tain an illegal power, not pretended to even by the king, but which these local sovereigns over the king claim as of right. But no wonder, when they have so entirely departed from the ends of their institution. -as was offered to be proved by Mr Madocks, and acknowledged by themselves, in the never-to-be-forgotten morning of the 11th of May, one thousand eight hundred and nine; when, from being the lower or inferior (for it is the same sense, one being an English, the other a 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-blown 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.

"The Commons," he concluded, "do not sit in that house for their dignity, but as servants of the people; not to exercise prerogative and power over them, but to inspect and controul the public accounts, to protect liberty and property; to complain of exorbitances of power in any quarter; and to maintain the laws of the land. They are the last persons who ought to set an example of encroachment. If they become destroyers of the liberties of the people, in them oppression is combined with treachery; they destroy where they are bound to protect. One cannot, with such impressions in one's mind, help entertaining a fear, that the gentlemen of the House of Commons, may in time, unless they revert to the great principles of the constitution, be in danger of incurring the sentence of St Paul upon the insolent and tyrannical high priest, Ananias, who had

VOL. III. PART I.

commanded him to be stricken for opening his mouth in his own defence :-"God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: For sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?"

It was apparent that a letter and an argument, couched in such terms and so published, were intended as a defiance to the House of Commons. Mr Lethbridge, member for Somersetshire, March 27. complained of it to the house; being induced, he said, to bring the matter forward, as an Englishman, in defence of the privileges of parliament, and as the representative of as independent and free a body as any in Old England.-The whole paper was read; Mr Lethbridge then pointed out the specific passages on which he founded his complaint, and called upon the house to vindicate themselves from a series of unjust and unjustifiable aspersions, and punish this violation of their privileges in what manner might to their wisdoms appear most fitting. Sir Francis be ing told by the speaker, that now was the time for him, according to the uniform practice of parliament, to be heard in his own defence, replied in a low tone of voice, "that Mr Lethbridge was bound explicitly to point out the nature of the charge, and till he should hear something in refutation of the principles of his paper, he could not look upon himself as called upon to undertake their defence. He had no hesitation to state, that in writing that address and argument he had no idea that he was infringing any privilege of the house.-Was it to be supposed that the simple act of arguing on the powers of the Commons was a crime? He was willing to abide by the fact and argument of that paper. He would stand the issue; but.

if it were the pleasure of the house that he should withdraw, he was ready so to do." Accordingly, upon the speaker stating, that such was the unchanged, and, as he hoped, unchangeable practice of parliament, he withdrew. Mr Lethbridge then said, "he wished the forms of the house had not precluded Sir Francis from hearing what he had to say. If that house had any regard for its character, it would put a stop to such proceed ings as they had lately witnessed. He had heard things stated in that house which had made the hair on his head stand on end." A laugh was raised at this; but Mr Lethbridge, who was neither to be ridiculed nor deterred from doing what he felt to be his duty, pursued; "Such," he said, "was the feeling of horror with which he had heard it there affirmed, that in the opinion of the public the reputation of that house had not a leg to stand upon. Such proceedings, he trusted, would be effectually put a stop to; he moved therefore, that the paper before the house was a libellous and scandalous paper, and that Sir Francis Burdett, who suffered it to be printed with his name and by his authority, had been guilty of a violation of the privileges of the house. These resolutions, he trusted, would be adopted; they must be adopted, if the house wished to save its own character and that of Old England." Mr Blachford seconded the motion. Mr Ponsonby moved, that the discussion should be delayed for a week, on the ground that the minds of the members were fully engrossed with the Walcheren question, which was then pending. Mr Perceval contended, that both the importance of the business, and the feelings of the individual, required the earliest decision, and that

the members would have sufficient opportunity of examining the paper by the morrow. Mr Whitbread, insinuating that the Chancellor of the Exchequer designed by this business to distract the attention of the house and the feelings of the public from the Walcheren question, which had occupied so much of both, proposed an adjournment till Friday, the third day from thence, by which time the debate on the expedition would be terminated. Under such an imputation, Mr Perceval replied, he could not sit silent. "Have I," said he, "advised the honourable baronet to publish the paper which is the foundation of the charge against him? Did I recommend to him to publish it on Saturday last, so as to occasion this delay at this particular time? Have I had any concern in the mode in which the question has been brought before the house? The question is of the last importance to the character, the dignity, the honour, and the independence of this house. The longer they suffer the decision upon it to be delayed, the longer they would submit to be trampled upon. The law of the case had lately been discussed and decided upon in a full house, almost unanimously, only fourteen voting with the honourable baronet, and many of them on the ground that the previous confinement of the individual was a sufficient punishment for his offence. The consideration, however, that one individual was in custody, and another under accusation, was a reason for restricting the adjournment to the shortest possible period."

The house divided on Mr Whitbread's proposal. 146 voted for the adjournment till Friday, and it was decided by a majority of 50, that the

question should be resuMarch 28. med on the morrow. The debate was then prosecuted with increased warmth. Mr Brand moved for a week's delay; for though he conceived that Sir Francis had clearly been guilty of a breach of privilege, yet when his paper was pronounced to be a libel upon the just rights of the house, it was proper to have time for considering what those just rights were. He admitted that a question in which the privileges of parliament and the liberty of the subject were concerned, was of more importance than twenty expeditions to the Scheldt, or to any other part of the globe: but there was no cause for precipitation; no mischief could result from any farther circulation of the paper, and if Mr Lethbridge had been aware of the interruption which such a topic was likely to give to the important question then pending, he was convinced that he would not have lent himself to any such purpose; for he himself thought, and all persons must think, that it was a sop thrown out to an attentive house and an indignant people.

that house, he was so affected that his hair stood on end. Now that the house knew he had the gift of language, he trusted that he would not hereafter remain silent; but when he next became sensible of this visible effect, suffer his moral to overpower his physical impressions, and move that the terrifying words be taken down. It would certainly be desirable on every account that he should not let them remain in oblivion for three weeks, and then make the unfortunate utterer of them become the object of another charge, by bringing them in judgement against him. "Another personal allusion of Mr Whitbread's did not pass without notice. "When he heard the mover and the seconder," he said, "speaking of combinations in the house, and the spirit of jacobinism out of it, he could scarcely believe that he was not listening to the organs of the late member for Cambridgeshire; this was the legacy bequeathed to that house by the Teller of the Exchequer." This provoked an angry and ill-judged reply from Mr Yorke's brother, Sir Joseph. "Whatever legacy," he said, "was bequeathed by the late member for Cambridgeshire, would be remembered with respect by the house: certain he was, that it must be as good as any which proceeded from a brewer of bad porter." Mr Whitbread used the opportunity well which had thus been afforded him. "Whatever might be the emotions of his friends," he said, "at the language which had been used, (for there was a loud and general cry of order) he could assure the house he was in no other way affected by it than as a tradesman, and he only hoped, that as the honourable gentleman conceived so bad an opinion of him, in supposing that he had so far deviated from the precepts and

This motion was supported by Mr Whitbread. "If Mr Lethbridge," he said, "had not lent himself to any man in the course he had taken, he had allowed himself to be influenced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had taken advantage of his facility, availing himself of the question as a God-send, in the same manner as a drowning man would catch at a straw, in the desperate hope that it would afford him a short respite from the impending decision upon his conduct. Many things happened between the cup and the lip, so also did many things happen between the halter and the gallows. Mr Lethbridge had said, that on hearing certain statements in

practice of his father, that he would do his porter the justice to make a trial of it. If he should order a cask, he would undertake to furnish him with the best, and all he should ask in return was, that he would give it to the electors of Cambridgeshire to drink the health of their late member." Lord Milton moved, that Sir Joseph Yorke's words should be taken down; but Mr Whitbread, with becoming temper, declared, "that he felt perfect good humour upon the occasion, and that as the honourable gentleman was, as appeared by his countenance, restored to tranquillity, he required no apology, and hoped the house would not call for any." This circumstance, and the manner in which it was treated by Mr Whitbread, gave great matter of triumph to that side of the house; but Mr Croker, with equal readiness and spirit, recalled them to the immediate point in discussion. "The feelings of Sir Joseph Yorke," he said, "afforded a sufficient apology for the language he had made use of, considering the manner in which his brother had been alluded to." A cry of Question! question! was here "Some indulgence," he continued, "he had expected from the good humour of the gentlemen opposite; they had not called out thus clamorously for the question when Mr Whitbread was so evidently deviating from it, and using language as rude and as unparliamentary as had been employed on the other side. The question did not require a moment's deliberation. Mr Whitbread had said, that he was not to be intimidated from stating his opinions on the subject, however those opinions might lean; neither am I," said Mr Croker, "to be clamoured into silence by any outcry or monosyllable, unaccompanied by any argument. Sir Francis Bur

set up.

dett spoke in the house upon the commitment which is complained of; but he did not dare to utter those sentiments, nor to employ those expressions, which he has since sent forth to the public. He has published, in the shape of an argument, what professes to be that speech: he sets at defiance the unanimous decision of the house, and instead of openly and candidly avowing his opinion in the house itself, he libels their proceedings before the public, and declares it to be a violation of the constitution and of the rights of the people; a sentiment which he dared not avow in this house. I appeal to you, Mr Speaker, without entering into any laboured argument; I appeal to you, whose authority and signature he has traduced, whether, if he had dared to make use of such expressions before you, you would not have felt it your duty to have called him to order, as you did once before this session, when he was proceeding to indulge in invective against the dignity and character of this house. I appeal to the house, if any such language had been uttered within these walls, whether you would not have deemed it not only highly irregular and unparliamentary, but a libel on the house. But I appeal further to the house, if the sentiments of the honourable baronet on this subject are not well known, and if they are not such as require no attempt to prove the application or tendency of the language he employs (Order! order! was here called out by several members.) I insist," pursued Mr Croker, "that we do know his sentiments, because they have been avowed before, and therefore I am not to be called to order: While humbly supporting the digni ty of the chair, and the privileges of this house, I am not out of order,-I

say humbly, for neither the dignity of the chair, nor the honour of the house, stand in need of such defenders. There can be no doubt of the question, unless the forms and privileges of the house are wholly changed. Whatever the principle of the commitment may be, there can be no doubt of the illegality of the argument: there can be no doubt, that the paper is a most audacious libel. The gentlemen opposite admit that it is a libel, and yet they wish for delay. If the libel is admitted, what occasion is there for farther time to

consider ?""

Sir Samuel Romilly spoke in a strain more suited to the temper of the populace, and less to the occasion. The paper had been objected to," he said, "because many parts of it were conceived in strong language; why should there not be strong language in arguing a matter of great consequence, involving the rights of the public and the constitution of the country? There were offensive paragraphs in that paper; but he could not view them in the mischievous light in which they had been represented; and did they amount to a libel? There might be inflammatory language in it; but at the same time it was reasoned with great ability, and all the great authorities and precedents on the subject were argued on with much learning. This was a grave argument, and God forbid that any man should be precluded from discussing such a subject. He besought the house to consider the question with moderation; the proposed resolutions, instead of protecting these privileges, would have a contrary effect. He was told that the house was not to listen to the language of intimidation; but considering what had lately passed at the numerous great meetings through

out the country, in which opinions, in many instances unanimous ones, on grand public questions, were declared contrary to the decisions of that house, he confessed that he had not courage to contend, that the majority of that house must be right, and the great body of the nation wrong, or to set up his own opinion (had he originally formed one in those majorities) against the voice of the nation."

Mr Perceval replied. He alluded to what Mr Whitbread had said concerning the halter and the gallows, just to shew, without resenting such language, that its wisdom, and liberality, and decorum were not unperceived; he pointed out the libellous language of Sir Francis's paper, and the mischievous drift of his reasoning, and quoted the words of Lord Kenyon, that "if ever a time should come when factious men would attempt to overthrow the government, they would begin by calumniating the courts of justice and the houses of parliament." "I solemnly call on the house," he continued, "to consider whether that time has not arrived! If they hesitate to pronounce that against the honourable baronet which they have not he sitated to pronounce against a less distinguished offender, they will sink low indeed in the public estimation. Grossly libellous as the proceeding of Mr G. Jones has been, it is trifling and contemptible, compared with this which is now complained of, If the house, from an apprehension of doing that which Sir Francis may perhaps wish, and in which he may perhaps triumph, were to abstain from doing their duty, they would indeed afford him cause for triumph, and would indeed deserve to be triumphed over and trodden upon. In asserting their own rights, they are asserting the rights of the people of England. The