fully into the subject, and stated to the House the different periods of time when, and the occasions for which, foreign troops had been introduced into this kingdom without the consent of Parliament; observing that there were so many precedents for such a practice that he wondered any objections should now be so seriously started against it. He embraced a great variety of circumstances and arguments against the motion, and in favour of the previous question. Having established, in his own opinion, (he said,) the legality of the measure, he went to the propriety of it, and took occasion to remark, that if the Militia laws were duly enforced, enlarged, and extended, there would never more be any occasion for them to debate on questions concerning foreign troops, as such would be totally unnecessary.

Mr. Burke observed, that one honourable gentleman was against the motion, because it was not an abstract proposition; another was against it, because it was an abstract proposition. He said it was not kind of Mr. Gordon to fight Opposition with a weapon which he knew they could not make use of. He observed that the honourable member knew the measure was illegal, yet he would vote in favour of it. Now, (said Mr. Burke,) if I, or any of the gentlemen on this side of the House, were to argue in this manner, it would cause a horse-laugh in the House. This is not an argument a fortiori, but a majori: it is the argument of a majority. He said the learned gentleman who spoke last had ransacked history, statutes, and journals, and had taken a very large journey, (as was usual with him,) through which he did not wish to follow him, but he was always glad to meet him at his return home. Let us (said he) strip off all this learned foliage from his argument; let us unswathe this Egyptian corpse, and strip it of its salt, gum, and mummy, and see what sort of a dry skeleton is underneath nothing but a single point of law! The gentleman asserts that nothing but a bill can declare the consent of Parliament; not an address, not a resolution of the House; yet he thinks a resolution of the House would, in this case, be better than a bill of indemnity: so that we find a bill is nothing, an address is nothing, a resolution is nothing, nay, I fear, our liberty is nothing, and that, ere long, our rights, freedom, and spirit, nay, the House itself, will vanish in a previous question.

Lord North desired to know whence the proofs and authorities of a point of law could be better drawn than from history, statutes, and journals. He did not think it was from wit, or flowers of eloquence, that they should be deduced. He admired the honourable gentleman’s method of proving a resolution to be nothing; an address nothing; a bill nothing; and, by the same mode of reasoning, he was inclined (he said) to conclude that a long, witty speech was—nothing.

General Conway was very sorry to see such learned gentlemen as Mr. Serjeant Adair and the Solicitor-General differ so widely on so important a point. He said that, for his part, he did not understand the laws to a practical nicety; but his experience in that House had given him so much knowledge of the Constitution, that he felt the measure illegal and dangerous. He could not conceive with what propriety a bill of indemnity could be proposed for a measure that was legal; the ideas of criminality and indemnity were (he asserted) inseparable. He condemned the conduct of those who advised his Majesty to bring foreigners into this kingdom without the previous consent of Parliament, but said he would vote for the previous question, because the motion was too general, and passed a censure on a measure which, so far as his Majesty was concerned, he was sure proceeded from the best motives.

Sir William Lemon approved of the American measures; but such was his high disapprobation of the paragraph in his Majesty’s speech which informed his Parliament that he bad sent his Hanoverian troops to garrison Gibraltar and Minorca, that he was compelled to withhold his approbation of measures which, in every other instance, he approved, and consequently, on that account alone, voted against the Address.

The previous question being put, that the main question be now put, the House divided. The noes went forth:

So it passed in the negative.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Monday, November 6, 1775.

The Earl of Dartmouth (by his Majesty’s command) laid before the House (pursuant to an Address to his Majesty on Wednesday last) a Paper intituled “Copy of the Petition of the Congress to the King,” delivered to the Earl of Dartmouth by Messrs. Penn and Lee, on the 1st of September, 1775.

And the title thereof being read by the Clerk,

Ordered, That the said Paper do lie on the table.

Ordered, That the said Paper be taken into consideration to-morrow, and the Lords summoned.

Tuesday, November 7, 1775.

The Order of the Day being read, for taking into consideration a Paper intituled “Copy of the Petition of the Congress to the King,” delivered to the Earl of Dartmouth by Messrs. Penn and Lee, on the 1st of September, 1775,

The said Paper being read by the Clerk,

The Duke of Richmond observed, that he now saw Mr. Penn, Governour of Pennsylvania, below the bar; and as some doubt might arise in the course of the debate, whether or not the paper now read was genuine, he urged the propriety of calling that gentleman to authenticate it, as he understood that the Petition was delivered by him into the hands of one of his Majesty’s Secretaries of State.

He then moved “That Mr. Penn be called in to authenticate the said Paper.”

The Earl of Sandwich opposed this proposition very strenuously. He said such a motion was directly contrary to the constant mode of proceeding adopted by that House. When witnesses were examined at their Lordships’ bar, notice was always previously given, and a motion made in pursuance of that notice; nor did he, since his first acquaintance with Parliament, ever recollect an instance of a witness being suddenly called to be examined, without the formalities he had just mentioned. For his part, that was his leading objection; though he suspected the noble Duke who made the motion meant to employ it to very different purposes, to fish for information relative to the matter contained in the paper, as well as to authenticate it.

The Duke of Richmond replied, that he did not well understand what the noble Earl meant by the word “suspect;” suspicions were created by acts, which it was presumed the actor would be desirous to conceal. That could not, however, be the case on the present occasion; for, allowing the noble Lord’s suspicions to be well-founded, he saw nothing in such a procedure of which he need be ashamed. He confessed he should, if Mr. Penn was examined, be desirous to learn from that gentleman what he knew relative to the general state of America, presuming no person was better qualified nor none would give it with greater candour and impartiality.

The Earl of Dartmouth said, that such a precedent was now proposed to be established as would, in all probability, if carried, be destructive of all order. Besides, he begged leave to remind the noble Duke, that the very grounds on which it was stated, that of authenticating the Petition, showed there was no necessity for complying with the motion; for he acknowledged the receipt of such a Petition from Mr. Penn, and believed himself, and made no doubt but all their Lordships were perfectly of the same opinion, that the paper was genuine.

Lord Camden expressed his surprise that any Lord should oppose the present motion; for, without debating the point of order, which he was convinced fully authorized the propriety of the motion, he should be glad to know what objections the noble Lords in Administration had to it. He was sure it was out of their power to object to it on any reasonable ground.

The Duke of Richmond, in reply to what had fallen from Lord Dartmouth, observed, that however well satisfied the noble Earl and his friends might be that the Petition was genuine, yet he thought the formality of authenticating it became highly necessary, when it was known that Mr. Penn did not receive the Petition immediately from the hands of the delegates, it having been sent after him to England, in order to be presented in the manner before described. He urged further, that the Petition being signed by the persons assembled in Congress, in his opinion it would be very

*