be employed with success by men who have loosened by their misconduct the bonds which unite Great Britain and the sister kingdom ?

I think that I have said enough to show that you are now called upon to address his majesty for the dismissal of his present ministers. I am curious to hear what arguments will be employed to prove that the present ministers are the men in the kingdom the best qualified for the offices they hold. They have been often warned of the mischiefs with which their measures were pregnant. They have laughed at all advice, and have persevered in their own system with an obstinacy equalled only by the calamities which it has produced. But it may be said their intention was good. Admitting that this were the case, how has it happened that every act they have performed has tended not to raise, but to disgrace the country. Perhaps too it may be contended that they are the only men qualified for the stations they occupy. They may arrogantly maintain that they are the only men whose loyalty and integrity are beyond doubt. I will be bold to assert, however, that in this and the other house of parliament there is a sufficient number of men of great talents and fair character to form a cabinet capable of conducting the affairs of this country with ability and success. Will ministers deny this to be the case?

Perhaps, however, the arrogant language which some of his majesty's ministers have held may be supposed to allude to those with whom I act; for I scarcely think I shall be considered as a candidate for office, or as holding myself out as qualified for high publick situations. Those persons, then, with whom it is my honour and pride to act, are the men against whom these suspicions are insinuated; I ask, then, what is there in their conduct to justify the charge, or to support so arrogant a pretension? Who is the man who may be considered as a candidate for office? Is it not the man of compliant disposition who will descend to every artifice to gain power. Who court majorities? Men bold and presumptuous in success, weak and submissive in danger. Have we deserted the principles we have professed? Have we by every fawning art courted the favour of majorities? Have we abandoned the uniform line of conduct upon which we have acted? Let the world judge, then, who are the candidates for office and the worshippers of power. If it be ground of apprehension and of jealousy that we have never abandoned our principles and belied our professions, then we may have justly incurred such suspicion. We have said, and still maintain, that a reform in parliament is necessary to infuse new vigour into the constitution; to control the overgrown influence of the crown, to check that enormous influence which the minister has derived by the creation of peers, when peers are sent to this house by dozens.*

If any noble lord conceives that I am disorderly, I beg that he will proceed according to the rules of the house. Let him put down the words he thinks were improperly used, and take the opinion of the house upon them. To the decision of this house I shall always submit: but I will not be interrupted unless these forms are complied with. †

Then I must hope I was not disorderly. I was saying that we ought to guard against the influence of aristocracy. I think the house of commons is no longer likely to have the independence it used to have, now that the minister selects all the men of opulence and character to sit in this house. It must be acknowledged, that such are the persons on whom distinctions and honours ought to be bestowed; but I am afraid that the consequence of this system will be, that at length there will no longer be country gen. tlemen of sufficient fortune to incur the expense of a contested election. Thus the influence of the crown will increase, because almost every member of the house of commons will be in the nomination of the minister; and the few places which now send inde. pendent members will sink into the situation of rotten boroughs.

Upon these grounds I am a friend to parliamentary reform; and, if that be the objection which is held out against those who act with me, it is an objection from which we shall never shrink! I am also, like them, a friend to our sovereign, and to the constitution of our country. When imputations are made against a body of men, it is competent for them to justify themselves. Perhaps the same rule might be extended to individuals; but had not my conduct been made the subject of animadversion, I should not have thought it necessary to have troubled your lordships with any observations upon it.

This subject leads me to another, upon which I can only hope, from your indulgence, to be heard for a few minutes. The first time I had the honour of calling the attention of your lordships to this subject, I was told, it could not be of any importance. The second time it was said, that the manner in which I had brought it forward, justified its being rejected, especially as I had for six weeks absented myself from this house. Those who were present on that occasion will recollect, that I did not consider it a matter of much importance myself when the discussion should come on, as I could have no hope of success, and consequently none of benefiting the country by any exertion I might make. Indeed I am anxious to show, that I rather brought it forward in compliance with the suggestion of my friends, than in consequence of any wish of my own. At the same time I will not admit that my absenting myself for any period of time from this house, is a sufficient reason to induce me not to call your lordships' attention to any subject which may appear to me to be of importance to the country. Finding that every endeavour made by myself and my friends, to oppose the misconduct of ministers, produced no utility, I had in common with my friends thought proper to retire. At that time, however, I stated, that if ever

I thought I could be of any service to the publick, I would come forward. When the assessed tax bill was brought before your lordships, I did come forward, and endeavoured to point out what I conceived were likely to be its pernicious effects, but without success. When the expedients to which the minister is driven for raising money prove that we are near the end of our resources, surely you cannot be so improvident as to commit their application to the same hands by which they have hitherto been so uselessly squandered.

There is another subject to which my attention is naturally drawn, in touching upon the present topick. After the severe punishment which has to night been inflicted upon the proprietor and printer of a newspaper, * it may not be unfair to complain of the foul calumnies which are heaped by the underlings, or, I know not what to call them, of government, upon every man who opposes the measures of administration. The basest aspersions and the most scandalous insinuations, are lavished upon all who venture to dissent from the measures or opinion of ministers. Such indeed is the quantity of this abuse, that it seems as if those who employ it considered themselves too scantily paid by their superiours, and endeavoured to make up for it by currying favour with their readers by the grossness of their falsehoods and scurrilities. We have been charged with inflaming the people by our speeches against the government, and with being hostile to the true principles of the constitution. It may be said that we ought not to regard these calumnies, and ought to persevere in doing our duty. It becomes a question, however, what is our duty. Such despicable calumnies certainly ought to be treated with contempt. If, however, instead of resisting the encroachments of the minister, our attendance has no other effect but to sanction his abuses, and teach the people to believe that they have no alternative but to choose between the present ministers and those

* The Morning Chronicle.

1

1

with whom I act, I should consider that attendance as not only nugatory but mischievous. If such, however, be the alternative which ministers choose to hold out, it becomes our duty to prove that the calumny is ill founded. By withdrawing the attention of the country from us, and fixing it upon ministers, we are desirous that they should reflect that no evil can be greater than the continuance of the present ministers in office. Then they will find men able to conduct their affairs, men fitted to conciliate Ireland, to obtain peace, men in whom the French will have no title to think concession is weakness. When we hold a reform in parliament to be necessary, we know that this measure is unfavourably received by the majority. We are convinced, however, that without this the country can never be placed upon a good footing. We stand pledged to take no share in any administration, in which this is not a leading object. In saying this, I am ready to confess that there are some measures which appear to me to be more immediately necessary than parliamentary reform a peace with France, the conciliation of Ireland, with the question of catholick emancipation, and parliamentary reform in that country. While I admit this, however, I hold a parliamentary reform is a leading object. This I say merely in answer to the charge of being a candidate for office, for I should be ashamed to talk of myself as fit for any office in any other view. Uporn this subject I likewise declare that the specifick plan proposed last year in another place has my concurrence. I will say further, that without a peace with France, without conciliation with Ireland, parliamen. tary reform can be of no advantage to the country; while the latter is necessary to secure and to improve the benefits of the former. There may be men of talents and integrity perfectly well qualified for the first offices of the state who would not consider parliamentary reform as a necessary ingredient in their system. Such men I should congratulate upon their boldness in undertaking the conduct of publick affairs upon such terms. So long, however, as they acted for