- 
Pa 
4 
HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
dishoriorable or disgraceful would 
appear. ‘The house was in pos- 
Session of every document that 
eould be produced, and all that 
ministers now asked, was their de- 
cision. 
Mr. Pitt then rose, and addressed 
the house, in nearly the following 
terms: ‘If I possessed a full and 
clear opinion, on the merits of the 
case, to the extent of either di- 
rectly negativing or adopting the 
resolutions, which have been pro- 
posed, I should, following the un- 
biassed dictates of my conscience, 
give my vote on that side to which 
my judement inclined. If I agreed 
with my right hon. friend (Mr. 
Grenville), in thinking, that the 
first steps we ought to take, in duty 
to the public, were, by a retrospec- 
tive survey of the conduct of mi- 
nisters, to judge of their fitness to 
exercise the functions to which they 
‘are called; and if, upon that re- 
sult, I were forced to conclude, 
that the papers, on the table, af- 
forded evidence of criminality, of 
incapacity, of misconduct; then, 
however painful the sacrifice of pri- 
vate feelings might be, in taking 
such a part in the case of individu- 
als, whom I respect, I should 
. feel myself bound to concur in an 
address to his majesty, for the re- 
moval of his ministers. On the 
other hand, if I were one of those, 
_ who considered the explanation, af- 
forded by ministers upon general 
points, so clear as to justify a de- 
cided negative of the propositions, 
_ moved by the hon. gentleman over 
the way; a negative which would 
imply approbation—for in such a 
Matter, to avoid ground of censure, 
/may be considered the same as to 
have deserved applause —I should 
17/8 
feel myself happy, in joining in a 
decisive negative to the motion; 
but to this extent, either of appro- 
bation or of censure, I am unable 
to go. I cannot concur ia the lat- 
ter, or in the extent of charges in- 
volved in the propositions, which 
have been moyed.- Besides, I am 
aware of the inconveniencies that 
would result, from supporting any 
measure which has the tendency 
of the present motion, unless the 
clearest necessity exists for it. 
Though I do not dispute the right 
of this house, to address the king 
for the removal of ministers, yet, 
nothing is more mischievous than a 
parliamentary interference, by de- 
clared censure, rendering the con- 
tinuance of ministers in office im- 
possible, unless that interference is 
justified by extraordinary exigency 
of affairs. Not disputing the right 
of the house, I contend, that the 
right is to be governed by a sound 
discretion, and by the public inte- 
rest: we must look to considera- 
tions of public expediency, of pub- 
lic safety. There are some ques- 
tions, in the discussion of which 
gentlemen must feel more than they 
can well express ; and this, with 
regard to the interference of parlia- 
ment for removing ministers, 1s one 
of them. Admitting even, that 
there were considerable grounds of 
dissatisfaction at the conduct of 
ministers, would it tend to promote 
those exertions, to encourage those 
sacrifices, which the difficulty and 
danger of our situation required? 
Would our means of sustaining the 
struggle, in which we are engaged, 
and of calling forth those resources 
necessary for our defence, by cut- 
tingshort the date of administration, 
and unsettling the whole system ‘of 
governs 
