HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
reason why he should not claim the 
same power (as I dare say he will, if 
he'succeeds in this) over the whole 
of our domestic concerns.* I am sure 
the reason he gives for the one, will 
just as well apply to the other. He 
says, that parliament could not cal- 
- culate so well as he could upon the 
necessity, and upon the amount. 
That may be said as correctly of our 
domestic as of foreign affairs. Un- 
til this instance occurred, the minis- 
ter thought it decent to apply to 
parliament, and to give you an esti- 
mate of what you are to provide 
for ; but now he tells you that he 
did not think it necessary to consult 
you, because you are not judges of 
the extent of it. Did he consult 
you on the principle of it? He cer- 
tainly did not. He suffered the last 
parliament to be dissolved ; he suffer- 
ed you all to meet your constituents 
with an assurance (I do not say his 
positive and declared assurance, but 
by his silence he gave you an im- 
plied assurance) that no money was 
to be advanced to the emperor in 
the interval of this dissolution. On 
the  twenty-seventh of December 
"you met. Did he give you any inti- 
mation of his having advanced this 
money before you were called toge- 
ther? Did he give you,any intima- 
tion of it before this very night, 
when he comes before you with his 
fresh burthens on the people? Not 
a word! for.this conduct, I say, he 
ought to be impeached. He has 
had it in his power to consult you 
on this subject long ago, as it was - 
his duty. He has neglected to 
~ do so, by which he has manitcsted 
a determination to dispose of the 
money of the people of this coun- 
[13s 
try, without consulting their repre- 
sentatives. This is aggravated by 
his not: calling parliament together 
sooner. If he had advanced the 
money before you met, why did he 
not tell you so’: what reason can be 
assigned for this? In the name of . 
God, what can be said but that the 
minister thinks his judgement better 
than the judgements of the repre< 
sentatives of the people of Great 
Britain? He has said much upon 
the time on which this money was 
advanced. If he had any intention 
of advancing this money before the 
dissolution, why did he not state 
that intention to the last parliament ? 
Or, if he found out the necessity of 
it since the dissolution, might he not 
have said so to the present parlia- 
ment long ago? But he has acted 
merely on his own authority, for 
the purpose of establishing the prin- 
ciple that ministers are better judges 
of the manner in which the public 
money is to be applied, than the re- 
presentatives of the people. The 
minister says, that we should feel the 
utmost confidence in lending our 
money to the emperor, because we 
have seen in the emperor those he- 
roic qualities which usually. ac- 
company good faith. Now, sup-= 
posing heroism to be a good criteri« 
on of good faith in pecuniary, con- 
cerns, I should like to try the effect 
of this mode of reasonmg. Sup- 
pose, for a moment, that we were 
m a state of neutrality with regard 
to the French republic, and it was 
proposed that we should lend money 
to the French, would the minister, 
say we should lend them money ? 
Certainly he would not: and yet, 
if good faith in pecuniary ene 
* This prediction may, perhaps, be considcred, by some, as in some measure ful- 
filled, by the Income-Tax. 
(K 4] 
gagements 
