tea, while we take off the duties upon painters colours, paper and glafs, we keep up the whole eftablishment of the custom-houfes in America, with their long hydraheaded trains of dependants, and yet cut off the very channels through which their voracious appetites are to be glutted. In fact, the tea duty will by no means anfwer the charge of collecting it, and the deficiencies muft naturally be made up out of the coffers of this country, fo that this wife measure of a partial repeal is to plunder ourselves, while it oppreffes our fellow-fubjects, and all for the mere purpose of preferva paltry preamble, which is utterly ufelefs and unneceffary.

That Parliament had plighted its faith to the Eaft India company, to remove the duty of 25 per cent. from teas, in order that the company might be enabled to fell them upon terms equally low with the Dutch, whofe moderation in price conftantly obtained a preference at every market. That the 25 per cent. was indeed taken off accordingly, but what was done with one hand was undone by the other; a fresh duty was laid on the commodity, and laid in fuch a manner, that it muft operate as an abfolute prohibition to the fale of their teas through every part of the extenfive continent of English America, where they were before in general eftima tion. That as a proof of this affertion, the teas fent to America in the year 1768, amounted to no lefs than 132000l. whereas in 1769, they amounted to no more than 44000l. and probably this year, they will not exceed a quarter of that fum, as the proceedings here are hourly becoming more and more repugnant to the minds of

the colonies, and as agreements have been lately entered into for the abfolute difufe of that article. In juftice therefore to the Eaft India company, who have fo confiderable a stake in the national welfare, and pay fo liberally to the fupport of government, the promise made to them ought to be difcharged with the most punctual fidelity that a difcontinuance of the 25 per cent. on their teas was not a difcharge of that promife; it was only to be discharged by enabling them to fell upon terms as reafonable as the Dutch.

It was added, that as it feemed probable that a rupture between England and her old enemies, was at no great diftance, it would be acting wifely in adminiftration, to reconcile our domeftic divifions, and to regain the confidence of our colonies, before fuch an event took place. That at the fame time that the act in queftion was diametrically repugnant to all the principles of commerce, there was not the fmalleft plea of utility to be urged in its defence; that even upon the principle of a fpendthrift, if immediate profit was only to be confidered, and all other confequences laid by, it had not that fordid recommendation; its whole produce, in its utmoft extent, not exceeding 16000l. a year, which was no more than fufficient to bear the expences that attended it. Let us then difmifs this pitiful preamble tax, and make the repeal total, unless the minifters would convince us, that a provifion for their new cuftom-houfe inftruments beyond the Atlantic, is the only motive for this fhameless profufion of the public treafure.

Such were some of the arguments

upon

upon this interefting queftion; and it was remarkable upon this occafion, that several gentlemen in office opposed the motion, even as it originally food. The reafons given for this conduct were chiefly thefe; of confiftency on the part of parliament, the general obftinacy of the Americans, and the violences committed in different parts of that continent, particularly at Bofton. The queftion for the amendment being put, it was rejected by a confiderable majority, the numbers being 204 to 142; the original motion was afterwards carried without a divifion.

. In the midst of this season of heat and difcuffion, which in a greater or leffer degree was extended to every part of the kingdom, a bill of the greatest benefit to the conflitution and importance to the March 7. nation, was brought into the House of Commons, by a leading member of the oppofition; and though chiefly conducted by thofe adverfe to adminiftration, yet was alfo received by many who had always fupported that fyftem, and therefore happily paffed into a law. This bill was entitled, An Act for regulating the Proceedings of the House of Commons, on controverted elections, and is generally known by the name of the Grenville Bill, from the late Mr. George Grenville, who brought it into the house. The minifter oppofed this bill, with fome other perfons, who used to be very prevalent; in this inftance, however, they were unfuccessful.

It will be proper to lay before our readers, a few of the caufes that were affigned for the bringing in, or that made it neceffary to pafs fuch a bill, by which they will be

the better enabled to judge of its utility.

Formerly, it was alledged that the trials of contefted elections had been always by a felect committee, chiefly compofed of the moft learned and experienced of the house ; and whilft this custom continued, the litigant parties, and the nation at large, were generally well fatisfied with the decisions; but by degrees the committees of elections having been enlarged, and all who came having voices, a fhameful partiality prevailed, fo that for a remedy, during the time that Mr. Onflow was fpeaker, the admirable order with which he conducted bufinefs, induced fuch as wifhed for a candid trial, to be heard at the bar of the house.

This method of determining contested elections, was, however, found to be very defective, and faulty in numberless inftances, which was principally owing to the extraordinary number of the Judges, there not being fo numerous a ju dicature in the world; and these not being bound by any tie, either by the giving of their oath, or their honour, to prevent any fecret bias from operating on them, were led by friendship or party connection, contrary to the rules of equity and right, and to the making of the moft partial decifions. Such an unlimited difcretionary power muft always be fubject to numberlefs abufcs; but in this particular inftance, the greatnefs of the number gave a fanction to partiality and injuftice; for they not only kept one another in countenance, but the crime was fuppofed to be divided into fo many fhares, that while they were encouraged by the force of example to oppofe the

fenfe

By this means, the fuffrages of the people were wantonly fported with, and their most important and facred birth-right, that of chufing their representatives, violated with impunity, and without a poffibility of redrefs. At the fame time, the method of trying these questions at the bar, made them an infuperable obftruction to all other public bufinefs; and especially in the first feffion of a new parliament, they took up fo much time, that it was almost a matter of furprize how the house could attend to any thing elfe. Nor could any thing be more irksome to the members in general, than this mode of decifion in election matters, as they were continually teized by applications from the contending parties for their attendance; and though their attendance was all that was avowedly required, the application tacitly included a requifition of their vote and intereft; fo that whatever part they took, even though they abfented themselves and gave no opinion, which was generally done when there was no immediate connexion, ftill it was a fource of diflike, if not of enmity: befides, though custom and example had given a fanction to the acting contrary to conviction, and it was become fo general, that there was frequently a kind of real neceffity for going along with a particular party or connexion in opinion, the mind muft, notwithstanding, frequently revolt at it, and regret that there

was any occafion for fuch a necef fity. To all which may be added, that as it is always fuppofed that a minifter cannot fubfift in this country without a majority to fupport him in parliament, fo in every cafe of contefted election (and fuch cafes might be multiplied in any degree that was thought proper) the reprefentation muft finally come into his hands and inftead of the members being returned by the free voice of the people, they would be eventually appointed by adminiftration.

The plan of this bill was excellent, and was laid down upon the conftitutional idea of trials by jury. Upon a petition being prefented; and a day appointed to hear the merits, and for the petitioners, witneffes, and council to attend, the house on that day is to be count-. ed; and if one hundred members are not prefent, it is to adjourn until fo many are affembled, at which time the names of the members in the house are to be put into fix boxes or glaffes, to be drawn alternately, and read by the speaker, till forty-nine are drawn; the fitting members and petitioners may allo nominate one each. Lifts of the forty-nine are then to be given to the fitting member, the petitioners, their council, agents, &c. who, with the clerk, are to withdraw, and to ftrike off one alternately, beginning on the part of the petitioners, till the number be reduced to thirteen; who, with the two nominees, are to be fworn a select committee, to determine thé matter in difpute. This felect committee is impowered to fend for perfons, papers, and records; to examine witneffes, and to determine finally: and the house there

upon is to confirm or alter the return, or iffue a new writ for a new election.

An event which took place a few days after, as it renewed all the heat and debate within doors, so it added new force to the ill humour and difcontent without, and became a general subject of difcuffion throughout the kingdom. This was the addrefs, remonftrance, and petition of the livery and corporation of the city of London, in common hall affembled, to the King; praying for the diffolution of parliament, and the removal of evil minifters. A piece as remarkable for the freedom and boldness of the fentiments which it conveyed, as for the extraordinary terms in which they were expreffed; and which had like, in its confequences, to have been productive of the most violent, and perhaps dangerous measures.

Among other paffages in this remonstrance, it was afferted, that the only judge removeable at the pleasure of the crown, had been difmiffed from his high office, for defending in parliament the laws and the conftitution. That under the fame fecret and malign influence, which through each fucceffive adminiftration had defeated every good, and fuggefted every bad intention, the majority of the H of Cs, had deprived the people of their deareft rights. That the decision on the Middlefex election, was a deed more ruinous in its confequences, than the levying of hip-money by Charles the First, or the difpenfing power affumed by James the Second. A deed, which muft vitiate all the proceedings of this Pt; for the acts of the legislature itfelf can no be valid without a legal

more

H- of C- s, than without a legal Prince upon the throne. That reprefentatives of the people are effential to the making of laws; and there is a time, when it is morally demonftrable that men ceafe to be reprefentatives. That time is now arrived, the prefent H of Cs do not reprefent the people.

It was faid, in the answer, which has been deemed by fome to have been uncommonly harsh, that the contents of the remonftrance could not but be confidered, as difrefpectful to Majefty, injurious to the parliament, and irreconcileable to the principles of the conftitution. The remonftrance, was delivered by the Lord Mayor, who was attended by the fheriffs and other city officers in their formalities, together with a few of the aldermen, and a great body of the common, council; the cavalcade of coaches being attended by a prodigious concourfe of people to St. James's, whofe fhouts of approbation nearly fhook the adjoining ftreets; a circumstance that did not leffen the indignation and animofity of thofe, who being thoroughly fatisfied with the measures of government themselves, confi. dered the whole proceeding, as the effect of faction, riot, and licentioufnefs..

A motion was made on the following day, for an address, that a copy of the remonftrance, as well as of March 15. his Majesty's anfwer, fhould be laid before the houfe. This motion was vigorously oppofed. The debate was long and wiolent, and ftrong threats were made ufe of on one fide, and as daringly urged to the execution by the other. Upon this occafion, the late Mr.

Beckford,

Beckford, who was then lord mayor, avowed the part which he had taken in the remonftrance, which he not only juftified, but feemed to glory in. He faid, it was he, who put the question in the court of common council, and common hall, and, though he had authority to put a negative upon the court of aldermen, in that cafe he would not do it: He was the great criminal, he faid, and flood forth from the reft; the P. -t was charged with corruption, the remonstrance faid fo, the fact was now to be proved, and he was ready to abide the iffue. He was feconded by the fheriffs, and one of the city members, who juftified the remonftrance, and acknowledged the fhare they had in it; faid, that though they were the perfons most immediately interested in any cenfure that might be paffed upon it, they did not want to shelter themfelves in concealment; they were ready and willing to enter into the merits of the remonftrance, either then, or at any other time; and were no lefs fatisfied with regard to the juftice, than the expediency of the measure.

Many other gentlemen, who oppofed the motion, went upon different ground, and feveral of the moft moderate in oppofition, who thought the principles right upon which the remonftrance was founded, highly disapproved of the terms in which it was conveyed. It was faid, that the Houfe of Commons, being accused in the remonftrance, the motion tended to put the criminal in the place of the judge. That it was irregular to call for the remonftrance, without calling for the petitions, the neglect of which gave rife to it. That the house was

not competent in the cafe, because it had no power but what it derived from its conflituents.

The injuftice of cenfuring any part of the people, for the exercife of a right, in which they are warranted by the conftitution; which is fupported by the dictates of reafon, the authority of precedents, and the pofitive declaration of our laws, was largely entered upon. Our fole confideration, is fimply, whether the people have or have not a right to petition; whether they are, or are not legally authorized to lay their grievances before the throne, where-ever they imagine themfelves oppreffed; and whether all profecutions at law, for the exercise of this privilege, is not exprefsly prohibited, in that palladium of public liberty, the Bill of Rights."

Among the many bleffings arifing to the kingdom from the revolution, the privilege of complaining to the throne, afferted, not acquired at that time, without the danger of punishment, is one of the nobleft; the people in this refpect are the fole judges of the neceflity for petitioning.It is as much a part of their right, as it is a part of the royal prerogative, to affemble Parliaments, or to exercise any other power warranted by the conftitution. As this is truly the cafe, with what fhadow of propriety, with what colour of reafon, do we arrogate a liberty of examining their proceedings? with what countenance do we fly in the face of the laws, and con fidently affert that they shall be punifhed, for what the laws peremptorily declare, that they fhall not even undergo a prosecution? Even admitting, on the prefent queftion, that the people have been mistaken,