DOCUMENTS BEARING ON TREATY OF 1183. 217 



130 Sir W. Dolben begged theHouseto advert to the consideration 

 of the important question which he had before stated : whether 

 the King's Ministers were authorized by the prerogative of the 

 Crown, to alienate from the state the American colonies? He 

 averred, that prerogative did not extend so far; it gave no power to 

 alienate territories not acquired by conquest during the war; at 

 least, this was his most serious opinion. Then, if it did not rest in 

 prerogative, he contended that the Act of last session gave Ministers 

 no authority adequate to so important a measure. He wished to have 

 the opinfbn of the gentleman of the gown ; and he called upon them 

 to give the House information on this most important point ..... 

 Mr. Mansfield said, that he did not consider himself qualified to 

 rise and pronounce a hasty opinion; the question proposed by the 

 hon. baronet was indeed of the greatest importance, and it would not 

 be prudent in any man to hazard a light opinion. The prerogative 

 of the Crown was allowed to go great, and indeed undefined lengths, 

 as the circumstances of the state might require that measures should 

 be taken for which there was neither precedent nor authority. In all 

 such instances, however, the House would recollect, that responsibility 

 was placed in Ministers, and they were bound to show, whenever they 

 ventured on any extraordinary extension of the prerogative, that 

 there was absolute necessity for such conduct. This he understood 

 to be the doctrine of the constitution. But with respect to the pres- 

 ent question; whether the King's Ministers were authorised by the 

 Act of last session to alienate for ever the independence of America ? 

 he was free to acknowledge, that he thought the Act gave them suffi- 

 cient powers. It was clearly determined thereby, that it was the 

 sense of Parliament, and Ministers were bound to act up to what thev 

 understood to be the sense of the legislature: and though the Bill 

 was not stated to be, in so many direct words, a Bill for granting in- 

 dependence to America; yet the provisions of the Act amounted 

 exactly to the same thing; and he believed this was the design for 

 which the Bill was introduced. 



******* 



Mr. Chancellor Pitt .... 



It was necessary to look back, notwithstanding all that the hon. 

 gentleman on the other side had said, to the language and the senti- 

 ments of that House on this very subject. Had they forgot UK- resolu- 

 tions of last Session, by which Ministers were bound to recognise 

 the Independence of America ? 



******* 



[The report of the debate ends as follows : ] 



At half past seven in the morning the House divided on the ques 

 tion, That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the 



question : 



Tellers, 



/ Lord Mahon 

 Yeas {Mr. Bankes 



/Lord Maitland 

 \Mr. Byng 

 Ministers were thus in a minority of ----------------------------- 16 



