to the Earl Hillsborough, dated Boston, 29th May, 1772; with Enclosure.

No. 5. Extract of a Letter from Governor Hutchinson to the Earl of Dartmouth, dated Boston, 22d February, 1773.

No. 6. Printed Copy of the Speeches of Governor Hutchinson to the General Assembly of the Massachusetts Bay, with the Answer of the Council and House of Representatives.

No. 7. Copy of a Petition and Remonstrance to the King, from the House of Representatives of the Province of, Massachusetts Bay, dated 14th July, 1772.

No. 8. Copy of a Petition to the King, from the House of Representatives of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, dated 6th March, 1773.

Together with a List of said Papers; and the said List was read.

Ordered, that the said Papers do lie upon the table, to be perused by the members of the House.

FRIDAY, April 22, 1774.

The Order of the Day, for the second reading of the Bill, was read.

Mr. Fuller said, he did not rise to make any debate, for he was not enabled as yet to form any opinion whether the Bill before the House was a proper one or not; as copies of the charters which had been ordered, were not yet laid before the House, he would, venture to say that no man knew the constitution of that Government; it was, therefore, impossible for him to say, in what manner he would correct and amend it.

Sir George Savile said, he had not troubled the House before on the occasion, but he could not help observing, that the measure now before the House was a very doubtful and dangerous one; doubtful as to the matter and propriety of regulation, and dangerous as to its consequence; that charters by Government were sacred things, and are only to be taken away by a due course of law, either as a punishment for an offence, or for a breach of the contract, and that can only be by evidence of the facts; nor could he conceive, that in either of those cases there could be any such thing as proceeding without a fair hearing of both parties. This measure before us seems to be a most extraordinary exertion of Legislative power. Let us suppose a lease granted to a man, wherein was a covenant, the breach of which would subject him to a forfeiture of his lease—would not a court of justice require evidence of the fact? Why, then, will you proceed different from the line which is always observed in courts of justice. You are now going to alter the charter, because it is convenient. In what manner does the House mean to take away this charter, when in fact they refuse to hear the parties, or to go through a legal course of evidence of the facts? Chartered rights have, at all times, when attempted to be altered or taken away, occasioned much bloodshed and strife; and whatever persons in this House may have advanced, that they do not proceed upon this business but with trembling hands, I do also assure them that I have shewn my fears upon this occasion, for I have run away from every question, except one, to which I gave my negative. I do not like to be present at a business which, I think inconsistent with the dignity and justice of this House; I tremble when I am, for fear of the consequences; and I think it a little extraordinary that Mr. Bollan should be admitted to be heard as an American Agent in the House of Lords, when in the House of Commons he was refused. I believe it is true, that the facts set forth in his petition to this House, were different from those which he presented to the House of Lords; in one declaring himself an inhabitant of Boston, and in the other omitting it. I cannot conceive it possible to proceed on this Bill upon the small ground of evidence which you have had.

Mr. Welbore Ellis. I must rise, Sir, with great diffidence, when I differ from the honorable gentleman who spoke last, whose abilities are so eminently great; but I think, that chartered rights are by no means those sacred things which never can or ought to be altered; they are vested in the Crown, as a prerogative, for the good of the People at large; if the Supreme Legislature find that those charters granted, are both unfit and inconvenient for the public utility, they have a right to make them fit and convenient: wherever private property is concerned, the Legislature will not take it away without making a full recompense; but wherever the regulation of public matter is the object, they have a right to correct, control, or take it away as may best suit the public welfare. The Crown may sometimes grant improper powers with regard to Governments that are to be established—will it not be highly proper and necessary that the Legislature, seeing in what manner the Crown has been ill-advised, should take it into their consideration, and alter it, as far as necessary? It is the Legislature's duty to correct the errors that have been established in the infancy of that constitution, and regulate them for the public welfare. Is a charter, not consistent with the public good, to be continued? The honorable gentleman says much bloodshed has been occasioned by taking away or altering of chartered rights; I grant it; but it has always been where encroachments have been made by improper parties, and the attack has been carried on by improper powers. He also says, this form of Government in America ought not to be altered without hearing the parties; the papers on your table, surely, are sufficient evidence what they have to say in their defence. Look only into the letter dated the 19th of November, 1773, wherein the Governor applied to the Council for advice, and they neglected giving it to him; and also wherein a Petition was presented to the Council by certain persons who applied for protection to their property during these disturbances; the Council, without giving any answer, adjourned for ten days, and the Governor was not able to do any thing himself without their opinion. Look again, Sir, into the resolution which the Council came to when they met again, stating the total insufficiency of their power. This, surely, Sir, is an evidence competent to ground this bill upon. We have now got no farther than just to alter these two parts, as stated by themselves. Surely, Sir, that form of Government which will not protect your property, ought to be altered in such a manner as it may be able to do it.

General Conway. What I intend to say, will not delay the House long. [The House being rather noisy, the General said, 1 beg leave once more to say a short word.] I am very sure what I intend to say will little deserve the attention of the House, but the subject is of that importance, that it requires it. The consequence of this Bill will be very important and dangerous. Parliament cannot break into a right without hearing the parties. The question, then, is simply this: have they been heard? What! because the Papers say a murder has been committed, does it follow they have proved it? 'Audi alteram partem' is a maxim I have long adhered to; but it is something so inconsistent with Parliamentary proceedings not to do it, that I am astonished at it. The Council are blamed, because they did not give that advice to the Governor which he wanted. I think, Sir, the Governor might have acted alone, without their assistance. Gentlemen will consider, that this is not only the charter of Boston, or of any particular part, but the charter of all America. Are the Americans not to be heard? Do they not choose to consent and agree about appointing an agent? I think there is no harm, upon this occasion, in stretching a point; and I would rather hear Mr. Bollan as an agent of America (though he is a little irregular in his appointment) sooner than leave it to be said, that this Bill passed without it. The House being vociferous, he said, I am afraid I tire the House with my weak voice; if that is the case, I will not proceed, but I do think, and it is my sincere opinion, that we are the aggressors and innovators, and not the Colonies. We have irritated and forced laws upon them for these six or seven years last past. We have enacted such a variety of laws, with these new taxes, together with a refusal to repeal the trifling duty on tea; all these things have served no other purpose but to distress and perplex. I think the Americans have done no more than every subject would do in an arbitrary state, where laws are imposed against their will. In my conscience, I think, taxation and legislation are in this case inconsistent. Have you not a Legislative right over Ireland? And yet no one will dare to say we have a right to tax. These Acts, respecting America, will involve this country and its Ministers in misfortunes, and I wish 1 may not add, in ruin.

Lord North. I do not consider this matter of regulation to be taking away their charters in such manner as is represented; it is a regulation of Government to assist the Crown; it appears to me, not to be a matter of political expediency,