Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

rules of specifick proportion unnecessary, and to secure, that Ireland shall never be taxed but in proportion as we tax ourselves.

The application of these principles, however, will form matter of future discussion. I mention them only as strongly showing, from the misrepresentation which has taken place on this part of the subject, how incumbent it is upon the house to receive these propositions, and to adopt, after due deliberation, such resolutions as may record to Ireland the terms upon which we are ready to meet her. And, in the mean time, let us wait, not without impatience, but without dissatisfaction, for that moment, when the effect of reason and discussion may reconcile the minds of men, in the kingdom, to a measure which I am sure will be found as necessary for their peace and happiness, as it will be conducive to the general security and advantage of the British empire.

Sir, it remains for me only to lay these resolutions before the house, wishing that the more detailed discussion of them may be reserved to a future day.

THE SPEECH

OF THE HON. RICHARD B. SHERIDAN,

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, JANUARY, 1802, ON THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF AMIENS.

WHEN the treaty of Amiens came under the consideration of the British parliament, there appeared relative to that measure, three distinct political parties. By the ministry who concluded the peace it was, of course, approved and vindicated. By a section of their predecessors in office, who had originated and conducted the war it was most strenuously resisted, and violently condemned as a disgraceful and ruinous compromise of the dignity, the honour, and safety of the country.

By the old opposition, consisting of Mr. Fox and his friends, the peace was defended, not on account of the merits of the treaty, but as required by the crippled and exhausted condition to which the nation was reduced by the disasters of the war.

Among those that contemplated the measure in this last point of view was Mr. Sheridan, whose speech on the occasion, is here introduced.

However we may dissent from the principles and reasoning contained in this speech, we cannot help admiring the sparkling wit, and good humoured raillery which render it so gay, so brilliant and so amusing.

SIR,

SPEECH, &c.

AT this late hour* it is with extreme reluctance I rise to address the house, and to trespass upon your time and patience. I shall not be singular to night in professions I make you of avoiding details; but, sir, in one respect my conduct will be different from that of any other gentleman who has addressed you. I will keep my word. If I feel repugnance to rise at so late an hour, I feel equally strange with respect to the unpopularity which I fear I must experience. It is natural to every person to have pleasure in voting in a majority, though to that pleasure I believe I have been long a stranger. Among the strange things we are continually witnessing, is the strange division of parties at present in this house. Sir, I have heard it said, that there are about twelve or thirteen different parties among us; nay, some carry the number much further. Now I scarcely expect a single vote with me beyond that little circle of a constitutional party who have for the last ten years been the objects of so much unqualified abuse; but those men who have so often been held up to publick opprobrium, are the very same men whose every prediction has been fulfilled, and every fear realized. The discussion of this necessary, but disgraceful treaty of peace, to night, is a confirmation of the propriety of their political conduct during the whole course of the war. My friends must feel poignant shame and deep humiliation at the situation to which by these terms this country is reduced, but which they have laboured steadily to avert. Those who oppose this peace have been arraigned by the last speaker, as aiming at a censure on the issue of the negotiations, and on the ministers themselves. And certainly, sir, their object is to condemn the peace, and to cast a slur on the abilities of his majesty's ministers. But, in this conduct of theirs, they have at least the merit of being

* Two o'clock in the morning.

consistent. I support the peace, because I feel confident no better terms, considering all circumstances, could be got. Their predecessors had taken care of that. They had left them no choice, but between an expensive, bloody, and fruitless war, and a perilous and hollow peace.

They have chosen the best of the alternatives. Now, says the minister, they who oppose me, depress the country. I thank these new oppositionists for their manly firmness in coming forward and opposing, upon their own principles, this degrading treaty. Let the people of this country be fully aware of all the circumstances of the peace. They have done their duty, then, in thus publickly discussing them. But a right honourable gentleman, not here this evening, an ex-minister too, suspects something more. If he has not altered his opinion since the preceding day, he suspects their motives. They, says he, disapprove the treaty, and attack administration, because they wish to drive out ministers, and succeed to their places; and for that purpose they have formed a confederacy. Truly, sir, a heavy charge. But, I must declare, that they never veiled their opinions. Some of them, especially, have been at all times very open, and I conceive that it would be high injustice to suspect them upon slight grounds of a dirty cabal to turn out the present ministers. Says the right honourable gentleman, upon their principles they would never have made peace. Why so we have always said. It is now therefore confirmed, that a leading part of the late ministry acted upon such principles. But the right honourable gentleman, the preceding day denounced their foul ambition, and their design to trip up the heels of their successours! Another great discovery is made. These persons' principles were such as rendered a peace impossible, and yet the very men who say so, have just been thanking them all, as the saviours of the country! Can the right honourable gentleman account for this inconsistency? I should

* Mr. Dundas.

You

think not; and yet he looks so confidently, I almost think he could. He thought I was jeering him, as if I did not suppose him a constant supporter of the war; and he assures the house "he was a steady friend to it." But he has now found out that it was necessary to stop. Pray why not have stopped a little sooner? Why not before we were so much exhausted? For instance, when Buonaparte made you an offer. Now, however, he finds the necessity of peace. But is this such a peace as will give us real repose? Consider your debt and taxes, and the necessity which seems to be at length coming upon us of keeping up a peace establishment, unknown in this country. It is lamentable to see you all split into miserable parties, when your great enemy is uniting every possible means of extending his power. are squabbling about the measuring of ribbons and tapes, and the paltry revenues of Malta, when much greater objects are before you. The events of every day seem to call more and more for the expression of that publick feeling, that the time will come when French encroachments and oppression will cease, and when the voice of this country must be clearly raised against their atrocious and tyrannical conduct. The right honourable gentleman says we have preserved our honour." Honour depends more on the manner of doing a thing, than on the thing itself. We had a great armament at the time of negotiation, but I don't hear that it carried any point whatever. This, says he, is a piece in which we relinquish nothing, but gain much. Will any man of common sense undertake to prove that? I defy him to name the single object, ever varying, ever shifting, unrelinquished. What did we go to war for? Why, to prevent French aggrandizement. Have we done that? No. Then we are to rescue Holland. Is that accomplished or relinquished? No. Brabant was a sine qua non-Is it gained? No. Then some security and indemnity! Are they obtained? The late minister told us, that the example of a jacobin government in Europe, founded on the ruins of the

[ocr errors]
« ElőzőTovább »