establish the fact as a precedent in law, to be applied in whatever manner his Majesty's servants should hereafter think fit. Their proceedings upon this occasion are a strong proof that a decision, in the first instance illegal and unjust, can only be supported by a continuation of falsehood and injustice. To support their former resolutions, they were obliged to violate some of the best known and established rules of the house. In one instance they went so far as to declare, in open defiance of truth and common sense, that it was not the rule of the house to divide a complicated question at the request of a member[1]. But, after trampling upon the laws of the land, it was not wonderful that they should treat the private regulations of their own assembly with equal disregard. The speaker, being young in office, began with pretended ignorance, and ended with deciding for the ministry. We were not surprized at the decision; but he hesitated
- ↑ This extravagant resolution appears in the Votes of the house; but, in the minutes of the committees, the instances of resolutions contrary to law and truth, or of refusals to acknowledge law and truth when proposed to them, are innumerable.
