none, without either submitting the exigency to the judgment of their representatives, or inquiring into it afterwards, unless we can make out ground for a criminal charge against the executive government. Let us disclaim these abuses, and return to the constitution. I am not one of those who lay down rules as universal and absolute; because I think there is hardly a political or moral maxim which is universally true; but I maintain the general rule to be, that before the publick money be voted away, the occasion that calls for it should be fairly stated, for the consideration of those who are the proper guardians of the publick money. Had the minister explained his system to parliament, before he called for money to support it, and parliament had decided that it was not worth supporting, he would have been saved the mortification and disgrace in which his own honour is involved, and by being furnished with a just excuse to Prussia for withdrawing from the prosecution of it, have saved that of his sovereign and his country, which he has irrecoverably tarnished. Is unanimity necessary to his plans? He can be sure of it in no manner, unless he explains them to this house, who are certainly much better judges than he is of the degree of unanimity with which they are likely to be received. Why then did he not consult us? Because he had other purposes to answer in the use he meant to make of his majority. Had he opened himself to the house at first, and had we declared against him, he might have been stopped in the first instance: had we declared for him, we might have held him too firmly to his principle, to suffer his receding from it as he has done. Either of these alternatives he dreaded. It was his policy to decline our opinions, and to exact our confidence, that thus having the means of acting either way, according to the exigencies of his personal situation, he might come to parliament, and tell us what our opinions ought to be; which set of principles would be most expedient to shelter him from inquiry, and from punishment. It is for this he comes before us with a poor and pitiful excuse, that for want of the unanimity he expected, there was reason to fear, if

the war should go to a second campaign, that it might be obstructed. Why not speak out, and own the real fact? He feared that a second campaign might occasion the loss of his place. Let him keep but his place, he cares not what else he loses. With other men, reputation and glory are the objects of ambition; power and place are coveted but as the means of these. For the minister, power and place are sufficient of themselves. With them he is content; for them he can calmly sacrifice every proud distinction that ambition covets, and every noble prospect to which it points the way!

Sir, there is yet an argument which I have not sufficiently noticed. It has been said, as a ground for his defence, that he was prevented from gaining what he demanded by our opposition; and, but for this, Russia would have complied, and never would have hazarded a war. Sir, I believe the direct contrary, and my belief is as good as their assertion, unless they will give us some proof of its veracity. Until then, I have a right to ask them, what if Russia had not complied? Worse and worse for him! He must have gone on, redoubling his menaces and expenses, the empress of Russia continuing inflexible as ever, but for the salutary opposition which preserved him from his extremity of shame. I am not contending that armaments are never necessary to enforce negotiations; but it is one, and that not the least, of the evils attending the right honourable gentleman's misconduct, that by keeping up the parade of an armament, never meant to be employed, he has in a great measure deprived us of the use of this method of negotiating, whenever it may be necessary to apply it effectually. For if you propose to arm in concert with any foreign power, that power will answer: "What security can you give me that you will persevere in that system? You ay you cannot go to war, unless your people are unanimous." If you aim to negotiate against a foreign power, that power will say: " I have only to persist the British minister may threaten, but he dare not act he will not hazard the loss of his place by a war." A right honourable gentleman* in excuse for withholding papers, asked what foreign power would negotiate with an English cabinet, if their secrets were likely to be developed, and exposed to the idle curiosity of a house of commons?-I do not dread such a consequence; but if I must be pushed to extremes, if nothing were left me but an option between opposite evils, I should have no hesitation in choosing. "Better have no dealings with them at all," I should answer, " if the right of inquiry into every part of a negotiation they think fit, and of knowing why they are to vote the money of their constituents, be denied the house of commons." But there is something like reason why no foreign power will negotiate with us, and that a much better reason than a dread of disclosing their secrets, in the right honourable gentleman's example. I declare, therefore, for the genius of our constitution, against the practice of his majesty's ministers: I declare that the duties of this house are, vigilance in preference to secrecy, deliberation in preference to despatch. Sir, I have given my reasons for supporting the motion for a vote of censure on the minister. I will listen to his defence with attention, and I will retract wherever he shall prove me to be wrong.

LORD CLARE'S SPEECH,

ON A MOTION OF ADDRESS TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT, &C.

THE Earl of Moira presented the subsequent reso lution to the house of lords of Ireland, on the 19th of February 1798, being the repetition of one of the same purport, which he had a short time previously moved, without effect, in the English house of lords.

"That an address be presented to his excellency the lord lieutenant, representing that, as parliament has confided to his excellency extraordinary powers for supporting the laws and for defeating any traitor. ous combinations which may exist in this kingdom, this house feels it, at the same time, a duty to recommend the adoption of such conciliatory measures as may allay the apprehensions, and extinguish the discontents unhappily prevalent in this country."

Whether the lenient and conciliatory course, which the resolution proposes could have been prudently pursued, it seems difficult to determine. By the opposite system, though in some instances marked by a " vigour beyond the law," it must be admitted that the daring project of dissolving the connexion between the two countries was defeated, and the dis tractions of those " evil times" allayed.

It

The present speech is a very important one, traces with unusual ability, and detailed exactness the discontent of Ireland from " its seminal state" through all its progressive stages of growth

till it burst in full maturity in plots, treason, and conspiracy; and shows that, however narrow and restrictive may have been the spirit of British policy towards the sister isle, she in return, has been no less factious, and disloyal; always eager and importunate in her demands, which no concession could satisfy, and no redress appease.

It moreover contains a complete refutation of the calumnies so industriously circulated against the Irish government while engaged in suppressing the recent rebellions. If the government were guilty of wanton cruelty and oppression, the earl of Moira, who certainly betrayed no want of care or diligence in the collection of proofs of these charges, was exceedingly unfortunate in the choice of those which he adduced. For in the whole catalogue of his allegations, there is not one which lord Clare does not conclusively prove to be either a groundless fabrication, or which, if true, he does not extenuate or justify. The resolution of course was rejected.

We may, with perfect confidence, recommend this admirable speech to the attentive perusal of every one, who is desirous of investigating the " high matters" it discusses, or who is ambitious to cultivate a style of eloquence neat, cogent, and argumentative. In strength, it is a Dorick column of granite, without one of the slight ornaments of the composite.

MY LORDS,

SPEECH, &c.

I AM happy to have an opportunity of discussing this subject with the noble lord in this assembly. I know of none on which there has been such a series of studied and persevering misrepresentation, and certainly very liberal contributions have been made to the common stock, under the sanction and authority of the noble earl's name. If we are to believe reports apparently well authenticated, which have been nearly avowed this night on his part, the noble earl has twice brought forward this subject in the