Mover did not feem himself to have made up his mind, even on the manner of its wording. As the Motion originally ftood, it only implied an cmiffion on the part of the Minifter; as it now stood amended, it charged the Minister with a direct commiffion. As to the ratification of Parliament having been infifted on as one of the exprefs conditions between the Lords of the Admiralty and the Seamen, he pofitively denied that statement to be founded in fact; for it could not be contefted, that the fleet had dropped down to St. Helen's for the purpose of proceeding to fea, though no such ratification had taken place. In every view of the fub8 D 2

ject

ject, he was confidently perfuaded that the Honourable Gentleman fhould defer his Motion.

Mr. Yorke faid, that, however ardently he at first wifhed, and however ftrongly he endeavoured to exprefs that with, that the prefent Motion thould not go on, yet, as it was now gone into, he was not difpofed, nor would he endeavour, to ftop it. He felt, however, much force in the point of form urged by the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Pitt) and, in his opinion, it ought to be confidered and ftrictly adhered to. The many Amendments Gentlemen had been obliged to introduce in the Motion, plainly proved that the Honourable Mover did not clearly fee against what part of Adminiftration his charges fhould apply; and thefe various Amendments would ftand on the Journals as a proof of that indecifion of mind. Neither had the Honourable Gentleman adduced any fubftantial grounds to evince the neceffity of his Motion. Does he wish to form our judgments by the confideration of a mere event, without attending to the infinite variety of circumftances that may have occurred in producing it? And is it poffible in the nature of things, but that the event which had recently happened, and which we all now unite in deploring, may not have been occafioned through such a variety of accidental circumftances? No proof is brought before the Houfe that the delay, the imputed caufe, has been the sole cause of that event---is there a Member in the Houfe who can take upon him to say that this fuppofed delay has been the only cause. There may be fome probability that a more expeditious proceeding in the bufinefs might have prevented the mifchief. But how could this have poffibly been known? It was the duty of the House to meet the difcuffion with calmnefs, with temper, and with fairnefs, and to call on thofe who accufe, to produce circumstances, and not merely to state events. Did the Right Honourable Gentleman oppofite to him (Mr. Fox) call for the Act of Parliament to be introduced? If he understood him right, that Gentleman did not seem to apprehend the consequences that have enfued. The plain ftatements of facts, however, materially altered the cafe, as it could not be denied that on Friday the 28th of April, the fleet would have proceeded to fea under the orders of Lord Bridport, after the communication transmitted to them by the Lords of the Admiralty, had not the wind unfortunately chopped about, and forced them to remain at St. Helen's, Had the fleet therefore failed at that time, it would have been engaged in blocking up the harbour of Breft, fatisfied as the feamen were with the conditiens granted them, instead of being agitated by fresh dif contents. Might not the House therefore fuppofe, with no small inconfiftency, that the mifrepresentations which had gone abroad, by whatever name they were called, grofs or accidental, had

more

more probably produced the events, which had recently taken place, than any other caufe? There was, therefore, no room for the prefent Motion of Cenfure on the conduct of his Majesty's Minifters; and it would confequently have his moft decided negative.

Mr. Fox." I never in my life was more convinced of the propriety of a Motion than I am of that which is now before you, and of the expediency of paffing it now I am as well convinced. The cenfure of the Learned Gentleman who spoke Jast against the Motion of my Honourable Friend is moft curious. I thought that he was fcholar enough to know, that in the common ftructure of grammar, the fingular and plural numbers must be differently expreffed, and that is the caufe of the variety of alterations which he fays have been introduced into the Motion, it being at first a Motion against one individual, viz. the Minif ter, and afterwards altered by taking in his Majefty's Ministers, who are a number of individuals; and this is all the field on which the Learned Gentlemen made his ingenious obfervations as to what will appear upon your Journals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the perfon who appeared to my Honourable Friend to be chiefly guilty, and therefore the Motion was made against him, but, upon confideration that there were no documents to prove that the guilt attached exclusively to him, the Motion was amended, and the cenfure is proposed to be voted againft his Majefty's Minifters at large, as being concerned in the delay of which my Honourable Friend complains, and in which I join him, have been the caufe of the difafters which have happened to the Fleet. With regard to the propriety of this, I wifh those who oppofe it would ftate as fpecifically that mifchief which it will do: hitherto they have only talked of the mifchief in general terms. As I have talked at large, my opinion is, that public difcuffion, upon all fubjects, is better than that fecrefy which has been talked of by men, and those not the wifeft, who confider it as conftituting the energy of abfolute Governments, and who fupport principles which in all ages have tended to enflave mankind. If I think fo generally, I fee in the prefent cafe a moft pregnant inftance in my way of confidering the fubject. When the disturbances first broke out, had any question been previously brought before the Houfe, had any debates been provoked, had any declarations been made refpecting the feamen's pay? No. The fubject was paffed over in complete filence, and the Minifter had all the advantage of that fecrefy which, as I have before faid, has been fuppofed to conftitute the energy of abfolute government. The difcontents, however, did break out. What happened afterwards?

"I fhall

"I must first, however, make an obfervation or two upon the perfonal charges that have been brought against me: I am told, when I first called upon Minifters, that I did not state the risk that would be incurred by any delay in voting the money for the feamen; that I did not state there would be danger till the money was voted. Now I ask the Honourable and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Yorke) whether he does not in candour believe that if I had so stated it, there would not have been made a pretty confiderable imputation against me, that my statement had produced the mifchief? Does he not fo believe? Mark, then, the reasoning of fome Honourable Gentlemen. If in a fituation of danger, you ftate beforehand the neceffity of recurring to expeditious measures, then you are charged with producing the mifchief. If you do not state it, and only speak in general terms, then you are told it was fo clear no danger was apprehended, that you did not ftate it. Thus do Ministers hedge themfelves round on all fides. If you fuggest the danger beforehand, then you are charged with producing it. If you do not fuggeft it, then it is afferted to be fo clear, none was to be apprehended, that you cannot impute blame or guilt to those who did not provide against it. But what is the fact? On the Monday after the recefs, I was not acquainted with the precife facts. The final intelligence did not reach town till Monday morning. I thought it right that the tranfaction should be laid before us with all poffible speed. When the Right Honourable Gentleman faid that difpatch fhould be used, fhould not I have been confidered as a caviller, if I had declared that the subject ought to be brought before the Houfe the next day. On the Friday I again preffed the Right Honourable Gentleman to bring it forward, and urged the importance of proceeding upon it at an early period. But, Sir, the whole of this question reduces itself to two points; firft, whether there was any rational occafion for extraordinary speed, because if there was no cause that ought to operate upon the mind of any man to induce him to afe difpatch, then the whole queftion, I allow, is gone: but I muft fay, that if Minifters thought there was no fuch cause, they must have thought differently from all other men in the kingdom. First of all I contend, that fpeed was defirable, if it was only on the ground I am about to ftate. I must contend alfo, that if, contrary to the fpecific facts, there had not happened any mifchief, ftill delay was criminal; because it was highly probable, that delay would have occafioned mischief. They fhould have taken the moment of peace and tranquillity at Portsmouth to fatisfy the feamen. They must be ridiculously fanguine if they expected that the feamen were not likely to be alarmed at the delay which took place. With this fuppofition,

does

does not every Gentleman feel that what the Houfe voted on Monday laft, would have been better to have been voted before thefe events happened? Will the Right Honourable Gentleman fay how a fortnight's delay could be neceffary?

"We have heard of Terrentius Varro being thanked for not having defpaired of the country; we are, however, to thank the Minifter not only for not defpairing of the country, but for entertaining a fanguineness in the public weal, which no other man befides himfelf could feel. Did Minifters think, that while the quiet continued, it was not proper to take advantage of it, to pass the vote through this Houfe? I cannot think they could be fo ridiculous. And now, Sir, with regard to the particular events that have happened.

"It has been faid, that we have not proved them to be owing to the delay. If it is meant to be afferted that we have no documents, I agree we have none; but I contend, that the notoriety of the cafe is a fufficient ground. I will afk too, whether the fact which we all rejoice in at this day, namely, that the Refolution of the Houfe has produced more than a dawn of hope? I will ask whether the fending down the Refolution of the Houfe which has produced fuch an effect, is not a proof, that the want of it was the cause why tranquillity did not continue to exist among the feamen? But there are fome Gentlemen who impute these events to other caufes. All thofe caufes, however, would only tend to aggravate the guilt of Minifters. They talk of mifreprefentations having gone down to the failors, of what paffed in another place. What are thofe mifrepresentations? They arofe both from the filence obferved by fome upon the fubject, and from what was faid by others. But does not every one fee that all these mifreprefentations must have been fruitless, if the Act of Parliament had been paffed fooner. Suppofe that it was ftated by certain perfons high in official ftations, that they had no orders to make any communication from his Majesty, and the statement of this is imagined to have produced the mifchief. Here, Sir, have we not a fignal proof of the short-fightedness of Ministers, who, when opportunities are given them to give explanations, wrap themfelves up in fullen and ftupid filence, and envelope themfelves in all the mystery of office. But there are faid to have been mifrepresentations. It is not at all unlikely that there were. But was not this to have been foreseen? Had not Minifters, who have paffed fuch laws for the four last years, and who have raised such alarms about the existence of Jacobins, had not Minifters any foundation for thinking that there might be perfons who would induftriously take advantage of fuch a period, and fow mifreprefentations? I, who believe leaft in the reality of fuch plots, am ftill not prepared to think it impoffible

that