Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-07-19

1857. That instrument purpOrts to express
nothing but the free principles Of the British
Constitution as adapted to the machinery Of
the Republican form of Government then
about being inaugurated. For the proper
construction Of this provision, therefore, as
Of every other in the same instrument (see
the Constitution Of the .. S. we are to look
to thehistory Of England, including, of course,
the then recent long and finally successful
rebellion of her North American provinces.
And ii, in the contemporaneous history Of
England, extending from 1903 to 1882, we
find that this principle was not only under
earnest discussion by the Commons Of Eng
land, but that the contest was carried to a
height that almost shook the power Of the
throne; we may at least feel assured that the
founders Of the Constitution of the United
States did not insert that principle therein
with any doubtful intention.
In 1868 the celebrated JoHH WILKES, at
that time a member Of Parliament for
the borough Of Aylesbury,lwas publisher
Of a scur-ilous newspaper called the NORTH
B-iton; in the fcrty-ffth number of which
he was guilty of a studied insult to the
King, accusing his sovereign of having been
guilty Of lie in a message to Parliament.
For this he was arrested on warrant from
the Secretary Of State "a writ of the most
venerable antiquity his paper seized and
himself impriannod ga the Tower. He was
also, for this cause, promptly expelled from
Parliament by resolution. Wilkes, from
theTower, in few days obtained writ of
habeas corpus, by which he was brought be-
fore the Lord Chief Justice PRATT, Lord
CAMDEN, by whom he was released, upon
the ground that his arrest was violation Of
his privilege as a member Of Parliament
Wilkes, thereApon, sued Lord HALIFAX,
the Secretary Of State, for false imprison-
ment, and obtained a verdict for $4,000
damages Subsequently he was reelected
to Parliament by the city of London, and
the mob attempting to chair him in triumph
to the Parliament Hou1e were fired upon by
the military. The act was known as the
massacre Of St. Georges Fields. Being
again expelled he was again reelected, and
thereupon, by resolution Of Parliament, his
competitor, Colonel LUTTRELL was declared
elected as being second in the list Of oandi-
dates, Wilkes being declared incompetent
. to sit This resolution was passed in 1863.
WILKES was then made sheriff Of the city
Of London and afterwards Lord Mayor of the
city. For accusing a peer of having brought
about the massacre Of s.. Georges Fields he
was summoned to the bar Of the House, but
refused to appear there except as the lawful
ly elected member for the city of London.
After many compromises had been attempt
ed and failed, the House of Commons, at
length in 1882, was induced to vote that the
resolution passed 18th February, 1863, de-
claring Mr.. WILKES incapable of being re-
elected, should be expunged, 81 being subuer-
sire Of The rights Of tle rhOle body Of electors Of
the Kingdom"
This has ever been considered one Of the
greatest triumphs Of constitutional law, the
bad character Of Wilkes making it suffi-
GENTLY manifest that 1: was final triumph
ofthe cause and not of the man. Since then
it has always been understood by cOnstitu-
tional lawyers that while legislative body
may expel one Of its members for any cause
it sees fit, it cannot refuse the member seat
if reelected. In the first instance he is con-
sidered, in theory, to have misrepresented
his constituents; but upon a reelection it is
considered that the question hnsheOn referred
to the sovereign people, who are the highest
power in every constitutional government.
Let it now be borne in mind that this cell
ebrated resolution of the House of Commons
was passed in 1882. Let it also be borne in
mind that in that year the independence Of
the American colonies was achieved; and that
during the entire war the ministerial party
in England had been in nothing more en-
barrassed than by its contest with Wilkes,
who was i steady opponent Of the American
war. Then let il be taken into consideration
that the Constitution Of the United States
was done in convention in 1857, only five
years afterwards, and the inference is una
voidable that the constitutional provision,
with which this paper is commenced, was
designed as a ratification Of the
principle expressed in
WILKES case by the resolution ofthe British
House Of Commons in 1892 And which
resolution was the slow but certain result Of
the violation Of the privileges of a member,
by his arrest for a cause other than treason,
felony, or breach Of the peace.
The parallel between Wilkes case and
that Of the member from Carter, now before
his Honor Judge FRAZIER, upon a writ of
habeas corpus is complete; with the single
exception that warrant from the Secretary
Of State is, in England, a writ Of unques-
toned legality and Of the highest dignity,
being directed only against those accused Of
State crimes and Of offences against the
royal prerogative. The sole point decided
by Lord CAMDEN upon the haboos corpus,
was as 10 the privilege of member from
arrest. We think therefore that all the
parties implicated in the late forcible arrest
md abduction from his home Of Mr.. WILL
rASls, may well begin TO reflect upon the |
verdict for $4,000 damages obtained in
lavor Of Wilkes against Lord HALIFAX.
Should it, however, be eventually decided |
not only that the writ by virtue Of which /
Mr.. WILLIAMS was arrested, was Of lawful |
and was executedby officers known
10 The Law, and that a member Of the Legis- /
ature has not his constitutional privilege |
from arrest; then we will have only the |
nroud Consciousness thai there was time in /
our histOry when the laws Of a free people /
we're made by a free Legislature. And as it
has ever been part Of the vanity of men
o boast the good old times Of their fathers
We can add 10 that the additional vanity Of /
roasting Of the good old country of our
athers, into the wall Of whose Constitution
10 breach has yet been made.
THE LEGEsLATURE.
The Senate was NOT In session YESTERDAY |