ambition of monarchy might endanger this Constitution, but here was a power ftill more unfriendly to its existence. Mr. Martin expreffed his disapprobation of the address.

Sir William Dolben agreed with the addrefs, fo far as it Sir William went to exprefs the confidence in the wisdom and goodness Dolben. of Majefty. Such fentiments of gratitude and loyalty were on all occafions becoming the Houfe, and fhould ever have his concurrence. He could not, however, go along with it in those paffages which contained a lamentation on account of the Sovereign's refusing to gratify what was stated to be the wifh of the House. He confidered the present address as putting that union at a distance which was fo ardently defired, and vefting the House with an unconftitutional power which did not belong to it. The House of Commons had furely a right to advise His Majesty in the exercise of his prerogatives, but it had no title to put a negative on them; and was not this the very power which it wished at prefent to ufurp? If the Houfe of Commons, for reafons frivolous or capricious, were to pass cenfure, or negative the exertions of prerogative in the choice of Minifters toties quoties, the power of appointment must immediately and virtually devolve to that Houfe from the Crown. Had not a fimilar mode of reafoning been adopted by the oppofite fide of the Houfe during the reasoning on the India bill which had lately been thrown out? Was it not on that occafion alledged, that if the Crown had a negative on the appointments of the Court of Directors, if it was authorised to reject them toties quoties, the power of election would not reft in the Company, but be transferred to the Crown? And might not the fame mode of reafoning now be applied to the cafe in question? He thought in justice it might. He ftated the case of secret influence, fo much infisted on. He affirmed, that the influence which had been employed had been exercised for the best purposes. It had ferved the best purposes in the view of a conftitutional government, and enabled men, in the discharge of their duty, to fteal the falfe die from the pockets of Miniftry. The late Administration had held the bank for fome time, but had unfortunately now loft that falfe die on which all their credit and all their profits depended. The doctrines of paffive obedience and nonresistance, of divine, indefeasible right, had been long reprobated. He hoped there was no perfon now fo hardy as to maintain them in all their dangerous latitudes. But there

was

Sir William
Dolben.

was furely a difference between these political abfurdities
and the affertions of prerogative, which were this day called
in queftion, and which it was the duty of every Englishman
to support. He alledged that the honourable gentleman
(Mr. Fox) had flattered the gentlemen who compofed the
meeting at the St. Alban's tavern; he had cajoled them
into a coincidence of fentiment and of view with himself,
and on this foundation had built all his naivetés. It was in
this way
that he had induced them into error, and by the
refolutions which had passed in the Houfe, and in particu-
lar the first of them, had brought them into a cul de fac,
out of which there was no paffage. He beftowed a. high
encomium on the noble Lord oppofite to him; he had long
concurred with him in fentiment, and hoped foon to have
that honour again, as he had the highest opinion of his in-
tegrity and political ability.

General Conway did not wish to go into a repetition of argument on the queftion, but would not allow what had fallen from the last speaker to pafs without ftricture. He faid it had been alledged that the Houfe had no right to advise the Sovereign in the exercife of his prerogative This advice had been confidered as a daring infringement on the rights of the Sovereign, and a direct negative on them. He could not hear fuch doctrines advanced without reprobating them. These maxims had never been broached by the rankeft Tories in this country, nor had they been maintained in an arbitrary reign by the most zealous Anti-Exclufionifts. He affirmed that if there was any balance of power in the government of this country, it rested in Parliament: the Conftitution, if it exifted any where, feparately exifted there. He wished for union, and would make every honourable facrifice to it, as it was undoubtedly connected with the public peace.

1

Sir William Dolben denied his having advanced any new or unconstitutional doctrines. He had faid, that if the House affumed a controling right over the exercise of the prerogative, in that inftance the interefts of the Sovereign would be affected, and that balance of power which the Conftitution had given to the Monarch as the executive branch of the Legiflature, deftroyed. This was a tone of advifing equal to a command, and which furely ought not to be admitted; these were the fentiments he had advanced, and which were neither new nor unconftitutional, I

The

The Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to avoid, as much The Chanas poffible, all thofe repetitions of argument which had be- cellor of the come. fo frequent, and had mingled themselves of late fo Exchequer. much in the progrefs of debate. He wished to confine himself as much as poffible to what he confidered the point in question, and to deliver his fentiments on this fubject with as much concifenefs as lay in his power, that those who speak might not be deprived of an opportunity of giv ing their opinions, and that thofe who hear might not be tired by a fatiguing and difagreeable reiteration of beaten themes and of hacknied arguments. It had been infinuated by an honourable member, (General Conway) and some others, that he was averfe to union. He could by no means admit this affertion Had he not on many occafions given the strongest evidence of his predilection for the prin ciple? Had he not expreffed these attachments repeatedly in the course of his fpeaking on the fubject? It was his wish to crect a ftrong government-It was his defire to contribute all in his power to the formation and support of so desirable a fyftem. He was therefore one of those who would exprefs his fentiments of reprobation against those who oppofed union, as he confidered this measure as neceffarily connected with the intereft and the happiness of the public. But whilft he emitted these ftrong and decided fentiments in favour of union, he by no means thought that this desirable object would be brought nearer by the addrefs under confideration, nor could at all be forwarded by the refignation of Minifters. On this point he had already given his fentiments. Thofe fentiments he had feen no reason to alter. He was equally ftruck at another affertion of the honourable General It had been affirmed that the words of one fide of the House aimed at the annihilation of its privileges. Good God! how could fuch ideas be formed or entertained? Had he in any part of his conduct or of his past procedure, manifested any peculiar predilection in favour of Monarchy, or of the undue influence of the Crown? Had he, during the progrefs of his parliamentary actings, wifhed to encroach on, or to destroy, the privileges of Parliament? The Conftitution and the rights of the House of Commons were circumftances which he had always been taught to venerate. He would therefore appeal to the candour of the House, to its recollections of his expreffions on this fubject, whether he had not, on all occafions and under every defcription of circumstances, maintained its pri

vileges

4

vileges and its dignity. His own opinions, his partialities, and his views favoured thofe ideas; and he must have been deluded to have acted in oppofition to them. But whilft he expreffed his warmeft fentiments for the honour and the dignity of the House of Commons, he felt himfelf under an obligation at the fame time, to vindicate the doctrines of the honourable Baronet (Sir William Dolben) behind him, fo far as they refpected the rights of the other branches of the Leture, so far as they regarded the juft and constitutional prerogatives of the Sovereign. These the Constitution had defined with as much accuracy as it had done those of the House of Commons; and it was furely the duty of Minifters, and of members of that Houfe, equally to fupport the rights of both. No man was more zealous or more unreserved in admitting and affèrting the right of the House to advise the Sovereign in the exercise of all his prerogatives than he was. This had always been a fentiment which he had avowed; but that a declaration of the difapprobation of the Houfe of His Majefty's Minifters, fhould, ipfo facto, in any given inftance, bind and compel the Sovereign to difmifs those Ministers, or oblige them to refign, was a point which he never had admitted, and would never allow Such a fentiment of disapprobation furely placed Minifters in aukward and unpleasant fituations; but that it should force them to retire he would maintain was an unconftitutional doctrine, hoftile to the prerogative of the Crown, and to that balance of power on which the excellency of our government depended. This was a point, therefore, which he was always ready to maintain, and from supporting which, he hoped he would never be precluded by any falfe theories or vague declamation refpecting the dignity of the Houfe. He alluded to the idea of a faction exifting in the Houfe, ftated by his honourable friend (Mr. Wilberforce) and which he had afferted to be dangerous to the balance of the Conftitution. How far this was true, how far the conduct of the House of Commons during its late procedure justified this doctrine, and how far the addrefs under confideration confirmed its truth, ought to be weighed, and ought to produce correfponding effects on the minds and votes of the members of the House. In deliberating, however, on this point, he would caution members not to be overawed by falfe alarms of an encroaching prerogative, by falfe fears of an extended monarchy, or to be decided by

.the

the ring and found of dignity, fo inceffantly poured into the ear of the House on the present and paft occafion. But though he was thus the opponent of all capricious decifion on the appointment of Ministers, he was as unfriendly to their continuance in office when difapproved of by the House of Commons on proper grounds, as by either branch of the Legislature. On this account, he called on the House to fpecify charges against Administration, to prove those charges, and not capriciously to condemn an Administration which had never as yet been found guilty, and had in fact, by an unaccountable obftinacy and untowardness of circumftances, been deprived of an opportunity of difplaying its prudence and its zeal in the fervice of the public. When thefe accufations were proved, when thefe charges were fubftantiated, it would then be proper for Minifters to refign; and if in fuch a cafe he should afterwards continue in office, he would fuffer himself to be ftigmatized as the champion of prerogative, and the unconstitutional supporter of the ufurpations of the Crown. But till this period arrived, he fhould reckon it his duty to adhere to the principles of the Conftitution, as delivered to us by our anceftors; to defend them against innovation and encroachment, and to maintain them with firmness.

Attempts had been made to fix imputations of criminality on the present Adminiftration. Their fins had been ftated, and one of the moft glaring of them was, that the late Ministry was difmiffed against the fenfe of the Houfe. But what was the meaning of this charge? To what conclufion did the argument, when followed up, lead? Did it not fairly admit of this comment, that it was improper for Majefty to difmifs his Ministers, provided they were not difapproved by the House of Commons, and that fo long as they acted agreeable to its fentiment, fo long, and no longer were they to enjoy the patronage of the Crown, and retain the offices of Adminiftration? Was this a decent treatment of the Prerogative? Was this conftitutional doctrine? Was it not degrading the dignity of the Sovereign? Was it not a transference of the prerogatives of the Crown to the Houfe of Commons, and a placing of the Royal fceptre under the mace that lies on that table? The Conftitution of this country is its glory. But in what a nice adjustment of parts does its excellence confift! Equally free from the diftractions of democracy, and the tyranny of monarchy, its happiness confifts in its mixture of parts. It was this mixed government which the prudence of VOL. XIII. Kk

our