to keep legal words from being used in a popular sense, and to prevent a confusion of ideas arising therefrom, it will be necessary in this case to adopt the mode which has been invariably pursued, and to define correctly the legal meaning of the term about to be discussed. For, by not attending sufficiently to this distinction, much embarrassment was created during the former discussion of this subject in the House of Commons: few persons having been able to keep sufficiently separate, things, in their nature so essentially different, as the power of commitment for a legal Contempt, (or abatement of a Nuisance), and the passing of a Sentence of Imprisonment as a punishment for an offence.

he had introduced into the House of Commons for regulating the Tinners in Cornwall. Therefore, it is not upon the authority, but upon the weight of the arguments above cited, and honest arguments they were, of unfeed Counsel in their own cause, that we rely.

As for Modern Decisions of such men as De Gray, Mansfield, or Kenyon, they will hardly be worth quoting on either side of the question; and, for an illustration of the conduct of the last mentioned Judge upon this great constitutional question, I beg leave to refer the Reader to the Case of Benjamin Flower, and to the able Argument of Mr. Clifford in that case; to which Argument I embrace this opportu tunity of acknowledging myself greatly indebted; and so, in my opinion, are the public at large.

In pursuing this Argument, the Reader should carefully keep in mind the marked distinction there is between Privilege and Power. No Privilege of the House of Commons is here denied. But, it may be asked, Upon what ground or pretence they assume a Power to punish? Since they have taken upon themselves to exercise this Power, it is fair to call upon them to shew how they came by it, and when they first claimed it.*

The commencement of this Usurpation was when they got rid of the Upper House

Every one knows that in popular phrase a man is said to shew contempt for another if he turn upon his heel and do not answer a salute: but, in a legal sense, Contempt has one meaning, and one only that is, obstruction to the proceedings of a Court, which every Court is necessarily competent to remove. "Contempt is a disobedience to the rules and orders of a Court. One may be punished for a contempt in Court, but not out, or a private abuse." Whether the Case of the Incorporation of St. Albans, which has been accurately stated, and the Arguments of the Judges in Bridgeman versus Holt are or are not applicable to the case before us, must be left to the candid consideration of the Reader. It is necessary to observe, that I lay no stress upon the authority of the Judges merely as such, recollecting full well the many Opinions of Judges contrary to the Law of the Land and subversive of the Liberty of the Subject. In the case of Ship Money, the Judges determined, that the King had a right to levy taxes without consent of the Representatives of« the People. In the famous Case of the Habeas Corpus, in the King's Bench, afterwards reversed, the Judges determined, that when the King committed the Subject could have no relief. When Charles the First imprisoned Members of Parliament for their parliamentary conduct, the Judges determined, that the Act of the fourth of Henry the Eighth was a private Act, tho' made expressly to prevent members from being questioned, in consequence of Mr. Stroud having been questioned in the Court of Stannaries, and fined and imprisoned by that Court, on account of a Bill

* See Crook, Eliz. 649.

* Sir Robert Walpole seems to have entertained the same sentiments, as appears from his Speech in the House of Commons, in the Case of Sir Richard Steele, in 1714: " Why, said he, "should "the author be answerable in parliament "for the things which he wrote in his pri "vate capacity? And if he is punishable "by law, why is he not left to the law? By this mode of proceeding, parliament, which used to be the scourge only of "evil ministers, is made by ministers the "scourge of the subject. In former reigns, "the audacity of corruption extended it"self only to judges and juries; the at"tempt so to degrade parliament was, till

66

the present period, unheard of. The

Liberty of the Press is unrestrained; "how then shall a part of the legislature "dare to punish that as a crime which is "not declared to be so by any law, "framed by the whole! And why should "that House be made the instrument of "such a detestable purpose." See Coxe's Walpole, vol. 1, p. 73. See also 6 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 1209.

of Parliament, and cut off the head of the King. They still, it seems, are emboldened to retain 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. Ma docks, 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 be. ing 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.*

to destroy the Liberties of the People, those Liberties which it was expressly framed, claimed, demanded and insisted upon to protect.

Mr. Yorke has discovered a new meaning in the Bill of Rights; and, because the Bill of Rights declares, That a member of parliament cannot be questioned any where out of parliament for words spoken therein, he has sapiently concluded, That the People are prohibited from exercising their understanding, for the purpose of discussing or censuring the conduct of the Gentlemen who sit in that House. These Gentlemen all concurred with him in the Sentence passed on Mr. Jones; though no one agreed with him in his new interpretation of the word "Question," in the Bill of Rights-knowing, as they did, that "questioned," legally, means accused before a tribunal competent to punish; and that the power intended to be counteracted was the King's Prerogative and the arbitrary proceedings of the Court of Star Chamber, which were in the constant habit of questioning and punishing Members, for their conduct in the House, as in the Case of Mr. Strode before mentioned, and of Strickland, Sir John Eliot, Col. Churchill, Holles, Valentine, and many others. And, surely, that cannot be deemed a Privilege of Parliament which is incompatible with the Rights of the People: as the Lords resolved in the Case of Ashby and White: That declaring Ashby guilty Upon this memorable Debate, Mr. of a Breach of Privilege of the House of Ponsonby, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Commons is an unprecedented attempt under the Whig Administration, observed, upon the jurisdiction of parliament; and "That he could not consent to proceed is, in effect, to subject the law of England "against individuals, because that had to the Votes of the House of Commons"* "been proved to exist, which had long-And how much more so is this act of "been as notorious as the Sun at noon- imprisoning Mr. Jones! "day; namely, the Sale of Seats in that "House." See Cobbett's Debates, vol. xiv. p. 519.

But, in order that nothing may be wanting, to render truly ludicrous every part of this proceeding, which, inverting the laws of the drama, as well as all other laws, begins with a Farce and ends with a Tragedy, the House of Commons imprison Mr. Jones-under the sanction of what law think ye?-THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!! -Well might Paine call it the Bill of Wrongs; if it could be thus converted into an instrument to oppress and

And in a Committee of the whole House, on the 1st of June last, upon Mr. Curwen's Reform Bill, the Speaker made use of these expressions: "The question now "before us, is no less than this: Whether "the Seats in this House shall be hence"forth publicly saleable?-A proposition, "at the sound of which, our ancestors "would have startled with indignation; "but a practice, which, in these days, "and within these walls, in utter oblivion " of every former maxim and feeling of "Parliament, has been avowed and justified." See p. 837 of the same Volume.

But the House, it seems, thinks that its dignity is concerned in continuing Mr. Jones in prison. That dignity should consist in punishing is a novel idea. The dignity of any man or body of men is best maintained by their doing their duty, according to their several stations. dignity consisted in punishing, then would Jack Ketch be the most dignified man in the land. But the Commons do

* 6 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 431.

If

+ Lord Clarendon observes, "That the damage and mischief cannot be expressed, that the Crown and State sustained by the deserved reproach and infamy that attended the Judges by being made use of

lowing Documents were omitted for want of room. The 1st is a Letter from Lake to the Admiralty, in answer to a letter, written by them to him for an ex

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 Pro-planation relative to the act reported by perty; 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. Every reason is as strong against such an act, from them towards the People, as it was against Macbeth in the murder of Duncan.

"He is here in double trust,

"First as I am his subject and his kinsman-
"Both strong against the deed-then as his host
"Who should against his murderer shut the door,
"Not bear the knife myself."

MR. THOMAS.-The 2d is an Opinion of Mr. Bicknell, upon which I shall, hereafter, offer my opinion.The 3rd is a Report from the Court of Inquiry.The 4th is a Letter from the Admiralty to the members of the Court-martial, covering a Letter from Admiral Sir Alex. Cochrane, and, as to the view with which such letter was so produced, we shall, hereafter, have reason to remark.The 5th is. this Letter of Admiral Cochrane, and a most curious letter it is. Mark the words of it which I have put in Italics. But, it shall come before the public again and again, 'till every soul in England has read it.The 6th is a Letter to character, signed by some people on board of Lake's ship, the Ulysses, and, in this letter, I beg the reader to mark well the words in the parenthesis--But, above all things, I beg the reader's attention to the letter of Admiral Cochrane; to the language of that letter; and to some of its assertions, too.

HAVING now arrived at a conclusion of the Argument upon this most interesting and important case, one cannot, in taking leave of the subject; in reviewing the whole of the proceeding complained of; in beholding an assembly whose sole business it is to make laws, and to watch over the due execution of the laws al-Reader, pray mark his words and his manner. Mark, too, his assertion, that Somready made; one cannot, with such im-brero is close to Anguilla. pressions in one's mind, help entertaining

"sittest thou to judge me after the Law,

-I want little more than this letter to enable me to judge of the writer of it.

Letter from Capt. W. Lake to Mr. W. W. Pole, dated, Ulysses, at the Nore, 3 July, 1809.

SIR-In reply to your Letter of the 6th ult. directing me to explain, for the information of my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, a charge exhibited late Purser of His Majesty's Ship Demeagainst me by Charles Morgan Thomas,

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, who had commanded him to be stricken for opening his mouth in his own defence:-" Godrary, of having set a man on shore upon "shall smite thee, thou whited wall; For an uninhabited island, when I had command of the Recruit; and also to state what I know respecting Mr. Thomas; I beg leave to acquaint you, that a man was set on shore upon the island of Sombrero, who was a most infamous character, but that he is not dead, as represented by Mr. Thomas, he having been taken off by an American vessel a few days afterwards and conveyed to America, where he now lives. I called at the said island on my return to Barbadoes, for the purpose of again taking the man on board the Recruit, but he was not there; and when I arrived at Barbadoes I found, by an American Newspaper, a statement of the man having been taken off the island in ques

"and commandest me to be smitten con"trary to the Law?"

in this and like acts of power, there being no possibility to preserve the dignity, reverence, and estimation of the laws themselves, but by the integrity and innocency of the Judges.".

CAPT. WARWICK LAKE.

(Continued from page 416.) At the place, here referred to, I ended with the SENTENCE upon LAKE. The fol

stance being reported in an American paper, and of the man's arrival there, which assured me of his safety, I consented, after seriously admonishing Capt. Lake, to let the business rest; but should their Lordships still deem it proper to order him to be tried by a Court Martial for his conduct, there are many persons in the Recruit, who, no doubt, can prove the cir cumstance of the man's being set on shore; though the situation of the island of Som

previously be taken off by some vessel |
passing the island. I have likewise heard
it said among the different officers, in con-
versation, that a pair of shoes and a band-
kerchief had been given him as a relief,
on the time of his landing; and that his
feet were wounded by the sharp rocks,
before he reached the top of the island,
which was very rocky and desolate; and
that some time after, the Recruit being or-
dered to return to the island, to search for
the man, did so, but that the officer order-brero is close to Anguilla, ard in the track
ed on that duty, could find no person on where vessels are constantly passing and
the island, nor any thing to induce a sup- re-passing.
position that he had been killed, excepting
the remains of a pair of trowsers, which
they did not know to be his. The cir-
cumstance of the man's having been land-
ed, was considered very cruel by all the
officers, and when publicly spoke of, was
thought an act of oppression.-Dated on
board the Recruit, this 9th December
509.-H. G. Windsor, Purser.

Letter from Persons on board the Ulysses, to

Capt. Lake, at Spithead, 5th Feb. 1810.

SIR;-We the undersigned Officers belonging to His Majesty's Ship Ulysses (aware of the situation in which you are now placed, and considering that your reputation may suffer from the nature of the Charge alledged against you, about to become the subject of investigation) impressed with a just sense of what we have seen and experienced since we have served under your command, deem it incumbent upon us respectfully to express, that in Letter from the Admiralty Office (signed particularly marked by kindness and huour opinion your general conduct has been

P. S. I joined the Recruit, as Purser, on the 15th June 1808. Address of Mr. Edward Spencer, former Master, now at No. 13, Swan Street, Bethnal Green, London,-9th Dec. 1809.-H. G. Windsor.

manity, in every respect becoming the character of a British Officer, anxious for the welfare, comfort, and happiness (where misrepresentation did not exist) of those

that we have reason to conclude any thing like preconcerted or deliberate cruelty or oppression totally foreign to your natural disposition.-Could what we have already declared be of any service to you in the

JOHN BARROW) to Adm. Sir R. Curtis at Portsmouth; dated 10th Jan. 1810. SIR; I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to send you the enclosed Letter from Vice Admi-placed under your command; and further, ral Sir Alexander Cochrane, to be laid before the Members of the Court Martial to be assembled for the trial of the Hon. Capt. Warwick Lake of the Ulysses. Letter from Sir Alex. Cochrane, to Mr. W. W. Pole, dated, Pompée, Halifax Har-present unpleasant circumstance, which we are ready and willing to substantiate bour, 1st Nov. 1809. to the world, it will afford us the most sincere and heart-felt satisfaction.-We are confident, that those to whom we are known will readily acquit our conduct, on this occasion, of any thing pertaining to flattery or insincerity. We have the honour to be, Sir,-With respect, your faithful Servants,-Geo, Robinson, Lieutenant.-Jno. J. Crout, Master.-John Thomp son, Surgeon.-John Marsh Luett, Purser.A. Campbell, 1st Lieut. R. M.

SIR; I have received Mr. Barrow's Letter of the 14th July, enclosing an extract of one from the late Purser of the Demerary, containing a charge against Capt. the Hon. Warwick Lake, for having set a man on shore upon an uninhabited island; together with Capt. Lake's report, and Mr. Bicknell's opinion of the affair; and signifying to me the direction of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to make a strict investigation into the case.I was well aware of the irregularity of the proceeding, at the time it occurred, and when it was reported to me, I immediately sent Capt. Lake back to the island, to take the man aff, but he was already gone; and heying heard, soon after, of the circum

Trial of Mr. PERRY, and Mr. LAMBERT, for a LIBEL, continued from p. 384.

In all that time, the present is the second instance in which we have had a trial in this or any Court on