3*F9i« Parliamentary Proceedings, 151 



fed of power, muft unavoidably wifli to exercife it with as 

 little controul as pofllWe, it is very natural for every miniftcr 

 to wifh to avail himfelt of a mpjority, hov.-ever obtained, to ef- 

 fect h'S own purpofts. This rcafoning r.pplies to al! minifter?, 

 at all times, and in al! circarr.ftances, fo that thefi obfervations 

 cannot be underftood, as being in the fmalleft degree 'perfonal. 

 Change lituatlons as oft as you will, exclude the prefent niini- 

 tter, and introduce his opponents, the cafe will not b? altered. 



It continues /ir £i;c'r to be the duty of an unnrejudiced pub- 

 lic to wstcli the actions of the minilttr, and to be particularly 

 fcrupulous to i\'quire the fulleit information in regard to every 

 tranfaftion where great national expence has been incurred, 

 that they may be enabled to judge, whether that expence has 

 been necelfarily and unavoidably incurred, or the reverfe. 



In every fituation this is neceffary ; but in the ftate Britain is 

 in at prefent, it becomes doubly requifite, becaufe of the amaz- 

 ing amount of our ordinary public expenditure. Wars are ever 

 ruinous and deftrudtive ; and infignificant difputes abciit national 

 precedence ought to be avoided. During the continuance of ne- 

 gociation, it may be improper to divulge certain important fads 

 at that time : the miniiter, who knows thefe fadts, ought to be 

 allowed .'■o go forward, and not be unreafonably interrupted 

 in the difcharge cf his duty: he has then a juft claim for public 

 confidence ; and unlefs he has given previous reafon to fjfpeift 

 that he will abiife it, he ought to receive it without refervc : but 

 he ought to receive it at his peril. It is this which confcitutes 

 the refponfibility of minifters : but when the hour of negociation 

 is pall, he ou^'ht to be called upon, and he ought to be called 

 upon in an authoritative manner that will brook of no evalion, 

 to give the fuUeft and moft explicit ftate of fads that the nature 

 of the cafe admits. IF he refufes to do thi<!, whet check have 

 you over his ccndud ? will not the fame majority which, con- 

 trary to reafon, Icreens him in one cafe, fcrecn him in any other 

 cafe f fo that if he has adrnitnefs enough to f^cure this majority, 

 he muft continue to be abfolute and uncontraulab'e as long as 

 he plcafcs. 



The chief arguments adduced in this debate againft the pro- 

 dudlion of papers were the folloT«.ing ; " Ihat the mover of 

 the qucftion wifhrd to pick holes, and to dimir ifli the in.luence 

 of the minifter." Be it lb ; but if the miuifter's condu(fl be what 

 it ought to be, why fhouki he be afraid cf difclofure i An honeft 

 man is afraid that his conduct may be artfully mifrcprtlented ; 

 but he wilhes only for a fair opportunity of rnaking truth tri- 

 umph over falfehood. This argum.ent, therefore, is much againft 

 the intereft of the party who urged it. 



It was alfo faid, " that the mtnibcrs who on this occafion 

 a<5ted contrary to t!:e v. iihes ot thcnunifttr, did wrong, becaufe 

 they could nut krov/ wiicthcr the papers they called for might 



