an administration could not be formed without | and disaffected members fall off, then turn about some junction of the parties; and if former differences were to be an insurmountable barrier to union, no chance of salvation remained for the country, as it is well known that four public men could not be found who had not at one time or other taken opposite sides in politics. The great cause of difference between us and the noble Lord in the blue ribbon [Lord North] no longer existed; his personal character stood high; and thinking it safer to trust him than those who had before deceived us, we preferred to unite with the noble Lord. A similar junction in 1757,18 against which a similar clamor was raised, saved the empire from ruin, and raised it above the rivalship of all its enemies. The country, when we came into office, bore not a very auspicious complexion; yet, sir, I do not despair of seeing it once again resume its consequence in the scale of nations, and make as splendid a figure as ever. Those who have asserted the impossibility of our agreeing with the noble Lord and his friends were false prophets, for events have belied their augury. We have differed like men, and like men we have agreed. A body of the best and honestest men in this House, who serve their country without any other reward than the glory of the disinterested discharge of their public duty, approved that junction, and sanctify the measure by their cordial support. Such, sir, is this Coalition, which the state of the country rendered indispensable, and for which the history of every country records a thousand precedents; yet to this the term disgraceful is applied! Is it not extraordinary. then, that gentlemen should be under such spells of false delusion as not to see that if calling it disgraceful makes it so, these epithets operate with equal force against themselves? If the Coalition be disgraceful, what is the anti-Coalition? When I see the right honorable gentleman [Mr. Pitt] surrounded by the early objects of his political, nay, his hereditary19 hatred, and hear him revile the Coalition, I am lost in the astonishment how men can be so blind to their own situation as to attempt to wound us in this particular point, possessed as we are of the power of returning the same blow, with the vulnerable part staring us directly in the face. If the honorable gentleman under the gallery [Mr. Martin] wishes that a starling were perched up on the right hand of the chair, I tell him that the wish is just as reasonable to have another starling upon the left hand of the chair, to chirp up Coalition against Coalition, and so harmonize their mutual disgrace, if disgrace there be. With the same consistency, an honorable gentleman calls us deserters !20 Us! A few cold 18 That of Lord Chatham with the Duke of Newcastle. 19 Mr. Jenkinson, Mr. Dundas, &c., sat near Mr. Pitt. 20 This refers to the resignation of Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and the other Rockingham Whigs, when Lord Shelburne seized the reins of government. and, to palliste their own defection, call the body of the army deserters: We have not deserted here we are, a firm pl alanx. Deserted, indeed, we have been in the moment of disaster, but never dejected, and seldom complaining. Some of those who rose upon our wreck, and whe eagerly grasped that power which we had the labor of erecting, now call us deserters. We retort the term with just indignation. Yet while they presume wo have the attributes of men, they would expect us to have the obduracy of savages. They would have our resentments insatiate, our rancor eternal. In our opinion, an oblivion of useless animosity is much more Lo ble; and in that the conduct of our accusers goes hand in hand with us But I beg of the House, and I wish the world to observe, that although, like them, we have andoned our enmities, we have not, like them, reunquished our friendships. There is a set of men, who, from the mere vanity of having consequence as decisive voters, object to all stable government. These men hate to see an administration so fixed as not to be movable by their vote. They assume their dig. nity on the mere negative merit of not accepting places; and in the pride of this self-denial, and the vanity of fancied independence, they object to every system that has a solid basis, because their consequence is unfelt. Of such men I can not be the panegyrist, and I am sorry that some such men are among the most estimable in the House.21 IV. An honorable gentleman advises me, for the future, not to mention the name of Miscelane the Marquess of Rockingham, who, he ous says, would never countenance a bill of this kind. This is indeed imposing hard conditions upon those who have willingly suffered a sort of polit ical martyrdom in the cause of that noble Lord's principles-those who surrendered pomp and power, rather than remain where his principles ceased to be fashionable, and were withering into contempt. I venerate the name of that noble Marquess, and shall ever mention it with love and reverence; but at no period of my life with more confidence than at this moment, when I say that his soul speaks in every line of the bill before you, for his soul speaks in every measure of virtue, wisdom, humane policy, general jas. tice, and national honor. The name of the noble Lord, who enjoys his fortune, has been mentioned in this debate, and will be mentioned again by me. I will tell the honorable gentleman that this noble Lord [Earl Fitzwilliam], though no the issue of his loins, inherits, with his property the principles of that noble Marquess in all their purity and soundness; and is as incapable as that noble Marquess himself, or as any man on earth, 21 Alluding probably to Mr. Powys, who had been a friend of Mr. Fox, but would not vote with him after his junction with Lord North. Mr. Powys, & the opening of the debate, ascribed the obnoxiout features of the present bill to Lord North, saying "The voice is Jacob's voice, buat the hands are the hands of Esau." of countenacing any act which either immedi- | he was against me, and our conduct was violen ately or ultimately tended to the prejudice of his and unconstitutional, it was treasonable! And country, or the injury of the Constitution.22 I yet the means were in both instances the same nave had the honor of knowing the noble Earl—the means were the votes of this House! from an early age. I have observed the motives his actions; I am endeared to him by every de of kindred sentiment and of mutual principle. A character more dignified and exalted exists not in the empire; a raind more firmly attached to the Constitution of his country. He is, what the nation would desire in the heir of Lord Rockingham, the only compensation that we could have for his loss. A game of a two-fold quality is playing by the other side of the House upon this occasion, te which I hope the House, and I hope the kingdom, will attend. They are endeavoring to injure us through two channels at the same time; through a certain great quarter, and through the people They are attempting to alarm the first by asserting that this bill increases the influence of ministry against the Crown; and rousing the An honorable gentleman on the other side people, under an idea that it increases the influ[Mr. T. Pitt] has used violent terms against this ence of the Crown against them. That they will bill and the movers of it. Sir, I tell that honor- fail in both, I doubt not. In the great quarter able gentleman [looking him directly in the face] I trust they are well understood, and the princethat the movers of this bill are not to be brow-ly mind of that high person is a security against beaten by studied gestures, nor frightened by their devices. They are running swiftly to take tremulous tones, solemn phrases, or hard epi-off whatever little imposition might have been thets. To arguments they are ready to reply; put upon any part, even of the multitude; and I but all the notice they can take of assertions is wish to rescue the character of the public un to mark to the House that they are only asser-derstanding from the contemptuous implication, tions. The honorable gentleman again repeats his favorite language of our having seized upon the government. His Majesty changed his ministry last April, in consequence of a vote of this House; his Majesty did the same twelve months before [when Lord North was displaced], in consequence of a vote of this House. His Majesty, in so doing, followed the example of his predecessors; and his successors will, I doubt not, follow the example of his Majesty. The votes of Parliament have always decided upon the duration of the ministry, and always will, I trust. It s the nature of our Constitution; and those who fislike it had better attempt to alter it. The onorable gentleman called the change in 1782 glorious one; this in 1783 a disgraceful one. Why? For a very obvious, though a very bad reason. The honorable gentleman assisted in effecting the first, and strenuously labored to prevent the second. The first battle he fought with us; the second against us, and we vanquished him. In 1782 his friends were out, and would be in. In 1783 his friends were in, nor would go out. Thus, having done without him what we once did with him, the House sees his motive. It is human nature, certainly; but certainly not the better part of human nature. He says he is no party man, and abhors a systematic opposition. I have always acknowledged myself to be a party man. I have always acted with a party in whose principles I have confidence; and if I had such an opinion of any ministry as the gentleman professes to have of us, I would pursue their overthrow by a systematic opposition. I have done so more than once, and I think that, in succeeding, I saved my country. Once the right honorable gentleman, as I have said, as with me, and our conduct was fair, manly, 20nstitutional, and honorable. The next time Earl Fitzwilliam had been named by Mr. Fox as the first of the Commissioners under this bill. The names of the remainder were withheld ur til the bill should have passed. that it is capable of being gulled by such arti fices. I feel for my country's honor when I say that Englishmen, free themselves, and fond of giving freedom to others, disdain these stratagems, and are equally above the silliness of crediting the revilers of this act, and the baseness of confederating or making common cause with those who would support a system which has dishonored this country, and which keeps thirty millions of the human race in wretchedness. I make allowances for the hair-brained, headstrong delusions of folly and ignorance, and the effects of design. To such evils every measure is liable, and every man must expect a portion of the consequence. But for the serious and grave determinations of the public judgment I have the highest value; I ever had, and ever shall have. If it be a weakness, I confess it, that to lose the good opinion of even the meanest man gives me some pain; and whatever triumph my enemies can derive from such a frame of mind they are welcome to. I do not, after the example of the honorable gentleman who began this debate [Mr Powys], hold the opinion of constituents in dis paragement. The clear and decided opinion of the more reasonable and respectable should, in my opinion, weigh with the member, upon the same principle that, I think, the voice of the nation should prevail in this House, and in every other place. But when the representative yields to the constituent, it should, indeed, be by the majority of the reasonable and respectable; and not, as we shall see in a day or two, some of the honestest men in England voting against the most popular tax ever introduced into this House, in direct opposition to their own convic tion, and not upon the opinion of either th3 mote respectable or reasonable class of their constit uents.23 us; if we are opposed upon other principles, they will not be against us. Much labor has been employed to infuse a prejudice upon the present subject; but I have the satisfaction to believe that the labor has been fruitless, making a reasonable allowance for the mistakes of the uninformed, the first impressions of novelty, and the natural result of deliberate malice. We de sire to be tried by the test of this bill, and ris our character upon the issue; confiding thor oughly in the good sense, the justice, and the spirit of Englishmen. Not lofty sounds, nor selected epithets, nor passionate declamation it this House, nor all the sordid efforts of interested men out of this House-of men whose acts in the East have branded the British name, and whose ill gotten opulence has been working through a thousand channels to delude and debauch the public understanding — can fasten odium upon this measure, or draw an obloquy upon the authors of it. We have been tried in the cause of the public, and until we desert that cause we are assured of public confidence and protection. bis characteristic spirit, has said, that we never | upon these principles, and the people were with sought power by cabal, or intrigue, or underhand operations; and this he said in reply to an honorable gentleman [Mr. T. Pitt], whose conJuct demonstrates that he thinks these the surest path for his friends. This bill, as a ground of contention, is farcical. This bill, if it admitted it, would be combated upon its intrinsic qualities, and not by abusing the Coalition or raising a clamor about influence. But why don't the gentlemen speak out fairly, as we do; and then let the world judge between us? Our love and loyalty to the sovereign are as ardent and firm as their own. Yet the broad basis of public character, upon which we received, is the principle by which we hope to retain this power, convinced that the surest road to the favor of the prince is by serving him with zeal and fidelity; that the safest path to popularity is by reducing the burden, and restoring the glory of the nation. Let those (looking at Mr. Jenkinson) who aim at office by other means, by inscrutable and mysterious methods, speak out; or, if they will not, let the world know it is because their arts will not bear examination, and that their safety consists in their obscurity." Our principles are well known; and I should prefer to perish with them, rather than prosper with any other. The honorable gentleman [Mr. Powys] has supposed for me a soliloquy, and has put into my mouth some things which I do not think are likely to be attributed to me. He insinuates that I was incited by avarice, or ambition, or party spirit. I have failings in common with every human being, besides my own peculiar faults; but of avarice I have indeed held myself guiltless. My abuse has been for many years ever the profession of several people; it was their traffic, their livelihood; yet until this moment knew not that avarice was in the catalogue of the sins imputed to me. Ambition I confess I have, but not ambition upon a narrow bottom. or built upon paltry principles. If, from the de votion of my life to political objects; if, from the direction of my industry to the attainment of some knowledge of the Constitution and the true interests of the British empire, the ambition of taking no mean part in those acts that elevate nations and make a people happy, be criminal. that ambition I acknowledge. And as to party spirit—that I feel it, that I have been ever under its impulse, and that I ever shall, is what I proclaim to the world. That I am one of a party -a party never known to sacrifice the interests, or barter the liberties of the nation for mercena ry purposes, for personal emolument or honors -a party linked together upon principles which comprehend whatever is most dear and precious to free men, and essential to a free Constitution The honorable gentleman under the gallery Mr. Martin] also says he dislikes systematic opposition. Whether perpetually rising up with peevish, capricious objections to every thing proposed by us deserve that name or not, I leave the gentleman himself to determine, and leave the House to reflect upon that kind of conduct which condemns the theory of its own constant practice. But I meet the gentleman directly upon the principle of the term. He dislikes systematic opposition; now I like it. A systematic opposition to a dangerous government is, in my opinion, a noble employment for the brightest faculties; and if the honorable gentleman thinks our administration a bad one, he is right to contribute to its downfall. Opposition is natural in such a political system as ours. It has subsisted in all such governments; and perhaps it is necessary. But to those who oppose, it is extremely essential that their manner of conducting it incur not a suspicion of their motives. If they appear to oppose from disappointment, from mortification, from pique, from whim, the people will be against them. If they oppose from public principle, from love of their country rather than hatred to administration, from evident conviction of the badness of measures, and a full persuasion that in their resist-—is my pride and my boast. ance to men they are aiming at the public welfare, the people will be with them. We opposed 24 Mr. Jenkinson had entered life as the protégé of Lord Bute, and was looked upon for many years as the pivot of every court intrigue, the confidential agent of the King, and the prime mover in all kinds of secret influence; hence this pointed allusion. He was afterward known as Lord Hawkesbury, and at a subsequent period as Lord Liverpool The honorable gentleman has given me one assertion which it is my pride to make; he says that I am connected with a number of the first families in the country." 25 Yes, sir, I have a po culiar glory that a body of men, renowned for their ancestry, important for their possessions, distinguished for their personal worth, with al 25 The Rockingham Whigs. that is valuable to men at stake-hereditary fortunes and hereditary honors--deem me worthy of their confidence. With such men I am something-without them, nothing. My reliance is pon their good opinion; and in that respect, erhaps, I am fortunate. Although I have a just sonfidence in my own integrity, yet, as I am but man, perhaps it is well that I have no choice but between my own eternal disgrace and a faithful discharge of my public duty, while men of this kind are overseers of my conduct, while men whose uprightness of heart and spotless honor are even proverbial in the country [looking at Lord John Cavendish], are the vigils of my deeds, it is a pledge to the public for the purity and rectitude of my conduct. The pros perity and honor of the country are blended with the prosperity and honor of these illustrious persons. They have so much at stake, that if the country falls they fall with it; and to counteJance any thing against its interest would be a suicide upon themselves. The good opinion and protection of these men is a security to the nation for my behavior, because if I lose them I lose my all. Our merit will be more in 66 of any man's virtue. Having said so much upon the extraneous subjects introduced by the honorable gentleman [Mr. Powys] into the debate, I shall proceed to make some observations upon the business in question. When the learned gentleman [Mr. Dundas] brought in his bill last year, the House | saw its frightful features with just horror; but a very good method was adopted to soften the terrors of the extravagant power which that bill vested in the Governor General. The name of a noble Lord [Lord Cornwallis] was sent forth at the same time, whose great character lent a grace to a proposition which, destitute of such But this bill, sir, presumes not upon the proban advantage, could not be listened to for one ity of the men; it looks to the future possibilimoment. Now, sir, observe how differently wety of dissimilar successors, and to the morality have acted upon the same occasion. 26 of the present Commissioners, who are merely human, and therefore not incapable of alteration. Under all the caution of this bill, with the re Earl Fitzwilliam has been spoken of here this day, in those terms of admiration with which his name is always mentioned. Take notice, how-sponsibility it imposes, I will take upon me to ever, that we did not avail ourselves of the fame of his virtue and abilities in passing this bill through the House. If such a thing were to have taken place as the institution of an Indian secretaryship (according to the suggestions of some gentlemen), this noble Lord would certainly have been the very person whom, for my part, I should have advised his Majesty to invest with that office. Yet, although his erect mind and spotless honor would have held forth to the public the fullest confidence of a faithful execution of its duties, the objections in regard to influence upon a renovable officer, are ten-fold in comparison with the present scheme. The House must now see, that with all the benefits we might derive from that nob e Lord's character that although his name would have imparted a sanctity, an ornament, and an honor to the bill, we ushered it in without that ceremony, to stand or fall by its own intrinsic merits, neither shielding it under the reputation nor gracing it under the mantle say that if the aggregate body of this Board determined to use all its power for the purpose of corruption, this House, and the people at large, would have less to dread from them, in the way of influence, than from a few Asiatics who would probably be displaced in consequence of this arrangement—some of whom will return to this country with a million, some with seven hundred thousand, some with five, besides the three or four hundred thousand of others, who are cut off in their career by the hand of Fate. An inundation of such wealth is far more dangerous than any influence that is likely to spring from a plan of government so constituted as this proposedwhether the operation of such a mass of wealth 26 The Commissioners, as named by Mr. Fox when the bill passed the House, were Earl Fitzwilliam, Chairman of the Board, the Honorable Frederick Montague, Lord Lewisham, the Honorable George Augustus North, eldest son of Lord North, Sir Gil bert Elliot, Baronet, Sir Henry Fletcher, Baronet and Robert Gregory, Esq. be considered in its probable effects upon the principles of the members of this House, or the manners of the people at large; more especially when a reflection that Orientalists are in general the most exemplary class of people in their morals, and in their deportment the most moderate, and corresponding with the distinction of their high birth and family, furnishes a very reasonable presumption that the expenditure of their money will be much about as honorable as its acquirement.27 I shall now, sir, conclude my speech with a few words upon the opinion of the right honorable gentleman [Mr. Pitt]. He says "he will stake his character upon the danger of this bill." I meet him in his own phrase, and oppose him, character to character. I risk my all upon the excellence of this bill. I risk upon it whatever is most dear to me, whatever men most value, the character of integrity, of talents, of honor, of present reputation and future fame. These and whatever else is precious to me, I stake upor the constitutional safety, the enlarged policy; the equity, and the wisdom of this measure; and have no fear in saying (whatever may be the fate of its authors) that this bill will produce to this country every blessing of commerce and revenue; and that by extending a generous and humane government over those millions whom the inscrutable destinations of Providence have placed under us in the remotest regions of the earth, it will consecrate the name of England among the noblest of nations. The vote was carried by a majority of 217 to 103. But when the bill reached the House of Lords, it was met and defeated by the influence of the King, as already mentioned in the sketch of Mr. Fox's life. SPEECH OF MR. FOX ON THE USE OF SECRET INFLUENCE TO DEFEAT HIS EAST INDIA BILL, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, DECEMBER 17, 1783. INTRODUCTION. UN the ninth of December, 1783, when Mr. Fox's East India Bill went up to the House of Lords, the ministry supposed themselves to possess the fullest evidence that it would pass that body by a decided ma jority. Within three days, however, rumors were in circulation of some extraordinary movements in the interior of the Court. It was affirmed that Lord Temple was closeted with the King on the eleventh, and that his Majesty had intrusted him with a message of some kind, expressing a strong disapprobation of the bill; which message his Lordship and others were circulating among the peers, and especially among the Lords of the Bedchamber and other members of the royal household who were more immediately conne: ted with the King's person. On the fifteenth, the Duke of Portland, as head of the ministry, alluded to these rumors in the House of Lords. Lord Temple admitted that the interview referred to had taken place, but would neither acknowledge nor deny any thing farther touching the reports in question. It was evident, however, that a powerful impression had been made. Some peers who had given their proxies to the minister or his friends, withdrew them only a few hours before the time appointed for the second reading of the bill; and a letter was at length placed in the hands of the ministry, containing the message of the King which had produced these unexpected results. The substance of this letter is given in the speech below. In view of these facts, before the bill had been decided upon by the Lords, Mr. Baker moved a resolation in the House of Commons, that "it is now necessary to declare, that to report any opinion or pro tended opinion of his Majesty upon any bill or other proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanor, derogatory to the honor of the Crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the Constitution of this country." In his remarks on the subject, Mr. Baker divided the criminality into two parts; first, the giving of secret advice to his Majesty; and, secondly, the use that had been made of the King's name for the purpose of influencing the votes of members of Parliament in a matter depending before them. He proved from the journals, that "any reference to the opinions of the King touching a bill before either House had always been judged a high breach of the privileges of Parliament." The motion was seconded by Lord Maitland, and was vehemently opposed by Mr. Pitt, who was a near relative of Lord Temple. Mr. Fox then delivered the following speech, in which he gave full vent to his indignation at the injustice done to ministers and the wound inflicted upon the Corstitution by this interference. SPEECH, &c.' I dia not intend, sir, to have said any thing in addition to that which has been already urged so ably in favor of the resolution now agitated. In 27 The adventurers to India, here called Orientalists, such as Paul Benfield, &c., were in most instances persons of no family, and of little worth or education. Hence the sneering terms here used. my own opinion, its propriety and necessity are completely and substantially established. A few particulars, suggested in the course of the debate by gentlemen on the other side of the House, This speech has been slightly abridged by omit ting a few passages in which the ideas were unneo essarily expanded. |