1776. PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY. No divifion enfued, and the Houfe refolved itself into a committee of fupply. Mr. Buller moved the committee that 28,000 feamen,including 6665 marines, be employed for the fervice of the year 1776, at 41. per month, per man, for thirteen months, which amounted to 1,456,000l. It was urged that this force was inadequate to the intended fervice; that if we must go to war, we should conduct it in fuch a manner as to give a moral certainty of fuccefs; that the eftimate voted last year was confidently held out by the minifter and his friends in both Houfes, as fully proportionate to the ends; that of all forts of war a lingering war was the most ruinous and deftructive in its confequences, and though the naval armament now propofed were fufficient to effectuate the immediate object of coercing America, would administration piedge themfelves to the House and the public, that we should still retain a force fufficient to defend ourselves against the open or infidious defigns and attacksof ourenemies? Very little was faid in reply to thole feveral objections, but general affertions that the establishment now offered was every way adequate to the naval operations intended, that nothing was to be dreaded from the interference of foreign powers, and if there fhould, contrary to every probable appearance of the prefent ftate of affairs, this country would at a very fhort warning be able to collect fuch a force as would completely defend our coafts, and make our enemies repent of their rathnefs. The motion was agreed to without a divifion.. The minifter rofe now, and obferved that leveral gentlemen, for whofe opinions he entertained a very great deference, not viewing the meafure refpecting the Hanover troops as he did, in order to fatisfy thofe gentlemen, he Feb. 1776. 66 would move for leave to bring in a bill of indemnity, though for his own par ticular part, he continued to think the measure perfectly legal and conftitutional. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill to indemnify fuch perfons as have advised his majefty to fend to the garrifons of Gibraltar and Port Mahon a part of his electoral troops of Hanover, during the recefs of parliament. November 2, the fecretary at war prefented the army eftimates, which were ordered to be taken into confideration. The militia bill was then read a fecond time, which produced one of the warmest debates we ever remembered to have been prefent at. As it however turned more on perfonal altercation, and mere party difpute, than the real merits of the bill, we fhall pass it over in filence, only obferving that the oppofers of the bill faid, that the principle of a ftanding militia was totally changed as a mode of internal defence, directed to certain objects and domeftic protection, for the power would be by this bill taken from the people, and vefted in the crown. It was anfwered, that the mode of defence was confefled on all hands to be conftitutional and popular, and the fubftantial controul ftill remained with the people, for though the militia might be embodied, contrary to the fpirit of this law, it was the people by their representatives in parliament who were to pay them; it therefore fignified very little who had the power of affembling them, while the people only were to be the paymasters. The Houfe divided on the fecond reading of the militia bill. Ayes 259, noes 50. November 3, Sir James Lowther brought the subject of the Hanoverian troops once more into difcuffion, by making the following motion, "That the introducing foreign troops into any part of the dominions of the crown of Great Britain, without the confent of parliament, first had and obtained, is contrary to law." We have given our readers fome of the arguments reforted to by both parties in the difcuffion of this quettion; first on the addrefs, and afterwards in the debate in the House of Lords; but as the fame question will probably be more than once agitated again, during the course of the pre K fent 66 PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY. fent feffion, we think it our duty to let in fome lights on the fubject, which have not yet that we recollect been ftated in print. The three main grounds on which the measure had been hitherto fupported, were neceffity, the obvious and legal conftruction of the Bill of Rights, and the new acquired dominion fince the paffing of that law. On the first it was contended, that our affairs in America made it abfolutely neceffary that the Hanoverians fhould have replaced part of the garrifons of Gibraltar and Minorca, before the measure could poffibly be legalized by the confent of parliament. This was fair argument, and was certainly a conftitutional juftification, provided the neceffity was proved. The fecond was maintained in two ways, that the intention of the law was ftrictly and fubftantially purfued, by fuppofing that the prefent was not a time of peace, and that Gibraltar and Minorca were not within the kingdom; confequently that both the spirit and letter of the act were preferved. And thirdly, that the law was declaratory and retrofpective, and could not be conftrued to extend to a cafe not forefeen nor provided for. The two laft arguments, it is plain, were rather fubtile and ingenious, than on a level with plain underftandings, when all the probable confequences fuch doctrines might lead to, were fairly and accurately traced; becaufe Ireland, or any other dependency of the crown of Great Britain, fupported the exception in one inftance; and becaufe a partial revolt or infurrection in any one part of this vaft extended empire, fupported it in the other. So far however the Bill of Rights law flood unimpeached. Its validity was confefled. The difference of opinion arofe only from the various conftructions and interpretations of the text; for as vet it had not been fo much as binted, that the law was nugatory, because it could be controuled or difpenfed with at the will of the fovereign; but the part two leading members took in this day's debate,fairly developed the true motives from which this unpopular measure originated. They not only employed the arguments abovementioned, but they contended, that it was an indifputable prerogative inherent in the crown, to raife an army, and keep it on foot either in time of peace or any other; and that parliament had no legal means of controlling fuch a meafure, but by with-holding the supplies neceffary for its fupport; that the ufage was exercifed perfectly agreeable to this right, from the earliest period of our monarchy to the Revolution. That the Bill of Rights law instead of militating against the inherent right of the crown, confirmed it in confequence; because it only afferted the ancient ufage by way of declaration; whatever then appeared to be the ancient ufage, muft fill continue to be the law. That fuppofing there was a difference of opinion refpecting the prerogative in this inftance, to the extent Feb. here laid down, there was not the leaft co- It is no part of our plan, to enter into an The first propofition ftruck at once, and boldly too, at the liberties of the people; for it unconditionally afferted, that the right contended for was inherent, and inalienably in the crown, whether as to the raifing, maintaining and ordering of the troops, the numbers to be employed, where to be ftationed; and to foreigners as well as natives. The people had but one controul; and that was in principle, but a confequence of the inability of the prince to maintain them without applying to his fubjects for the means. In that event, and that only, the people had a negative, because they might refuse the means, by which an army thus raised might be kept on foot. The fecond propofition was ftill of a more dangerous tendency, because it ftruck at every charter and fecurity the fubjects of this realm have for their liberties, from Magna Charta to the Bill of Rights inclufive. * Lord Barrington Secretary at War, and Mr. Wedderburne Solicitor General, The ་ 1776. PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY. The argument was fhortly this. The common law gave the Sovereign the right of raifing and maintaining armies, without the confent or concurrence of Parliament, at every period anterior to the declaration contained in the Bill of Rights. It is true, that then it was afferted, no fuch power remained in the Crown, but in time of war; yet as that law was only declaratory of the ancient privileges of the people, it could confer no new privilege, nor create no reftraint on the Crown whatever. This argument directly ftruck at the great charter of our liberties, and every confirmation of it fince it was firft granted. It was the reasoning relied on by John, and his fon Henry the Third. "We have granted to you faid they, it is certain, the claim of your ancient liberties; you have ftated them in your own way. You affirm that you enjoyed them to fuch an extent, and for fuch and fuch purposes; you say, that they have been your indubitable rights time immemorial; now we will join iffue with you on this point. We contend, that having never enjoyed them during the reigns of any of our ancestors, Kings of this realm, you had no right to claim them; therefore whatever you claimed, or we affented to on the ground of fuch a claim, is now revocable when we have it in our power to affert our own rights; which indeed was not competent for us to relinquish or furrender, in prejudice of whoever may happen to be our fucceffors." This too was the argument made ufe of by Charles the First, and his advifers and partizans, in relation to his general title to abfolute fovereignty; but more particularly concerning the declaration of rights, which he said had been extorted from him, and though it had not, no declaration or compact between an English fovereign and his fubjects, can operate fo as to abridge the inberent prerogatives of the Crown. fhall pass over the remainder of the argument, because all the pofitions laid down in the course of it, were included in the two propofitions I have taken the liberty to examine? We The arguments in favour of the motion, went chiefly on the reality of the Bill of Rights, and its being a binding ftatute; of the natural obvious conftruction of that ftatute, and of the ancient claims on which it was founded; but till the great law officer of the Crown, and the noble Lord at the head of the war department, and the Minifter who publickly fupported and avowed the doctrines now ftated, think proper to as openly abandon and difavow them, it would be nugatory to recapitulate the arguments used in a debate, in which the combatants directly difagreed in the first principles, The oppofers of the motion acted however in a very extraordinary manner, for though they were certain that the measure was perfectly legal and conftitutional, in the terms it was framed, they did not think proper to give it 67 a direct negative,but moved the previous quel tion, which was carried by a majority of 203 to 81. HOUSE of LORDS. November the 7th, the Duke of Richmond made a motion that Mr. Penn, Governor of Pensylvania, might be called to authenticate a paper then on their Lordships table, purporting to be a petition from the American congrefs, figned by John Hancock as prefident of faid affembly, and counterfigned by the refpective delegates of each province. This was frongly oppofed by fe veral noble lords on account of its informality, and of its being contrary to the eftablished mode of proceeding in that House. This caufed a fhort debate, in which it was at length agreed, that Mr. Penn fhould be examined at the bar of that House, on the enfuing Friday. The point the noble Duke and those who supported the motion, meant to attain, was to procure information refpecting the prefent ftate of America. Miniftry gave way very reluctantly, infifting that the evidence would be no more than ex parte; confequently let it turn out as it might, the Houfe could properly, confiftent with the ufual mode of proceeding, come to no refolution upon it. HOUSE of COMMONS. The The fame day, Mr. Temple Luttrel made the following motion in the House of Commons, "That a committee be appointed to draw up an addrefs to his Majefty, humbly requefting, that he will authorize the commiflioners to be nominated to act in America (for the gracious purposes expreffed in his Majesty's gracious fpeech from the throne) to receive propofals for conciliation from any general convention, congrefs, or other collective body that shall be found to convey the fentiments of one or more of the feveral continental colonies, fufpending all enquiry into the legal or illegal forms, under which fuch colony or colonies may be difpofed to treat, as the moft effectual means to prevent the effufior. of blood, and to reconcile the honour and permanent intereft of Great Britain, with the requifitions of his Majefty's American fubjects. Mr. Luttrel fupported his motion in a very fenfible speech, in which he endeavoured to fhew, that it was the great principle of all governments, but more particularly of our own, to difpenfe with mere forms, when fuch a difpenfation promifed to obtain objects of the first importance to the community, and perhaps, as was the prefent cafe when those objects could not be attained in any other way, without involving the whole Empire in the moft blondy, expenfive, and unnatural civil war. It was answered, that if mere ineffential forms, or points of ceremony were the only matter in queftion, it would be indeed folly in the extreme, to rigorously and obftinately adhere to them, but when they included in them every thing material, or on which the K. 2 question 68 PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY. queftion turned, it would not be giving up the forms, but it would be in fact giving and relinquishing for ever the whole fubject in controversy, The debate was but of fhort continuance ; the queftion was put, and it paffed in the negative, without a divifion. HOUSE of COMMONS, November the 8th. The army estimates were this day taken into confideration: including the ordnance they amounted to 2,090,7941. 75. 5d. The Minifter of the war department (Lord Barrington) who rofe to explain the efimates, faid, that the whole force meant to be employed in Great Britain, America, the Weft-Indies, and the fortrefies of Gibraltar and Minorca, would amount to about 54000 men, including the Hanoverians and 4000 men to be borrowed from Ireland, 25000 of which were intended to carry on the campaign in America. This he faid would be fully adequate to the neceffary operations of war in that country, and he made no doubt, when accompanied with reafonable propofitions of accommodation, would be the means of bringing to a speedy and happy termination thofe unhappy difputes which now filled the feveral parts of this. great Empire with distraction. Befides the general objections to the more Any intention of employing foreigners, Feb. own fubjects was neither fought nor defired. of 25000 men when their operations were were made to In peace. flourish, as well in time of war as fhort, we parted with money which we could fpire, and we kept all our useful hands which we could not fpare. A nation of idlers' could not be better employed than by acting as lo many fubftitutes in the place of fuch as procured for them their fuftenance and fupport. After a long debate, the previous question was put on the first of the refolutions in the estimate, and the Houfe divided, ayes 227, noes 73, and the rest were agreed to of course. HOUSE of LORDS. November the 10th. In purfuance of the Duke of Richmond's motion, for calling Mr. Penn to the bar, in order to authenticate the petition to the King, from the American congrefs, that gentleman was examined rela-' tive to the prefent ftate of America. The two main points to which his teftimony was directed, were refpecting the real intentions of America, and the means they poffeffed of refifting the claims of Great Britain. On the first head, he was clear that the province over which he prefided (Penfylvania) did not entertain a fingle idea or with to render themselves independent of this country; nor as far as he could ever learn or dilcover, did any other province on the Ame rican continent, On the fecond, he affirmed from his own knowledge, that the province of Penfylvania alone was able to bring 60000 men into the field, and had 20000 already embodied for that purpose, provided with warlike weapons, artillery, ammunition, &c. The Duke of Richmond followed this examination with the following motion, That 1776. PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY. "That the petition (now on their Lordships table) from the Continental Congrefs to the King, was a ground for conciliation of the unhappy differences at prefent fubfifting between Great Britain and America." This produced a very able and interefting debate, in the courfe of which, the whole fubject refpecting America came very fully under difcuffion. It was contended by the friends and fupporters of the motion, that the idea of laying taxes on America, for the purpofe of raifing a revenue, had been repeatedly abandoned by leveral men in high office in the other Houfe. The question was now, therefore, much lefs complex than when that doctrine had been maintained, both in principle and in its most extenfive confequences. That the firft, nay indeed, the only point remaining to be difcuffed, was what Great Britain claimed, and what America was willing to accede to on her part. If they correfponded in every thing effential to their respective claims, then there would be at once an end of the controversy. If they differed on any material points, it would be neceffary to know what they were, otherwife it would be impoffible to adjust them. The first matter to be fettled was to afcertain the fpecific claims of Great Britain. Those they said appeared to be no more than a general fupreme and controuling power over the colonies, for the purposes of reftraining their trade and commerce. The great bafis of this power, was the act of navigation. While the principle of that act was maintained, and the benefits derived from it fully fecured to this country, Great Britain would have all the now defired. The next queftion was to know what America was willing to confent to; and what species of power the recognized in the British parliament. That, from the paper now before the Houfe, appeared to materially correfpond with the very point in iffue. The Congrefs there acknowledge the fupremacy of Parliament, now narrowed to the right of commercial controul, nearly in the very terms contended for. They were ready and willing to return to their former obedience, and to ftand in the fame fubordinate relation they had done previous to the year 1763; and if they objected to fome acts of the British legiflature, paffed fince that period, but not directly applying to the subject of taxation, the difference of opinion arifing on the effect and tendency of thofe acts, on one fide, and their conftitutional legality and expediency on the other, might be cafily adjusted. Great Britain might be perfuaded to relax, were thofe acts found to be either nugatory or oppreffive. America might be convinced of her error, in refufing to fubmit to the exercife of a power, at the very time he was recognizing and acknowledging it. In fine, the general claim of commercial controul, being made at one fide, and acknowledged on the other, established such 69 a ground of conciliation, as would in all probability terminate to the mutual fatisfaction of both parties. To this it was anfwered, that treating with an unlawful affembly, who now declared themselves to be in a state of open hoftility and refiftance, would be in fact legalizing their proceedings, and declaring them the conftitutional reprefentatives of an independent fovereign ftate. If they were fubjects, they could not affemble or deliberate, but in a mode, and for the purpofes defcribed and provided for by the conftitution. If they were not, it would be ridiculous to the laft degree to treat with them in a capacity, which they difclaimed. If they were allies, or wished to be united on the ground of a fœderal compact, in this, as well as each of the other two relations, it would be firft neceffary to hear them openly declare it; fo that in every one view of the prefent controverfy, whether America treated on the footing of an abfolute independency, conftitutional fubjection, or fœderal alliance, the motion was equally illfounded, and wrongly conceived. It was denied, that duties to be laid on America, for the purpose of raising a revenue, were totally given up. It might be an opinion entertained by many respectable perions, on the ground of expediency; but a thought of relinquishing the right never existed: fuppofing it had, what would fuch a conceflion prove? that Great Britain had given up that one particular mode of exercising fupreme dominion, but no other. It would not prove furely, that because we gave up the right of taxing, we likewife relinquifhed the right of control. If then we retained the latter, what were wc debating about? The paper on the table denied that right. It complained of the declaratory law, the act for quartering soldiers, the law for establishing vice-admiralty courts ; in short it objected to the right, in every one particular, in which it had been attempted to be exercifed, and yet moft abfurdly acknowledged the right itself: that is, you may controul us in every thing refpecting our trade, but the very inftant you país any law for that purpofe, we will refift it, and until you have repealed every law of the fame nature, we will never confent to acknowledge your fupreme legiflative authority. The queftion being put, there appeared for the motion 22, against it 75. HOUSE of COMMONS. November the 13th, in a committee of fupply, Lord North moved, that the landtax for the year 1776 be four fhillings in the pound. A debate enfued in courfe, in which the question was very little attended to. We fhould not take any notice of what was faid on a matter which was a direct confequence of the naval and military eftimates already voted, but to obferve, that feveral of the country gentlemen expreffed very strongly |