Burke's Motion " for leave to bring up," making it read thus : " That " the said Representation and Remonstrance (in which " the said Assembly claim to themselves Rights derog- "atory to, and inconsistent with, the legislative " authority of Parliament, as declared hj the Declara- " tory Act) be brought up." By a vote of one hundred and eighty-six to sixty-seven, the Amendment was adopted ; and the amended Motion, of course, was promptly rejected, without a division.'

Three days after that rejection of the Representation and Remonstrance of the General Assembly, by the House of Commons, 18, 1775] the Duke of

Manchester brought the Memorial which that General Assembly had addressed to tiie House of Lords, before that House, and moved that it be read. The Earl of Dartmouth opposed the Motion ; and a spirited Debate ensued, in which the Earls of Buckinghamshire, Denbigh, Gower, Hillsborough, and Sandwich,

1 Alinon's Pui Uameiiturij lieijister, i., 4C7-47:i ; Annual Ileijinter fur 1775, " Hisfory of Europe," *llo, *116.

and Lord Mansfield, supported the Minister, and the Duke of Richmond, the Earls of Shelburne and Effingham, and Lord Camden, opposed him. The only objection raised against the reading of the Memorial was the bare suspicion that " it contained " matter derogatory to the supreme legislative power " of Great Britain ;" and on that suspicion, alone, the Memorial not having been even described, the House sustained the Minister, and declined to allow the Memorial to be read, by a vote of twenty-five to fortyfive, sending it, of course, into the legislative limbo. ^ Well might Edmund Burke subsequently say of that rejection of the Memorial aud of the Remonstrance of the General Assembly of Colonial New York, by the two Houses of Parliament, " nothing done in Parlia- " ment seemed to be better calculated to widen the " breach between Great Britain and the Colonies." ^