the resolutions as they were moved yesterday in the House of Commons. The previous question

in parliament, resolve as follows: "That Henry Lawes Luttrell, esq. ought to have been returned a knight of the shire to serve in this present parliament for the county of Middlesex, and thereupon ordered the said return to be amended accordingly.'

"And whereas, by another resolution, of the 8th of May, 1769, the said House of Commons did, upon hearing the matter of the petition of the freeholders of the county of Middlesex, as far as the same related to the election of Henry Lawes Luttrell, farther resolve as follows: That Henry Lawes Luttrell, esq. is duly elected a knight of the shire to serve in this present parliament for the county of Middlesex.' And forasmuch as all the resolutions aforesaid, cutting off the subject from his indubitable birthright, by a vote of one House of Parliament exercising discretionary power and legislative authority, under colour of a jurisdiction in elections, are most arbitrary, illegal, and dangerous.

"Be it therefore declared and enacted, by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, 'That all the adjudications contained in the above-mentioned several resolutions are arbitrary and illegal, and the same are and shall be hereby reversed, annulled, and made void to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

After the motion for the second reading of the bill had been supported by Lord Temple, Lord Lyttelton, and the Duke of Richmond, and violently opposed by Lord Denbigh,

The Earl of Chatham rose and said :-" The noble lord who spoke last has been very loud against this motion, and very angry with those who supported it, but then he is angry in such a sort that none can be angry with him. I shall, therefore, wave replying to some reflections upon the faction, as he is pleased to call it, and take a short review of the cause of this motion. Here are 1143 legal, sworn freeholders, vote a gentleman their member of parliament, against 296 who oppose him; with this apparent majority, he comes to take his seat so given him by the laws and constitution of his country. But what do the House of Commons? Why, they shut the door in his face, and by a new statearithmetic, make 296 a greater number than 1143. Is not this, my lords, flying in the face of all law and freedom? Is not this apparently robbing the freeholders of their liberty, and making a mere farce of Englishmen's birthrights? It is very true, the House of Commons had a right, if petitioned by Colonel Luttrell, to inquire minutely into the qualifications of his opponent's electors; to admit none as such, but those duly qualified by law; and after making these deductions, then

being put on the first, it became necessary to alter the second, and then the second, third, and fourth

determine the majority. But this has not been even attempted. The seat of the legal representative has been wrested from him, and a violent outrage has been committed, that strikes at every thing that is dear and sacred to the liberties of Englishmen.

"It has been urged, my Lords, that there is no precedent for one House taking cognizance of the proceedings of the other. If my memory serves me right, I remember one nearly parallel, in the case of Titus Oates, where the Commons took cognizance of the proceedings of the Lords on that subject; so that it is no new thing for one house to be a check on the other, as it is not only established by precedent, but by the principles of our constitution. It is said, my lords, that the spirit of discontent has gone abroad—I should be surprised if it had not; for how can it be otherwise, when, to use a familiar expression, Colonel Luttrell sits in the lap of John Wilkes; when a corrupt House of Commons invert all law and order, and deny the just privilege the electors claim by the constitution of these kingdoms? When a majority in that house becomes a minister's state-engine, to effect the worst of purposes, and to produce such monstrous and unconstitutional acts, one cannot help exclaiming in the language of Shakspeare,

Fie on 't! oh fie! 't is an unweeded garden

That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely.'

"Though I will not aid the voice of faction, I will aid the just complaints of the people; and whilst I have strength to crawl, I will exert my poor abilities in their service; and I pledge myself to their cause, because I know it is the cause of truth and justice. I am afraid, my lords, this measure has sprung too near the throne - I am sorry for it; but I hope his Majesty will soon open his eyes, and see it in all its deformity; (here Lord Pomfret interrupted him, by calling him to order :) upon which Lord Chatham said,-I do not retract my words; I esteem the King in his personal capacity, I revere him in his political one; and on these principles I hope he will see it, and see it in such a light, that he will redress it by the dissolution of a house that could adopt such a measure."

The bill was rejected by 89 against 43; after which, Lord Chatham desired that their lordships might be summoned for the 4th of May, as he had a motion to make of great importance relative to the King. On that day, he moved the following resolution :- "That it is the opinion of this house, that the advice, inducing his Majesty to give the answer to a late humble address, remonstrance, and petition, of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of the city of London, in Common Hall assembled, is

were negatived, and a previous question put on all the rest. If it should be thought proper to move

of a most dangerous tendency; inasmuch as thereby the exercise of the clearest rights of the subject, namely, to petition the King for redress of grievances; to complain of violation of the freedom of election; to pray dissolution of parliament; to point out mal-practices in administration; and to urge the removal of evil ministers, has, under pretence of reproving certain parts of the said remonstrance and petition, by the generality of one compendious word, contents, been indiscriminately checked with reprimand; and the afflicted citizens of London have heard from the throne itself, that the contents of their humble address, remonstrance, and petition, laying their complaints and injuries at the feet of the sovereign, as father of his people, able and willing to redress them, cannot but be considered by his Majesty, as disrespectful to himself, injurious to his parliament, and irreconcileable to the principles of the constitution." The following speech, as well as the preceding one, bears internal evidence of being reported by JUNIUS:

of

The Earl of Chatham said: -"I am to consider, in consequence this motion, what it was the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Livery of the city of London requested, in order to discover the causes they gave, by their requisition, for such an answer-an answer so harsh, that it exceeds every thing in the history of this country. They requested, my lords, very humbly, a restoration of the freedom of election, a dismission of unjust servants, and a dissolution of a parliament that protected them; because they (the citizens of London) were not legally represented by such. Now, my lords, I do aver the truth of this petition; and I do likewise aver, that the citizens of London, with the rest of his Majesty's subjects, have a right to petition, not only by Magna Charta, and the Bill of Rights, but by a variety of acts of parliament, numerous as they are expressive. No particular part of the petition is applied to, but the whole of the contents are at once disposed of. That this petition was disrespectful to himself (the King), injurious to his parliament, and irreconcileable to the principles of the constitution.' I am too well acquainted, my lords, with his Majesty, to think him capable of giving such

The same spirit which violated the freedom of election now invades the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and threatens to punish the subject for exercising a privilege hitherto undisputed, of petitioning the crown.". Junius, vol. i. p. 135.-"The King is bound by the Declaration and Bill of Rights, to receive all petitions from his subjects."— Ibid. iii. 259.

on this plan in the House of Lords, the same correspondence should be called for, which the House of Commons addressed for the 1st of May last;

an answer - nor could he do it, with propriety, either in his regal or personal capacity. I must beg your patience, my lords, to consider this a little more attentively: First, Disrespectful to himself.' How is a King to know this? Is he a judge of what is disrespectful to him? No, my lords; the laws are to determine this for him, the just interpreters of offences. Injurious to my parliament!' How injurious to parliament? when the very nature or part of the petition refers to that freedom of election in the people, by which they became a house of judicature; 'Irreconcileable to the principles of the constitution!' when the very essence of the constitution not only permits, but requires petitioning the throne, and which the Stuarts never dared to prevent in the zenith of their power. I repeat again, my lords, the King could never give such an answer from himself; and indeed, my lords, poor as my opinion is of administration, I can hardly think it was a joint official advice, but the opinion of one, or of a confidential few; for it is impossible, if many were consulted upon this measure, that some of them must not have seen its absurdity.

"When I mentioned the Livery of London, I thought I saw a sneer upon some faces; but let me tell you, my lords, that although I have the honour to sit in this House, as a peer of the realm, I am proud, coinciding as I do with these honest citizens in opinion, of the honour of ́associating my name with theirs. And let me tell the noblest of you all, it would be an honour to you. The Livery of London, my lords, were respectable long before the reformation: the lord mayor of London was a principal among the twenty-five barons who received Magna Charta from King John, and they have ever since been considered to possess a principal weight in all the affairs of government. How, then, have these respectable characters been treated? They have been sent away sore afflicted from his Majesty's presence, and reprimanded for pursuing their undoubted rights.

"It was, my lords, when Greece was losing her freedom, that Philip of Macedon figuratively said she had lost an eye. This expression may well be applied to the stab our constitution has received in the election for Middlesex. I may well say that she has lost an eye - I may add, that the other eye is so contused and hurt in consequence, that I am afraid a total darkness will soon overspread the face of the constitution. Here, in my place, in this illustrious assembly, I do avow that Colonel Luttrell is no representative of the people. He is a mere nominee, thrust in by enemies to the laws of the land, and to the principles, the established principles of the constitution." The motion was negatived.

and it would be easy to alter the resolutions, so as to prevent the previous question, and drive the ministry either to an affirmation or a negative. (')

THE MARQUIS OF ROCKINGHAM TO THE EARL OF CHATHAM.

Grosvenor Square, Friday, p. m. 4 o'clock,
May 11, 1770.

MY LORD,

I CANNOT just now re-collect my thoughts so fully as to be able to write to your Lordship a decisive opinion on the subject of the letter I had the honour to receive from you. As yet I have not seen the Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Portland, and some other lords whom I wish much to talk with on the matter. From some information I have, I should doubt whether in general, among the lords in opposition, an address for the dissolution of parliament would be a measure which they would incline to. It does not strike me that it is particularly called for; because I cannot admit that, though some people may throw out suspicions or reflections that there is lukewarmness, or that we or others do not adhere to the measure of dissolution,

(1) The resolutions related to the disorders in North America. The mover was Mr. Burke. Upon the second, the House divided, yeas 79, noes 199. Similar resolutions were moved in the House of Lords, by the Duke of Richmond on the 18th, and negatived by 60 against 26.