The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-03-26 00:00:00

►n I r14.!1. Trewvnanrd. a rnember, was arrested and relieved
aer'wdine to I w by writ of Privilege; for obeying which,

the S writ susta,licd on action for escape'. -
Atenther rase in the reign of Fleury the Bth is very remark-
abb.; namely, that of Mr. Stroud a member; who for bring-
ing gi bill into parliament for regiolatinr, the Miners in Corn-
wall, wls upon the breaking up of parliament. questioned
fsr it in the Court of Stannaries—fined and imprisoned in
Pirelli reale; but relieved by due coarse of law, by Writ
of Privilege +.
In 1:i89, thesingular and complicated rase of Mr. Hall, a
wbember, orrurs ; who having written a Bonk derogatory to
the character of the House, and having published the same
against its Orders, and misrepresented its proceedings; and
having besides written an itnpulent Letter to the Speaker, and
beinesibsent whenordered to attend in his place, was impri-

Based f.
Iu sal those Cases we may observe, that Members, when
their Privileges were violated, and their Persons arrested,
Were content in appeal to the Law, and had that tenderness
mil respect for other men's Rights assort' as their own Privi-
leges, a' to make prnri-ion for the interest of creditors, when
affected by their Privileges, and to indemnify Officers against
actions for escape, to which they were legally liable for giv-
ing up their prisoners. And never did the Members of the
MOW! of Commons presume to overleap the bounds of the
Cintstitution, and Pike the law into their own hands, till the
days of the Long Parliament; when, from the peculiar cir-
cumstnnces of the country, in order to resist the arbitrary
encroachments of a despotic Prince, the 'lode of Commons
fennel it absolutely necessary in the struggle, not only to ex-
tend their Privileges. hat to asseme powers, the exercise of
which abolished the Home of Lords, brought the King to
the block, nrd ultineitely dissolved the whole frame of Ole'
government. If these nuirpations of Power were not only
nermieneed in, ,but strenuously supported by the People, it
was because they were suppursed to be indispensibl Y necesmay
to enahie the Home of Commons to stern the torreet • 1 tyrality
widen was sweep's.; every the before it to destniction I sod
as the only means of wresting from the grasp of detPuligmt the
Liberties of the Country.
But these, suede. are not snorers sufficiently dear, nor
times sufficiently. analegong to justify our drawing theme; in-1
statu•ee, misealled Precedents, to enimienance similar pro-
ceediugs under a legal, settled, stud established system of
rovernment. Ent as every day's experience n ill inform us
how reluctantly rill men relinquise power and authority,
whieh they have once exercised, even after having reps.-
remeed its mischiefs, so wag the Home of Cornniiiiis after the
Restoration unwilling to yield tip its usurprei power and all-
Onritv, sehmitted to In times of trouble and cretionotime but
illeompatible with the return of order and the laws.
-Accordingly, we tied In the Cases of 1/r. Carey, Mr.
Fitton, Sir Samuel liamardiston. Shirley, mid Stoughton
reraNa Maslow, the pretensinm to ,Pnwer under the name of
Privilege stir clung to by both Houses of Parliament, but
as enostantly denied and resisted by each Mouse in its turn;
the otte always denying the usnrpntion of the other, and the
Pluliell aggrieved the authority of both: Consequently, no
power or euthority is tick onwledgel ne allowed to belong to
either. Rot the Wipe C•rse, which occurred about the
infar
on
mute time, and which hay been argued at a Conference be-
tween the two Houses is ent tied t* more particular notice, is
that of the four Council in, the Appeal of Sir Nicholas Crispe
*newts the usury Bowyer. lecilerahily, and others, who were
taken Into the custody of the See jeant nt Arms, for pleading
before the • Lords, contrary to an Order of the House of
'Caimans to forbid them; at which Crinference the Lords
after', That the House of Commons is no Court, has no au-
thority to administer an Oath, or to Five a Julement ; that
it is n transcendent invasion of the Liberty of the Subject;
teat it is egainst Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, and
many other laws, which have provided, That no freeman
eliall be imprisoned, or otherwise restrained of his liberty,
but by due prowess of law ; that it tends to the subversion
of the government of the kingdom, because it, is in the ea-
ten of nu Injunction from the Lower House, Which has no
authrwity or power of jurisdiction over inferior subjects,
ranch less over the King and Lords ii: Which arguments, not
to 1)s-controverted, the House of Commons contented itself
ese:h replying to. by retorts upon the assumed jerisdirtion of
I. e Home of Lords, tied by advancing empty assertions of
ii 3 own authority, without attempting to oiler a shadow of
proof in their support.
Bet iii the ease of Sir Samuel Barnardiston before-men-
the:cif, it Is curious to observe the two Houses changingsides.
The Hnose.of Commont then becomes, in its turn, the erten-
ewe coif. M Vila Charta and the rights of the people against the
emelt-ass furisdidion and arbitrary pretensinm of the Haste of ,
Lords. Each linage deciding as eqaitabl v against the smirk
pretereions of the other. and aecooline in the laws and the
interest of the public; aloe as regardless of all equity. the
eublic interest awl the laws, when tak i at. upon it th decide
lan its own cause; thus atording a strong additional illustra-
tion of the old whOlesome dortrior, " That co one ought to
" ee jildge in his own cerise."
From this period to that of the Revointion, the ant in-
Otanectliat oecnrs. is that of a Pamphlet pn dipping' and Coil'
tigAttineas. The House of Commons offered a reward for
the disgoirery of the author, and ordered the Pamphlet to•be
burned.
The next ease that oecurs. is OW of Tlr. Welwood. who
published a Wree'slv Paper, reeertine upon the whole House
ale was repririnnded and discharsea).
' , Complaint bring made against a" Book entitled " King Wil-
liam and Quern Mary Conquerors," said to be written by
Charles Fpount, Esq. was ordered to be burnt ; as likewise
was a Pastoral Letter at the same tinsel. Dyer, a News-
paper-mar. was reprimanded for peblishine Debates, and
discharged • I'. -
Navin_ briefly noticed these important Cases, I shall nevi
proceed to direct the public attention In the remarkable case
of Bridgeinan verses Holt in Iti96-7. uTbe Duchess of Graf-
tnn having claimed under a patent of Charles the second. a
light to appoint the Clerk to the King's Bench, Lori Chief
-testier Holt contested the claim. It was a trial at bar, and
was decided against the Duchess in favour of Lord ChiefJus-
tire Holt. Upon which. the counsel of Bridgeman, who lied
fmtn nominated as Clerk by the Duchess, tendered a Bill of
F. xceptioes, which the Justice.% refused to seal. In "conse-
queore of. which, -a Petitiop, cemplaiaing of the conduct of
the Judges, was presented to the House of Lords, accusing
Sir 'Wm. Dolhen. Sir Win. Gregory. and Sir Coles Eyre, Jus-
tiers of the King's Bench, of acting illegally in having so re-
fused. They were, in eninequetwe of this Charge, sum.
winned by the House of Lords to appear before them, and
answer to the complaint made io the Petition, which the
Judges refused to do : and they, in a solemn well-digested
Argument. denied the Jurisdiction of the House of Conk,
and insisted upon their undoubted Right, as Englishmen. to
a Trial by a Jury of their equals, in case they, its any thing,
were accused of having done wrong. and claimed the benefit
of brine tried according to the line wn course of the Common
Law : they relied tip in Magna Charta as freeborn Enelish-
num, whirib, they said, was made for them as well as for
others; that all Powers and Privileges in the kingdom. even
the highest. are eiretprocritteti by the laws, and have their
limits. In the Cowes of Westmimter, (said they) the Law
is determined by one, and the Fact ascertained by another;
iltere. hash the Imo and the Fart would be its the same banes.
If the Mince. of Lords should pettish, could ouch order stop
or luir the 'real process hereafter ? or he used below as a re-
rovers; nr al-gaited ? as aa all lrl Ai., convict?. or nutrefois et-
rill ? W cull the Proceedingsin the House of Lards save them
front the trouble of answering to an information or indict:e
sner.tfor eie sane thrng 'We wliere ? •
Herr it is lobe remarked, that when the Judges of the land
were attacked by an auwarrantable power, they sheltered
thenwelyseri behind the broad shield of Magma Charta and the
Trial her Jorv, well knewing tee valise of !melt a protection,
and they conclude sib these memorable words t 1 Some pea-
" sone have, perhaps, from a diffidence of succeer, or (ruin,
"'lavish fear, or private policy, forborne to question the•
" pa wer of their superior=, brit the Judges must betray their
a' repo nation, and ti eir knowledge of the laws, if they should
.":. own a jurisdiction which former times and racer prediees-
" SAM were unacquainted with." Whereupon the Petilitio
was dismissed. .
• If these reasons were conclusive against the jurisrlietioi of
the HIOUSC of Lords, dies— apply much more forcibly to the
- Hoye n( CAIIII,IOOB ; inethe House ef Lairds retains 'the judi-
cial authority of the parliament, being a Coot of Appeal ;
• but, the House of Commons has no judiral function in pee-
forms and is no entire a! all. The Judges claimed an more
. than their right as co;npioners of .Lngland in Mapes Charta
. and the Common Lew of the land ; which they contended.
.a,41 with success, admitted of no men's being tried, except by
is iury riChi‘eluels. They, affirmed. that all powers and pri-
vileges in Lee kingetim, eyes, the highest, are cirennederibed
•by the laws ' esf the land, and that they, the Judges, should
' betray a Id %Irish fear and grins ignorance,
.if they permitted
:fetch all tunrpatiou to be drawn into a precedeut enkouwn to.
f Amer times: e
, ' 'These-arguments. which need nit further oomment, ought
4s have been sufficient to put an del ter all bitch preteasiOrient
• either house of Parliament for eller; but 39 reludantly'dowl4
„revels:set With ;lewd., that we Rod the Lords in the vete
' next year, 1657, la the Case of Lord Banbury, summoning
-Used Chief Justice Holt. to appear befote'es Committer of
.ostie House t lin Curd Chief Justice Holt refused to appear,

a

• 1 Mewl!, 29.—t IM d.BB, ISO, 206. t Ibid 99.
i'Cottlieteit Part. His. M.—% 5031thett's Path Hie.
Cbb.-1 lbiC4s6.•—••• 5:42.
•