good
offices, and the confirmation of friendship and benevolence.

The advocate CAMPBELL next spoke, in substance as follows:--Sir, whence
the impropriety of raising objections to any measures that are proposed
is imagined to arise I am unable to discover, having hitherto admitted
as an incontrovertible opinion, that it is the duty of every member of
this assembly to deliver, without reserve, his sentiments upon any
question which is brought before him, and to approve or censure,
according to his conviction.

If it be his duty, sir, to condemn what he thinks dangerous or
inconvenient, it seems by no means contrary to his duty, to show the
reason of his censure, or to lay before the house those objections which
he cannot surmount by his own reflection. It certainly is not necessary
to admit implicitly all that is asserted; and to deny, or disapprove
without reason, can he no proof of duty, or of wisdom; and how shall it
be known, that he who produces no objections, acts from any other
motives, than private malevolence, discontent, or caprice?

Nor is it, sir, to be imputed as a just reason for censure to those who
have opposed the motion, that no other measures have been offered by
them to the consideration of the committee. It is necessary to demolish
a useless or shattered edifice, before a firm and habitable building can
be erected in its place: the first step to the amendment of a law is to
show its defects; for why should any alteration be made where no
inconveniency is discovered?

To the chief objection that was offered, no answer has yet been made,
nor has the assembly been informed how the innkeeper shall be able to
discover when he has paid the tax which this law lays upon him. This is,
indeed, a tax of a very particular kind, a tax without limits, and to be
levied at the discretion of him for whose benefit it is paid. Soldiers
quartered upon these terms, are more properly raising contributions in
an enemy's country, than receiving wages in their own.

Is it intended, by this motion, that the innkeepers shall judge what
ought to be allowed the soldier for his money? I do not see, then, that
any alteration is proposed in the present condition of our army; for who
has ever refused to sell them food for their money at the common price,
or what necessity is there for a law to enforce a practice equally to
the advantage of all parties? If it be proposed that the soldier shall
judge for himself, that he shall se