tended, so must I now leave it to the wiser | and the spirit of the constitution. And, and the better informed of this House; my lords, what is the meaning of the law but, my lords, as your lordships may ex- herein, and the spirit of the constitution? pect my sense of this matter, it is my duty It is, my lords, and no lord of parliament not to withhold it from you. My lords, I will venture to deny it, that the king will read to your lordships an Advertise- shall receive no supplies but through the ment from a public paper, which I have in medium of parliament; for this is to make my hand. [Here the advertisement from the king independent of parliament, and the London Tavern was read.*] My to make parliament an useless burthen lords, if this be not unconstitutional, I upon the nation. Money is power; money know not what is. In my poor opinion, it produces armies, and against armies the is not only the most notorious violation of liberties of this country cannot contend. the rights of parliament that has happened And yet, my lords, here is money subsince the levying of Ship-money, but when scribing, in vast sums, for raising armies, I compare the cases together, and con- to the use of the crown, without grant of sider what has been done since, in the es- parliament. tablishment of our constitution, I can see My lords, I will repeat and aver, that no difference between them. They both, there is no difference between this case, to me, appear equally unconstitutional. and the case of Ship-money; for the crown Charles the 1st exacted money from his is dependent on parliament for every nasubjects, without the authority of parlia- tional supply. Let us now see what the ment. Here, my lords, is a set of con- Bill of Rights says. It declares, "that tractors, under the immediate influence of the levying of money for, or to the use of the crown, and would-be-contractors, with the crown, by pretence of prerogative, such like vermin of the state, entering without grant of parliament, for a longer into a very large subscription of money time, or in any other manner than the same (pending the sitting of parliament, and is or shall be granted, is illegal." My without its authority) for raising men to lords, to levy money is to raise money. I serve his Majesty, in what manner he shall know no other meaning belonging to the see fit. I am aware, I shall be told, that term; and is not this, then, raising money the one is a voluntary act, and that the to the use of the crown without grant of other was the effect of compulsion; but parliament? and for the worst purpose this makes no alteration in the case. It too-for the purpose of raising men in was the thing obtained, and not the mode arms; not, my lords, (as has been sugof obtaining it, that constituted the-ille-gested, to mislead this House) as recruits gality. It was the money that Charles for the army voted by parliament, but as wanted, that he might have nothing to say new regiments, for the wisdom of the to his parliament; and whether he ob- crown to dispose of. tained it by exaction, or by gift, the danger and the illegality were the same. It is true, the Petition of Right says, "that no man shall be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without common consent by act of parliament;" but, my lords, it is not by the letter of the law that parliament is to be directed, but by its meaning,

"London Tavern, Jan. 17, 1773. "At a meeting of several merchants and others, friends to their king and country, in order to support the constitutional authority of Great Britain, over her rebellious colonies in America. It was unanimously resolved and agreed, that a voluntary subscription be opened for the above purpose; and that the money arising therefrom, be applied under the direction of a committee of the subscribers, in rais

ing men for his Majesty's service, in such manner as his Majesty in his wisdom shall think fit."

But now, my lords, I shall be told that this has been done before. I shall have precedents quoted upon me, and I shall hear that the same thing was done in the last rebellion. But, my lords, besides, that precedent cannot alter the constitution, upon what plea was it done? Upon the tyrant's plea; the plea of necessity. England was invaded by Scotch rebels, and the now loyal county of Lancaster was in rebellion too, against his present Majesty's grandfather. This was the necessity, and I hope it will never exist again; but even when this necessity urged the measure, what was said against it? I will tell your lordships from a speech of Mr. Humphry Sydenham, in the House of Commons, in 1746; he said, "I must ob serve that this way of raising money for the public service, by the subscription of private men, is such an incroachment upon the privileges of this House, and of such

dangerous consequences to the liberties of the nation, that, in my opinion, it highly deserves our censure." * This was the language, even in those days, when we had a rebellion raging in the very heart of the kingdom; and if it was then thought an incroachment upon the privileges of parliament, and of dangerous consequence to the liberties of the nation, what must it now be, when the rebellion, if it be a rebellion, is 3,000 miles distant from us?

submit to your lordships, two Resolutions for the adoption of this House, without any other recommendation of them than their own importance: 1. "That the giving or granting of Money, as private Aids or Benevolences, without the sanction of parliament, for the purpose of raising Armies for his Majesty's service, is against the spirit of the constitution and the letter of the law. 2. "That the obtaining of Money by Subscription, and under the direction of a committee of the subscribers, to be applied in raising men for his Majesty's service, in such manner as his Majesty shall think fit, is not only unconstitutional and illegal, but a direct infringement of the rights, and an absolute breach of the privileges of parliament."

There is one thing more I will bring to your lordships' notice. The only excuse, for I will not call it an argument, I have ever heard of the right of parliament to tax the colonies, and of course for this nefarious war, is, that if the colonies give free grant to the crown, as has been customary to do upon requisition, the crown might become independent on parliament for supplies. This was the cry of ministers, to hide their worse designs. This was the doctrine of our pulpits. It was the terrifying apprehension of parliament; and therefore, say parliament, the Americans shall not give and grant their own money to make the crown independent of parliament, but we will give and grant their money for them. Let us not, then, my lords, suffer that to be done under our very noses, which was the pretence of levying a savage war upon America. Shall thousands and tens of thousands of pounds be laid at the feet of the crown, without even the knowledge of parliament, and those who do it receive honours from the crown for so doing, whilst we remain un concerned spectators thereof? My lords, let our example inform the other House of Parliament of its danger. I confess, my lords, I am alarmed at these proceedings, and I will tell your lordships why. When Tories, Jacobites and Scotchmen, are the first addressers for taking away the liberties of three millions of his Majesty's sub-giance with their swords. jects in America, and are now the first to take up arms in this country, common sense tells me, that there is something more in this than mere loyalty to the House of Hanover. It is my loyalty, then, to the King, it is my duty to parliament, and my zeal for the liberties of the people, that is the cause of my alarm. These are the motives, which, from much loved retirement, has brought me forth into the busy scenes of life; and which nothing could reconcile to my disposition but a sense of my duty. My lords, I will now

Earl Gower said, that such language as had been made use of by the noble earl, had never before been uttered in either House of Parliament.

Lord Cardiff opposed the motion, from the conviction of arguments deduced from experience. It was a practice that had been observed frequently in the last war, to supply deficiencies by voluntary contributions, and then he did not read that ever its legality had been questioned. As for the reflections that had been affixed to particular countries and places, he thought they were disingenuous, and impotent. He himself had connections with Scotland, but did not think himself therefore less an Englishman. He was not ashamed to acknowledge the affinity he bore to that country, for it reflected not even the most distant imputation on his loyalty: they had offended against their duty; but did that imply a perpetual perseverance in sedition? They had given the noblest testimonies of their attachment; they had wiped out the stigma of traitors with their blood, and proved their alle

See Vol. 13, p. 1352.

The Earl of Effingham said, that it had been suggested by the noble lord who spoke last, that there was authority drawn from past practice to sanction the present method of recruiting; but this did not appear to be the case. In the last war, in 1756, ten regiments had been raised without the interposition of parliament; but then there was at that time a standing Act, called an Act of Credit, by which their sanction was extended in such a predicament, to all the operations of the crown. He said, that so far from the concurrence of parliament being unnecessary on these occasions, that there was an act of parlia

ment, made in the 2nd session of the 2nd |
parliament of Charles the 2nd, whereby it
was expressly declared, that their coinci-
dence was necessary to the existence of
such a measure. [The Act was then or-
dered to be read.] It appeared, that in the
year after the Restoration, king Charles,
from the nature of his preceding circum-
stances, having been in want of money,
had recourse to his parliament, who grant
ed him an Act for the raising it, with these
limitations, that the time of subscribing
should be restrained to a certain period:
and that no commoner should in his
bounty be permitted to exceed 2007. nor
peer 4001. that these restrictions implied
the power of imposing; and that the sub-
scriptions, though in some measure volun-
tarily conferred, had their origin and au-
thority primarily from parliament.

The Duke of Richmond said, such an Act, even in such times as Charles 2, made upon the moment of his restoration, when the purses and services of the nation were almost at his devotion, was a strong proof, that even the parliament of that day dreaded to strengthen the hands of the crown with benevolences and aids, without restricting them by the authority and limits of the great council of the nation.

Being convinced from these circumstances in the first place, that there could not be a nobler display of British spirit, than this unsolicited mode of assistance; and, in the second, from the great authority he had quoted, that it was entirely legal, he opposed the present motion as it then stood, and proposed an amendment, that immediately after the words, "Resolved, that it is the opinion of this House," should follow," that voluntary subscriptions of money, to be applied towards completing the troops which his Majesty has ordered at this time to be levied for the public service, are contributions for legal purposes, made in a warrantable manner, and highly meritorious."

The Duke of Richmond said, he was exceedingly surprised at this turn which was given the main question, called an amendment. The noble lord who moved the original question had dealt fairly by the House, in explaining long before they met, the substance of what he had to propose; the question was now totally altered, and consequently many noble lords unprepared to speak to it; he hoped therefore the noble lord would withdraw his amendment.

Lord Camden contended on the same ground. As long as he had been in parliament, he had never known an instance of the whole question being carried off in that manner. Did the amendment go to soften, or explain any part of the original motion, it would be quite parliamentary; but to take it all away but a few formal words in the beginning, was such a step as he hoped, for the honour of parliament, would never be adopted in that House.

The Earl of Suffolk said, the royal pre`rogative varied with the times. Being the executive part of the legislature, the royal authority was, in many instances, not subject to the slow deliberation of parliament. In the year 1745, during the rebellion in Scotland, when the three celebrated rebels, Kilmarnock, Cromartie and Balme rino, were tried, lord Hardwicke took an opportunity on that occasion to obviate a public clamour which had originated from The Earl of Mansfield rose, and after the same kind of subscriptions that now expressing his sorrow that the arguments prevail; and his opinion, as solemnly pro- of the several lords who had spoken, had nounced, his lordship had now transcribed, been founded in the spirit of altercation, and begged leave to read to the House. declared, that the pain which he had felt "The merchants and trading part of this on finding a debate conducted with illgreat metropolis, one of the most useful humour, induced him even at that moment, and respectable branches of the commu- to rise and endeavour to conciliate the nity, to their lasting honour, associated minds of their lordships, and bring them themselves, at the risk of their private for- back to a proper consideration of the subtunes, to support the public credit of their ject on which both the original question country. Men of property, of all ranks and the proposed amendment were foundand orders, crowded in with liberal sub-ed. The fairest and best mode of effectscriptions, of their own motion, beyond the examples of former times and uncompelled by any law; and yet in the most legal and warrantable manner, notwithstanding what has been ignorantly and presumptuously suggested to the contrary."

See Howell's State Trials, Vol, 18, p. 501.

ing this, would be to adopt the most frank and candid line of conduct, and to revert to the original matter. before the House. The noble lord who opened the business of the day, had read two propositions and moved one. Precedents there were doubtless, on the Journals, and those in

great number, which sanctified the entire-ingly to form resolutions upon matters of ly overturning a motion, by moving an rumour; they could not proceed to decide amendment, the form and purport of sine teste et sine judice; they must always which were directly opposite to the intent have facts, matters proved to the satisfacof those words whose place in the motion tion of the whole House to be facts, as the amendment was intended to supply; the ground of their proceedings. With but however such parliamentary craft regard to the motion of the noble earl, it might be supported by usage, when a was a mere allegation without a proof, question was seriously proposed with an thence liable to challenge, liable to conintention to investigate a point worthy tradiction: for one, he discredited it; he the attention of their lordships, he could could not believe that money was raised not but be of opinion, that it was more by the meeting of the London Tavern noble, wise and candid, to canvas the either illegally or unconstitutionally; that merits of the question fully, and get rid of it was raised for the service of the King, it by a negative upon a division, than thus he verily believed; and who should gainto prevent its being entered upon by mov- say it? Every man might give the King ing an amendment, and rendering that the money, as was well known; it was equal. subject of debate. Having said this, his ly well known, that every man might lordship declared, he wished the noble either give or leave the King land; it had lord who moved the amendment would been often done, and no person ever adopt his sentiments, and withdraw the dreamt of its being illegal. amendment, which, if he thought proper, he might afterwards renew in the form of a motion; and urged their lordships to debate it, when the noble earl's propositions were disposed of, either by being carried affirmatively, or lost on a division.

The noble earl said, as he was upon his legs he would speak a word or two relative to the propositions made by the noble earl, and which he meant to have given his sentiments upon, had they stood the only subjects of debate. They were in their nature and form two-fold. The first stated a fact; the second grounded a resolution upon that fact. He had several objections to each, and some that went to both. With regard to the first, it was not regular in point of form; it stated a supposed fact, namely, that money was raised illegally and unconstitutionally. Where was the proof? How was the allegation made out? Upon what had the noble earl rested it? In the opening of his speech he had produced--what? A public newspaper, from which he had read an advertisement, intimating, that a meeting of merchants and others had been held at the London Tavern, when a subscription was entered into for the purpose of raising money to strengthen the hands of government. The words of the motion had no reference to the newspaper, or if they had, was that ground for their lordships to proceed upon? Was newspaper authority, and that vaguely introduced, proof sufficient to establish a fact to the satisfaction of that House? Did the newspaper shew that the money was raised illegally and unconstitutionally? Their lordships would act most unbecom

With regard to the second proposition, the very terms of it were inapplicable; supposing the fact to be, that money was raised as the first proposition stated, could such subscriptions be deemed benevo lences? The donations so nominated in ancient times, though called free gifts, were notoriously the contrary; men were, when a commission for public benevolences to the crown was issued, compelled to contribute, and if they refused, or with-held their proportion, they lost their liberty,. and were sent to prison. At the same time let the noble lords consider for what was the present subscription made-to assist the King with levy money; a matter often practised, and always essentially serviceable to the state. The King, by his prerogative, was empowered to levy men and raise an army. When men were raised, the new levies were reported to parliament, whose duty it was to provide for their subsistence, in case they did not think the levies improper, and pass a censure upon them by giving their negative. The nation could not be injured in the present case, the professed purpose of the public subscriptions was to furnish addi tional levy money to make the bounties larger than government generally gave, and by that means to quicken and render more easy the filling of the old corps, and completing the army. Supposing even that more men were raised than were enough to complete the number, what would be the consequence? The King must apply to parliament for more sub sistence money. It was in the power of either House to negative the new le+