out of the house, when he is not instructed, is no more the act of that house, than if it had been done by any other person.

Mr. Conolly replied to his lordship, that he was an Irishman as well as the noble lord, and as Ireland was to be the subject of that day, in the cocking phrase, he was ready to pit himself against him. He then observed, that he was not surprised that the noble lord was in such extreme good humour with ministers on both sides of the water, as his lordship, and the three others, who enjoyed sinecure employments, had a present made them in one day of 14,000l. (meaning the arrangement of the vice-treasurers and the clerk of the pells) and lest a possibility should arise of any defalcation of their salaries, parliament was so goodhumoured, while they increased the salary, to take upon themselves to provide payment out of the public purse for deputies, who were to do the duty. It was therefore no wonder that his lordship and his colleagues should be merry, while Ireland continued to be sad; to see the salaries of sinecure places raised, while she was mortgaging her funds, laying on new duties, and providing for deficiencies of grants. He gave a picture of Ireland: an exhausted treasury, ruined trade, starving manufac turers, accumulating pensions, new created places, state oppressions, daily executions, a ruined, mouldering army, encreasing debts, castle jobs, bands of lawless ruffians in defiance of law, and beyond the power of punishment; in short, every public evil and private mischief, that ever was on earth to curse and debase mankind. He did not rise to the question simply stated, whether the message were really a breach of the privi lege of the Commons of England, but principally, he said, to give an account of what passed in the Irish House of Commons, when Sir John Blaquiere brought the message from the lord lieutenant. That house refused the offer, he said, upon two principles, first, because they thought the introduction of foreign troops an unconstitutional and dangerous measure; and secondly, because it was thought that the ministry had no mind that they should have them, for Sir John himself voted against them. He said, Ireland was quite defenceless, that the 12,000 nominal men were only 10,800, out of which 4000 were to be sent away; that the White Boys were governors of all the South of Ireland, where four-fifths of the people were Catholics; that no private gentleman could be sure of his life, sitting there in his own house, for one half-hour, that more troops were really wanting, instead of taking those away they had already; that men had their ears sawn off, and others were buried alive, to the disgrace of government, that could not or would not protect the people; that the peasantry were in such a state of poverty, that no revolution or change of situation could possibly be to them for the worse.

Right honourable Welbore Ellis said the meaning of the message had been mistaken, that taking the expression in any light, no breach of privilege could be deduced from it. He recalled to the remembrance of the house, that in 1769, when the Irish establishment was raised from 12,000 to 15,000 men, his majesty passed his royal personal promise to the Irish parliament, that there should never be less than 12,000 men in Ireland, except in cases of actual invasion or rebellion in Great Britain. Now, the Earl of Harcourt's message, he contended, had reference to this promise; as the present want of troops was not within those exceptions, it certainly was his majesty's first business to be absolved from that promise, by the parties to whom it was made: but if he had applied first to the Commons of Great Britain, it must have been for the approbation of a measure in direct breach of his promise to Ireland. He compared it to the king's proposing military establishments to the house; the king does the whole by his prerogative, and leaves nothing to the House of Commons but to vote the money. Is not this engaging for the consent of parliament? Yet all the world knows that the house may object to them, and consequently they cannot be effected without their consent.

Mr. Gordon thought the first part of the message was agreeable to the sense now put upon it by the honourable gentleman who spoke last: but the other part seemed a little obscure at first sight; yet it might be concluded, that as a measure of government, it could never be in the idea of the minister to make such an attempt, in express contradiction to the disbanding act of King William. It was in his opinion, a fair inference to say, that the expression "enabled so to do" meant the previous consent of the British parliament. If he thought administration had any other intention in view, no man would be more ready to join a vote of disapprobation and censure. He condemned the conduct of ministers, respecting the indemnity bill, and disapproved of introducing foreigners into the dominions of Great Britain, without the consent of parliament.

Mr. Powys had little doubt, that the message under consideration meant more than it expressed, and was intended as an experiment to try if the Irish parliament would consent to receive foreign troops, in order to establish a precedent which might be afterwards employed to other purposes.

Lord Middleton said, he had fortune in both kingdoms, but had no predilection for either in a political light, because he looked upon their interest to be mutual; but whatever other gentlemen might think of the message, of the true import of which it was impossible there could be a second opinion, he had not a doubt but it aimed at one fixed object, that was, to habi. tuate both countries to a submission, which must in the end re.

duce the parliament of each to be the mere instrumental agents of the crown, without the least degree of will or independence · whatever. It was a scheme, however deep, formed nevertheless, on very simple principles, and went directly to vest in the crown the virtual power of taxing, as the opportunity might serve, both in Great Britain and Ireland. In Ireland the minister was taught to ask some favour; then England was to be pledged. In England again, when circumstances recurred, or were impracticable, Ireland was to be taxed, in order to maintain the supremacy of the British legislature.

Mr. Dunning divided the message into two parts. On the first he observed, that it contained no condition implied or expressed. It was his majesty's intention as immediately from his own mind, declared in the most positive terms the English language is capable of conveying. It was a complete undertaking on his part to pay for the 4000 men, if the Irish House of Commons should chuse to consent or accept of the terms. It was impossible in the nature of things, that any man possessed of any thing he could properly call his own, or binding himself to the execution of any act within his power, could promise in terms more clear, positive, or unequivocal, than those in which this part of the message was conceived. To get clear of this, he said, two modes had been adopted, both with equal bad success. One of those was a naked contradiction to the obvious sense of the words; but such an unsupported denial was abandoned in the very instant it was urged; for the noble Lord (Lord Clare) and the honourable gentleman (Mr. Ellis) who asserted at random, being conscious that it was but a random assertion, endeavoured to explain it, by saying that the affair was conducted precisely in the manner of a subsidiary treaty. This he said was still worse, for no argument was better than a bad one. It was well known, that the king, when treating with foreigners, represented the state, which could never be the case, when treating with one part of his subjects, and engaging for another; besides, the consequence, had the offer been accepted by the Irish parliament, would have clearly shewn the difference, and established the distinction beyond all question. The troops, if the season of the year had permitted, might be. now in America; the foreigners might be landed in Ireland. Great Britain was pledged; the cause in which the troops were to be employed, and the necessary arrangements by which the measure was to be brought about, was a favourite one; so that the whole business might be effected by his majesty's bare intention, as completely without, as with the consent of the British parliament. The second part of the message, he insisted, was clear and explicit. The offer was to replace the 4000 troops, by an equal number of foreign Protestants, "if it be

"the desire of parliament." Here again was clear intention, and offer expressed, with the condition annexed, that was, "if "it be the desire," &c. By every rule of legal construction or common sense, if there be an undertaking accompanied by a condition, if the condition be accepted by the party to whom it is proposed, the bargain is from that instant complete, and mutually binding on both parties. If then the proposition were a positive one, and it had been accepted, it only remained to discover whether or not it were the commons of Great Britain, whose word was thus pledged without being consulted. This, he presumed, would require very little proof. No man would say that Hanover was to bear the burden: he could less think that any of his majesty's new allies were to do so, however zealous they might be for chastising his rebellious subjects in America. The civil list, he suspected, was still less equal to afford so heavy a disbursement. Where then could the necessary means of paying so large a body of men be obtained but from the British parliament? By what had fallen in debate, as well as general declarations made at the time this business was first mentioned, he understood this famous message had been disavowed by the minister, and his friends on this side of the water. presumed the minister on the other side did not venture to do it entirely on his own judgment. This excited his curiosity to know where it originated. It would be a sufficient answer, if the minister either here, or in Ireland, owned it. If neither did, but the advice came from another quarter, he should be glad to know, because in such an event more particularly, it would be the duty, as it ought to be the wish, of the house, to sift the matter to the bottom, in order to come at the real author or authors.

Lord North gave a long narrative of the increase of the establishments which took place in Ireland in 1769, and of his majesty's promise to his Irish parliament, that 12,000 men should always remain within that kingdom, except in the event of a rebellion in this. He said, the royal promise, though binding on his majesty, was not law, therefore sending the troops out of this kingdom, to the amount of any number, was perfectly legal. His lordship said, he would not answer the general question put to him by the last honourable gentleman, not chusing to gratify mere curiosity, at the expence of betraying the secrets of the cabinet. He avowed the having co-operated with the rest of the king's servants, in giving general instructions, but would not charge his memory with having any immediate hand in drawing up the particular letter or paper, on which the present measure was supposed to be taken. He said, he thought it was perfectly justifiable, and was willing to share in the consequences. Yet he could not see how it was fair in argu

ment to charge administration here with specific measures taken in Ireland; nor could he conceive, either positively or by implication, that he or his colleauges in office, were bound in any manner by what passed in another kingdom. To some allusions made by Mr. Dunning and Mr. Gordon, relative to the Hanoverians being sent to Gibraltar and Minorca, and the fate of the indemnity bill, he replied, he thought the measure perfectly legal, and was ready to meet his adversaries on that ground whenever they thought fit. He gave a history of the indemnity bill, and in a humorous way proved it was thrown out by a noble marquis in the other house. If introducing foreign troops. were an improper measure, the minister in Ireland acted perfectly right, for he declined to support it; he finished with observations on the German resources, and the poverty of the civil list.

Lord John Cavendish rose to give his attestation of the personal worth of Lord Harcourt. He observed, that his lordship had been little acquainted with public business till his late appointment; therefore, if it were his own measure, he was much the more excusable; but he believed it was not. However, if it were not, as the Irish nation had been too wise and too spirited to accept of one part of the proposal; and as ministers, whatever they might affect to the contrary, had not dared to send a single man out of Ireland on such an authority, the matter hardly deserved the time and attention some gentlemen seemed willing to bestow on it. The people. of Ireland had already done half the business, by refusing the offer; the minister had in fact done the other half from his own fear; so that on the whole, he did not desire to send the matter to a committee, but wished to come to some decisive resolution, which would con demn the whole transaction, without any particular reference or application to those, who might be supposed to have first planned, or endeavoured to carry it into execution.

Lord George Germaine contended that whatever might have been the sense of the message, his majesty's servants could not be supposed to be strictly answerable for its contents. He said, Lord Harcourt might have mistaken, or exceeded his instruc tions. He did not know he had. Or he might have conveyed his meaning in the clearest terms; whether he did, or did not, the first part of the message only proposed a matter to the consideration of the Irish parliament, clearly and legally within the constitutional exercise of the regal power. If his majesty had not given his royal promise to keep 12,000 men within the kingdom, he might have ordered the whole, or any part of the troops on that establishment, to any part of the British dominions he pleased, without applying to the parliament of either kingdom. He said, he had heard a great deal of what had passed in debate