iyp2. parliament. Corn hill. 2 — 259 



animadversion. It is now near a year since tl.Is remarkable 

 event took place, and I do not recollect to have heard it 

 animadverted upon either in conversation or in writing. I 

 blame not the minister for this, — he knew to whom he 

 spoke. It certainly gave an additional proof of his saga- 

 city to those he had on former occasions displayed. 



The wonderful part of this day's proceeding, however, 

 does not rest here ; what follows seems to be equally deser- 

 ving of reprehension. V.lien a question had been put, and 

 ckarly decided by a majority of votes, in a grave afsembly, 

 it seems to be a procedure of a very singular nature, to per- 

 mit the same question, in the same day, in the same meeting, 

 to be a second time brought to the vote. Yet this Vy as 

 done. If it can be brought to the vote a second time, why not 

 a third, or a thirtieth time, if you will ? What security does 

 ' this give to men that they may not be circumvented ? A 

 person who thinks he has an interest in a question, attends 

 •when that question is debated, stays till the vote is pafsed, 

 and hears the decision ; he is then satisfied, and goes about 

 other businefs. But when he, and those who think with 

 him, are gone, — when a packed junto, taking advantage of 

 this security, feel themselves superior in numbers, — then 

 one of these has only to rise up, and move the question a 

 second time, and the whole is reversed. Such a mode oC 

 procedure is certainly inconsistent with every principle 

 of equity and candour; and were the principle to. be a- 

 dopted, either in parliament, in courts of justice, or in any 

 other public concerns, universal confusion and distrust 

 must ensue . I freely own it excites my astoniftiment 

 that it (liould have been permitted for once to be practi- 

 sed, without the severest reprehension. I do not pretend 

 to say, whether, according to the rules of parliament, the 

 same question, under the same form, can ever be brought 

 to a second decision in the same afsernblv •, but surely, if 

 it can, material justice requires, that it fliould only be in 

 consequence of due intimation being given, that all con- 

 cerned may have an opportunity of attending at the time. 

 Two of the greatest bulwarks of freedom, are a strict 

 adherence to law in courts of judicature, and the most 

 •crapulous obscjrvante ol forms of procedure, in other r«- 



