resolution of 1685, that impeachments begun in one parliament might be profecuted in another. And this appears to have been at all times the prevailing opinion of the WHIGS. Upon a general review of these facts and precedents, the fpeaker gave it as his deliberate and decided judgment, that the impeachment was still legally pending; and that the refolution of 1685, paffed, as there was reafon to believe, by the corrupt influence of the court, and in defiance of a folemn prior decifion of both houses, and which in no instance fince the revolution had been formally and avowedly acted upon, was wholly invalid and nugatory."

In this opinion Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and the most eminent parliamentary authorities on both fides concurred. The motion of Mr. Erskine for a fearch into precedents was negatived by a majority of 143 to 30 voices; and the original motion of Mr. Burke triumphantly carried without a divifion.

After a short interval, Mr. Burke made a third motion, "that the managers be instructed to proceed to no other parts of the impeachment, excepting such as relate to contracts, penfions, and allowances;" which was carried with trivial opposition.

By the resolution of the 23d of December 1790, the lords found themselves reduced to a dilemma not very pleasant. On a message from the commons, that they were ready to proceed in their evidence, a committee was appointed by their lordships to search into precedents, which occafioned a suspension of the business till nearly the conclufion of the session. At length the report beingmade, lord Portchefter moved, May 16, " that their lordships now proceed in the trial." This was opposed by the lord chancellor, who recommended the appointment of a fecond committee to fearch for more precedents, and defended by lord Loughborough, now the oracle of whiggifm in the house, in a very able speech, in the course of which

which he warned their lordships "not to act uncautioufly with regard to the popular part of the constitution. Let them not deny that the people were any thing, left they compelled them to think they were every thing. In com

menting upon the precedents before the house, he pointed out the fallacies of fir GEORGE JEFFRIES and other COURT SYCOPHANTS, and rested his arguments on the authority of the great constitutional lawyers Hale, Holt, and Foster. His lordship faid, he had it in charge from the lord prefident, lord Camden, who was prevented from personal attendance, to state that nobleman's opinion as perfectly coincident with his own: and the lord prefident had left with him an opinion of the famous Selden, that the new parliament, convened in confequence of the Duke of Buckingham's impeachment 1628, were authorized to have called upon their lordships for judgment against the duke." The abatement of the impeachment was on the other hand maintained by lord Kenyon, lord Abingdon, &c. but on the division, the motion of lord Portchester was carried by a great and decisive majority. And their lordships, with the resolution of 1685 still standing in their journals, acquainted the house of commons by message, that they were now ready to proceed in the trial. But very little progress was made in it during the short remainder of the feffion.

Soon afrer the recess of parliament (February 21, 1791), Mr. Mitford, a lawyer of eminence in the house, moved, with the previous fanction and approbation of government, for a bill to relieve the English catholics from the legal penalties still existing and in force against them. The proposed act of toleration was however confined to such of the catholics as should subscribe a certain declaration or proteft against the assumed authority of the pope, &c. drawn up in terms to which it could fcarcely be expected that the majority of catholics could confcientiously affent.

Mr.

1

Mr. Fox rose to object to the bill, not for what it did, but for what it did not contain. He entreated that the bill might be made general. "Let the statute book, faid this great statefman and advocate of toleration, be revised, and strike out all those laws which attach penalties to mere opinions." And Mr. Burke joined in reprobating the abfurdity and iniquity of those statutes which condemn every man who worships God in his own way, as guilty of treafon against the state. Mr. Pitt commended these sentiments, but thought it not prudent to act upon them; and the bill passed in its present form : in consequence of which a most invidious and mischievous line of distinction was drawn between the protesting and non-protesting catholics, neither of whom were chargeable with, or suspected of, the flightest tincture of disloyalty to the state.

In the course of the session, Mr. Fox, ever active in the cause of liberty, moved for a bill to ascertain the rights of juries in the matter of libel. With respect to the pretended distinction between law and fact, Mr. Fox observed, " that when a man was accused of murder, a crime confifting of law and fact, the jury every day found a verdict of guilty: and this was also the cafe in felony and every other criminal indictment. Libels were the only exception, the fingle anomaly. He contended, that if the jury had no jurisdiction over libels, the counsel who addressed them on either side as to the criminality of the publication were guilty of a gross and infolent sarcasm. Mr. Fox put this matter in a remarkably strong point of view, by adverting to the law of treason. It was admitted on all hands, that a writing might be an overt act of treason. In this cafe, if the court of king's bench were to say to the jury, Confider only whether the criminal published the paper-do not confider the nature of it-do not confider whether it correspond to the definition of treason or not'-would Englishmen endure that death should be inflicted without a jury having had an opportunity of delivering

vering their fentiments, whether the individual was or was not guilty of the crime with which he was charged? Mr. Fox wished to know, whether the modern doctrine of libels did or did not extend to high treason?" On its transmission to the house of lords, the bill was opposed on the second reading by the lord chancellor, on pretence of its being too late in the feffion to discuss a measure of fuch importance. The principle of the bill was most ably defended by the law lords Camden and Loughborough, with whom lord Grenville concurred; but the bill was finally poftponed.

The evidence on the flave trade being at length closed, Mr. Wilberforce, on the 18th of April 1791, brought forward his long expected motion of abolition, which he introduced with a copious and masterly display of the arguments in favor of that measure. The crimes and villanies to which this horrid traffic had given rife, were detailed with a minuteness which placed not merely the persons actually concerned, but human nature itself, in a light the most degrading and detestable. And the mover remarked with all the eloquence of feeling and of truth, that the history of this commerce was written in characters of blood. "Let us, faid he, turn our eyes for relief from this difgraceful scene to some ordinary wickedness." No such relief, however, was as yet to be obtained from the justice and humanity of the house; for, on concluding his speech with moving " for a bill to prevent the farther importation of African negroes into the British colonies," it was negatived by a majority of seventy-five voices.

Had the fame motion been made two years before, while the feelings of the house were freshly awakened, there can scarcely exist a doubt but that it must have succeeded. Such is the importance of feizing the fortunate and favourable moment of action! To qualify this refusal, a bill was introduced and passed, for chartering a company for the purpose of cultivating West Indian and other tropical products at Sierra Leona on the coast of Africa, by the use of free negroes; an experiment which is likely to be productive, at no distant period, of very important effects.

It had been long a fubject of complaint, that the great and extenfive province of Canada continued under a government in the highest degree arbitrary and despotic. This government was indeed acknowledged to be merely temporary; but excuses were not wanting to prolong the duration of it. At length Mr. Pitt, in pursuance of an intimation in the royal speech, moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal certain parts of the act respecting the government of Canada passed in the 14th year of his majefty's reign; and to enact farther provisions for the better government thereof. By the proposed bill, the province was divided into two distinct governments, hy the appellations of upper and lower Canada. Councils nominated by the sovereign, and houses of affembly chosen by the people, were established in each. The habeas corpus act was afferted as a fundamental law of their constitution : and by a very important and admirable clause the British parliament were restrained from impofing any taxes whatever, but fuch as might be neceffary for the regulation of trade and commerce; and to guard against the abuse of this power, the produce of fuch taxes was to be at the difposal of the respective provincial legislatures. Upon the whole, this bill contained a noble charter of liberty, and did honor to the minister who proposed, and to the affembly which adopted it. The clauses in the bill which militated against the general principle of it, were opposed by Mr. Fox with extraordinary animation and ability. "The great object of all popular assemblies," Mr. Fox faid, " was, that the people should be fully and fairly represented; but when the affembly of one province was to confift of only fixteen, and the other of thirty persons, they deluded the people by a mockery of representation. They seemed to give them a free constitution, when in fact they withheld