said what he had to say upon this question, and gentlemen had defeated their own purpose; for if they had not so interrupted him, he should have sat down much sooner.

Mr. Freemantle defended the bill, as not at all militating against any constitutional principle.

Mr. Corry approved of a bill that would give to the em pire the advantage of those talents and courage which had been so long lost to it, and which made the Dillons of France, and the Reillys of Spain, the supports and ornaments of a foreign service.

Mr. Hawkins Browne thought any further concession to the catholics of Ireland fraught with dangerous consequences, and thought the bill proposed entirely unneces

sary.

Lord Howick in reply, said that he should not detain the House in repeating the observations he had made previous to the motion now before the chair, he had not anticipated in so carly a stage any discussion whatever. He could not, however, avoid expressing his surprize at the learned gentleman's standing up in his place, and professing to spread alarm through the country against a me naced innovation. It was no innovation. It was only asking the Imperial Parliament to do that for the Roman catholics in England, which the Irish Parliament had thought it wise and expedient to do for the Roman catholics in Ireland, and to extend it as far as justice imperiously requires. The bill was no more than the corollary of the act of the Irish Parliament; why then denominate it a step to the overthrow of the establishment of the church of England? As to the law, he could not subscribe to the learned and honourable gentleman's opinion upon compulsory services. He recollected that with respect to the volunteers the opinion of that honourable gentleman as to compulsory means, did not prove infallible. He must therefore be excused from subscribing at once to that learned gentleman's opinion in the present instance. The Irish act of Parliament could regulate the Irish establishment only; if a single regiment had been brought from that country to this, that regiment would cease to be on the Irish establishment; besides, he had even his doubts whether, in the. present inadequate state of the law, a Roman catholic could, legally hold a commission, for the act of the Parliament of Ireland could not in this country be binding. He was equally surprized at an assertion that fell from the honour

able

able gentleman who spoke last; to hear a member of the British House of Commons affirm, that political power was nothing to the many, was, he must confess, not a little extraordinary. He rather hoped that a due share of political existence, and of political consequence amongst all ranks and descriptions of the king's subjects, was one of the distinguishing features of our unrivalled constitution. As to the obstructions given to the Roman catholics in the exercise of their religion, he was concerned that it was but too true, and he could assure the House that more than one instance of this kind had recently happened, and was productive of great and serious discontent. The noble lord took occasion to assure an honourable friend, who had justly acquitted him of intending him any thing like disrespect, that the sudden emotion which had been taken notice of was owing merely to his honourable friend's very odd apprehensions of a set of bold and thoughtless tars, when all hands were piped, turning upon one another in the sudden zeal of polemic fury; such a picture he confessed operated on his fancy too strongly to admit of his customary serious attention to the arguments of his honourable friend, or of any other member in possession of the chair. If, however, his honourable friend was indeed serious when he warned him of that fate that might befal his house, it was reserved for that debate for a member seriously to urge within that House, that the surest way to light up popular commotion and discord, was by healing these asperitics which might be so reasonably thought the greatest promoters of them.

The noble lord's motion for leave to bring in the bill was agreed to without a division.

Lord Howick afterwards brought in the bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be printed, and to be read a second time that day se'nnight, which Lord Howick hoped would not be thought too carly a day, as the bill was very short.

SUPPLY.

Mr. Hobhouse brought up the report of the committee of supply.

On the resolution for granting 80,000l. to make good a like sum granted to the king of Prussia,

Mr. Bankes, regarding this grant as the first instalment of a subsidy to Prussia, and regarding subsidies, though

they

they may be wise in some circumstances, as very generally unwise, felt himself bound to state his sentiments at some length. He would recal the attention of the House to the subsidies granted since the commencement of the late war, every one of which it was thought hard to refuse at the time, but every one of which had altogether failed of producing the benefits expected from it. He first instanced the subsidy to the king of Sardinia, agreed upon in 1793, · the amount of which was to be 200,000l. a year during the war. But the king of Sardinia was obliged to make a separate peace in less than three years. In the same year a treaty of subsidy was entered into with Hesse Cassel, and that power was obliged to make a separate peace in two years. In 1796, another treaty was made with no better result. The electoral troops of Hanover, the margrave of Baden, and the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt, subsidised at the same time, all made peace in the same year. In 1793, a subsidy was granted to Russia. The sum was 50,000l. a month during the war, and 300,0007, in advance, but Russia made a separate peace in 1795. A larger subsidy was granted to Austria in 1795. There was a loan to that power of 4,600,000l. in 1796, and a further loan of 1,600,000l. in 1797. But Austria also was compelled, by distress, to make a precipitate peace shortly after. A new loan of 2,000,000l. was advanced in 1800, and shortly after the battle of Marengo extinguished all hopes of benefit from the co-operation of Austria. In 1798, a treaty of subsidy was concluded with Russia, The sum to be supplied monthly was 50,000l. with an advince of 300,000. But the politics of the court of Russia changed suddenly, and that power became our active enemy. In 1800, the electors of Bavaria and Mentz, and other powers, were also subsidised with as little good effect, Since the renewal of the war on the continent in 1805, another treaty had existed, and it was only the preceding night that sums had been voted to pay some arrears accrued under that treaty. But that treaty had no better effect than the former. The fatal battle of Austerlitz compelled that power to make what terras she could, and now we had to make good to Sweden and to Russia the arrears of that unfortunate subsidiary alliance. The present grant seemed to be the commencement of a new system of subsidy. He would not be disposed to cavil at this sum, if it were not to lead to many larger grants. (Lord Howick Vor. i. 1806-7.

said

said across the table, no, there is no treaty of subsidy). Mr. Bankes, in continuation, said, if there was ho provision for subsidy in the treaty with Prussia, he had trespassed too long upon the House. He had addressed the House only on the idea that a large subsidy was in contemplation.

Lord Henry Petty stated, that this advance was made by lord Hutchinson, for the particular exigencies of the army and the fortresses in Silesia. He conceived the cause of the misunderstanding, that this advance was the commencement of a subsidy, arose from its having been mentioned in the message from his majesty communicating the intelligence of the treaty of peace with the king of Prussia. But there was nothing of subsidy in the treaty, the advance had been made in consequence of a discretionary power given to Lord Hutchinson, whose discretion could not be doubted, in case any particular emergency required such a grant, or any particular services could be effected by it. This advance had had great effect in preventing the progress of the enemy in the quarter in which it had been applied. He agreed with the honourable gentleman that in making future treaties of subsidy, we ought to be regulated by past experience, and that our advances ought to be regulated by the benefits, which, ac'cording to past experience, we might reasonably hope to receive.

Mr. Bankes, under the explanation that had been given, had no objection to make good the advance that had been made by Lord Hutchinson. He was pleased with the assurance given by the noble lord, that, in future treaties of subsidy, past experience would be made the guide, and that vast sumns would not be advanced without any certain

benefit.

Lord Howick said, Lord Hutchinson had a discretionary power to make advances in cases of pressing emergency, and he was sure every person would agree that such a discretion could not be placed in better hands. There was no treaty of subsidy. But he would not have the House go away with the idea that government was precluded from granting a subsidy, if circumstances should render it desirable. He agreed that many of the former subsidies were most unwise in principle, and most unproductive in event. But every case depended upon its own circumstances. A principle of caution aught always to

be

be applied; to prevent the advances from being made unnecessarily, or incautiously, so as to hazard a risque, that no benefit would be derived. He disapproved of all subsidies which would hold out English money to induce foreign powers to enter into war without any objects of their own. But when they were engaged, or ready to engage, for common interests, he thought it would be very wrong not to hold ourselves at liberty to second and support them. He allowed that past experience ought to be made the rule of our conduct with regard to future treaties; but not so far as to prevent us from entering into such treaties. The resolution was then agreed to; and also the resolutions relating to the loan, upon which a bill was ordered.

WESTMINSTER ELECTION.

Lord Folkestone then moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the petition, complaining of án undue tampering with the witnesses summoned to give evidence before the committee, which will be appointed to try the merits of the late election for Westminster.

It was then ordered that counsel be called in on Mr. Paull's petition.

Mr. Sheridan said, that the forms of the House laid down, that a witness should not stay in the Ilouse during the examination of the witnesses. He hd summoned Mr. Paull as a witness, but he begged to state that he had no objection to his remaining at the bar the whole time of the proceedings.

Mr. Plomer was then called in and ordered to proceed. Ile represented to the House, that whatever difference of opinion might prevail as to the merits of the evidence offered, no difference could exist as to the propriety, as to the purity, of Mr. Paull's motives in bringing the matters suggested to him to trial before the only competent tri-, bunal. Mr. Plomer said, if the House believed the evidence that had been examined at the bar (a loud laugh), the charge must be supposed to be made good. Mr. Plomer then argued at length as to the credibility of the witnesses, alternately stating what had been given in evidence, and commenting upon it, till he came to the letter said to have been sent by Mr. Sheridan to Emanuel Harris. Here Mr. Sheridan interfered, and represented that the

Na 2

statement