Mr. Adam.

Mr. Adam affured the Houfe, that although a very long period had intervened fince he addreffed them on any matter of public bufinefs, yet he would not proportion the length of the time he was to confume to the length of his filence. It was not his intention to enter into the great and extensive queftion of the effects of the treaty. Even if he had time to devote to it, and were endowed with talents to illuminate, and eloquence to convey, the powerful manner in which that subject had been treated formerly by a right honourable gentleman, (Mr. Fox) the brilliancy and fplendour which had been caft around it that night by two other gentlemen (Mr. Grey and Mr. Burke) would be a fufficient reafon for him not to touch that part of the question, independent of the other motives; therefore, when he ftated what he did not mean to speak to, the Houfe would fee he was to keep his word as far as want of premeditation, which commonly generated length, would permit. He did not mean to speak to the commercial, the political, or revenue parts of the treaty, but to the question then immediately before the Houle. He felt himself called to it, particularly by the words with which the gentleman who had fpoken laft (Mr. W. Grenville) concluded. The question had been stated by him to be new, important, and extenfive. He believed it deferved all these different epithets, and, for that reafon, a new, extraordinary, and unprecedented ftep fhould not be taken in calling for an approbation of it in the manner now done. He stated the queftion before the House, viz. that on the motion for the addrefs, the previous queftion had been moved. The fubject for the determination of the Houfe, therefore, was, whether the queftion for the address, under all the circumftances of time, of manner of wording, and fo on, was a fit question to be put. It was quite clear, that all those who were of opinion that the treaty in question was not a wife measure, would of course avoid voting for the addrefs, by fupporting the previous queftion; that all those who were of opinion that there had not been fufficient time to deliberate and inquire, would act in the fame manner; but that it by no means followed, that those who were of opinion, that, in principles of policy, it was wife, and that the time for confideration had been deliberate, fhould therefore concur that this addrefs was fit, and that the previous queftion fhould be rejected. On the contrary, he meant to fhew, by the principles adopted by Parliament, and the invariable practice of the Houfe, that the addrefs ought to be refifted by all who had any regard either for the indpendence of the House of Commons, or the dignity or the honour of the Crown. He then ftated, that he would endeavour to

2,

fhew

Thew the principles on which the Houfe had paffed addreffes, and that the prefent addrefs propofed did not fall within any of those principles. He faid, that when the country was or was not likely to be engaged in war, the Houfe had been in the cuftom of addreffing the Crown, for the purpose of ftrengthening the executive hand of government. When

the Crown, by the prerogative, had concluded a peace, provided that peace were either peculiarly favourable to the country, or had fucceeded to a fuccefsful or glorious war, it had been common on fuch occafions to addrefs the Crown as matter of approbation or fatisfaction. In the discharge of the executive government of the country, when the Crown had been engaged in negociation, it was customary for Parliament to encourage the efforts of the Crown by their approbation of thofe exertions in general; but they had been particularly cautious not to exprefs themfelves pending any treaty, in a manner to preclude their own free and unfettered powers of deliberation; and fuch addreffes had on all occafions been kept in the moft general terms, fo as to avoid the poffibility of any fuch conftruction. Even in time of difficulty and danger, when the war preffed, and negociation was neceffary to counteract the power and intentions of our enemies, they had been cautious in their expreffions, in the addreffes prefented to the Crown, left they fhould have precluded themselves from future deliberation. To prove this, he mentioned fome inftances of addreffes to King William juft before his death, when the fame enemies who had threatened the liberty of Europe, had again threatened its power in the year 1700, and in the time of the war, which ended with the peace of Utrecht to Queen Annę, to fhew that when treaties were the fubject of address, even in times of imminent danger, the Houfe was cautious in adoptting words or expreffions which could be deemed preclufive. He mentioned likewife the conduct of the Houfe in the Union with Scotland. That fubject, of the greatest importance to the two countries, had been long under deliberation. From the acceffion of King James the First to the reign of Queen Anne, it had been a fubject of fpeculation and difcuffion, and it was at laft brought forward in Parliament that addreffes were voted concerning it. But they were uniformly in general terms; no pledge, no preclufion either to the Legiflature of this country or that of Scotland. He therefore confidered the precedents nearly as his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Anftruther) had ftated them to be, invariably fuch as admitted a free difcuffion of the topics on which they proceeded. He had not heard one inftance to the contrary, except that of the Irifh propofitions, which had not been fated in debate, but rather whifpered acrofs the

House

Houfe by a learned and right honourable gentleman (Mr. Dundas). He had fince looked into that precedent, and he pledged himself that there was not the leaft fimilarity between that addrefs and the prefent, and not one of the points of objection to this addrefs applied to that; the one pledged the House to nothing final, but left them open both on the words and from the nature of it. The words were inconclufive; there had been more complete deliberation, and the object was a treaty between the Parliament of the two countries; not a final approbation to the Crown of a treaty which the King had commenced.

He then read a paragraph from the Irifh addrefs to the following effect:

46

“That after a long and careful investigation of the various queftions neceffarily arifing out of this comprehensive fubject, we have come to the feveral refolutions which we now humbly prefent to His Majefty, and which, we "truft, will form the basis of an advantageous and perma "nent fettlement between His Majefty's kingdoms of Great "Britain and Ireland."

He contrafted thefe words with the first paragraph of the address moved, and argued that the expreffions of the former contained a more complete proof of ferious inveftigation, independent of the circumftances of time and difcuffion which every body knew; and likewife that the words fhewed the matter begun, not finished, approving, not precluding. He then ftated with the last view another paragraph of the Irish address, to fhew it was not preclufive, and contrafted that and the former, with the second paragraph of the address, which he contended was preclufive, and fuch as, from the words of it, deftroyed the deliberative power of the Houfe. In every future ftage of proceeding, they must be prevented by this vote from difcuffing any matter which might occur. Minifters would have it in their power to tell them, whenever they attempted to debate the point in any fubfequent proceeding, that their opinion was already given. Another material obfervation occurred on the Irith addrefs., That addrefs had been in confequence of mutual confideration and mature examination by the two Houfes. On the prefent occafion the Lords had never had the fubject under their deliberation. He faid that he did not contend that the Houfe was incapable of addreffing, without the concurrence of the other branch of the Legiflature; but that it was not a neceffary confequence that because that Houfe addreffed, the other would; and if there fhould be any difference, it would be a moft extraordinary and unprecedented thing to find that the hands of the Monarch were ftrengthened by one branch of the Legislature, and the fame principle difapproved of by the

other. But he contended, that the great and leading feature was this, which should,alarm and induce them to vote for the. previous question: that there were future measures refpecting the treaty for the Houfe to deliberate upon, and that the words of the present addrefs precluded thein from that deliberation. If that was the cafe, the freedom of Parliament was violated, and the principles of its conftitution betrayed. If not, and that they could deliberate again, fuppofe the refult of their deliberation different, they got into a dilemma equally perplexing. By this addrefs they invigorated the hands of the Crown, told all Europe that they approved of the treaty, pledged themfelves to France, entitled the King of this free country to make a more decifive and determined propofition; and if any future view of the fubject should induce them to change their opinion, they could not express that without rifking the difgrace of forcing their Sovereign to withdraw a pledge which their rafhness and precipitation had, empowered him to give. He concluded with faying, that the right honourable gentleman who had spoken before him (Mr. Grenville) had faid that the fituation of Minifters was new, and they had been called on for money and meafures. No administration had ever delighted more in novelty and innovation; but whether thefe novelties had been actually carried, or had been miferably abortive, he trusted that they would not be empowered by the vote of that night to add to the lift, by voting an addrefs new and unprecedented, unneceffary and premature in the prefent ftage of the bufinefs, and, as he had attempted to fhew, without a fingle precedent to direct it; for as far as the principles of the constitution were to be drawn from facts, their voting the addrefs would be deftructive of that freedom of deliberation which it was the object of the forms of Parliament to protect.

Mr. Wilberforce complaining that he had been frequently Mr. Wil mifquoted and mifreprefented, added, that some honourable berforce, gentlemen had chofen to understand, or, at leaft, to reprefent him as faying, that the Houfe would cease to confider it as the political intereft of the nation, that in no cafe alliances could be defirable. This was not altogether his meaning; nor in fending gentlemen to the poor man's cottage, had he it in his wifh to work on the feelings of the Houfe, but to point out to them, by an appeal to fact, that what was the moft fuccefsful and glorious to the country did but ill compenfate to the bulk of the people the hardships to which it fubjected them, and the perpetual burdens which it imposed; believing that foreign connections often engaged us in wars, and often, too, failed us in the hour of trial. He conceived nothing could be more abfurd than for the chance of those foreign alliances to facrifice certain commercial advantages, which,

Rr 2

which, whilst they tended to make us really better prepared for war when we fhould be engaged in it, promoted, in the mean while, the domeftic confort and private happiness of the fociety. He next adverted to what had been urged concerning the fenfe of the manufacturers, maintaining that it was abfurd to deny their being favourable to the treaty, because they had not made a formal communication of their opinions to the Houfe, when every man must know their univerfal concurrence in the measure who had made the smalleft inquiry. He now read a letter to his colleague and himself froin a meeting at Leeds, expreffive of the meeting's high approbation of the treaty, and defiring them to push it forward with all proper expedition. He defired, before he fat down, to ftate one argument to the House, and more particularly to his honourable friend (Mr. Wyndham) which had not yet been urged. It might lead the oppofers of the treaty to fufpect that party motives had too ftrong an operation on their friends in the judgement which they had formed. Many on that fide of the Houfe, he really believed, acted moft ftrictly according to the dictates of their confcience; but what could fo plainly demonftrate a fpirit of party as the whole of their conduct and language on this occafion. They now in the ftrongeft terms reprobated the idea of any commercial connection, or any harmonious intercourfe with France. They ftated it to be a fyftem which it was referved for the rafhnefs of the prefent Miniftry to introduce, it having often before been attempted, but always unfuccessfully; and when it had actually been tried in fome of the worst periods of our hiftory, it was foon difcontinued as a fyftem ruinous to the beft interefts of the country; yet he must appeal to the recollection of every man in the House, if the many perfons who now urged these arguments had not in the beginning of the negociations heard the propofition of the French treaty difcuffed with acquiefcence, and even approbation? Why had they not from the firft ftated these terrible apprehenfions which they now entertained, which he defired gentlemen would obferve (becaufe here lay the ftrefs of the argument) were reprefented not to arife from any particular provifions contained in the treaty, but from an alarm at our making any treaty at all; any connection which could bear the name of friendly, with a power whom we ought to keep at arms length, and confider under all circuniftances as a mortal and irreconcileable enemy; yet, so far from feeling thefe emotions of horror at the very notion, in the first instance, they had rather confidered the scheme as one which Miniftry were not fincere in their attempts to execute, reprefenting it to be little more than a way of gaining over an ufeful ally to government in the perfon of the negocia

tor.