1

upon the pride of the peers, and said he apprehended more true politeness was to be found among the country gentlemen. He then argued in favour of opening the doors of both Houses on the principle of duty, declaring that if he could do his duty completely without, he would never desire to enter the doors of the House of Peers; but he was very well convinced, that upon certain occasions it was absolutely necessary the members should have free access to their respective Houses; that a great commercial bill, the importation of provisions from Ireland, would probably have been lost, if he had not had access to the House of Peers, to explain the principles on which that bill went ; and that if the doors of that House had not been shut against the Lords last session, the bill for the security of literary property would never have been rejected with such contempt, after it had passed the House of Commons; for if the young peers had come down and heard the arguments on it, it would have met with a different fate.

Here the matter dropped.

IN

PETITIONS FOR RECONCILIATION WITH AMERICA.

January 23. 1775.

N the month of January 1775, numerous petitions were presented from the great mercantile cities and towns, praying parliament to desist from those proceedings which had occasioned the American association so prejudicial to commerce. On the first petition from the merchants of London, a strenous debate arose. Mr. Alderman Hayley, who presented it, moved that it should be referred to the committee who were appointed to take into consideration the papers relating to the disturbances in North America. This seemed to be so natural, and so much a matter of course, as scarcely to admit of a con

committee for the consideration of the Merchants' Petition was proposed, and Sir Wm. Meredith, after submitting to the House, whether a speedy reconciliation was practicable or consistent with such a length of enquiry as the worthy Alderman's motion led to, moved, that it should be referred to a committee on the 27th, the day succeeding that on which the committee was to take the American papers into consideration.

66

Mr. BURKE said, he was glad to hear the right honourable gentleman talk of a speedy reconciliation, and therefore must conclude that the price of his bargain with the minister when he went over to his party, was a speedy reconciliation;" yet at the same time he was sorry to see how knavish the noble lord had been, for instead of putting into his hand the reconciliatory measures, he had slipped into his hand a wand, which wand was now become one of the main pillars of administration. He proceeded to shew how materially the trade and commerce with America ought to be considered before any decisive steps were taken, and declared himself totally ignorant that the committee appointed for the 26th, were to take into consideration the papers only which lay on the table. He insisted that every information possible would add to the dispatch, and not to the delay of a reconciliation; that as the noble lord (North) had denied them the opinions of persons on the spot, the committee could not receive more material information than from the merchants trading thither, who were greatly interested in the welfare of the colonies. If there was not time sufficient to settle the American business, was not the noble lord in fault in adjourning a month to eat mince pies and drink Christmas ale, when so material a question was depending? He called the proposed committee a Coventry committee, in allusion to a well known practice, by which a troublesome person is voted to be sent to Coventry, whereby, without turning him out of company, he is wholly excluded from all attention; may be ridiculed and laughed at, and cannot interfere in his own defence. He also called it a Committee of Oblivion, consigning every thing the merchants could allege to entire oblivion. He congratulated the

ministry on such a friend as Sir William; the merchants on such an able and powerful advocate; the cabinet on such a counsellor; the right honourable gentleman himself on such a patron; and the king and parliament on the happiness of having so respectable a person in a situation to reciprocally impart the desires and wishes of either party to each other. He prophesied the most salutary effects from so happy a beginning. He compared the right honourable gentleman to Sampson, and the ministers and the friends of the declaratory act, and all the revenue acts, to the Philistines; and supposed himself to be involved in the ruin, which must follow from pulling down the pillars which had supported the system of destructive policy and oppression, which the right honourable gentleman contended ought to have been resisted. In a word, Mr. Burke turned, twisted, and metamorphosed every thing which the right honourable gentleman had advanced into so many ridiculous forms, that the House was kept in a continued roar of laughter.

The House divided on Sir William Meredith's amendment: Yeas 197: Noes 81.

Mr. BURKE, then, in a very severe speech, which he pointed chiefly at Lord North, condemned the behaviour of administration in this business; declaring that they had, for decency's sake, admitted the petition, but had determined that it should never be heard. He said, he had a petition in his hand from the principal merchants in Bristol trading to America; yet, as he found there were two committees now, the one for hearing evidence, the other for burying petitions, he plainly saw his petition would share the fate of the other, and be buried in oblivion, though not in sure and certain hopes of a joyful resurrection; that his worthy colleague, Mr. Cruger, had likewise a petition of the merchants of Bristol to present, but it would go to the silent committee, and the three, he imagined, would be left to sleep

petition, which being granted, he made the same motion as Alderman Hayley, for its being referred to the committee on the 26th.

The motion was negatived by 192 against 65.

January 26.

The merchants of London, displeased with this reference, presented a second petition, lamenting the late decision, by which their former 'petition was referred to a separate committee, and by which they were absolutely precluded from such a hearing in its support, as could alone procure them that relief which the present deplorable state of their trade required. Mr. Alderman Hayley moved, "That the order for referring the petition to a separate committee should be discharged, and that it should be referred to the committee of the whole House appointed to consider the papers relating to the disturbances in North America." The motion was opposed by Mr. Hans Stanley and Mr. Jenkinson, and supported by the gentlemen in the minority. Mr. Lewis thought the American merchants came too late; that they ought not to have been silent so long; and that having so long confided in parliament, they ought to continue that confidence. Mr. Jenkinson said, that parliament had a right to regulate the internal concerns of America. He instanced an act for regulating their paper currency; and from their submission to that, he concluded they ought to submit to every act of English legislature. He entertained no doubt that some resolutions for preserving the supremacy would answer every end of the merchants' petition, and restore trade.

Mr. BURKE treated the talk of paper currency with very little respect, and said that Mr. Jenkinson's discourse had not the most remote tendency to prove this, or any other point. For what argument, said he, can be drawn from the instance of an act to prevent paper currencies, to prove that the merchants of London ought not to be heard in the American committee? The most depreciated paper currency ever issued by Rhode Island, in its worst times,