BOOK minate the civil and parliamentary history of the present session. XIX. 1781. Reform bill of Mr. Burke re The famous Reform Bill of Mr. Burke was re vived soon after the recess: but, on the motion for vived, and the second reading, it was rejected in toto, by a ma again re jected. jority of 233 voices to 190; though ably and power fully supported by many of the most eminent mem bers of the house. Amongst the speeches which attracted most strong ly the public attention, was that delivered with much grace and energy by Mr. William Pitt, second son of the late carl of Chatham, who in very early youth had been elected a member of the present parliament, and who now exhibited himself to an admiring nation as equally the heir of his talents and virtues. "One great object," Mr. Pitt said, “of all the petitions which had been presented, was a recommendation of economy in the public expenditure; and the design of the present bill was, to carry into effect the wishes of the people, by introducing a substantial system of economy. Besides the benefits which would result from the bill in this respect, it had another object still more important, and that was the reduction of the influence of the crown--an influence which was the more to be dreaded, because more secret in its attacks, and more concealed in its operations, than the power of prerogative." Mr. Pitt adverted to the extraordinary objections which had been made to the bill; it pro XIX. 1781. posed to bring no more than 200,000l. per annum BOOK and extra Early in March, the minister, lord North, brought Corrupt forward the annual statement of the public account. vagant loan The entire expenditure of the year his lordship cal- North. of lord XIX. 1781. BOOK of this compliance, Holland would have been inmediately invaded by France; and, in conformity with the same treaties, we must then have sent a much greater aid to the assistance of the republic. If the Dutch at the present period had changed their political system respecting this country, it was owing to the criminal conduct of an administration who had precipitated us into a war whence all our misfortunes had arisen. In consequence of that war, our American commerce was lost; and could it be a matter of surprise that the Dutch, a people who existed by commerce, should be desirous to secure a share of it? We were abandoned, not by the Dutch only, but by all the powers of Europe, who were all equally convinced that, under the present wretched administration of affairs, whoever became the ally of Great Britain would only share in her disgrace and her misfortunes." In the house of lords, the duke of Richmond, lord Shelburne, and lord Camden, inculcated the same ideas with great animation and ability. "As to what was called the treaty between Holland and America," lord Camden said, "it was the mere unauthorised act of Van Berkel, and betrayed neither directly nor indirectly any intention in the States General of a hostile nature. It did not even appear that they knew any thing of this man or his colleagues; and much less that they had determined to ratify this pretended treaty, or project of a treaty, by which no one was bound, and no one BOOK could be injured." His lordship contrasted the conduct of the present ministers to the States General with that of lord Chatham, who, in the zenith of his victories, had never deviated from the line of respect and moderation. "He was too wise and magnanimous, whatever might be the causes of complaint, to adopt the style and language of that provoking, arrogant, and indecent memorial, to which, more than to any other circumstance whatever, the subsequent conduct of the republic might be attributed *. His lordship was of opinion that the manifesto against Holland ought not to receive the sanction of their lordships, till stronger evidence were produced of the necessity, justice, and policy, of that measure: and if no better grounds of hostility should be the result of a more particular inquiry, parliament would be bound to order immediate reparation and satisfaction to be given for the injury already sustained by Holland; and an end would be of course put to the further prosecution of hostilities.' In both houses, nevertheless, the addresses were carried by great majorities; but the dissentient peers recorded their objecions in a strong and vigorous *The allusion is to the famous memorial of February 21, 1777, presented by sir Joseph Yorke to the States General, relative to the conduct of the governor of St. Eustatia, M. Van Graaf. XIX. 1782, XIX. 1781. BOOK protest. Their lordships declare," that they can never believe a rupture so contrary to the uniform and approved policy of our ablest statesmen can have become necessary, on our part, without gross mismanagement in our councils; and that honest and able ministers might have prevented this, amongst other wretched consequences of the unfortunate American war.” The States General themselves, in their counter-memorial, affirm, "that the plan or project of a treaty with America, which had excited to such a degree the displeasure of the king of England, although it depended altogether on the anterior recognition of American independence, had been, however, without hesitation disavowed by them. But the punishment insisted upon was not within their power, and they could not assent to it without striking at the root of the fundamental constitution of the state. That, obliged by what is held most sacred to defend the rights and privileges of their subjects, the republic could not forget itself so far as to submit to the will of his Britannic majesty, by attempting to overturn those rights and privileges, and exceeding the limits prescribed by the fundamental laws of its government. Those laws required the intervention of the judicial department, and those were the means which the States of Holland, to whose peculiar cognizance it belonged, had resolved to use, by requiring on this subject the advice of the court of |
