themselves, and there had come home a great number of private letters, many of them containing matter of the most criminal nature. The House was aware, however, that the governor-general of India, with the view to heal the wounds of the British empire in that country, had adopted the course (with certain exceptions) of restoring to their rank and confidence all the officers of the Madras army. It would not be fitting, therefore, under such circumstances, that the private letters which he had mentioned should be produced. They might find their way back to India, and do the individuals by whom they were written great disservice, and the country no good. To the comments of the hon. gent. on the civil proceedings of the government of Madras, he was not prepared, from the shortness of the hon. gent.'s notice, fully to reply; but in some of those comments he was sure that the hon. gent. was totally mistaken; for instance, in his animadversions on the part which the Madras government took in support of the commissioners appointed to consider the Carnatic claims. With respect also to the removal from office of persons for their conduct while serving upon juries, he was persuaded that the hon. gent. was wholly mistaken. So far from having been removed several of the individuals alluded to had even been promoted. In his observations on the removal of Mr. Petrie, the hon. gent. had omitted several very important considerations. He had not mentioned, that before that removal the court of directors had distinctly approved the conduct of sir G. Barlow. Besides, as it was necessary that one of the three counsellors should be removed, in order to make way for sir S. Achmuty, who had been appointed commander in chief, it became a question whether of the three counsellors it was not expedient to remove the one with whom there was positive proof that sir G. Barlaw could not sit at the same council board. The conduct therefore of Mr. Petrie was not the sole ground for his removal, although it did not follow that it might not have had its influence. He should say no more on the subject, than merely to read a list of the letters which in his opinion, comprised all that it was necessary to lay before the House. This he accordingly did.

Lord A. Hamilton reprobated the conduct which had prompted the recent disturbances in India. It appeared to him

also, that Mr. Petrie had been removed on ex parte evidence. It was impossible that after the frauds and tyrannies which had been practised at Madras, that country should not feel a soreness and aversion to the government, which it required all the exertion and authority of that House to mitigate. He would wish to know by, what means ministers became possessed of the papers respecting that government,> which they then had? He conceived that the papers of sir G. Barlow had not been transmitted legally. India, which could only be supported by truth and justice, called aloud for the interposition of this government, and her prayers for aid could not be refused.

Sir J. Anstruther would say a few words on the subject of sir G. Barlow's conduct. It was said that he had used a desperate experiment, and that the general opinionof the people of Madras was against the English government. The facts were quite the reverse. The conduct of sir G. Barlow was highly laudable, instead of being intemperate or desperate; and the individuals who were under the protection of the East India company, felt, and avowed they felt, that their happiness and freedom emanated from the care and the parental fondness of that government. He believed there had been many misrepresentations respecting the civil power. The particulars of their conduct could not yet be ascertained. He was one of those who did not consider the removal of a man from one place to another any disgrace, provided the change was for the better. This was the case with the jurymen, who had, many of them, received positive advantage by their removal. He wished that all the necessary papers should be produced; but if the motion for all the papers was carried, he would desire that a selection should be made, before the motion for printing them was carried.

Sir T. Turton said, it had been mentioned that sir G. Barlow had acted firmly in his government. It was possible that the government at Madras, like the government at home, was firm in opposing every thing in which the public interests were concerned. He conceived that the people there must be disgusted with the government placed over them, in proportion to the disgust which the English government had excited in liberal and enlightened people. It had been said that anonymous remonstrances had been made; but was it not known that punishment:

and still was, the best constitution that the world had yet seen, for every good and practicable purpose. He never was more deeply impressed with any subject, than he was with the present general situation of the country in all its most important relations; and he was convinced that it was his duty to move an address to his Majesty, expressive of the opinions entertained by himself and those with whom he had the honour and happiness to be politically connected, stating the causes which, in their judgments, had produced this alarming crisis, and humbly recommending to his Majesty such measures as the honour of the crown and the security and happiness of the country imperiously demanded. As these were subjects of great importance, that required the almost immediate attention of their lordships, he should conclude by giving notice of his motion for such an address to be moved by him on that day three weeks.

The Earl of Liverpool said, that satisfied in seeing that the noble earl perceived the situation of the country, and the necessity of upholding the privileges and dignity of parliament, notwithstanding the severity of the observations which he had made on the conduct of his Majesty's ministers (a severity which he was bold to say was totally unmerited by them), he should thankfully receive the assistance of that noble earl in the support of those privileges which were necessary to the wellbeing and security of the constitution. It was by no fault that could with justice be imputed to administration, that subjects of recent notoriety had occurred, and which every man must regret. But at the proper time when this question came before them, if it was intended to blame ministers, he should be ready, and he did then put in his claim to defend their conduct to the satisfaction of the House and the country. As sufficient time would elapse previous to that discussion, he hoped the noble earl would give him an idea of the objects of his address.

Lord Grenville thought, that the intelligible and able statement of his noble friend must convey to ministers a pretty correct idea of the object of the address which he intended to propose. The country saw, indeed, its difficulties daily increasing. Our dangers were accumulating upon us, and surrounding us, from the increasing pressure of our expenditure, and more especially from the imbecility, rashness, and folly of the King's minis

VOL. XVI,

ters, who shewed the greatest political incapacity, and absolute ignorance of the constitution, of the principles of which their very first act, their entrance into power, was a violation. Danger had likewise increased from another quarter; and even our parliamentary constitution had become the object of attack. His lordship must now contend for the necessity of maintaining the privileges of parliament. They had been assumed in the earlier periods of the Stuarts for the support of the independence of the parliament, and of the privileges of the people themselves. They had been maintained and acted upon ever since, and had become part of the law and usage of parliament. Our rights and liberties were not secure without them. He concurred most cordially with what had been so ably said by his noble friend: he was not one who would rally round the administration, but he would rally round our parliamentary constitution. To our parliament our country owed its liberty, its greatness, its prosperity, and its happiness. No delusion could be more gross and fatal to the public, than to suppose that there was any other quarter to which they could look for any amendment in the present state of public affairs, for maintaining their best rights and interests, or for any beneficial improvements in future. It became the indispensable duty of the House to take some measures suited to the danger of the times, and he fully approved of the mode proposed by his noble friend, by an humble and suitable address to his Majesty.

Lord Erskine said he felt himself called upon to say a very few words to their lordships, although he was afraid irregu larly, as there was no question before the House. [Lord Erskine was here told that there was a question, though of form, that the House should be summoned that day three weeks.] That being so, he could speak with more freedom upon what appeared to him to be a most momentous subject. He said he entirely agreed with his noble friend who gave the notice, that notwithstanding any imperfections with which time might have visited our happy constitution, it was the best and wisest upon the face of the earth, and under which there was the greatest enjoyment of happiness and freedom; but it was impossible to contemplate that perfection without adverting to the principles which were its essential characteristic. Its characteristic indeed had been correctly and

3 I

luminously expressed by his noble friend (lord Grenville), who sat next to him, when he said, "that parliament was the author of it, and that like our ancestors, from whom we inherited our freedom, we should rally round parliament; so said his lordship; because in rallying round parliament, or in other words, round the King, Lords, and Commons, we were rallying round the constitution and the laws; around which all were disposed to rally." It was the cause of the immediate reference to this sound doctrine that obliged him to address their lordships. His noble friends had adverted to the late exercise of privileges by the House of Commons, and of the sensation they had created. If they alluded only to the disturbances in this great city which they inhabited, he joined in lamenting them; but if they involved in this sentiment the legal resistance by those who had been the objects of them if they alluded to actions which, though not pending, were in immediate prospect, he must declare that he considered it to be a matter of the greatest magnitude and importance, which the laws alone ought to determine, and with which their lordships had at present no matter of concern. If the privileges of the Commons under the constitution had been invaded, the Commons wanted no assistance from the Lords to protect them -the laws would protect them; and if in the invasion of their privileges, the Lords' privileges were by analogy invaded, it less became them to be forward in their assertion; more especially as the question might come legally and judicially before them. No man would more zealously defend the privileges of parliament, or of either House of parliament, than he should; and he admitted, that what either branch of the legislature had been for the course of ages exercising with the acquiescence of the whole legislature, would, in the absence of statutes, which would be the grand question, be evidence of the common law of parliament, and, as such, of the common law of the land. The jurisdiction of courts rested in a great measure upon the same foundation but besides that, these precedents, as applicable alike to all of them, were matters of grave and deliberate consideration; they were, and must be, determined in the end by the law. He knew that the contrary was insisted upon by the Commons, when they committed lord chief justice Pemberton for holding plea of them in his

court; but so far was he from considering such a claim as matter of argument under this government of law, that I say advisedly, said his lordship, that if, upon the present occasion, a similar attack was made upon my noble and learned friend (lord Ellenborough) who sits next me, for the exercise of his legal jurisdiction, I would resist the usurpation with my strength, and bones and blood. Why, was any danger to the House of Commons or the country to be anticipated by a sober appeal to the judgment of the laws? If his noble and learned friend and his brethren the judges had no jurisdiction over the privileges of the House of Commons, they would say they had no jurisdiction. If they thought they had, they would give a just decision according to the facts and circumstances of the case, whatever they might be. These facts and circumstances are considered, however, too clear for inquiry; yet the King's attorney general, and a member of the House of Commons, when called upon by the serjeant for advice upon the subject, was obliged, and most properly, to admit that there was no precedent to be found for his forcibly prosecuting, and that if death ensued he could not undertake to insure him against a conviction, and an execution for murder. Was this the character of an immemorial and an acknowledged jurisdiction? But it was said that there was an end of the privileges of parliament if they must pray in aid the King, or any other authority, to support their jurisdiction. Yet, in the very instance alluded to, they were obliged to pray in aid the King-not of his laws indeed, to which the people. would have paid the most implicit obedience, but of his bayonets, which, when contrary to law, they would resist. He desired to warn their lordships against too hasty a resort to force, until right had determined its application. It was a dangerous resort, which never could be necessary in the government of the British people, when the laws were on the side of authority; let the laws speak first, and if they were disobeyed, the people, instead of resisting, would obey, and execute them themselves. There was another view in which this question must be looked at. He was giving no opinion whatever on the subject, but stating only the question. Suppose there should be positive statutes upon this subject, before the possible origin of any jurisdiction of the House of Commons it was contended that there

were he was still giving no opinion; but was it not open to the subject, if he were advised to plead such statutes in bar of the privileges in the cases contended for? and could any authority but a court of law overrule such a plea? Could the Commons themselves resist the effect of such statutes, to which they were parties? There might be statutes indeed on such a subject, which, except in form, wanted no judicial cognizance, because every man could read for himself. If a written law would bear two interpretations, and the worst interpretation had been given to it by a series of decisions, that worst interpretation was undoubtedly the law; but where a statute spoke a clear, plain, unambiguous language, the people had a right to the protection of its letter, and they ought to insist upon that protection. The parliament might repeal it, but whilst it was a statute, neither the King, Lords, or Commons, or all three of them, had any dominion over it. It might appear he was putting an almost impossible case; but on that very ground he had defended from death the subjects of this country, and perhaps more than them; their lordships might not have been sitting to-day to hear him, if upon these grounds he had not successfully defended the dominion of the laws. He was then told that a conspiracy to levy war against the king was treason, as an attack upon the natural life of the king; he had said, no! because the statute of Edward 3 under any interpretation, had said no also. He was told that lord Hale and lord Coke were against him; to which he had answered irreverendly perhaps, but in other respects rightly, that their authorities were no more against a positive, unambiguous statute, than so many large flies buzzing against a wall; and so he should for ever maintain. Lord Erskine here said, 66 I would rather die, my lords, than submit to any dominion but that of the law. I know the law upon this subject, my lords, as well as any of your lordships; it is impossible I should not; and it would be criminal to surrender or even to withhold my opinion." If he had been warm upon the subject he must be pardoned; he could not alter his nature-what he had ever been through life he must be to-day -what had been the character of his mind and understanding must continue to be its character. He made no apology to his noble friends for this expression of his opinion. They would little deserve the cha

racter they justly had in the country, if they were capable, not merely from courtesy, but even from confidence and affection, to compromise opinions upon such grave and important questions. He was most sincerely attached to the principles of those with whom he had so long acted, and particularly to his two noble friends, whose unquestionable integrity and superior talents intitled them to the great station which they must ever hold in the opinions of mankind. It was to secure that pre-eminence that he made these observations, because he knew that nothing could ever secure contentment and happiness in this country, but the protection and dominion of the law.

The Lords were ordered to be summoned for that day three weeks.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, May 7.

[THE KING'S LETTER TO FERDINAND VII.] Mr. Whitbread said, that having read a letter in all the public papers, purporting to be written by his Majesty, and sent to king Ferdinand VII. he begged leave to ask a question of the right hon. gent. opposite, viz. Whether it was to be looked upon as a document which had any pretensions to the character of authenti city?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer declined giving any answer, on the ground that it might be prejudicial to the public service,

Mr. Whitbread said, he could not con ceive how a letter that had been so profusely published, both in the French papers and those of this country, and which must thereby be known to all the world, could in any respect prove inconvenient or injurious to the public service.

[SIR FRANCIS BURDETT'S NOTICES TO THE SPEAKER.] The Speaker said, that before the House proceeded to the general business, he felt anxious to call their previous attention to a due consideration of the subject matter, and circumstances of the two Notices received from sir Francis Burdett, and communicated by him (the Speaker) to that House. This was the more necessary, as the law term was so near commencing. He waited, therefore, the result of the serious consideration of the House upon the proceedings had and to be had, respecting a subject so deeply interesting to their privileges.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he was not then aware of any course