say what the colonies should not do, take place without the consent of the colonies; as in the instance of burning the tea, assaulting the magistracy, destroying the King's stores, and other acts of violence, the colonies had been lately guilty of, which they would say they had a right to do, notwithstanding our prohibition of them. Sir Cecil Wray said, he did not mean that this measure would bring us back to the state we were in with the colonies before the Stamp Act; but approved of the measure, as being similar to those in practice before the passing the Stamp Act; and that as to the prohibitory acts, he did not mean such as the noble lord had mentioned, which were only acts of selfdefence against the execution of unjust tyrannical laws, but regulations of external trade and things of that nature, which, for the good of the whole, it was the duty of parliament to regulate. sire of obtaining something in favour of ourselves and the colonies. He expressed his surprize that the noble lord should liken requisitions of this nature to ship money: the dispute in the latter case was not the demand, but the manner of enforcing that demand under the sanction of law. Mr. Vyner was surprized at two assertions of the seconder of the motion; the first, that Britain was not high taxed: he did not know what could be called so, if the present state was not. Did we not pay 35. in the pound? Was not every article of life taxed? As to the second, namely, the cowardice of the people of England, that too he utterly denied: they were, indeed, inferior to regular troops, but that these troops were Englishmen, and as brave as any in the world. Mr. Tuffnel attempted to shew, that the war, though begun in America, was the plan of the French minister, but that he did not mean it should have taken place so soon as it did. The motion was negatived without a division. Mr. T. Townshend observed, that though the present measures were adopted by a large majority in parliament, yet, if they did not succeed, the noble lord would find himself responsible; that it had been fre- Mr. Hartley also made the three folquently said, that the disturbances in Ame- lowing motions, 1. "That leave be given rica arose from the advice and speeches to bring in a Bill to suspend, for the term made in England; that this he would call of three years, the force and execution of calumny, unless some gentleman would an Act, passed in the last session of parget up and avow this doctrine, and pro-liament, entitled, An Act to discontinue, duce convincing proofs that this was so. in such manner and for such time as are Lord W. Campbell answered, that he therein mentioned, the landing and dishad said so in debate, and he had a right charging, lading or shipping of goods, do so; he had letters in his pocket proving wares or merchandize, at the town and it, but the papers on the table were suffi- within the harbour of Boston, in the procient to convince every gentleman of it, vince of Massachuset's Bay, in New Engwithout applying to private proofs. land.' 2. That leave be given to bring in a Bill to suspend, for the term of two years, an Act passed in the last session of parliament, entitled, An Act for the impartial administration of justice, in the cases of persons questioned for any acts done by them, in the execution of the law; or, for the suppression of riots or tumults in the province of Massachuset's Bay, in New England.' 3. That leave be given to bring in a Bill to suspend, for the term of three years, an Act passed in the last session of parliament, entitled, Mr. Lyttelton observed, that the quarrel which brought on the late war was not for a quantity of derelict land in America, but that the French had endeavoured, by their encroachments, to obtain another port on the sea coast, Quebec being shut up by the ice for many months in the year, and Louisiana by no means a flourishing colony; that this port and communication would have been by the river St. John; that therefore the war must be considered as an American war. Sir G. Savile shewed, that the three different propositions mentioned, had been made at different times; that when one could not be obtained, a second (something different, according to the rule of parliament) and now a third, again differing, were made; that this did not shew A difference of measures, but only a de An Act for the better regulating the government of the province of Massachuset's Bay, in New England.'" All which were negatived. Small Notes' Bill.] Sir George Savile moved the House to go into a committee, to consider of the evil arising from the circulation in payment of notes of small value. Two witnessee examined, and several of the notes were produced, some of them so low as a shilling or eighteen pence. This evil seemed to be confined to certain trading parts in Yorkshire; where it had been productive of the most iniquitous consequences. A Bill was accordingly ordered to be brought in on the facts stated, to correct the evil complained of. Proceedings on the Bill to incapacitate the Voters of Hindon.] March 29. A motion was made for the second reading of the Bill for incapacitating 188 voters of the borough of Hindon; and another motion was made, That Thomas Spence, one of the persons therein included by name, should be called in; and after some debate, it was agreed to. He proceeded to give evidence directly controverting that of one of the witnesses before the committee, on whose testimony a great number of the persons meant to be disfranchised were presumed to be guilty of bribery. He was ordered to withdraw; which produced another debate on two points. The friends of the Bill first contended, that as a particeps criminis, he was not a competent witness, as he must be interested in the event; secondly, that as his testimony went to charge another person with wilful perjury, that person should be present in order to defend himself against the accusation; and to have his evidence before the committee read to him. After a long altercation, it was agreed that Spence's name should be erased out of the Bill, in order to render his evidence admissible. They were just proceeding to examine him, when the friends of the Bill, returning to their former ground, insisted that the witness should not give evidence to any point which might impeach the testimony of the before-mentioned absent witness; and a motion being accordingly framed, stating the part of the evidence Spence should be examined to, the question was put, and the House divided, Ayes 120, Noes 107. Spence was called again to the bar, but before he proceeded, he desired to know whether he had been charged in the report with being an agent, or as a person receiving a bribe? and no answer being given, he was desired to proceed. He replied, he had nothing more to say; but that he was ready to answer any question that might be put to him, on which he was ordered to withdraw. The debate recommenced, and several propositions were made relative to the mode of examining the witness; but they were all overruled. The arguments chiefly made use of by the opposers of the Bill were, that the testimony on which the Bill proceeded, respecting great numbers of those persons supposed to be convicted of bribery, was contradictory, and not deserving of credit; that it was therefore cruel and unjust to involve the innocent and guilty in one common punishment; that the bribers were much more criminal than the bribed; that reversing this proposition, the Bill went to punish the latter in the most exemplary manner, while its friends were contented to let the great offenders escape with the like general censure of a resolution, which they did not regard; and, that on the whole, the intended punishment was totally inadequate to the purposes for which it was pretended to be inflicted, that of deterring the taking of bribes, and preventing of corruption; for as no man who wished to come into parliament by such means had any thing to fear, so on the other hand, much the greater part of those who are induced to sell their voices, would, from their poverty and distress, be always ready to hazard the loss of, nay, to give up their franchises, for present emolument. To this it was replied, that the present Bill, though it could not be expected to operate to the full extent they wished, would nevertheless have a very powerful effect upon every person not in the circumstances now described, and probably upon many of them too; that it did not preclude the House from inflicting that punishment so much desired on the other side; that they had reason to believe the affected moderation towards one set of men, and severity to wards the other, was only meant to defeat all censure or punishment whatever; that if the gentlemen might be serious and sin. cere, they were willing to adopt any plan, and to co-operate in the execution of it, which would bring the matter clearly home to the great offenders; that it was a thing unknown in the course of parlia mentary, or any species of judicial proceedings, to permit a person charged with a criminal offence, not only to exculpate himself, but recriminate on his accuser; and, that allowing it should be right to admit Spence the witness to recriminate on his accuser, it would be to the highest degree unparliamentary, irregular, and unjust, to suffer him to accuse another of justice, to conn persons on doubtful and uncertain evidence, much less upon no proof whatever; and that therefore he should be against the Speaker's leaving the chair. a criminal offence, who was absent, and not in a situation to defend himself, by which he might be liable to be convicted of one of the highest crimes defined by our law, that of wilful and corrupt perjury. The Bill was read a second time, and committed. April 10. The order of the day being read for going into a committee on the Bill, Mr. Harris professed his good dispositions towards the Bill, but doubted the propriety of going into a committee before the material parts, such as the preamble, &c. were first proved, in a course of parliamentary enquiry and examination. He believed that bribery had been committed, and he supposed that the persons meant to be incapacitated, were guilty of the offences laid to their charge; but as the Bill was manifestly a Bill of pains and penalties, the House could neither determine on belief or supposition, but when it was proceeding to inflict a punishment, so severe in its nature, and extensive in its operations, it required the most convincing and relative proofs, on the part of the prosecution, as well as that the parties who were accused, and were to be involved in such punishment, should be fairly and dispassionately heard in their own defence. He was therefore of opinion, that the supposed facts on which the present criminal prosecution was founded, should be proved before the House went into a committee, because that stage of the Bill always presumed the facts on which it was founded had been previously proved. Mr. Byng observed, that the proposition made by the hon. gentleman, was totally irregular, and against the known forms of the House; that the Bill had been read a second time and stood committed; and that therefore the order of commitment must be first complied with before any objectionable matter which it contained could be regularly debated. Mr. Attorney General Thurlow insisted, that the gentleman who first spoke, was perfectly within order; that the Bill was clearly a Bill of pains and penalties, and as such, required evidence sufficient to warrant the accusations which created the supposed delinquency; that it was unknown in the history of parliament, in the usage of the courts of Westminster-hall, in any judicial criminal process whatever, and the immutable laws of suubstantial [VOL. XVIII.] Mr. Byng complained of the very disagreeable situation he and the rest of the gentlemen who served on the Select Committee, and who drew up the Report, stood in. He stated the difficulties they had all along to encounter, and lamented the unhappy diversity of opinions that prevailed among the professed friends of the Bill; but he was now glad, that the mask had been partly drawn aside; and that the single question came to be, whether the Bill, clear of every secondary consideration, should or should not, be totally defeated in this stage. He then reminded the friends of Mr. Grenville's Bill, of their duty, and called for their support as it was demonstratively evident that the present attempt was ultimately directed at that modern palladium of the sacred right of election. He said, tired out, teazed, and thwarted as he and all the gentlemen of the same way of thinking were, he was glad that their opponents offered to meet them on fair and open ground; and no longer continued to harass them with difficulties and objections, as numerous as they were ill-founded; that the House would on the occasion be composed of only two descriptions of men, such as were professed foes to corruption, and were determined to endeavour all in their power to exterminate it with spirit and resolution; and those who as favourable to their power and importance, were resolved at all events to uphold it, and screen the delinquents. In answer to Mr. Attorney General's objections, that the present proceedings were without precedent in the annals of parliament, he desired that the Journals of 20th March 1728 might be read. This being complied with, they appeared to furnish a precedent full in point, which was the Report from the chairman (Mr. Oglethorpe) of the committee appointed to inspect the state of the Fleet prison, when, without any other evidence, but what the committee furnished, the House ordered in a Bill, for depriving the warden of his place, and for punishing him and several other persons therein mentioned. The Attorney General allowed, that the precedent was in point; but said that mode of proceeding was contrary to every idea of legal proceeding whatever. [2 P] Mr. Fox was warm against the Bill, and severe upon the committee. He said, it had been objected to him, that he had on a former night gone out of the House, and spoke to a witness, who was going to be examined. He owned he did, and was proud of the imputation, thinking it his duty as counsel for the culprit to do so. Mr. Byng replied, though judges were supposed to be counsel for the culprits brought before them for trial, he confessed he was ignorant till now, that it was part of their duty to come off the bench, in order to instruct persons charged with criminal offences to make their defence; and prompt them with the answers they were to give on examination. Sir Cecil Wray, though he approved of the second part of the Bill, namely, the introduction of the freeholders of the county as an amelioration of the constitution of the borough, yet opposed the Bill, as founded on injustice; the greatest culprits being suffered to escape, and the indignation of the House directed only against those whose situation in life rendered them more liable to the temptation of a bribe. The Speaker then left the chair, and the House went into a committee on the Bill; previous to which Mr. Fox presented a Petition from the rev. Mr. Nairn, one of the persons proposed to be incapacitated. This produced another conversation, relative to the hearing of counsel, &c. At length, the counsel being called to the bar, Mr. Thomas Dundas, chairman of the committee, asked them, who they were counsel for? The mode of proceeding took up a consideraable time it was at length agreed, that the several names in the Bill should be called over; and that the counsel should point out those for whom they were retained. This being complied with, Messrs. Bearcroft, Phipps, and Macdonald, were severally heard, as to the propriety of admitting Francis Meed, one of the persons named in the Bill, to be a competent witness. The counsel were then ordered to withdraw, and Mr. Byng moved, that Francis Meed be now called in. The Attorney General opposed this upon several grounds: first, he insisted, that Meed was not a competent witness, because, as he was involved in the general charge, he should not be brought to give evidence to convict himself: secondly, his testimony was neither admissible nor creditable, for his evidence going to prove | bribery against his brother electors, it would narrow the right of voting in the borough, and consequently inhance his franchise, because that right would be confined to a fewer number: thirdly, it was contrary to every rule of judicial proceeding in the courts below, to admit the evidence of a particeps criminis, as well as those of substantial justice; because take the alternative, a witness thus circumstanced must have an interest, either to excuse himself, or accuse others. And that, on the whole, as the present proceeding was in the nature of an indictment, to be followed by pains and penalties, it was never yet heard in Westminster-hall, or elsewhere, that any one person included in an indictment, was permitted to give evidence against his accomplices, as long as he might be supposed to have a positive and immediate interest in convicting them. Sir Richard Sutton contended, that the learned gentleman's reasoning did not apply, even though he were allowed the full benefit of the most strict legal interpretation; because, the crime of bribery, in no case whatever, can be supposed to extend further than the person bribed; his bribery being not connected with any man's, nor any man's with his. The whole 188 were bribed, it was true, but every man but himself, or any given number of them, might be convicted, and not affect him; and in like manner with all the rest. So it was in every criminal prosecution whatever, where the proof against one man did not reach another, which could never happen in the present case. For instance, suppose one man indicted in Kent for a robbery, and another in Essex; will any man pretend to say, that either of these would not be a competent witness against the other? Mr. Solicitor General Wedderburn agreed, that competency and credibility were things, though frequently attached to the same subject, totally distinct in their natures; it is your business, said he, therefore, to call the witness in, and examine him; but it is the province of the House to judge, from the particular circumstances under which he comes before you, whe ther he be a credible witness. As for his competency, I have not a single doubt on my mind that his testimony is admissible. He observed, that from the nature and magnitude of the offence, and the impossibility of obtaining substantial justice in the ordinary course of law, although the precise forms of legal process, adopted by friends of the Bill. He contended it was the courts in Westminster-hall, would not as repugnant to every rule of legal proliterally justify the examination of the wit-ceeding and mode of judicial process, civil ness, yet it would be better to dispense with them on this occasion, than permit such notorious offenders to escape. If any part of the House still retain a doubt, said he, the obstacle may be easily removed, by either striking Meed's name out of the Bill, or if that is thought irregular, read the names over which precede his, postpone them, and then erase his name, which will substantially correspond with the usual methods observed by the dispensers of criminal justice, when they admit a particeps criminis, an evidence on the part of the crown. or criminal, to permit a person to give testimony in any matter in which he was materially interested in the event, as it was palpably contradictory to common sense, and to every idea of equity and justice. The learned gentleman who spoke last, said he, seems to think, that justice ought to be sacrificed to obtain justice; but for my part, I am of opinion, that fifty offenders should be suffered to escape sooner than one innocent person should be punished; or which is the same thing, before any one of the supposed culprits should be condemned before they are legally convicted. But suppose for a moment, that the evidence applied to this or that particular man or description of men; is there a man at all conversant in criminal law, who will venture to assert, that because one has bribed, another has acted as agent, a third has received a bribe, that those different charges should be consolidated and made to apply specifically and generally against every individual comprized in the Bill? If the accu Sir George Hay replied to the general position insisted on, that the legal mode of proceeding, and immutable laws of substantial justice forbid, that a particeps criminis should be permitted or obliged to give any testimony which might tend to excuse or convict himself, or affect others in this manner. I allow, said the learned gentleman, that the rule, as generally laid down, is a fundamental maxim for regulating the admission of evidence; but I know likewise, that it admits of many ex-sation before us means any thing, or bears ceptions, one of which frequently happens in the court in which I have the honour to preside, assisted by the common law judges, that is, when substantial justice is to be obtained, and no other evidence can be procured to affect it, we admit one of the parties accused, though under the predicament so much relied on in the present debate, that of being indicted for the same crime, not, as in the present case, for the same species of offence only. For this reason, as well as the utter impossibility of reaching the offenders, I would by no means adhere too scrupulously to inefficient forms, which were designed to obtain justice and protect the innocent, not screen offenders; and as we are besides warranted by the most rigid and formal mode of judicial proceedings, I would therefore adopt the mode proposed by my learned friend early in the debate, by putting the question of postponing on each name separately, till we get to Meed's, and then erase that out of the bill or indictment, or whatever else you please to call it, which will obviate at once all the objections so much relied on by the opposers of this just and well founded pro secution. Mr. Henry Dundas replied very warmly to the general reasoning employed by the any analogy whatever to proceedings in the courts below, the charge must be a charge similar to a conspiracy. Sure, then, however zealous the promoters of this Bill may be to carry a favourite point, they will hardly venture to maintain so absurd a position: it will not be contended, that any concert or previous communication has been proved. Does not the very argument on the other side, which says, that no particular proof reaches further than the individual to whom it applies, evince the direct contrary? If, then, no charge of conspiracy can be supported, how is it possible you can convict 188 persons in the lump, upon a general accusation, which on the very face of it applies to all of them, or applies to none? Lord North said, he was inclined to support the first part of the Bill, respecting incapacitation; but he by no means approved of the mode of carrying it into execution, or the testimony on which the Bill proceeded; nor did he approve of the clause for converting the right of voting into a freehold, which, when it properly came before him, he was determined to oppose. His lordship then proceeded to examine the nature of the evidence meant to be given in support of the Bill, and after condemning it very fully, observed, |