of persons who have petitioned; and did the affair rest merely on this calculation, his argument would be unanswerable; but has he considered the numbers whose real sentiments are most decidedly against the rigor of Parliamentary proceedings, but which, for want of a few principals to call them together, and collect their opinions, have never reached the ear of their Sovereign? If to this consideration we add, the interest made use of on the side of Government to suppress all petitions, with the authority that placemen necessarily have over their dependents, it is very surprising, that out of forty counties, even thirteen should have had spirit and independence sufficient to stem such a tide of venality. But I will suppose that this was not the case, that no undue influence was made use of, and that hence but one-third of the people think themselves aggrieved. Are numbers to constitute right? are not the laws of the land fixed and unalterable? and is not the proceeding complained of, or any other, (supported even but by one,) to be tried, and adjudged by these laws? Therefore, however the noble Lord may excel in the doctrine of calculation as a speculative matter, it can by no means serve him when urged in the course of argument.

"Let us not then, my Lords, be deaf to the alarms of the people, when those alarms are founded on the infringement of their rights. Let us not sit neuter and inattentive to the proceedings of the other House. We are, equally with that House, entrusted with the rights of the people, and we cannot conscientiously disgrace our duties without interfering whenever we find those rights trampled upon by any part of the Constitution.

"I have, my Lords, trespassed on your patience at this late hour of the night, when the length of the debate must have fatigued your Lordships considerably. But I cannot apologize in a case so deeply interesting to the nation-no time can be too long-no time can be lost-no hardships can be complained of.

"His Lordship then condemned the conduct of the House of Commons in terms of asperity. He denominated the vote of that House, which had made Colonel Luttrell the representative for Middlesex, a gross invasion of the rights of election-a dangerous violation of the English constitution-a treacherous surrender of the invaluable privilege of a freehold, and a corrupt sacrifice of their own honour. They had stript the statute-book of its brightest ornaments, to gild the wings, not of prerogative, but of unprincipled faction and lawless domination. To gratify the resentments of some individuals, the laws had been despised, trampled upon, and destroyed-those laws, which had been made by the stern virtues of their ancestors, the iron Barons of old, to whom we were indebted for all the blessings of our present constitution; to whose virtue and whose blood, to whose spirit in the hour of contest, and to whose tenderness in the triumph of victory, the silken Barons of this day owed their honours and their seats, and both Houses of Parliament owed their continuance. These measures made a part of that unhappy system, which had been formed in the present reign, with a view to new-model the constitution, as well as the Government. They

originated, he would not say, with his Majesty's knowledge, but in his Majesty's councils. The Commons had slavishly obeyed the commands of his Majesty's servants, and had thereby exhibited, and proved to the conviction of every man, what might have been only matter of suspicion beforethat Ministers held a corrupt influence in Parliament; it was demonstrable— it was indisputable. It was therefore particularly necessary for their Lordships, at this critical and alarming period, so full of jealousy and apprehension, to stand forward, and oppose themselves, on the one hand, to the justly incensed, and perhaps speedy, intemperate rage of the people; and on the other, to the criminal and malignant conduct of his Majesty's Ministers: that they might prevent licentiousness on the one side, and depredation on the other. Their Lordships were the constitutional barrier between the extremes of liberty and prerogative."

The House being in a committee, the question was put, Whether the speaker should resume the chair? This was decided in the affirmative by a majority of 96 to 47.

The question being thus disposed of, the Earl of Marchmont, although it was past midnight, made the following motion : "That any resolution of this House, directly or indirectly impeaching a judgment of the House of Commons in a matter where their jurisdiction is competent, final, and conclusive, would be a violation of the constitutional right of the Commons, tending to make a breach between the two Houses of Parliament, and tending to general confusion."

Lord Marchmont, in recommending his motion to the House, said, that if the opposition went one step further, their conduct would justify the necessity of calling in foreign assistance. He was here called to order by the Duke of Richmond, who desired to know what was meant by the words foreign assistance. Lord Marchmont's explanation was neither clear nor satisfactory. Lord Mansfield, in a long speech, insisted that their Lordships had no right to interfere in any decision of the House of Commons.

The Earl of Egmont said, that the late petitions which had been laid before the King were highly censurable-the people had no right to present such petitions-they were treasonable.

The Earl of Chatham thanked the noble Lord for his lenity, in permitting the petitioners to have their heads on one day longer and said, the petitions were laudable and constitutional; and the right of the people to present them, undoubted. He then replied to Lord Mansfield, and argued the justice and necessity of the interference of the House of Lords in cases where the liberties of the people had been invaded, or in those of unconstitutional determinations by the House of Commons. He affirmed, that the case of the county of Middlesex fell under both those denominations. He then conjured them, by the noble blood which had run for so many ages in their veins, and by the noble struggles of their ancestors in behalf of liberty, not to behold with indifference a transaction so alarming; for his own part, he modestly said, he was hardly warm in his seat. He quoted Lord

Somers and Chief Justice Holt in support of his law, and drew their characters very finely. He called them honest men, who knew and loved the English constitution. Then, turning to Lord Mansfield, he said, "I vow to God I think the noble Lord equals them both-in abilities." Towards the conclusion of his speech he complained strongly of the suddenness of the motion; that it was made at midnight, and pressed the necessity of an adjournment of only two days. "If," said he, "the constitution must be wounded, let it not receive its mortal stab at this dark and midnight hour, when honest men are asleep in their beds, and when only felons and assassins are seeking for prey."

The question was carried in the affirmative.

DEBATE IN THE LORDS ON THE STATE OF THE CIVIL LIST.

March 14. It was moved, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House an account of all the civil list expenses, which were incurred or became due between the 5th of January, 1769, and the 5th of January, 1770, according to the establishment and other appointments then in use."

Lord Chatham spoke in support of the motion. "He said the civil list is appropriated, in the first instance, to the support of civil government; and in the next to the honour and dignity of the Crown. In every other respect, the minute and particular expenses of the civil list are as open to parliamentary examination and inquiry, in regard to the application and abuse, as any other grant of the people, to any other purpose; and Ministers are equally or more culpable for incurring an unprovided expense, and for running in arrears with regard to this service, as for any other. The preambles of the civil list acts prove this; and none but children, novices, or ignorant persons will ever act without proper regard to them; and therefore I can never consent to increase fraudulently the civil establishment, under pretence of making up deficiencies, nor will I bid so high for Royal favour. The minister who is bold enough to spend the people's money before it is granted (even though it were not for the purpose of corrupting their representatives), and thereby leave the people of England no other alternative, but either to disgrace their Sovereign by not paying his debts, or to become the prey of every unthrifty or corrupt minister-such a minister deserves death.

"The late good old King had much of humanity, and amongst other royal and manly virtues, he possessed justice, truth, and sincerity, in an eminent degree; so that he had something about him by which it was possible for you to know whether he liked you or disliked you.

"I have been told that I have a pension, and that I have recommended

others for pensions. It is true, and here is a list of them; you will there find the names of General Amherst, Sir Edward Hawke, and several others of the same nature; they were given as rewards for real services, and as encouragements to other gallant heroes. They were honourably earned in campaigns very different from those at Westminster; they were gained by actions, full of danger to themselves, of glory and benefaction to this nation; not by corrupt votes of baseness and destruction to their country.

"You will find no secret services there, and you will find that when the warrior was recompensed, the member of Parliament was left free. You will likewise find a pension of fifteen hundred pounds a year to Lord Camden. I recommended his Lordship to be Chancellor; his public and private virtues were acknowledged by all; they made his station more precarious. I could not reasonably expect that he would quit the Chief-justiceship of the Common Pleas, which he held for life, and put himself in the power of those who were not to be trusted, to be dismissed from the Chancery, perhaps the day after his appointment. The public has not been deceived by his conduct. My suspicions have been justified. His integrity has made him once more a poor and a private man; he was dismissed for the vote he gave in favour of the right of election in the people."

Some Lords called "That Lord

Here Lord Marchmont called Lord Chatham to order. out "to the bar, to the bar!" Lord Marchmont moved, Chatham's words should be taken down."

Lord Chatham seconded the motion, and added, "I neither deny, retract, nor explain these words. I do reaffirm the fact, and I desire to meet the sense of the House; I appeal to the honour of every Lord in this House, whether he has not the same conviction."

Lord Rockingham, Lord Temple, and many other Lords, upon their honour, affirmed the same.

Lord Sandwich and Lord Weymouth would have withdrawn the motion, but Lord Marchmont, encouraged by Lord Mansfield, persisted, and moved that nothing had appeared to justify such an assertion.

The Earl of Chatham.-" My words remain unretracted, unexplained, and reaffirmed. I desire to know whether I am condemned or acquitted; and whether I may still presume to hold up my head as high as the noble Lord, who moved to have my words taken down."*

To this no answer was given.

"In the course of the debate, the Earl of Chatham in his speech having said, that the late Lord Chancellor was dismissed for giving his vote in this House;' which words the House taking exception to; and it being moved, 'that the said words might be read:' it was moved, 'to adjourn.' Which being objected to, after debate, the said motion for adjourning was, by leave of the House, withdrawn.-Then the words spoken by the Earl of Chatham were read by the clerk, and are as follow: 'That the late Lord Chancellor was dismissed for giving his vote in this House.' Then it was moved, 'to resolve that nothing has appeared to this House to justify that assertion.' Which being objected to, after debate, the question was put thereupon; it was resolved in the affirmative."-Lords' Journals, March 14, 1770.

It was then objected to Lord Chatham, that he himself had recommended the Duke of Grafton; and that he had forced his Grace on the King as his first Minister.

Lord Chatham replied, "I advised his Majesty to take the Duke of Grafton as first Lord of the Treasury, but there is such a thing as time, as well as tide; and the conduct of the noble Duke has convinced me, that I am as likely to be deceived as any other man, and as fallible as my betters. It was an expression of that great Minister, Sir R. Walpole, upon a debate on the army in the year 1787, those who gave the power of blood, gave blood.' I will beg leave to parody the expression, and say, those who gave the means of corruption, gave corruption. I will trust no sovereign in the world with the means of purchasing the liberties of the people. When I had the honour of being the confidential keeper of the King's intention, he assured me, that he never intended to exceed the allowance which was made by Parliament; and therefore, my Lords, at a time when there are no marks of personal dissipation in our King, at a time when there are no marks of any considerable sums having been expended to procure the secrets of our enemies, that a request of an inquiry into the expenditure of the civil list should be refused, is to me most extraordinary. Does the King of England want to build a palace equal to his rank and dignity? Does he want to encourage the polite and useful arts? Does he mean to reward the hardy veteran, who has defended his quarrel in many a rough campaign, whose salary does not equal that of some of your servants? Or does he mean by drawing the pursestrings of his subjects, to spread corruption through the people, to procure a Parliament, like a packed jury, ready to acquit his Ministers at all adventures? I do not say, my Lords, that corruption lies here, or that corruption lies there; but if any gentleman in England were to ask me whether I thought both Houses of Parliament were bribed, I should laugh in his face and say, 'Sir, it is not so.' My Lords, from all that has been said, I think it must appear, that an inquiry into the state and expenditure of the civil list revenue is expedient, proper, and just; a refusal of it at this time will not add dignity to disgrace; but will only serve to convince the people that we are governed by a set of abjects, who possess the peculiar talent of making even calamity ridiculous."

The motion was negatived.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND'S MOTION RESPECTING THE SEIZUre of FALKLAND'S ISLAND.

The expulsion of the English from the Falkland Islands by a Spanish force in the year 1769, caused serious apprehensions to be entertained of a rupture between Spain and Great Britain.

The Falkland Islands are situate in about 513 degrees of southern latitude, and about one hundred leagues from the eastern entrance to the Staits of