Sir George Osborne moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to return his Majesty the thanks of this House, for his most gracious Speech from the throne.

"To express to his Majesty our serious

any body in it, who believed there were any very extraordinary; that, for his own part, he had heard of petitions being in some places un duly obtained, but that he declined, for the present, giving any opinion about their legality, or what might be the consequence of them, seeing so many persons of distinction were concerned in them; and concluded against the

motion.

I think George Onslow was the next. He said the petitions were no proof of any general discontent; and that in one county, that which he had the honour to represent, he knew the majority of the freeholders were not for the measure; that the principal gentlemen in the county were not concerned in it; that very few of the justices of peace had signed the petition, and very few of the clergy.

He was answered by sir Anthony Abdy, who observed, that though he was a friend and well wisher to the gentleman who spoke last, he must say, by far the greatest part of the gentlemen of great property were at the meeting, and signed the petition; that as for himself, he could not attend the meeting, being ill at the time, but he did sign it; that he never would deny himself being an active man in it; that as to the honourable gentleman, and as to the freeholders not knowing what they were about, as Mr. Onslow had insinuated, he would very readily admit they did not, when they chose him for their representative.

Col. Onslow, cousin to George, spoke next. What he said is not worth recollection.

Next to him was Mr. Thomas de Grey, brother to the Attorney General. He said he had the honour to serve for a great county, (Norfolk) but no petition had been resolved upon by the gentlemen, nor any great grievance complained of. Speaking of the Westminster petitioners, he called them base-born.' This gave offence, and

concern, that, notwithstanding every precaution which could be used for preventing the communication of the infectious disorder among the Horned Cattle from foreign parts, that most alarming distemper appears to have again broken out in

own reason; were they to shut their eyes and ears? that he looked upon us as the grand inquest of the nation; related his conduct with respect to the Yorkshire petition; that he did not originally move it, but was sent to by a number of gentlemen at the races, and gave an account of the great caution he had used in that matter; however, that he was so far from dreading any thing that the Attorney General had thrown out, that he did avow his having declared his opinion, that the Resolution which adjudged Luttrell duly elected, was illegal, and that he was still of the same opinion; that he did by no means approve of a crown officer throwing out his opinion in terrorem at us: sir A. Abdy had said the same. Those who had signed the petition avowed the act, and dared their opponents to punish them.

Rigby spoke next. His aim was, by wit and ridicule, to lessen the weight of the petitions, and with this view, he proceeded to relate what he had heard of the landlord of the inn at Chelmsford, with respect to the Essex petitioners, to shew that there were few or no principal gentlemen among them.

Lord John Cavendish spoke next, then Mr. Sheriff Townsend, and Mr. Aubrey all to the same purpose.

Colonel Barré rose. He urged the public discontents, and brought several instances of the ministers imprudent conduct, mentioned the matter of the colonies, and particularly shewed the absurd conduct of one of the governors they had sent over (Lord Botetourt.) He insisted on the minister's having occasioned discontents at home, and having sacrificed, as he had too much reason to believe, the honour of the British flag. He desired to know, whether orders had not been issued from some quarter, that we should not insist on the honours due to our flag; and he called upon sir Edward Hawke to say, whether all that was fair had been done.

Sir Edward disclaimed knowing of any or

Lord North made but a poor defence of the ministry, and used some arguments, that, when they came to be examined into, turned very strongly against him. His chief arguments against there being any appearance of discontent were, that the majority of the counties had not petitioned; that, in those which had petitioned, very few gentlemen of great property, very few justices of the peace, and very few clergymen bad signed the petitions. He particularly insisted upon the county of Middlesex. He averred that not one justice of peace had signed. He asserted the same nearly with respect to Westminster. He recited the proceed.

some parts of the kingdom; and at the same time to declare, that we are truly sensible of his Majesty's paternal care and vigilance for the security of his people, in having given the earliest directions for every measure to be pursued, that might

ings of that House in the last session, with regard to the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes, though he entered not into the defence of the incapacitating resolution, to shew, by any authorities in law, its legality, (so what he here said was idle, every body knowing the facts) but avowed his former opinion, insisting on our authority to determine all election matters, and that our determination was final.

I think the patriotic Serjeant [Glyun] spoke next. He shewed the necessity of the Amendment; that the nation expected redress; and that for us to refuse any enquiry into those discontents, was to drive the people to despair; that, be the discontents well or ill founded, an enquiry ought to be made, and since they had confessed there were discontents, no reason could be given why the causes of them should not be enquired into. With respect to the justices of the peace, he believed those of Middlesex were not considered in so honourable a light, that if he was speaking of a gentleman of that county, it would not be thought an additional compliment to say of him, that he was in the commission of the peace.

All who spoke on this side of the question, were exceeding bold and spirited, and did, as it were, set at defiance the power of administration.

The military Marquis [of Granby] spoke next. He expressed a kind of sorrow for his past conduct. He said he was dissatisfied with the voice he had given upon a former question; that there were discontents, and he wished the causes of them to be enquired into.

General Conway got up next, and I believe the minority thought he was going to make the same declaration, and indeed he set out as if he meant to do so; but he so qualified his expressions, that for some time no person could tell for which side he would declare. He said there were discontents; that they ought to be enquired into, but that he should give his vote against the Amendment, because it was no part of the Speech. Besides, such a general mention of complaints, was to adopt the complaint made against us, and the prayer for our dissolution, than which there could be nothing more absurd. With respect to the Resolution, he had been, and still was of opinion that it was legal, but that he would not set up his opinion for law.

Sir Fletcher Norton began with observing upon the question, (viz. alteration) that he could not see how we could alter our judgment; that he looked upon us as a court, as in that respect, whose determination was final, there being no appeal from our decision, they being the dernier resort in election matters; that he

be most likely to give an immediate check to the first spreading of the infection; and that we will not fail to take this most important matter into our immediate consideration, and to make such provisions as shall appear best calculated to carry into

did not speak this with any view to prejudice the question; but that when it came on, it might be considered, that there was no precedent of our altering our judgment; that if they argued from analogy, there was nothing like it in the constitution; that the judgments of the upper House were final; that he had thought, and still did, the proceeding legal, though he was ready to be convinced by the opinion of the House, but that, if a reversal of that judgment should be thought necessary, it was his humble opinion, an act would be the most legal and constitutional way of setting the matter right.

Mr. Edmund Burke began with reprehending sir Fletcher for giving his private opinion in a matter not now in debate, at the same time not saying one syllable to the question, or setting the matter of the petitions right; that it was such an answer, to what had been asserted of a general discontent, to say that the majority of the counties had not petitioned, as he had never heard. What, is it not a bad government, unless all the counties of England represent it as such? Is there no proof of the majority of freeholders being discontented, unless a majority of the principal gentlemen in the petitioning counties, unless the justices of the peace sign the petition? Are the farmers of no account? The gentlemen have many ways of securing to themselves an interest in the government; pensions, places, being admitted to the levees of great men; but what have the small freeholders? They have no weight, no share in the government, if they are to be excluded the privilege of electing representatives, and complaining of grievances in the way they have done. He here made a most pathetic allusion to the parable of the poor man's lamb, and said this was the freeholders' lamb. But what an argument is it to say that the petitions do not express any general discontent, because the principal gentlemen do not sign them? The gentlemen, it is well known, are much influenced; but the freeholders are above all menace, all fear, all influence. The justices of peace do not sign? The justices of peace are under the immediate appointment of the crown; and if it were that they did not sign, I should hope it would be one of the last arguments against the petitions, if ever it can be any. Good God! Sir, is there no discontent, if all the counties do not petition? What would they have that government to be, where every member of the community is to complain against it? I never heard of such an argument as this before, and hope it will now be for the last time. There never was any thing like present complaint; not one opposite petition or address from the time the first petition

to his Majesty, that the present disturbances will not extend to any part, where the security, honour, or interest of this nation may make it necessary for his Majesty to become a party; that we have the

of last year had a charge against them, at least one colony, as being rebellious; and I remember very well, at the opening of the session, we were desired to concur, and be unanimous in our resolves on the subject of America. Did any body ever hold a contrary conduct? In the middle of the session the ministry pass several resolutions, condemning the proceedings of their assemblies, accusing them of treason, by the vote which resolved, that the act of king Henry 8, extended to them. That resolution must be understood as accusing them of treason; for otherwise, why resolve, that an act of parliament made against treason extended to them? But, after this horrid accusation, was any body ever brought over to be tried for treason? and yet they are accused of it. But what do the colonies do upon this? Why, the colony of Virginia, in which I think they shew better reasoning upon the constitution than we do, came to a resolution, in which they plainly question the legality of our resolution. But what governor do they send to this colony? (and in those critical situations strict regard ought to be paid to the qualifications of persons sent to discharge so important a duty) a man is sent no way qualified to discharge that high trust; (he then read the speeches that passed between the governor and the governed, in which are the most ridiculous absurdities.)

Then he went into another part of the Speech. They have told Europe that we are afraid of going to war, and they have given one of the strongest reasons in the world, the want of supplies. I am afraid of its truth; but that is not always to be told. What, must this country, that used to give law to Europe? &c. &c. -But I must not omit mentioning some of his bold and spirited assertions. Describing the miseries of his country, its dangers from without, its discontents within, addressing himself to the Speaker more particularly, You have heard, said he, the very existence of this House questioned, its authority contemned; and can you sit still, unmoved, and hear this? No! the very chair you sit in shakes; it is without a foundation; do you not feel it stir? do you not feel it rub against you? You have heard to day, Sir, what cannot be heard among us, the representative of a very great county, (looking to sir George Saville) declare, that a resolution, a judgment of ours, was illegal; that he told his constitutents 80. You heard him patiently. He ought to be sent to the Tower! Many the most respectable present, speaking for their coustituents, have said the same thing. They ought to be sent to the same place. I ought to be sent. I have said this day, what in the ordinary

course of things, could not pass unpunished. But we are not, in the ordinary course of a first day's meeting, to echo back the words of the minister. We must not be in the ordinary course. We must not be like the horned cattle in the hold, while the ship of the state goes smoothly down the still stream of the

river.

It had been urged by some of the ministerial party, that every undue influence, every art had been practised, to bring about the petitions, by writing, private meetings, &c. In answer, he said, what arts! was writing and printing undue influence? and are we not at liberty to tell our constituents what we think upon what we do? I never heard before that writing and printing were undue influence. What art had been used! nothing but what was honest, that braved the day; an art that I hope will ever be used. If any thing unconstitutional, if any thing illegal has been done, punish the offenders. If the petitions are groundless, punish the promoters of those petitions. Nothing of this sort has been attempted. The art, believe me, Sir, is a very honest one. You hear nobody recede, nobody disclain the art. It was an art to preserve the constitution, the form of government. Do not think I say it is the best government: no, by no means; it may be in theory: but let us, at least, preserve the forms of a constitution. The opinion of the freeholders has been ridiculed and represented as the effect of ignorance. The opinion of the freeholders, of the yeomen of this country, and their sons, is not to be so treated. They have good sense at least, if they have not all the ingenuity, all the sophistry of some gentlemen. They are an honest, a most respectable body. We have heard a great deal of the principal gentlemen.' It would be well to remember, Sir, that the people once struggled for their liberties, and they had the good luck to get the better: and what became of the gentlemen? why, they were made the servants of mechanics and persons in business. Let not so great

a stress be laid upon the principal gentlemen.' We are told that there are no general discontents; that the majority are very well contented. Why, Sir, lord Clarendon, when he is giving an account of Charles the First's execution, before the gates of the palace, tells you the generality of his people were for him. But none, it seems, but base born" freeholders, and the "scum of the earth," are now discontented.

Such, Mr. Editor, were the principal arguments on the proposed Amendment; to the good sense of your readers I now submit them, only observing, that the Amendment was rejected by a very great majority.-I am, Sir, your constant reader, ANGLICANUS.