whole legislature. Another, and the only control exclusively vested in the House of Commons is, the annual grant of money for the support of the army. It is in its nature the most effectual: it is the privilege of the House of Commons alone. The constitution allows the other house to reject our votes of supply; but neither to alter their nature nor to increase their amount. It is the peculiar characteristic of the Commons House: it is that which forms our strength and our pride: it is that which has given us a preponderating authority over all measures of state. On this subject we have ever thought that the smallest dangers are to be guarded against with the utmost vigilance. No jealousy has here appeared unreasonable: no encroachments, however slender and unintentional, have been thought too harmless to be repelled. Such, sir, has been our jealousy, and (I may add in justice) your jealousy, of this great privilege in our intercourse with the other house of parliament. What new term can be imagined adequate to the feelings with which we are bound to guard it as a control over a standing army?

and the spirit of the people, when they cannot prevent an encroachment in one quarter, have often gained a compensation in another. But it is never too much to say, that those who contend for the exception must always prove it, and that those who rely on the constitution need only allege it. Where is the proof? It is no ordinary evidence which can outweigh such principles as those now under our consideration—the exclusive right of this house to grant supply, and the danger of every prerogative which may be a source of independent revenue.

It will probably be said, that ministers are responsible for the exercise of this like every other power of the crown. Wherever a power is proved to be legal, responsibility is doubtless our safeguard against its dangers: whereever the creation of a new power is shown to be absolutely necessary, there also we must content ourselves with such security as the responsibility of ministers may afford. But we must not speak of responsibility till either the legality or the necessity of the power be first made out. Responsibility is no reason either for recognizing or for granting political power; it is only a security of a certain value against the abuse of an autho

I am well aware that in every human system, especially in a government so complicated as ours, and formed by the course of cir-rity which legal evidence proves cumstances in a long series of to exist, or urgent danger renders ages, there are anomalies which it necessary to create. must be owned to have the cha- Anciently while our kings deracter of law, though they be ut- frayed their expenses from their terly irreconcileable with the ge- own revenues, with occasional aid neral principles of the constitu- from parliament, there are but tion. These irregularities are, I few traces of parliamentary interam ready to admit, often balanced ference in appropriating public by similar deviations on the oppo- money to particular objects. Afsite side. So that the last result, terwards, when the kings of Enthe just counterpoise of constitu- gland were reduced by a happy tional authority, is maintained.-poverty to that dependence on the The principles of the constitution commons which preserved the

character of the people, and we shall soon sink to a level with countries groaning under despotism! Is it then consistent either with sound policy, or with humanity, that three millions of people, or nearly a third of our population, should be suffered to remain in the degraded state of pauperism? The loss of public estimation takes away a principal incentive to right action, and lessens the influence of moral principle, which places the reward of merit in the esteem of the virtuous. On this ground, beyond all others, does this measure press itself on the consideration of the house.

consists in wanting little: in contradiction to it, worldly or vulgar happiness is to want and enjoy much.-Thus it will be invariably found, that where the earnings are greatest the forethought is least.

From year to year the malady has been augmenting. The amount of the poor rates in 1760, was not quite two millions: in the last fifty-six years they have quadrupled. It will not, I believe, be difficult to assign the causes that have produced this melancholy change, presenting us with such an accumulated prospect of human misery. From 1760 we may date The sums now collected for the a great revolution in the state of poor are an intolerable burthen: the country; from that period we the industrious, who are now com- began to become a great manufacpelled to contribute to the support turing nation; agriculture shortly of the idle and the profligate, after declined. By the politicians though their utmost exertions are of those days it was viewed as a hardly adequate to procure sup- subordinate object. The wealth of port to their own families, are the country was doubtlessly rapiddaily depressed into the class of ly augmented: luxury spread its paupers. It will not be questioned baleful influence through all ranks by those who have paid attention of society. The price of labour to the past and present state of the rose, and the earnings of the workpoor, that their moral conditioning classes were increased, though has undergone a most unfavourable change, and particularly within the last fifty years, during which period the sum collected for their maintenance has quadrupled. The increased wealth of the nation, advancing their wages, has at the same time lessened their happiness. By destroying the principle of economy, their wants have augmented beyond their earnings. The present moment has acquired undue preference, as compared with the future. Much is this change to be lamented, as it operates on their moral and philosophical happiness. Moral happiness dwells in the mind; philosophical happiness

not their happiness. The demand for workmen in the various manufactures transferred to them numbers from the peaceful occupation of agriculture. The habits of their former lives were soon lost: higher wages were obtained, more expensive habits acquired, and no thought taken, or provision made, for any reverse. Temporary depressions of trade occurred; the numbers that were thus at once exposed to hunger and the extreme of misery were too great for private benevolence to succour: so numerous were the demands for parochial relief, that all sense of shame was lost sight of. The plague is not more rapid in

its progress than this malady has proved itself. The example of one great town quickly extended to another, and in a short period pervaded the whole kingdom. To so shameless a pitch is it now arrived, that pauperism is contemplated and calculated on in the very outset of life: instances are not wanting of parties applying immediately after being married for relief from the parish. What was strictly the sole inheritance of misery is now indiscriminately claimed as a 19ght appertaining to all.

dearing relation destroyed. In its place, a principle of savage selfishness pervading all classes-engendering mutual jealousy and hatred. Age, infirmity, youth, idleness, and profligacy, indiscriminately huddled together.

Can any mortal contemplate such a conclusion of life, and not bless the attempt to preserve him from it? I put it to every gentleman's feelings who hears me, if he can doubt the poor of England will hail any change of system which will in its operation secure to them the enjoyment of their peaceful habitation and domestic comforts? Yes, they will gratefully acknowledge to God and you the escape from this misery, which the poor laws now hang over their head.

Every motive of humanity as well as policy calls on us to endeavour to devise means for securing so large a portion of our fellow-creatures from the degrad

To stop the progress of this alarming malady, in modern times, expedients have been resorted to which bear a strong analogy to the policy which produced the act of the 8th and 9th of William and Mary, I mean the erection of workhouses for the reception of the poor. The principal object of these receptacles, seems to have been, not to accommodate the needy, but to deter them from ap-ed situation to which they are replying for relief: as a preliminary, every domestic comfort was to be sacrificed their little property seized for the benefit of the parish-every hope of returning to their fireside extinguished. Who can view these mansions of misery without horror. This springs from that radical error in the administration of the poor laws which confounds vice and virtue, and equally entitles both to relief. To guard against the idle and the profligate, the unfortunate are the victims. Every feeling heart must deplore that a fellow-creature should be exposed to such a cruel alternative.

The best regulated poor houses present a dreadful state of existence, a society with no one common bond of feeling-every en

duced. Eight millions expended, and that without promoting the happiness of one individual who participates in it. If the evil is suffered to proceed, the whole industry and revenue of the country will be inadequate to support the poor-not a comfortable and happy, but a dissatisfied and degraded poor, who discover, when it is too late, that improvidence and want of economy, which makes them a burthen to others, robs them of every comfort of life.

Splendid as is the renown which the nation has acquired by its naval and military exploits, these will not form the most brilliant and striking feature in the future history of the present times. The admiration of succeeding ages will be directed to that revolution