Lords Sitting of 29 July 1807

KING'S MESSAGES RELATING TO SWEDEN AND PRUSSIA.
Lord Hawkesburymoved the order of the day, for taking into consideration the gracious communications which he had yesterday the honour of delivering to the house. In moving an address of thanks to his majesty for these communications, he only followed in form the usual proceeding of the house; and as to the object and matter of the first of them, he did not anticipate any material objection. It simply announced, that a treaty

987
had been entered into with his Swedish majesty to subsidize a certain number of Swedish troops to be employed on a particular service, and which treaty rested on the basis of the former one: the only difference being, that instead of 14,000. men for which the former treaty stipulated, the present treaty made an addition of 4000 men to the former, making in the whole 18,000 men; the addition to be on the same terms as the number of troops originally stipulated. With respect to what regarded Prussia, there could scarcely be any difference of opinion; as the urgency of his Prussian majesty's affairs appeared to require it. Some advances of money had been made to relieve him. In addition to the 80,000 l. advanced by the late administration, his majesty's present government had made a further addition of 100,000 l.; the other assistance in arms, ammunition, &c. amounted to 200,000 l. These were the sums to be made good; and the object of the address he was about to move was, that their lordships do concur in making good the sums. His lordship concluded with moving and reading an address to that effect.
Lord Hollandwould not object to the address; but, at the same time, he could not help observing, that he was at a loss to conceive the grounds upon which ministers proceeded in making this second treaty, if they saw that his Swedish majesty was unable to carry the first into execution. No doubt his Swedish majesty would have done every thing in his power to fulfil his engagement.
The Earl of Lauderdalefelt very anxious to be informed, if the papers upon the table contained every thing which his majesty's ministers had done towards procuring continental co-operation, and more intimately cementing our continental connections and alliances. If they had done no more, how could they justify the language which they put into his majesty's speech, at the close of the last session? A pompous paragraph was there introduced, which held forth to the country the assurance, that ministers had been employed in drawing closer the ties that connected us with our allies, and in preparing the means of co-operation and concert, by which alone a rational hope could be entertained of resisting the ambition of the enemy, and of finally procuring a solid and safe peace. Surely, what appeared from the papers now upon the table, could contribute little or
988
nothing towards the accomplishment of that object. With what views then could ministers have introduced into the king's speech, this big promise of doing a great deal, while in effect they had done nothing, except with the invidious one of endeavouring insidiously to contrast their own conduct with that of their predecessors in office?
Lord Hawkesburythanked the noble lord for having afforded him this opportunity of explanation. The passage in the speech to which the noble lord had alluded promised no more than his majesty's ministers had been prepared to perform. Their propositions to the continental powers were not confined to what appeared in the papers now before their lordships, but embraced offers of much greater magnitude in case of further and more extensive co-operation. But they still kept pace with the efforts, which those powers were likely to make, and with the degree of effect with which it was probable they might be attended. Unfortunately, however, the hopes of this more effectual and successful co-operation were now at an end; and no more pecuniary advances had been made to our allies than those referred to in his majesty's message.
Lord Hollandhere took occasion to inveigh against the principle of holding out to foreign powers the temptation of subsidies, in order to excite them to take a part in the war. He himself had witnessed the mischievous effects of that principle, and it was one which he should ever reprobate and resist, as influencing the conduct of this country, with respect to its continental connections. The attempt prematurely to plunge other powers into hostilities had made the most unfavourable impression abroad, Such allurements on our part seemed to make the subjects of the sovereigns in alliance with us imagine that their governments bartered their blood for British gold, and so far that idea went to destroy the moral energy by which they might wield the physical strength which we were so ready to purchase from them. He should ever set his face therefore against the throwing out of such enticements, and he had seriously to regret that we had too long and too often acted upon that principle.
Lord Mulgravewas astonished to hear the noble lord indulge in such observations, and impute to his majesty's government motives and views which had never guided their conduct. Where was the proof that

989
his majesty's present ministers ever held out subsidies as allurements and enticements to draw other powers into the war; and what opinion must the noble lord entertain of those powers of the continent, who, while their crowns, their dominions, their honour, their independence, every thing dear and sacred to such personages, were threatened with utter ruin, could still remain unalarmed and inert, and be prompted into action only by the influence of British subsidies? Such a supposition was too absurd to be seriously attended to; and as to the system of the late administration, to which the noble lord so fondly referred, and seemed so anxious to bring under discussion, he could fairly say, that the inertness and folly of that administration, had formed the heaviest obstacle with which the present government had to struggle. They had never prepared any one practical means by which our allies could be assisted, or that could inspire them with the hopes of contending successfully with the common enemy. Their measures were adopted without foresight conducted without energy, and, consequently, had producer no effect. The question was then put on the address, and agreed to nem. diss.

IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.
Lord Hawkesburymoved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill. He felt it to be a measure of great importance, and it was natural to expect he should adduce some reasons for its adoption. Measure of a similar nature had often been resorted to by the parliament of Ireland, the necessity of which had grown out of the French revolution, and the principles which the authors of it had attempted to disseminate throughout every country. Associations had at different times been entered into in that part of the empire, in which oaths wet administered, and engagements entered in to, for the worst of purposes. To counteract these practices, a bill of the nature of the present was first introduced. If such practices were dangerous then, how much more so must they be in the present state of Europe and of the empire, and when fate of Ireland was more closely linked than ever with the fate of this country; and Of the continent? He could not, under such circumstances, foresee that any material objections would be made to the bill not only because it was brought forward a milder shape than that in which the parliament of Ireland had passed it, but be-
990
cause it was known to have been in the contemplation of the late administration to bring forward a measure, little different from that which was now proposed, and with which, of course, the noble lords on the other side would not be much disposed to quarrel. In that hope, he should move that the bill be now read a second time.
Lord Holland rosenot to oppose the principle of the bill, or perhaps even its provisions, though there were some of them which he wished to see amended, but to give it an assent, which, however, was wrung from him with sorrow, and only by he gripe of an extreme and lamentable necessity. He felt it to be a necessity not only painful to his feelings, but degrading to his character as a member of that house. How long was the imperial parliament to continue to legislate for Ireland in the spirit of this measure, that is, in defiance of the best principles of the constitution, in the blessings of which we cannot allow that unfortunate country to participate? Were these the promises—are these the fruits of the union? But, if he was compelled to submit to the humiliation and the hardship of assenting to such a measure, the causes at least should be enquired into, which produced the dire necessity upon which alone it was attempted to be justified. These causes chiefly appeared to be, the disabilities that hung upon the Catholics in that distracted country, the pressure of the tithes, and the efforts that were systematically made to keep alive religious animosities between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland. On each of these causes, the noble lord descanted. He was well acquainted with the character of Irishmen, and no character did he ever see more conspicuously marked by benevolence, generosity, and courage: what, then, was it that created in that country those inextinguishable discontents which called so often for the enactment of measures like the present? It must be something of a nature the most imperious, when it urged men to forego the blessings of civilized society itself, and the advantages of a constitution such as this country boasted of and was blessed with. That was the source of the evil which we were bound to explore; and,if it was duly explored, the remedy must soon be discovered. The fact was, the great majority of the people of Ireland were deprived of the full enjoyment of the constitution, and they felt themselves injured

991
and degraded by the suspicions which gave rise to that deprivation. Englishmen loved and admired the constitution, because they enjoyed all its benefits; could it then be fairly expected that the people of Ireland should equally love and admire that constitution, from the full enjoyment of the benefits of which they were debarred? No, it was not in the nature of things; it was not in the composition of the human heart indulge them in that fair enjoyment, and their murmurs would be appeased and silenced. As to the tithes, he was happy to think that ministers meditated some measure of relief; and it so, they so far should have his most cordial support. Would that they might also be brought to discountenance the means by which religious animosities were fomented in Ireland, where, by the principles instilled by the catechisms taught in the charter schools, the infant mind of the Protestant was poisoned with prejudices against the Catholic. Yet those who encourage that system of education, accuse the Catholic of uncharitableness and intolerance#x2014;the early vices which they themselves must be conscious they are indulging against those very persons to whom they impute. But was not that the height of uncharitableness? Was it not refinement of tyranny, a tyranny that fell short of that which characterized that most accomplished of tyrants, Tiberius? In all that he had said, however, with respect to the exclusion of the Catholics from what he considered their rights, let him not be misunderstood to suppose, that it ought to be a motive on their part for disaffection much less for forming a connection with another country. He could not blame them, under that exclusion, for loving the constitution a little less than the people of this country; but although their right might be diminished, they would assuredly obtain no rights whatever, by connecting themselves with another country; they would obtain nothing but a government by the sword.
The Earl of Limerickwas sorry to hear the language and the sentiments that fell from the noble lord, for they could be productive of no good. Why eternally introduce the claims of the Catholics? why insinuate that they had reason not to love the constitution, and that at a moment when they enjoyed almost every thing the constitution could bestow? If the noble lord wised to trace the cause of the discontents in Ireland, he perhaps might find them in
992
this country, and trace them to such speeches as he himself had just made. He might also trace their object to the principles avowed by the leaders of the late rebellion in that country, who avowed themselves to have other objects in view than Catholic emancipation, or parliamentary reform. Against the operation of such principles it was that measures like the present must be adopted; and perhaps the more frequent enforcement of them might have prevented the spreading of disorder and the mischiefs that sprung from them. He admired much the personal character of the noble duke who was lately at the head of the Irish government; but had that noble person allowed the county of Mayo to be proclaimed during the excesses of the Threshers, the contagion would not have spread into the adjoining counties, and many persons would have escaped from the sword of justice, who, on account of that injudicious lemity, had fallen under it. So little was the real state of Ireland understood, and consequently so ill adapted the means employed to govern it!
The Duke of Bedfordfelt himself called upon to answer so serious a charge as that which the noble earl had made against him, and which amounted to nothing less than that the blood of the unfortunate people who lost their lives in consequence of the late disturbances in Ireland must rest upon his head, In reply to this, he begged leave to state, that shortly after his arrival in Ireland, he received an application, not from the county of Mayo, but from the magistrates of the county of Sligo, to proclaim martial law there; but after every attention he could give to the subject, and after taking the best counsel he could procure, he thought so severe measure unnecessary, and therefore resisted the application. He was satisfied in his own conscience, that his intentions were good. He had acted according to the best of his judgment, and he left it to the country to decide upon his conduct.
The Earl of Limerickin explanation, observed, that he had never Said that the blood of the people who had suffered was on the head of the noble Juke. He had only stated his opinion, that if this law had been applied on the first appearance of the disturbances, the extension of the insurrection would have been prevented.
Lord Kingstoncontended, that the magistrates in the county of Sligo were the real promoters of the disturbances. The

993
conduct of many of them was such, as to disgrace the magistracy; and some of them rather deserved to be hanged than to be made magistrates. Indeed, he knew one one of them, who had the halter round his neck, during the rebellion: and if such were the heads how could the people be brought to respect them?
The Earl of Hardwickewas inimical to the practice of proclaiming districts where it could possibly be avoided. With respect to the bill, its necessity had been so forcibly Urged to him by persons possessing a competent knowledge of the state of Ireland, that he could not object to it.
Lord Carletondeprecated the tendency of that line of argument which the noble lord on the opposite bench (lord Holland) had thought proper to pursue, because he, thought that argument calculated to justify the disturbances which had so long agitated Ireland. With regard to the statements of the noble lords who had lately presided over the government of Ireland, he could not admit that they should operate against this bill. For although those noble lords, in the circumstances which arose during their respective administrations, saw no necessity for acting on the law which this bill proposed to re-enact, it did not therefore follow that the bill was unnecessary.
The Earl of Hardwickein explanation, stated, that this bill was much more obnoxious to him than the existing law, because by this bill the responsibility of those who were to execute the law was in a great measure done away in consequence of the introduction of new clauses.
The Earl of Selkirkdeclared, that it was with the utmost reluctance he could give his assent to any such measure as that before the house; but being convinced of its necessity, he could not refuse to vote for the bill. He was convinced of the importance of conciliatory measures in Ireland, and he fully concurred in the opinion that nothing was more rare, than that a general spirit of disaffection should prevail in any country, except through the faults of the government. In Ireland, particularly, it was evident that the prevailing disaffection had proceeded from a long train of mismanagement: but this had been so long continued, and effects had become so inveterate, that it was impossible to remove the evil at once. Conciliatory measures might do much with the help of time, but their effect could only be gradual and pro-
994
gressive. In the mean time, we knew that a violent spirit of disaffection was widely diffused, and against the immediate pressure of this danger it was absolutely necessary to guard. Where the people were affectionately disposed towards their rulers, the slightest exertion of authority might be sufficient to maintain the execution of the law: but if we should attempt to apply the same principles of conduct to a country, where so opposite a spirit prevailed as in Ireland, the most fatal effects might ensue. Experiencing, however, the excessive danger to which we were now exposed from the disaffection of Ireland, it was of the utmost importance not to rest satisfied with the measures of severity, to which we were compelled by the immediate pressure of danger, but to look forward, and take effectual measures for obtaining a radical and fundamental cure of the evil. The objections against the measure of Catholic emancipation he was convinced were groundless, and that the danger apprehended from putting power into the hands of the Catholics was imaginary. We now, indeed, saw the Catholics a formidable political party, closely combined among themselves; but if religious distinctions had never been made a ground of civil disabilities, that combination would never have existed. If civil disabilities were imposed on every man whose name began with a P, we should immediately force the P's to become a party, they would coalesce to obtain relief, and if violently opposed, they too would become violent and dangerous. If the Catholics were placed as to every civil privilege, on the same footing as other subjects, we should soon hear as little of the Catholics as a political party, as we hear of the faction of the P's. The only plausible argument to the contrary was founded on the ambition of the Romish clergy. Undoubtedly, it must be expected that they, like every other body of dissenting clergy, would cast a longing eye on the rich benefices of the established church. But there would be little to fear from the ambition of the Roman Catholic clergy, if the laity did not make a common cause with them. The true way, therefore, to disarm this danger, was to grant to the Roman Catholic laity all their separate objects. If the civil disabilities of the Catholics were repealed, there would be no longer any community of interest between their clergy and their understand the situation of Ireland, let us bring

995
the case home to ourselves; let us suppose that the invasion of the enemy should be successful, that Our estates were to be parcelled out to French generals, that the property of every Englishman were to be abandoned as fair plunder to the French soldiery, that such of our gentry and yeomanry as should survive the ruin of their country, were forced to labour for their bread, beneath the contumelious taunts of a set of insolent foreigners, could any one believe that the people of England would soon be reconciled to their new masters, and would not eagerly grasp at any opportunity of throwing off the yoke? A long course of time might obliterate the memory of those galling circumstances, and, aided by a mild and conciliating policy, might blend the conquerors and the conquered into one people. But, if instead of a wise and conciliating policy, the intruders, giving way to their native insolence, should treat their subjects with contumely, abolish all their favourite institutions, insult their religion, and attempt to force an odious superstition upon them, seize every opportunity of marking contempt for their language and manners, and crown the whole by numerous instances of personal insult and oppression, would it be surprizing, if ages should elapse before the English nation were reconciled to their conquerors? And if such would be the feelings of Englishmen, could we wonder that the proscriptions of queen Elizabeth and James I., of Cromwell and of king William, should still excite indignation in the minds of the Irish? Among these causes of disaffection, religion had acquired an apparent Consequence which did not naturally belong to it, as it had become the badge of national distinction, and the bond of union among men, sympathizing in the same indignant feelings. But religious intolerance was so far from being the main and original cause of Irish disaffection, that, in the native dialect of the Irish, there was not a word to express the distinction of Protestant and Roman Catholic, except the national appellation of an Englishman and an Irishman. Till we were prepared to grant the demands of the Catholics, partial concessions, yielded to importunity, would only serve to keep up a spirit of restlessness, and fan the flame of discontent. The expectations which some have entertained from the measure which was brought forward by the late administration, seemed to be most extravagant. The catholics themselves disclaimed that
996
measure, and yet we had heard noble lords speak as if it were at once to render the Irish a united people. With respect to the general question of Catholic Emancipation, the noble earl expressed his regret that the prevailing prejudices of this country were still so strong, that there was little probability that it could now be carried. These prejudices, however, were evidently on the decline. Notwithstanding all the attempts that had lately been made to raise a cry of No Popery, that cry had had but a very partial success; and when this was compared with the events of the year 1780, it afforded decisive proof of a progress in the public mind. That progress would assuredly go on, and the time might be anticipated, when it would be as little in the power of any minister to resist the measure of Catholic emancipation, as it would now be to carry it. The Roman Catholics might safely trust their cause to the effects of this progress in the public mind: and those could not be considered as their real friends, Who should force on any premature attempt to carry through the measure before circumstances were ripe for it.— The bill was then read a second time.

AMERICAN INDEMNITY BILL
The following is a copy of the Preamble moved by lord Holland on the report of the American Indemnity bill. (see page 806.) "Whereas, by an act of parliament made in the 12th year of his late majesty king Charles II, intitled "An act for the encouraging and increasing of trade and navigation;" It is, among other things, enacted, "That no goods or commodities, whatsoever, of the growth, produce, or manufacture of Asia, Africa, or America, or any part thereof, be imported into England, Ireland, or Wales, Islands of Guernsey and Jersey, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, in any other ship or ships, vessel or vessels whatsoever, but in such as do truly and without fraud belong only to the people of England or to Ireland, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, or of the lands, islands, plantations, or territories, in Asia, Africa, or America, to his majesty belonging, as the proprietors and right owners thereof."—And whereas by an act of parliament made in the l2th year of his late majesty king Charles II. intitled, "A subsidy granted to the king, of Tonnage and Poundage, and other sums of money payable upon merchandize exported and imported," it is declared, that "No rates can be

997
"imposed on merchandize imported or exported by subjects or aliens, but by common consent in parliament."—And whereas in the preamble of an act of parliament made in the reign of their late majesties king William and queen Mary; intitled, "An act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown," it is among other things declared, "That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of parliament, is illegal, and that levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretence of prerogative without grant of parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal." And in pursuance of the same, it is declared and enacted in the said act, "That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration, are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and shall so be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come."—And whereas the navigation and commerce between the people of this kingdom and the people of the united states of America, have, or ought to have, been carried on according to law, and the customs and duties arising from the same, have, or ought to have been regulated and collected, under the authority of sundry acts of parliament made his present majesty's reign; the last of which made in the 47th of his reign, did cease and determine on the first of June last. And whereas, on the 27th of April last, his majesty was advised to prorogue the parliament then sitting and two days thereafter, without any reason or necessity, to dissolve the same by his royal proclamation, before any act had passed for legalizing the commerce and navigation between the people of this kingdom and the people of the united states of America; after the expiration of the said act, or for authorizing the collection of the duties and customs arising there from after the expiration of the same: and whereas, it would have been of material inconvenience to his majesty's government and to the people of
998
this kingdom, if in consequence of the said abrupt, uncalled for, and unprecedented dissolution of parliament, without any provision for the continuance of the said commerce and navigation, or for the collection of the said duties, the said commerce and navigation had been actually interrupted, or the payment of the said duties actually suspended, and therefore in the circumstances to which this kingdom had been reduced by the said abrupt dissolution of parliament, it was expedient to continue the same, though contrary to law and inconsistent with the provisions of sundry acts of parliament here in before recited. And whereas, it is expedient in order to prevent so dangerous a practice from being drawn into example, that, notwithstanding the said violations of law, particularly of the act of Charles II, Commonly called the Navigation Act, of the act made in the 12th year of the same reign, for conferring tonnage and poundage on that monarch, and of the act made in the first of William and Mary, commonly called the Bill of Rights, a bill of indemnity now be passed in favour of all persons, who, since the first of June, have been concerned in the said illicit commerce and navigation between this kingdom and the said united states of America, or in the collection of the said illicit duties and customs arising there from, or who, being bound to prevent such illicit practices, have tolerated or connived at the same."

PROTESTS AGAINST THE AMERICAN INDEMNITY BILL.
The following Protests were entered against the American Indemnity bill:
"Dissentient; 1st, Because it ought to be shewn on behalf of those whom it is proposed to indemnify for a violation of the law, not only that their act was necessary to preserve the public from injury, but that this necessity was not induced by their fault. In the case on which the house has decided, the necessity was created by his majesty's ministers themselves, who advised the dissolution of the last parliament, when the consequence must evidently be, that the trade and interest of the public would suffer material injury, or that the power of the crown must be exerted against law, and in manifest derogation of the common liberty.—2d, Because, if on the one hand, the principle of the constitution requires that the power of dissolution should reside in the crown, it is not less true, on the other, that the power of par-

999
liament over the public purse, and the right of the two houses, exclusively to advise his majesty in the making, repealing, suspending and altering of laws, is the proper constitutional check upon this prerogative. But if it be admitted that a dissolution of parliament is in itself sufficient to justify the continuing beyond the term fixed by parliament, and by the sole authority of the crown, the operation of any legislative provision, and particularly of an act of Supply, the power of the purse, and the legislative functions of both houses, would be virtually transferred to the crown, and all the securities which the constitution has provided for the due administration of his majesty's affairs, and for the property and liberty of the whole nation, would be utterly invalidated and destroyed.—3d, Because at the time of the late dissolution all the measures recommended by government having been adopted, all the supplies granted, and no difference existing between the two houses, or between his majesty and his parliament, it is evident that there was no urgent political and public necessity which could warrant the exposing government to an alternative so serious and important as that which is the subject of the present proceeding."—CARYSFORT for the two first reaons: "And moreover, because the pretences alledged for the dissolution of parliament, viz. the dismissal of the late administration, the discussions which arose upon it, and the causes which led to it were not, in my judgement, sufficient to justify those who advised so unusual an exercise of prerogative, together with a consequent breach of the law and an acknowledged invasion of the rights of the subject.—The notion that either on the bare removal of a ministry, or in consequence of motions purporting to criminate the advisers of the crown, parliament may and ought to be dissolved, has a direct tendency to subvert the freedom of debate, to break the independent spirit of of commons house of parliament, and to render that branch of the legislature the subservient organ of the minister of the day—Nor can any just plea for an extraordinary exercise of prerogative and manifest violation of law be founded on the measures projected by the late administration in favour of Roman Catholics and other dissenters; measures always reconcileable to the true principles of wisdom and justice, and now not only imperiously called by the exigencies of the times,
1000
but absolutely necessary to the safety of the united empire. VASSALL HOLLAND ROSSLYN."
"Dissentient; 1st, Because the amendment to the preamble moved upon the report was rejected by the house.—2d, Because though a bill of Indemnity unquestionably implies that the law has been violated, and though it was admitted in debate, that nothing but necessity can possibly justify the violation of law; yet the frequency and facility with which bills of indemnity have of late years been granted, the sacred nature of the law which has in this instance been transgressed, and the circumstances which gave rise to the necessity, seemed to me to call for some more solemn declaration of the constitutional principles, which by such transgressions of the law are manifestly violated, than a simple recital of the necessity of the violation, and an immediate and unqualified indemnity for it, without reference to the events which produced that necessity, or to the peculiar nature of the illegal measure itself.—3d, Because the principles which have in this instance been violated are so sacred and fundamental in our constitution, that at all seasons and upon all occasions, even if the ground of necessity were incontrovertibly proved, it would become the dignity of the house of lords, and would be consistent with that jealous and independent spirit, which, where the privileges of the subject are concerned, should always characterize a British parliament, scrupulously and anxiously to record, in the instrument of indulgence itself, their sense of those invaluable rights; the infringement of which nothing but an over-ruling necessity had or could have induced them to overlook.—The right by which the subject is exempted from all taxes not granted by common consent of parliament, has at all times been deemed by sound constitutional lawyers, and has frequently been recognized by parliament itself, to be coeval with the frame and constitution of the kingdom, and has repeatedly and solemnly been declared and secured by charters of our princes and acts of our legislature.—By the great charter of our liberties, in the reign of king John, no aid or scutage can be levied on the kingdom without the consent of the common council of the nation. By the statutum de tallagio non concedendo*, in the reign of Edward I. First, no tallage or aid can be levied by the
*34 Edw. I. stat. 4.

1001
king without consent of the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, knights, burgesses, and freemen of the commonalty of this realm; and as in the frequent remonstrances of the parliaments of Edward III.* the jealous attachment of our ancestors to this fundamental maxim of our constitution is recorded, so in the impeachment, condemnation and punishment of the lord Latimer, which took place at the close of that reign † their determination to enforce it is strongly exemplified: and at subsequent and later periods of our history the endeavours of our forefathers were uniformly, but more particularly in the petition of rights in 1627, and in the acts of Charles II.‡ recited in the rejected preamble, directed to the solemn recognition and perpetual security of this inestimable privilege. And finally, in that solemn act of the legislature, commonly called the Bill of Rights II, the levying money without consent of parliament, and the dispensing with laws, both which practices have in this instance occurred, are declared and enacted to be illegal.—It seemed, therefore, to me no light or trivial matter, no ordinary or indifferent proceeding, to indemnify persons for the violation of such fundamental maxims of the constitution, and prudence required a solemn and studious declaration of the great delicacy and importance of the transaction, a precaution which the frequency of such bills, and the repeated, though, perhaps, unpremeditated exertions of such illegal authority of late years, have in my judgement rendered indispensably necessary.
VASSALL HOLLAND."