The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-24 00:00:00

Tutaz

176.] LONDON, WEDN ESDA'

of one cf the letting members, on which no proceedings
appear to have n taken. Exactly a hundred years
weeds (April 4, 1786) we have a petition from Earl Veraty,
of the kingdom of Ireland, " and of certain freeholders of
Bucks in his interest," against the return of John Aubrey,
Esq., for this county; such return having been obtained by
illegal means. Mr. Grenville's return on this occasion was
uoimpeached. The numbers polled were: Right -Eon. W.
W. Grenville, 2,261; John Aubrey, F.A., 1,746;
Earl Verney, 1,716. After a trial of ix days be-
fore the election committee, in which Lord Verney
substantiated objections against only two of Mr. Aubrey's
voters, the committee formally declined any farther
ing against the sitting member, Mr. Aubrey, wt.e:dr.as,
thereupon, declared to be duly elected.
To the case of "Ashby and White," which °courted ht the
year 1703, we should more largely advert than it is our par-
pose to do, bad it not more properly formed pert of the par-
liamentary hietory of the county borough. Neverthelees, it
is essential to be stated, that this was a case which raised
and determined what we shall venture to term the mast
"compact" question between law and privilege that had arisen
in this kingdom for centuries. As generally happens
where great Mimes of this sort have been joined,
the facts on which the (ptomain was mimed pos-
sess et first sight only the remotest bearing on a
struggle between the two greatest powers is the state.
White and others were constables serving at the election for
Aylesbury as returning officers for the borough, and they
refused to receive the vote tendered by one Ashby. Ashby
brought an action against White and others in the Cowl of
Queen's Bench for this act, and obtained a verdict spinet
them, in the face of which verdict the court gave
far the defendants. The *Mae" the
, • Or • molt et erairthr=smid
rev • . Lords having celled In the judges, selenmly
debated the question—" whether a writ of error was a writ
of right, or of grace, when duly applied for by the subject on
sufficient grounds alleged 1" They then conndered whether,
in this ease, the) would recommend her Majesty
to grant the writ as prayed. Both these questions were
ultimately determined in the affirmative. Bat, pending these
proceedings and debates, the House of Commons, under a
degree of excitement which, at this distance of time, is
hardly intelligible, obtained a conference with the Lords,
voted that the court of law which bad entertained the ori-
Meal action, the Lord Chief Justice who had permitted it to
be argued, the counsel and attorney retained for the plain-
tiff, the plaintiff himself, his witnemea, and all parties con-
cerned in the enormity of attempting to vindicate a common
law right in a court of common law, es well so the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal for entertaining Ashby's petition,
were all guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the
Commons ; and so from time to time they directed
their serjerint-at-arms to take the several parties
into custody. Those whom they caught, including
certain other persons who bad commenced maims
against the constables of Aylesbury (or refusing their votes,
they committed to Newest.. They addressed the Queen,
imploring her Mejesty to " be so tender of their uadoubted
prerogauves as not to grant the writ of error." The pri-
soners whom the house had committed, meanwhile appeared
under writs of habeas corps', sued out far them before Lord
Chief-Justice Holt, and proceeded to petition the House of
Lords; which, in its turn, strictly inhibited "all gaolers,
sojeante-at-arms, and other such persons " from taking into
custody or otherwise molesting any of such petitioners
pending the consideration of their prayer to their lordships.
This drew from the Coin eons fresh denunciations sod re-
newed hostilities against all counsel for and abettors of the
prisoners. Nay, to such a pitch waa the frenzy "of the
whole house" worked up, that they despatched their
speaker with the niece to the Court of Queen's Bench
to compel the attendance before them of Chief Justice Holt,
who had passed over without any notice their former sum-
mons. But the imperturbable judge literally put Speaker
and more both " out of court," with there words—" Mr.
Speaker, if you do not depart from this court, I will commit
you, though you had the whole House of Commons in your
belly." 'rhe Speaker " withdrew ;" the Commons con-
tinued their fulminations.fulminations.The Lords, in conference with
them, remonstrated on the heat, indecency, and unconstitu-
tional tyranny of their proceedings, and declared their firm
intention of upholding and protecting the right.' which they
then, by specific declaration, affirmed to be in the subject.
They also addreseed the throne, urging the immediate ague
of the writ of error, with a view to the protection of certain
of her Majesty's aggrieved subjects, and entered set
their journals a series of resolutions embody-
.Mg the whole principles of the common law,
and the practice of the constitution, in respect of those
rights which had been so outraged by the proceeding. of the
House of Commons. Hereupon, the resentment of the
lower house was kindled afresh, in all it. vehemence; and
her Majesty, fearivha still more serious collision between
the two estates, serea gracious menage to the lords, recog-
, rasing the claim whi had been established before then to a
writ of error in this memorable ease ; but intimating her
purpose of putting an immediate end to the session. This
conclusion accordingly had the usual effect of breaking the
seals of Mr. Speaker's warrants, and the captivity of
all who had been detained under them. The
moral as well as political effect of the lemon thus
taught has been excellent. It has spared posterity many fur-
ther collisions and, we heartily trust, all serious ones between
privilege of parliament and the rights of the people et
common law, so long as the one shall be reetrained within
the limits contemplated by the constitution, and the other
shall not be vexatiously asserted to cAstraet that privilege
within boundaries so narrow as to neutralise its independeace
of the crown and of the lords.

So much for the case of " Ashby and White." How to
regenerate the electoral independence of Buckinghamsnire
is a problem which we fear the results of the next election
will show to be at least as difficult as Queen Anne found it
to conciliate he just demands of the lords with the necessity
of respecting the hostile importunity of the commons ?
X.

t