give an unlimited vote of credit to minifters; perhaps we fall be told next, that any account of the difbursement of the army extraordinaries might thus be avoided; fo it might. There was a time, how ever, when he would have called fuch an exception paltry; a time when he was an enthufiaft in the caufe of liberty; an economist; a reformer. In the year 1782 this circumftance of extraordinaries would have been reprobated as an evil by the right honourable gentleman, which could not be too jealously watched; a principle that could not be too feverely condemned; an infringement ever to be refifted. Thefe avowedly were then his fentiments of that fpecies of minifterial chicanery, infomuch that, immediately after he was made minifter, the houfe was called upon by a fpeech from the throne, to watch with jealoufy, and repel with dignity, every fuch attempt to dilapidate and infringe the conftitution. The extraordinaries being thus formally and folemnly made the fubject of a fpeech from the throne, it is not a little remarkable that the minifter himself has adopted the exception instead of the principle; has frittered away the laws, and attempted, by a fort of fpecial pleading, to deprive us of

our liberties."

Mr. Grey then mentioned the act of parliament, whereby a certain fum was given to his majefty for the fervice of the year 1796. The application of this fum was reftricted to certain purpofes: it was to be applied in fuch a way as the exigencies of affairs might require; but it was meant profpectively, not retrofpectively. He could prove, he faid, to the houfe, that the fum then granted had been ufed retrospectively instead of profpectively. On the 31st of Decem

ber, 1795, 150,000l. was given to colonel Crauford. He was certain that the right honourable gentleman was abftractedly of opinion that any appropriation, fuch as he had made of that vote of credit, was unconftitutional, nor did Mr. Grey think that the laft parliament, fervile and obfequious as it was, could have intended, could have confidered that vote of credit as conveying unlimited power to minifters. He asked, if there now were prefent any gentlemen who were members of that parliament, whether, if it had been stated to them at the time the vote was paffed, that two millions and a half were to be given as a fubfidy to the emperor, at the difcretion of his majesty's minifters, whether they would have agreed to place fuch extraordinary power in the hands of the executive government? Many apprehenfions had arifen from the danger of an invafion: he ventured to affirm, that no invafion or attack would go more decidedly to the deftruction of all that was valuable; namely, the li berty of the country.

he

Viewing the fubject in this light, it was his duty to oppofe, or, at leaft, vote for fufpending the fupplies. If he were afked, were thofe fupplies to be fufpended which would afford to government fo much weight and vigour would anfwer yes, and he was certain that we fhould not negotiate lefs favourably if the French faw that the houfe was determined to maintain its rights; the firmness with which they allerted their own dignity would be a pledge of the fpirit with which they would refift the enemy. Affuming that exalted ftate on which a free people ought to ftand, they would negotiate more advantageoufly with a free people; a people that he hoped would re

main free; a people whom the right honourable gentleman now confidered as capable of maintaining peace and amity, who had now Inorted away the undigested fumes of the blood of their fovereign, and with whom he had now condefcended to treat.

But the propofition did not go to negative the fupplies; it was intended to fufpend them till the wound given to the conftitution was made whole. He moved an amendment, that the fecond reading fhould be postponed till the next day, and he would then move the houfe to refolve that the minifter had been guilty of a high crime and mifdemeanor.

Mr. Wilberforce was averfe to poftponing the paffing of the refolution, even till the morrow, on the fcore of propriety and policy. The nature of the vote of credit, he faid, had not been fufficiently commented upon; it would be found to convey an impreffion that minifters were authorised in employing it in fuch a manner, or on fuch measures, as the ftate might require. This conftruction was fo literally obvious on the face of the bill that it could not be contested.

Upon this a queftion arofe, whether the mode in which minifters had applied the money was, or was not, neceffary to the caufe in which the nation was embarked.

He thought that the mode in which the money had been applied was a proper one; the reprefentatives of a generous nation would not make the faving of the Germanic empire the fubject of cenfure. At the time the money was remitted the emperor was on the verge of a great precipice, and all Europe in danger of being ruined by his fall. To that feasonable supply might be attributed, in a confiderable degree, the good reception lord

Malmbury met with from the directory of France: and had that tranfaction been publicly known at the time of its completion, it might have injured our public credit. Gentlemen, he faid, might rant about the excellencies, the wounds, and the death of the conftitution; but it ought to be remembered, that thofe to whom they addreffed their medley effufions, were more fincere fupporters of freedom than they.

Mr. York contended, that the affiftance given to the emperor was out of a fum of money granted by a vote of credit to defray any extraordinary expences which might accrue; and as thofe extraordinaries were not then voted, it was confequently a feparate confideration. Yet the oppofition fide of the house had propofed a negative to the refolutions of the committee of ways and means, on the principle that the money granted by the vote of credit in a former year was mifapplied, and thereby to poftpone the fupplies neceffary for the current year.

Mr. Curwen declared, that the fafety of the British conftitution was involved in the queftion then before the house. The commons were always confidered as the guardians of the public purse, and in that view this question was more important to them than if the threatened invafion had been put in execution, and the French actually at our doors, Suppofing the affiftance given to the emperor to have been inftrumental in faving Germany, ftill the British conftitution was not to be deftroyed on that account; the minifter had various opportunites of pleading fome neceffity to parliament for informality in granting that af fiftance, or he might have applied for a bill of indemnity.

The mafter of the rolls and lord

Hawbury defended the conduct of adminiftration

administration in remitting the money to the emperor, and contended, that an attempt to delay the fupplies for the year on that account was not defenfible upon rational grounds.

Mr. Fox, in his reply, faid, that the real question was, whether the conduct of the minifter with regard to this money fent to the emperor, was, or was not, an infraction of the conftitation: if it was an infraction of the conftitution (which he thought no one could deny), then it was an actual invasion and ufurpation of the powers of the reprefentatives of the people, in the most important of all their privileges, that of granting money. At length the house divided on the question, that the word "tomorrow" be inferted, instead of "now." Ayes 58- Noes 164. The refolutions were then agreed

to.

The fame fubject was difcuffed again in the house of commons on the 14th of December, after Mr. Long had brought up fome papers from the treasury, containing the correspondence which paffed between Mr. Long and Mr. Boyd, concerning the money advanced to the emperor; together with an account of the intereft paid by his imperial majefty upon the loan of four millions and a half.

Mr. Fox, upon this occafion, retraced with fome additional energy all the arguments which he had enforced on a former day, against the unconstitutional measure which the minifter had adopted of remitting money to the emperor without the knowledge or permiffion of parliament. He fupported his arguments by an appropriate quotation from Mr. Hatfell's Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons, by which it appeared, that

formerly thofe fums of money which had been expended, but not fpecified, commonly called extraordinaries, were confined within fome limits, as appeared from the account entered in the journals during the war of the fucceffion, and even in the war which terminated in 1748. In what was com monly called the German war, these fums first became very large; but in the American war they exceeded all bounds; thefe extraordinaries very often amounted to almost as much as the whole fums voted by parliament upon the estimates; nay, in the year 1781, they appear to have actually exceeded them. It was therefore incumbent upon the houfe of commons, not only to make this fupply as fmall as poffible, but, in a fubfequent fellion, to enquire into the particular expenditure of this fum. Mr. Fox concluded a fpeech of great length, by a motion to the following purport: "That bis majefty's minilters, having at different times, without the confent, and during the fitting of parliament, directed the ile of various fums of money for the fervice of his imperial majefty, and alfo for the fervice of the army under the prince of Coadé, have acted contrary to their duty, and to the truft repofed in them, and have thereby violated the conftitutional privileges of this honfe."

Mr. alderman Combe feconded the motion, he faid, in obedience to the inftructions of his conftituents, who had met that day in the common hall of the city of London, and had defired their reprefentatives to cenfure the condu& of miniiters, in granting away the public money without the confent of parliament. He alfo obferved, that the difcounting of the bik

drawn

drawn for the purpose of remitting money to the imperial troops, had fwallowed up fo much of the cath of the bank, as to compel that great body to narrow their difCounts; and the British merchants were made to fuffer, that the German foldiers might be fupplied.

The chancellor of the exchequer faid, that it was no small fatisfaction to him, that the full review of former precedents, with refpect to the motion then before the houfe, formed the chief ground of the argument, and that thofe precedents concurred in juftifying the measure at that moment fo feverely condemned. Refpecting what had fallen from alderman Combe, he contended, that it was impoffible for his conftituents to decide, in a juft and candid manner, on the propriety of giving a vote on a motion with the particulars of which they must have been unacquainted, and alfo ignorant of the defence which his majefty's minifters meant to fet up. Mr. Pitt then went at confiderable length into a defence of the measure in question, in which he followed the fame train of arguments as on the 8th of December; and concluded with quoting a number of prece. dents both before and after the date of the revolution, on which he appeared to reft his principal defence. In 1701, he said, parliament had voted an extra fum for the payment of foreign forces, not regularly as a vote of credit, but fubfequent to fuch a vote. In the reign of Anne, in 1704-5, both fubfidies and grants had been employed in paying foreign forces without the authority of parliament. In 1706, he added, a tranfaction fimilar to that under difcuffion was publicly avowed. In 1718, an inftance also occurred, which, however, he admitted was not fo analagous to the late tranf

action as the preceding. In the years 1734 and 1735, votes of credit were granted, and applied according to the exigencies of the times. An advance to the duke of Aremberg in 1742 was noticed in debate, and cenfured in the adminiftration of Mr. Pelham; but the enquiry was avoided by the previous question. Laftly, he appealed to his own administration in 1787, when the expences incurred in protecting Holland were recognized under the head of fecret fervices.

Mr. Bragge followed the minifter in order, and in a great degree alfo in argument, and concluded by propofing an amendment to the motion, purporting "That advancing the feveral fums of money in the account then before the house, for the service of his imperial majefty (though not to be drawn into precedent but upon occafions of fpecial neceffity), was a juftifiable exercife, under the circumstances of the case, of the difcretion vested in his majesty's minifters by the vote of credit."

Mr. alderman Lufhington declared, that he should not have rifen but for the meeting of his conftituents, alluded to by Mr. Combe; but he could never confent to receive iuftructions to fupport a motion for cenfuring minifters before he had heard their defence. It had been faid, that the conftitution had been violated; the papers on the table would prove the contrary. In times of difficulty he thought the hands of government ought to be ftrengthened; and, in this inftance, he was first inclined to think a bill of inden nity would have been proper, but he had fince heard enough to convince him that it was not neceffary.

Alderman Curtis and alderman Anderfon, the other city members, coincided with the laft fpeaker, and fupported

fupported the minifter in contradiction to the resolutions of their conftituents.

Mr. Sheridan, in a long and energetic fpeech, fupported the motion for cenfuring the minifters. Mr. Bragge, he faid, the mover of the amendment, appeared to have formed a determination to turn every expreffion of cenfure into a teftimony of approbation. His motion did not at all refer to the fums fent abroad to the army of Condé ; if it exempted that part of the meafure which concerned the emperor from cenfure, it left the other to ftand upon the journals with the brand which was implied from its being paffed over without notice, while the other was held up to approbation. He would not enter into the enquiry, whether or not the power of granting fupplies, and controul ing their application, was as an cient as the government itself, and coeval with the existence of the conftitution. This falutary power arofe from the abuses of government, from the misconduct of minifters, from tyranny, and from corruption. The reign of Charles the Second abounded with examples of this corruption; at the revolution the right of the parliament to grant fupplies, and controul their application, was folemnly recognized, and fince that period interwoven with its ufage. In this review he wondered at the ftrefs which had been laid upon the precedents which had been quoted: it was arguing from the exception against the rule; it was erecting the deviation into the guide. Here Mr. Sheridan contended, that even thefe precedents did not apply to the prefent cafe. The firit which had the remoteft fimilarity to it, was that in 1706, of the advance to the duke of Savoy, to the amount of

47,000l. This fum was granted, during the recefs of parliament, to an ally of this country, placed in perilous circumftances, when his capital of Turin was actually in a ftate of fiege. A demand was made for 50,000l. and the letter which Mr. fecretary Harley fent in aufwer to the ambassador of Savoy, stated, that it was not practicable according to the cuftom of the conftitution while parliament was not fitting, to comply with the requeft; yet the prefling circumftances of the cafe in→ duced her majefty to grant a certain fum to be deducted out of the fubfidy that was to be paid to the duke of Savoy. He contended, that from circunftances like thefe, when there was a certainty that the money was employed in a manner to which parliament had confented, when it was to be deducted from a fubfidy that had regularly been granted, a precedent could not be drawn to juftify the measure then in difcuthon. In 1742, the engagement which minifters had then contracted, took place when parliament was not fitting, though a feflion intervened before it was communicated to the houfe; but a motion was made, that it was dangerous, and the neceffity of the circumftance was. stated in the refolution which the houfe adopted. He admitted the neceffity of the meafure, if it could be made out as the ground of the juftification of minifters. The third precedent adduced in defence was equally inapplicable to the point. The affiftance which miniiters gave to Holland in 1787, was given when parliament was not fitting. This affiftance, however, which parliament afterwards approved of, was given from the fecret fervice money, which completely removed every enquiry and every argument which the cafe might have fuggeft

ed,