( 20 )
ARTICLE II.
What ſaid the Houſe to this petition? Did they think that his Majeſty aſſumed an unconſtitutional, or exerciſed an improper, power, in iſſuing theſe Inſtructions? Let us hear the reſolutions of the Houſe.
Reſolutions of the then Houſe of Commons on this occaſion. Reſolved, "That the complaint, contained in this memorial and petition, is frivolous and groundleſs; an high inſult upon his Majeſty's government, and tending to ſhake off the dependency of the ſaid Colony upon this kingdom; to which by Law and Right they are and ought to be ſubject[1]."
Reſolved, "That the ſaid memorial and petition be rejected."
As ſtrong as any paſſed in the preſent reign.In what inſtance, I would aſk, during the preſent reign, has the Britiſh government expreſſed itſelf in terms more ſtrong, or pointed? What act is there of the preſent reign, that aſſerts with greater energy, the dependence of the Colonies, or the ſupreme authority of Parliament?
Not adopted haſtily.Were theſe reſolutions of the Houſe extorted from them by ſurpriſe? or wrung from them by a ſudden fit of reſentment? or adopted haſtily? Or was the ſubſequent conduct of the Colonial legiſlature ſuch, as to call for a relaxation, in the ſtrictneſs of theſe inſtructions?
Confirmed by other reſolutions in the year 1740.Conſult the Journals of the Commons: See what paſſed on the 24th of April 1740, juſt ſeven years after the reſolutions recited above. Read the following reſolution:
Reſolved, Nemine contradicente, "That an humble addreſs be preſented to his Majeſty, to return his Majeſty thanks, for the orders he hath already given, and humbly to deſire him, that he will be graciously
- ↑ See Comm. Journ. vol xxi, p. 145.
