Canada before, and despotism was not now established; for that the present act might possibly be repealed when Canada should be in a situation fit to have Assemblies; but that at present a Legislative Council, at the will of the Crown, was the fittest form of Government for them. That, however, the Canada Bill came to them from the Lords; that he was very willing to take upon himself the guilt of supporting it in the Commons. But he hardly thought any person would propose the calling of members to account for proposing or supporting any measures in Parliament. The gentleman who made the present motion was certainly a great stickler for freedom of debate, and freedom of opinion; and to complain, therefore, to another tribunal of what happened in this House, in consequence of using that freedom, he could not think suitable to the general tenor of his conduct; he was sure it was not constitutional. He was the more surprised at this motion, as the gentlemen who had moved and supported it had always professed themselves regardless of men, and concerned only about measures; but this motion was calculated merely for personal chastisement and rebuke. He agreed entirely in opinion with the counsellor, whoever he was, that might think one Wilkes sufficient; for, indeed, he thought it was one to much in any well-regulated Government; though, he said, to do him justice, it was not easy to find many such. Upon the whole, he could not think it proper to carry up a complaint to the King of measures which had received the sanction of Parliament; but for Parliament itself to do it would be ridiculous.

Mr. Temple Luttrell. I rise to give my thanks to the worthy Magistrate who has offered to the House this motion, because I think it, as to spirit, however incorrect its form, replete with duty and true affection to his Sovereign, and promises the most effectual relief to the subject throughout every part of the British empire, at a time of imminent peril to our Constitution, to our trade, and our liberties. I own myself to be one of those persons, who, from an unalterable, an inmost conviction of mind, subscribe to the doctrine of the great Mr. Locke, that “the legislature changed from that which was originally constituted by general consent, and fundamental acts of society, such change, however effected, is at once an entire dissolution of the bands of Government, and the people are at liberty to constitute to themselves a new legislative power.” Now, sir, that the legislature has been materially changed with respect to your American Colonists from what was in the original and fundamental constitutions of society, there can be no doubt. By disposing of their property contrary to their consent, and by the hostile and savage acts consequent thereto, the bands between the British Government and the American Colonies are of course dissolved: whether or not they will constitute themselves a new legislative power time only can show. I very much apprehend that, unless a speedy and equitable plan of conciliation be held out to them by us, who are the aggressors, such will be the baleful end of our quarrel. But, sir, we are now to come at the prime authors and promoters of this mischief. Show us the men, that, betraying the interests of their fellow-citizens and confidence of their Sovereign, first carried rapine, famine, and assassination, through that devoted Continent. We know that (to speak Parliamentary language, and as becomes every well-affected subject) the King “can do no wrong;” we know that his Majesty, from moral principle, will do no wrong. He is, perhaps, the last man in these dominions, who would commit an act of cruelty or injustice against any individual, much less against a whole community; but, sir, we likewise know, that integrity and a guardless temper of heart have subjected good Kings to a misguidance, which has proved fatal to them in the end. The five dethroned monarchs to be met with at different eras of the English history were distinguished severally in their day for conjugal and paternal affection. They were exemplary models of virtue in domestick life. Three of them (Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI,) precipitated from a throne, were secretly put to death; one, (Charles I,) ignominiously suffered upon a publick scaffold; and the fifth, (James II,) having forfeited his crown, was sent into exile. Yet not many hours preceding the fatal, expiative sentence, each of these deluded potentates was assured, by his Ministers and sycophants, he could do no wrong. It may be decent, it may be proper, though I have ever regarded such assurance as the syren canticle which has led many of our best princes with a full-swelled canvass on those quicksands they would otherwise have steered clear of. Sir, it is only by protecting the guilty that Kings can do wrong. The people of England owe much forbearance, and are slow to commotion; but when once in arms, and under the standard of constitutional freedom, however they may have been sometimes baffled in partial onsets, they have, at the day of decisive battle, proved themselves invincible. Neither has such, their laudable enthusiasm, been confined to the re-establishing of original laws for the security of their possessions and franchises; but has operated with no less vigour in bringing to condign punishment those traitorous persons who had presumed to infringe them; nay, of this we have striking proofs, without recurring to the moment of actual revolt, and when the executive power was compelled to pay due regard to popular discontent. In the reign of Richard II, the weakest and worst of our Kings, (who at one time declared he would not turn out the meanest scullion in his kitchen to please his Parliament,) some great men who had abused the Royal confidence, by carrying into execution schemes subversive of publick liberty, suffered as being guilty of high-treason;* and at the request of his people, this King, in the tenth year of his reign, appointed Commissioners to scrutinize and reform his Cabinet and household. Henry VI, (impotent of mind, and obstinate of disposition as he was,) in his twenty-ninth year, at the suit of the Commons, banished between twenty and thirty of his Counsellors and minions from his presence, not to be seen for a year within twelve miles of the Court; their sentence says, “that they may be duly improved.” It was their master’s sad mishap, who recalled many of them at the expiration of the term mentioned, that they were found incorrigible. Under Henry VIII, the greatest tyrant of the most tyrannick race that ever grasped a sceptre of this realm, others suffered for being the chief promoters of very iniquitous extortions during the preceding reign.† Did not a Lord High Chancellor‡ experience, in the time of the first Stuart, that neither personal endowments nor elevated station could shield him from the punishment due to his corrupt practices? Sir, in the reign of Charles I, certain Judges § met the severest reprehension for attempting to deliver opinions which were deemed subversive of the rights of the people; and, in a subsequent reign, (that of Charles II,) we likewise see instances when great men ৷ were impeached before Parliament for high misdemeanors in carrying on the administration of justice. These, and other innumerable examples to be found in your annals and codes of Parliament, sufficiently evince that no official influence, no honorary dignity, could, in the days of our ancestors, screen the infractors on the lawful tranquillity of the subject from punishment, though they were the nearest servants of the Crown, and illumined with the brightest rays of kingly favour. Sir, I am well aware that the malversations of Government have, in the detail, been usually brought as a heavy charge upon the Minister only, keeping clear of the Monarch; that they have been imputed to a De Vere; a Le Despencer; a Bishop Laud; to a Father Peters; and had such incendiaries, with their base adherents, been timely and voluntarily given up for a sacrifice, atonement might have stopped there; but the Prince on the throne, fascinated by a false glare of prerogative, and plumed with towering notions of his divine vicegerency, could not be prevailed upon to withdraw his auspices from the proper authors of publick calamity, till an injured and enraged people were driven to the necessity of bringing home the sum total of grievances to the account of Majesty itself. Hence followed social warfare, rivers of blood, and dethronements.

Is there an unprejudiced person in this House, endued with a tolerable share of discernment, who, dark as the political horizon around us now is, cannot discover further mischief to be complotted on the basis of these transatlantick piracies? Are we, sir, to remain silent and passive till an army of civilized Britons, in compact with the barbarians of Russia, shall have enforced and perpetuated slavery in all our American Colonies? till your Popish brigades have taken good account of the liberties of Ireland? till a mountaineer

* Earl of Suffolk, Lord Chancellor, Duke of Ireland, Archbishop of York, and others.

† Sir Thomas Empson and Edward Dudley.

‡ Bacon, Lord Verulan.

§ Lord Keeper Finch, Judges Davenport, Crawley, Berkley, &c

৷ Chief Justice Scrogs, Sir Francis North, Sir Richard Weston, Sir Thomas Jones