MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.

But the subject which of all others employed the eloquence and abilities on both sides to the most vigorous exertion, was a motion made by Mr. Bromley, who proposed that a bill should be brought in for repealing the septenntal act, and for the more frequent meeting and calling of parliaments. The arguments for and against septennial parliaments have already been stated. The ministry now insisted upon the increase of papists and Jacobites, which rendered it dangerous to weaken the hands of the government; they challenged the opposition to produce one instance in which the least encroachment had been made on the liberties of the people since the septennial act took place; and they defied the most ingenious malice to prove that his present majesty had ever endeavoured to extend any branch of the prerogative beyond its legal bounds. Sir John Hinde Cotton affirmed, that in many parts of England the papists had already begun to use all their influence in favour of those candidates who were recommended by the ministers as members in the ensuing parliament. With respect to his majesty’s conduct, he said he would not answer one word; but as to the grievances introduced since the law was enacted for septennial parliaments, he thought himself more at liberty to declare his sentiments. He asserted, that the septennial law itself was an encroachment on the rights of the people; a law passed by a parliament that made itself septennial. He observed, that the laws of treason with regard to trials were altered since that period; that in former times a man was tried by a jury of his neighbours, within the county where the crimes alleged against him were said to be committed; but by an act of a septennial parliament he might be removed and tried in any place where the crown, or rather the ministry, could find a jury proper for their purpose; where the prisoner could not bring any witnesses in his justification, without an expense which perhaps his circumstances would not bear. He asked, if the riot act was not an encroachment on the rights of the people? An act by which a little dirty justice of the peace, the meanest and vilest tool a minister can use, who, perhaps subsists by his being in the commission, and may be deprived of that subsistence at the pleasure of his patron, had it in his power to put twenty or thirty of the best subjects in England to immediate death, without any trial or form but that of reading a proclamation. “Was not the fatal South-Sea scheme,” said he, “established by the act of a septennial parliament? And can any man ask, whether that law was attended with any inconvenience; to the glorious catalogue I might have added the late excise bill, if it had passed into a law; but, thank heaven, the septennial parliament was near expiring before that famous measure was introduced.”