the constitution by the executive power of the state have neither been gradual nor inconsiderable. Among the great outlines of this wellpoized constitution, I believe it will be ac knowledged, that one of the most striking is, the power assumed and regularly exercised by this House, of granting the money of the people, which creates the dependence of the crown on parliament for supplies. The purse of the nation has been subject only to the controul of this branch of the legislature. So great a jealousy has prevailed on this occasion, that the other House have never been suffered to make the least alteration in a Bill, which could in any way be construed to be a Money Bill, even by a fine or penalty in an enacting clause. This, Sir, is the plastic power of our creation. It gives us a certain, not a precarious existence. It is the single circumstance, which, under every change of ministers, ensures our meeting annually within these walls. Were the land and malt taxes made permanent, could a revenue adequate to the whole annual public expence, and probable contingencies, with the necessary ways and means, be voted by parliament for a term of years, I suspect the present set of ministers would advise as long an intermission of parliaments as took place under some of the Stuarts. I do not mean, Sir, that they have now any thing to dread from the tame representatives of an injured people, whom former ministers, who held the same principles and conduct, used to approach with fear and trembling. Ministers have now drawn the sting of this great popular assembly. We have seen this very session such a servile complaisance, such an extreme of contradiction to themselves, that it shocks common faith, and must disgrace the majority here in the eyes of all Europe. No cameleon ever shifted more suddenly to the opposite colour than they have done from insolence, intemperate rage, and war, to meekness, peace, and almost humiliation to the Americans. Can any thing, Sir, be more alarming to the acknowledged right and privilege of this House, than the doctrine lately propagated, and the practice begun, of giving private aids, benevolences, and subscriptions, for public purposes, to the crown, without the sanction of parliament? The constitution has wisely placed in the crown the right of raising forces on a very pressing and dangerous emergency. It is a power necessary for the safety of the state, for the defence of the people. The strongest check is however at the same time given to any improper exercise of this power. It is controlled by the necessity of an application to parliament for the maintenance of such forces. If troops could be raised, kept up, and paid, without the concurrence of this House, the liberties of this country must be at the mercy of the military, and their commander in chief, perhaps an ambitious prince. Our statute law, Sir, is not silent on this occasion. Every year in the Mutiny Act it is expressly declared, that "the raising or keeping a standing army within this kingdom, in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of parliament, is against law." But, Sir, if the crown can by a prerogative, which is not disputed, raise a standing army, and by private loans, benevolences, or subscriptions, keep this standing army on foot, no application whatever need be made to parliament. Our government would then not be that of the law, but of the sword, to which all appeals must be trifling and inefficacious. Parliaments are now convened to vote the necessary supplies, which are regularly asked of the Commons on the first day of the session. If government could receive them in any other mode than by the grants of this House, the legislature itself would not only lose its most important function, but become unnecessary, and very soon obnoxious. The execu tive power must be trusted with the raising of forces; but it is likewise the duty of this House to their constituents to take care that the number of those forces be so proportioned to the defence of the state, that the security of the subject may be provided for, and yet no alarm given to a nation very justly jealous of the least danger to its liberties. While the mili tary receive their pay from the grants of this House, the maintenance of the army must depend on the approbation of parliament; but if an artful, or enterprizing prince can find other resources, the soldier will then look up to the prince, and not to the representatives of the people. The executive and legislative power must now concur in the measure of keeping on foot any number of regular troops, both in its first adoption, and continuance, or it cannot be the act of all the constituent parts of this government. If a designing prince, hostile, like most princes, to the cause of liberty, the most important objects of every legislature. It becomes then the wisdom of parliament to put a stop to all abuses of this nature by an express statute. should be able to raise an army, and by | pay to the exigencies of the state is one of foreign gold, the mad zeal, or interested views, of a party among us, could contrive to keep it on foot, without the aid of parliament, what security have we for the preservation of our civil rights and privileges? The refusal of supplies in this House to force the disbanding an army could have no valid effect, for parliamentary grants would not be solicited. Future princes might govern, like the Stuarts, without parliaments, by the exertion of an over-stretched prerogative, and even juries be under the controul of a crown officer, when the grand inquest of the nation was superseded. The constitution of this country, Sir, would be wounded in another branch of the legislature, in the House of Lords, by any grants of money, but through the medium of parliament. The peers have undoubtedly the right to reject a money Bill. They may now by their negative force the disbanding any number of troops, which they think unnecessary, or dangerous to the safety of the nation. This important privilege would be taken from them, if such a body of troops were to be maintained by any private loans, benevolences, or subscriptions. The whole authority of the state would thus be absorbed in the crown, and the two other branches of the legislature become a mere phantom, supposing even their forms to be preserved. I expect, Sir, that it will be asked, are we not then at liberty voluntarily to give our money to the crown? Are free gifts from the subject to the King illegal? There is, Sir, scarcely a country in Europe, which has not groaned under the oppression of what are called free gifts. The very term is become ridiculous. Many a peasant has perished in a loathsome dungeon, because he would not be compelled to a don gratuit. The English history supplies innumerable instances of the cruel exaction of what have been termed voluntary loans and benevolences to the king. Many families have been ruined under the Tudors and Stuarts, because they would not be forced to free-will offerings to the sovereign against their consent. The indiscreet ardour of a few begins a subscription, or loan; and then the rest of a nation are compelled, under pain of our utmost royal displeasure, to the same exertion, sometimes to their utter destruction. Neither can equality be observed in such contributions; whereas the fair and equal proportion of what every subject should I have heard, Sir, the Act of the 13th of Charles 2,* mentioned as an enacting law on this occasion; but, Sir, it by no means reaches the present case. That Act only provides, that no commissions or aids of this nature can be issued out, or levied, but by authority of parliament, and that this Act, and the supply hereby granted, shall not be drawn into example for the time to come.' The nature of those aids and commissions was by authority under the great seal of England, to empower certain persons to receive" such subscriptions as his Majesty's good subjects should voluntarily offer, no person, not being a peer of this realm, in such offer or present, to exceed the sum of 2001. nor any peer of this realm the sum of 400l.” Reference is always had in this Act to commissions issued under the great seal. The necessity, however, of such an Act, at a very particular period, plainly shews the sentiments of that parliament, as to the general doctrine of loans and subscriptions, without the concurrence of the legislature. There was, Sir, something peculiarly offensive to this House in the manner and time, which the zealous partizans of a desperate administration chose, for the late unconstitutional mode of levying money without the consent of parliament. The minister had dictated to the majority an adjournment of a very unusual length. Immediately after, their agents were busily employed in getting subscriptions and raising troops. There had not been the least previous intimation of the new plan to this House, nor the usual message from the crown. No alarming state-symptom had recently appeared, even according to the apprehension of ministers. The noble lord with the blue ribbon assured us, that "he knew nothing of a treaty between America and France, nor did he believe its existence," so judiciously had the immense sums we had voted for secret services been applied. The House adjourned on the 10th of December, and we have on our table a letter from the War Office of the 16th, in which the secretary at war tells a gentleman very near me (sir Thomas Egerton) that he was commanded by the King to acquaint him that his Majesty ་ * See p. 691. com • approves of the very handsome offers The secretary of state, Sir, for the nor- I confess, Sir, that there is one circum- I approve likewise the departure of those regiments on another account. I recollect what passed in the march of the Scottish rebel army southward in 1746. I shall be glad to hear of their absence, because I do not think an invasion of this country, as the present crisis, quite so chimerical a project as the conquest of America. I have read in the London Gazette, where truth was found in the last reign, a "List of rebel officers, in the Manchester regiment, taken at Carlisle," by the hero of Culloden. Act provided, enacted, and established." | and presumptuously suggested to the conWe all remember, Sir, a very near relation trary." He delivers the dictum with unof the crown, the hereditary prince of usual and indecent warmth, with the fuHesse, married to a daughter of England, rious zeal of a convert; for of this ignoopenly embracing the Romish religion. If rance and presumption his lordship had a misguided prince could ever be so far unluckily been himself guilty. A wellperverted as to follow the religion, as well known letter, which is still extant, from as the maxims, of the last Stuart king, and him to a gentleman in Surrey, a near relathe Hanoverian troops should then be in tion of a worthy member, whom I see in his possession of Gibraltar and Port Mahon, place (Mr. Scawen) in the most express although the crown of England would be terms condemns all private subscriptions forfeited, the elector of Hanover might still to the crown for public purposes, as absosecure the possession of those important lutely illegal. But, Sir, I confess that I fortresses, which belong only to the impe- very little value the sentiments of lawyers rial crown of this realm. in general on the great topics of govern ment. We have indeed in this House three or four gentlemen of the law, of the most enlarged understanding, and extensive genius; but the common observation still holds good, that lawyers, of all professions, seem least to understand the nature of government in general. They are like under-workmen, who are expert enough at making a single wheel in a clock, but are totally ignorant how to adjust the va rious parts, or regulate the movement. A truly wise and deeply learned Whig, lord Hardwicke's professed model, the great chancellor Sommers, would not, I believe, have delivered such a doctrine as law. Yet, Sir, in my humble idea, those subscriptions were not only justifiable, but meritorious, I will venture to say patriotic, for they tended to the salvation of the country. Perhaps, Sir, after the extinction of that wicked, unprovoked, rebellion, we ought to have acted as we did in the case of the embargo on all ships laden with wheat or wheat flour in September 1766. The order of the king and council was certainly irregular, illegal; but it saved the people from famine, and therefore was sanctified by an act of the whole legislature. The preamble of that Indemnity Bill says, "which order could not be justífied by law, but was so much for the service of the public, and so necessary for the safety and preservation of his Majesty's subjects, that it ought to be justified by act of parliament." I am aware, Sir, that at the period to which I have alluded, many subscriptions were carried on, and regiments raised, without a previous application to partiament. At the breaking out of that rebellion the legislative body was not sitting. A long prorogation in the autumn had taken place, as usual. The capital of Scotland had surrendered to the rebels even before the parliament could be assembled, and never was a more easy, or perhaps willing, conquest. The rebels were in full march into the heart of the kingdom. Every thing dear and valuable to Englishmen was at stake. Without the most vigorous exertions, the cause of public liberty must have sunk for ever. The greatness of the crisis called for those spirited measures, measures which could not be warranted in times of profound peace and public tranquillity. In this sense only ought the famous passage in lord Hardwicke's celebrated speech to be understood. The first law of every state is the salus populi. When he as lord high steward passed sentence of death on the Scottish peers in 1746, he observed, " men of property, of all ranks and orders, crowded in with liberal subscriptions, 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 I expect, Sir, to hear it objected, that the present time is by no means a proper season for such a motion, as we are probably on the eve of a war with France, and the whole House of Bourbon. This objection will have no weight with me; for no man can be more zealous to strengthen the hands of government, even to strain every nerve of the state, in a just war against France, our ancient enemy, country, which is its surest bulwark, owes its greatness to our colonies, has grown with their growth, and strengthened with their strength; a navy which has ungratefully and barbarously laid their towns in ashes. Trade and commerce, the support of most nations, the chief care of the wisest, have derived their late vigour and spirit from America. What dreadful commercial calamities have we suffered since the unhappy contest with her? If she joins the whole House of Bourbon against us, I shall begin to be alarmed for our own independence. At least the power and glory of England, which have not, till this fatal period, withered like a fair flower, nor been mowed by the scythe of all-devouring time, that strikes empires from their root, will be in danger of being cut off by the sword of her justly incensed offspring. We have been found unequal to the contest with America alone. A Congress worthy of Rome, while Rome was free, tumidas contudit minas of an insolent minister, and the venal majority of a British parliament. All our ministers, Sir, have been grossly ignorant as to the real strength of that vast northern continent. Even the great man, who is now removed into the other House, delivered a very the common enemy of the liberties of Eu- | With the same great minister, who so rope. I would however do it in a parlia- gloriously conducted that war, and the mentary way. I wish this House, in a same noble efforts in the people, I should good cause, to grant the amplest supplies not doubt of equally brilliant success, proagainst that ambitious, formidable, and vided we had peace with America, to encroaching power, although I think the whom in no small degree we owe what present ministers wholly inexcusable in share of consideration we have among the being thus long duped by her flimsy pre-powers of Europe. The navy of this texts, and unmeaning verbal assurances. The Message to this House, of March 17, tells us, that the conduct of France is 66 contrary to the most solemn assurances, and subversive of the law of nations." Those most solemn assurances deceived none at the time but the credulous court of England, and the ministers on the other side of the House, who wished to be deceived. As to the law of nations, in my opinion it clearly justified the late conduct of France. I call on any gentleman, the deepest read in Grotius, Puffendorf, and the other writers on the rights of war and peace, and the law of nations, to prove from a single passage, that the French ambassador's late declaration is subversive of the law of nations. The United States of America were at the conclusion of the late treaty, on a footing with all other states. They had by the most public acts, with a full chorus of applause from almost the whole northern hemisphere, asserted their independency, of which they had at that time near two years full possession. The present conduct of France to America likewise receives the fullest justification from the former conduct both of England and France to Holland and Portugal, when they separated from the Spanish monarchy, and became indepen-weak and ill-founded opinion here in the dent states. We both went further than France has done in this instance. France and England at that time furnished entire regiments, ships of war, ammunition, and all warlike stores, to the revolted subjects of the Spanish monarch. The immediate cause of complaint at the present period is only that France has concluded a treaty of amity and commerce with America. Is this an unjust aggression on England? Is this a just cause of hostilities on our side, and will it warrant the involving this country as well as France in all the horrors and calamities of war? France seems indeed to be taking a dreadful revenge on us, by securing to herself the commerce of America, as an indemnity for all she suffered during the last war; but in the treaty she has acted according to the law of nations. Yet, Sir, if we must be forced into a war, I do not despond. debate on the repeal of the accursed Stamp Act, that the force of this country could crush America to atoms. The force of this country, aided by Hessians, Hanoverians, and all the other German mercenaries, has effected nothing, but unsoldierlike retreats, in three years. The united force of Europe, Sir, cannot crush America to atoms, if we consider the natural strength of the various component parts of that immense continent. Peace, peace, therefore with America ought to be our object. Force has been found as unavailing, as ill directed. I fear our conduct has cemented the union between America and France. Since the affair of general Burgoyne, and the French acknowledgment of their independence, it cannot be supposed that the Americans will ever think of returning to a dependence on this country. The ex |