was concerted without the smallest application to him, adverted to the mischievous tendency of the words in question, and of numerous paragraphs, which had appeared from time to time upon the managers of the impeachment ever since it was commenced. He was sure the House would at last be compelled to deal with a heavy hand with the authors, printers, and publishers of these scandalous libels. With regard to the original proposition, he could not accede to it; for he should never agree to send into the court of King's Bench the trial of the privileges of that House, because that House was able, and ought always to be ready, to vindicate its own privileges. He said he should not vote at all upon the subject, and came to the House chiefly for the purpose of repeating his protest against committing the privileges of that House to any tribunal under Heaven, except its own, which was always to be enforced by attachment.

Mr. Fox said he felt himself in an unpleasant situation with repect to the subject now before the House, not agreeing exactly with any gentleman who had spoken upon it. If the doubts expressed by the right honourable secretary could be proved to be well founded, he should feel no difficulty in assenting to the motion of adjournment; but he thought these doubts ought to be considered a good deal before the House determined that they were well founded. With respect to the short-hand notes which had been alluded to, he confessed he doubted whether they could fairly be deemed evidence upon which any person should be convicted; and upon a former occasion he had urged a variety of objections to that proceeding, but he was over-ruled by the House upon that subject. But let the House consider how that matter stood. When a ques

tion came before that House for the censure of a right honourable manager [Mr. Burke, for what he said against Mr. Hastings and Sir Elijah Impey upon the trial and execution of Nundcomar], the short-hand writer was called to the bar of the House, and asked questions upon his notes of the speech of the right honourable manager in Westminster-hall in the prosecution against Mr. Hastings; upon the evidence of these notes that right honourable gentleman was censured by that House. Now, a question arose upon this: Were the notes of a short-hand writer good for the purpose of proceeding to censure a manager of the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, and not good for the purpose of protecting him from a gross insult? But this was not all: there were other views in which this subject appeared to him, and they were more general than any he had yet heard upon it, and upon which he should be sorry if the House did not take this business up in a serious manner. With respect to the conduct of the right honourable manager, it was what he highly applauded: whether he should have had temper enough to conduct himself in the same way, was what

he exceedingly doubted; but he commended the right honourable gentleman for his conduct upon that occasion.

Having said this, he must now observe, that he looked farther than this impeachment, and felt some apprehension, not only for the character of that House, but also for the opinion the world might be led to entertain of the constitution itself, if something like justice did not appear to be impartially adininistered in this country upon the subject of libels. This was an eventful year: a great many libels, some upon the constitution, some only supposed to be so, and some upon other points, had been brought forward, and their authors, printers, and publishers, had been sentenced with a severity, with a degree of rigour, of inhumanity, that no danger that had threatened us could justify, no bad or false representation deserved, no calamity to be averted even called for. Now, if it should go abroad that there was, in fact, a principle which guided that House, such as had in his hearing often been to his mind foolishly and unconstitutionally asserted, that the House of Commons were ready to resent an insult from below, as they improperly termed it, by which they meant the people, and that they were ready to overlook an insult from above, by which was meant the other branches of the legislature -- if, he said, such an impression was once felt, the result would be a conviction, that the House of Commons, in all its attachment to its privileges, proceeded to exercise them only against the people; and that with regard to the other branches of the legislature, the House of Commons observed a servile complaisance. He had often had occasion to make these observations upon several contests with the crown; and he could not help thinking that they ought now to be renewed, and that the people should have as little reason as possible to feel the truth and force of them. Should the case be otherwise, he should tremble for the fate of the constitution itself. He left the House to judge whether these observations applied at all at this time, when there was such a cry for supporting the constitution. The House would remember with what readiness some of the people were prosecuted for libels, and ask themselves, whether the words here spoken were not of that nature, and whether the only difference was, that in this case the insult came from a member of the House of Peers? With respect to the silence with which this matter had been treated by the right honourable gentleman, he must say he approved of it; but, then, that silence was of no avail, for who could conceal from himself, that through the medium of newspapers, it was become a matter of public notoriety, that the managers had been grossly insulted on the trial of Mr. Hastings by the Archbishop of York; and not the managers merely,

nor the House of Commons, but also the people of England, had been insulted. If the House were desirous to have it understood that the managers were not to speak on the trial of Mr. Hastings, but in such and such terms, and that if they spoke freely, the House would not support them when they were thus treated, he owned he thought they were hardly dealt with. When the House chose him as one of the managers, he was no stranger to them: they knew his way of thinking; they knew his manner of speaking: if they expected that he was not to speak with warmth and with as much energy as he was able, that he was not to describe vice in the most odious colours, and that with an express view of exciting all the resentment and indignation of mankind against the guilty, they would be disappointed while he continued to be a manager. He therefore had no idea of being compelled to conform to the fastidious taste of any peer, who might think this or that expression ungentlemanly: he must judge for himself, and employ the words which appeared to him to suit the subject on which he was speaking; and if the House disapproved of him, they could remove or censure him.

The question now remaining was, whether the House should, under all the circumstances before them, proceed to do themselves justice? If it could be proved, that that was at this time impracticable, he should consent to let the business end here; and upon that subject, he owned he did not feel himself entirely convinced by any thing that had been said: the inclination of his mind was, that they might very well proceed against the printer, and also against the right reverend prelate; and as to the mode of proceeding in general, he confessed that when the privileges of that House were invaded, he thought that the House alone were competent to decide the question: he was sure they would never be safe, nor of permanent existence, if any other mode of procedure was adopted. With respect to the printer of the paper in question, the punishment of him was not his object in this business, nor severity to the right reverend prelate, whose character in many respects was highly honourable, whose age entitled him to respect, and whose late domestic affliction made him an object of condolence. It was not the feeling of a personal resentment against the right reverend prelate that occasioned these observations, it was a consideration which, in a member of that House, ought to be paramount to all others—a regard for the honour of that House, and for the well-being and continuance of the best principles of the constitution of this country. Had the words been applicable to himself personally, he should have known how to forgive them long ago, if asked to do so. But he must have it understood, that if

any person spoke disrespectfully of the managers upon such a trial, he spoke disrespectfully of the people of England, and the House of Commons were obliged to stop such language, and, if they thought fit, to censure the author of it. He believed that no judge in any of the inferior courts of this kingdom would have suffered such words from one party to another; and the Lords ought to have censured the noble prelate after he uttered the expressions. If the House saw any difficulty in proceeding, they might suffer the matter to rest as it stood: he had given his opinion-he had done his duty -the subject he now left for the judgment of the House.

The House divided on the question, that the House do now adjourn..

MR. FOX'S MOTION FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE WITH FRANCE.

Mr. Fox rose to call the attention of the House to the motion respecting the war with France, of which he had given notice. He said he should not have troubled the House, nor presumed to have offered his sentiments upon the subject he was about to introduce, which related to the general situation of the country, if circumstances had not clearly required of him that he should do so. Before the

prorogation of parliament it appeared to him absolutely necessary, that some decisive step should be taken respecting the discontinuance of a war, which had already been productive of the most serious calamities. If upon that day he neglected to recapitulate and enforce those arguments which he had formerly advanced; if upon that day he omitted to urge the impolicy of the war; if upon that day he passed over in silence the manifold evils with which the system of our confederacy was pregnant; he hoped that those who now heard him would not conceive that he had changed his

opinion upon the measures which brought about this unhappy war. Such a conclusion would be unjust, and he trusted no gentleman would draw it. He trusted the House would feel that if he waved all these topics, it was because he did not consider them as necessary to the illustration of the arguments he had to submit on the present occasion. He should, therefore, for the sake of argument, and for the sake of argument only, grant that the present war was a just, prudent, and necessary war, a war entered into for the interest of this country, and for the general safety of Europe. This was the broadest way in which he could lay a foundation for argument; and upon principles so laid down, he should state why he thought it necessary at the present time, and under the present circumstances, for that House to interfere and to give its opinion to the throne, in such an address as he should have the honour of moving. If there were any who thought that this might have a bad effect upon the public mind, all he could say was, that on his part it would not be intentional, as he was of a different opinion.

He had always understood that the grounds of the present war on the part of Great Britain were principally these: first, the particular alliance we had with the Dutch, attacked as they were by the French: secondly, not only this alliance, which in point of good faith called upon us to act from a regard to our own honour, but also on account of the interest we ourselves had in the issue. There was another ground stated, and that might be divided into parts, as, indeed, on former occasions it had been; he meant that which was stated upon the general footing of the aggrandizement of France, and the effect and operation of the spirit of their councils. These were the grounds upon which we undertook the present war. His object was now to shew, that upon none of these grounds could the war be continued. He knew he might, and perhaps he should be told, that we had been at considerable expence in this war already, and that we had met with considerable success in the prosecution of it hitherto; therefore gentlemen inclined to insist upon these points, would urge, that under such circumstances it was fair for us to say, that we were entitled to indemnity for the expences we had sustained, and security against future danger, or that if we had not these, the war should be followed up with vigour. That principle, as far as it regarded the situation of our allies, he did by no means deny; but the continuance of the present war for indemnity to ourselves and indemnity only, after the real object of the war was gained, could be maintained only upon prudential considerations. Now, taking it as a matter of prudence, he should wish to ask, what could we promise