ty's fubjects, other than this House, for the purpose of promoting any redrefs of any grievance in church or state, be confidered as an unlawful affembly?-They have given me no answer; but they have ftated a cafe which is another cafe, and which is a quibble, and not an answer. They have said, that a representative of the people, other than the Houfe of Commons is an unlawful affembly: it may be fo; yet a delegation for promoting redress in matter of public concernment may not be fo, becaufe that delegation may not be, nor affume to be, a reprefentative of the people, but of a certain defcription thereof and yet the bill, both in its preamble and declaration, makes fuch affembly illegal. The cafe, therefore, stated by the gentlemen, is no more a defence of the bill than it is an answer to my question.

The bill states, that any representation of any description of his Majefty's fubjects for procuring redrefs in any manner, in any matter of public concernment, is an unlawfu affembly.

The learned gentlemen fay, that a reprefentative of the people is fo-which is not the cafe of that body who only affemble to reprefent in a particular matter, a particular province, county, city, town, diftrict, or description of people. The case submitted to the gentlemen, and the cafe contained in the bill, reft illegality on the act of delegation for procuring in any manner redress in matters of public concernment. The cafe ftated by the learned gentlemen, feems to reft the point of illegality on the generality of the reprefentation, and their reafon leems to reft it there ftill more than their cafe; for inftance, they fay a reprefentative of the people, other than the House of Commons, is an unlawful affembly, because the House of Commons are exclufively the reprefentatives of the people, and thereVOL. III. C

fore

fore to attempt to appoint a fecond Houfe of Common is unlawful, because incompatible with the firft. This reafon in fupport of this cafe is a furrender of the principle of the bill. I do not fay, the bill is betrayed; but its defence is waved by the law fervants of the Crown-they acknowledge that there is neither ftatute nor adjudication in fupport of the principle of the bill;-but they fay there is reason, and that reafon they alledge to be this-that there cannot be at one time two reprefentatives of the people; whereas the principle of the bill is, that any representation not of the people only, but of any description whatever thereof, for a public purpose, faye only this House, is an unlawful affembly.

4

The cafe and reafoning of the learned gentlemen would comprehend nothing but a national convention; but the cafes, principle, and defcription of the bill would comprehend every fubdivifion of delegation for public matter. The Presbyterian committee, of which I read a petition yesterday, and which the Proteftant Diffenters of England have appointed by delegation to promote redrefs of particular grievances, touching church and state, viz. the repeal of the Teft act-the delegation of Quakers, if that delegation fhould join in an humble addrefs for the commutation of tythes-the Fresbyterian fynod, if that fynod fhould prefume to interfere in behalf of their flock in matters touching abufes in church or ftate;-all these come within the letter of the act, though by no means within the argument which attempts to defend it. They are all delegations, and in the cafes I have fuggefted, would be employed in procuring redrefs of fome abufes either in church or ftate.

ན

3

I have thus merely confidered the argument as far as it declined the queftion I propofed, and muft fay that the only

fenfe

fenfe to be extracted from the argument is, that there cannot be at once two representatives of the people for the fame purposes-but for different purposes-it does not follow but there may.

The House of Commons, whom we will for argument's fake fuppofe the real representatives of the people, is appointed for the exercife of certain powers-powers of impeachment, powers of grant, and powers of legislation; certainly any attempt on the part of the people to give a fecond order of delegates authority to exercise such powers, would in the highest degree be illegal or what might feem to imply the fame thing, the appointment of a fecond order of delegates to represent the people generally without any fpecific limitation, would be highly criminal and illegal, because that would imply the powers I have defcribed-but the appointment of delegates for a fpecific and legal purpofe for instance, promoting the redrefs of a particular abufe touching the church or ftate-as the reform of parlia ment a limitation of public expences-a repeal of the teft act; fuch delegations which do or have existed in England and Ireland, would not be an interference with the jurif diction of the Houfe of Commons, nor within the realon of the cafe of the learned gentlemen-The people in electing members to serve in parliament part with fome of their powers, and others they retain-the power of petitioning, of inftructing, and of delivering their fenfe on abuses in church and ftate, they retain-with thefe powers they of neceffity retain another, that of forming themselves into fuch voluntary organization, of committee, delegates, or reprefentatives, whatfoever you please to call them, for the purpose either of preparing their petitions or of framing their refolution, or calling their difperfed opinions into one confiftent inftrument, on the object of the particular griev ance, with a view to render the exercise of the power they retain, confiftent, tranquil, and operative. € 2

In

In the proceedings of fuch delegation care must be taken to preserve the peace, and in fpecifying its object care must be taken to obferve the law-but if the deftination of fuch delegation is lawful and the proceedings peaceful, I know of no law, and the learned gentlemen have adduced neither law nor reason to pronounce it an unlawful affembly-I fee plainly the neceffity of leaving fuch powers free, because I fee a time may come, we have feen when fuch a time did come, when the being of the conftitution fhall depend on the exercise of such power. Suppofe a Houfe of Commons, as was the cafe of the Middlesex election, confpire against the elective rights of the community. Suppofe a House of Commons, as was the cafe of the perpetual mutiny bill, under the influence of the minifter vote the army for ever -are the people to have no power of interfering; or, which is the fame thing, no power of communicating in order to make their interference operative and confiftent? It has been faid that reprefentative conventions are illegal; but the question of legality depends on what thofe representative conventions are if they are national representative conventions affuming expressly, or by the generality of their appointment, the functions of the Houfe of Commons, they are more than illegal---but if they are reprefentative conventions appointed for a fpecial purpose to prepare a petition, or to promote the redrefs of a particular grievance, fuch as may obtain in church or state; for fuch.a reprefentative convention as committees of correfpondence, or the delegation of the Quakers, or the fynod of the Prebyterians, or such as the delegates of the Proteftant Dif fenters now exifting in England---I hold it that fuch reprefentative conventions are not illegal.

The honourable member who had made the obfervation -made this distinction, for the reprefentative convention' he condemned as a mock parliament, plainly intimating the reprefentative

reprefentative conventions not in any degree affuming the function of a parliament did not come within his objection ---it would feem therefore that it is the affumption of par liamentary functions and not the act of representation, nor the public concernment which is its object, that conftitute the illegality; and this obfervation brings the argument of the honourable member to the fame principle with that of his honourable friend---that the law will not tolerate two Houfes of Commons, as the principle of the argument is the fame, fo fhall be my answer, that the affemblies defcribed in the bill are not only fuch as affume the functions of a Houfe of Commons, nor fuch as affume the character of unlimited reprefentation, but fuch as are defcriptions of his Majesty's fub. jects however small, met on or any public purpose whatso

evet.

This argument, then, like the other, leaves the bill undefended. But it is advanced in further fupport of this argument, that the Houfe of Commons would not receive a petition from a delegation; and it is thence inferred that the act of delegation is illegal; but it does not strike me in that manner. It would feem that this obfervation could only reach delegation, for the purpose of presenting or fubfcribing petitions, not preparing petitions, nor corres ponding, nor digesting refolutions, nor promoting redress of fpecific grievances to all which the bill goes, to none of which the argument goes, nor does the argument even go so far as to prove the illegality of any delegation whatsoever; it only proves, that delegations for the particular purpose of prefenting or fubfcribing petitions, is fruitless; but it does not prove the delegates to be an unlawful affembly; or that the peace officers can difperfe them, or the crown officer profecute them. You cannot petition parliament by attorney...does it follow you cannot appoint one? Affociation

C 3