240 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1794. 



cured in both cases, uitliout ap- 

 pealing to parliament. In 1782, 

 the great towns Mere called upon 

 by letter, officially directed to 

 them, to furnish a certain number 

 of men, stating to them what share 

 of the expence government would 

 bear. Was not this a clear inti- 

 mation that the othir share must be 

 defrayed by them ? What were . 

 the subscriptions now proposed, but 

 precisely a repetition of that mea- 

 sure ? 



The discussion of the present 

 question was greatly censured by 

 the Lord Chancellor, as too much 

 involved in theory. Facts were 

 the best principles to consult. In 

 the year 1745, twelve noblemen 

 offered each to raise a regiment at 

 his own expence : - their otiers were 

 accepted, and provision was made 

 by p:n-liament for tlie subsistcncg of 

 tiiose levies, notwithstanding the 

 cavils raised against ministers upon 

 tliis occasion. The business in agi- 

 tation ought, in his opiu'on, to be 

 maturely weighed, before liberty 

 was taken to censure it. The let- 

 ters to the lieutenants laid before 

 them a scheme, which they were, 

 in conjunction with others, to exa- 

 mine, in order to settle the mcthoJ 

 of carrying it into execution, pre- 

 viously to its introduction to piirlia- 

 mcnt. Such a lino of proceeding 

 ftould not be illegal, as all pecuni- 

 ary negociations with ministers were 

 transacted in the same manner, be- 

 ;.Core they were brought into parlia- 

 raent for its approbation or dissent. 

 The discussion ended by a njajority 

 ef ?(} against the motion. 



Mr. Pitt, conformably to the 

 noliee he had given, moved, on the 

 ist of April, for a committee on 

 the bill for the encoutagemcnl of 

 those wiio should voluntarily tenrol 



themselves for the general defence 

 of the kingdom, during the war. 



Hereon Mr. Francis enquired, 

 •whether, in case the bill should 

 pass, it were to be understood that 

 subscriptions for raising troops 

 would be considered as thereby 

 sanctioned by parliament ? Prece- 

 dents in this matter ought not to be 

 viewed as principles ; the conduct 

 of persons in office was no rule to 

 those who siK;ceeded to them, any 

 more than the measures sanctioned 

 hy our parliament could bind ano- 

 tlier to give them the same appro- 

 bation. The legislature ought to 

 direct its principal attention much 

 moretowhatshouldbe.than to what 

 had been done. Taking the mea- 

 sure proposed in this point of view, 

 he judged it illegal and dangerous. 



AVhen the bill came to a third 

 reading,it was again firmly opposed 

 by Mr. Francis, as contradictory to 

 Uie billof righ's, which., in the most 

 express and positive terms, prohi- 

 bited the levying of money without 

 the concurrence of parliament. 



He was followed by Lord Wy- 

 comb, who contended that the plan 

 contained in the letter of 1/^2, 

 was entirely dissimilar to that of the 

 present subscriptions: the former 

 went to arm the people, the latter 

 to arm the crown ; the former ap- 

 pealed to the opinion and inclina- 

 tions of the people ; the lattef was 

 intended to controul them. Ac- 

 cording to the plan of 1/82, the 

 officers were to be appointed by the 

 lieutenantsof the countries; accord- 

 ing to the present, by the crown ; 

 by the former, those officers were 

 to be men of property in that part 

 of the county in which they wefe 

 to command ; and the men were 

 not to be called out but in case ot 

 actual danger ; but by the present 



no 



