resolution of 1685, that impeachments begun in one parliament might be profecuted in another. And this appears to have been at all times the prevailing opinion of the WHIGS. Upon a general review of these facts and precedents, the fpeaker gave it as his deliberate and decided judgment, that the impeachment was still legally pending; and that the refolution of 1685, paffed, as there was reafon to believe, by the corrupt influence of the court, and in defiance of a folemn prior decifion of both houses, and which in no inftance fince the revolution had been formally and avowedly acted upon, was wholly invalid and nugatory."

In this opinion Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and the most eminent parliamentary authorities on both fides concurred. The motion of Mr. Erskine for a fearch into precedents was negatived by a majority of 143 to 30 voices; and the original motion of Mr. Burke triumphantly carried without a divifion.

After a fhort interval, Mr. Burke made a third motion,

that the managers be inftructed to proceed to no other parts of the impeachment, excepting fuch as relate to contracts, penfions, and allowances ;" which was carried with trivial oppofition.

By the refolution of the 23d of December 1790, the lords found themselves reduced to a dilemma not very pleasant. On a meffage from the commons, that they were ready to proceed in their evidence, a committee was appointed by their lordships to fearch into precedents, which occafioned a fufpenfion of the bufinefs till nearly the conclufion of the feffion. At length the report being made, lord Portchefter moved, May 16, " that their lordships now proceed in the trial." This was oppofed by the lord chancellor, who recommended the appointment of a fecond committee to fearch for more precedents, and defended by lord Loughborough, now the oracle of whiggifm in the houfe, in a very able fpeech, in the course of

which

which he warned their lordships "not to act uncautiously with regard to the popular part of the conftitution. Let them not deny that the people were any thing, left they compelled them to think they were every thing. In commenting upon the precedents before the house, he pointed out the fallacies of fir GEORGE JEFFRIES and other COURT SYCOPHANTS, and refted his arguments on the authority of the great conftitutional lawyers Hale, Holt, and Fofter. His lordship faid, he had it in charge from the lord prefident, lord Camden, who was prevented from perfonal attendance, to ftate that nobleman's opinion as perfectly coincident with his own: and the lord prefident had left with him an opinion of the famous Selden, that the new parliament, convened in confequence of the Duke of Buckingham's impeachment 1628, were authorized to have called upon their lordships for judgment against the duke." The abatement of the impeachment was on the other hand maintained by lord Kenyon, lord Abingdon, &c. but on the divifion, the motion of lord Portchester was carried by a great and decifive majority. And their lordfhips, with the refolution of 1685 still standing in their journals, acquainted the house of commons by meffage, that they were now ready to proceed in the trial. But very little progrefs was made in it during the fhort remainder of the feffion.

Soon afrer the recefs of parliament (February 21, 1791), Mr. Mitford, a lawyer of eminence in the house, moved, with the previous fanction and approbation of government, for a bill to relieve the English catholics from the legal penalties ftill existing and in force against them. The propofed act of toleration was however confined to fuch of the catholics as should subscribe a certain declaration or proteft against the affumed authority of the pope, &c. drawn up in terms to which it could fcarcely be expected that the majority of catholics could confcientiously affent.

Mr.

Mr. Fox rofe to object to the bill, not for what it did, but for what it did not contain. He entreated that the bill might be made general. "Let the ftatute book, faid this great statefman and advocate of toleration, be revised, and ftrike out all thofe laws which attach penalties to mere opinions." And Mr. Burke joined in reprobating the abfurdity and iniquity of those statutes which condemn every man who worships God in his own way, as guilty of treafon against the state. Mr. Pitt commended these fentiments, but thought it not prudent to act upon them; and the bill paffed in its prefent form : in confequence of which a moft invidious and mifchievous line of diftinction was drawn between the protesting and non-protesting catholics, neither of whom were chargeable with, or fufpected of, the flightest tincture of difloyalty to the ftate.

In the courfe of the feffion, Mr. Fox, ever active in the caufe of liberty, moved for a bill to afcertain the rights of juries in the matter of libel. With refpect to the pretend. ed diftinction between law and fact, Mr. Fox obferved, "that when a man was accufed of murder, a crime confifting of law and fact, the jury every day found a verdict of guilty and this was alfo the cafe in felony and every other criminal indictment. Libels were the only exception, the fingle anomaly. He contended, that if the jury had no jurifdiction over libels, the counfel who addreffed them on either fide as to the criminality of the publication were guilty of a grofs and infolent farcafm. Mr. Fox put this matter in a remarkably strong point of view, by adverting to the law of treafon. It was admitted on all hands, that a writing might be an overt act of treason. In this cafe, if the court of king's bench were to fay to the jury, Confider only whether the criminal published the paper-do not confider the nature of it-do not confider whether it correfpond to the definition of treafon or not'-would Englishmen endure that death fhould be inflicted without a jury having had an opportunity of deli

vering

vering their fentiments, whether the individual was or was not guilty of the crime with which he was charged? Mr. Fox wifhed to know, whether the modern doctrine of libels did or did not extend to high treafon ?" On its tranfmiffion to the houfe of lords, the bill was opposed on the fecond reading by the lord chancellor, on pretence of its being too late in the feffion to difcufs a measure of fuch importance. The principle of the bill was moft ably defended by the law lords Camden and Loughborough, with whom lord Grenville concurred; but the bill was finally poftponed.

The evidence on the flave trade being at length closed, Mr. Wilberforce, on the 18th of April 1791, brought forward his long expected motion of abolition, which he introduced with a copious and mafterly display of the arguments in favor of that measure. The crimes and villanies to which this horrid traffic had given rife, were detailed with a minutenefs which placed not merely the perfons actually concerned, but human nature itfelf, in a light the moft degrading and deteftable. And the mover remarked with all the eloquence of feeling and of truth, that the history of this commerce was written in characters of blood. "Let us, faid he, turn our eyes for relief from this difgraceful scene to fome ordinary wickednefs." No fuch relief, however, was as yet to be obtained from the justice. and humanity of the houfe; for, on concluding his speech with moving" for a bill to prevent the farther importation of African negroes into the British colonies," it was negatived by a majority of seventy-five voices.

Had the fame motion been made two years before, while the feelings of the house were freshly awakened, there can fcarcely exift a doubt but that it must have fucceeded. Such is the importance of feizing the fortunate and favourable moment of action! To qualify this refufal, a bill was introduced and paffed, for chartering a company for the purpose of cultivating West Indian and other tropical pro

ducts

ducts at Sierra Leona on the coaft of Africa, by the use of free negroes; an experiment which is likely to be productive, at no distant period, of very important effects.

It had been long a subject of complaint, that the great and extenfive province of Canada continued under a government in the highest degree arbitrary and defpotic. This government was indeed acknowledged to be merely temporary; but excufes were not wanting to prolong the duration of it. At length Mr. Pitt, in pursuance of an intimation in the royal fpeech, moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal certain parts of the act refpecting the government of Canada paffed in the 14th year of his majesty's reign; and to enact farther provifions for the better government thereof. By the propofed bill, the province was divided into two diftinct governments, by the appellations of upper and lower Canada. Councils nominated by the fovereign, and houses of affembly chofen by the people, were established in each. The habeas corpus act was afferted as a fundamental law of their constitution : and by a very important and admirable clause the British parliament were reftrained from impofing any taxes whatever, but such as might be neceffary for the regulation of trade and commerce; and to guard against the abuse of this power, the produce of fuch taxes was to be at the dif posal of the respective provincial legislatures. Upon the whole, this bill contained a noble charter of liberty, and did honor to the minifter who propofed, and to the affembly which adopted it. The claufes in the bill which militated against the general principle of it, were oppofed by Mr. Fox with extraordinary animation and ability. "The great object of all popular affemblies," Mr. Fox faid, “ was, that the people fhould be fully and fairly represented; but when the affembly of one province was to confist of only fixteen, and the other of thirty perfons, they deluded the people by a mockery of representation. They feemed to give them a free conftitution, when in fact they withheld

it.