XL. 1781. CHAP. fwallow up the leffer good of economical retrenchment. The dignity of the British crown was connected with the dignity and opulence of the nation, nor could the enormous expences into which Great Britain had been forced by the enemy be repaired by fuch an unimportant faving as the bill propofed, acquired at the expence of individuals who, relying on the good faith of parliament, confidered their property as fecure and permanent as freehold eftates. Firft fpeech of Mr. William Pitt. THIS debate was diftinguifhed by the first parliamentary exertion of the honourable Wiliam Pitt, younger fon of the illuftrious earl of Chatham. On his rifing in the house, mute attention prevailed; the genius of the parent was recollected, and the most eager curiofity was excited to afcertain how great a portion of it was tranfmitted to the fon. Such great hopes and anxious expectations were never more amply gratified; the juvenile orator delivered himself with grace, facility, and animation; his manner, which afterward became fo elegant, was deliberate, and equally remote from timid bafhfulness, and overweening prefumption. His voice was rich and striking; his periods harmonious and energetic, without appearance of art or study; and his reasoning displayed all the fire of his father, combined with that which his father often wanted, methodical arrangement, and lucid order. He gave hearty affent to the principle of the bill, and thought a propofition for retrenchment of the civil lift revenue would have come with more grace, more benefit to the public fervice, if it had sprung from the royal breaft. Minifters fhould have given to the people the confolation of knowing that their fovereign participated in the fufferings of the empire; they ought to have confulted the glory of their royal mafter, and feated him in the hearts of his people, by abating from magnificence what was due to neceffity. Instead of waiting for the flow request of a burthened people, they fhould have courted popu XL. 1781. larity by a voluntary furrender of useless revenue. CHA P. But if ministers failed in their duty; if they interfered between the benignity of the fovereign, and the diftreffes of the public, and stopped the tide of royal fympathy, was that a reason why the houfe of commons, his majesty's public counsellors, fhould defist from a measure fo congenial to the paternal feelings of the fovereign, fo applicable to the wants and miferies of the people? The house, acting as faithful reprefentatives, ought to feize on every object of equitable refource; and furely none were fo fair, fo probable, or fo flattering as retrenchment and economy. The obligations of their character demanded an unhesitating pursuit of thofe objects, even to the foot of the throne. Actuated by duty, they should advife the king to part with useless oftentation, that he might preferve neceffary power; to abate a little of pomp, that he might afcertain refpect; to diminish fomewhat of exterior grandeur, that he might increase and fecure authentic dignity. It was their immediate duty, as the commons houfe of parliament, to guard the lives, liberties, and property of the people: the last obligation was the strongest, because property was most liable to invafion by the fecret and fubtle attacks of influence. It could not derogate from the real glory of the crown to accept the advice; it could be no diminution of true grandeur to yield to the respectful petitions of the people. Tutelage might be a hard term; but the guardianfhip of that house could not be difgraceful to a conftitutional king. The abridgment of unneceffary expence could be no abatement of royalty. Magnificence and grandeur were not inconfiftent with retrenchment and economy; but on the contrary, in times of neceffity, and uncommon exertion, folid grandeur was dependent on the reduction of expence. It was obferved early in the debate, that the bill combined two objects which ought to have been separate; reform and economy; in his opinion, they ought to go hand-in-hand; but the XL. 1781. CHAP. the bill had a third object, more important than either, a reduction of the influence of the crown; an influence more dreadful, because more fecret in its attacks, and more concealed in its operations than the power of prerogative. The proposed saving, it was objected, was immaterial, a matter of trifling confideration when measured by the neceffities or expences of the times. This was, furely, a moft fingular and unaccountable fpecies of reafoning. The calamities of the crifis were too great to be benefited by economy; the public expences fo enormous that it was ridiculous to attend to fmall matters of account. So many millions had been expended that thousands were beneath confideration. Such was the language of the day, fuch the reasoning by which the principle of the bill was dif puted. Much argument had been ufed to fhow the impropriety of refuming a parliamentary grant, and the right of the houfe had ever been denied. The weakness of fuch a doctrine was its refutation. But it ought to be remembered, that the civil lift revenue was granted for other purposes than those of perfonal gratification. It was granted to fupport the dignity and interests of the empire, to maintain its grandeur, to pay the judges and foreign minifters, to maintain justice, and support respect, to pay the great officers neceffary to the luftre of the crown; and it was proportioned to the dignity and opulence of the people. But the fum of revenue which was necessary to sustain the common dignity of the crown and people at the time of the grant, ought now to be abated, as neceffities had increased. The people who afforded that revenue under the circumstances of the occafion, were juftified in refuming a part under the preffing demand of an altered fituation. They felt their right but exercised it with pain and regret. They approached the throne with bleeding hearts, afflicted at the neceffity of applying for retrenchment of the royal gratification; but the request was at once loyal and fubmiffive. When he confidered the obligations of the house, XL. houfe, he could not cherifh an idea that they would C H A P. difpute the principle of the bill, which was effential to the being and independence of the country. He 1781. could not believe that economy would be condemned, or the means of accomplishing it abandoned. SEVERAL diftinguished members of oppofition ex- The bill erted themselves in behalf of the meafure; lord Mait- rejected. land made his first parliamentary effay on the fame fide, and spoke with great ability; and Mr. Burke, in his reply, furpaffed the expectations even of his warmeft admirers. The motion for a fecond reading was, however, loft", and the bill rejected, by adjourning the further confideration for fix months. THE other popular efforts of the last feffion were Other popu also revived; the bills for excluding contractors and lar efforts. revenue officers from the house of commons, met their fate on the fame day; both occafioned fome debate, 21st Mar, but were rejected. Sir Philip Jennings Clerke alfo 218 May. renewed the propofition which Mr. Gilbert had abandoned, for impofing a tax on places and pensions, but his effort was unfuccefsful". The loan for the current service of the year was expofed to cenfures unusually fevere. The fudden rife in value of the fubfcription contracts, ufually called fcrip, to near eleven per cent. above their original purchase, formed the foundation for numerous imputations and motions 7th, 8th, against the minister; though his conduct was ably 26th Mar. defended, and fanctioned by the house. The third 21 Mar. reading of the bill in the lords, produced an able fpeech from the marquis of Rockingham; to which no reply was made; and eight lords joined in a protest. 12th, and THESE were not the only efforts to gain popularity Sheridan's by the difcuffion of questions calculated to intereft the motion refpecting public. The interference of the military in fupprefs- the military. 233 to 190. The contractor's bill by 120 to 100; the other 133 to 86. P The bill was rejected on the fecond reading, 93 to 33. 9 The majority against a motion on the fubject, made by Mr. Fox, was 169 to 11, and on a motion for inquiry, by Sir George Savile, 209 to 163. XL. 1781. ! CHAP. ing the late alarming riots was introduced to the house by an able fpeech from Mr. Sheridan. This gentleman, a native of Ireland, was advantageously known to the public by the exercise of extraordinary talents in dramatic and lyric poetry. His exquifite wit and refined erudition afforded great hopes of eminence in the fenate; hopes which were furpaffed by the various excellencies of his nervous, rich, and beautiful oratory. He took his feat for the town of Stafford, and had on more than one occafion, obtained the favourable attention of the houfe'. His motions were three; the firft declaring that the military force could not justifiably be applied in difperfing tumultuous affemblies of the people, without waiting for directions from civil magiftrates, unless outrages had broken forth with fuch violence as to overbear civil authority, and threaten the fubverfion of legal government. The other two affirmed that the unprecedented order to the military, on the seventh of June, afforded ftrong prefumption of the defective ftate of the police in Westminster; and required the appointment of a committee to inquire into the conduct of the magiftracy and civil power during the riots, and report to the house the state and government of the city of Westminster. IN fupport of these motions, he made a fevere philippic against government, delivered in glowing language, and abounding in pointed invectives. He descanted on the miserable state of the police in Weftminster, afcribing to it all the outrages which had raged without control in June, and occafioned the 'establishment of military power in the metropolis, and its extenfion to every part of the kingdom. But if the guilt of magiftrates or deficiency of police had occafioned the adoption of fuch an alarming expedient, why had government permitted the fame juftices to continue in the commiffion? Men of tried He made his firft fpeech the 20th of November, 1780. 3 inability |