that of all things was what he never wished to hear of; because it would only tend to strengthen our enemies, and could be of no use to ourselves."

Again, in the debate on the King's Message for the aug mentation of the forces, February 1, 1793, we find Lord Carlisle expressing "his astonishment that there should be any opposition to a measure upon which he had conceived there could be but one voice, one heart, and one mind, throughout the nation at large. Of the necessity and justice of the war, he entertained no doubt. We had been driven into it, not only by the necessity of the preservation of our good faith with our allies, but by the total want of it in those who had been endeavouring to divert our attention by professions to which their every action gave the lie. He trusted that we should never be brought to negociate with men avowing such principles and abetting such practices, as those which disgraced the existing faction of France."

For the distinguished loyalty thus exhibited by Lord Carlisle, under circumstances of so critical a nature, he was, in 1793, honoured with the Order of the Garter.

In the debate on the address, January 21, 1794, Lord Carlisle repeated the sentiments which he had expressed in the preceding year, and on the 17th of February he opposed the Marquis of Lansdown's motion for treating with France.

On the 22d of May, 1794, in the debate on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, Lord Carlisle asserted the necessity of the measure.

On the 6th of January 1795, Lord Carlisle moved an adjournment, which was carried, with a single exception, nemine contradicente, on Lord Stanhope's motion against any interference in the internal affairs of France; observing, "that the noble Earl's proposition was not objectionable in itself, but objectionable or not according to the application of it. If it meant generally that no nation had a right to interfere with the internal affairs of another country, or with its government, he could not have a difficulty in acceding to it; but if

the noble Lord meant that one country had not a right to interfere with another which had formed such a system of government as contained in it seeds of alarm and danger to the safety of its own, he could not concur in it. It was not against the French republic that we directed our arms, merely because it was a republic, but because it threatened Europe with destruction: a monster had sallied forth from its den and menaced the adjoining states with ruin and devastation; common safety therefore made it necessary to hunt it back to its retreat, and, if possible, to hedge it in, so as to secure ourselves from encroachment."

On the 3d of February 1795, Lord Carlisle again declared his approbation, under the peculiar circumstances of the times, of the bill for suspending the habeas corpus.

That the noble earl was influenced only by the most honourable and independent motives in the support which he gave His Majesty's ministers in the war with France, is manifest from his speech on the 16th of March, 1797, on the Earl of Albemarle's motion relative to the invasion of Ireland, in which speech he warmly censured the Board of Admiralty for their neglect; as also from his reprehension, on the 3d of May following, of the silence of government with respect to the circumstances which attended the alarming mutiny of the

seamen.

In 1798 the noble earl published, for general distribution, a spirited tract, entitled "Unite, or Fall."

Lord Carlisle was a great friend to the union with Ireland. On the 19th of March, 1799, in the debate on the resolutions relative to that subject, his lordship adverted to his former administration of the government of that country as qualifying him to speak on the subject, and remarked, "that if the Union should produce the desirable effect of ameliorating the condition of the Irish peasant, making him feel an interest in his existence, rescuing him from the sullen despair in which he held his miserable being, and converting him into the child of hope and expectation, so as to put him on a footing with

every description of British subjects, it would be a measure the most politically useful that human invention could have devised."

In the debate of the 28th of January, 1800, on the King's message respecting an overture of peace from the consular government of France, Lord Carlisle observed, that the war in which we were engaged 66 was not a war to retain a trifling colony, or to gain an extension of dominion; but a war to preserve our laws, our liberties, our religion, our property,every thing we held dear. We fought for security, and we should accept of no offers of peace, until it could be established on a permanent basis. To enter into a negociation at that time would be to ruin the country. Still, however, he thought it would be more prudent merely to thank His Majesty for his gracious communication, and not to give any opinion upon the conduct of the executive government. He thought very highly of ministers; by their prudence and steadiness they had saved the country, which would inevitably have been lost had the opposition been allowed to carry into execution their impolitic projects. He only wished that they would not shift the responsibility which they themselves were so able to bear, upon others who must necessarily be incompetent judges 'of all the facts of the case."

On the 27th of February in the same year, Lord Carlisle again supported the Bill for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus, on the ground that "although the horrid principles which had occasioned the suspension appeared to be weakened, they were not yet extinct."

On the 23d May, 1800, Lord Carlisle opposed the bill called the Adultery Prevention Bill; contending "that no alteration ought to be made in the established laws of divorce, unless it were unequivocally proved that such alteration was absolutely necessary. The arguments which had been urged by the noble framer of the bill served to confirm him (Lord Carlisle) in the opinion he had always entertained, that monkish seclusion (for there were legal as well as ecclesiastical monks) was not adapted to qualify a man for legislation. The studies

of a recluse did not lead to a knowledge of the world. In order to correct morals it was necessary to mix with society, to dive into the minds of men, to be acquainted with their actions, and search for the motives of their conduct. For want of this kind of information, a consummate lawyer, or a holy prelate, might be very inadequate to the formation of laws calculated to make society better than it was; a fact of which the bill before their lordships afforded a singular example.”

When Lord Darnley, on the administration of Mr. Pitt being superseded by that of Mr. Addington, was about to move for an inquiry into the conduct of ministers respecting the management of the war, Lord Carlisle entreated the noble lord not to press his motion at that moment, as premature and ungenerous. "He allowed that the situation of the country was such as to call for the ablest head and hands to direct its affairs; but he denied that any expectation of salvation could be rationally entertained from the exertions of such a ricketty administration as that which was about to take the helm of the state." Lord Darnley having consented to postpone his motion to the 20th of February, 1801, Lord Carlisle then again declared the little confidence that he entertained in the new administration, and expressed his wish that some light should be thrown on the causes which had broken down the late strong ministry.

When the treaty of peace with France was concluded in 1802, Lord Carlisle remonstrated strongly in the House of Lords against the neglect of the interests of the Stadtholder which that treaty evinced, and moved an address to His Majesty on the subject; which motion, however, he was induced to withdraw on the assurance by government that the house of Orange would receive a full compensation for the losses it had suffered.

In the debate on the address Nov. 23, 1802, Lord Carlisle again declared his disapprobation of the peace, and his conviction of the imbecility of the administration by which it had been concluded; and again, in the debate on the Malt Duty Bill, Dec. 15th, he observed, "that he was not guided in his

opposition by any paltry motive of obtaining place or power; but if by other ministers the ambition of Buonaparte was likely to receive a greater check; if the tone and spirit of the country were more likely to be supported under the management of men of greater talents, and of more elevated minds, he must wish to see the government of the country in the hands of such men."

On the 19th of April, 1804, Lord Carlisle obtained a majority against ministers, 31 to 30, on a motion for " an humble address to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to give directions that there be laid before the House an account of the date of instructions sent to the officer commanding the naval force in the East Indies, previous to His Majesty's message to Parliament on the rupture with France."

When the Earl of Liverpool (then Lord Hawkesbury) on the 30th of April, 1804, requested the Marquis of Stafford to postpone his motion respecting the defence of the country, Lord Carlisle again manifested his disapprobation of the Addington administration, by observing "that if the cause of the noble lord's request was that His Majesty's ministers were about to retire from the situations they then held, such a circumstance would send every noble lord and every man in the House home, contented and rejoiced."

In the debate on the Address, 15th January, 1805, Lord Carlisle, while he agreed to the address, protested against being pledged to approve of the conduct of government with regard to the war with Spain; not merely with reference to the war itself, but with reference to the manner in which it had been commenced.

When, on the 21st of February, 1805, it was proposed by government to suspend the standing orders of the House of Lords for the purpose of rapidly passing the Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, the Earl of Carlisle contended "that whatever reasons there might be for continuing the suspension of the habeas corpus in Ireland, there could be none for treating Parliament in that summary way. Acts of Parliament were not subject to apoplexy. Their dissolution was

་་་་་་་་་