he held in his hand, and then mention other circumstances which, he trusted, would sufficiently justify him in the expressions which he had used. The marquis stated, that the letter was dated January 30, 1783; that it turned upon various matters, but that it would be sufficient to his purpose to read the last paragraph: he accordingly read it, and the purport of it was, that the duke begged the marquis to turn the various subjects (stated in the letter) in his thoughts, and give him an answer thereupon as soon as he conveniently could, since, when he (the duke) knew the marquis's opinion, he should form his ordnance estimate ac ministers; but by far the greatest part not so well. Possibly more cautious ministers would have treated first with Portugal. He declared, in his conscience, he believed it was better as it was; for such had been the difficulties that he had found in endeavouring to obtain redress for the merchants' many grievances, that perhaps, without such an advantage as a commercial treaty with France in our hands, we should not have been able to obtain any redress. More cautious ministers would probably have treated with Ireland, before they went to treat with France. He was convinced it was more likely to turn out well, not to have done so. Ireland might easily be settled with, and various oppor-cordingly. The marquis said, in addition tunities might be found to adjust all the lesser omissions that he had before spoken to. Therefore, such as the Treaty was, he gave it his full concurrence, and ministers were welcome to any little assistance he might be able to give them in its support. With regard to what had passed the preceding night between him and the noble duke, if the noble duke was contented, he was willing to let it rest where they left it. The Duke of Richmond justified the Address on different grounds, and quoted the precedent of 1782 on the subject of the repeal of the Act of the 6th of George I. After reasoning on its similarity to the Address then moved, he took notice of that part of the marquis of Lansdowne's speech, in which he had talked of what had passed the preceding evening on subjects foreign to the debate. Their lordships, he trusted, would consider the peculiar situation in which he stood, and suffer him to call upon the noble marquis to produce that letter of his which he had the day before said he had in his possession. He said that he had, since the preceding evening, recollected the letter to which the noble marquis alluded, and he was almost certain, that there was nothing in that letter to support the noble marquis in his expressions of the day before; expressions that went the length of charging him with having caused the plan of a system of fortifications to be submitted to Parliament, which would have cost a very large sum of money, as a measure of Government, without having previously obtained the concurrence of the first Lord of the Treasury. The Marquis of Lansdowne observed, that he would willingly oblige the noble duke, and read a part of that letter, which to what he had read, he would inform But He explained to the House, that whenever any public business was transacted in council, there always were cabinet minutes taken, and that there were several in existence, where questions respecting the ordnance, and of a nature subordinate to the consideration in question, had been under investigation. He reasoned upon these facts, and said, that he was tolerably certain that the meeting he had mentioned must have happened previous to the receipt of the letter from which he had read an extract, as the preliminary articles of peace were laid before Parliament on the 27th Jan., and debated in both Houses on the 17th of Feb. As never professed to be a judge of fortifi- | pressly. As it was not then known, whecations nor pretended to be an engineer, ther we should have peace or not, the ordand therefore it was not very likely that he nance estimate was to be made out for should have relied on his own judgment in the war establishment, and as the fortifian affair of so much importance. Had the cation system necessarily made a part of meeting been convened for the purpose that estimate, the meeting had been held of consulting upon such a subject, he between the First Lord of the Treasury, should have naturally expected that the the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Commander-in-chief and First Lord of the Master-general of the Ordnance. Admiralty would have been present; the there were various plans of fortifications first to give his opinion of the system, to refer to, the noble marquis had been so and the latter to consider how far it polite as to let the meeting be at his coincided with the naval defence of the house instead of the Treasury: when, kingdom another circumstance also, and however, it was held, the noble marquis that material, was sufficient to satisfy him, entered deeply into the consideration of that there never had passed any thing his plan, and was pleased to honour him like a serious consultation upon the sub- with much praise at the time, and, as he ject-there was not to be found a trace of then understood him, gave his complete cabinet minutes respecting it. concurrence to the system. As a corroboration that the noble marquis did then concur, or at least appear so to do, the duke produced a letter from Mr. Pitt, to whom he had written that morning upon the subject; his grace read the letter as follows: " My dear lord; I remember the circumstance of the conversation which took place at your grace's house in 1783, when lord Lansdowne and Mr. Steele were present: my memory, at the distance of four years does not enable me to say that lord Lansdowne did positively give a full and direct approbation of your grace's plan of fortifications; but the impression which it made on my mind at the time was, and has continued so on every reflection since, that his lordship did signify his approbation of the plans. I have the honour to be, &c." The duke reasoned upon this testimony in his favour, and said, that he had had many conversations with the noble marquis on the subject, in every one of which he gave him to understand, that he approved of the proposed plan. In order to bring it to the marquis's recollection that he had been used to talk of fortifications, he said that he had repeatedly cautioned him about fortifying Plymouth, and said, "Let me have Plymouth secure at any rate." The noble marquis had challenged him to produce a scrap of paper of his upon which he had signified his consent to the fortification system. He stated to their lordships, that when men in office had a confidence in each other, a great deal of the public business was done by conversation merely; if, therefore, the want of written evidence was to be considered as a proof of there having never been a concurrence notified by the noble The Duke of Richmond wished exceedingly that the matter should be clearly understood. It had been said that fortifications were his hobby-horse; they certainly were, and he should never be ashamed to own, that his duty always would be his hobby-horse. As mastergeneral of the ordnance it became his duty to attend particularly to the defence of our dock-yards and our coasts: feeling this, he had taken considerable pains to ascertain where fortifications were necessary, and had consulted engineers upon the subject. Having at length formed a plan for additional works, he had submitted it to those who were competent to decide, and received their approbation of what he had proposed: he had afterwards submitted his ideas in different conversations to the noble marquis, and regularly understood him to coincide in opinion. With regard to the meeting in question, he could not agree that it was a private meeting; on the contrary, it was a meeting upon the business of the ordnance ex marquis, there was an end of all confidence between man and man, and the business of an administration could not proceed. The letter produced by the noble marquis was a letter bearing upon a variety of other subjects as well as the system of fortifications; and that letter in a great measure confirmed his argument, since if the noble marquis referred to it he would find, that in that part of it which related to the plans of fortification, it was said, "those plans which you saw," a clear proof that the marquis had seen them. But supposing that the fact was as the noble marquis had stated it to be, and that he had dared to go to Parliament with the plan as a measure of government, how came it that the noble marquis in that case did not go to his Majesty and advise him to dismiss him (the duke) from his service, for having dared to carry a plan which would cost 400,000l. to the House of Commons, and endeavoured to get it passed, without having previously obtained the consent of the first Lord of the Treasury? The duke said, that if the noble marquis had acted in a manner so extraordinary, he had been guilty of a heinous offence, and deserved to be punished; but the fact was not so, it was as he had first stated it. He produced two letters from the marquis; the one in answer to his of the 30th of January, and the other upon too trivial an occasion to be read to their lordships: he would, however, just mention, that it began with " My dear lord," and ended with the words "believe me to be your sincere and affectionate friend, &c." that circumstance, trifling as it was, the duke contended, was sufficient to prove that at the time the noble marquis and he lived in habits of intimacy and friendship, and consequently that, added to the circumstance of the meeting being held at his house, corroborated his assertion that they had frequent conversations together on the subject. The duke therefore appealed to their lordships, whether he had not cleared himself from the charge which had been brought against him by the noble marquis. The Marquis of Lansdowne was perfectly satisfied with the letter he held in his hand, against which the noble duke had adduced Mr. Pitt's testimony. The testimony of a very respectable witness, but a witness who could speak only for himself. There was, therefore, letter for letter; but added to his letter, he had the benefit of his own assertion, and he did [VOL. XXVI.] assert in the most unqualified manner, that he never expressed his concurrence with the noble duke's system of fortification. If it was urged that there was blame due to the minister who, nevertheless, suffered it to come before Parliament, he was free to say, that he thought there was great blame; but that was another question; and if the noble duke chose to make a motion upon it, well and good. If he was asked, why he suffered the plan to be proposed when he did not approve it, he protested he could not tell. Possibly it was for want of time, as it was the fortnight before the peace. A busy fortnight! But, as to the fact, he was willing to let it rest with their lordships to decide; and he did not care which way the decision went. He was glad that the noble duke had produced his letter, beginning with the address of "My dear lord," because it showed how pure he was, and how clear of any thing like resentment against the noble duke, for having thought proper to take the extraordinary step of quitting the Cabinet just before the peace came under consideration. He was above so mean a passion: early in life, when a boy, he was occasionally actuated by it, but he had gotten rid of it by living among good and great men; he had rooted it out, and he defied any man living to say that he had shown resentment on any occasion, in the whole course of his life. He imputed the noble duke's conduct to his resentment at what had passed in the House of Commons when the ordnance estimates had been under consideration. He assured the noble duke that the prejudices he en tertained against him on that head were altogether without foundation. Those who had given their opinions in the other House, adversely to the fortification sys tem, were men competent to judge for themselves, and well entitled so to do. They were not a faction headed by him, nor had he any share in directing their conduct in that House. If the noble duke knew how delicately he held himself towards those gentlemen, and ever had done, he would not have suspected him of influencing their conduct. But why did not the noble duke, when he felt himself hurt on that occasion, come fairly to him, and tell him the cause of his resentment? He was open enough surely; for openness was so much his characteristic, that he was open to a fault, and by the advice of his friends, on that very account, secluded himself from the world. The noble duke [2Q] and he had lived on terms of sufficient intimacy to have encouraged the noble duke to come to him. He had dined with the noble duke, the noble duke had done him the same honour at his house; and that friendly intercourse might have gone on till now, had not the noble duke broke it off; why, the noble duke best knew; but he supposed on account of what happened in the House of Commons. The marquis pressed the noble duke to rise, and do him justice on the present occasion. He said he knew that the duke was a fortification difficult to take; he wished he would let him have the honour of achieving a victory: if however he would not, but would obstinately persist in maintaining that he had obtained his concurrence previous to laying his plan before Parliament, he should rest satisfied with the evidence of the noble duke's letter, and let the whole matter remain upon that ground. The question for agreeing to the Address was then put, and the House divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 24. The Address was then agreed with; and the Commons at a conference, were acquainted that their lordships had agreed to the Resolutions and also to the Address. Joint Address to the King on the Treaty of Commerce with France.] March 8. Both Houses went up to St. James's, and presented the following joint Address to the King: "Most gracious Sovereign; "We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, having taken into our most serious consideration the provisions contained in the Treaty of Navigation and Commerce, concluded between your Majesty and the Most Christian King, beg leave to approach your Majesty with our serious and grateful acknowledgments for this additional proof of your Majesty's constant attention to the welfare and happiness of your subjects. We shall proceed with all proper expedition in taking such steps as may be necessary for giving effect to a system so well calculated to promote a beneficial intercourse between Great Britain and France, and to give additional permanence to the blessings of peace. "It is our firm persuasion, that we cannot more effectually consult the general interest of our country, and the glory of your Majesty's reign, than by concurring in a measure which tends to the extension of trade, and the encouragement of industry and manufactures, the genuine sources of national wealth, and the surest foundation of the prosperity and happiness of your Majesty's dominions." The King's Answer.] His Majesty returned this Answer: 66 My Lords and Gentlemen; "I return you my thanks for this loyal and dutiful Address. The declaration of your sentiments, formed after the most serious consideration of the Treaty of Navigation and Commerce between me and the Most Christian King, affords me the truest satisfaction; and I receive with pleasure the assurances of your determination to proceed, with all proper expedition, in taking such steps as may be necessary for giving it effect." Motion respecting such of the Sixteen Peers of Scotland as may be created Peers of Great Britain.] Feb. 5. Viscount Stormont expressed his conviction, that as the subject on which he should beg leave to trouble their lordships, related in a particular manner to their own privileges, he might rest assured of being honoured with their serious attention. He trusted that he should not be considered as acting contrary to order in the motion which he intended to make; viz. that the patents creating the duke of Queensberry and lord Abercorn peers of Great Britain, should be laid before the House. He hoped for the pardon of those lords for not calling them agreeably to their new titles; and as an apology, he pleaded that he was not present when they took their seats, and he did not recollect what those titles were. The subject, he observed, was of the first importance both to that House and to the nation. The rights and privileges of their lordships were involved in its consequences. The people's representation it would likewise affect materially; and therefore a subject of such essential magnitude required the fullest attendance which could be obtained; and the most effectual means to have this attendance, would be the regular mode always adopted on important occasions, which was to summon the House. He then moved for the House to resolve itself into a committee of privileges, to consider those patents, and that the Lords be summoned to-morrow se'nnight. Feb. 13. The House went into a Committee of privileges. The order of the day being read, Viscount Stormont began by saying, that he had presumed to bring before the committee a business, which, as matter of privilege, was entitled to serious and early attention. He thought it a great public question, and should argue it upon large public ground. The constitution of Parliament now required, that the representation of the Scotch Peerage should be complete. Is it so? That is the question for the consideration of the committee. The motion is purposely calculated to put that point fairly at issue. Had the question any thing of legal nicety, he should be ill qualified to treat it; but it appeared to him that it lay in a narrow compass, and was to be decided upon a few plain, obvious principles, which he would endeavour to state. It must be admitted, that the right of representation was given to the Scotch Peers for the loss of an hereditary seat in Parliament. They who no longer suffer the loss, can no longer be entitled to their share of the compensation. It would be absurd to argue what is so plain; it is sufficient barely to state it. By the Treaty of Union, sixteen peers are to be chosen by those whom they represent, out of their own number. Is it not clear, from this stipulation, that they who choose must be in a situation to be represented; and those who are chosen, in a condition to be repesentatives? All elective representation in government, whereever it obtains, proceeds upon this uniform, invariable principle. There is an inconvenience, real or supposed, in your sharing in the government individually; therefore you shall share in it virtually by representation. The one being in lieu of the other, they cannot be co-existent. You cannot represent yourself. You cannot appear in person, and be represented by your proxy. The moment you are admitted to a personal share in the government, your right to share in it virtually, by representation, must cease and determine. He then applied these general principles to the particular case. The peers of Scotland, at the Union, were thought too numerous to be admitted to hereditary seats in Parliament; therefore they were to be represented by sixteen of their number. Whether the mode was wise, whether the proportion was fair and adequate, it is needless now to inquire. Our ancestors, said he, came hæc in fœdera, and by their * agreement we are indisputably bound. But he was sure their lordships were bound by inclination, still more than by the ties of duty, to see that agreement fairly and honourably fulfilled. Would it be so, would it be conformable to the true sense and meaning of the Treaty; would it be consonant to the principles of representation, to include, in the number of Scotch representatives, hereditary peers, who have no interest in that representation, and to whose condition elective representation cannot appertain? An hereditary seat, and a temporary seat by election, are not only different, but incompatible, for this obvious reason-the hereditary seat takes away the whole effect of the relation that should subsist between the representative and those who choose him. This connexion is stronger in some governments, in some countries, than in others; but it obtains universally in all, and is of the very essence of representation. In some countries, as in Poland, for instance, members. are bound by the instructions of their constituents. It has been maintained, that this is the case in our constitution. He was not of that opinion; but suppose, for a moment, that to be the case, what would be the condition of an hereditary peer who was also a representative? Clashing duties might arise. His own judgment marks out to him one line of conduct, the orders of the electors another: which is he to follow? But, not to insist upon an idea of the constitution strongly maintained by others, but differing from his own opinion, he said, that in this country representatives were certainly so far responsible to their constituents in their conduct, that upon the opinion entertained of that conduct, their fate at a future election was decided, and the trust reposed in them continued or withdrawn. He observed, that the same prerogative that had raised two of sixteen to an hereditary seat, might, in possibility at least, extend the same favour to the whole number. What then would become of the Scotch representation? This way of putting it, makes the absurdity more glaring; but there is no real difference between the one case and the other; the violation of the principle of representation is the same in both. He then proceeded to show, that the cessation of right his motion contended for, follows by clear and necessary consequence, from the incapacity established by a resolution of the House in 1709, in the case of the duke of Dover's vote. It was then re |