Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, During the ... Session of the ... Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the Kingdom of Great Britain ...

received any information, and did not communicate it, he was guilty of a great breach of his duty. In lord Chatham's instructions, the proposed and prime object was the attack on the fleet at Antwerp, together with the destruction of the arse nal, &c. at that place; but on the contrary, the noble lord had alleged, that it was for the purpose of giving Austria a chance of success in her struggle with France. The noble lord says that the scheme was merely tried, and the Expedition was not prosecuted. Whatever might be the consequence of lord Chatham's not landing at Bathz, whatever the combined hostility of land and sea might effect, was the House now to determine on that which had never been attempted. His feelings - were excited for the inhabitants of the north of Germany, and not for the troops of his country, who were sent out to perish there, in all the miseries of neglect and sickness. The noble lord said, that no failure was to be attributed but that which must always result from risk. Here he differed from what appeared on examination, which expressly proved, that it was necessary fortune should declare in every respect on our side. Did he think that to be the common chance of war, when on the failure of one point the ruin of the whole succeeded? Can he defend the prodigality and folly of this Expedition by calling on the feelings and spirit of the House? But on this subject it was competent for every one in that House to judge. He first said that the capture of Cadsand was necessary for the completion of the Expedition; this on a second assertion was contradicted. Our army cannot be trusted on the continent, for a melancholy reason, because our pecuniary circumstances are such that we cannot pay them there. The taunts of the French are now, one might say, realized, when they call us a nation of shopkeepers and money-lenders; not of warriors and lovers of our country. The noble lord had alleged that the garrison of Antwerp was composed of custom house officers and workmen, but in this he was mistaken, for an account of the 26th of Aug. states, that there were in it 26,000 of disciplined men.-Here the hon. member was interrupted with cries of Adjourn!" when, after a few moments, he remarked that most of the members had left the House, and as he had so much to say, he should defer it till to-morrow. It was then moved that the House do adjourn; and an adjournment accordingly took place at half-past two.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, March 27.

[COMPLAINT AGAINST SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.] Mr. Lethbridge, in consequence of the notice which he had yesterday given, rose with a degree of pain and embarrassment, which he declared he had never felt before, to make a complaint against one of the members of the United Commons of Great Britain, who, in his opinion, had violated the privileges of the House. He did not mean to enter upon the subject itself, but it was his intention to lay upon the table the document which the hon. baronet, who was the object of the motion, had admitted was published by his authority. For the purpose of saving the time of the House, he had marked certain passages in that document, which, in his opinion, more particularly justified him in the charge which he had preferred against the hon. baronet. (The hon. member then gave in at the table "Cobbett's Weekly Political Register" of Saturday March 24, 1810.)

The Speaker desired the clerk to proceed to read the Paper complained of. He wished to know whether the hon. member, or any other hon. member was desirous that parts only, or that the whole of the paper should be read?

Mr. Lethbridge lamented that he should intrude upon the attention of the House at a time when so important a discussion as that of the Walcheren Inquiry was in its progress. He repeated that he had marked those passages in the paper which appeared to him to be most obnoxious; at the same time, he had not the slightest objection to the whole being read.

The Speaker. Clerk, read the Paper.

The Clerk accordingly began to read sir Francis Burdett's Letter to his Constituents, but had not finished half a dozen sentences, when

Mr. Home Sumner spoke to order. He conceived that it would be extremely convenient to postpone the discusson of this subject, in consideration of the important business which stood for that night.

The Speaker, however, declared, that having proceeded so far, it was beyond the power of any hon. member to terminate the proceeding. A complaint having been made against an hon. member of the House, for a breach of privilege, it was indispensable that the House should know the grounds upon which it was pre

ferred; after which, they would determine what course to pursue. Until that time they could not do otherwise than hear the whole of the Complaint, and also the whole of what the hon. member had to say in his defence. The hon. member against whom the charge was preferred would then withdraw, and the House would enter into the consideration of the steps which it would become them to adopt.

The Clerk proceeded to read the Letter and the Argument; of which the following are copies:

SIR FRANCIS BURDETT TO HIS CON-
STITUENTS; DENYING THE
POWER OF THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS TO IMPRISON THE
PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.

forefathers, after so many struggles and so many sacrifices.

Either the House of Commons is authorised to dispense with the Laws of the Land; or it is not. If the Constitution be of so delicate a texture, so weak a frame, so fragile a substance, that it is to be only spoken of in terms of admiration, and to be viewed merely as a piece of curious but unprofitable workmanship; If Magna Charta and all the wholesome Laws of England be a dead-letter in that case, the affirmative of the proposition may be admitted; but, if the Constitution lives, and is applicable to its ends; namely, the happiness of the community, the perfect security of the life, liberty and property of each member and all the members of the society; then the affirmative of the proposition can never be admitted; GENTLEMEN; The House of Commons then must we be free-men; for we need having passed a Vote, which amounts to a no better security, no more powerful prodeclaration, that an Order of theirs is to tection for our Rights and Liberties, than be of more weight than Magna Charta the Laws and Constitution. We seek for, and the Laws of the Land, I think it my and we need seek for, nothing new; we duty to lay my sentiments thereon before ask for no more than what our fore-fathers my Constituents, whose character as free- iusisted upon as their own; we ask for no men, and even whose personal safety, de- more that what they bequeathed unto us; pend, in so great a degree, upon the de- we ask for no more than what they, in cision of this question-a question of no the Testament which some of them had less importance than this: Whether our sealed, and which the rest of them were liberty be still to be secured by the laws ready to seal, with their blood, expressly of our fore-fathers, or be to lay at the declared to be "the Birth right of the Peoabsolute mercy of a part of our fellow-ple of England;" namely, THE LAWS OF subjects, collected together by means which it is not necessary for me to de

scribe.

In order to give to this subject all the attention to which it is entitled, and to avoid the danger to be apprehended from partial views and personal feeling, it will be advisable to argue the question on its own merits, putting the individual (how ever we may deplore his present sufferings) out of view; though at the same time, every man ought to consider the case his own; because, should the principle, upon which the Gentlemen of the House of Commons have thought proper to act in this instance, be once admitted, it is impossible for any one to conjecture how soon he himself may be summoned from his dwelling, and be hurried, without trial, and without oath made against him, from the bosom of his family into the clutches of a jailor. It is, therefore, now the time to resist the doctrine upon which Mr. Jones has been sent to Newgate; or, it is bigh time to cease all pretensions to those Liberties which were acquired by our

ENGLAND." To these laws we have a right to look, with confidence, for security to these laws the individual now imprisoned has, through me, applied for redress, in vain. Those, who have imprisoned him, have refused to listen to my voice, weakly expressing the strong principles of the Law, the undeniable claims of this Englishman's " Birth-right." Your voice may come with more force; may command greater respect; and, Í am not without hope, that it may prove irresistible, if it proclaim to this House of Commons, in the same tone as the tongues of our ancestors proclaimed to the Kings of old " NOLUMUS LEGES ANGLIÆ MUTARE"; or, in our own more clear and not less forcible language; "THE LAWS OF ENGLAND SHALL NOT BE CHANGED."

The Principle, fellow-citizens, for which we are now contending, is the same Principle, for which the people of England have contended from the earliest ages, and their glorious success in which contests are now upon record in the Great Charter of our Rights and Libèrties, and

in divers other subsequent Statutes of scarcely less importance. It was this same great Principle, which was again attacked by Charles the First, in the measure of Ship Money; when again the people of England and an uncorrupted House of Commons renewed the contest; a contest which ended in the Imprisonment, the Trial, the Condemnation, and the Execution of that ill-advised King. The self same Principle it was, that was so daringly violated by his Son James the Second; and for which violation he was compelled to flee from the just indignation of the people, who not only stript him of his Crown, but who prevented that Crown from descending to his family. In all these contests, the courage, perseverance, and fortitude of our ancestors, conspicuous as they were, were not more so than their wisdom; for, talk as long as we will about Rights, Liberties, Franchises, Privileges and Immunities, of what avail are any, or all of these together, if our Persons can, at the sole will and command of any man, or set of men, be seized on, thrown into prison, and there kept during the pleasure of that man, or set of men? If every one of you be liable, at any time, to be sent to jail without trial, and without oath made against you, and there to be detained as long as it pleases the parties sending you there (perhaps to the end of your life,) without any Court to appeal to, without any means of redress: if this be the case, shall we still boast of the Laws and of the Liberties of England? Volumes have been written by Foreigners as well as by our own countrymen in praise of that part of our Law, which in so admirable a manner, provides for our personal safety against any attacks of men in power. This has, indeed, been, in all ages, the pride of our country; and it is the maintenance of this principle which enabled us to escape that bondage, in which all the States and Kingdoms in Europe were enthralled by abandoning and yielding it up; and, we may be assured, that if we now abandon it, the bright days of England's glory will set in the night of her disgrace.

But, I would fain believe that such is not to be our fate. Our Fore-fathers made stern grim-visaged PREROGATIVE hide his head they broke in pieces his sharp and massy sword. And, shall we, their Sons, be afraid to enter the lists with undefined PRIVILEGE, assuming the powers of Prerogative?

I shall be told, perhaps, that there is not much danger of this power being very frequently exercised. The same apology may be made for the exercise of any power, whatever. I do not suppose that the Gentlemen of the House of Commons will send any of you to jail when you do not displease them. Mr. Yorke did not move for the sending of Mr. Jones to jail, until Mr. Jones displeased him; but, it is not a very great compliment to pay to any Constitution, to say, that it does not permit a man to be imprisoned, unless he has done something to displease persons in power. It would be difficult, I should suppose, to find any man upon earth, however despotic his disposition, who would not be contented with the power of sending to prison, during his pleasure, every one who should dare to do any thing to displease him. Besides, when I am told, that there is little danger that the Gentlemen in the House of Commons will often exercise this power, I cannot help observing, that, though the examples may be few, their effect will, naturally, be great and ge neral. At this moment, it is true, we see but one man actually in jail for having displeased those Gentlemen; but the fate of this one man (as is the effect of all punishments) will deter others from expressing their opinions of the conduct of those who have had the power to punish him. And, moreover, it is in the nature of all power, and especially of assumed and undefined power, to increase as it advances in age; and, as Magna Charta and the Law of the Land have not been sufficient to protect Mr. Jones; as we have seen him sent to jail for having decribed the conduct of one of the members as an outrage upon public feeling, what security have we, unless this power of Imprisonment be given up, that we shall not see other men sent to jail for stating their opinion respecting Rotten Boroughs, respecting Placemen and Pensioners sitting in the House; or, in short, for making any declaration, giving any opinion, stating any fact, betraying any feeling, whether by writing, by word of mouth, or by gesture, which may displease any of the Gentlemen assembled in St. Stephen's Chapel?

Then, again, as to the kind of punishment; why should they stop at sending persons to jail? If they can send whom they please to jail; if they can keep the persons, so sent, in jail as long as they

please; if they can set their prisoners free at the end of the first hour, or keep them confined for seven years; if, in short, their absolute Will is to have the force of Law, what security can you have, that they will stop at 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 these lengths yet; but, what is there to restrain them, if they are to be the sole judges of the extent of their own powers, and if they are to exercise those powers without any controul, and without leaving the parties, whom they choose to punish, any mode of appeal, any means of redress?

That a Power such as this should exist in any country it is lamentable to be obliged to believe; but, that it should be suffered to exist, and that its existence should be openly and even boastfully avowed, in a country, whose chief glory has been its free constitution of government, is something too monstrous to be believed, if the proof were not before our eyes. Had the least doubt hung upon my mind of the illegality of the proceedings in the present case, it would have been altogether removed by the answers given to the references made by me to the Great Luminaries of our Law and to the Laws themselves. The Argument, by which I endeavoured to convince the Gentlemen of the House of Commons, that their acts, in the case of Mr. Jones, were illegal, I shall now lay before you, in a more full and connected way than it could possibly be done by the Parliamentary Reporters; and, 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 encroachments upon the Rights and Liberties of Englishmen. I remain, Gentlemen, Your most obedient, humble Servant,

FRANCIS BURrdett.

Piccadilly, March 23, 1810.

THE ARGUMENT, &c.

In order to make clearly understood the Argument which is here submitted to the consideration of the Public, it will be necessary, first, simply to state the question about to be discussed, as it was proposed originally to the House of Commons, and to endeavour to put out of view

altogether, as making no part of the present enquiry, every other Privilege or Power for which the House of Commons may contend. I am the more anxious upon this point, on account of the diffi culty experienced during the discussion in the House of Commons of keeping separate, things, in their nature totally dissimilar, and quite distinct, but always confounded: namely, The other Privileges and Powers contended for by the House of Commons, and that which we are now about to discuss; namely, "The Power exercised by the House of Commons of passing a Sentence of Imprisonment on any person not being a Member of that House."" It will be necessary to keep our minds constantly fixed upon this simple question alone, and to apply to it, and to it only, all the arguments about to be adduced in the course of this enquiry.

Had I not been prevented by indisposition from being present when the House of Commons passed by vote a Sentence of Imprisonment on Mr. Gale Jones, I should have endeavoured to shew, That under the false notion of Privilege, they were exercising a power, and committing an act of oppression, ill suited to the character of Guardians of Public Liberty, and destructive of the first and most important object of the Constitution, viz. "The Personal Security of the Subject."

Though I was well aware of the greater difficulty of persuading men to recall an act once committed, than to prevent its commission-it being much more easy to slide into than to recover from error-I would not allow that consideration to deter me from what my duty called upon me to attempt. To others I shall always leave fanciful ideas, suggested by wild metaphysical imaginations, on the supposed nature of what they may be pleased to call Privilege, or any other chimerical, undefined non-descript; and, as a plain man, be content, upon this as upon all other occasions, to be guided by the old Laws of the Land: in which alone I am able to find THE CONSTITUTION of this Country-the Liberty which I claim as the inheritance of Englishmen and that Standard by which and by which alone, every act and proceeding of any man or body of men ought to be measured.

The Common Law of the Land is the inalienable inheritance of the people-it is, says Lord Coke, "The Inheritance of "Inheritances; it is the best birth-right "the Subject hath, for thereby his goods,

"lands, wife, children, his body, life, ho- | "nour and estimation are protected from «injury and wrong. Major hæreditas "venit unicuique nostrum a jure et legibus "quam a parentibus. It is highest above "the highest: None are above its reach, "nor any beneath its protection; Its "foundations are laid broad and deep in "nature and reason, and therefore not to "be removed from those foundations by "any power upon earth*." "The Law "of England," says the great Lawyer Plowden," is no other than pure and tried "reason+." And, according to Lord Coke, "the absolute perfection of Rea"son. The ground whereof is beyond "the memory or register of any begin"nings."

The question, then, for the People to consider, is, Whether a Vote of the House of Commons can deprive them of these their imprescriptible Rights?

Many are the statutes, which, embodying these principles of the Common Law, have declared, That no Order, Writ or Commandment whatsoever, either from the King or any other, shall stop the Common Law: That it shall by no means be delayed, being the surest sanctuary for the innocent, and the strongest fortress to protect the weak. It has clipt the wings of high-flying Prerogative; and will, I trust, yet dissolve the potent spell of undefined Privilege of Parliament: for there are no Powers or Privileges, even the highest, that are not bounded by the known ascertained Laws of the Land. If, therefore, any man, or set of men, lay claim to Privileges or Powers, not recognized by, but repugnant to, those Laws; such claims ought to be legally resisted by every one who values regulated Liberty, and abhors Anarchy or Despotism, the neverfailing consequence of departing therefrom.

Founded on such a basis; fortified by such Authorities as I shall have occasion to appeal to in the progress of this enquiry, I have little doubt of being able to convince every impartial mind, that the House of Commons, by proceeding to judgment -passing a Sentence of Imprisonment, and issuing a Warrant of Commitment, has gone beyond its prescribed limits, acted in a manner inconsistent with the

* See also Co. Lit. 141. a. 2 Inst. 56, 63.

+ Plowden, 316.

Libros

Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, During the ... Session of the ..., Volumen 16