Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1836-05-02

10 subyca tho fundamental laws and cs.aiii,>le,
government If bis Majesty realm Of England
fer u no conference, and While the articles Of i'm
pearnneut were pending agains, Sir Rober
DerLlry, and ahilc. too. II was well known that al
the Other Judges who bad roncurre1 with him il
opinion on ,l. question Of shp-monos were lia
bic ta Impeachment TN he same grounds, I'll,
House Of Lords. on the 2Dh Of January, 1b1o
old STYLE. resolved nemron. tat the ships viii The
esra- ie ia opinions oihe judges therein, and III,
Judgment against Mr. Hampton, were contrary Ia
the laws and statutes of the realm, tle rights and
properties Of the subject, former Judgment, in Par
lament, and the pcliilon oi right that is, the
Lords. though ihey WIRE 10 81 IN Judgment upon
the articles NJ impeachment AGAINST the judges
Who had affirmed the prerogatvc OF the Crown 10
levy slip-monoy, condemned the act Of the
III lies as strongly as the Commons, who had i'm
peachcd one JUDGE & might, 4 probal,l, would, i'm
peach the others, On the 20th February follow
M. the Iloase OF Lords ordered tia, all the rolls
con'arn" tie opinions Of tic judges, the judg-
ment against Mr.. Hampton, and the records OF thu
proceedings, should be brought INTO the House ::
tia, rocats thereof should be- entered "by the
Judgment OF the Lords, spiritual and temporal, in
the court Of Parliamrni:'' and that the rolls
should he ra>ed cross will pen. and subscribed
with the clerk OF Parliament, hand And this
was accordingly done.
Let ne pause here, and ask NV honorable col
league "hcillcr iic thinks tins proceeding preco
dent that We may safely follow throughout
Whether II the Supreme Court SHOULD give u
Judgment ever 70 plainis i'icgal AID nnconstito-
iiofal We coald IN like manner yacn" aud cancel
III
Mr. Rvs explained. He va, understood 10
say that he was not uniformed Of The particulars
OF the proceedings in Parliament on the case oi
/ 1. l. l..
, aud hat he had not referred Ia them as preee
dent for caneellIng or espnnging judicial record,
but simply As an instance IN which cancellation
had been rcsor,cd to tor the purpose OF vindcating
| and maintaining the principles of ,lyil liberty.
! understood nv colleague orricr 10 these pro-
cccding> precedent OF cxpunging which might
/ serve as an authority Tor our eXpungng-then To
cite his Other English preordcnts for the like pnf-
poseaud after stating them rrceedents in point,
To recommend ihrm ~ GOOD guides for ms, bv dis
PLAYING the benefits to civil liberty which the pro-
cess of rxpuneine had been employed to accom-
plisl,. But re knows his own purpose best, and
chcerully take his explanation. .
And now, let mo tell my colleague tia, this pro-
cccding ofthc .iouSc of Lords is noTto be regarded
rs case Of cancellation by mere authority of tina,
House. Itwillbc observed that the raeats and can
ceilotjons were ordered " by the judgment of the
Lords spiritual and tcmporal,m the eonr, of Para-
/ mcnt." They prolcsscd 10 act udcially and, III
doing So.thc, assumed jurisdiction 10 ,acac Il CAN
| eel u Judgment which, had not been brought before
them hv appeal. They had claimed like jurSdic
ton; but a>tb,y well knew, iihad been disputed and
denied Therefore, they ordered bill to be pre-
pared, to confirm their racats and cancellations );
which bill WAS passed !; and it is upon the strength
OF this act Of Parliament that thc L.salit, oijlle
cancellation rests
But til" principal purpose tor which I have
called the particular attention of the Senate to these
proceedings in hc cave ol >hip-moncl, is to show
tina, the House of Lords the high court OF nrcaeli-
ment, while an Impeachment against one Judge, on
the like ground might probab, be expected, did
not regard it at all Incompatible with their Judi
cial character to declare, by unanimous rrsolu-
! tons that the acts of ilr Judges were illegal and
unconstitutional they did not suppose that they
were rrclnda'nc the person accused, much more
those $" io might be accused they understood that
the guilt Of the Judges did not depend on the lille
ealiiv of their opinions and judgments, but upon
the wlltul criminal intent imputed 10 them, Now,
the main argument of the gentleman from Missouri
! to show the competency OF the Senate to enter
i tam the resolution of March, lS3i--to show Tn
"csrnnec i, the word" because it alone can COLI
denim mr. proceedings ~ having begun in wrong
is, tina, the resolution was an impeachment, trial
and p,cjudioalion of the Prevalent on II crimina
charge, though the resolution alleged no crimina
intent though no man imagined the possihllit,
oi an Impeachment against the President for TIN
act. which the resolution declared illegal and I'M
constitutional; and though il is perfectly ob,inu
tia, the iccalitv imputed TO the President, ,on
duct might be owinp 10 error of Judgment, with
ont the lnnSt Intentional wrong. Aud thus TIL
precedent, which my colleague has brough, witt
comm'nddtion To our notice, serves to confutc TIN
argument of his friend from Missouri and serve
no other purpose.
To be continutd