went on to state, that his own case was by no means too favourable a specimen of the class of persons who were his contemporaries in the same employment. He could recollect about eight or nine of them, and of these he did not know one, whose subsequent conduct in life reflected any discredit on his former occupation. Several other persons took part in the debate; when, it being understood that the benchers in Lincoln's Inn would revoke their law, Mr. Sheridan withdrew his motion, CHAPTER V. Mr. Lethbridge's Notice of a Motion resfecting Sir Francis Burdett Debate on Privilege-Debate on Mr. Brand's Motion for Adjournment-Debate on Sir Francis Burdett's Motion respecting Captain Lake-Debate on Sir Francis Burdett's Letter-Division on the Resolutions and Commitments of Sir Francis to the Tower-Letter from Sir Francis Burdett to the SpeakerExamination of the Sergeant-at-Arms-Opinions of the Attorney-General. Debate on Sir Francis Burdett's Letter resumed-Lord Ossulston's Question respecting the Verdict of Wilful Murder against a Life-Guardsman. MA ARCH 26th. Mr. Leth bridge." Sir, I wish to ask an honourable baronet, now in his place, whether he acknowledges a certain paper, signed by his name, which, with certain arguments upon the same subject, have appeared in a work pretty well known, I mean Mr. Cobbett's Register?" Sir Francis Burdett. "The paper alluded to was signed with my name; it is almost needless, therefore, for me to say, it was printed with my authority, and that the arguments which were affixed were drawn up by me." Mr. Lethbridge." I thank the honourable baronet for the frankness with which he has answered my question; and I have now only to give notice that, considering that publication as a high insult upon this house, and a gross violation of its privileges, it is my intention to submit a-motion upon it to-morrow. A member wished him to defer it until the discussion upon the Scheldt expedition was over. The paper upon which the complaint originated, he could lay before the house the next day. Mr. Lethbridge stated, that he would the next day lay the paper of which he complained before the house, and then appoint the day for the discussion of his proposed motion. Lord Folkestone contended, that as it was a question of privilege it superseded all other motions, and ought to be discussed immediately. Lord Temple considered it the usual practice for the house to receive the complaint in the first instance, and then to fix the period for the discussion. The The speaker observed, that the usage in such cases was, first, if the member against whom it was intended to prefer a motion of complaint was absent, to move for his attendance upon an appointed day. If he was present, then it was optional with the honourable member intending to prefer such complaint, either to state it now, or at such future day as he deemed most compatible with the general disposition. of the business before the house. Mr. Lethbridge said, that not knowing whether the honourable baronet would be in his place or not, he had that day come down to the house with a determination of moving for his attendance. How ever, when he saw the honourable baronet in his place, he felt himself bound in common courtesy to state to him his intention of bringing the subject before the house. Sir Francis Burdett denied that the honourable member had acquainted him with the subject of his motion. As he had unequivocally answered his question, it could not be considered intrusive on him (sir Francis) to ask the honourable member to state the nature of his intended motion. ground that no discussion was allowed upon the mere giving of a notice. The speaker answered, that the noble lord, upon a question of privilege, was strictly in order. The house tolerated upon such occasions a discussion, which, as it led to no decision, might more properly be termed a consulting upon the course which it would be most expedient for the house to pursue. The chancellor of the exchequer remarked, that when the matter of complaint was before them, the house would then be best able to decide upon its own impression. It was possible that as the honourable member (Mr. Lethbridge) had no reason to know that the honourable baronet would be in his place, he did not perhaps come down so prepared with his intended motion as he otherwise would be disposed to do. The course he had pursued was highly proper; first, in giving notice to the honourable baronet, where it was so highly due; and next, when so serious a complaint, to the house at large. Mr. Charles Wynne thought that there would be less interruption to the business in which the house was about to engage, in bringing the complaint forward now, before the discussion was commenced, rather than on the next day, when the house would probably be in the very middle of the debate. Lord Folkestone considered it contrary to every precedent of parliament to delay, even for an hour, the discussion upon this grave and serious charge. Had, indeed, the honourable member kept his impression of the honourable baronet's, Mr. Lethbridge persevered in conduct in his own breast, then his notice for the next day, and the there might be some reason for the conversation dropped. postponement. But it was impossible, in his opinion, to agree to such suspension, after the house had been told that it was highly insult ed, and that its privileges were .grossly violated. General Gascoigne called the noble lord to order, upon the March 27. Mr. Lethbridge rose, pursuant to the notice which he had given when he last addressed the house. In rising to address them again on his subject, he felt great pain and reluctance, more than he had ever felt on any public occasion. He was now to prefer a com complaint against a member of the commons of the united kingdom, for a violation, a gross and novel violation, of the privileges of that honourable house. He should not now go further, than by laying on the table the ground of the charge as admitted and authenticated by the author; he had marked certain parts of the document on which he founded the complaint which he had then the honour to, prefer. The speaker wished to know whether the honourable member desired that the whole of the publication, or only the distinct parts, should be read. Mr. Lethbridge regretted the necessity of taking up the time of the house, when other business of more, or at least of equal, importance was before them; but the manner of reading was indifferent to him; he had marked the passages, but had no objection to the reading of the whole. Mr. H. Sumner thought that the reading of the whole was unnecessary; the convenience would naturally be best consulted by the paper being read only as connected with the charge. It rested with the honourable mover to select the parts with which the house was concerned. Mr. Speaker. The form of parliamentary usage must be that which the parliament shall adopt; that form is, in instances like the present, that the whole complaint be heard, and then the answers which the accused has ready for his exculpation. The accused then withdraws, and the mover of the charge brings forward his proposition, founded on the matters which may have been submitted to the house. The "Address and argument of sir Francis Burdett on the power of imprisonment in the house of commons," published in Mr. Cob bett's Register of the 24th March, was read by the clerk of the house. After the reading, lord Folkestone rose to order. The' honourable mover (Mr., Lethbridge), on his calling the attention of the house to the paper which had been just read, had offered nothing of which they could fairly take notice. That paper, after an hour and a half occupied in reading it, supplied no peculiar charge; it must be for the honourable mover to make out the charge, for nothing could be more informal or absurd than to call on his honourable friend (sir Francis Burdett) for an answer, till he had heard something more definite than the general contents of that voluminous publication. Mr. Lethbridge, in reply to what had fallen from the noble lord (Folkestone), would only remind the house that he had professed himself ready to point out the passages on which the complaint was. raised. He had stated that he marked those passages, but he had not thought it proper to press his opinion on the house, lest it might be said that his complaint was supported by garbled documents. He intended, from the beginning, to adopt any line which the house thought proper to choose for him, because he had brought forward the matter only as affecting the house; he had no motive of personal hostility; he stood forward there out of respect to the country, and as the representative of as independent a body of men as any in Old England, He would now proceed to state these passages which he had marked. The first of these was one in the preamble of the address, containing the following extraordinary language: "The encroachments upon the rights and liberties of Englishmen." The next passage was from that part of the publication which was entitled the Argument. "The house of commons having passed a vote, which amounts to a declaration that an order of theirs is to be of more importance than Magna Charta and the laws of the land, I think it my duty to lay my "Had not I been prevented, by sentiments thereon before my con- indisposition, from being present stituents, whose character as free- when the house of commons passed men, and even whose personal safe- by vote a sentence of imprisonment ty, depend in a great degree upon of Mr. Gale Jones, I should have the decision of this question; a endeavoured to show, that, under question of no less importance than the false notion of privilege, they this: Whether our liberties be still were exercising a power, and comto be secured by the laws of our mitting an act of oppression,ill suitforefathers, or be to lie at the abso-ed to the character of guardians of lute mercy of a part of our fellowsubjects, collected together by means which it is not necessary for me to describe." The next passage to which he would call their attention was that one in which the address talked of the place of imprisonment : "If they have the absolute power of imprisoning and releasing, why may they not send their prisoners to York jail, as well as to a jail in London? Why not confine men in solitary cells, or load them with chains and bolts? They have not gone those lengths yet; but what is to restrain them, if they are to be the sole judge of the extent of their own powers, and if they are to exercise those powers without any control, and without leaving the parties whom they choose to punish any mode of appeal, any means of redress?" "That I deny," says Mr. Lethbridge. The next was from the conclusion of the address, which terminated in these words : "In doing this, I shall do all that now remains in my power towards the correction of this, as I deem it, most enormous abuse of power, and most dangerous of all public liberty, and destructive of the first and most important object of the constitution, viz. the personal security of the subject." The next passage was that commencing in the following words: all "Founded on such a basis, fortified by such authorities as I have occasion to appeal to in the progress of this inquiry, I have little doubt of being able to convince every impartial mind, that the house of commons,by proceeding to judgement-passing a sentence of imprisonment-issuing a warrant of commitment-has gone beyond its prescribed limits, acted in a manner inconsistent with the ends of the institution, and violated the fundamental principles of the law and constitution of the land." The next passage was: "By proceeding thus they have exercised a juridiction not vested in them, a jurisdiction beyond the limits of king, lords, and commons, while Magna Charta remains unrepealed; and repealed it never can be till England shall have found her grave in the corruption of a house of commons.” The next obnoxious passage was that subsequent to the speaker's warrant : "Let "Let this instrument, this thing, sui generis, be contrasted with the description of the properties of a legal warrant. Does it not evident ly appear, that this piece of unsealed paper, signed by the speaker, by which an untried subject has been outlawed, bears no feature of legality; and that, from the commence ment of this proceeding, in its progress, and to its conclusion, there is not one step that has not been marked in a peculiar manner with disrespect for the laws; a disrespect in which all the parts have been wonderfully consistent throughout, in constituting the most unlawful act the mind of man can possibly conceive?" Mr. Lethbridge now called the attention of the house to a passage, which he thought would of itself subtantiate all complaint ;-it was this: "But no wonder,when they have so entirely departed from the ends of their institution, as was offered to be proved by Mr. Maddocks, and acknowledged by themselves in the never-to-be-forgotten morning of the 11th of May, 1809, when from being the lower or inferior (for it is the same sense, one being an English, the othera Latin word) branch of the legislature, they have become the proprietors, by burgage tenure, of the whole representation, and in that capacity, inflated with their high-flown fanciful ideas of majesty, and tricked out in the trappings of royalty, think privilege and protection beneath their dignity, assume the sword of prerogative, and lord it equally over the king and the people." These were the specific passages on which the complaint was founded: on these he stood, calling upon that honourable house to vindicate itself from a series of unjust and unjustifiable aspersions, and punish the violation of their privileges in what manner might, to their wisdom, appear most fitting. Sir Francis Burdett said, that the honourable member (Mr. Lethbridge) must point out the nature of the charge. There was to his (sir Francis's) mind no charge in the extracts which had been read from his address to his constituents. That address contained all of argument that he knew on the subject, and he could now add nothing to those arguments. The address was his. The arguments which it contained were his; he was ready to see them subjected to the most rigorous inquiry; but till he should hear from the honourable member something in refutation of his prin-ciples, he could not undertake their defence. Was if to be supposed that the simple act of arguing on the powers of the commons was a crime? Would not the house endure even an abstract doubt of their powers? This doubt was the whole of the charge hitherto adduced; if a stronger one lay behind, it must be brought forward before he could be expected to meet it by an answer. He was willing to abide by the fact and argument of that paper; he would stand the issue: but if it were even the pleasure of the house that he should now withdraw, he was ready to withdraw. Mr. Speaker-"This is the form of proceeding; an honourable member states his complaint to the house; the honourable member who is the object of the complaint is then heard in reply; he admits, or repels, or denies the statement. It is the custom that he should then withdraw, and it becomes the part of the honourable mover to submit a motion, founded |