Mr. Dundas parties, on occafions of such a nature, to blind and preju- Mr. Dundas faid, that after fo much declamatory and infla matory language, he would not venture to make a speech, but only to throw out a few observations- He observed, that with respect to the privilege and prerogative of the House of Commons, and of the other branch of the Legislature, to give advice to the Treasury, all were agreed; but he figured an inftance in which both thefe parts of the Conftitution gave a different advice. In this inftance what would be the conduct of Minifters? The refolution alluded to, he did not confider as binding in the fame degree as a law Still, however, it bound up the hands of Minifters so farit obliged them, in the acceptance of India bills in every inftance beyond the fum of 300,000l. to confult the sense of the House of Commons. This was the embarrassment which it furely imposed on them, and which in its literal fenfe, and as he understood the English language, to the underftanding of which he would not lay an equal claim either with his learned friend (Mr. Macdonald) on the right, or his other learned friend (Mr. Erfkine) on the left. He would therefore propofe an amendment on the fourth refolution, and that a claufe fhould be added to it, explanatory of the fentiments of the House refpecting it, and of its original intention in the formation of it. He wifhed also that the fourth refolution might be the firft, and the others would naturally follow from it as corollaries. On neither of these points 2 would would he however infift very ftrenuously. As to the argumentum ad hominem, it might be a legal phrase, but surely not a parliamentary one. He did not think himself bound to anfwer what had been thrown out on that fubject. In the case of Mr. Henleys, that gentleman having obtained no appointment from His Majefty, an addrefs was incompetent, and a declaratory refolution of the House of Commons became abfolutely neceffary. He fpoke of the addresses which had been prefented, and denied the interpofition of minifterial influence with respect to them. Mr. Fox confeffed himself much aftonifhd at the fpeech Mr. Fox. of the learned gentleman (Mr. Dundas) who, in his opinion, had acted the part of an able and ingenious, though not a prudent, advocate for the Houfe of Lords. He meant nothing invidious or perfonal by the term, but would appeal honeftly and fairly to the Houfe, whether, had their Lordfhips meant to plead their caufe at the bar of the House, they could have fixed on any one who could have managed the interefts of his noble clients with more addrefs. For what was the amendment propofed, that the Houfe did not underftand its own opinion? It was an explanation which virtually and fubftantially recanted the fentiment conveyed by the refolution. It was however to be remembered, that the House of Commons spoke not to the Houfe of Lords, but to the Lords of the Treafury, and that the Houfe of Lords had fignified their difference with the Houfe of Commons for an exertion of thofe privileges which were their exclufive right; and the mode of blaming the refolutions which they had treated thus difrefpe&fully affected every refolution of the House. It gave them all a colour of ambiguity and obfcurity which they did not deferve. It lowered them in the eyes of the public, and made them speak a language which it was the intereft of fome that they should speak, but which, however, was foreign to their hearts. By how many ftratagems was it endeavoured to produce this effect both within and without doors? A bill had been brought into Parliament which all acknowledged was founded on the moft imminent neceffity. Never did a more striking and tried majority ftamp a greater fanction and value on any measure than that by which the bill before Chriftmas was carried through the House. That bill was, notwithstanding, loft. But how? Will any man affert, that the free, unbiaffed fuffrage of their Lordships operated to that effect? In contempt, however, of the Houfe in which the measure originated, and the il S 2 luftrious luftrious majority who efpoufed it as their own, it was not only thrown out, but the Minifters perifhed with it, and perifhed only, as it would feem, because they were supported by the confidence of that House. A new Miniftry was brought forward on the fame principle; and were not these men held in office in direct oppofition to that House, which never in a fimilar cafe had been difregarded without danger to the Conftitution? How was the ftrange unconstitutional ftep juftified by thofe principally concerned? Not by vindicating their own conduct, but vilifying that of the Houfe. Did it not feem an object to make the reprefentatives of the people infignificant and ufelefs? Were not his Majefty's prefent Minifters called to office, maintained in office, and by every mean and vulgar artifice exhibited to the people, not as objects of respect and merit, but of innocence and pity? But what was the object of the Conftitution in vefting the Houfe of Commons with the abfolute, the unequi vocal, and fole difpofa¡ of the public purfe? Was it to endue that branch of the Legiflature with various feparate and independent powers? No-For this peculiar prerogative the Houfe of Commons poffeffes not as a branch of the Legiflature, but as the reprefentatives of the people, unconnec ted with any other powers or body of men whatever. In this diftinguishing attribute of their delegated capacity, neitheir King nor Lords had any right of interference. It was a truft connected with their existence and their honour, and to relinquish it on any account was to prove traiterous to the confidence repofed in them by their confituents and the public, Whoever, therefore, had the ufe of the public money, was refponfible to them for the ufe they made of it in proportion to their truft. They had not, confequently, gone too far in afferting whatever the refolutions of his noble friend would bear. Their predeceffors had gone much farther he doubted whether they had more provocation. He trufted the temper of the Houfe, however, would be uniform, and that they would go through even with the arduous duty prescribed them, in a manner that would do them honour with the world and with pofterity. But it was obvious how they had been treated. He wished the House to recollect the dates of the feveral refolutions, and how tamely they had conftantly been received. One noble Lord (Effingham) had indeed now and then harped on these reso Jutions, but no fooner had he broached the matter, than the Houfe was adjourned; and it was not till the Houfe had de clared, clared, that a firm, extended, efficient, and united Administration could alone reftore harmony to the country and the House of Commons, that their Lordships feemed alarmed. So long as the Houfe did not find fault with Ministers, their refolutions were innocent and inoffenfive; but the moment they attacked an unconstitutional Administration, they took fire, and with equal induftry and vehemence ránfack their Journals, and pronounce their anathemas on every word which they can mifconftrue into an object of animadverfion and cenfure, and without regard to delicacy or reserve, charge the Houfe with what they never did or thought to do. He was forry that he was obliged to recur so often to the facts which had diftinguished the earlier part of the prefent feffion; for these were the facts which had incurred the refentment of their Lordfhips, and which they feemed fo very much offended by. They had acquired their object, and ftill they were diffatisfied. The measure on which the honour of the Houfe was pledged they had difpofed of, but in a manner extremely difgraceful; fome faid by a Court juggle, others by the abfolute command of Majefty; but none ever allowed the House of Lords any merit whatever in this famous decifion of that celebrated measure. He then adverted to Mr. Dundas's commentary on the refolution concerning the recal of Mr. Haftings in the year 1782, and expofed the ingenious reafoning of that learned gentleman on that particular. He was aftonished at the conduct of fome men beyond expreffion - He admired the ingenuity of the learned gentleman; but he knew not how it was, he never had heard him fo much unequal to himself as in the fpeech he had juft made. Was it that men of the strongest talents were not able, with all their powers of eloquence and comprehenfion, to render falfehood as forcible as truth, or how could it be accounted for, that on fuch occafions the brighteft parts funk beneath themfelves? He was likewife unable how to unravel the conduct of thofe men who had faid fo much about coalition, and notwithstanding, appeared to be of fuch, if he might ufe a new word, uncoalefcible and ununiteable qualities. He illuftrated the interference of the House in cales where difcretionary powers were invested by the Attorney General, who, in his opinion, was the fervant of the House, who had always acted at the command of the House, and who, in cafe of difobedience to their orders, he did not fee how he could be punished. The great principle principle that guided him, and which the Houfe ftill fupported in all their fervants upon truft, was, a deference to their opinion. Where this did not exift, their interference by admonition or advice would be unneceffary. But it was on the fuppofition of its operating to a certain degreeon their fervants of all defcriptions, that they had interpofed by fuck means. He declared the impolicy and injuftice of infisting on the extreme of right in any cafe where all forts of powers and prerogatives were ftill under limitation; and he deprecated the neceffity the Houfe of Commons might yet be under to affert, as her dernier refort, that great check which the undoubtedly had over the executive government, by denying the fupplies. This he would ftate till the very laft moment as hypothetical, not fuffering himself to believe that men could be fo mad as to fuffer the conftitution of the country to run fuch a rifque from obftinacy, or whatever other motive may influence them. He infifted that all the prerogatives of the Crown were limited by the great object for which they were originally inftituted, which was the benefit and advantage of the public. Had not this House interfered with the prefent Miniftry folely becaufe they were evidently inadequate to this capital and primary idea? He wifhed, however, that every thing fhould fill be carried on with prudence and moderation. The prefent was a trying crifis, and he could fee a determination to try them ftill more. But he trufted the fpirit and magnanimity they had already dif covered would never forfake them, but bear them up under all the difficulties and temptations to which the exercise of their duty to the public, to their conftituents, and to them. felves, unavoidably expofed them. He warned the House with much earneftnefs and importunity againft the venom and poison of the amendment, or explanation, which the learned gentleman (Mr. Dundas) had fuggefted. The point to which they tended needed no illuftration. The words feemed harmless, but were the more dangerous for their apparent infignificance. They were evidently intended to turn the moft ferious bufinefs in which that Houfe had ever been engaged, into ridicule, and brought against them the very folemn and formidable charge of fufpending the exercife of law. But every circumftance which attended the progrefs of the whole affair demonftrated the purpose to which it was directed. He was certain the defign, whatever fucefs might attend it, was to flander them in the country, and |