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

STAT

and the Lords listened to the voice of reason, add dri,,..
their pretensions.
From these solemn acts of venerable Judges in good times,
,
it is evident, that undefined Privileges in the Houses of Par-
!lenient were unknown to the Constitution and the Law I
though, sometimes, perhaps, yielded to from ignorance or
fear, but in which fhe Judges who knew the laws would Dot
acquiesce.
This sound exposition of the Law. and the midget and
example of the Judges, might reasonably have been expect-
d to operate as a prevention of any farther disquietude of an
Englislfsubjeci from the power of either Homeof Parlia-
ment. And that it did produce a considerable effect, we
may presume from the number of selesequent bases, in which
neither House presumed to trench upon the Liberty of the
Subject. For instance : in the year
1698. Molyneux's " State of !reined?' He refused to ;
appear, and the House of Commons addressed the King to '
discontinue the like Works in future. I
1699. Mr. Chiron, a member, was ordered to attend for
a contempt; but dec'hyd coming: and, next day, on its
being put to the vote, Whether he Afield be taken into cus-
tody by the Serjeant at Arens? it was carried ip the nega-
ti
17ve.
02. Doctor Drake's " History of the last Parliament;'
a libel.
1707. Doctor Frienh's "Account of Lord Petethorough's
Conduct is Spain." a libel.
1719, Hall's "Sober Repty,"—a work against the Tri-
nity. . -
1750. " Constitutional Queries."
1763. Wilkes', " Essay on Woman." to which the name of
Bishop Warburton was prefixed as the author.
1763. Wilkes's " North Briton, No. 45."
, 1763. Veni Creator paraphrased.
In all of which Cases, whether for libelling any member
of either House, or the whole house, or both houses, or the
whole frame of the government. both Lords and Commons
4ere content to pique the known course of the Law, and
I {eft the party mewed to be tried by the law of the !tiptoed
a jury of his cogetry.
'There is a Case which. though prior in point of time, I
have reserved for the last. because it demands a few °beers
satiate: That of the Kentish Petition" in 1701, presented to
the House of Commons by Mr. Colepepper and four other
Kentish Gentlemen : Voted by the house libellous, seditious,
aud a breach of privilege,, and for presenting which the
!louse of Cominons sentenced these five gentlemen to be im-
prisoned. Is this an act to be justified and drawn into pre-
cedent? And of what avail is any precedent from the pro-
ceedings of an assembly whose conduct is arbitrary, and
whose actions are measured by the crooked cord of its own
discretion, not by the video meteyard of the law ?
The nett and the last Case I shall have occasion to adduce,
is that of the Middlesex Journal. in 1771, when the Serjeant
at anus of the House of Commons was sent by theirorder to
arrest the Pt inter; instead of which, the Printer took up the
Serjeant, and brought him before Crosby, Lord Mayor, and
Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, who committed the Serjeant.
Notwithstanding this outrage which the House of Commons
sustained by the attack upon its officer. it presumed not to
touch any of the unending parties, except its own members,
the Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver ; passing over the
Printer, the Journalist. and Aidernian Wilkes, who, at that
time, was not a member of the House—than which ditee
affinnaoce of its Power a stronger proof catmot he con.l
eeived.
Lest it should be possible that any person should attach the
slightest importance to the Resoluthow of either House of
Parliament, which may go to affect Woos who are not mem-
bers of those bodies, it may be necemery, to musark, that the
Journals furnish resolutions of the shosteoatradictory uature
—for instance,
April 3, 1626-7, Resolved. " That the Writ of Habeas
" Corpus cannot be denied, but ought to be granted to every
" man, that is committed or detained in prime Of otherwise
" restrained, by the commend of the king, the privy-cowed,
" or any other ; he praying the same." 4
June 9, 1705, Resolved, rums. eon. " Thtit no imamate
" of England, committed by Order or Warrant of the
" Home of Commons, for breach of privilege, or contempt
" of that House, ought without order of that House to he.
" by any Writ of Habeas Corpus, or other authority what-
" soever, made to appear and answer, and do, and re-
" crier a determination in the House of Peers. during the
" session of Parliament, wherein such person was cow-
" mitted."t
And, in 040, in Walpole's Case. it was resolved by the
Lamls. " That any attempt to punish a man without atria
",or hearing, was contrary to the natural principles of Jiss•
" tier and Liberty." And, in the Cate of Skinner,
the East India Company. in 16731 the Ceininalli
" That assuming a Jurisdiction over the Case, beingr=
" ble at conneon law, is contrary to law, aril tends to If
" ince arbitrary powers."--Bal, to itesolutines et tits Halle
of Commons, Sir Fletcher Norton wed, when AttaeWy-Ge.,
eeral. (mid he was afterwards selected. (hr his
oi the laws, usage, and meioses of parliament, to-M1
Chair,) " He would pay on more respect. than to tbs
" lotions of so many drunken porters at an Me-house."
expression was coarse. but the principle is just. ,
it hss been sheen, from the Opinions of learned Judges-..
from the Declaration of both House, of Farnamardo.
when not judging in their own cause,—and from uadenialthe
legal Maxims, that the powerexercised by the House of
Commons, of passing a Sentence of Imerisonment upon any
person, not a member of its body, is contrary to the Common
Law, to Magna Cliartn, and every constitutional principle.
1 will now go further, and undertake to prove, that not only
every fundamental prinsiple of tiieCommon Law has been vio-
lated, but that every express provision of the Statute Law,for
the personal security of the subject. has been transgressed.—
For which purpose it will be necessary to examine strictly,
and with the utmost precision, what the legal and constitu-
tional functions of the Housie ef Commis are, supposing,
for the'sake of the argument, that they arc the fairly choseb
Representivesof the people. Its privileges we have enume-
rated from the highest authority. Let us now consider its
Powers, begging that the Reader willitever lose sight of the
wide distinction between Privilege and Pnwer.,.
Its Powers, then briefly are: Tieriasuove, ailitractiein to
its Proceedings: to abate a nuisance
l allied Committal
As the Grand Inquest of the Nation (w very term Is NO
ough to shew that its office in but to itegdelt. Mut to punisb)4
it has authority to summon Witnesses for the pawpaw of Is.
stituting Inquiries into Public Grievances—sit weitrowling
Public Expenditnre, and of impeaching is, ilft Delistweeessi,
in furtherance of justice, with a view to •JApesist at the,
Tribunal of the Laws.
Such being its Powers, it will be necessary, in 'the-Mat
place, to examine it in another • point of view, via.- a
bsasitt rs exercising judicial Powers. And here, at the ,
:zee
we discover. that it is not a Court of Record. because mosl
oat bold Plea of Debt or Damage to the aunt eif forty
alsallisgs. Lord Coke says. "T hat it Coarseness of Record
" is where it cannot hold Plea of Debt oe Damage to the
" amount of forty shillings s" and he its preigly las s it down,
" That no Court not of Record can flee or imprison," as re•
sieved per Glom curiens,nn argument leGritaley's Case, atwell
mby Holt, in' the Case of Grenville seesaw Harwell. To im-
pose eliereof the lowest denominates.- the House of Com..
lailbelaitrelinithisbed its former pretensions. If it does mot,
dims pregame to impose the sinalsest Fine, does it nut news•
hollow, that it cannot inflict the, higher punishasemt of
1 t? It is an aelniowledged maxim in Law : " Cad
,oakelbewsnoirsoiwasera ammoadMa maamilmfbmw 4011.4
awe mine, so the eye of Reason and the Law, is a nsan'sPei.
NS than his Property, though It pretests beets, To what cad,
indeed, should a man acquire Property. if Isis Paves isle-
secure ? The notion entertained by OW Old lawyerevreepellts
Meg Linprisonmeet, which is the highest except oho! thelew
And of death; t importance satif.bed by. tbma to the
Crof Imprimaing Men. spay. lis Becd. ail front
. tetti
whiseays, " net 8 *NM is OW NI 'swim
jkiimheaphaaar, imt to =2141, MollsoNY• otti bitt
.frimmiss Mil that a man is a miss.te
Hell," And the Gospel some "Is not the Life more that
enat and the Body than valatilietr.
~,.' In Oath weal " reltl
Emits' all extei nal possessions we w.awa.
This port of the subject may be ramrod to a II) llnshom 1—
Alo Court, that cannot hold Plea of Debt or Damage to
the amount of forty shillings, is a Court of Record.
The House of COMIROM esm held po such Plea.
Therefore is not a Court of Record—therefore cannot
fine or imprison.
We will now try this pretension of the liaise of Commons
by the test of its'own proceediugi. .
The parry is summoned to the bar to answer interment/t-
-ries. Should he be unwilling to do thin, he insole to parte ,
See the Case of Mr. Howund, 1675.4; Shade Itsscinasm, he. '
is likewise sent to prition. See the Case of Mr. Jones, 1810.
Na legal evidence can lie brosight. The house is stnened le
linsint ; fur it cannot administer an oath; and Magna Cum,
win, sas s my' Lord Crete, is such a fellow, that be will hear
-me equal—arrests its further progres'—deelllie. . " Thlst nn'"
men shall be put to his law on the bare s ion A( no-
rely r, but byline ful h itnesses."' Therefore, House can-
4race
ed to trial ; comequentlyy inn deliver an jsefternent
• pan no lenience. ' Magna Caskets declare!, " l'bitt no

• 5 Cohbett's Pori. Wm. 1450. see ow "The History
of the Kentisla;Pkitioni in the Appendix to the sans VA=
Ifilne. Ho. XV 1, t 2,lCobbeta Pori. line.. 958.
6 Cohbett's Phitl. 1114.431.—i 4 Colitroll'ilboti. Hist.
'• .