122] ANNUAL REGISTER, 
sare now proposed, in the present 
stage of the business, took the pre- 
sent occasion to make vatious- ani- 
madyersions on different parts of the 
plan, as well as on its general spirit 
and tendency, and the conduct of 
the minister ia this aud other points 
of the last importance, in which he 
had flagrantly deviated from the 
principles ofour constitutional policy. 
Concerning the observation, that, if 
we should be under the necessity of 
going ou with the war, our military 
preparations might be very benefi- 
cial to us in many respects, he gaid, 
“« T object to the generality of this 
mode of speaking, because it con- 
veys tous no specific information, 
and is likely, from being just in the 
abstract, to entrap some into an ap- 
probation of measures of dangerous 
consequence, It is not, said he, 
by the authority of ministers, but 
by the striking exigency of a_par- 
ticular moment, that parliament 
are justified in adopting particular 
and extraordinary measures. 
honourable secretary of state says, 
* it is good to be prepared’ so it 
is. But when he comes to us, and 
makes this requisition, it is incum- 
bent on him to shew us the reason 
why we should be thus prepared. 
He should lay before us the ground 
en which he calls for that requisi- 
tion. How stood the case in former 
periods of this war? In 1794, there 
was as much reason for such a mea- 
sure as there is now; there was 
then as much of a rumour ofan in- 
vasion as there is now; and so the 
ministers told us at that time. “Vhe 
house, upon the ministers asser- 
‘tions, agreed to measures of an un- 
constitutional nature, to avert, as it 
was supposed, the impending dan- 
ger. Such measures, although un- 
constitutional, were then thought to 
The: 
1797. 
be necessary ; and they were thought 
also to be sufficient to keep the 
French from attempting the des- 
perate measure of an invasion, 
Are the French now more likely to 
make that desperate attempt than 
they were then ? or, are we not now 
in a better situation, than we were 
then? I conceive that ministers 
themselves would answer these ques- 
tions in a manner yery consolatory to 
the people of this country. Such was 
our state in 1794. Whatis it now, 
and what the difference between the 
two situations? Ministers now tell 
us, that an intention has been mani-< 
fested, on the part of the enemy, to 
invade these kingdoms. I am too 
much accustomed to the artifice of 
ministers to receive any very deep 
impression frem what they say. Did 
they not say formerly, what they say 
now, that the enemy had some in-_ 
tentions of invading this country ? 
Certainly they did, and they werein- 
trusted with force sufficient to pre- 
vent that calamity. It may be true, 
that greater danger actually exists at 
present than at any former period, 
yet additional arguments are neces- 
sary to prove this. But, says the 
right hon. gentleman who spoke 
Jast, * I am of opinion, that, as it 
may be necessary for this country 
to carry on an offensive war, this 
measure may be of great advantage, 
inasmuch as we may thereby be the 
better able to avail ourselves of our 
forces.’ 'To this, as a general pro-- 
position, 1 do not object’: it is true. 
But then, I say to ministers, * bring 
before us the facts on which you 
say this measure is necessary.’ What 
I object to, is your duplicity. if 
you really want this force, and 
to the cxent yeu say you do, shew 
me the reason for it, and I will 
grant it chearfully, All I want, 
is, 
