Note 194 — Chapter X

The Ministers made a very poor figure in this debate, if any trust is to be placed in Cavendish’s Reports. Dyson seems to have acquitted himself the best. The temper of the majority may be inferred from the applause said to have been received by Mr. (afterwards Justice) Nares, on his declaring that he would “rather appear in that House as an idolater of a Minister, than as a ridiculer of his Maker.” On the Opposition side there was no speech like Mr. Grenville’s. He revised the report of it taken by Cavendish; and printed a few copies for private circulation, by which means it came into the hands of Almon, who reprinted it (Parliamentary Debates, vol. xvi. pp. 546–575). Being one of the very few of his speeches that have been preserved, it deserves the attentive study of those who desire to know how he obtained the ascendancy which he so long enjoyed in the House of Commons, combating as he did, at one time, almost alone, the extraordinary and varied powers of Pitt and Charles Townshend. It is plain that, to use an expression of Clarendon respecting Mr. Pym, whom, by the way, in many respects he closely resembled, “his parts were rather acquired by industry, than supplied by nature or adorned by art.” This he well knew, and accordingly it was not his aim to subdue the feelings or to captivate the imagination; he sought to reach the understanding, and certainly the able structure of his argument—the precision with which his points are laid down—his great power of exposition,—and above all, the abundant stores of knowledge which he always brought to the discussion, show how he excelled in the line he had adopted. This speech remained unanswered, and was indeed unanswerable. In some parts it approaches eloquence, but it can only be fairly estimated as a whole,—no extracts would furnish a just idea of its merit. The following passages, however, may be taken as a fair specimen of his style:—

“Are these, then, the proper expedients to check and to restrain the spirit of faction and of disorder, and to bring back the minds of men to a sense of their duty? Can we seriously think that they will have that effect? Surely it is time to look forward and to try other measures. A wise Government knows how to enforce with temper, or to conciliate with dignity; but a weak one is odious in the former, and contemptible in the latter. How many arguments have we heard from the Administration in the course of the session, for conciliatory measures towards subjects in the American colonies upon questions where the legislative authority of Great Britain was immediately concerned? And is not the same temper, the same spirit of conciliation, at least equally necessary towards the subjects within the kingdom? or is this the only part of the King’s dominions where it is not advisable to show it? Let not any gentleman think that by conciliation I mean a blind and base compliance with popular opinions contrary to our honour and justice—that would indeed be unworthy of us. I mean by conciliation a cool and temperate conduct unmixed with passion or prejudice. No man wishes more than I do to stop any excess on either side, or is more ready to resist any tumultuous violence founded upon unreasonable clamour. Such a clamour is no more than a sudden gust of wind that passes by and is forgotten; but when the public discontent is founded on truth and reason, when the sky lowers and hangs heavy all around us, a storm may then arise which may tear up the constitution by the roots, and shake the palace of the King himself.” (Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. i. p. 174.) Mr. Grenville took care throughout his speech to prevent his opinion against Mr. Wilkes’s expulsion being construed into approbation of that gentleman’s conduct, on which he commented with a severity which the latter deeply resented. Lord Temple interfered, but could not prevent Wilkes from publishing an insolent pamphlet in reply to Mr. Grenville’s observations, the result of which was, that Lord Temple never spoke to him afterwards.—E.