became the conftitutional guardians, the reprefentatives, to be exceedingly cautious of any meafure being adopted which might tend to preclude them from the free and unlimited exercife of their judgements, on every subject in which the interests of the country were effentially dependent. It was with this view that he meant to submit to them, before he fat down, his motion; for he was clearly of opinion, that the address which the House had lately voted to His Majesty was an infringement of the free, unbiaffed, and unreftrained exercise of judgement. After the business had been only four or five days before Parliament, and in the second stage of the matter, the House had abfolutely come to a vote which precluded them from giving any opinion in the fubfequent ftages through which the treaty was to pafs; and thus, whatever their fentiments were, or might be, they could not prove availing. Having pledged themfelves to His Majefty to take all early and poffible means of carrying the faid treaty into effect, they were reduced to two very unpleasant predicaments. The one was either to let the treaty pafs, however repugnant its principles might appear to their fentiments, from being inimical to the interefts of the country, or they muft fubject themselves to having given a faithlefs promife to Majefty. This was of all fituations the moft to be avoided. It was derogatory to that facred faith which fhould be preferved, and that respect which they fhould entertain in all concerns of either addreffes or promises to the Sovereign. As to the plea that no neceffity existed for adhering to the forms of thofe many ftages of parliamentary procedure in the prefent tranfaction, he could not fee any principle in the commercial treaty which could authorife Parliament to let it pafs with less inquiry and circumfpection than even the moft ordinary concerns. On the contrary, it was a fubject, which, of all others, required the moft mature and deliberate investigation. The commerce, navy, and conftitution of the country, depended on its tendency. Befides, as it was a commercial queftion, fo did it become fuch a fubject that the Parliament had thought it expedient even to add two more stages to the investigation than what were adopted on ordinary concerns. The Committee and the Report were added by a refolution of Parliament in the year 1772. Thus, not only the invariable cuftom of ancient times evinced the neceffity of giving every poffible opportunity for the House to confider moft maturely its tendency in its different ftages of parliamentary progrefs; but even the opinion of modern times had been, that it was neceffary to increase the stages of inquiry on a fubject of such imminent importance. As to himself, he had been cenfured for recurring several times to one fubject. But however, this was a fpecies of cenfure which he should treat with contempt. Had he mentioned or adverted to any matter twenty or thirty times, if he thought it neceffary to repeat the fame again, in its relation to any fubject he had to confider, he fhould always take the liberty of ufing his own difcretion. This was the cafe in the prefent inftance. He had, during the progrefs of this bufinefs, frequently mentioned the treaty of Utrecht. He fhould now beg leave to mention that fubject again, as it tended to illuftrate what he had to propofe to the House. Had Miniftry voted an addrefs to Her Majesty Queen Anne, and in it caufed Parliament to pledge themfelves to carry the said treaty into effect at the time of its parliamentary progrefs, as they had on the prefent occafion, the confequence muft have been the commercial part of the treaty paffing into a law; for it was only by not doing it that this evil had been avoided. During the firft ftages of that treaty's confideration in Parliament, there was no material oppofition. On the contrary, it paffed through the Committee; and the Report was paffed likewife, with very confiderable majorities. But, in the fubfequent ftages, information was then obtained, objections were made, and the majority of Parliament very wifely rejected it, as a measure that threatened the whole commercial and conftitutional intereft of the country with a total and immediate annihilation. Happy therefore it was, that the Miniftry of that day did not bring a motion for an address to Majefty before Parliament, when the majorities of the Houfe were fo much in favour of the treaty. If they had, the addrefs would certainly have paffed, and the country would have been ruined. To this he attributed all the fubfequent profperity and glory we had acquired and enjoyed. Even that great Queen owed to the rejection of the commercial part of the treaty her highest honours, if not her regal dignities. This he adduced to prove the neceffity of not precluding Parliament from exercifing their judgements in the remaining progrefs of the treaty through the Houfe. Mr. Fox now adverted to the manner in which the bill for carrying the treaty into effect had been connected as one with that for the confolidation of the cuftoms. This, he obferved, had likewife a great relation to the fubject on which he had been troubling the Houfe. By this vote of addrefs, the Lords in the other House would not have an opportunity of exercising their judgements in the paffing of the bill to which he alluded. Befides, as it was connected with the confolidation of the customs, they were even precluded, by this means, of exercising the only right they had with refpect to a money bill-of adopting or rejecting it. If they were difpofed to reject the confolidation bill, they could not, as it was connected with a subject they 3 E 2 had had pledged themfelves to carry into effect. And if they were difpofed to alter any parts of the commercial treaty, with regard to any matter in their power, they could not, as it formed part of a money bill; and thus was the exercise of their Lordships' rights fettered by the address, and by uniting thefe two fubjects. This was equally an argument in favour of his own motion, and for that moved by the honourable Baronet, (Sir Grey Cooper) but which the House had thought proper to reject. He could not fee the leaft difficulty in moving feparately for the reduction of the duties, and deftroying the prohibitions. They amounted to about fourteen; they therefore could not be a fubject of such an implicated nature, as to render it unfit for investigation, from the perplexity and embarraffment which would attend it. This addrefs would entirely prevent the House from adopting any fyftem that might hereafter be fettled with refpect to Portugal, if fuch fyftem departed or deviated from that eftablifhed in this treaty with France. We had therefore not only deprived ourselves of the privilege of exercifing our opinions and difcretion, with regard to the treaty itself-but we had likewife deprived ourfelves of exercifing any opinion or decifion on pending treaties with foreign powers, if they did not happen perfectly to coincide with this negociated with France. Mr. Fox now made fome obfervations on the manner in which the Court of France had depended on the ratification of this treaty. They had stated in the convention-as foon as it had received the fanction of the law. But to receive this fanction of the law, it must be fubmitted to all thofe forms and investigations which conftituted our laws. And as the addrefs prevented this poffibility, the treaty could not be faid to have the fanction of the law. How then could the French Court expect it to be ratified? He confequently thought that the addrefs had abfolutely destroyed the legal poffibility of the treaty being fo carried into effect as to admit of a ratification. To have the fanction of our laws, as he before obferved, it was neceffary that it fhould pass every form of Parliament. But if that House were precluded from giving their opinions, whatever forms or ftages it might pafs through, they could be of no effect with regard to legal efficiency. In this point of view, he thought the addrefs abfolutely deftructive of the intention for which it was profeffedly brought; for that of carrying the fubject into as immediate effect as poffible. For nothing could poffibly have the efficiency of law that was not properly fubmitted to thofe forms which the conftitution prefcribes for the making fuch laws. Mr. Fox, next adverted to the nature of addreffing His Majefty. There were two modes in which addreffes were neceffary neceffary and ferviceable. These were with regard to nego ciation and the profecution of war. In both thefe inftances, addresses strengthened the effort of Government. But then, they contained no particular pledges. They contained, in general terms, an offer of their lives and properties in fupport of the measures then profecuting. But how did fuch addreffes differ from the prefent? Instead of containing a general difpofition or approbation of a treaty being formed with France, it contained a specific affurance that the parti culars of the treaty fhould be carried into effect. What was this but interfering in the moft unconftitutional manner with the rights of the Legiflature? What had the House done in agreeing to fuch an addrefs? They had even given a facred promife to Majefty which it was not in their power to give. No opinion, at leaft no affurance could be given, that any fubject fhould be carried into effect while it was depending in Parliament. For there was no ftage of any bill paffing through that Houfe, in which Parliament could affure any one it should pafs, until the laft ftage. Then a decided affurance might be given, and not before. Thus (as he before stated) had Parliament, by this address, given His Majefty an affurance, which they could not give, confiftently with the principles of law, legiflation, and the conftitution. They were likewife fo ftated, that all future proceedings in this bufinefs would be nugatory. They had difpenfed with their own privileges; and however inimical they might find, on more mature confideration, and more complete information than they had before been able to obtain, the tendency of it to injure the profperity of the commerce, the existence of the navigation, and the preservation of the conftitution-yet they muft carry the treaty into ef fect. They had pledged themselves to their Sovereign—and if they did not mean at first to have couched a faithless promife under a folemn affurance to His Majefty, they could not recede from their vote. This was the predicament to which they were reduced by this premature proceeding. And in what manner to rescue themfelves from either of these alternatives he knew not, except by a folemn proteft on adopting the motion he had to offer to their confideration. It was true, that by a proteft, they did not mean to bind themselves from the power of exercifing their judgements and their de cifions on the remaining ftages of the business, and therefore, he thought Parliament might reinftate itself to the free exercife of its privileges. As to the motion which he had to make, whatever might be its fate, whether rejected or received, it would have this effect-it would fhew to the country, that they did not all confider themselves pledged to confent to the treaty, without having thofe conftitutional opportunities Mr. Chan portunities which were their right of diffenting from or ap proving of the meafure, as they might think most proper, during every age of parliamentary difcuffion to which it fhould be iubmitted. If it were adopted, then Parliament would have an opportunity of availing themselves of all the information they could obtain, and fuch an important subject required, before they gave it their final confent. But fhould it be rejected, the good purpofe would be obtained. Mr. Fox, now urged the neceffity of adopting the motion. It was only by it that Parliament could referve to themselves the right of determining on this treaty agreeable to its real merits. He now moved, that it is neceffary to declare, that no address from this Houfe to the Throne can, in any degree, bind or pledge this Houfe, in its legislative capacity, or bar the subjects' right of petitioning this Houfe, upon any bill depending in Parliament, although fuch bill be founded upon, and conformable to fuch an address, previously agreed to by the House. Mr. Chancellor Pitt faid, that he had waited with anxiety. cellor Pitt. for the arrival of the day on which the right honourable gentleman would make his, promifed motion, having no imall curiofity to learn by what fort of arguments the right honourable gentleman would fupport it. He had listened with the utmost attention, and would venture to declare that there had not been the fmalleft occafion for the wonderful display of the eloquence and abilities of the right honourable gentleman to prove one part of his argument, and that even the eloquence of an angel could not have fuccessfully maintained the other. The right honourable gentleman had exerted all his talents to labour two feparate points. One a mere child would have been able to argue, because it was on the face of it a felf-evident truifin, and what no perfon either had, or would deny: It was that the Houfe could not fo far commit itfelf as to deprive itself of the free exercife of its deliberative powers, to incapacitate the Speaker from putting a question on a bill, yet to be brought in, on any one ftage of it, or impede and embarrass the full and free difcuffion of the principle of the bill, or prevent, if necessary, its final rejection. The other point was impracticable, even by his eloquence, because no mortal eloquence could attain it. It was to perfuade the Houfe that by their late addrefs to His Majefty, it had itfelf refigned its rights, that it had itfelf furrendered its functions, that it had itself abandoned its deliberative powers, and given up all claim to the free exercife of them, and that, in fine, it had itself violated the conftitution! On the first of thefe points he would not take up the time of the House in making any obfervations. He allowed it to the right honourable gentleman in its fullest extent, and let him fee what deduc |