MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
The British parliament assembled on the 30th of December. In the speech from the throne his majesty admitted the disasters of the last campaign; but he urged the necessity of continuing the war, and recommended additional efforts and vigour as the only means of producing successful results. His majesty also admitted the desperate condition of Holland and the United Provinces, which the Duke of York had vainly endeavoured to defend; and he informed the houses that the States-general had been led by a sense of present difficulties to enter into negociations with the republicans for peace; but he added, that no established government or independent state could, under the present circumstances, derive real security from negociations; and that, on our part, no negociations could be entered into without sacrificing both honour and safety to an enemy whose chief animosity was avowedly directed against these kingdoms. The king mentioned his acceptance of the crown and sovereignty of Corsica, and announced the happy conclusion of a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation with the United States of America. He also announced the conclusion of a treaty for the marriage of the Prince of Wales with the Princess Caroline of Brunswick, and called upon his faithful commons to make such provision for the heir apparent as they might deem suitable to his rank and dignity. In the lords, the Earl of Guildford moved an amendment to the address, and urged the impracticability of attaining the object of the war; namely, the dictating of a government with France. He was supported by the Marquis of Lansdowne, who said, that he saw no difficulty in treating with France at the present period. But the amendment was rejected by a majority of one hundred and seven against twelve. The strength of ministers in the commons was manifested, likewise, on this occasion, in an unequivocal manner. The address was moved by Mr. Knatchbull, and seconded by Mr. Canning, who was fast rising into reputation, and who particularly distinguished himself in these debates. Mr. Canning defended ministers against every imputation of the calamities and disasters of the war being the result of their ignorance and mismanagement, and ridiculed the warnings and predictions of opposition. He observed,—“It is true they have often foretold the desertion of our allies, as well as the astonishing exertions of the enemy; and I cannot but confess that such is unfortunately the result. It is not, however, any difficult matter to prophesy disappointment and ill-success: if the prediction proved false, gentlemen would feel too much satisfaction in the success of their country to think of it; if it proved true, those who made it would triumph, as they would certainly feel some satisfaction for their superior sagacity. But while I thus give credit to the opposition for their predictions, I also claim some credit for those on my own side of the question; for when Jacobinism was at its greatest height, when its influence circulated through every part of the French government, and when Robespierre governed the country with the most absolute sway, even then its fall was foretold in that house, and happily with truth. But let me not be misunderstood. I do not mean that by the accession of the moderates to the sovereign power in France, the possibility of our treating with them has become greater. The only difference between them and the Jacobins is, that they professed the intentions, though they had not the power of the latter. Their hostility to this country is equal to that of the Jacobins; and the house will have an opportunity of judging what reliance can be placed on their moderation by the terms they may give to the Dutch, who were not instigators of the war, but compelled to join in it; and if the terms they give to the Dutch prove hard, what might this country expect? If we could even have a peace now with France, it would be an insecure one. It must be a peace with all the inconveniences and expenses of a war establishment; such a peace as this country would never assent to.” On this occasion Pitt was mortified by the opposition of his friend Wilberforce, who objected that the obvious tendency of the address was to pledge the house to a prosecution of the war till there should be a counter revolution in France. He expressed himself alarmed at the terrible doctrines which had been promulgated from the throne and reiterated from the ministerial side of the house. A perpetual war, which could only cease with the restoration of the French monarchy, was to him a startling proposition, calculated to shock his principles and appal his feelings. Wilberforce deprecated both the speech and address, and took an extensive view of the comparative state of both countries after a long and sanguinary conflict, in which both had intensely suffered; and he concluded with moving an amendment, embracing the principal topics in the speech. Several members spoke in favour of the amendment; and Pitt rose with excited feelings to reply. He remarked:—“The reasons that have induced gentlemen to dissent from the prosecution of the war-, seem to have possessed a considerable influence on the manner in which they speak of its justice and necessity at the commencement; and their language is fainter and feebler than I had reason to expect. Contending as these gentlemen and I did with the new and monstrous system of cruelty, anarchy, and impiety, against those whose principles trampled on civilised society, religion, and law;—contending, I say, with such a system, I could not have entertained the slightest expectation that from them would have proceeded such an amendment. It has pleased an inscrutable Providence that this power ef France should trample over everything that has been opposed to it: but let us not therefore fall without any efforts to resist it; let us not sink without measuring its strength.” Pitt affirmed that neither the speech nor the address pledged the house never to make peace with the republican government of France, though he confessed that he had no idea of a secure peace till the return of the monarchy. The change which had taken place in that government was a change merely in the name, and not in substance; it no more deserved the name of moderate than that under Brissot, which had provoked this country to war. If peace could be obtained it would not place us, he said, in a situation of confidence, and therefore precautions must be increased. Even if disposed to peace, fear would compel the French rulers to give their troops employment; and if we dissolved the continental confederacy, we could not hope to see it again restored; and then we should be exposed alone to the fury of France. In conclusion, Pitt entered into a variety of details, showing that the French finances were on the gulf of bankruptcy, and auguring from thence their final overthrow, gold ever being the sinews of war. Pitt’s sentiments prevailed the amendment was negatived by two hundred and forty-six against seventy-three.
CHAPTER XXII.
GEORGE III. 1795-1796
Bill for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act (continued)..... Subsidy to Austria..... Supplies, &c..... Pitt’s Plan to man the Navy, &c..... The Slave-Trade Question..... Termination of the Trial of Warren Hastings..... Motion for Inquiry into the State of the Nation rejected..... Marriage of the Prince of Wales..... Parliament Prorogued..... The Affairs of Ireland..... Naval Affairs in the Mediterranean, &c...... French Operations in Holland, &c...... Treaties between France and Prussia, &c..... Treaty between England and Russia, &c..... The Campaign of the Alps..... Affairs of La Vendee..... Armies on the Rhine..... Affairs at Paris..... Meeting of Parliament..... Bill to prevent Seditious Meetings, &c.
A.D. 1795
BILL FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT (CONTINUED.)
On the 5th of January, Sheridan rose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. This motion was unsuccessful; and on the 15th the attorney-general moved for, and obtained leave to bring in a bill for continuing the suspension for a limited time. The second reading of this bill was carried on the 23rd, after a long debate, by a majority of two hundred and thirty-nine against fifty-three, when it was transmitted to the lords. It passed the house of peers without a division; but the Dukes of Norfolk and Bedford, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Earls of Lauderdale and Guildford entered a spirited protest against the measure. It was argued by the opposition that the preamble of the suspension act, which stated that a dangerous conspiracy existed in the country, was not true; that a verdict in court—on the trial of Walker, Hardy, Home Tooke, and others—had shown this conspiracy to be a fabrication; and that, as no treason had been brought to light, and the alleged ground of the suspension act did not exist, if was unnecessary. On the other hand it was argued, that the determination of the jury was no proof of the existence of a conspiracy; that the guilty were often acquitted in courts of justice, not because they were innocent, or considered innocent, but merely because there was no strictly legal evidence to confirm the truth; and that, therefore, a verdict in their favour could not operate as a motive for repealing the act, even if it were admitted that their indictment for high treason had not been supported by legal proof.