on the passions and vices of mankind, instead of diminishing, increased them. It was impossible to rein them in, and that it was so, appeared from the innumerable restraints that had been laid on the vice of gaming-a vice that had contributed more to corruption than all the others put together. The Acts against it were innumerable; and yet it had increased in proportion to the resistance it had received, and had convinced him that it was as impossible to bridle the vices and the passions of mankind by regulation, as it was by hedging in the ocean to prevent its turbulence. His lordship concluded with observing, that the present times unfortunately exhibited nothing but an innovating spirit of alteration and ideal perfection, internal commotion, causeless discontents, turbulence and dissention. The people were run mad about public virtue; this, therefore, was the moment in which it was their lordships' special duty to interfere, and check the encroachments of the people, upon the just, acknowledged, and constitutional prerogatives of the crown; and so far from its being true, that the Bill was a measure consonant to the voice of the people, as expressed in their petitions, it was at once a mockery of those petitions, and a direct insult put upon the understandings of the petitioners.

The Duke of Grafton defended the principle of the Bill, as well as its propriety at the present moment. It had passed the other House with unanimity, whose privileges it would particularly affect. What would be the consequence of rejecting it? Perhaps a rupture between the two Houses; and as the purpose of the Bill was to exclude a certain description of men, the Commons would perhaps act as they had done on a former occasion, and exclude them by their own resolution. He meant on the affair of the Middlesex election. He remembered upon that occasion a very great authority (lord Mansfield) took upon him to say, that there was no appeal from the decision of the House, and that no other branch of the legislature could check or alter the resolution." So that, right or wrong, their decision would be final. But he was indeed surprised, after what he had heard in the course of the present session, to see the conduct of this day. When a motion of œconomy, on a former day, had been introduced by a noble peer, it was objected to, because the House of Commons might be offended at the House

of Lords taking up a duty that belonged to them. Now, when a Bill was sent up from that House, which originated there, and which passed unanimously, the same noble lord objected to its being received. He warned their lordships of the danger of rejecting the present Bill. It was impossible to say to what lengths the resentments of the people might not proceed.He took notice of the assertion, that there was no proof. This, he said, had been the standing argument for the last two years, and had been used upon every occasion; though the matter before their lordships might be of universal notoriety, yet still proof was required. The evidence of personal feeling and conviction was not sufficient, and yet when evidence was at their lordships' bar, the fact was very different. When governor Penn gave evidence at the bar, noble lords, many of whom he had then in his eye, contended that the House was not to be misled by evidence ex parte, though, as had been foretold at the time, the nation was hurried into the fatal conflict that brought us to what we were. He said that this Bill did not go to make all contracts open.He trusted their lordships had much too lively a sense of what they owed to their own dignity, to consent to become the engine of the minister on the present occasion, and to do for him what in another place he dared not attempt to do himself. The people of England had petitioned the House of Commons, complained of the increased influence of the crown, and recommended œconomy in the expenditure of the public money. The House of Commons had voted that the influence of the crown had increased, and that it ought to be diminished. The House of Commons had also voted that it was their duty to comply with the petitions of the people, and provide an immediate and effectual redress. The present Bill had passed the House of Commons unanimously, and it behoved their lordships, unless they meant lay the to foundation of perhaps a fatal misunderstanding, and create an incurable difference between both Houses, to pass the Bill into a law.-His grace then went into a detailed view of contracts, and their operations and effects upon persons enjoying them who had seats in the other House, applying in direct and pointed terms the shameful, and, he feared, corrupt manner that great national trust was carried on at present, by which contractors were put in possession of enormous sume

belonging to the public, and the national purse emptied, in order to secure the dead votes of a few unprincipled, avaricious, and, he might add, voracious and insatiable individuals. His grace concluded with affirming, that when he had the honour to preside at the Treasury board, contracts were made in a very different manner, and at infinitely less expence.

Earl Bathurst opposed the Bill. He said, that men of the strictest honour might, without the least imputation on their integrity, contract with government, and thence inferred that the present Bill tended to throw a slur upon all who should in future do that which was extremely honourable and fair in itself. If the influence of the crown did exist to the extent that had been stated, the present Bill would have no effect towards diminishing it, because if the contracts were taken away from members of parliament, they might nevertheless be given to the relations or friends of members, so that the same degree of influence would be exerted, and in a worse manner from its indirectness, than it was at present. His lordship endeavoured to shew the necessity of the ministers contracting with men of high character; if they did not, the public would be imposed on, the contracts not fulfilled, and the end of them defeated, to the great injury of the public service. He observed, that none but men of property and character were at all fitted for such a trust. The pledges of fortune and character held out a security to the state for a faithful discharge of whatever was undertaken to be executed; and nothing could be more clearly established than the necessity of employing men of such a description, For instance: in the case of Mr. Alderman Harley. The nature of the engagements that gentleman had entered into with government required two things; it obliged government at some times to make large advances; at others to overdraw or call upon the contractors to make advances. Taking it, then, in either light, how did the case stand? It was found convenient at one time to invest large sums, he believed in one instance to the amount of 700,000l. in the hands of Mr. Harley; and again, very probably, to overdraw upon him. Opulence and the first character could only entitle a man to answer sudden and extraordinary demands, or give him any pretension to fill such a situation with convenience to himself or the state.

The Duke of Grafton declared, that during the time of his presiding at the Treasury board, great care was taken that proper security should be given by the contractors for their due compliance with the conditions of each respective contract, so that the public were as well served as if members of parliament were the con

tractors.

The Earl of Derby defended the Bill, and said he was astonished to hear it called a mockery of their petitions, rather than a measure adopted in consequence of them. No one noble lord had said, that if the Bill passed it would do any harm; why, then, in God's name, would not the House pass it? The object of it clearly was to diminish that influence of the crown, which the Commons had voted to have increased, to be increasing, and to require diminution. It had passed the House of Commons unanimously, and as it concerned a right which belonged solely to the other House, it would in all probability create a difference between the two Houses, if their lordships should reject it.

The Earl of Shelburne complimented the noble lords who sat on his side of the House, for having so ably defended a Bill which was attempted in the most unjust manner to be thrown out. He said the increased influence of the crown was notorious. It was to be seen every where. Did not every man know to what an immense degree the army and navy were increased? From them alone sprung one great opportunity of its increase. It had been contended that their lordships ought not to be jealous of it; luckily, he had no occasion to consult his private reading, or his private expenditure, to prove to their lordships that they ought to be jealous of it; the constitution itself suggested it as the duty of both Houses of Parliament to be at all times jealous of the powers of the crown, to watch them with the utmost care and attention, and to guard against their encroaching on the rights and liberties of the people. The Bill then under their consideration was a mild measure; it was not for that reason surely objectionable. It tended to check the influence of the crown in a small particular, but every thing must have a beginning, and the Bill before them was directly grounded upon the petitions, and fell within the meaning of both their objects, a wish to have the influence of the crown reduced, and a recommendation of œconomy. Did their lordships consider what a mine of

A noble earl had said, that men would argue with themselves: "What, shall I be base enough for the paltry consideration of a little dirty emolument, to give up the interest of my country for my own? shall I be so careless of my character, so indolent of posterity, so blind to my true and permanent interest, as to give up the use of my judgment, to give up my honesty, my freedom, and my independence, for the poor insignificant compensation of a few thousands a year?" For his own part, he sincerely believed, and he did not think that he was guilty of illiberality in the opinion, that a contractor would argue in a very different manner. Would he not rather say, "What, shall I be silly enough to give up my own interest, and the interest of my family and posterity for the empty and nonsensical motives of public spirit, honour, and integrity? Shall vote for the conclusion of the present war when I am making my fortune by its continuance? My vote, were I so inclined, cannot do any great good. I could not gain the question for my country. Why, then, should I be so inattentive to myself as to overlook the present opportunity?" He conceived that this was more likely to be the soliloquy of a contractor. He particularly adverted to the gold contract, and stated it to be both iniquitous and useless. The profits of it were immense, and the possessor of it had not only the exchange in his own hands, and regulated the rate on all remittances to and from America, but sent out the guineas of Britain instead of the gold of Portugal, and by that means defeated the very object of the contract, and all the expence of the coinage was lost to the country. He spoke also with great detestation of the infamous plan which had been contrived to create a monopoly of the corn in Canada, and urged the necessity of agreeing to the Bill, as a test of what would be done to execute the wishes of the people. He spoke of the increasing influence of the crown, and said, that there were very prudent and wise reasons for permitting the officers of the army and navy to sit in parliament.

He said, he did not blame any man for trying to get the most from government for his contracts. He had a right to do the best for himself, and the more he got, the better he discharged his duty to his family. It was the minister he blamed for making unwise contracts, not those with whom they were made. Contracts were གཱ

indisputably a great temptation, and therefore he wished to put them out of the way of members of parliament. For, notwithstanding the declaration of the noble lord, that men of honour were superior to all influence from contracts, human nature spoke a different language. While the argument stood thus, could it be expected that members of parliament had virtue enough to resist such a temptation; or, that having contracts, they were so deficient in gratitude as to derive great emoluments from their connection with the minister, and not to vote for his measures; if they were so extraordinarily firm, and could reconcile such conduct to their consciences, did any one lord that heard him, imagine the minister would suffer it, and let a future contract be given inimical to his interest? Besides, consider for a moment the immense profits to be gained by a single contract. Twenty, thirty, fifty, one hundred thousand pounds! aye, that sum doubled, and even trebled! Let noble lords recollect the present contract for sending gold to America, the contract, fictitiously laid before the House of Commons, and contradicted as to its specification by the contractor himself in that very House! Had not the contractors, at their own motion, sunk their profits from 2 to 1 per cent.? If they would part with so large a portion of their commission voluntarily, what an immense advantage must they not derive? Perhaps it might be urged that the contract, from the nature of it, must necessarily be given to men of responsibility and character. Good God, were there no merchants in the city, no monied men, no men of high reputation, who would accept of contracts, and dis charge the duties of them with rigid observance, but members of parliament? Last war the contracts were not in parliament, and yet the army was as well served then as it was now. Add to this, the whole commission of the gold contractor might be saved, if the mode of making it with the Bank, which he had suggested to their lordships, were adopted. Why, then, was the public to pay Messrs. Harley and Drummond enormously for a service which might be done as well at no expence?

His lordship next went into a general consideration of the political complexion of the times, which he described as alarming to the last degree; the House of Commons divided and torn to pieces by intestine disunion, neither side of the House