LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 12, 1810.

"Encampments of Troops are to be formed in the vicinity of London. The ground is said to be "marked out at different points, so as to draw a complete cordon round the Metropolis. For what purpose this most unseemly spectacle is to be exhibited we know not."- -MORNING CHRONICLE, 7th May, 1810.

"Westminster-Hall instantly rang with loud acclamations which were communicated to the whole"extent of the City. They even reached the camp at Hounslow, where the king was at dinner in Lord "Feversham's tent. His Majesty demanded the cause of those rejoicings, and being informed that it "was nothing but the soldiers shouting at the delivery of the bishops, Call you that nothing? cried "he, but so much the worse for them.'"HISTORY OF ENGLAND, JAMES II. 1655.

the House's pleasure, without there ny oath made against such person, and wow any warrant under the hand of a &orn magistrate.Are we "deluded" b cause we dislike the existence of such a power as this? If we are, we have been "deluded" by Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, and by all the renowned expositors of our ancient and wise and righteous and, I had almost said, holy laws. And, waving the manner in which the other" house is formed; saying nothing about that here; supposing my lord Grey's former complaints against the composition of that

"(lord Grenville) who sat next him, when "he said, that Parliament was the au"thor 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 Constitu"tion 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 ad"dress their Lordships. His noble friends "had adverted to the late exercise of Prileges 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 re"sistance by those who had been the objects of them; if they alluded to actions "which though not pending, were in imme"diate 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 "manner of concern. If the Privileges of "the Commons under the Constitution "had been invaded, the Commons wanted "no assistance from the Lords to protect

which no one, that I know of, has taken.
If we were told that the king, or rather
the king's minister, acting in his master's
name, had the " privilege' (for so this
power is, it seems still to be called) of
sending to jail, and keeping there during
his pleasure, any of the people, who by
writing or otherwise, should offend him,
what should we then say? What name
should we then give to the government of
England? Indeed, what name but one
could it possibly have? -Well, let us,
now, take along with us the doctrine, that
the minister for the time being ought always
to have a majority of the Honourable House
on his side; and, indeed, the fact, that
this is the practice of the constitution."
What is there, then, to prevent the minis-
ter for the time being from sending to
jail, and keeping there during his pleasure,"
any man who may offend him?- -Am I
told, that his majority would, if he at-
tempted to do what was wrong in this
respect, desert him? To this I make no
answer; but, it will not do for the OUTS
to tell me this; because they have,
during this session; aye, and in the case
of the very question now before us, blamed,
and loudly blamed, what the minister and the
majority did actually do. If, therefore as
the OUTS assert, the minister and the ma-
jority did what was blameable in this case,
why might they not do it in another
case? Why are we to suppose, that they
will stop here?To this question also
I long for an answer; and, until I receive
it, I certainly shall not think myself a
deluded" man, as far, at least, as relates
to this matter.- I shall now conclude
this article with the insertion of the speech
of my LORD ERSKINE, as I find it reported"
in the Morning Chronicle of the 8th instant,
and to which speech I think it my duty to
give all the means of circulation in my
power." Lord Erskine said he felt
himself called upon to say a very fow
"words to their lordships. He said he en-
"tirely agreed with his noble friend who
gave the notice, that notwithstanding any
"imperfections with which time might
"have visited our happy Constitution, it" Law of the Land.
"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 con-
"template that perfection without ad-
"verting to the principles which were
"its essential characteristic. Its character-
"istic indeed had been correctly and bu-
"minously expressed by his noble friend

them; the Laws would protect them; and "if in the invasion of their Privileges the "Lords' Privileges were by analogy in"vaded, it less became them to be for"ward in their assertion: more especially "as the question might come legally and judicially before them. No man would more zealously defend the Privileges of Parlia "ment, 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 exer"cising with the acquiescence of the "whole Legislature, would, in the absence "of Statutes, which would be the grand ques"tion, 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

"statutes upon this subject, before the "possible origin of any jurisdiction of "the House of Commons--it was con"tended 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 privi leges in the cases contended for? and could any authority but a Court of Law "overrule such a plea? could the Com"mons 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

"be was putting an almost impossible

"Pemberton for holding plea of them in "his Court; but so far was he from con"sidering such a claim as matter of argu"ment 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 usu pation "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 ju"risdiction 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 con"sidered, 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," any dominion over it. It might appear " and most properly, to admit that there "was no precedent to be found for his forci"ble 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 immemo«rial 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 au"thority, 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 im"plicit 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 ap"plication. 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 resist "ing, 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"

"

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 de"fended 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 main "tain. Lord Erskine here said, ' 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 im

possible 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 par "doned; he could not alter his nature-what he had ever been through life be

"

"must be to-day; what had been the "character of bis 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 character 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 su"perior talents entitled them to the great "station which they must ever hold in "the opinions of mankind. It was to se"cure that pre-eminence that he made "these observations, because he knew "that nothing could ever secure con"tentment and happiness in this coun"try, but the PROTECTION AND "DOMINION OF THE LAW."These are the true doctrines of the Constitution of England. May they be, by her courts of law, for ever established!

ragraph, in the Morning Chronicle of the 9th instant, is so excellent, in every respect, that I cannot refrain from inserting it, and, in so doing, I am sure I shall give great pleasure to the reader.―― "In all times of danger to the Constitu"tion, as we stated yesterday, great au"thorities have risen up to preserve the "dominion of the Laws, against over"strained assumptions of power. Thus "Lord HOLT, in the beginning of the last century, when threatening resolutions "were passed to stop the jurisdiction of "the Courts of Law in a question of Privi"lege, maintained with such powerful dignity the authority of the Law, as "compleatly to preserve the rights of the subject. Thus, on the memorable oc"casion of general Warrants, did Lord "CAMDEN assert the illegality of the pro

ceeding. And thus has Lord ERSKINE "now, with the same constitutional spirit “which animated his eloquence when defending the subject at the bar, stood up "to maintain the dominion of the law, as that "alone which Englishmen can recognize. "His speech in the House of Lords, on

Monday, will be held in reverence while "the liberties of these kingdoms shall be "dear to our memories, even if we are to "be doomed to think of them only as a

blessing which is past. It breathed "the true and genuine doctrine of the "Constitution; and we trust will have the "effect of making other Lawyers recon"sider their assertions."

I cannot help pointing out to the reader, how complete my lord Erskine's answer is to the doctrine of the two noblemen who preceded him, as to the degradation of applying to the crown for support. They said, that to apply to the king (meaning to order the Attorney General to prosecute) would be degrading to the Honourable House. Aye, said my lord Erskine, but they have applied to the PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.In the deking; not for the aid of his laws; but bate, in the House of Lords, before menfor the aid of his bayonets.-There was tioned, lords GREY and GRENVILLE spoke no answer to lord Erskine; and to an- upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. swer him was impossible.The two The former said, that he retained his old noblemen seemed to have forgotten, be- opinions respecting Parliamentary Reform, sides, that, in the case of MR. REEVES, the and that he now thought this reform more Honourable House did apply to the king necessary than ever. But, he disapproved for the aid of his Attorney General. A of the clamour," now raised against the jury declared Mr. Reeves to have com- parliament altogether, and, in this, at mitted no crime, and this was urged by least, lord Grenville agreed with him.Mr. Sheridan as a reason why the house The City-Jobbers, who are signing, at what should not proceed in the same way rate I know not, a Declaration against the again!But, why need the Honourable proceedings of the LIVERY, say, too, that House, if it does really esteem it a degra- attempts are industriously made to vidation, apply to the crown? They have lify and degrade the legislature by the the power to employ any other legal per-most unfounded calumnies.". calumnies."-Now, in son as well as the Attorney General to the first place, the Honourable House abte for them; to prosecute for libels is not the legislature, and no complaint has against lich, therefore, this argu- been heard against either of the other ment seems to have not a more solid foun- branches. In the next place, that which dation than the others that has been used is true is not calumnious, falsehood being an in defence of the exercise of the dreadful indispensible ingredient in the composi power in questionThe following pa- tion of calumny.But, before I go any Difcounts, 4

ple of clamour and folly and factiousness for being dissatisfied with the House, who have approved of all the acts of these same ministers, and who do still support these same ministers? MR. PONSONBY called these ministers the Demon of England;" and, are the people to be called "deluded," because they wish for a reformation in that House, by whom these ministers have been, and are, supported, and will still be supported, in spite of all Mr. Ponsonby and his two noble friends can say to the contrary?-The ministers, indeed, might, with some shew of argument, complain of the "clamours" (if they will call them clamours) of the people; but, as to "the

de

further, let me take the whole of my lord Grenville's speech, as reported in the Morning Chroniele.- "Lord Grenville "entirely concurred with his Noble "Friend (Earl Grey) and expressed his deep regret that any persons should "have been so deluded as to attack the "powers and privileges of parliament, upon "which depended the very existence of "the Constitution, and the welfare and "prosperity of the country. To Parlia"ment the people were indebted for their "liberties, for their prosperity, and for all "the advantages they had hitherto en"joyed. Take away the powers of Par"liament, and these deluded persons who "now clamoured against them would soon" gentlemen opposite,' they who have, in "find that the liberty and prosperity of fact, called upon the people to complain. "the people would cease to exist, It They did, indeed, desire them to complain "was through the means of the Parlia- of the ministers; but, the people, "ment that the liberty of the people was "luded" as they are, were not fools "first established; it was by Parliament enough to be deluded into that. It would "that that liberty had by wise and whole-have been as stupid as it would be to pro"some laws been placed upon a firm and "secure basis, and like their ancestors "they ought to rally round Parliament to " preserve its authority inviolate; for were "it to be deprived of those privileges upon which depended its power and "dignity, to what source could the people "look for the maintenance of their own privileges and their own liberties? "They could indeed hope to derive little "aid from the Crown if once the privi"leges of Parliament were gone. The "Noble Secretary of State might at"tempt a defence of Ministers, but it "was to their misconduct that much of "the evil that had arisen was to be at"tributed. They had violated the Consti "tution on their first entrance into office, "and had ever since beer.

in con

secute, not the man who stabs you, but the dagger, with which he does it. LORD ERSKINE has declared for a Reform of Parliament. It must give every one great pleasure to perceive this. Mr. Erskine, his son, made the declaration for hin, it seems, at the last meeting of the WhigClub. This is very important. Others will and must follow; and, in spite of the Boroughmongers, the Reform we shall have.But again, I say, no haste. Follow the advice of our leader: seek reform, as he says, in his Answer to the Middlesex Address, by "quiet, easy, and peace"able means."-There is no occasion for hurry. The whole nation, those excepted, who, in one way or another, live upon the taxes unjustly, wish for a Reform. They are convinced, that nothing else can save "tradiction to the best interests the country." the nation from destruction. But, why Well, but, if this latter part of the re- do I talk of opinions and of wishes? The ported speech be true; if the present mi- taxing-papers and the paper-money would, nisters did really "violate the constitution were the whole national wish against the "upon their first entrance into power, and measure, produce that measure; though "have ever since been acting in contradiction they might produce along with it a very "to the best interests of the country;" if, as serious convulsion.-IR JOHN ANSTRUmy lord Grey asserted, the present mi- THER, who has lately been a judge in India, nisters are "men without system, without under Lord Wellesley, but who is now " plan, existing only by expedients from a member of parliament, and "one of the "day to day; men who have endangered" gentlemen opposite," is in the report of a "the best interests of the country; men late debate, said to have spoken thus:-"whose proceedings are so iniquitous, that "Sir J. ANSTRUTHER urged the opinion "to support them would be a breach of trust "which he had before expressed, that "and of duty" in Lord Grey and others : "the House ought to have the privileges if this be the case; if these assertions, in "of which some men would deprive them, these reports of speeches, be true, is it very" or their authority would cease. consistent with justice to accuse the peo- "the Ministers, he did say on a former

As to