though my lords, Bills of this nature have I myself highly blameable, if I did not, as far been canvassed in both Houses by men as in me lies, oppose a Bill which strikes of far greater abilities and experience directly at the root of the constitution, and than I can pretend to, yet I should think is an infringement both of the liberties of universally given them instructions on this head. Do not by rejecting this Bill throw an imputation of collusion upon them. This House hath hitherto kept as free from the suspicion of corruption as from the reality of it. Though these are impervious to it, yet you should also keep the other pure, and not envy them the glory of such a Bill. It is a blemish upon a good administration to have any assistance from a corrupt parliament. One of the ablest Roman emperors thought the reputation of purity so necessary, that he never would give a pension to the most indigent senator, without acquainting the House and obtaining their consent. Luxury hath lost its name. Corruption assumes a thousand shapes, friendship, charity, public service: and thus transforming itself, it transforms others. Some places have no business belonging to them these are mere pensions, and there are many such employments without business. This Bill leaves almost all the employments which can be offered to a person of consequence: and excludes only such from the House as would be excluded from most company; such as may without incivility be sent to fetch pens and paper for other members. You may commit it and take in more, if you think too many are excluded. But not committing it, is saying, that nothing of this kind shall ever pass. There are now about 200 persons in the House who have places; what will the nation say, if a Bill recommended as this hath been, be thus thrown❘ Out? Newcastle. You had the last time this Bill was before you, the reasons against it drawn up by one of those great men who brought about the Revolution (lord Somers.) It goes upon a principle destructive to the constitution, which is, that the crown and the people have a different interest; it excludes from parliament all the first employments of the kingdom. And when the Commons can have no other they will have all these. Wrong instructions from their constituents may influ ence the other House, but let them not inAluence us. It will be an imputation upon us, if having been rejected last year it be admitted now. The Bribery Bill hath done nothing but add perjury to corruption. Expences for elections are not to be laid at the door of one party only. Perhaps that is the most guilty which complains. This Bill hath been brought up in almost the same words from the Revolution to this day, and hath hitherto been rejected under all administrations. To pass it now will be, to say we are at length convinced that whoever hath an employment is to be distrusted. This Bill will exclude such as were not designed to be excluded, offices of honour, wardens of the forests, stewards of the crown, &c. Carlisle. The Bill against which the great person mentioned by the noble duke drew up reasons, excluded all men in offices: I sat in the House of Commons with the foot post, whose business was to carry the letters from the post house to St. James's. You may exclude all but such: you cannot exclude all by name: would you exclude by name the king's corn-cutter? If you reject this Bill, the Commons may put it into a Money Bill. The commissioners of the Customs are excluded by a clause in the Land-tax Bill. Lonsdale. I do not like this Bill as it stands: but would make amendments in it, for which the proper time is when it is committed, and that time will probably never come. I am afraid of making any great changes in the constitution. At present things will not go to the utmost length: it appears there are some resources in it: this power in the crown of giving rewards to members, hath been extended too far. Perhaps not above 8 or 10 clerks' places have been given wrong, given to members. Such persons get themselves chosen where they are not known. And these things have brought disgrace on all in power. These things therefore I would correct, and not go much farther. All restraints upon the crown have come from abuses committed by the crown. Yet a man's having an employment, neither takes away his understanding nor his probity. He will be a good man or a bad man as he was before. Bathurst. The honour of the House is essentially concerned in this matter-It will be said, this is the place where such Bills are to drop. The opinions of the people have weight even in arbitrary governments, much more should they in ours. In ours the legislative power is absolute: let us preserve the regard of the people to it. You may alter this Bill into excluding such and such, instead of all but such. If the Commons have no mind it should pass, pass it for that reason. He would not bear obloquy for one's nearest friends. The Pension Bill was the most innocent Bill that ever came hither, probably there will come stronger. It may come in time to this, that nobody will vote for the court without reward, and then more reward. There will be above 100 Placemen left in the House of Commons by this Bill. The Self Denying Ordinance was a blind. Cromwell sat with an femployment after it; but it got the House the good opinion of mankind. Bishop of St. Asaph.* We are now in a Dr. Isaac Maddox. "He was born in London, 27th July, 1697. His parents were very humble, and he lost them both early, upon which he was placed by an aunt with a pastry. the people, and the prerogative of the crown. In the sequel of what I shall offer to your lordships, I think I can plainly make out this assertion; but should I be mistaken, my lords, I will venture to say, my head, not my heart will be in fault. To weigh the merits of this Bill, it will be necessary to take it from its birth, consider its parents, and how and upon what occasions it has appeared. My lords, this blessed plant was sown by party and faction: it was nursed by fury and discontent: loss of English liberty was its fruit. It was the first step by which Oliver Crom-well, and some few others, mounted up above the liberty of mankind. It was framed to divide and destroy the bulwark of our constitution, the parliament; and surely, my lords, it would be very extraordinary, if parliament again should cherish this canker-worm, which since its birth never has dared to appear, but when a distempered air hovered round us, and, like sudden and intense darkness, was the forerunner of a storm. My lords, the very preamble of this war, and the liberties of Europe depend on the success of it. Therefore I am against this Bill. If it would help us in the war, I would be for it. I do not enter into the merits of it. If it be a good one, I wish well to it, but it be likely to have any extraordinary good effects, it should take place sooner, not after the end of this parliament, which in all probability will last seven years, and that is counted the life of a man. The popularity of a Bill that is to take place in the next age you will not encourage. Let popularity be founded on a vigorous prosecution of this war. That must be interrupted by this Bill, which is owned to require great alterations, and they will take up time. The king's serjeants and counsel may by this cook, who refused to keep him, because he paid more attention to books, than his business. He afterwards was sent to a Scotch University, but disliking their tenets he entered Queen's College, Cambridge, under the patronage of bishop Gibson, and obtained a doctor's degree at Lambeth. He obtained the rectory of St. Vedast, Foster Lane, London, and in 1729, was appointed clerk of the closet to the Queen; in 1733, dean of Wales, bishop of St. Asaph 1736, and translated to Worcester 1743. In 1733, he published a Vindication of the Church of England, against Neal's History of the Puritans; and published besides, 14 single sermons, preached on various occasions. He was a great benefactor to several hospitals; he encouraged the British Fisheries, and promoted the erection of the Worcester Infirmary. He died 27th of September, 1759." Lempriere. Bill sets up a standard of division between the crown and the people: it declares their interest separate, and of consequence they must draw separately; which is a doctrine quite different from what I have been taught from my cradle. I am sure, it is a most melancholy doctrine; for a state divided against itself can never stand long. But, my lords, to be more particular, let us consider (should this become an act) what effect it would have, first by excluding all but some few of the most important places from the House of Commons, and afterwards by excluding the army. First, then, with regard to those places of importance which it does not exclude, and those lesser which it excludes, I shall only beg leave of your lordships to put a few questions. If then, we exclude all but those of the greatest trust, and where the very being of public affairs is centred, how shall we in the next age find men capable of filling them? For by taking away the lesser, we take away the proper steps to the greater. How are those who Bill sit in parliament. But if any of your lordships' sons offer their lives for the service of their country, a post in the army will exclude them. Thus cedant arma togae.' Their wounds and scars are to be the foundation of their being rejected from parliament. Let us therefore drop this Bill and prosecute the war, and God give success. Question whether it be committed, Of whom I was one. Lord Pom- Then lord Darnely proposed to have the standing Order of Jan. 25, 1720, considered a few days after. C. 43. Of which bishop of Glocester was one. N. C. 63. Of whom I was one. Then lord Halifax moved to have the Order of April 5, 1707, read, that neither the Attorney General nor any assistant of the House should be counsel for any private person at the bar. Also to have the 62d Order read, that causes shall be called in at 11, 28th June, 1715. The Chancellor said it was meant for a compliment to him, he was glad of it, for he loved early hours. But as the business of Chancery must be carried on, he hoped he should not attend without such a decent number as that he could go on with business, that great causes were determined by two or three spiritual and as many temporal lords, which did not do honour to that judicature which was the principal support of the House. Adjourned. liberty. It may be said, we do not stand in need of any army: we are an island, have a most powerful fleet, so that an army is both useless and dangerous. I shall not enter into all that may be said in answer to that complicated assertion; but only beg leave to put a case, and it is a case as the affairs of Europe stand, which must happen once in twenty years, and I hope our liberty will be upon a sounder foundation than to be hazarded every twenty years; within that space of time, you must, in all probability, raise a considerable army, either to defend your own possessions, or preserve the balance of power in Europe, which are equally and absolutely necessary. When this army has done what you raised them for, you will think it necessary likewise to disband them, and ease yourselves and the people of so costly a burden; but your lordships, perhaps, will find the disbanding them more difficult than the raising them. I am apt to believe, that a vote of either House, how rhetorically soever it may be expressed, will not persuade them it is for their interest to lose their bread, when by keeping together, you and all you have is intirely at their mercy; and, my lords, at such a season, should a prince, less a father of his people than his present majesty, should a prince of more ambitious than honest intentions, fill the throne, it would be in his power, with such an army, to become as absolute as the king of France. My lords, by what I have offer are young and unexperienced, to acquire, a knowledge in business, so as to be able to transact affairs, on the well or ill conducting of which depends the public good, or the misery of this whole nation? My lords, how shall we find men fit for these important posts? It is an undeniable fact, that business makes men of business: the greatest natural capacity a man ever was blessed with, can never teach him the intricate road, form, and routine of public offices: practice must do it, and practice alone. If then the means to practice be cut off, how must young men arrive at this knowledge? It must be by inspiration, or by one single way else, which is as unlikely to happen as inspiration from heaven, which is, by the great men of the present age turning schoolmasters, keeping a school for foreign and domestic politics. I am apprehensive they will not easily be induced to turn pedagogues; not to mention that they themselves may not, perhaps, wish to have the market overstocked. What then must be the consequence? Young men of fortune and rank cannot accept of places, when by accepting them they are to be deemed unfit for serving their country in parliament, and to have the ignominious mark of slavery set on them; and without accepting which, they cannot arrive at a knowledge of business fit to be trusted with the public affairs. What will be the effect? Men of no fortune, no rank in the state, who have first drudged through the lower and mean of fices, must have those of the greatest trusted to you, it plainly appears to me, that and profit, as being the only persons capable of filling them: and it is too much to be feared, that the complaisance of such (who owe all they have to the crown) will be boundless, and that the king will have bad counsellors, and the nation be ill served. My lords, with regard to the officers of the army, I think, the same argument is still stronger, as the misfortunes which will flow from it are of a more immediate, and of a more dangerous consequence, and the danger without remedy. This Bill will exclude all young men of fortune from the army, for the same reason it will from all civil employments. Your gentry, your nobility, deprived of all laudable ambitious views, will sink, like Italians, into a slothful idleness. But, my lords, I must beg leave to remind you of this nation's being saved from slavery by having men of property in the army; for God's sake! do not let us ruin that great barrier of our nothing can keep and confirm your liberties but having the officers, at least, men of property, who have a stake in the country, and whose interest is the same with ours. It was by an army of hirelings, debtors, renegadoes, and such, that Rome at last fell a victim to the ambition of one man. It may, perhaps, be said in excuse for this Bill, that men of too small fortunes have employments and seats in parliament; have you not an act of qualification? If that is not observed, why will you imagine this will? I should think it would not; for though it is an extraordinary thing to say so, it would be contrary to the interest of the crown, contrary to the interest of every particular, and contrary to the interest of the nation in general. But if the sum limited in the Qualification Bill is not already sufficient, increase it: that is the only way which will answer what is in vain expected from this Bill. But, my to accept of commissions in the army which was to be raised, and when the service was over, they returned to live upon their estates in the country, without lords, to conclude: what a compliment would it be to his majesty, to say, you are not fit to be trusted with what your ancestors have always hitherto enjoyed, the power of disposing of places and judg-being at any farther charge to the public. ing of merit? We will, by a public act, shew we mistrust you. What a compliment will it be to those the people chuse, to say, we will not trust your integrity, because the people chuse you their representatives? Is this the means to endear a people to their prince, a prince to his people, or mankind to one another? The Earl of Sandwich: My lords; I am sorry to hear a Bill branded with so many hard names, which, in my opinion, is not only designed, but absolutely necessary, for securing our constitution against the crown's having a corrupt and prevailing influence in both Houses of Parliament. It is said to strike at the root of our constitution, by attacking both the liberties of the people, and prerogatives of the crown, and it has been called the offspring of party and faction, nursed up by fury and discontent. This is a most terrible description, but the direct contrary in every respect happens to be really the case; as I hope I shall be able to shew both from the nature of the Bill, and from the history of such Bills, some of which had the good luck to be passed into laws, and some of those laws now stand, and, I hope, ever will stand, unrepealed. We had then, my lords, but very few Customs and no Excises; consequently a minister could not spread his excisemen over the whole kingdom, to influence elections in counties, or to govern them in most of our inland boroughs; and the salaries of our custom-house officers were so trifling, that no man of any great character or fortune would accept of them, so that such officers had but very little influence in any of our sea-port towns. Nay, the commissioners in our navy were either such as were not at the disposal of the crown, or such as could have no considerable influence over those that accepted them; for while the custom of the crown's being furnished with ships of war by our sea-ports remained, the officers of the ships were appointed by the magistrates of the town where they were fitted out; and even after the ships began to be furnished at the public charge, and all the officers appointed by the crown, a commission in the navy could not be looked on as a provision for life, because when the expedition was over, they were dismissed without any half-pay or other provision; from whence it is plain, that a commission either in the land or sea service could then have no influence in parliament, because the officers, when employed in an expedition, could not be there, and when they were not employed, they had nothing from the crown. In ancient times, my lords, nay I may say till after the Restoration, we had no occasion for such Bills. The crown had But now, my lords, the case is quite albut few lucrative employments to bestow, tered: the commissions in our army and and many of those it had at its disposal, navy, the posts in the collection of the were such as were generally granted for public revenue, and the other places in the life; consequently, no minister could hope disposal of the crown, are become so nuby such means to gain, much less to pre- merous and so lucrative, that they must serve, a corrupt majority in either House of have a great influence upon the members Parliament; and the impossibility of suc- of the other House, if there be no recess prevented their making any such at-straint upon the number of placemen altempt. We had then no mercenary standing army, nor had the crown any lucrative military commissions to dispose of. If an army was at any time raised for foreign service, no officer employed in that army could look upon his commission as an estate for life; therefore, though a commission in the army was looked upon as an honour, it was never looked upon as a favour; but on the contrary, those landed gentlemen who had acquired a character in their country for conduct, courage, and military knowledge, were often solicited lowed to have seats in that House. This, I say, must be the consequence, unless we suppose, that men will judge and determine as impartially in a case where they are to get or lose 500l. or 1000l. a year, as in a case where they are to get or lose nothing by their judgment or determination; and to suppose this, is so contrary to the nature of mankind, and to the established maxims of all societies, that I am sure none of your lordships will make any such supposition. Parliaments, we know, are designed to be a check upon ministers; re-chosen. we likewise know, that almost every post | not excepted in this Bill, he is not to be or place in the disposal of the crown, is left to the arbitrary disposal of ministers; Is this, my lords, an infringement of any and we also know, that no minister ever did, prerogative of the crown? Has the king a or ever will give a lucrative post or employ-power to tell the people whom they are to ment to a man who opposes his measures in chuse, or whom they are not to chuse ? parliament; from late experience we know, No, my lords; but the legislature has, that some of the highest officers in the and has already in many cases exercised kingdom have been dismissed, for no other that power. The people are already by reason but because they disapproved of law restrained from chusing a man as their the measures pursued by our ministers, representative, who is not possessed of and had honour enough to declare their 600l. or at least 300l. a year: they are disapprobation in parliament. Can we already restrained from chusing any man then expect, my lords, that the other concerned in collecting the public reveHouse will ever be a check upon the con- nue: they are already restrained from duct of our ministers, as long as there is a chusing their high sheriff to be their repremajority in that House, who enjoy or ex-sentative; and now they are to be restrainpect some lucrative and honourable employment from the benevolence of those very ministers? I shall not say, that in such a case the members would all be corrupt in their determinations; but I will say, that in many cases they would be biassed in their judgments, and thereby induced to approve of what, in duty to their country, they ought to have disapproved of, or to put a negative upon what, in duty to their country, they ought to have given their consent to. Therefore, my lords, if we intend that the other House should answer the end of its institution, by judging impartially, and determining wisely and justly in every case that comes before them, we must pass this Bill, or such a Bill as this; or we must pass a Bill for taking from the crown the disposal of those posts and employments that are necessary for the executive part of our government; and surely those lords who seem so mighty jealous of any incroachment upon the prerogative of the crown, will agree to the former rather than to the latter of these two expedients. The latter, I shall grant, would be an infringement of one of those prerogatives now enjoyed by the crown; but I cannot for my life see what the former has to do with the prerogatives of the crown, nor can I conceive how any one prerogative of the crown is to be in the least affected by this Bill. There is no confinement, nor the least restraint proposed upon the power the king has to dispose of offices or employments: he may grant them as fully and freely as before: he may even grant them to members of parliament, notwithstanding any thing proposed to be enacted by this Bill; and the members may enjoy the office or employment so granted to him, only if it be such a one as is ed from chusing any placemen, beside those excepted in this Bill. This is, it is true, a new restraint, but it can no more be said to be an infringement of the people's liberties, than confining a madman can be said to be an infringement of his liberty; for if the people were not mad, or something worse, they never would chuse a man as the guardian of their liberties, that must either forfeit the lucrative post he enjoys, or betray his trust to ministers who can, and probably will, take his post from him if he does not, and who have always by experience been found to be the greatest enemies to the liberties of the people. I hope I have now made it appear, that this Bill is no infringement either of the prerogatives of the crown or the liberties of the people; but that, on the contrary, it is absolutely necessary for preserving our constitution, by preventing a ministerial and corrupt influence in parliament. I shall next proceed to examine the origin of this and such like Bills, in order to see whether they deserve to be called the offspring of faction, nursed up by fury and discontent. This, I know, my lords, is a scandal that has been thrown by ministers and their favourites upon all the laws we have for securing the liberties of the people. The Habeas Corpus Bill was, by the ministers of that time, reckoned such a factious Bill, that when it was first brought in, the parliament was prorogued before it could be got ready for the royal assent. The Triennial Bill was reckoned such a factious Bill, that king William was advised by his ministers, to refuse it the royal assent, the first session it was presented; and would perhaps, have done the same in the next session, if it had not been presented to him very early in the session, |