this they ftated, that there had been a third fecretary of flate, fo early as the reign of Edward the VIth, and that even in the late reign (which it was now become fo much the fashion invidioufly to hold out as the object of all praife, and as the pureft model of all public and political virtue) that office had fubfifted for feveral years; fo that, in fact, it was not a new office, but an old one, recently revived. But, independent of that, whether the office was old or new, there was an objection of much greater weight to the propofed claufe; for if it was carried, it would give rife to a moft alarming and dangerous precedent; it would eftablish it as a maxim, that the legislature were the only proper judges of the detailed exercife of the executive power. A principle which would affect every ekablishment already made, or which might be hereafter made; and at the fame time, that it divefted the crown of one of its moft valuable rights and prerogatives, would difable it from difcharging the duties vefted in it by the conftitution, by taking away the right and exercife of judgment, with refpect to the manner in which it could most faithfully and effectually difcharge

thofe duties.

The mover of the bill, and thofe who fupported him, in anfwer to what had been advanced, of the impropriety and injuftice of interference or punishment, with out previous proof of the abufe, drew a line of diftinction between the judicial and legislative capacity of parliament. In the former, they were undoubtedly to proceed, in all cafes, upon legal evidence. In the latter, they were totally dif

5

charged from that attention. They were then in the exercife of judgment, upon the general view and ftate of public affairs; and they not only had a right, but it was their duty, to frame fuch regulations as they judged neceffary, with refpect to the better government of the country, whether with regard to the prefent fecurity, or to the future prefervation of the conftitution. It was even a jeft to fuppofe that parliament had not a right of interference and controul, with respect to that molt facred of all things, private property, when it concerned the public benefit, or even convenience. Was there a week during their fitting in which this right was not exercifed? Was there a turnpike bill, a street bill, an inland navigation, or a private road bill, in which this interference and controul were not predominant? or in which private right, pleasure, or convenience, was not obliged to give way to public ufe?

But they reprobated, in terms of unufual indignation, that doctrine held out, in this enlightened age, and in the face of a British parliament, that the civil list revenue (in which all the purposes of the politics, law, order, and good œconomy, of the ftate are involved) was to be confidered as a perfonal eftate, and as mere private property, whilst parliament was wholly incompetent to the fu perintendence and controul of the expenditure. This doctrine, faid Mr. Burke, is not even toryifm. It is the abftract principle of jacobitifm itfelf. The tory fcheme indeed holds monarchy high, not only as the perfection of government, but as the fole mode of ic

which

which can poffibly be good; and therefore it prefers the very defpotifm and tyranny of kings, to any plan, or any adminiftration of a commonwealth. But this doctrine, grofsly erroneous as it is, ftill proceeds upon principles of government, and upon grounds of public good. But jacobitiim, fuppofes the administration of the ftate a matter of private property, to be held and tranfmitted as an heritance; and the unhappy adherents to that caufe, always argued it as a defcent of an estate, according to the rules and maxims of private jurifprudence. But if this principle of jacobitifm be abfurd with regard to government itself, it must be equally abfurd with regard to any revenue poffeffed by government. Correctly fpeaking, government as fuch, can have no property. The whole is a truft. But the property of the fubject is no truft. It is that, for the fecurity of which truits were made; and this truft of govern ment, and all its revenue, among the reft. Property was not made by government, but government by and for it. The one is primary and felf-exiftent; the other is fecondary and derivative. He contended therefore, that all fuch eftates being trufts, it makes very little difference, whether they are for years, or life, or hereditary. It alters their tenure, but not their nature. They are all objects of public cognizance, whenever they become abufive or inconvenient enough to call for infpection and reformation.

And fhall the fervant, the creature of the people, faid they, be reprefented by treasonable fubjects,

6

by falfe and pretended friends, as claiming an inherent, felf-created original, and a divine right, in the voluntary grants of that people for whote good re received it, and for whofe good it may be refumed? This is the highest pinnacle of defpotifm; nor can it ever rife higher. It is eftablishing that odious and deteftable principle, which experience has already fhewn to be totally fubverfive of all that is generous, liberal, great, noble, or excellent, in the human nature and character, namely, that the people are made for kings, instead of their being made for the people.

The oppofition were exceedingly vehement, and feemed to bear every thing before them, on this ground. Indeed, almost all the eloquence, powers of argument, and force of language, on that fide of the house, were particularly directed to it. The boldeft of the minifterial phalanx, they faid, had fhrunk back, and were afraid to meet the queftion, when every endeavour was ufed to bring it fairly and nakedly into difcuffion; and yet they now venture covertly to adopt and fupport the principle. Mr. Fox exclaimed, with his ufual fervor and animation, Good God! had he been asleep? how had he been loft to himfelf? to what little purpose had his education, his knowledge, and his experience, been attained, if it was a doctrine established in that houfe, that the king was to be uncontrouled in his civil lift? Did men know what they were afferting, when they held fuch language? Were they fo blind as really to fee no danger in it? Were they fo ignorant, or so totally loft to the will of others, as

to

to maintain a doctrine which went to the diffolution of the compact between the king and the people? Did not the very nature of the truft delegated to the fovereign, render his accounts fubject to the infpection of parliament ? Had not fuch inspection been the uniform practice of parliament? How fared it with James the Second? Was not that unhappy king, who preferred a wretched penfion from the crown of France, to the government of a great empire according to its laws and conftitution, deprived of his whole revenue by parliament ?

The oppofition further urged, that the historical facts ftated on the other fide, to fhew that an office fimilar to that now in queflion had formerly exifted, was nothing more, they faid, to the purpose, than the bringing of proofs which were not intended, that the ufeleffness of the office being difcovered upon trial, it was therefore difcontinued. It would be a matter of little confequence now, that a dozen fecretaries had been employed through the folly or caprice of any of our ancient princes; if that fort of argument went to any thing, it would be to the revival of all the ufelefs and dangerous offices, which the wifdom of past kings, or the integrity of former parliaments, had been applied to abolish. The point before the committee, was merely the question of utility, or inutility, with refpect to that office. It would be fufficient to obferve on that fubject, that this country had raifed itfelf to the highest pitch of power and national glory, and that her colomes had rilen to a degree of wealth, power, and population,

unknown in the history of any other mother country under the fun, when we employed no more than two fecretaries of state; and that, every feature in that picture of complete human felicity was inftantly reverfed upon the appointment of a third. Through that appointment, we not only loft thofe very colonies, but they were converted into our bitter enemies; along with the lofs of our colonies and commerce, we had fuffered fuch degrees of dif. grace and degradation, in the eyes of all Europe, as this country never before experienced; and through the fame caufe, we were plunged in the prefent contest with our powerful and hereditary enemies, which tended to our inevitable ruin. Was any thing more neceffary to fhew, that this office was at least totally ufelefs; and that if not originally mif. chievous in its nature, it had how. ever proved fatally ruinous in its effe&t?

They concluded by obferving, that it would appear to a ftranger, from the arguments ufed by the friends of adminiftration, that they were endeavouring to deprive the king of the money allotted for his privy puríe, or to curtail the means of his perfonal pleasures, amufements, or fatisfaction. Could any perfon be fo blind as not to fee, or any member of that house fo ignorant as not to know, that the objects were totally different? That the propofed reform went to that great part of the civil lift eftablifhment, which being dedicated to public purpofes, was confequently liable to public reform; and in which the fovereign acting only as truftee for the people,

could

could have no other perfonal intereft, than that which was fo conftantly denied, of fupporting an undue and corrupt influence. But at any rate, that revenue, like all others, must be affected by the exigencies of the times, and proportioned to the ability of the public, by which it was granted and paid. It would be too ridiculous to fuppofe otherwife. At the acceffion of his majefty, when a large revenue was granted to him for life, the nation was great, flourishing, and glorious beyond example. The liberality of the grant, was fuited to the felicity of the time. The fmallest notice was not then given, of the fatal defigns which were in embrio, or of the ruinous meafures that were to be purfued. It was fo impoffible to have forefeen the fubfequent public loffes and calamities of his reign, that they could not have been conceived even in thought. The lofs of America, and of our Weft India islands, was never fuggeted, even in a dream, to the wildeft vifionary. That great revenue muit partake of the nature of all human eftablishments. The superstructure can have no greater lability, than the foundation on which it was raifed. Even fuppofing, what can never be admitted, that the granters had no power of revocation or recal, ftill the revenue muft depend upon their ability to pay it. To fuppofe that the establishments of the fovereign would not be affected by the public diftreffes and calamities, by the lofs of dominion, and the fubtraction of wealth and power from the state, was fuch an abfurdity as not to deferve answer or notice. It was fcarcely lefs than

treafon to royalty, even to fuppofe that the fovereign would not willingly participate in the evil, as well as in the good fortune of his people. Was it poffible that those fycophants, thofe falfe, pretended friends, who held out that doctrine, and would reprefent the king as not wishing to lighten the burthens, or relieve the diftreffes of his fubjects, were ignorant of the incurable wound which they would thereby inflict on the royal name, and character ?

At a quarter before three o'clock in the morning, the committee divided, when the office of third fecretary of state was preferved by a majority of feven only; the numbers being 201, in fupport of the claufe of reform, to 208, by whom it was oppofed. Such was the iffue, of one of the longest and hardest fought days, that perhaps ever was known in an English Houfe of Commons; nor was the labour greater than the ability, or than the parliamentary fkill and generalfhip difplayed on both fides. The minifters finding the torrent frong against them within and without doors, rather opposed their adverfaries indirectly, and with efforts to gain time, than with many arguments to the abflract ftate of the question; and in this point they fhewed great patience and dexterity. They even took advantage from their prefent weakness. The low ftate of the minifter's majorities, was brought as an argu. ment to prove that the influence of the crown was not increased; and one gentleman in office threw out, that if the noble lord was not better fupported, it would be in vain for him to attempt any longer to carry on the public

bufinefs.

bufinefs. On the other fide, the prefent ftate of divifions was attributed to the temper and fenfe of the people without doors; and they univerfally and heartily fubfcribed to the latter propofition.

The abolition of the board of trade, was the next claufe of Mr. March 13th. Burke's bill which came under the confideration of the committee. The great object of debate was, on one fide to thew its utility, and on the other, to prove it totally inefficient, useless, and when at any time active, either mischievous or ridiculous, but of late dwindled into a mere finecure office, which anfwered no other purpose whatever, than that of providing eight members for that houfe, and fecuring their votes and fervices to the minifter, at an income or penfion of a thoufand pounds a year each. The firft ground was taken up very much at large, with a very laborious detail, and great knowledge of the history of the office, by a gentleman who fat at that board. The oppofite ground was taken by the framer of the bill; who befides fupporting it with his ufual ftrength of argument, threw out fuch an infinity of wit, fatire, and ridicule upon the subject, as to excite a very unufual degree of pleafantry in the houfe. The main line of his argument was to fhew, that when the bufinefs of trade and plantations had been managed by a committee of council without falaries, it had been attended by perfons of greater rank, weight, and ability, and that bufiness of far more difficulty and delicacy was better dispatched, and with more expedition and fatisfaction, than fince the appointment VOL. XXIII.

of the board of trade; and this pofition he fupported with comparifons of affairs, times, anecdotes of perfons, and with references to the council books, which gave great liveliness and intereft to this debate.

The question was not called, uptil a quarter paft two o'clock in the morning; when the claufe for abolifhing the board of trade was carried in the affirmative by a majority of eight; the numbers being, in fupport of the queftion 207, to 199 who voted for the fupport and continuance of the establishment.

Such was the first of the great defeats received by administration, and which fo much diftinguifhed the prefent feflion from all others of late years. A defeat of fuch a nature, as would in any other period have proved fatal to any adminifiration. Some members of the oppofition, endeavoured to perfuade the lords of trade to withdraw before the divifion; on the ground of indecency, in their voting on a queftion in which they were fo immediately and perfonally concerned. If this had been agreed to, it would have about doubled their majority. But the question was too trying, and the feafon too critical, to make fuch a facrifice to delicacy or punctilio; and the conduct of the American fecretary, on the late divifion in his own cafe, was a fufficient precedent for the prefent, to keep the refufal in countenance.

It was in this debate firft difcop vered, or at leaft firft publicly known, that the fpeaker, and adminiftration, were not upon good terms. Mr. Fox having called on the fpeaker, for his private opinion as a [K]

member,