The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-06-08

x-e....e.~---vs<..
Inow repeat. Ibid think that some ofthese
expire ssions would be not only unapplcable.
but i'll deserved, if they were directed to the
proceedings of house.-of commons, which
had more consulted the conscientious dis
Charge OF its duties. than the idle afsectation
of supporting dignity by the exercise of a Sc
we're controul against the people. But how
was it possible, that could think there ex-
listed IN the present instance the regard
which such An assembly should feel for its
character! was it possible for any unpre-
JUDGED man to think thus OF that house,
which upon the decision III the late enquiry
into the expedition to Waichsren, could
bring itself to vote that the policy of such
expedition was proper, and that the reten-
tior OF 1t after the destruction of so many
thousands Of gallant men, was not alone
wholly free from blame, but was actually
Justihable. Hear hear When re-
viewed such decision, and was engaged in
considering its exercise and privileges in the
present case. did not think justly, when
stated that the house ofcommons would best
Consult its dignity by conscientously dis
charging its duties to the country rather than
by an attempt to restrain by strong acts of
assumed privilege the popular communca-
ton upon its actions There are privileges
which that house most necessarily ought to
possess, for the full and free performance of
ITS trust; amongst these the power of com
mitment ought in some cases to be allowed,
but such power SHOULD in all others be limit
ed and defined. do NOT think it right that
that house should be vested with an author
ity OF committing for offences affecting it's
privileges, where such offences are not pun,
ishable by the law of the land. But where
the law can take cognizance of such often
ces, do holdit as unconstitutional that the
trial and punishment of them should be taken
from those courts of competent jurisdiction,
where the process is calculated to correct
guilt and to protect innocence, (Hear
hear by the mere stretch of arbitrary
power. Ihold that it is impossible for any
tribunal to decide justly upon the presumed
criminality of the accused, where the party
who accuses has power to pronounce iudg-
ment, where there is no oath administered
either TO the court or witnesses, and where
TO the Individual arraigned, the power and
opportunity ofbeng heard in his defence is
denied. { Hear hear Such stretch
OF power was not only in defiance of the pos
tive enactments of our law, but was hostile
TO those fundamental principles which are
the basis OF all contracts by WHICH communi
ties are bound. But in the present case there
was most unconstitutional aggrsvation.
aliude to the calling out military force TO
tothe house of sir Francis Bartlett. WHY
we're the military so unnecessarily paraded
through the streetse Why was the honse of
my honorable colleague so. beset 1t could
be tor no other purpose, but intimidation.
As for any violence that could justify such a
proceeding, having been an eye witness,
can positively STAKE there was not any i'm
proper conduct, more THAI must be expect.
ed from crowd ofpeople upon any ordinary
occasion. But most particularly object to
the manner in which that warrant was exc
cuted. Such execution in my belief was
violation of the rights OF the individual, and
OF the dignity OF the house of commons. 1t
forced the house Of the hon. baronet in a
manner the most extraordinary, and called
to the exercise OF its own authority the as
sistance OF military force. 1t had been sta
ted by the systematic opposers Of ministers in
parliament, that they were Culpable in not
calling in the military force for the execu-
ton OF that warrant at much earlier peri
cd. That remissness constitutes in my OPT
mon, as tar as 1T goes. the claim of minis
ters to our thanks.--Seit then their praise,
that for two days they respected the consti-
tutionai rights ct the people, while it must
be In the recollection of the country for ever,
that their opposers, the champions of pub
lie freedom, would not, if they had pow
er, respect them even for an hour (Hear i!
hear !!
Inc condemnation OF ministers upon this
point is, that they had not persevered in
their origlhal resolution, that upon the third
day they rssorted to that which was most
truly illegal. Their worthy representative,
(sir Francis Bun detO had always made the
most strenuous exertions to detect corrupti-
ON, wherever it might conceal itself. That
great measure of which he had been the pow
ertul advocate, parliamentary reform, was
Ia his opinion so absolutely necessary, that
he felt convinced that if it was not speedily
obtained, and the unnecessary expences of
the war retrenched, this country must fall
BIKE Other nations, before that power which
has now subjugated Europe. He had often
neard that this country was perfectly safe
from attacks by the superiority of its naval
force. He would declare to God, that he
was not Of that opinion He was well in.
tocmeG that we had not now in our dock yards
timber enough for the common repairs of
our navy. In Plymouth there mas not a
SnllhlyJ2T mYTe fhan sic weeks and he I'M
derslood there 7ras not sufficient to build
one half Of a scuenfy. (oHr gun shin Now,
when IL was considered, that we were cut
ohfrom all supplies from the continent Of Eu +.
rope, & that sur supplies from Canada & No
va Scotia depended Oh no further tenure than
the precarioGS wisdom Of oar councils, he
thought that even our navy was in an alarm
ing situation, from tue want Of the means to
repair or build ships. lie then stated, from
the papers presented to the house. that the
humber Oh British seamen employed in our
trade to Europe was 16 coo whereas the fo,.