reasons for such a demand when they had expressly declared those reasons; for, gentlemen would recollect that his right hon. friend had not merely said that ministers, on a close examination of the West-India islands and the military establishment there, had not only found them subjects rather of anxiety than of comfort, but had been convinced that the military establishment for the West-India islands, as it had continued since the conclusion of the peace, was inadequate to that purpose. With regard to any claim of unlimited confidence, there were occasions in which ministers, upon a principle of duty, were under the necessity of calling for the sort of confidence in question; but whenever such occasions presented themselves, it was to be regretted 'sincerely, both for the people who were to grant their confidence in too unlimited and too dangerous a degree, and for those who were obliged to take upon themselves so extensive a responsibility. If, then, it were admitted, that unlimited confidence was absolutely necessary for some particular occasions, it would be found that the same principle which governed single and extraordinary transactions, must in some sort apply even to permanent establishments; and this he took to be precisely the case in the present instance; for what was the ground, and what were the reasons to induce ministers to propose an augmentation of the military establishment, for the better security of our distant possessions, but an express declara. tion, that upon a more accurate examination of the state of our West-India islands, which the late situation of affairs, and the consequences that were likely to have followed made it their duty to go into, they had found that the military establishment for the plantations, as settled in 1783, was not adequate to the purpose of guarding the West-India islands against sudden surprise, or putting them into such a state of defence as should show those who might otherwise be tempted to commence a war with us, that no part of our possessions were left in a vulnerable state? But, though so much was declared, it would be highly improper to go farther into a detail in that House, and to state more minutely the reasons on which such an opinion was formed, any more than it would be wise to point out and proclaim in what particulars the islands were deemed vulnerable, unless strengthened by the increase of the establishment now proposed. To make

the islands sufficiently safe, to set all prospect of capture at defiance, was perhaps impossible; but so far to defend them as to guard against a sudden surprise was practicable, and therefore, undoubtedly the duty of ministers to provide for. With this view it was that the augmentation now asked was desired; and surely the King's servants did not require too much of the confidence of the House, when, having assigned explicitly the reasons for it, they desired the military establishment for the West Indies to be increased in the proportion stated in the estimate; nor was it, as it had been suggested, from any absurd idea of preferring a land to a naval force, or neglecting our marine; it was directly the reverse, since, in fact, the use of our navy would be infinitely diminished, and the effects of our naval operations considerably' crippled and embarrassed unless the measure proposed was adopted. At the same time he begged gentlemen not to be run away with by general declamation, and arguments without application, but to look a little more closely to the nature of the right hon. gentleman's reasoning, and examine whether it applied or not to the case under consideration, before they suffered their attention to be drawn aside, and their understanding misled, so as to lose sight of the true question, which he was as ready as any man to admit was a question of very considerable importance, and as anxious to have it fully and fairly considered.

From what the committee had heard it would be concluded that he had called upon them to adopt a new system, for the protection of the West-India islands: whereas it was no new system; it was not his system: it was the system of the present and all preceding administrations; for the principle had been, and was, the same let it be carried to what extent it might, so long as the practice had prevailed, and should prevail, of voting any estimate of the army for the plantations. The right hon. gentleman had, in settling what he had considered to be the adequate military establishment for the West Indies in 1783, recognized and adopted the system. Preceding administrations had done the same, and all that was now meant was to pursue the same system as to its principle, but with that degree of additional force as should carry the principle into effect, and make it answer the true end for which it had originally been adopted. Gentlemen had, in the course of the debate urged the

He was a little surprised at hearing the right hon. gentleman declare, that the commanders on the different islands were the last persons whose opinions he should wish to know in forming a general and comprehensive plan for the defence of our foreign possessions, because each commander would singly consider his own situation, and ask that degree of force for the defence of the particular island under his command, that was consistent with his ideas of his own responsibility. It was undoubtedly true, that each officer who commanded an island would square his requisition by what he knew of his own situation; but surely it was rather expecting more than even the right hon. gentleman's own intuitive abilities were equal to, that government should be able to form a general comprehensive permanent peace establishment for the protection of our distant possessions by mere instinct, without any previous inquiry of those who had been on the spot, and in command there, what their knowledge and experience induced them to consider as an adequate force. Government, who were to form the general plan for the safety of the whole, had taken the proper means of ascertaining the particular character of each part, and its vulnerable or invulnerable concomitants; and then, from a due regard of the relative circumstances of each, governed by a proper attention to economy, and a reference to a variety of other important considerations, had formed such a plan as was in their judgment consistent with every one of them: and he took that to be the only rational way by which a proper establishment, in every view of it, could be determined. As to the mention made of the fortification system, he well knew the reason for which it had been introduced; but though it had been imagined that the word fortification' would not fail to have its effect, he was sure the good sense of the House would not suffer general declamation to prevail against real argument; nor should the word itself, nor the insinuation, that the increase of the military establishment in the West Indies was to lead to the introduction of an expensive system of fortification on those islands, deter him from fairly and openly avowing, that fortifying the West India islands upon a moderate plan, and with a view to render a small ilitary force an efficient defence, was intended, and was so connected with the plan of our augmented military establish

ment in the West Indies, that it might be considered as a part of it, and indispensable to its being adequate to its object. For fortifying the West India islands, they had not only the opinion of a Board of English General Officers, but that of the most eminent French engineers, since every one of the French West India islands was fortified; and so convinced were the French of the propriety of securing their islands by fortifications, that they began fortifying those islands they took from us last war, as soon as they were in their hands; and when by the treaty of peace they were restored to us, the works they had begun remained upon them.

Mr Fox answered, that what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman confirmed him more than ever in his opinion, that it was utterly impossible for the Committee to vote the augmentation proposed without farther and more satisfactory explanation. The right hon. gentleman had told them in a fair and candid way, that a system of fortification was intended to be adopted in the West Indies. How then was it possible for them to vote at all in the present case, without their being previously made acquainted with the extent to which that system was proposed to be carried, and the amount of the expense it would cost the public? When he said this, he did not mean the mere sum to be voted on account annually, but the total amount at which the completion of the proposed new system was estimated. The right hon. gentleman's argument afforded a strong additional reason for there being in that House a commander-in-chief to explain to them, that such a system of insular defence as that proposed was necessary.

Mr. Pitt replied, that it was impossible for him to say what the whole of the intended fortifications would cost; but that an increased military establishment would be altogether useless, unless some fortifications were erected to render a small military force an efficient defence of the islands. He believed the intended plan would cost to 180,000l. or 200,000l.

Mr. Drake complimented the minister on the late exertions of Government, and said, that notwithstanding the jealousy which it was natural and proper for gentlemen to entertain of the military, he believed the gentlemen of the army were all good men, ready to come forward pari passu in the hour of danger with the rest of the subjects, and as well inclined to the constitution as the best of them.

Sir George Howard approved of the idea of augmenting the military establishment in the West Indies, and fortifying those islands. He said that we had the authority of the French for the utility of the practice, and particularly instanced the Marquis de Bouille, who had commanded with such ability in the West-Indies, and who, when he was in England, after remarking upon the absurdity of our not adopting the practice, said, that the French had a proverb in use grounded on our not fortifying, which was, pied à terre, l'isle pris. Sir James Johnstone said, that the fortifications necessary for the West-India islands would not cost the public any thing, for that the residents would pay the expense themselves. He instanced the island of Grenada, where 30,000l. had been already expended, and said that the inhabitants of all the other islands knew it was their interest to fortify, and would gladly pay for it.

The question was then put upon the first resolution, which was carried without a division; but, on the resolution for granting 12,000 instead of 9000 men for the plantation service, the Committee divided: Yeas, 242; Noes, 80.

Queenborough Petition respecting Abuses in Elections for that Borough.] December 10. Alderman Sawbridge presented a petition from the electors of Queenborough, setting forth, that for thirty years past, works by the Board of Ordnance had been carried on there without any kind of advantage to the public, but for the sole purpose of creating an unconstitutional influence in the borough at elections for members to serve in Parliament. The Speaker having expressed some doubts as to the propriety of the petition, seeing that it appeared to be rather in the nature of a complaint, the question that it be brought up was negatived, on a division, by 95 to 32.

Dec. 12. Alderman Sawbridge rose and observed, that he had a petition to present on a similar subject to that one which he had offered on Monday, but which the House had, without assigning any reason, refused to receive. The present petition alleged that the Board of Ordnance carried on a branch of the service of their department at Queenborough, at a much greater expense than was necessary, merely for the purpose of corruptly influencing the electors of that borough,

and by that means procuring the return in favour of a person belonging to the Ordnance, a circumstance equally improvident in respect to a lavish and unnecessary expenditure of the public money, and unconstitutional, as tending to the destruction of the independence of the borough, and after stating that this practice had obtained for thirty years, the petitioners (who are four freemen of Queenborough) pray the House to institute an inquiry into the facts alleged, and provide such redress as the wisdom of the House may deem proper; engaging on their parts to prove their allegations at the bar of the House. Having heard it whispered, that he had some interest of his own to serve by getting the redress for which he prayed, he must beg leave to assure the House, that there was not the smallest grounds for such an insinuation. He had, indeed, a house near Qeenborough, but he never was in the town in his life, nor did he know more than two of the electors, one the gentleman who put the present petition into his hands, the other, a man of substance who lived close to Queenborough, but who had employment in the Customs. The Alderman moved for leave to bring up the petition.

Mr. Dundas said, that if the petition had concerned the patrimonial rights of the petitioners, he should have had no objection to its being received; but he contended, that it was in direct contradiction to the established rules of the House to receive from private individuals petitions on public questions which regarded the rights and privileges of parliament. It was no doubt competent to any member to bring forward any discussion of that nature; but it was surely against every precedent to receive the petition in its present shape; because it referred to no particular election, but merely stated in general, that abuses had prevailed in influencing the electors of Queenborough. If the House were to listen to such vague assertions, there would be no end to petitions of that nature. He had not the least objection to the discussion of the subject; but he wished it should originate from some member of the House, and not in consequence of the petition of a few individuals.

Mr. Marsham desired that that part of the Bill of Rights which defined the right of petitioning might be read. The clerk read that clause of it which declared that the subject had a right to petition the crown.

Mr. Marsham then observed, that he had every reason to believe that a very improper influence had long prevailed in the borough, by a profuse expenditure of the public money through the medium of the Board of Ordnance, to the great injury of some of his constituents. The right hon. gentleman had argued, that the complaint ought to have been made by a member of that House, and that it was contrary to form to admit it in the shape of a private petition. He certainly differed from him in this point, and for a very good reason -many abuses of a public nature might subsist without the knowledge of a member of parliament; abuses which he might not be able to substantiate, by proving the facts which the petitioners now offered to do. The abuses mentioned in the petition he was convinced did exist, but he himself could not prove that they actually did. He thought the subject demanded a parliamentary investigation, and if the petition was rejected, he himself would, after the recess, again call the attention of the House to the subject.

Mr. Fox thought it incumbent on the right hon. gentleman rather to state a precedent against the receiving the petition, than to call for precedents in support of the practice; not but as there were many had precedents on the books, possibly one might be found in favour of his argument. There could not, however, be a worse precedent made, than that of refusing to receive the present petition, which was not a petition conveying a general charge, but a petition from private electors, complaining that their rights, as electors, were injured, and the independence of the borough, for a representative of which they were legally entitled to vote, destroyed, in consequence of the corrupt influence of the Board of Ordnance. He must and would contend, that it was such a petition as the House ought to receive, being, to all intents and purposes, a petition complaining of a specific grievance. With regard to the argument of the right hon. gentleman, what did it amount to? If that House could only act upon petitions, alleging one particular grievance, and that, perhaps, of an insignificant nature, affecting one or two parties only, and not upon petitions stating great and broad grievances affecting many, what was it but a declaration that the House could apply redress in cases of small grievances only, and not in those where the grievance was crying and

enormous? Would any man who valued the privileges of that House, maintain so depreciating an argument? For his part, he did not admire the manner in which the petition had been treated from its first mention. No man could question the subject's right to present petitions to their representatives; because it was idle to suppose, that when a stipulation had been made by the Bill of Rights, that the subjects should, in all cases, have a right to petition the Crown, they had not an equal right to petition the House of Commons, their own immediate representatives. He knew but of three objections to the receiving petitions; one, when the petition stated a case in which that House, from the nature of the thing, had it not in its power to apply any redress; another, when the subject was of so insignificant and trivial a nature, that it did not merit any attention; and a third, where the petition was drawn up in disrespectful and insulting terms. Within neither of these descriptions would it be contended that the present petition came: it stated a great and a serious grievance; it prayed a redress which the House had in its power to grant, and which it was peculiarly their province to inquire into; and lastly, it was drawn up in terms perfectly decent and perfectly respectful. Mr. Fox said, he lamented, that the House should ever refuse to receive a petition, without a single reason having been assigned for rejecting it. They had unfortunately done so in the present case on Monday last. What was the inference? When a petition was presented to the House of Commons, alleging a grievance affecting the freedom and independence of an election, the House refused to receive the petition. Was that a character the House ought to draw upon itself? Undoubtedly it was not; nor would the House, he was sure, easily endure it. With regard to the argument that the subject matter of the petition might as well be urged by a member in his place, so might the subject matter of any one petition that ever had been presented. But could it be stated with equal convenience and equal effect? Most certainly it could not. In the present case, the petitioners undertook, at the risk of the censure of the House, to make good the allegations of the petition at the bar. Was it equally in the power of a member to substantiate facts with which he was not at all acquainted? Let that House remember if the doctrine of