mention the annihilation of every species of civil liberty which it establishes, it plainly declares that, in the opinion of Parliament all religions are equal, and that the only foundation of preference of any is, its being the more easily converted into an engine of State. But as the motion was directed against acts of Parliament, it was impossible to agree to it. The movers of them are, said he, sufficiently known. We do not want to be informed of that. It is sufficient, at present, that Parliament has adopted them. The time, he hoped, would come, when we shall know who concealed that information, who suppressed that evidence, which, if Parliament had received, it would not have adopted them. He should reserve himself till that time; and therefore, at present, moved the previous question on the motion of the Alderman, as on one which ought never to have been made.

Mr. Hussey seconded this motion.

The Attorney-General said, that an application to the Crown, concerning any measures which had once passed the Parliament, was highly improper, unconstitutional, and derogatory to their honour; but he was against the previous question, as he should choose to give the motion itself a flat negative.

Mr. Charles Fox said he should be against the motion, because it seemed to excuse Administration, and to throw the whole guilt on some other persons; whereas he thought Administration equally guilty; but he did not think that punishment could be constitutionally and legally inflicted for anything whatever which should be done in Parliament; this conduct there will always be followed by the loss of reputation; and that he should therefore move the order of the day, as the best method of getting rid of the motion.

Governour Johnstone disliked Mr. Fox’s doctrine, that Ministers were only punishable by loss of reputation. He quoted Sir Edward Coke’s authority, that acts of Parliament, obtained by undue influence or by misinformation, were neither a constitutional excuse, nor by precedent could be made a shelter for the misconduct of Ministers. He said that he disliked the frequent use of the word ‘impeachment;’ that impeachment was a great power of the State, seldom to be exerted, but never to be mentioned without a probability of carrying it into effect against some great criminal. He objected to the motion, because he thought an inquiry should begin by proving some fact; and hoped that, from the variety of opinions in the House, and the treatment this motion met with, that gentlemen would be taught how necessary it was to act in concert, and consult and act with a number of other persons in their motions and measures.

Mr. Rigby took this occasion to ridicule most strongly the conduct of Opposition. He remarked their distraction, and the abject state to which every independent gentleman in the House must reduce himself, as a member of Opposition; that he must follow a leader much more slavishly and implicitly than in any Administration; for that if any unconnected member should make the very motion which Opposition had itself determined, yet if he did it without their previous consent and permission, they would themselves turn round upon the honest gentleman as a Rebel, and treat him with more indignity and insolence than any of which they complained in behalf of the Americans. He reminded the city members, that as they professed to act in consequence of the instruction of their constituents, they ought to obey them universally; that there were particular points which they had overlooked; that they ought to rub up their memories before they professed such obedience; that he wished them to obey them universally, that he might have an opportunity of negativing them universally.

The previous question being then proposed, That the question be now put:

A motion was made, and the question being put, That the Orders of the Day be now read,

It passed in the negative.

Then the previous question being put, That the said proposed question be now put,

The House divided. The noes went forth.

So it was resolved in the affirmative.

Then the said proposed question being put,

The House divided. The yeas went forth.

So it passed in the negative.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, December 7, 1775.

Mr. Hartley moved that the copy of the Petition to his Majesty from the General Congress in America, delivered to the Earl of Dartmouth, one of his Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State, on the 1st of September, 1775, by Richard Penn and Arthur Lee, Esquires, which was presented to this House upon Friday last, might be read.

And the same being read accordingly,

Mr. Hartley rose and said: I must entreat the candour and patience of the House this day, as I feel myself under an unusual anxiety and agitation, not simply from bashfulness of speaking in publick, or before this House, which has always been very indulgent to me, but from the greatness of the object in which, though a very private individual, I presume to interfere; an object upon which not only the fate of our own times, but of all future ages, both in this country and America, will depend. Coming in this state of mind to the House, I confess that I received no slight additional shock when I heard that this day is marked by one of the greatest losses that this country can sustain, in the death of a great naval commander, (Sir Charles Saunders,) who has carried the empire of the British flag to the highest point of glory; a name well known to America, not only on our common element, the ocean, but as an earnest and zealous friend to the constitutional and civil rights of America. Though an individual may feel the loss of a private friend in him, yet that is buried in the publick loss. He was every man’s friend. He was a friend to his country. And only for himself may his death be thought happy, in this at least, that he has not outlived the glories of his country, which was the anxiety of his latest hours; neither will his memory outlive its just and constant tribute of veneration and gratitude from every part of our dominions. Having discharged this poor personal tribute of respect and affection to his memory, and having entreated the candour of the House to myself, I will endeavour to explain the substance of the propositions which I shall offer to you to-day.

Sir, as there is nothing which I have so much at heart as to see some amicable termination of our unhappy disputes with America, I take the liberty of troubling you once more with some propositions of pacification, adapted, as nearly as I can judge, to the present state of things. When the obtaining a revenue was the professed object, as it was the only object professed last year, I then offered to the House, with great deference, my sentiments upon that subject, and drew up a plan for a letter of requisition, according to the accustomed and constitutional mode, and suited, as nearly as I could judge, to the nature of our connection with the Colonies. To this plan of contributing freely upon requisition America has again declared her assent, in the Petition to the King, which I moved to have laid before you the other day. That Petition has been ungraciously dismissed without notice or answer, though it contains everything that this country demands from America. There is supply upon requisition, if you will have it. No, says the noble Lord at the head of the Treasury, we are ready to dispense with the consideration of supply, but our authority has been insulted; we must have satisfaction for that. Then say what satisfaction for the point of honour you would have; for the Petition to the King goes beforehand with your demands in that point too. They ask for no terms of reconciliation inconsistent with the dignity of this country. What can they say more? There is supply offered, if you will have it. There is satisfaction offered to your honour, if you will put them to the test.

Sir, as I take the ground of my propositions for pacification from the Petition of the General Congress to the King, which now lies upon your table, I beg that it may now be read. [It was read accordingly.]