This House never took cognizance of caufes in equity till Lord Chancellor Bacon's time. This was always deemed a court of law, in the dernier refort, in which the King was fuppofed to prefide with his Peers, and, affifted by the judges of the realm, to expound, explain, and determine the laws of the land, according to their true legal conftruction and import, previous to the period I have now alluded to. But here, whatever the real jurifdiction of your Lordships may be in matters of equity, there is an end of the queftion at once. This is not a matter of equity, but mere law, the determination of which muft, in the inftant the judg ment is pronounced, be ultimately final and irrevocable, even against yourselves. Your Lordfhips power is at an end the proceedings already had on it form at present part of the law of the land. Your Lordships can no more legally revoke the judgment now it is passed, than you can give one respecting a property which was never yet litigated; for I am bold to affirm, that any order of this House would now operate as well in one cafe as the other. I have made it my business to enquire into the ufual mode of proceeding on rehearings, and do not find, that any have been granted fince the rule eftablished in 1693, till 1733, nor fince the time the noble Duke alluded to. I perceive, that many applications of this nature have been made, but the greater part of them have been as constantly rejected, and not one of thofe granted ever prayed for a rehearing of a queftion of mere law ultimately decided. But, my Lords, what would the reafons now fet up lead us to ?that certain Lords were present, and that they declined to divide the House, though they were a majority. As well, in my opinion, might a petition be prefented to reconfider the proceedings of this Houfe, when any of your Lordships happened to be locked out on a divifion. Suppose, which happened to be the cafe within thefe few weeks, any of your Lordships fhould mistake the queftion, and divide on the wrong fide; fuppofe, in the very inftance I now allude to, that the numbers had been equal, and that the noble Lord, by going below the bar, instead of staying in the Houfe, had loft the queftion, would you permit his Lordfhip to come in, fome days after, to defire the fame question to be again debated? Suppofe again, the tellers, through miftake or defign, had mifreported the numbers, would you confent to have the declared fenfe of the House fet afide? I remember to have heard a matter of that fort upon one of

of the greateft questions ever decided in this House: Lord Bradford, being a remarkable fat man, the teller, after the queftion was carried, faid, that he counted him as ten, by which he gained the victory. It is, indeed more probable he might have told him as two; but in either event, it is plain, the matter was not to be fet right, after the fenfe of the Houfe was once regularly declared.

The Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord whofe opinion Lord Chan has been so much alluded to in this debate, I can, from my cellor. certain knowledge, affirm, was fitting in the body of the House, on one of the middle benches, at the inftant the queftion was put, and had not then retired behind the throne.

The Duke of Richmond. I have been to speak with the Duke of appellant at the bar, and he feems fatisfied, by what has Richmond. paffed this day, that the numbers in the House were equal; he defires, therefore, to withdraw his petition, and decline giving your Lordships any further trouble.

May 23.

The House refolved itself into a committee on the bill for amending and explaining the Speaker's warrant bill. A trifling amendment was offered to be made to the firft enacting claufe, on which the Earl of Sandwich obferved, as there were no facts proved at their Lordships bar to fubftantiate the allegations fet forth in the preamble, it was impoffible their Lordships could longer entertain the bill, confiftent with their own rights and the ufual established modes of proceeding.

The Earl of Denbigh fupported the bill; contending, as Earl of no punishment would be inflicted by the bill, but barely Denbigh witholding the iffuing of the writ during the recefs, as preparatory to fuller and more substantial proofs, no evidence was necessary.

An altercation now ensued between the two noble Lords, till at length the Lord Chancellor rofe, and treated the Lord ChanHouse of Commons with great afperity; obferving, among cellor. other things, that the Commons had learned to treat the Lords with a degree of disrespect and contempt that ought not to be tamely borne, or let to pafs without notice; that in the prefent inftance they had fhewn the highest and moft unbecoming indignity; and for those reasons moved, that the Chairman do now leave the chair. The debate now became general, till at length Lord Sandys moved for a conference. This gave a vifible turn to the appearance of things.

VOL. II.

The

Duke of

The Duke of Manchefter fpoke againft a hafty decifion Manchefer, in a matter of fuch nicety and difficulty, and moved to have the preamble and the firft enacting clause of the bill read. A doubt which was the proper mode of proceeding feemed for fome minutes to prevail, till Lord Abercorn moved, that the Chairman do leave the chair, and report fomé progrefs; which being agreed to, a refolution was then entered up, that a conference be defired with the Commons, to know the grounds of evidence they proceeded on, relative to the amended bill for directing the Speaker to withold making out his warrant to the Clerk of the crown, for iffuing a writ for electing a burgess to serve in Parliament for the borough of Shafton, otherwise Shaftesbury, in the county of Wilts.

May 24.

The Houfe having yefterday agreed to fend a meffage to the Commons, defiring to be informed on what grounds. they paffed a bill for amending and explaining an act for impowering the Speaker, during the recefs of Parliament, to direct warrants to the Clerk of the crown to iffue writs for electing perfons in the room of fuch members as shall die, fo far as to prevent the issuing a writ, during the present recefs, for electing a burgefs to ferve in this prefent Parliament for the borough of Shaftesbury. The mafters in chancery having delivered the faid meffage, Mr. Holford acquainted the Houfe, that he had a paper in his hand containing reafons delivered to him by the other Houfe, which he read accordingly. The purport of the reafons read by the Mafter was, that they [the Commons] had appointed a felect committee to try and determine on a petition complaining of an undue election and return for the faid borough of Shaftesbury; that in the course of the examination of witneffes before the committee, most notorious bribery and corruption had been proved against a great number of electors voting at the faid election; that the feffion being nearly terminated, and too far fpent for the Houfe to take cognizance of the facts, or make a full enquiry into the proceedings of their committee, fo as to come to a final determination relative to the measures proper to be pursued against the delinquents, had deferred the further confideration of the affair till after the next recefs; and that in the meantime they had thought it expedient to pass a bill for preventing the Speaker from iffuing a writ, during the recefs of Parliament for Shaftesbury, till they fhould first take the • report of the committee into confideration.

The

The order of the day was then moved for, to go into a committee of the whole Houfe on the Speaker's warrant bill; and a motion being made, that the contents of the faid written paper, with the minutes of the proceedings of the select committee of the Houfe of Commons, be referred to the committee, Lord Scarfdale took the chair, and the Lord Chancellor rofe and obferved, that the reafons now tranfmitted by the Houfe of Commons, accompanied by the minutes of the proceedings of their felect committee, were fufficient to fupport the facts ftated in the preamble of the bill; but that the motive for witholding the writ, in the words" it appears therefore improper and inexpedient to iffue any writ during the recefs," ftill remained unfupported by any fact or allegation in the bill. His Lordship therefore moved to leave out those words, which being agreed to, the Houfe was again refumed, and the amend ment propofed by his Lordship immediately reported.

No other public business.

May 26,

The King put an end to the feffion. See his Majefty's fpeech at the end of the first volume.

ΡΕΤΙΤIONS to the KING.

The following petition was delivered to the earl of Dartmouth, January 18, 1775, to be by his Lordship prefented to his Majefty.

To the King's most excellent Majesty.

The petition of your Majesty's most loyal and dutiful your ancient fubjects fettled in the province of Quebeck.

ΤΗ

Moft humbly fheweth,

"HAT we, upon the faith of your facred Majefty's royal proclamation, bearing date the seventh day of October, which was in the year of our Lord one thousand feven hundred and fixty-three, did come and fettle ourselves in the faid province, purchafing houses and lands, and carrying on extenfive trade, commerce and agriculture, whereby the value of the land and wealth of its inhabitants are more than doubled; during all which time we humbly crave leave to fay that we have paid a ready and dutiful obedience to government, and have lived in peace and amity with your Majefty's new fubjects. Nevertheless we find, and with unutterable grief prefume to fay, that by a late act of Parliament, intitled, 'An act for the more effectual provifion for the government of the province of Quebeck in North-America, we are deprived of the franchises granted by your Majesty's royal predeceffors, and by us inherited from our fore-fathers; that we have lost the protection of the English laws, fo univerfally admired for their wisdom and lenity, and which we have ever held in the highest veneration, and in their ftead the laws of Canada are to be introduced, to which we are utter ftrangers, difgraceful to us as Britons, and in their confequences ruinous to our properties, as we thereby lose the invaluable privilege of trials by juries. That in matters of a criminal nature the habeas corpus act is diffolved, and we are fubject to arbitrary fines and imprisonment, at the will of the governor and council, who may at pleasure render the certainty of the criminal laws of no effect, by the great power that is granted to them of making alterations in the fame.

We therefore moft humbly implore your Majefty to take unhappy ftate into your royal confideration, and grant

us