that it had exercised that right in a manner which violated every principle of justice and even of decency.  Election petitions were decided by the entire House, and were almost invariably treated as party questions, in which impartiality was not even professed.  Thirty years before, the Prime-minister himself (Sir Robert Walpole) had given notice to his supporters that “no quarter was to be given in election petitions;” and it was a division on one petition which eventually drove him from office.  There was not even a pretence made of deciding according to evidence, for few of the members took the trouble to hear it.  A few years after the time of which we are speaking, Lord George Germaine thus described the mode of proceeding which had previously prevailed:  “The managers of petitions did not ask those on whose support they calculated to attend at the examination of witnesses, but only to let them know where they might be found when the question was going to be put, that they might be able to send them word in time for the division.”  The practice had become a public scandal, by which the constituencies and the House itself suffered equally—­the constituencies, inasmuch as they were liable to be represented by one who was in fact only the representative of a minority; the House itself, since its title to public confidence could have no solid or just foundation but such as was derived from its members being in every instance the choice of the majority.  Yet, so long as petitions were judged by the whole House, there seemed no chance of the abuse being removed, the number of judges conferring the immunity of shamelessness on each individual.  To remedy such a state of things, in the spring of 1770 Mr. G. Grenville brought in a bill which provided for the future trial of all such petitions by a select committee of fifteen members, thirteen of whom should be chosen by ballot, one by the sitting member whose seat was petitioned against, and one by the petitioner.  The members of the committee were to take an oath to do justice similar to that taken by jurymen in the courts of law; and the committee was to have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to examine them on oath, and to enforce the production of all necessary papers; it was also to commence its sittings within twenty-four hours of its appointment, and to sit from day to day till it should be prepared to present its report.  It was not to the credit of the ministers that they made the passing of such a bill a party question.  The abuse which it was designed to remedy was notorious, and Mr. Grenville did not exaggerate its magnitude when he declared that, “if it were not checked, it must end in the ruin of public liberty.”  He was supported by Burke, and by two lawyers, Mr. Dunning and Mr. Wedderburn, both destined to rise to some of the highest offices in their profession; but he was opposed by the Attorney-general, by Lord North, as leader of the House, and by Mr. Fox—­not yet turned into a patriot by Lord