The Committee of Precedents having published their Second Report which contains the documents on which their opinions are grounded, give me leave to examine those documents and to shew how far they are defective as to the subject in question, and how little they contribute to prove any right to the power for which the Report contends. The first precedent being quoted in the old Norman french, may, perhaps, have some weight with those who are prone to believe whatever they do not understand, but being translated into modern english, with somewhat more accuracy than it is translated by Mr. Cobbett in his Parliamentary Register, (Vol. 1st. p. 197.), it is literally this and no more. (11 Ric. II. Rolls of Parl. Vol. 3. p. 244)-" In "the said parliament all the lords, " as well spiritual as temporal, then "present, claimed as their liberty "and franchise, that all great mat"ters moved in the said parliament, "or to be moved in any other par"liament in time to come, touching "the peers of the land, should be "handled, adjudged, and discussed "by the course of parliament, and 46 not by the civil law, nor by the ་ common law of the land used in "other lower courts of the realm: "which claim, liberty, and franchise "the King kindly allowed and gran"ted in full parliament." It is difficult to conceive what this claim of the lords has to do with the com 1 mons, or how it relates to any other privilege than that of being tried by their own body and not by the courts below. The next case, (32 Hen VI. Roll. Parl. Vol. 5. p. 239. and Hatsell's Precedents, &c. vol. 1. p. 28.) is a very remarkable one, and when quoted fairly, will be found to make considerably against the intention of the committee. The matter was this -Thomas Thorpe, Speaker of the house of commons, had been indict ed in the court of exchequer, and found guilty of a trespass against the Duke of York, for which he was assessed damages and committed to the Fleet; on which he pleaded his privilege, and the commons prayed the king and the lords, that he might be set at liberty; to which the duke objected before the lords, by his counsel, alledging that if Thorpe was released, as judgment was given against him in vacation of the said parliament, and not in parliament time, the duke would lose his da mages, and be without remedy in that behalf: he therefore prayed that the said Thorpe, according to law, ba kept in ward, till the Duke should be fully satisfied of his costs and damages. The said lords, not intending &c. consult the judges as to the law on the question, and they with great modesty and discretion pretend "That they cannot meddle with "the privileges of parliament, never theless, they do not refuse to declare "the law, and say, that there may be many and divers special superse deas of privilege of parliament, but "there is no general supersedeas for "all processes, for if there should, "the parliament which maintaineth "all judgment and equity, would "let or hinder the process of the "common law, and put the party "complainant without remedy; and "if any member of parliament be "arrested, not for treason, felony, "breach of the peace, or condemna"tion had before parliament, he "should be released." Thorpe's case coming under the last exception, the lords determined he should be kept in prison, and the King commanded the commons to choose a new Speakr--and here we see two things worthy of notice; first, the commons snbmit their privileges to the King and the lords, and next, the lords give no determination till they consult the judges as to the law: here then we find the law of parliament submitted to the law of the land, as in all cases it ought. 66 The next precedent quoted by the Committee, is the law of 4th Henry VIII. by mistake quoted Henry VII. made for Richard Strode, who, for having brought a bill into Parliament to regulate the miners of Cornwall, was fined and imprisoned by the Stannary Court. This law has been considered as a general law, asserting liberty of speech for the commons, by Sir Edward Coke, by the commons 4 Charles I. by Prynne, by the lords and commons in Charles II. by Hatsell, and by Sir F. Burdett, and is so considered by the committee, and yet the words of the act plainly express-"That it was meant only for the benefit of Richard Strode, and the persons specified in the bill, that he of "that present parliament, or any “future parliament, that all proceedings against them for any speaking, reasoning, &c. should be void and null." Let this act be allowed to be a general act, it will be difficult to see how it bears upon the present subject, except by a forced interpretation of the Bill of Rights-that liberty of speech is said to be infringed by an action brought against the house by individuals for alleged oppression. The report then quotes the Commons' Journals, vol. 1. p. 349.—“ The commons doubt 66 not but they are a court, and "a court of record ;"-a claim constantly denied by the Lords, and proved by Sir F. Burdett to be un 64 ~ી founded. The next quotation is from a report of precedents: "It is agreed," by whom? by the report?" that the house of commons alone had a power of punishment, "and that judicial." That claim was distinctly and expressly defeated by the lords in the case of Floydd, 12 James I.-and its perilous tendency shewn by Prynne. Remarks on the 4th Inst. p. 16. The committee tell us (1675. Com. Journ. vol. iv. p. 354.) "The commons as"serted their right of punishing by "imprisonment, a commoner guilty "of violating their privileges," and "that neither Magna Charta, the "Petition of Right, nor any other "law do take away the law and "custom of parliament." The commons, we have seen, in the time of Henry VI. were only judges of their own privileges when they did not inerfere with the law of the land, and the liberty of the subject: when they did, they were to be judged by the law-and in the famous case of Ashby v. White, the lords expressly declared, that neither house had any right to create themselves a new privilege. Magna Charta cannot be against their privileges, because they had no existence when Magna Charta was enacted, neither can their privileges be against Magna Charta, because it is not repealed, and it was declared, 21 Ed. I." That all judg"ments given contrary to Magna "Charta should be held for nought." The affair of the Kentish petition is next produced, in which the commons for the first time expressly claimed the right of punishing for libels, and thereby created themselves a new privilege, thus hy degrecs encroaching upon the subject's liberties, almost unperceived The great cause of Ashby v. White, next affords a quotation to the committec, but a very meagre one, and inconsistent with the whole reasoning used by the lords, in that memorable affair. The committee says, “The 26 "lords never disputed the right of according to the opinion of the lords, W. BURDON. RESOLUTIONS, PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, &c. ON THE REFORM, 1810. [Continued from Vol. VII. p. 560. SHEFFIELD. June 6, 1810. At a Meeting of from seven to eight thousand of the Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Sheffield, convened by public advertisement, and held this day in Paradise Square, by adjournment from the Town Hall, to take into consideration the assumption of Privilege by the house of Commons, of imprisoning his Majesty's subjects for Offences cognizable in the Courts of Law; the subject of a Parliamentary Reform; and the propriety of returning Thanks to Sir Francis Burdelt for his services to his Country, the following Resolutions were voted unanimously: Mr. E. RHODES in the Chair. 1. That the subjects of these kingdoms are entitled to personal liberty and security as their unalienable birthright, transmitted by their ancestors, and confirmed by many venerable statutes; a high and sacred trust which they are determined if possible to leave unimpaired to posterity. 2. That no privileges subversive of these rights can co-exist with the statutes which enacted and confirmed them; and while we fully acknowlege the com petency of the commons house of parliament to punish contempts, and to remove obstructions to public business; we most solemnly maintain that it has no power to dispense with the unrepealed statutes of the realm, by punishing at discretion such offences as cause uo actual interruption of its proceedings, and are cognizable in the courts of law. 3. That feeling the most ardent attachment to the constitution of our country, and jealous of the least infringement upon those laws to which we owe our dearest enjoyments, we have observed with unaffected sorrow and alarm some recent proceedings of the honourable the house of commons, by which it has assumed the power of depriving us of our personal liberty, contrary to the letter and spirit of many excellent statutes, which enact that "no freeman "shall be imprisoned but by the lawful judgment of his equals or the law of the land." 4. That in our opinion a judge and jury form the only proper and legal tribunal in cases of libel; and were the power now assumed by the house of commons of deciding in all cases upon the nature and extent of their own privileges confirmed, it would have a fatal influence upon the liberty of the press, and might, in the hands of a corrupt and unprincipled administration, become a dreadful engine of despotism, and finally subversive of the English constitution. 5. That the fatal wars in which we have been engaged, the lavish expenditare of public money, the exercise by the house of commons of illegal and unnecessary privileges, its approbation of ruinous expeditions, its support of weak and arbitrary ministers, its refusal to enquire into the shameful practice of trafficking for seats, and to adopt any plan of reform, aud all the other numerous grievances under which we have long been labouring, are entirely owing to the want of a well organized and more extended representation of the people in parliament. 6. That in order to arrest the progress of our national calamities, and avert those dangers which threaten the destruction of the state, it is our decided opinion, that the house of commons should be restored to its constitutional dependence upon the people, whom it is its proper function to represent; that we highly approve the petition to the honourable house now read; that the chairman and requisitionists be autho rised to sign it on the behalf of this meeting, and that it be transmitted to Mr. Whitbread, who is hereby requested to present and support the same. bracing every opportunity of electing such members only, as will unequivocally promise their best exertions to obtain that reform in parliament, so absolutely essential to the salvation and perinanent prosperity of the country. 9. That the Right Hon. Viscount Milton, when he solicited the honour of rerepresenting the county of York, did solemnly declare to the people at the Cloth Hall, in Leeds, that they should ever find in him an active enquirer into abuses, and were it in his power, he would root out the very seeds of corrup tion; but that his lordship by his conduct on the motion of Mr. Madocks, respecting Mr. Perceval and Lord Castlereagh's trafficking for seats, by his vote against the liberation of Mr. John Gale Jones, and more particularly by his vote and speech on Mr. Brand's motion for reform, has insulted the people of England, and rendered himself unworthy of the confidence of his constituents. 10. That the thanks of this meeting be given to Mr. Brand, for his motion, and speech in the house of commons in favour of a parliamentary reform; to the 114 members by whom that measure was supported; to Lord Erskine and Sir S. Romilly, for their manly and eloquent defence of the good old laws of England, and the rights of their fellow subjects; and to Mr. Whitbread for his unremitting attention to his duty in parliament, and his constant support of every measure favourable to the inte rests of the people. 7. That from a full conviction that the present state of the representation is the grand source of all our evils, and that no real, substantial, permanent benefits can be conveyed to the people, 11. That the warmest acknowledg until they have the power of sending ments of a grateful people are more honest and independent men into the pre-eminently due to Sir F. Burdett, house of commons, this meeting do most for his prompt and generous attention earnestly and respectfully suggest to all to the case of Mr. Jones; for his elothe counties, cities, and towns of these quent, learned, and constitutional arkingdoms, the necessity of presenting gument against the power assumed by petitions to parliament upon this subject the house of commons, of imprisoning on the opening of the next session, and his Majesty's subjects contrary to the of supporting by every means in their laws of the land; and for his noble, power, Sir Francis Burdett, Mr. Brand, his virtuous, his unremitted exertions, and other gentlemen who may co-ope-"through evil report and good report," rate with them in so important a work. in parliament and out of parliament, in 8. That from the recent decision upon support of the grand national cause in Mr. Brand's motion, it is too probable, which he is engaged. that the almost unanimous voice of the nation in favour of that measure may continue to be disregarded by the present house of commons. It is therefore become the duty of the people them selves, independently to exert the power remaining to them in the state, by em 12. That the address to Sir F. Burdett, now read by the chairman, expressive of the sentiments and feelings of this meeting, be by him transmitted to the hon. baronet without delay. 15. That as the respectable men who are now uniting in the cause of reform have been the subjects of much calumny and abuse, and their motives most uncandidly and ungenerously misrepresented, we cannot separate without solemnly declaring our inviolable attachment to the government of this country as by law established; that it is our firm determination equally to support the rights of the crown, the just privileges of the commons, and the liberties of the people; that we want no impracticable plans, no fanciful theories, no vain speculations; that the sober and rational reform for which we contend, has been declared necessary to the salvation of the state by the most virtuous patriots and most enlightened statesmen; and finally, that the whole extent of our dedemand is THE CONSTITUTION, THE WHOLE CONSTITUTION, AND NOTHING BUT THE CONSTITUTION." To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. -The ADDRESS and PETITION of the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of SHEF FIELD. Sheweth; That convinced, as we unalterably are, that your hon. house is one of the main pillars of our admirable constitution, (to which we are sincerely attached) it is with unfeigned regret we are compelled to consider that you have departed, in some respects, from the peculiar design of your institution, by Combining the executive with the legislative functions, an evil which the penetrating Montesquieu foresaw might hefal this happy country, and of which, he predicted, we fear too truly, that should it ever come to pass, it would effect the speedy decay and eventual destruction of our liberties.-Without recurring to other acts of your hon. house, which have appeared to evince a disregard for the sentiments of your constituents, and to indicate that you are only nominally our representatives, we will at present confine ourselves to the cases of Mr. John Gale Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, not without some hope that you will regret the severity of your proceedings towards those freeborn subjects of our lawful sovereign, and that you will feel bound to restore them to their liberty, of which we conçeive they have been unconstitutionally deprived. We are well aware that your honourable house has frequently claimed ad exercised the right of imprisoning VOL. VIŲ. persons, members of the house of com mons, and also others not being members thereof, but we cannot help regarding such right as opposed to the law of the land, and subversive of our personal security.-On former occasions, when the claim and exercise of the privilege in question have been resisted, your honourable house, by adjourning beyond the time fixed for continuing the discussion upon such privilege, or by forbearing to persist in the resolutions you had passed, have frequently shewn the uncertain tenure of such claims, and tacitly admitted their inexpedience. It is because the exercise of this assumed privilege has been generally accompanied with so much lenity that it has not been viewed with that deep abhorrence, which we conceive its undefined and obnoxious nature is calculated to excite, and which has been described in the truest and most decisive language, by that friend of the people, that firm supporter of injured innocence, Sir F. Burdett. We beg leave respectfully to state to your honourable house that we coincide entirely with the learned argument used by the patriotic baronet, and deem it unanswered and unanswerable. While, therefore, we fully admit the propriety of your removing impediments to the freedom of debate, while we readily acquiesce in your right of punishing witnesses at your bar for contempt and prevarication, while we object to no privileges which have for their sole design the prevention and removal of every obstacle to the discussion of those important subjects, and the pursuit of those necessary inquiries, which so frequently occupy your honourable house, yet in cases like those of Mr. John Galé Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, cases wherein no violence was offered to your liberty of speech, no opposition made to your debates, no interruption given to your access to the house of commons, nor any restraint upon your persons attempted; in such cases we are decidedly of opinion that we ought not to acknowledge your privilege; and we do most solemnly call upon your hon, house to renounce, what we must deem an improper assumption of needless power, We earnestly beseech your hon. house to consider that Britons have rights which they ought never to relinquish→→ rights bought with the best blood of their forefathers, transmitted by them through a long line of patriotic ancestry, Ꮐ |