Debate on the Duke of Bolton's Motion for an Address to defer the Prorogation of Parliament.] The Duke of Bolton rose and observed, that although the noble viscount's reasons against the preceding motion carried the appearance of an objection to one he intended to submit to their lordships' consideration, it should not prevent him from proceeding; because, give the objection its full weight, it amounted only to an argument of convenience, and could never stand in competition with the welfare and safety of the state. The noble viscount spoke of a clause in an act of parliament, which empowered his Majesty to summon the parliament in 14 days. He would not contend about the real powers vested in the crown by that Act; but at a period of so much danger and difficulty, he was ready to prove that it would be extremely improper to trust to any summons, however short, when the assistance of parliament, upon any emergency, be it ever so sudden, could be insured by continuing the session by short adjournments.

His grace affirmed, that an invasion of this country by France was meditating; that the formidable armaments going on at that instant in their ports, docks, and naval arsenals, portended nothing less; that Spain was equally busy in warlike preparation; and, that powerful armies and encampments were stationed on the coasts of the channel, opposite England. These were unequivocal proofs of what we had reason to expect, at least what it was necessary we should provide against; they were not appearances of a defensive, but an offensive war. Indeed, ministers themselves, by their conduct, within a few days, had amply confirmed what he had now thrown out; the alarum-bell was rung by them; its sound had already reached the most distant part of the three kingdoms; it was still tinkling in his ears. A general embargo had been laid by the joint advice of those very ministers, who, by the language of the noble viscount, seemed determined to proceed in the same ruinous career, which had produced all our former misfortunes, and present calamities; and by a prorogation of parlia ment, to despise its assistance or advice.

His grace exhorted their lordships to pay this alarum-bell a due attention, as they might depend upon it, from the uniform conduct of ministers, they would never have sounded it, if not urged by motives of dire necessity. He hoped, therefore,

that their lordships would not suffer it to ring in vain. No instance, he contended, was known, when an embargo was laid, such as that of Saturday last, but on the dreaded approach of an immediate invasion; and besides the general reasons for the propriety of such an apprehension, he had no doubt, but the King's servants had good private and particular reasons to fear that an invasion was at hand. If so, he submitted how extremely necessary it would be to have parliament sitting, in case of so momentous an event. Supposing parliament should be dispersed, at the time a foreign enemy should land, who could the people look to for assistance and protection? Not surely to a set of men, who in every instance in which they had been trusted, had misled both parliament and nation, and betrayed a total incapacity, in every measure they attempted to carry into execution.

As he had mentioned the naval preparations going forward in the ports of France and Spain, he thought it necessary to say a few words on that part of his subject; as well to point out what had been done by those powers as to remind their lordships what had been omitted on our part. As soon as France had finally determined to interfere in the dispute between this country and her colonies, which was several months before she entered into any direct treaty with them, she wisely turned her whole attention to her marine; and he was warranted in affirming, put it in such a condition, as the present ministers were totally ignorant of, and very few people aware of. Yet, even active as France and Spain were, if our navy had been properly attended to; if the enormous sums voted by parliament had been judiciously applied; if the noble earl who presides at the Admiralty, had performed either his promises or his duty, no cause of the present national panic, on account of an expected invasion, would have ever existed. The most ample supplies, in the course of seven years, had been granted; the most loud and frequent boastings had been made by the noble earl in consequence of those supplies; of the flourishing invincible state of our navy; of its superiority over the united fleets of France and Spain; but the very first instant an occasion calls for the exertion of this fictitious naval force, not even for offensive war, but mere protection, for safety and security in our dwellings and possessions, for the enjoyments of our altars and

then, Spain should become a party in the quarrel, what has this country to depend on? Nothing but mere chance remains to protect her. We are, my lords, brought into this melancholy predicament by the misconduct of ministers: if we do not detach, our dependencies are at the mercy of our enemies; if we should, our coasts must lie open to the attacks of the first invader. His grace then moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, humbly to represent to his Majesty the very alarming state of these kingdoms, which we fear will be much increased by a prorogation of parliament at so critical a time, whereby his Majesty would be deprived of that natural and constitutional advice he might find necessary on any emergency to require from his parliament, when the whole legislative authority, and the united wisdom of the kingdom, is, in our apprehension, absolutely necessary to secure us from impending dangers, most humbly to implore his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to defer the prorogation, of the parliament until the present very dangerous crisis may be hap pily terminated."

firesides, we are given to understand, that the navy is no longer the great national bulwark; that we must have recourse to a land force to defend us: and as for Gibraltar and our distant dependencies, they are at once abandoned; even the noble lord now stationed in America with his squadron, is devoted; for the same noble earl, who has boasted so frequently of his having a force superior, or able at all times to cope with the united force of the whole House of Bourbon, has adopted a very different language; he has acknowledged, that it was not prudent to detach, in order to watch the motions of D'Estaing, whether meant to be directed against our fortresses in the Mediterranean, or our fleets in America. His grace next pointed in particular to the want of frigates, which he said were the great soul of maritime war; both in cruises against the enemy, for the protection of commerce, and in facilitating the operations of large squadrons. He contrasted the distribution of our fleet at present, with what it was in the years 1743, 5, 6; at which several periods, invasions from France were threatened in favour of the Pretender. The attempt in 1743, was when the Pretender and marshal Saxe were at Dunkirk. He said, then the wisest precautions were taken; the shores were lined with frigates, in order to give notice of the enemy's approach; and were so judiciously stationed across the channel, that it was impossible for any fleet to come up the channel, without sir John Norris being apprised of it; who, stationed in the Downs to watch the intended debarkation at Dunkirk, had it in his power to prevent it; or upon the appearance of the grand French fleet, to attack it, before it could join the force in Dunkirk road. Such was the distribution of the force in 1745 and 6, when admiral Vernon commanded in the channel, which compelled the enemy to a choice of forbearing to invade, or of coming to a general engagement. What, said his grace, is your line of battle now? You have none. Your line of battle ships, at the end of almost two months, are not yet ready to put to sea; and if they were, have you any frigates? Even on paper, the grand fleet, as it is called, under admiral Keppel, amounts to no more than 21 ships of the line, besides the squadron of 12 more under admiral Byron. Is this a force equal to that which France alone is able at this instant to meet you in the ocean or channel with? I contend it is not. If,

Viscount Weymouth opposed the mo tion. He was of opinion, that the two motions stood pretty nearly on the same ground; and in giving his reasons of dissent to the present, should recur chiefly to his former arguments; which were, that parliament, after so long and arduous an attendance, required a recess; and if the necessity for the advice of parliament were such as had been stated by the noble duke, the clause inserted in the Militia Bill, of 1775, provided a remedy, without putting parliament to the disagreeable inconvenience of attending in town during the whole summer; not to transact business; not to fulfil a duty required of them; but merely to wait in anxious suspence, to see if any matter of parliamentary concern might arise. The purport of the clause was what he had before mentioned, which empowers his Majesty, in the instances therein provided for, to convene the parliament in 14 days. This clause would answer all the intended purposes of an adjournment; and would be free from all the inconveniencies which an adjournment, must be productive of. He took notice, that a noble duke in the last debate had observ. ed, that the writs of summons to parlia ment, running in the ancient form, and requiring forty days between the writ and

return, the clause now alluded to, could not operate. This he was free to controvert; and believed the contrary might be easily shewn, because that was no positive law, but merely founded in custom; and though it were, he did not think he should hear it asserted, that it was not in the power of the legislature to alter, and of course to give a legal operation to their own intentions, expressed in the clearest and least ambiguous terms.

Lord Camden replied to the argument of the noble viscount, in answer to what he had offered to the objection made in the preceding debate, respecting the writs of summons to parliament being always returnable in forty days, when called together for the dispatch of business. The noble viscount does not deny the existence of the law; nor does he pretend to point out a single instance in which it has been departed from; but the noble viscount says, there is a law for one as well as the other. My lords, one is the law of parliament, founded in the constitution; a law, give me leave to say, that is of the very essence of parliament itself; and more binding and obligatory than any act of the legislature can be; because it is the very basis and ground-work of their assembling for any purpose. But taking the noble lord's argument simply, as his lordship has stated it, let us try it by the established rules of legal construction. Is the law or usage of forty days notice repealed by the clause alluded to, or by any other clause contained in the Act? No such thing is pretended. Does the clause make any provision for altering the writ of summons from forty to fourteen days? Not that neither. All the clause says, is, that in such and such cases the King may convene the parliament in fourteen days. Will any noble lord present undertake to say, that there is at present a rebellion subsisting in America, or in any of the dependencies of the British crown; or suppose he should hazard the assertion, will he say, that the ancient mode of assembling parliaments; a mode, I am ready to contend, coeval with the constitution, shall be at once annihilated by a passing clause in an act of the legislature, not at all directed to the regulating the mode and manner of holding of parliaments, or connected with any of its special powers or privileges? Should such a doctrine prevail, there is not any other power or privilege of parliament which might not be undermined or taken away in the same way. The doc

trine was dangerous, was unconstitutional, and could not be fairly maintained in argument, upon any principle of sound policy, or legal construction. The fact did not maintain the explanation; and if it did, would the clause uphold the interpretation put upon it? His lordship next proceeded to shew the great danger of assembling parliament under the clause, and the folly of wantonly doing so, when the present motion would answer all the ends proposed to be effected by the clause; after which he entered into an investigation of the real state of public affairs.

His lordship reminded the House, that the events which were happening every day, had been literally foretold from that side of the House, and had been day after day repeated, and almost dinned into the ears of administration. The designs of France were delineated in detail; their interests were stated, as the ground of those designs. Ministers were told, that it was the most fortunate circumstance that could possibly happen to France, that misunderstandings should take place between this country and her American colonies; that those misunderstandings should produce a civil war; that a civil war should produce a separation; and that in the very instant, when Britain had lost one third of her dominions, and should be exhausted of men and money, that then would be the time for France to take advantage of our weakness, and wreak her vengeance on this devoted country. Was there a syllable, which had been urged on this subject, which did not turn out literally true? Did not France, by the most seeming friendly assurances, encourage ministers to carry their plans of despotism and unconditional submission into execution? Did they not, as soon as they found ministers engaged in the improvident, impracticable, and unconstitutional scheme of subduing our colonies by force of arms, give secret assistance to America? Did they not still continue the same friendly assurances to encourage us to send our whole naval and military force beyond the Atlantic, so as to render ourselves in a manner totally defenceless at home? and as soon as we had fatally done so, at once cease to dissemble, and openly league themselves with our own subjects? And do they not now, in conjunction with Spain, meditate our destruction?

His lordship lamented the same fatal credulity, which now subsists in respect of Spain, which caused all our present cala