authorised to appoint commissioners, with full powers to treat and conclude either peace or truce with all, or any of the said colonies, upon such other or farther terms of conciliation, as to his Majesty in his wisdom shall seem fit; always understood, and the same is hereby again declared and enacted, that all the several privileges, immunities, and advantages, hereby granted to all or any of the said colonies as above mentioned, do serve as the basis of such treaty of conciliation, and are hereby sanctified and guaranteed under the faith of parliament as parts of the same.

"And be it further declared and enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty to empower commissioners to grant free pardon to any person or any number or description of persons, or his full and general pardon to the inhabitants of all or any of the said colonies respectively, for all acts of hostility, and for all things done or committed during the present troubles, and previous to the signing or conclusion of any treaty of conciliation as aforesaid; and the same shall be considered, and is hereby confirmed as an act of perpetual amnesty and oblivion of such acts of hostility, and of all things so done and committed during the continuance of the said troubles. So may the ancient affection be happily restored to the two parts of the distracted empire, and a new æra of halcyon days succeed to the horrors and multiplied calamities of civil contention."

Motion on calling out the Military upon the Meeting of the Electors of Westminster.] May 8. Sir William Meredith said, he had some time since stated to the House some extraordinary facts, relative to a party of the military being armed and ready to come forth upon the people; when he stated them, he had taken them up upon newspaper report; he had since made himself master of the facts as they really happened, and was able to speak to them more fully; but as he did not see certain persons in high military offices, then in the House, he would not take up more time, but would content himself with moving; "That the proper officer do lay before this House, an Account of any Requisitions made by the civil magistrate, and by whom, for any of the horse or foot guards, to be in readiness from the 5th to the 7th of April last."

Mr. Adam submitted it to the hon. baronet, whether it would not be more candid to withdraw his motion, till the

hon. gentlemen alluded to, were present to speak to the facts upon which the motion was avowedly grounded.

Mr. Jenkinson (Secretary at War) declared he knew of no order being sent for the military, for that no order had passed his office. He believed the civil magistrate, expecting a riot, had made a requisition to have some of the military ready to assist the civil power in case any riot had happened: that it was a common thing, and he saw no mischief, as the military in such cases were solely at the direction of the civil magistrate.

Mr. Burke arraigned the justices in terms of the severest sort, for daring to imagine or suggest that a riot would happen, when no riot was intended, and upon their weak and insolent suggestions to call out the military. He said the justices of Middlesex were generally the scum of the earth; carpenters, brick-makers, and shoe-makers; some of whom were notoriously men of such infamous characters, that they were unworthy of any employ whatever; and others so ignorant, that they could scarcely write their own names. Mr. Burke described the popular meeting on the 6th of April, as a most respectable one, and said the dukes of Devonshire and Portland, and other distinguished personages had there met the other electors of the city of Westminster, in a legal and constitutional manner, to debate and discuss great legal and constitutional points. How dared, then, such reptiles as the Middlesex justices attempt to call out a body of the military armed, upon a peaceable meeting, so respectable in its description?

Mr. Rigby defended the measure, and as an instance that the military so employed, and under the direction of a judicious magistrate, might be essentially serviceable in preventing riots, declared, that some years since the duke of Bedford's house would have been razed to the ground, had not Mr. Saunders Welch applied for fifty of the infantry, and planted them behind the wall in the front of Bedford house. He defended the Middlesex magistrates from Mr. Burke's censure, declaring that the office was a very troublesome one; that no person of distinction or family would undertake it, and therefore it was right to give douceurs to those who would. He said gentlemen who abused the magistrates for doing their duty, were not friends to subordination and good order; that so far from thinking the magis

He

The House divided on the question : Yeas 91; Noes 133.

Mr. Eden thought it superfluous on this occasion, to recur to any particulars, either of the old Bloomsbury riot, or the late Westminster meeting; and equally so, to introduce the names either of dead or living dukes. That the question turned upon a general principle, in which he agreed with the supporters of the motion, though he should differ with them as to the application of that principle. That he thought it right to entertain a most watchful jealousy of the executive power in the employment of the soldiery; but that this jealousy should, in politics as in private life, be kept within reasonable bounds, and should not start into action, upon the impulse of trifles light as air. That a respectable baronet, (sir G. Savile) had justly said, "If I ask for the key of my closet, and you faulter, and hesitate, and turn pale, and delay to produce the key, shall I not suspect that something is concealed within the closet?" It was the case of Bluebeard, in some nursery reports; but in the present instance, it had not been stated, that there was any closet to conceal it, or any key to be called for: no case had been made for inquiry; no fact of abuse of the executive power had been charged. It was not just, then, to say that information was refused; some grounds must be shewn before information can be asked. The right hon. baronet had not laid his nest-egg; he had only stated à loose rumour from a newspaper, and upon the crolit of such evidence called upon the House to express an uneasiness, which no man who heard him, in any degree felt; that nothing had been produced, either to prove the fact asserted, or the order which occasioned that fact. He concluded, therefore, with giving his negative to the motion.

Mr. For declared if it was understood that a set of men were to be let loose on the constitutional meetings of the people, that all who went to such meetings must go armed,

[VOL. XXI.]

parliaments. The alderman entered into a long deduction of historical facts, relative to the origin of parliaments, the duration of them at different periods, the establishment of triennial, and the last regulation effected by passing the Bill for septennial parliaments into a law. He cited the history of the several reigns in which the parliamentary alterations had been introduced, stating the grounds and motives upon which the alterations were made, and accompanying these premises with a declaration what were the consequences, and how far the purposes of the crown had been effected, and the liberties of the people invaded and diminished by each alteration. The original use of parliaments, he described to have been simply two-fold; to consider of the people's grievances, and to endeavour to obtain redress for them; and to consider of the wants of the state, and after a careful examination that the wants were real, and the occasion pressing, to vote such sums as were necessary. The first of these objects always took the lead, nor would our ancestors, in honest times, ever grant the crown money till the complaints of the people were listened to and redress afforded. As all courts were disinclined to hear of these complaints and grievances, so it had formerly happened, that parlia ments were seldom assembled, and never but when the wants of the state were such, that government could not proceed without money from the people. He traced parliaments to their being called annually, and then spoke of the long parliament, in the time of Henry 8, which had sanctified all the monstrous stretches of prerogative that marked that reign; and of the long parliament of Charles 2. At length he came to the triennial parliaments, which had been introduced after the Revolution, in the reign of William 3, and in part of that of queen Anne, and ultimately arrived at the æra when the Septennial Bill passed. From all these historical facts he argued, that by the constitution, parliaments ought to be called annually; that the Triennial Bill was an incroachment on the people's rights and liberties, and the [2 Q]

Septennial a still more unjust innovation, on the part of the representative body, who had by that law arrogantly assumed to themselves a power which was constitutionally vested in the hands of the people, and which of right belonged to them. He contended that the more frequently the power of election reverted to the people, the better would it be for the general interests of the nation; that if members were aware that their constituents would have a full opportunity of judging of their services and pronouncing on their conduct, annually, those services and that conduct would be more guarded. The means of corruption would be checked within those walls, and the temptation to act dishonestly being removed, the representatives of the people would of necessity act disinterestedly and uprightly. For these reasons, he wished to return to the first parliamentary principles, and to pass a law for parliaments to be chosen annually: he was aware, however, that much objection would be made to any attempt of that kind, and, therefore, not because he liked it better, but because he thought he could not carry his point, if he aimed directly at restoring annual parliaments, he should try to obtain triennial parliaments. After descanting on this for some time, and mentioning that the matter was at present much the topic of conversation without doors, he moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for shortening the duration of parliaments."

Mr. Alderman Bull seconded the motion. Earl Nugent rose, and said, that as the same motion had been made for some years past, and had been silently decided upon, he hoped the House would not go into a debate upon it then, because, as the hon. alderman had stated, it had been much the subject of discussion elsewhere. With regard to going back to our first parliamentary principles, surely that matter was not sufficiently considered. What! was it meant that parliament should be degraded to that state in which it was, when the service was so disagreeable that men were obliged to be paid for sitting and doing the public business? When that business was so unwelcome, that there were frequent instances of persons begging to be disfranchised, in order to prevent their being sent up to parliament? He could not believe the hon. alderman meant to go that length. His lordship owned himself an advocate for the Septennial Bill, and delared he had the highest parliamentary

authority that ever was, for pronouncing triennial parliaments in a great measure useless and extremely unlikely to answer the end proposed, namely, the checking that influence of the crown, which had been said to be "increased, increasing, and that it ought to be diminished." The authority he alluded to, was that of one of the ablest men that ever filled the chair of that House, Mr. Arthur Onslow. He had talked with Mr. Onslow on the subject of triennial parliaments some years ago, and that great man had told him, the proposition was an absurd one, because if it were adopted, the first year would be taken up wholly in hearing petitions on elections; in the second year the House would be able to do business, and in the third, the members would principally be engaged with soliciting votes, and making interest against the next election. Annual parliaments he objected to, as totally impracticable in the present state of public affairs. His lordship observed, that the present motion was not grounded on the petitions of the people, for there was not one word about short parliaments in those petitions. Much had been said, indeed, without doors, about annual parliaments, and about adding one hundred knights of the shire to the representation of the people in that House. Before, however, either of those points were accomplished, a great deal must necessarily be done, even should that House agree that it was right to alter the constitution of parliament so essentially. Were they prepared just then to take away from the crown the right of appointing sheriff's for the counties? And if they were not, the power of the crown would be considerably increased, if parliaments were either annual or triennial. So in boroughs, what regulation was intended respecting the returning officer? In many places that officer was elected by a very small number. In Bristol in particular, which he had the honour to represent in two parliaments, where the electors, he believed, amounted to 5,000, the returning officer was chosen by a very, very small number indeed. These, and other considerations, induced him to oppose the present motion, not only as unwise, but as impossible to be adopted, and carried into execution so as to answer any good purpose.

Mr. Thomas Pitt said, he wished to have remained silent on the question, but when a subject of so much importance was in agitation, he should be ashamed to evade

most anxious for, conscious, that while they remained uncorrupted, the constitution would be safe from danger. But to return to the idea of annual or triennial parliaments. Had gentlemen forgot how many great families, even now, were ruined by their endeavours to get into that House, and had spent their whole fortunes in election contests? Was it to be learnt how hard would be the case of every honest, independent country gentleman, if the minister was to have the power of starting a court candidate against him every year, or every three years; what fortune could bear the expence? The consequence would be, election contests would become objects of horror, and the minister would soon have his own House of Commons. In his opinion, therefore, the present motion was beginning at the wrong end. A general election was, as matters stood at present, a mischief; if it was to happen oftener, the mischief would undoubtedly be greater. A general election was now not far off; if report were to be trusted, it was very near. The voice and spirit of the people seemed to be raised. He would, therefore, consent to rest the whole argument of the necessity for shortening the duration of parliaments upon the return of the next parliament. Wait that issue, see if the people had exerted that right they enjoyed, properly and correspondently with the spirit which now appeared to pervade the kingdom. If they did not send to parliament a House of Commons at once honest, free, and independent, he would confess, he had been much mistaken, and would join as heartily in supporting a bill for triennial parliaments, as the hon. alderman or any other of his friends.

speaking to it, though his voice must go against the motion. He disclaimed all dread of unpopularity on this occasion, and declared, that it was with pain he stood up one of the first to oppose a claim upon that House evidently coming from the people; he could easily account why the people should wish for a shorter duration of parliaments; it was in human nature to be fond of power; the right of election being placed in the hands of the constituents, they parted with it for a time when they chose their representatives, and it was perfectly natural for them to desire that the right might revert to them as often as possible; but though no man would pay greater deference to the wishes of the people than he would at all times, he should hold himself unworthy of their confidence, if he agreed to any proposition, merely because it was the proposition of the people, when his own judgment and conviction clearly pointed out to him that the proposition was an unwise one, and that the people, in making it, were asking for that which would be in its consequences, if complied with, essentially detrimental to their interests. He said, had that House complied with the peti tions of the people, and remedied their grievances, as they had promised, the people would not have desired to take away the power of sitting for seven years together in that House, which the representatives of the people now enjoyed, excepting only when the crown, for wise and necessary purposes, shortened the duration (for it ought not to exercise its prerogative in that manner, but for wise and necessary purposes) of parliament by a dissolution. He was however most fully convinced, that so far from diminishing the influence of the crown, annual or triennial parliaments would considerably increase it. The influence of the crown was not confined within those walls; if it were, we should be a great and happy people. It was the influence of the crown without doors that was so alarming. The increased public revenue was the great source of influence. The King in times of peace had fourteen millions to spend annually, and now how much more passed through the hands of government? If corruption would be checked without doors, if the people could be enabled to preserve their integrity and their independency, there would be nothing to be feared from the corruption of members of parliament. It was the purity of the electors that he was

Mr. Fox said he should be under the necessity of speaking more fully to the present question than he otherwise would do, because, as he had for years voted uniformly against the question, and as he meant to vote for it, it was due to the House, and due to his own character, that he should state the reasons of this difference of conduct. He said, he revered those wise and great men who brought in the Septennial Bill; because the principle on which they acted, in promoting that measure, was every way laudable, and every way justifiable; at the time of the passing of that Bill, the House of Brunswick had been just called to the throne, by the unanimous voice of the people, in defence of their liberties, and in order to protect them from the alarming attempts