in this debate, because I have not seen them quoted on the late important Ame rican questions. "The county palatine of Durham was never taxed in parliament by ancient privilege before king James's time, and so needed no representatives; but now being taxed, it is but reasonable they should have." Such sentiments, Sir, were promulgated in this House even so long ago as the reign of Charles 2.

I am aware, Sir, that the power, de jure, of the legislature to disfranchise a number of boroughs, upon the general grounds of improving the constitution, has been doubted; and gentlemen will ask, whether a power is lodged in the representative to destroy his immediate constituent? Such a question is best answered by another. How originated the right, and upon what ground was it at first granted? Old Sarum and Gatton, for instance, were populous towns, and therefore the right of representation was first given them. They are now desolate, and of consequence ought not to retain a privilege, which they acquired only by their extent and populousness. We ought in every thing, as far as we can, to make the theory and practice of the constitution coincide. The supreme legislative body of a state must surely have this power inherent in itself. It was de facto lately exercised to its full extent by parliament in the case of Shoreham with universal approbation, for near a hundred corrupt voters were disfranchised, and about twice that number of freeholders admitted from the county of Sussex.

It will be objected, I foresce, that a time of perfect calm and peace throughout this vast empire is the most proper to propose internal regulations of this importance; and that, while intestine discord rages in the whole northern continent of America, our attention ought to be fixed upon that most alarming object, and all our efforts employed to extinguish the devouring flame of a civil war. In my opinion, Sir, the American war is in this truly critical æra one of the strongest arguments for the regulation of our representation, which I now submit to the House. During the rest of our lives, likewise, I may venture to prophesy, America will be the leading feature of this age. In our late disputes with the Americans, we have always taken it for granted, that the people of England justified all the iniquitous, cruel, arbitrary, and mad proceedings of administration, because they had the approbation of the

majority of this House. The absurdity of such an argument is apparent, for the majority of this House we know speak only the sense of 5,723 persons, even supposing, according to the laudable constitutional custom of our ancestors, that the constituent had been consulted on this great national point, as he ought to have been. We have seen in what manner the acquiescence of a majority here is obtained. The people in the southern part of this island amount to upwards of five millions. The sense, therefore, of five millions cannot be ascertained by the opinion of not 6,000, even supposing it had been collected. The Americans with great reason insist, that the present war is carried on contrary to the sense of the nation, by a ministerial junto, and an arbitrary faction, equally hostile to the rights of Englishmen, and the claims of Americans. The various addresses to the throne from most numerous bodies, praying that the sword may be returned to the scabbard, and all hostilities cease, confirm this assertion. The capital of our country has repeatedly declared, by various public acts, its abhorrence of the present unnatural civil war, begun on principles subversive of our constitution. Our history furnishes frequent instances of the sense of parliament running directly counter to the sense of the nation. It was notoriously of late the case in the business of the Middlesex election. I believe the fact to be equally certain in the grand American dispute, at least as to the actual hostilities now carrying on against our brethren and fellow subjects. The proposition before us will bring the case to an issue; and from a fair and equal representation of the people, America may at length distinguish the real sentiments of freemen and Englishmen.

I do not mean, Sir, at this time, to go into a tedious detail of all the various proposals which have been made for redressing this irregularity in the representation of the people. I will not intrude on the indulgence of the House, which I have always found favourable and encouraging. When the Bill is brought in, and sent to a committee, it will be the proper time to examine all the minutiae of this great plan, and to determine on the propriety of what ought now to be done, and to consider what formerly was actually accomplished. The Journals of Cromwell's parliaments prove that a more equal representation was settled, and carried by him into exe +

maining exactly according to its present establishment.

The monstrous injustice and glaring partiality of the present representation of the Commons of England has been fully stated, and is, I believe, almost universally acknowledged, as well as the necessity of our recurring to the great leading principle of our free constitution, which declares this House of Parliament to be only a delegated power from the people at large. Policy, no less than justice, calls our attention to this momentous point; and reason, not custom, ought to be our guide in a business of this consequence, where the rights of a free people are materially in terested. Without a true representation of the Commons our constitution is essentially defective, our parliament is a delusive name, a mere phantoin, and all other remedies to recover the pristine purity of the form of government established by our ancestors would be ineffectual, even the shortening the period of parliaments, and a place and pension Bill, both which I highly approve, and think absolutely necessary. I therefore flatter myself, Sir, that I shall have the concurrence of the House with the motion, which I have now the honour of making, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for a just and equal Representation of the People of England in Parliament." Mr. Alderman Bull seconded the motion.

Lord North was very jocular. He said, whatever reason other gentlemen had to complain, he imagined the hon. mover was tolerably well pleased with his success in London and Middlesex. He supposed the hon. gentleman was not serious, nor ever meant his proposition should go to a committee. If he should prevail, he assured him, it would cause great discontent; and he would find it no easy task to prevail on those who had an interest in the boroughs, on which he bestowed so many hard names, to sacrifice to ideal schemes of reformation, so beneficial a species of property. His lordship entered into a physical, chirurgical, and political disquisition on the nature and effects of amputations in general, as operating on the body natural and body politic; and shewed how dangerous such experiments have proved, and the risk of overthrowing or dissolving the constitutions such experiments were intended to correct and amend. He thought the proposition could do no good, and might do much harm; and added, that he did not approve of it. [VOL. XVIII.]

Mr. Wilkes made a short reply; and the question being put, it passed in the negative, without a division.

Debate on Mr. Burke's Bill to prevent the Plundering of Shipwrecks.] March 27. Mr. Burke moved for leave to bring in a Bill "to prevent the inhuman practice of plundering ships wrecked on the coast of Great Britain; and for the further relief of ships in distress on said coast." He said, he thought something ought to be done to prevent such shameful and horrid practices as had been frequently committed on the several coasts of this kingdom, scarcely a winter passing but our public prints contained accounts which were a disgrace to any civilized country; such matters ought not to pass unnoticed and unpunished. He said, that commercial countries, particularly this, which prided itself so much on its national honour, should take care to do every thing possible in its power to discourage such outrageous proceedings.

Mr. Sawbridge (Lord Mayor) opposed the motion. He thought the remedy would be worse than the disease; that the laws in being were sufficient, if well executed.

Lord Mulgrave had no objection to the Bill. He thought some remedy ought to be applied to prevent an evil which must be a disgrace to any country where it was permitted; but he doubted the efficacy of any law brought in on the plan now proposed.

Mr. Rashleigh said, he lived near the sea-coast, where such melancholy accidents, he was sorry to say, too frequently happened; yet he could affirm, that the plundering ships was generally prevented by the assiduity and exertions of the neighbouring gentlemen.

Mr. Rice said, the laws in being were sufficient to prevent the mischief, and no new law would answer any effectual purpose, if the gentlemen of property and consequence in the neighbourhood were remiss in their duty.

Sir Grey Cooper would vote for the motion, because, if negatived, it would have a very strange appearance in the votes, that a Bill bearing such a title should be stopped in the first instance; but desired it might not be understood that he meant to support the Bill after it was brought in.

Sir George Yonge said, he lived in a maritime county, and insisted the execu tion of the present laws depended on the [40]

magistrates; wherever any injury therefore was sustained, it was owing to their neglect; hence it followed, that framing new laws, without ensuring their punctual execution, was doing nothing.

Mr. Burke said, it seemed very extraordinary, that the first magistrate of the first trading city in the world, should oppose a Bill designed to protect the property of persons concerned in trade and commerce. He hoped, however, before the matter was further pursued, that gentlemen would rise, declare their sentiments, and take a decided part. For his part, he had no particular reason for pushing such a law. It was true, he thought it might be of service, but if the House disapproved of it, there his task ended, and he should cheerfully acquiesce in whatever it determined. He entreated, therefore, that gentlemen would speak out, and not permit the Bill to be brought in, merely for an opportunity to throw it out, after trouble and time had been spent in framing and bringing it in. The question being put, the Bill was ordered in by a majority of 56 to 13.

April 30. On the order for the second reading of the Bill,

Mr. Rice sincerely wished that some thing might be devised to put a stop to so barbarous a practice; but as the Bill proposed to lay a penalty on the hundred where the wreck happened, by way of indemnification, he could not consent to it, nor could he consent to it though the money were to be raised on the country at large; but notwithstanding he was against the provisions of the Bill, he was not averse to the intention, which was that of putting a stop to so great an evil. He should therefore be for sending the Bill to a committee, that gentlemen might have time to consider it. He presumed that nothing would answer the purpose better than pursuing some plan which might be the means of procuring early and timely information, but he would for his part never consent that the loss should be made good either by the county or the hundred.

Lord Mulgrave said, for the honour and reputation of the nation he should be almost for any Bill which would promise to prevent such a scandalous practice; that when vice is become so flagrant, the only way to curb it is by punishments properly suited to the nature of the offence; that none would answer so well as compelling

people by motives of mere interest to acts of humanity; that every man who lived in the hundred were the ship was wrecked, if the loss was to be made good by the hundred, would find an interest in protecting the wreck, for by so doing he would protect his own property; that this was the very reason why the hundred was compelled to make good robberies committed on the highway, in order to make them more ready to assist in apprehending the offenders, or more active in discovering them.

Mr. Mackworth, as the whole House seemed to be agreed in the principle of the Bill, did not see how any gentleman could consistently object to its being sent to a committee.

Mr. Serjeant Adair observed, that pe cuniary temptations should be restrained by pecuniary punishments.

Mr. Harris said, it was directed against the innocent as well as the guilty, and it was a maxim in law, common sense, and morals, that it was always better that two guilty persons should escape, than one innocent person suffer. What was the rule here laid down? A few of the most pro fligate persons in a hundred were to profit by public rapine and plunder, and all the reputable industrious inhabitants, persons who abhorred the act as much as those really plundered, were to be made responsible for the loss.

Mr. Whitworth said, this country was the only civilized country under heaven where such outrages were permitted, without affording redress to the injured party.

but

Mr. Henniker said, he had a ship wrecked on the northern coast of England, where gentlemen in the neighbourhood gave every assistance in their power, to very little purpose. He had another wrecked on the coast of the Mediterra nean, where he had every thing returned that was saved, and when he offered a gratuity for the trouble, the answer he received was, "No, you have already lost enough in the loss of your ship, we will take nothing."

Mr. Wallace said, that whatever our private virtue might be, we should at least assume the appearance of public virtue; for this was the only country in Europe, in which such inhuman practices were suffered, without public punishment, or public redress.

Sir George Savile painted, in strong co lours, the inhumanity of rendering the