cause as he had laft defcribed; and to what other could he attribute it? Had not every method which invention could fuggeft been practised for the purpofes of union; but had not all been unsuccessful? He, for his own fhare, was fo much impreffed with the awfulness of the crifis, that he was still ready to avow the ftrongest inclination to facrifice. every thing, to introduce and establifh union. On this point he had formerly given his fentiments. To these fentiments he now adhered. He again avowed them, and he hoped gentlemen would at least give him credit, when he affirmed, that no motive would ever induce him to obtrude himself in office, or to throw an obstruction in the way of producing that union between parties which was fo ardently defired. What then could be the reafon for Minifters retaining their places, contrary to the opinion, and in defiance of the refolutions of the Houfe? All their objections had been obviated. The India bill, that monfter which they had conjured up, was to be shaped to their own liking, at least its most exceptionable clauses were to be placed under proper reftrictions. India was therefore out of the way. He himself was out of the way. On what ground then, on what plaufible pretexts could Minifters either reft their claim to office, or fhelter themselves in the retention of their places? He was happy to find that all their oftenfible reafons were now removed, and they were driven to the last shift, that of afferting, that their remaining in office was now no point of public concern, but a duty` which they owed themfelves. A right honourable gentleman (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer) has declared, that he must be driven from his fituation that he fhould contaminate himself by yielding to the fentiments of the House. But how can he fupport fuch fentiments? Is his fubmitting himself to the decifion of this Houfe a circumstance of contamination or reproach? In the fituation in which he himfelf had been placed fome years ago, he yielded to the fentiments of the Houfe; but did this conceffion of fentiment imply guilt, or criminate him either perfonally or publicly? Quite the reverfe — In his conduct on that occafion he had only acted as it became every Minifter to do- He had yielded to the fenfe of Parliament, and of the Houfe of Commons, a duty which he fhould always reckon himself bound to fulfil. Much had been faid of the intemperate language and intemperate procedure of oppofition. But X 2 how how could fuch affertions be fupported? Had they not conducted themfelves with the utmost deference to Majefty and the dignity of that Houfe? Yet their moderation was denominated violence, and the temper of their conduct rashness and precipitation. But had fuch affertions any foundation, or were they admiffible in propriety of language? If words were not altered, if they had not ceafed to be the vera vocabula rerum, they could not be applied. The right honourable gentleman now challenges the decifion of the Houfe on the fupplies. He wishes to listen to the opinion of Parliament. These condefcenfions gave him much fatisfaction. He was happy to find that the right honourable gentleman fhewed any difpofition whatever to attend to the fentiments and decifions of the Houfe. This was furely a revolution both of principle and conduct in him, and totally different from what in former instances he had avowed and practifed. Before he fat down he would advert to one circumftance refpecting what the right honourable gentleman had ftated in regard to the refignation of Minifters. He had obferved that right honourable gentleman fometimes inaccurate and inarticulate on particulaṛ points which did not just answer his purpose. He should therefore be glad to know whether the right honourable gentleman had faid that Ministers had not refigned, or that they had not yet refigned. The monofyllable yet, in this inftance, which, perhaps, by a fraud of inarticulation, the right honourable gentleman might have fmuggled, was of the utmost importance to be known. Much had been faid of the popularity of the prefent Administration - From what fources did the Minister borrow fuch fentiments, and fuch noftrums? Was it from thofe that fat round him? or was it from the tumultuary meeting which had been held laft Saturday in Weftminster Hall? He was convinced that on the complection of that meeting it was extremely difficult to decide — One description of citizens had cried out No coalition! Another had called out No back-ftairs influence! but which of these popular clamours had predomi nated, depended on the utmost nicety of ear to determine. Thefe vociferations of the multitude, befides, were not altogether the refult of the difpaffionate decifion of the citizens of Westminster, but owed their origin, as he had learned, very much to the nervous, impaffionate gefticulation, and fonorous eloquence of one noble Lord, and to the very difinterested eloquence of another (Lord Mountmorris) who, who, to be fure, was not biaffed by British property, who had Mr. Brooke Watfon faid as reference had been made to the Mr. Brooke fentiments of the people out of doors, refpecting the popula- Watson. rity of Minifters, he would ftate to the House the opinion, though not of the body, yet of a confiderable body of the people on that fubject. It was that of the citizens of London affembled in Guildhall laft week. At that meeting, they had given an explicit fentiment in favour of Administration. He dwelt on the hazards arifing from poftponing public bufinefs as connected with public bankruptcy. He faid that the meeting which had given its fentiments refpecting Ministry, was not affembled improperly, was not tumultuary; there was no hustling or jostling there, but all was decency and refpect. tor General The Solicitor General expreffed his furprise that a noble Lord The Solici (Lord North) who had expreffed in his fpeech his apprehenfion, with respect to the prefent crifis, fhould at the fame time, and during the progrefs of his fpeech, have fhewn fo much levity, and indulged fo much humour. These were contrarieties of manner which he could not eafily reconcile. He then combated an idea, which he ftated had been thrown out by Mr. Fox, that a cafe fimilar to the present, in which Majefty had refused to attend to the voice of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons had on that account refused to grant him supplies, had occurred fince the time of the Revolution. Here he was reminded by a general cry of the Houfe, that Mr. Fox had reftricted his period to that of the Sir Wm. Mr. Powys. the acceffion of his prefent Majefty. He affirmed, however, that Mr. Fox had confined himself to the æra of the RovoJution, and he was of course entitled to reason on that point. He would ftate, in oppofition to this mode of reasoning, a cafe directly in point. On the 13th of May, 1701, the House of Commons, after various refolutions, at last agreed to address his Majefty to remove for ever from his prefence Lord Somers, Lord Orford, and the Earl of Portland.After doing this, however, did they fufpend the supplies till fuch time as his Majefty's inclination was known? No; for the very next day, on the 14th of May, they voted a fupply for guards and garrifons, which was nearly the fame thing with an ordnance eftimate. He adverted to the precipitancy of the manner in which the refolutions had been paffed, and contrafted that circumftance with the affected moderation of the prefent motion. He faid, teft in office had been called for from Minifters. The House would not allow them to give evidence of their ability and character. It infifts on the Minifter's retiring, and by fuch a refignation declaring himself guilty. He expatiated on the popular qualities of the Minifter, and declared, that he was the Minifter of the people. He reafoned on the late addreffes which had been prefented to the Throne, and infifted, with many fignificant nods, that they were not the effects of imposture. Sir William Dolben faid the motion and the whole of the late conduct and proceedings of the Houfe tended to abridge the prerogative of the Crown, and to leave nothing but the fhadow of prerogative. That which would be left would refemble Sancho's feaft of prerogatives, where he must not touch one of them. He objected to all this violence therefore, and hoped he fhould fee the House return again to moderation and their temper. Lord Delaval, Mr. Gilbert, Lord George Cavendish, and one or two other members fpoke; but the question was fo loudly called for, the Houfe divided. Ayes, 208; Noes, 196. Majority for the adjournment, 12. It was agreed to poftpone the motion till next day. February 19. Mr. Powys requested the Houfe would indulge him with a moment's attention, while he fhould fay a few words in vindication of his character, which, in common with the rest of thofe members who composed the majority last night, had been improperly attacked by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, chequer, a little before the House adjourned: That right honourable gentleman afcribed motives to the majority on the laft night's divifion, which he could venture to declare did not actuate his conduct. The right honourable gentleman charged the majority with having refufed the fupply; but he would as roundly affert, that the majority did not refuse the fupply. He could fpeak beft for himfelf; and for one, he affured the Houfe, that when he voted last night against the motion for bringing up the report from the Committee of Supply, nothing could be farther from his intention than to refufe the fupply; his only motive, and that he believed of the whole majority, was merely to delay the confideration of it, until the Houfe fhould have time to take fome previous steps, which the exigencies of the times required: and in order to convince the right honourable gentleman that this was his motive, he would to-morrow prove to him, by voting for the supply, that he did not mean ultimately to refufe it: at the fame time, however, he thought it proper to say, that the vote of fupply ought to be preceded by fome fuch refolution as he propofed laft night; and therefore he would endeavour to new model it in fuch a way as to remove any ambiguity, to which it appeared liable in the opinion of fome gentlemen last night; and having fo given notice, he said, he would move it to-morrow before the House fhould proceed to vote the fupply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that as he did not The Chanmean to anticipate the debate upon the motion, of which the cellor of the Exchequer. honourable gentleman had just given notice, he would not fay any thing at prefent on the fubject. He agreed with the honourable member, that the most effectual mode by which he could convince him and the public that by his vote of laft night he did not intend to refufe the fupply ultimately, would be to grant it to-morrow. When that event fhould have taken place, he would then retract the opinion he delivered last night, that the intention of the majority was to refuse the supply. Mr. Fox faid, that when the right honourable gentleman Mr. Fox. was pleased to fay that the majority of the Houfe, on laft night's divifion, meant wholly to refuse the supply, he did fo in direct oppofition to the declaration of every man who fpoke on the queftion, which was carried by the majority; for they one and all declared, that they had not the least intention to withhold the fupply; but that they thought it neceffary to paufe a while, in order to confider what measures ought to be taken in fo new and extraordinary a fituation of affairs |