a year, or oftener, if necessary. That king reigned fifty years, and we have an account of forty-four parliaments during that period; so that it does not appear, that he himself kept strictly his own law of holding a parliament once a-year; however, this we are sure, that no parliament continued longer than one year. We do not meet with any long parliaments till the reign of Henry VIII. That king, I believe, even in these times, and even by this house of commons, will be allowed to have been a tyrant.

Having attempted many wicked measures, which he could not carry to the utmost of his wishes with parliament, he determined to try what he could do without parliament; and for that reason, during some years of his reign, he called no parliament. At length, however, having more schemes against the constitution, to which he thought it advisable to give the colour of law, he employed his ministers and creatures to attempt to get a parliament returned, which would be entirely subservient to his will. In this his success was equal to his most sanguine wishes; for to that parliament were returned a great number of the king's friends. By means of these friends, finding himself able to carry his worst purposes, he was in no hurry to part with such a parliament; he therefore continued them by prorogation seven years; till at length they, either ashamed of what they had done, or afraid of what they might suffer, did themselves petition to be dissolved. Such was the honourable example of the first septennial parliament, which was ready to approve and sanctify any bloody or detestable act of this flagitious tyrant. The next parliament which sat for any considerable length of time, was that in the reign of Charles I. and the next was the long parliament, under Charles II. which (before men had seen the present) was, by way of distinction, reproachfully called the Pensioned Parliament. It is notorious of this parliament, that whenever any scandalous royal measure had been carried in that house of commons, the members

were invited to dinner, and found under their respective plates the sums which each man's prostitution was proportionably thought to deserve.

To remedy this evil of corruption, soon after the revolution a triennial bill was proposed. The measure frequently miscarried. It once passed both houses, but king William refused his assent: however, the patriots of those days were not easily discouraged; they were not dismayed by their defeats, but increased their ardour in proportion to the occasion for it; they persevered, and at length, in 1694, the triennial bill passed, and became a law. Against that law, however, some of the worthies of that age protested; and their protest was in the following words: We do dissent from this vote; because it tendeth to the continuance of the present parliament longer than, as we apprehend, is agreeable to the constitution of England.-Two years after the accession of the house of Hanover, the septennial bill passed. The best method of knowing the motives of those people who introduced and supported this measure, is to collect the arguments they used in its favour at the time the question was agitated. The only reason pretended was, that there had been a rebellion the year before, and that they were apprehensive, if the then parliament did not sit beyond its usual time, they should be frustrated in the great measure they had at heart, namely, the setting of the present family on the throne. I am in my own mind convinced, that the reason given was their true reason. I have so high an opinion of those men, that I cannot bring myself to think, that if they had foreseen the mischiefs consequent to that law, if they could have imagined the shameless corruption and prostitution which we see at this day, I cannot imagine they would ever have suffered, much less promoted, the fatal septennial bill. From that moment to this hour, a general system of corruption and venality has prevailed in this assembly; and men elected into this house no longer consider themselves as representatives of the people, but as persons

who have purchased a beneficial lease, which they are by all and by any means to turn most to their own advantage.

That this, sir, is our present situation, is abundantly proved by the experience of every day. Sir, you have silently heard in that chair more than one member of this house dare to assert, that their constituents have no right to instruct them, and that they do not think themselves under any obligations to obey the instructions of those who sent them hither. Sir, if any further argument was wanting to justify my motion for leave to bring in a bill to shorten the duration of parliament, his majesty himself has been most graciously pleased to furnish the strongest in its favour; I mean the answer which he has been advised to give to the petition of sixty thousand electors of England, who have petitioned him for a dissolution of parliament. Their petitions, sir, set forth, that this house of commons has violated the right of election, and that their constituents have no further confidence in them, but disclaim both them and their proceedings. To all these petitions, except one, his majesty has been silent, disdaining even an answer to his subjects to one of them, indeed, he was constrained to reply; and therefore his answer to the city of London must be considered as the answer to them all. He tells them, mocking their dutiful expressions, that he should ill discharge his duty as a father to his people, if he made so unconstitutional a use of his prerogative as to grant their humble request. Now, sir, at the same time that his majesty is advised to think it an unconstitutional use of his prerogative to dissolve this parliament at the request of the electors, who state that they are not their representatives, I shall take leave to tell you what his majesty has been advised to think are constitutional and proper uses of his prerogative. It is a constitutional use, it seems, of his prerogative, to issue an illegal proclamation. It is a constitutional use of his prerogative, to grant a noli prosequi, when a grand jury finds bills of

indictment for breaches of the peace. It is a constitutional use of his prerogative, to appoint to offices of great public trust popish recusants incapacitated by law. It is a constitutional use of his prerogative, to direct his troops wantonly to butcher his helpless, unarmed subjects; to support, defend, and reward such as were most active in that butchery; and to return formal public thanks to them all, for their alacrity in destroying those by whose honest industry both he and they are fed. It is a constitutional and an honest use of his prerogative, to order for execution misguided poor men, who were convicted upon a surreptitious rider of an unreasonable penal statute, notwithstanding the whole court before whom they were tried joined in representing to him that they did not believe the parties guilty, and recommended them as proper objects of mercy. It is a constitutional use of his prerogative, to pardon malefactors convicted on the common law of England of the most atrocious and aggravated murders, notwithstanding the judges before whom they were tried represented to him, that they were convicted by the clearest evidence, and were by no means proper objects of his royal mercy. It is a constitutional use of his prerogative, to prorogue a parliament in a sister kingdom, when regulations were to be made, without which their manufactures could not be carried on, and when none of the private business for the advantage of the country was finished, merely because they acted as real representatives of the people, and would not lend themselves to support the pernicious measures of the crown. It is a constitutional use of his prerogative, to dissolve the American assemblies (though not requested by the electors) because they would insist on preserving the rights of their constituents, and would not become the creatures of the royal governors. Such, and many more such, are the uses which his majesty has been persuaded to make of his prerogative. Both the uses which he has made, and the uses which he has not made of his prerogative, added

to the abuses of parliament, are incontestible reasons for my motion. This, sir, is all that I shall at present say upon the question: if any objection shall be made, or argument urged against it, I will answer them as well as I am able. I will not therefore now take up more of your time, but conclude with a motion, that leave be given to bring in a bill to shorten the present duration of parliaments.

COLONEL (afterwards Gen.) BURGOYNE,

Was the natural son of lord Bingley. His defeat and capture by general Gates determined the issue of the contest with America. As a writer and a speaker, he had more success, though he aimed at more than he effected. His Heiress is a feeble, though a very elegant comedy; and in his speeches, which are modelled according to the rules of Cicero, his own abilities and his own modesty take up half of the paper, and the reader's attention is equally divided between the speaker and the subject. At the same time, if they were a little less affected, they would not be without merit.

Mr. Speaker,

I RISE in consequence of the notice I gave to the house, to make a motion of as serious importance, as, I believe, ever came under your consideration, to the interest and honour of the nation to the interest of it, in as much as the influx of wealth from India makes a vital part of our existence; to the honour of it, in as much as the most atrocious abuses that ever stained the name of civil government, call for redress. For the substance of this motion I shall make no apology. I believe it to be reasonable; I know it to be parliamentary. If any excuse