public. He frusted also that his noble friend would be prepared to state that some measure of this nature would be brought forward on a very early day in the course of the present session.

Lord Hawkesbury said, the subject alluded to by his noble friend had engaged the anxious attention of his majesty's ministers. From the period when they came into office they felt deeply its importance, and no long time would elapse before he should have the honour of calling their lordships' attention to a measure for the increase of the military force of the country. He could not at the present moment of course enter into particulars; but a notice either had been or would be given that day in the other House, of an intended measure for the purpose he had mentioned.

C

After a few words from the Earl of Suffolk, the conversation ended.

AMERICAN INDEMNITY BILL.

Earl Bathurst, on moving the second reading of this bill, explained briefly the circumstances which led to it. His lordship admitted, that to continue the American treaty act, without the authority of Parliament, was a breach of law, but contended that the circumstances which rendered the continuance of the act necessary, justified ministers in their claim for indemnity. The duties which continued to be levied under the continuance of the act, were in no case higher, and in many instances much lower, than the duties which would have been payable by law, if the act had not been continued, added to which, the greatest inconveniences would have arisen to commerce, if that continuance had not been ordered.

On the question being put for the second reading of the bill.

Lord Grenville said he could not suffer this bill to be read, without entering his protest against that breach of law, and that breach of one of the fundamental principles of the constitution, which had been committed by ministers, and for which they now asked indemnity. There could not be a more sacred principle of the constitution, than that the crown could not levy money without the consent of Parliament, and yet in this instance that priuciple had been violated. It had been urged that the duties levied by the continuance of the act, under the order of

council,

1

J

council, were not in any instance higher, and in most instances lower, than they would have been under the law, and it would have operated after the expiration of the act. This, however, made no difference with respect to the principle, and even this argument failed, for it appeared from the account laid upon the table, that in several instances the duties would have been lower under the old law, than they were under the act continued by the order of council. He was aware it might be said, that the, importation of many of the articles enumerated, would have become prohibited under law, or it would have stood if the act had not been continued. Under the navigation laws, many of the articles, he was aware, could not have been imported, except in British vessels. This, however, only tended to prove that the continuance of the act, without the authority of Parliament, was a breach of the navigation laws, as well as a violation of the principles of the constitution. In was in vain to urge precedents to justify such a violation of the constitution, as no precedent could sanction it. Unless they could have before them the peculiar circumstances which were acted upon in former instances, it was impossible they could judge whether the precedent applied. It had been mentioned on a former evening, that a similar case occurred in the year 1784. He was not at that period a member of his majesty's cabinet council, and, unfortunately for the country, not one of the members of that council was now living. The circumstances, therefore, upon which any similar measure was then grounded, could not be before the House. Even, however, supposing he did sanction any similar measure at that period, it did not follow that he was to approve of the present. He preferred acting according to the dictates of his own mind, upon a fair view of the circumstances before him, to making any sacrifices to that which was miscalled consistency, and which indicated any thing rather than firmness and steadiness of mind. It rested, therefore, with ministers in this case, to prove the necessity of this violation of the law and of the constitution. They ought to have known that the act, was about to expire, and to have submitted to Parliament either that the act should be continued, or in case Parliament should have thought it impolitic to continue the act, they ought to have taken care that some other competent measure shouki have been substituted for it. But how did the necessity

arise for continuing the act? Illegally ministers dissolved the Parliament, and then found it necessary to resort to a breach of the law. 3 hey must first, therefore, prove the necessity of the dissolution of Parliament, as it was by that measure they rendered this illegal act necessary. Here again the dissolution of Parliament, in 1784, had been resorted to on a former evening, to justify the late dissolu tion. But what were the circumstances in 1784? There was a direct breach between two of the branches of the legislature: an appeal to the people, therefore, became absolutely necessary. it what way, however, could this be applied to the tate dissolution, when no difference of opinion whatever existed between the branches of the le gislature? The late dissolution, therefore, was justified on no ground of policy or convenience; and the more it was considered, together with the circumstances under which it took place, and the effects which it had produced, the more it must appear to be a most inconvenient and improvident, a most dangerous and desperate act. It was impossible to advert to the late dissolution without also adverting to the circumstances in which it originated, and to that measure of concession to the catholics, which was brought forward in the late Parliament. He did not mean to go at length into this question; but he thought it of importance to take this opportunity of recurring to it. A noble viscount had recently asked a question respecting the military force of the country, a question which was indeed highly necessary at the present moment, considering the intelligence recently received and the circumstances in which it at present stood. How highly important was it that at such a crisis the people of this united kingdom, should be united heart and hand in the cause of their country! and yet it had been stated on a former evening by a noble lord, hat it ought to be the policy of government to tell the catholics of Ireland at once that no further concession could be granted to them, and thus to tell four millions of his majesty's subjects, that they were to be for ever excluded from the rights enjoyed by their fellow subjects, and this at a moment when every exer ión would be required to meet the dangers to which the country was exposed. The promulgation of this o, inion had already done much harin in Ireland, and he was deeply anxious, that at such a momentous crisis as the present, such a sentence should be recalled. Nothing could at

such

such a moment tend more to produce mischievous effects than the avowal of such a determination on the part of government. It was well known, that in all countries which had been subjected to French domination, the first advantage had not been gained by an attack u on an ill defended

st, or a seik fortification, but the policy of the ruler of

France had invariably been, first to discover whether any principle of dissesion existed in the country, the subju ga ion of which was the object of his ambition, and by taking advantage of that pri ciple of dissension, wherever it hid existed, he had invariably succeeded. Was it not, therefore, of the most essential importance that we should prevent the existence of any principle of dissension amongst ourselves, that might by possibility be taken advantage of by the enemy? Was it fit at a moment when all the energies of the empire were required to be exerted, that we should be a divided people, and that four millions of his majesty's subjects should be kept under degrading disabilities? Viewing this great question as he did, he could scarcely bring his mind to consider any measure relating to the defence of the country, which did not found itself on, or include this great and essential measure. It was not yet too late, and he could not let this opportunity pass of pressing upon the attention of the House, the urgent importance of relieving the catholics of Ireland from those disabilities under which they laboured. It might now be granted as a boon, although in the same propor-. tion that it might be so granted, he thought it could not be fit for the catholics to ask it. He thought however, this great measure so essential at the present crisis, that no measures for increasing the military force of the country could be effectual without it.

Lord Hawkesbury, in rising to reply to the observations of the noble lord, could not but feel the deepest regret at many of those made by the noble lord in the latter part of his speech. The only observation made by the noble baron, in which he agreed, and which related to the immediate subject before the House, was, that the act for which ministers asked indemnity, could not be justified by precedents. In this he perfectly agreed, as otherwise precedents might be brought to justify any usurpation, or any violation of the constitution. The act for continuing the operation of the provisions of the treaty with America, having expired in the interval between the dissolution of

the

the late, and the meeting of the present Parliament, it be came, in his mind, undoubtedly expedient to continue it, not merely on account of the duties, which would otherwise have been much higher, but because under the old navigation laws, a great number of the articles enumerated in the account on the table, could not have been imported, except in British vessels. The continuance of the act, therefore, was a matter of indulgence and not of restraint, towards the American commerce. With respect also to the higher or lower rates of duties, the whole of the articles introduced in the account, except one, would have.. been liable, in consequence of the prohibition, to a much higher rate of duty than that to which they were subjected by the order of council continuing the treaty act. There was no doubt, nor was it ever disputed, that ministers in thus continuing the act, committed a breach of the law. The only question was, whether, under the circumstances in which they so acted, they were entitled to the indemnity which they asked? It had been argued by the noble baron, that there was no necessity for this measure, except. what had been created by ministers themselves, in advising his majesty to dissolve the late Parliament. He contended, that if the late dissolution was justified by the events which previously occurred, the time chosen for that dissolution was perfectly proper. Noble lords would recollect, that, in the speech delivered by his majesty's commissioners at the prorogation of the late Parliament, it was stated, that his majesty had determined to recur to the sense of his people, while the events which had recently happened were fresh in their recollection. This was the reason which justified the dissolution of that time. Had the session been allowed to go on, to what might be considered its natural duration, and a dissolution then take place, it would have been a dissolution for any cause except that which arose out of these events alluded to, and which, if they did jus-, tify the dissolution at all, undoubtedly justified it at the particular time chosen. With respect to the events which led to that dissolution, it was well known that a serious difference arose between his majesty and his late ministers, which ended in their dismissal. The late ministers brought forward in Parliament the subject of their dismissal, and in so doing endeavoured to criminate his majesty, or at least to criminate his then confidential advisers. It therefore became necessary for his majesty, who

coll