23S ANNUAL REGISTER, 1794. 



stitutional authorities. He cited 

 the letfers written by the Manjuis 

 of Lansdowne, then Lord Shel- 

 bourne, while in office, to the 

 Lieutenants of counties, in 1782, 

 as a case prccisf ly similar to the 

 present ; and mentiffned the raising 

 of companies by private subjects, 

 at their own expence on other oc- 

 casions, in much the same hjrht. 



Mr. Fox, in answer to this, af* 

 firmed, ihat in that letter no rr.oney 

 nor subscription had been solicited, 

 nor any received. The prece- 

 dnt whi-h the ministry were en- 

 deavouring to establish, amounted 

 in reality to an order frcm the King 

 to the pf'ojile, unconstitutjoii.il in 

 a British monarch, as beincj in- 

 consistent with tho freedom of 



'a British subjtct. It would cer- 

 taiuly tend to keep alive those jea- 

 lousies of' tiie executive power 



"which had of late txcited so power- 

 ful and extensive a spirit of demo- 

 cracy J nor was tlic measure de- 

 serving of the pains taken to carry 

 it. Three hundred tliousand poimds 

 was the utm«st it would produce. 

 Was the public, for so paltry a 

 consideratiofn, to be exposed to 

 party feuds and disturbances ? 



The sentiments expr>i5sed by Mr. 

 Wyndham, on this subject, were 



• that the subscriptions recommend- 

 ed were 'essentially different from 

 the benevolences and compr.lsory 

 loans formerly used, and justly re- 

 probated. If the letter in 1782 

 did not specify subscriptions, still 

 its purport could be no other, as 

 without money no arms nor ac- 

 coutrements could have been pro- 

 vided for the menjnor pay -to main- 



•'tain them. He strongly vitrdic Acd 

 himself from the accusation of in 

 consistency, so frequently all'gVd 

 agSinst hitn. He did not, he said, 

 covet the praise of coiisistencj' by 



remaining in error ; and nv«uW iU 

 ways be governed by his conviction 

 of what was right, however this 

 might make him appear to have 

 changed his opinion. He con- 

 cluded, by saying that the oppo- 

 sition of the present day resembled 

 that of tlie year 1745 ; which, to 

 favour the cause of the Pretender, 

 declared the country was in no 

 danger. ' 



I'hese assertions, made use of on 

 4he part of Mr. Wyndham, dtew an 

 animated reply from Mr. vSheridan, 

 who recalled his remembrance to 

 the vehemence with which he used 

 to inveigh against the piesent minis* I 

 ter ; and spoke with great severity 

 of his dereliction of the minority. 

 There were, said Mr. Sheridan, 

 some fundamental principles, which 

 no man could be justitied in for- 

 saking. To grant no supplies to 

 the crown, but through parliament, 

 was the essential part of the coi'Sti- 

 tution. To relinquish this privi- 

 lege, was to empower the crown 

 at once to corrupt parliament, and 

 subvert Kbcrt)-. So' far, however, 

 was opposition from iinpeding the 

 ministerial plaire of defence, that 

 it was ready to legaiize the sub* 

 scriptions they had recommended, 

 provided they were not drawn intrt 

 a precedent. The debate con- 

 cluiled with ri majority of 170 fot 

 the pfe^'ious question. 



The lawtulness of the sub';crip- 

 tions was warmly debated in tlie 

 House of Lords, on the 28th of 

 March, and suppoiied, as well as 

 attack,-d, by much the snme argu* 

 mentj is in the House of Commons^ 



] d Lauderdale observed, that 

 parliament had always been &k- 

 tremely attentive in watching and 

 preventing the success of attempts 

 of this nature, which liad often 

 been made by the crov. n, and re- 

 sisted 



