with those who wished to overturn the Constitution. It was said that there was no knowing where the reformers would stop, that if they obtained a moderate reform, they would contend for an indefinite reform, inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution. Was this a decent mode of arguing? If he was indebted to a man the sum of 100l., would it be proper to say when asked for it, 'I will not pay you this 100l., because if I do you will ask me for another; and there is no knowing where your demands will end!' Surely the proper way would be to pay first what was due, and resist with firmness the demand of what was not. … He trusted he should never see anarchy, or anything like anarchy, introduced into this country; as little did he wish to see it engaged in seconding the combination of kings against subjects, the power of arms against the progress of reason. On this subject he had never been without his apprehensions since our interference in the affairs of Holland. It was wise and meritorious to prevent that country from becoming the dependant of France; but when he looked at the sort of interference employed for that purpose, his mind recoiled from the view; while he approved of the end, he could not but condemn the means. In such an interference in the internal affairs of any country, he hoped this nation would never more be concerned. Let us be content with the prosperity which was pouring fast in upon us, from the distresses and confusion of other countries; let us not seek to augment it by indirect means. If seditious writings were disseminating among the people, in God's name let them be prosecuted. Of the Proclamation he disapproved entirely. It was not calculated to intimidate, but to provoke; not to quiet but to alarm; to irritate if there was a viper in the country; if a toad, to call it forth."[1]
Notwithstanding these and similar declarations, on almost every occasion when Lord Lansdowne rose to speak during the troublous years which followed, he was
- ↑ Parliamentary History, May 31st, 1792.
