of the probable effect on the people of a great accumulation of taxes, in the prosecution of an object which appeared to him to be unattainable, namely, success in the war, according to the present avowed object of it, the total destruction

of the government of France. For these reasons, he should move by way of amendment to the present resolution, "That the sum of 1,150,000l. be inserted instead of 2,500,000l."

The amendment was negatived, on a division, by 134 against 33, and the original motion agreed to.

May 2.

The resolution being reported to the House,

Mr. Fox said, that after having delivered his sentiments upon this subject in general, he should at present confine himself to a few points. He thought that the House had at least a right to be distinctly informed in what situation the King of Prussia stood with regard to the present treaty; whether merely as a prince, who hired out his troops to fight, in a cause in the event of which he was not interested; or whether we had entered into this treaty with the King of Prussia as a person interested and engaged as a principal in the war, but who was unable to prosecute it further without pecuniary assistance. In either of these points of view, the present treaty appeared to him ridiculous and improvident. If the King of Prussia was to be regarded in the first light, as a prince who hired out troops, was it not a circumstance unprecedented, that the command should not be in the persons who subsidized those troops; especially when the troops so hired cost more than troops in a similar situation had ever done?

Mr. Fox said that he should at present confine himself merely to the question of expence; not that he approved of the other parts of the treaty, but because they had been already debated. We were to pay for these 30,000 troops, if we kept them a single year, 1,600,000l. If the war lasted another year, certainly the expence would be somewhat less, because the sum of 400,000l. for out-fit and return, would be spread over two years, and then it would be 1,400,000l. per annum. If for four years, it would be 1,300,000l. spreading the expence of out-fit and return over the whole time, which, upon comparison, would be more expensive than the same number of Hessians or Hanoverians. It was to be remembered, also, that we retained the entire command and

disposition of the latter; but of these Prussian troops we were to have neither command nor disposition; and the execution of all the projects, though for British purposes, was left in the King of Prussia's hands. If we looked at any other treaty, we should find that the price to be paid under this present treaty was larger than we had ever paid for the assistance of troops over which we had had the entire command; and as we were to have no command whatever over them, the price was enormous indeed. On the other hand, if we con sidered them as the troops of a prince engaged in the war, we must naturally look to the late treaty entered into with Sardinia. By that treaty 50,000 men were to be supplied for the support of the common cause, for which we paid but 200,000l. If we were to pay in proportion to this subsidy for 30,000 troops, the expence would be no more than 120,000l. but, instead of that sum, we were to pay 1,600,000l. In 1756, we subsidized Frederick the Great, uncle to the present King of Prussia: let us compare the terms of that treaty with the present: he was to furnish 150,000 men, for which we were to pay 670,000l. According to this rate, we should pay for 30,000 troops, to be furnished now, about 135,000l. instead of the enormous sum of 1,600,000l. For gentlemen were to consider, that this sum was not paid for 62,000 men; because in that number were included the 32,000 men stipulated for by the former treaty of 1788. Waving that consideration for a moment, for the sake of argument, let them compare these treaties, and see how they stood. When the 600,000l. to be paid under the treaty of 1788, was added to the 1,600,000l. it made a sum of 2,200,000l. which we were to pay instead of the sum of 220,000l. which should be paid at the rate of the treaty with the late King of Prussia; or 240,000l. which was the extent of what should be paid at the rate of the late treaty with Sardinia. Instead of paying 220,000l. as in the one case, or 240,000l. as in the other, we profusely squandered away the enormous sum of 2,200,000l.; so that in the one calculation this treaty, as compared with others of a similar nature, was in this latter statement ten to one against us: in the former, which was the true statement, it was fourteen to one against us.

But from the ambiguous situation of the King of Prussia arose other difficulties. When the question between us and that monarch was a question of expence, he said, “ I am not so much interested in the event of this war as you are; you shall therefore bear the whole of my expence." But when it became a question of who should command the troops, or to what objects they were to be directed, he would immediately say, "I am a principal in the war, and equally interested in

its consequences with you; I can as well judge of the effect of its operation to our mutual benefit; and will have the sole command over my own troops." Such conduct was really intolerable: it was a tricking, shifting, shuffling behaviour in this prince, acting, no doubt, by the advice of his council; but that was no reason why the people of Great Britain should become the dupes of snch knavery. He, for his part, wished to have the situation of the King of Prussia fairly stated: if he were a mere hirer of men, never was there such audacious, impudent conduct, as to insist on the command and disposal of the troops he had let out for hire. If, on the other hand, he was a principal in the war, whom we subsidized, the present treaty, compared with others of a similar nature, was, according to one calculation, fourteen to one, and, even according to the most favourable, ten to one, against this country. He therefore hoped that gentlemen would a little consider how far they could answer to themselves, and to their constituents (he did not mean their particular constituents, but all their constituents in the general sense of the word, the people at large,) for having in a few days voted such an enormous sum of money, without any possible opportunity of conversing with them on the subject. He wished to ask them, if they could consider themselves entitled, by such conduct, to the character of faithful stewards? It was too much, that the wealth of this country should be so profligately squandered, to answer the unprincipled rapacity, or contemptible finesse, of any prince or court in Europe.

The resolution was agreed to by the House.

KING'S MESSAGE

RESPECTING SEDITIOUS PRACTICES

SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT.

May 13.

ON the 12th of May, the following message from the king

was delivered to the House of Commons by Mr. Secretary Dundas:

"G. R.

"His majesty having received information, that the seditious practices which have been for some time carried on by certain societies in London, in correspondence with societies in different parts of the country, have lately been pursued with increased activity and boldness, and have been avowedly directed to the object of assembling a pretended general convention of the people, in contempt and defiance of the authority of parliament, and on

principles subversive of the existing laws and constitution, and directly tending to the introduction of that system of anarchy and confusion which has fatally prevailed in France, has given directions for seizing the books and papers of the said societies in London, which have been seized accordingly; and these books and papers appearing to contain matter of the greatest importance to the public interest, his majesty has given orders for laying them before the House of Commons; and his majesty recommends it to the House to consider the same, and to take such measures thereupon as may appear to be necessary for effectually guarding against the further prosecution of those dangerous designs, and for preserving to his majesty's subjects the enjoyment of the blessings derived to them by the constitution happily established in these kingdoms."

On the following day Mr. Secretary Dundas having presented to the House the books and papers referred to in the said message, Mr. Pitt moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, to return his majesty the thanks of this House for his most gracious message, and to assure his majesty, that this House will, immediately, take into their serious consideration the subject recommended to them in his majesty's message, and will adopt such steps as may appear to them to be necessary on a matter of such high importance to the safety of his majesty's dominions."

Mr. Fox said, he did not rise up for the purpose of opposing the present motion, as he conceived it to be in some sort a thing of course, but merely to say a few words preliminary to his acceding to it; and he was the less inclined to oppose it, as he conceived that his assent in no way precluded him from exercising his right to discuss the various subjects referred to in the message when they came before the House; and that the questions, Whether the object before them was properly fit for their investigation? What the means were by which the papers were procured? Whether the seizure tof them was constitutional and legal? And whether the mode of collecting the information respecting them were justifiable? were still as open to the investigation and discussion of himself and every other member, as if they refused their assent in limine to the address. But what he chiefly wished to remark was, that if the papers were sealed up, and their contents therefore unknown to the House, he thought it would be rashness to refer them to a secret committee, unless precedents were first adduced upon which to ground such a measure; for of all modes of proceeding, the steps which had been adopted in the present case seemed to him to be those which it was most necessary to watch over with vigilance.

The address passed nem. con., as did also a motion, that the books and papers be referred to a committee. Mr. Pitt next moved, "That the said committee be a committee of secrecy."

Mr. Fox said, he hoped that the right honourable gentleman who made the motion, would either support it by some precedent, or demonstrate that there existed such a distinction between this and former cases, as should induce the House to have recourse to new modes of proceeding unsanctioned by precedent. With regard to the argument urged by the right honourable gentleman in support of his proposed mode of inquiry, namely, the fear of discovery defeating the objects of it, he would only say, that those objects not being sufficiently defined or expressed, could form no ground of argu ment. Was the object prosecution? Prosecution was already in the hands of the crown, who seemed desirous of calling upon the House to take their part in it. He wished to know what the object of the crown was. He could not suppose it was impeachment; for though he would always maintain the inquisitorial right of that House, he thought that impeachment could not properly come from the crown. He could not, therefore, see why the committee should be a secret committee; yet if, as he had said before, the right honourable gentleman could either cite precedents on the one hand, or mention on the other, grounds sufficient to warrant a deviation from all rule, he would not object to it.

The motion being put and carried, Mr. Pitt moved, "That the number of the said committee be twenty-one."

Mr. Fox said, he had no objection to the number; twentyone was, perhaps, as proper as any other; but there were some things which he wished to know respecting this transaction. He was particularly desirous to be informed, what had been the mode of obtaining those papers? For there was an ambiguity in the words of the message, which left him at a loss to determine respecting that particular; and he therefore wished to know on which of the grounds stated in it the seizure of the papers had been made? Was it only on the ground of the seditious practices, or on an allegation that the persons implicated had entered so far on the execution of the plan of a general convention as to be guilty of an overt act of treason? As a member of the House of Commons, and a friend to the constitution, he respected the opinions of parliament; and it was a resolution standing on the journals of that House, that seizing the papers of a person accused of a libel was illegal, founded on the principle, that such an extreme step should not be taken unless there was an actual allegation for treason or felony. He therefore insisted, that by the resolutions of that House he was warranted in saying, that seizing papers for seditious practices, or for any thing