them, they are my uniform, my uninfluenced opinions, no power shall change them, no gold shall give them a bias, no ambitious motive shall contaminate them. This, Sir, I say was the parliament, that ignominiously, despightfully, wickedly, attacked all the great characters of the mi

The hon. gentleman has praised the parliamentary ingenuity of the noble lord at the expence of his fairness. For my part, I shall think it necessary to take a very different line, for 1 mean to diminish the parliamentary ingenuity of the noble lord (and he possesses so much upon other occasions, that he may spare a little uponnisters of the illustrious deliverer of this this). For if ever the noble lord shewed a deficiency of ingenuity, if ever he neglected to take up the strong and firm ground, he has done it to day. The gentlemen on the other side have quoted precedents, and the noble lord is supposed to have acted like an advocate, and not like a member of parliament, in not avowing those precedents. Now, Sir, had the noble lord availed himself of his usual ingenuity, he would have shewed how little those precedents avail in the present case, how inapplicable some of them are, and how much the authority, and imitation of the others should be avoided. And he would have proved, that giving the list required, is both unusual and new.

The first precedent I shall take notice of is, that of the 10th and 18th of Nov. 1707. This happened just upon the meeting of the first parliament of Great Britain, when an act had passed excluding all persons holding new offices, from sitting in parliament, and likewise all persons possessed of pensions during pleasure. A doubt occurred whether the act had a retrospect to pensions granted, or looked forward to those that were to be granted. In consequence of a resolution of the House therefore to explain that act, not with an intention of reducing the number of pensioners, the account of them was laid before the House. This precedent, therefore, does not apply. But let us see how the precedent of the 18th and 22d of Dec. 1703 applies, and whether it is worthy of imitation. Do gentlemen recollect the history of that parliament? and are those on the other side of the House ready to adopt the character of that parliament, and to imitate its conduct? This was the parliament that impeached lord Somers, ford Halifax, and lord Portland, that reviled the character of lord Orford, traduced the memory of king William [Upon this the opposition side called hear! hear! without an intention to ridicule, which brought forth a burst of eloquence not to be given.]

Hear! hear! said he, when upon this topic I wish to be heard, I glory in my sentiments, I take delight in delivering

country; who impeached lords Somers, Halifax, and Portland, without a fact to support their charge; who counteracted the principles of the Revolution, and endeavoured to sully the virtue of the Whigs; and it is of this parliament, that the bishop of Sarum says, in his History, and in my opinion, he says it truly, that French gold had found its way into the kingdom. So much for the precedent of 1703. Now for that of the 8th and 17th of January 1710. What was the character of this House of Commons? Was it more pure, or more upright than the former? Did not this House of Commons destroy the grand alliance, check the conquests of the duke of Marlborough, displace a Whig ministry, and establish Harley and St. John in their room? The faction of those days did, indeed, for a while impose upon the people; they made them believe they were oppressed, and persuaded them that the constitution had been violated; temporary discontents were the consequence of that belief, but the people, returning, as they always do after a short time, to their native good sense, discovered the imposition, and manifested in their conduct their detestation of the party that misled them. And what was the secret history of the vote that brought the pension list before the House in 1710? Mr. Harley and Mr. St. John, whose consequence arose from the support of the Tories, who had by secret means found their way into her majesty's closet, and had always moved this question against the ministers whom they displaced, became unwilling to touch it when they were themselves got into power. But the Tories, led on by the October Club, and with a man at their head whom several, who now hear me, are old enough to remember, the father of the late sir Simeon Stuart, took the lead in this House. Jealous of the desertion of their friends, and anxious to put their virtue to the test, they brought on this question: Harley and St. John finding they could not stem the torrent, were forced to give way to it, and they did it with more cheerfulness, because, as they had but just come into power, any blame that could arise must

have fallen upon their predecessors; and in this extraordinary manner was the House of Commons led by a person without power, and with no very brilliant parts, and both the old and the new ministry were driven to adopt a resolution which neither of them approved.

In this situation of affairs, the friends of John Bull tell him, "You have an important law-suit coming on, for the greatest part of your estate; but before you think of that, before we retain your counsel, or give you any money to carry it on, you must regulate your private affairs. You

As to the precedent of 1715, it is short-have great farms in the north of England, ly this: the ministers of the king were not out of repair, and out of lease; you have unwilling to lay before the world, the a considerable interest in the duchy of abuses of the queen's ministers; they Lancaster; go, and let those farms, and therefore brought the pension list before attend to that interest. You have an exthe House, all the pensions upon which pensive barren estate in the mountains of had died with the queen: so that this pre- Wales, go and cultivate that estate, and cedent does not go to the pensions exist- render what is now unproductive and baring, but to pensions that had ceased to ren, fruitful and productive. You have exist. From that period to the present mines in Cornwall, and a jurisdiction there time, though many opportunities have oc- that is ill constituted, relative to those curred to call for and give that list, it mines; go and draw profit from those never has been given. Is it then uncandid? mines, and regulate that jurisdiction. The Is it disingenuous? Is it like an advocate, ignorance or the manners of your ancestors and unlike a member of parliament, for the have handed down to you a family estanoble lord to call this an unusual motion?blishment, founded upon the antiquated Or is it singular that the hon. gentleman principles of feudality, very unfit for the who made the motion should, after a lapse present times, attended with great waste, of 65 years call it a new motion? It cannot and unnecessary expence: you must re therefore be attributed to the noble lord duce the number of your stewards, you as a crime to have made use of those must adopt a new method of providing for words, but it may fairly be said, if the your table, you must alter the method of House go along with me in the account I keeping and passing your accounts, and have given of the precedents, that the all this you must accomplish before you atnoble lord's ingenuity has failed him upon tend to your law-suit, for then, and not till this occasion, and that the parliamentary then, will we, who have the management cunning and trick, which the hon. gentle- of your affairs, furnish you with money to man who spoke last has attributed to him, carry it on." In the mean time the asis by no means his due upon this occasion. sizes come on, the other party is ready, But, Sir, that hon. gentleman has been the judge asks for John Bull, he is not to very strenuous in endeavouring to prove, be found, and is consequently nonsuited that the present times are fit for reform, for not appearing in court. Such would and that the objection of being engaged in be the situation of this country, if no supa war is nugatory. This, the hon. gentle-plies are granted till all the regulations reman has endeavoured to illustrate, by the trite story of John Bull and the law-suit. For the abstract case of the law-suit, which he endeavoured to put so ingeniously to the House, amounts to no more. John Bull's friends advise him to reform his expences, because he lives beyond his income, and John Bull says, "I am engaged in an expensive law-suit-stop till that law-suit is over." Can any thing be more absurd, says the hon. gentleman, than for John Bull to refuse to reduce his expences, because he is harassed by an expensive suit? But the hon. gentleman had forgot some of the most material circumstances, and never mentioned that the cause was to be tried at the next assizes, that a particular day was fixed for its coming on, and the other party was ready to appear.

lative to public expenditure are agreed to.

But, Sir, to return to the list of pensions desired to be granted. The sum being so much smaller than was supposed, the application of that sum being not at all for the purposes of influencing the votes of members of parliament (because no member of parliament can hold a pension during pleasure) and above all, the sum being much below what it was thought reasonable for the crown to give in bounty and charity, without account, by those who are most strenuous in favour of œconomy, and against influence, it appears, that no reason but curiosity, can be given for producing the names of pensioners. [Mr. T. Townshend said across the House," but there are wives of members of parliament in the list." This pro

sible or not; but he requested the House | the protest was addressed (the Commons would give him instructions in a matter of Great Britain) could not take cogniwhich his inexperience in parliamentary zance of it; and he held the conduct of forms rendered very difficult to him. the protesters to be the more libellous, as That the House might be informed of the they knew before hand, that the House contents of the protest, he read it as a part could not admit their protest. He desired of his speech: hence it appeared to the that some gentleman would be kind enough House, that the six junior counsel of the to inform him, for what purpose all the corporation of Nottingham had protested different protests through the kingdom against the proceedings of the other had been signed. Was it that they might eighteen; and that they assigned their be laid before parliament? No: for worded reasons for their dissent. Mr. Smith acas they were, and having no prayer, they knowledged that the meanest individual were inadmissible: for what other purpose, had a right to speak his sentiments; and then? None that he could see, unless it for that reason he would deliver his with were to endeavour to deceive the public, that freedom that became an independent, and counteract those petitions, which the that sincerity that became an honest man. grievances of the people had extorted from The protestors he could not think had them. The protesters of Nottingham acted properly, in opposing a measure spoke a very suspicious language; for that had received the sanction of the cor- while they disapproved of the conduct of poration; but yet he would pay so great a that corporation, as being disrespectful to deference to their request, as to move, if it parliament, they themselves had appealed was not inconsistent with the orders of the from the parliament to the people at large, House, that the protest should be brought by drawing up an instrument, which parup. liament could not admit; and which, consequently, could be known only to the people. He then moved, that the protest might be brought up, though, at the same time, he confessed that he himself would put a negative upon it.

Colonel Barré wished that the protest might be admitted, and that the gentlemen who had signed it, might be called to the bar of the House, to inform them where they learned the comfortable news that this country had not lost a great part of its empire. The petition from Nottingham asserted, that a great member of the empire had been cut off; the protesters declared the assertion not to be founded on truth; he would be happy to hear them support their declaration at the bar; and for that purpose would support any motion that should be made for bringing in the protest.

Mr. Fox declared he should be glad if the forms of parliament would suffer the instrument transmitted to his hon. friend, to be admitted into the House. If it was a petition and contained a prayer, it was admissible; if it did not contain a prayer, it was inadmissible: for his part, he did not know by what name to call it, petition, remonstrance, memorial, manifesto, or libel. But he was greatly inclined to give it the last name for many reasons. The protesters knew that from the informality of their protest, it could not be admitted, and yet attacked the character of those who had signed the petition, when it being impossible to take notice of the protest in a parliamentary way, the latter could not possibly have an opportunity to defend themselves. This he concluded to be truly a libel, because the court to which

The Attorney General was of opinion, that the hon. gentleman to whom the junior counsel of Nottingham had addressed their protest, might have easily got rid of the difficulties he professed himself to labour under, by letting his constituents know, that in its then form their protest could not be brought before parliament, it being an established order, that nothing could be admitted from the subjects, that did not come in the shape of a petition, containing a prayer. For his own part, he could not but admire the doctrine laid down by gentlemen, that it was legal to petition, but libellous to protest. No man could admit the right of petitioning to a greater extent than he did; but, from the very principle which established the right, he deduced an equal right to protest. The subject having a right to express his sentiments, he had an undoubted right to declare, that sentiments of other people attributed to him were not his sentiments; and he could not conceive how gentlemen could reject the right in one instance, without overturning it in the other. A petition purporting to be the petition of the freeholders of a county, and yet containing positions which many freeholders in that county denied, ought not in

| certainly wished to have the contents of the protests made as public as possible, they therefore could not be against the admission of that from Nottingham. He did not know the contents of the protest, but greatly desired to hear them; he therefore would vote that it might be brought up; and he trusted, that as the other side of the House concurred so far in opinion with him, they would not put a negative on the motion.

justice to be binding on all; and if those whose sentiments it did not convey, should protest against it, he could not tell on what ground of law, reason, or common sense, they could be pronounced libellers. He had not signed either petition or protest, and would not, and therefore could the more freely deliver his sentiments on both. Some of the protests complained of associations; but that was neither libellous nor wonderful. He, indeed, apprehended nothing from the present associa Sir Richard Sutton believed that the nations; but gentlemen might remember, ture of the protest from Nottingham was that a very great judge in the King's-bench, not properly understood. The six junior who had been dead some years, had given counsel who had signed it, did not speak it as his opinion, that associations of every for themselves only, but for the burgesses kind, though for legal purposes, were in of Nottingham. This appeared from the themselves illegal; nay, the association constitution of that corporation. The for carrying into execution the game-laws, common council was composed of 24 perhe had declared illegal, because he would sons: 18 of these were called the senior have the laws executed by their own force, counsel, and filled up all vacancies in their and not by associations. His private opi- body themselves: the six junior, on the nion did not go quite so far as that of the contrary, were elected by the burgesses at learned judge to whom he alluded, on the large; and if the burgesses had elected article of associations; but he admitted men of their own principles, which was most that they had in general, though he appre-likely, the protest might be called the prohended nothing from them now, a natural test of the burgesses of the town of Nottendency to confusion. Upon the whole, tingham, though it was signed only by six he maintained, that the right of protesting persons. These six were like so many triwas as well established as that of petition-bunes of the people, elected for the puring; and he could not but be surprised pose of watching over the self-elected that gentlemen should wish so far to con- eighteen seniors of the common council. troul others in the exercise of a right which they themselves assumed-to declare their opinions. To stand up for it in one case, and condemn it in another, was a monopoly of liberty on one side, and a proscription of freedom on the other. Such conduct was unmanly, and unconstitutional.

Mr. Fox complimented the Attorney General on having altered his opinion a little on the subject of libels and petitions. The Attorney General would not receive the compliment, as he did not deserve it on the grounds on which the hon. gentleman was inclined to give it. He assured Mr. Fox that he had the advantage of him, as there had been a time when the hon. gentleman as much condemned, as he now supported, the right of petitioning. For his part, he always uniformly and invariably had maintained it.

Mr. Dunning endeavoured to ward off the blow which had been aimed at his hon. friend in the above short reply, by suggesting that he was as vulnerable himself in that quarter as Mr. Fox. He likewise spoke on the subject of the protest. The gentlemen on the other side of the House

Mr. Burke commended the elegance of penmanship that appeared in engrossing the protest, but inveighed warmly against its contents. That it was libellous, he insisted in very strong terms. It ascribed the worst of motives to the petitioners, and was worded in such a manner, that it could not be brought before that court that was to try the merits of the petition. It gave the lie direct to the corporation, in deny. ing the position that the empire had lost one of its principal limbs. If they would come forward, and prove that we had not lost a great part of the empire, he, for one, would move for opening the committee of supply, generously to reward them for the agreeable news. But the protest did not libel the petitioners only, it went so far as to libel that very House, the honour of which it pretended to be zealous to support. That House was certainly the best judge of what was respectful or disrespectful to itself; it had found the petition from Nottingham so respectful, as to admit it, without objection; and yet the protesters insolently set themselves up as judges of what was due to the dignity of that House, and pronounced that to be disrespectful,