for Sir John himself voted against them. He said Ireland was quite defenceless, that the twelve thousand nominal men was only ten thousand eight hundred, out of which four thousand were to be sent away; that the White-boys were governours of all the South of Ireland, where four-fifths of the people were Catholicks; 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.

Mr. Welbore Ellis said the meaning of the message had been mistaken; that taking the expressions in any light, no breach of privilege could be deduced from them. He called to the remembrance of the House, that in 1769, when the Irish establishment was raised from twelve thousand to fifteen thousand men, his Majesty passed a royal personal promise to the Irish Parliament that there never should be less than twelve thousand men in Ireland, except in case 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 their 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, that they cannot be effective without their consent.

Mr. Gordon thought the first part of the message was agreeable to the sense now put on 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 in a vote of disapprobation and censure. He condemned the conduct of the Minister 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.

Viscount Middleton said he had a fortune in both kingdoms, but had no predilection for either in a political light, because he looked upon their interests 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 habituate both countries to certain notions which must, in the end, reduce the Parliament of each to be the mere instrument 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 opportunity might serve, both 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 made it 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 proceeding from his own mind, declared in the most positive terms the English language is capable of conveying, to pay for the four thousand men if the Irish House of Commons should choose to consent or accept of the terms. It was impossible, in the nature of things, that any man possessed of anything 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 [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 never could be the case when treating with one part of his subjects, and engaging for another; besides, the consequences, had the offer been accepted by the Irish Parliament, would have clearly shown 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, is 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 four thousand 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 was a positive one, and it had been accepted, it only remained to discover whether or not it was 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? He understood this famous message had been disavowed by the Minister and his friends on this side of the water. He 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, and 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 this House to sift the matter to the bottom, in order to come at the real author or authors.

Lord North gave a narrative of the increase of the establishment, which took place in Ireland in 1769, and of his Majesty’s promise to his Irish Parliament, that twelve thousand 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 the 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 choosing to gratify mere curiosity at the expense 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 thought it was perfectly justifiable, and was willing to share in the consequences. Yet he could not see how it was fair in