not, however, have mentioned this speech here, had it not been for the purpose of. the answer of PUBLICOLA, published in the TIMES of the 17th instant, and inserted in another part of this Number.It is truly gratifying, at a crisis like the present, to see a man like LORD ERSKINE has. His Speech in the House of Lords has produced a wonderful effect on the public mind, and must be attended with lasting consequences of the greatest importance. There is, perhaps, if we consider his Lordship's connections, and those ties which naturally bind a man in a similar situation, not an instance to be quoted, in which a part more truly noble has, been acted. COUNTER DECLARATIONS.-There is a Counter-Declaration on foot, I perceive, by certain persons in Middlesex, styling themselves " themselves" Loyal and independent Free-A most humourous ac docks, is the representative of the king, in Spain; and Mr. SPENCER PERCEVAL, another of the persons accused by Mr. Ma-pointing the attention of my readers to docks is (by promotion since the accusation) become the king's prime minister, supported and approved of in all his measures, not excepting the Walcheren expedition and sending of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower, by a de-standing forward in the manner that he cided Majority of the Honourable House. -Such was the case; such is a plain statement of the case, to which MAJOR CARTWRIGHT refers in his petition, and, in speaking of which, he uses the words objected to by Mr. Perceval, objected to by that very same Mr. Perceval, whom Mr. Madocks accused, and into whose conduct the House refused to inquire! Whether the words objected to ·were too strong, or not strong enough, I shall now leave the reader to determine, and add a remark or two of a more general nature.The right of petition makes an article in the Bill of Rights, and which" holders.". right has been very much talked of in-count has been published of the meeting, deed. Great importance is given to this or rather, attempt at meeting, of these inright; and, though ridiculed by PAINE in dependent people, the truth of whose dea most cutting manner, has still been re- claration will be easily judged of from garded as something of real value to the the facts, that the Chairman is fastened people. But, if this new doctrine of Mr. upon the country in a pension of 5001. a Perceval becomes current, what will this year. The signers (about 30 or 40 in right be good for? A petition may, it number) are strangers to me, all but one, seems, be rejected on account of its being and that one, named JOHN GIFFORD (fortoo long; and, of course, it may on ac-merly Green) is independent enough to be count of its being too short. It may be rejected because it complains of the injustice of the House and of the illegality of its proceedings. In the debate upon the Petition of the Livery of London, Mr. Perceval expressed his resolution to face any discontented petitioners. So, then, the "right of petition," it seems; this famous right, is, at last, reduced to this; that we have a right to express our contentedness as often as we please; and that we have, in some cases, even a right to complain, but only in such language and at such length as shall be approved of by those, of whose acts we have to complain! This is a most precious right, indeed! In short, it is neither more nor less than the "right" of crying! ACTION AGAINST THE SPEAKER.-————A debate upon the subject of the Speaker's pleading to the action brought against him by Sir Francis Burdett gave rise to a speech from Mr. PONSONBY, which has very clearly proved, that there is no difference at all in the opinions and view of the two sides of the Honourable House, as to this great public question. I should a police magistrate, with a salary of 500l. a to " "their task-masters; the fellow-labourers in the same vineyard, not LORDING Over "their rights, but helpers of their joy." keep another, except he be a relation; and “ who wish you to return to your proper I am pretty sure, that none of these ab- "home; to the sphere of your duty, to horrers are related to me.--The abhorrers "the post of your honour, to the mansion would gladly conjure up a Jacobin Plot." house of all genuine, serene, and solid Why do they not advertise for one? There "satisfaction.Let us free ourselves at are always enterprizing people to be had," once from every thing that can increase such as MEHEE DE LA TOUCHE and the "their suspicions, and inflame their just COUNT DE KOLLI, of whose adventures the "resentment.Let the Commons in French have given us so whimsical an ac- "parliament assembled, be one and the count. This is a desperate case this total ab- "same thing with the Commons at large. sence of the means of conjuring up a con- "Let us give a faithful pledge to the spiracy." Alarming" indeed! What "people that we honour, indeed, the is there to excite alarm in the conduct of "crown; but that we belong to them; the people? What are the dangerous" that we are their auxiliaries, and not "principles" that have been broached? Is it dangerous to pray for the adherence" Magna Charta and the Law of the "Land" Is this dangerous? Sir Fran- -The same advice will every wise man cis Burdett asks for that expressly; and now give. The people do, and must, as to Reform, what does he ask for but that bear heavy burdens; and it is right, that the people should be represented in parliament, every thing that can be done, should be and, in truth, as well, as in words, taxed done, to convince them, that not a shilling by their own consent? What do the people of their money is taken from them unneask for other than that which the Great cessarily. The whole of the discontents Lord Chatham, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. might be put an end to in a moment by a Grey, have contended to be absolutely ne- resolution, on the part of the House, that cessary to prevent the total annihilation of they would, at a time fixed, take into their the liberties of England? What do they ask impartial consideration the question of Refor more than Lord Erskine now declares form. This done, there would be no neto be necessary to our salvation? cessity for the miserable tricks, now playIt is a foul calumny to say, that the peo-ing off by wretched instruments, such as ple, who, from Penzance to Dover and we have seen assembling in dark holes in from Weymouth to John a' Grot's House the City and in Middlesex, whose proare exclaiming "BURDETT FOR EVER!" ceedings cannot fail to add to the prevailit is a foul calumny to say, that they wishing discontent and irritation. for any thing injurious to the dignity of either the Crown or the Parliament. present ferment has arisen out of no plot; out of no combination; out of no, premeditated scheme. It has arisen, by accident, out of the Walcheren expedition and the exclusion of the people from the Gallery, during the Inquiry into the planning and conducting of that fatal measure. That the people are out of humour with the House is certain; but, with whom did the condemnation of the conduct of that House originate? Why, with those who were defeated in the divisions in the House. With those who called the ministers the "Demon of England," with those who gaid, that, if the House continued to support such ministers, "the greatest calamity "the nation could endure was such a House "of Commons." There are none of the Petitioners who have gone this length. Why, then, are the people to be blamed? "They who," said Mr. Burke, addressing the House of Commons, " call upon you to "belong wholly to the people, are those The Botley, May 17, 1810. WM. COBBETT. COBBETT'S COMPLETE COLLECTION OF State Trials: The EIGHTEENTH PART of the above Work will be published on the 1st of June. One Part will appear, with the greatest regularity, on the first of each succeeding month. Subscribers who purchase the Work in Quarterly Volumes are respectfully informed that the Sixth Volume will be ready for delivery on the first of June. Of the Two HUNDRED and FORTY-TWO Trials or Proceedings, of which the first six Volumes consist, ONE-HUNDRED and TEN never before came into any Collection. The following is a List of the Articles contained in the Sixth Volume: MY LORD,-After the very able and animated speech which your Lordship delivered in the House of Peers, on the subject of the Privileges of the House of Commons, I did not expect it would be asserted by any one, pretending to be conversant in the Laws and Constitution of his country, that the Commons have power to dispense with the written law of the land. This, however, has been done, and by a Gentleman whose name and reputation are by no means inconsiderable in the political world. The Right Honourable George Ponsonby has told the House of Commons, that they can imprison the subject at their own discretion, notwithstanding the Great Charter of King John; and he says, that no Judge whatever, under any circumstances, has a right to interfere with the proceedings of that House. From the marked attention with which that Gentleman's Speech was received, and the frequent cheers which were given from both sides of the House, one would think that the Commons had made him their principal champion, and that they were willing to rest their cause, at least in the House, on his authority. They seem to have been of opinion, that if the power for which they contend could be defended at all, Mr. Ponsonby was the man to defend it. I agree with the Honourable House, that if their privilege to im prison a subject against the written law of the land could have been defended, the Right. Hon. Gentleman would have defended it for them- "Si Pergama dextra Defendi possent; etiam hac defensa fuissent." But the defence which the Right Hon. Gentleman has made is not supportable; and that it is not, I think I am prepared to shew, in a few remarks which I beg to submit to your Lordship's consideration, and which, without farther preface, I trust will meet with your courteous reception. In the first place, then, I shall observe, that the Parliament of this Country consists of three Estates; the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons. These three Estates, united together, and considered as one aggregate body, are om nipotent; that is, they can make Law; and that which is Law, they can make no law; but taken separately, and independently one of another, they can neither make nor unmake laws; for the consent of all three is required to every act to bind the subject. This is the true Constitution of England; and therefore no written law which is now in existence, can be repealed otherwise than by the concurrence of the King, the Lords, and the Commons. But says the Right Hon. Gentleman, we (the House of Commons) have a privilege to imprison and punish at our own discretion; we do not care for an Act of Parliament, which declares that "no man shall be imprisoned or put to death without the intervention of a jury:" we can break down that barrier; nay, we will break it down, and when we have done so, there is no power upon earth that can call us to account: we are "the sole judges of our own privileges"the sole judges of what those privileges 66 the sole judges of the manner in which "such privileges are to be exercised." And are we really come to this? Are the people of England blind? Or are they so indifferent, that they can disregard the declaration made by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the House of Commons alone (without the concurrence of the King and Lords) are omnipotent; that there is nothing but what they can do, if it be called by the name of Privilege; and that the Judges of the land are estopped from declaring when they do wrong? Where did the Right Hon. Gentleman learn this law? Where does he find it said, that the House of Commons alone can repeal the written law of the land? He has referred to my Lord Coke: he has cited Sir Matthew Hale, he has favoured us with extracts from Sir William Blackstone; but does any one of those writers say, clearly and distinctly, that the House of Commons alone can do away with the written law of the land; that they can confine and punish the subject at their own discretion; in short, that they can do any thing they please, and that no Court of Justice in this country has power to judge of their acts, and to declare when they exceed their powers? If any one, or even all, of those great legal writers should have declared these things, I would not pay the least regard to them; for I know that they are decidedly repugnant to the spirit of our Constitution; and I can King Henry IV. said to be sent by King Henry II. into Ireland) conceived it to be a mistake; and that this Modus was not so ancient, many pregnant evidences of its never forget what my Lord Holt (as great a lawyer as ever lived) declared upon the bench, viz." that the authority of Parlia"ment is from the law, and as it is cir"cumscribed by law, so it may be exceed-novelty appearing throughout its whole "ed; and if they do exceed those legal "bounds and authority, their acts are wrongful, and cannot be justified any "more than the acts of private men." (1 Salk. 505.) The Right Hon. Gentleman must have been aware of this declaration of the learned Judge; but as it differs from his sentiments, he wishes to cast my Lord Holt in the back ground, by calling him singular; but that he was not quite so singular as that Right Hon. Gentleman wishes the people to believe, I shall shew, when I come to speak of the authority which the Judges have to interfere in matters of Privilege of Parliament. contexture. To these I will add the observations of the learned and industrious Mr. Prynne, namely, that the word Parliament was not in ure in the Conqueror's reign; for, says he, "that word, to express or denote a Parliamentary Great Council, as this Modus useth it, was never used in any of the ancient Great Councils, Synods, Laws, Canons, Constitutions, Charters, Patents, Writs, or other Records, nor yet in any of our old Historians, living in the reigns of our British, Saxon, Danish Kings, before, or of our Norman or English Kings after the Conquest, till the reign of King Henry III. ;"-(vide Pryn. on 4th Inst. p. 2.); and, therefore, he is very much dissatisfied with Sir Edward Coke for his deception, or at best his mistake, and declares, "that had this been the mode of holding Parliaments in Edward the Confessor's reign, and this Modus shewn to, approved, and used by William the Conqueror, and in the times of his successors Kings of England, as its long after the Conquest, if the Modus was before it) or transcribed in a parchment roll, and sent into Ireland by King Henry II. to be there observed, and that, no doubt, by the advice of his Judges, it is very probable some of our historians, parliamentary writs, rolls, records, statutes, law-books, would have mentioned it; especially Statham, Fitzherbert, Brooke, Fortescue, Sir Thomas Smith, Edward Vowel, Holingshed, and Mr. Camden, in their Titles and Discourses of Parliaments. But (adds he) not one of all our ancient historians, parliament writs, rolls, records, journals, statutes, law-books, or writers of parliaments I have perused, ever made the least mention of it, before Sir Edward Coke vouched it in the Par The Right Honourable Gentleman asserts, that " Privilege of Parliament is as much "lex terræ, and as much within the exception of Magna Charta, as any one "6 part of the known law of the land "that comes within its exceptions." To this I will answer that the Right Hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. The House of Commons had no jurisdiction whatever till several years after the mak-title asserts (which certainly was added ing of Magna Charta. My Lord Coke, indeed, has carried the antiquity of Parliament much higher: But he is quite wrong, for the first writ for the election of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, was in the reign of King Henry the Third(Vide Dug. Sum. Parl. 3. Cot. Abr. Præf. 13. b.) In the 35th year of Elizabeth, ann. 1592, Sir Edward Coke was Speaker of the House of Commons, and he then attempted to mislead the House in a man-ner which deserves to be made known. He talked very highly of the antiquity of Parliaments, and of the mode of holding Parliaments, such as it is at this day; and said he had a book, which, if any Member desired to see, he would shew it him; being a Precedent of a Parliament holden before the Conquest, intitled " Modus tc-liament of 35 Elizabeth, when he was nendi Parliamentum;" but no sooner had he extolled its antiquity, authority in print, than that most judicious, industrious antiquary, Mr. John Selden, decried it to be a late imposture of a bold fancy, not exceeding the reign of King Edward III-(Titles of Honour, p. 708 to 721): and that very learned divine, Bishop Usher, in a letter to Mr. W. Hakewill, of Lincoln's Inn (who affirmed he had seen an exemplification thereof in the reign of Speaker." (See Pryn. on the 4th Inst. p.6. 7.) And in his " Additional Appendix of Records," (p. 1.) he tells us, that in perusing Mr. Agar's Abridgment of Placitacorum Rege, in the Treasury of the Receipts of the King's Exchequer, he found at the end of his Abridgment and Table to the Placita of King Richard II. this Modustenendi Parliamentum, transcribed by him, out of a manuscript in Sir Robert Cotton's Library, as relating to the time of King Richard II. and containing some passages in it transcribed out of records in his reign. Therefore Mr. Agar thought that its highest antiquity exceeded not the latter end of King Richard II.'s reign; and so (says Mr. Prynne) the author's discourse of its antiquity and authority will prove but a mere Utopian fancy of his own invention. The House of Commons cannot, therefore, find any exception in the Great Charter to warrant their violation of it. Mr. Ponsonby does not appear to me to have read enough upon this subject; he has just skimmed the surface, but has not descended to the bottom. Having, as I trust, shewn that the House of Commons had no jurisdiction till after the Great Charter, I will now explain in what manner they originally had redress for what they called a breach of privilege; and I will prove that they proceeded by a Jury, and not according to their own pleasure. Mr. Prynne, whose industry and research were most indefatigable, has left us a copy of a Record, in the reign of Richard the Second, which he discovered. It is "Pat. II. R. 2. pars 2. m. 3 dorso. De inquirendo"-concerning an extraordinary forcible riot and trespass committed upon the goods, lands, servants, and tenants of one of the Knights of the Shire for Cumberland while he was sitting in Parliament under the King's protection; and this Writ of Inquiry was issued out by the King upon his complaint thereof made unto him. The Writ is too long for me to transcribe, nor is it necessary: I shall, however cite Mr. Prynne's observations upon it."From this precedent," says he, "it is observable, first, that the House of Commons in that age assumed no jurisdiction to themselves, or their Committee of Privileges, to examine and punish this trancendent riot and breach of privilege of their Member, but only complained thereof to the King in Parliament, for redress thereof, as they did to the King and Lords in all other cases of like nature, till the end of King Henry VIII. as I have elsewhere (viz. in his Brief Register and Survey of Parliamentary Writs) evidenced at large. 2dly, That the King, upon this complaint, did not presently send for the offenders in custody by a Serjeant at Arms, as the Commons of late times have done, but issued out a Commission to inquire of the riot and abuses by a Jury: which (says he) I observe, not to diminish any of the just ancient privileges of the Commons Now, my Lord, what will Mr. Ponsonby what will the House of Commons say to this? Where is now their jurisdiction? Where is their old and indisputable power to imprison the subject at their pleasure? Where is Mr. Ponsonby's privilege, "as ancient as the common law?" My Lord, the House of Commons talk to us about custom let us just consider what is meant by custom. I have always undergood, first, that no custom can prevail against an express Act of Parliament; and secondly, that if any one can shew the beginning of acustom within legal memory, that is, within any time since the first year of the reign of Richard the First, it is not a good custom. Now, in reference to the first point, we all know that there is a written law against the power which is assumed by the House of Commons. This is clear and certain. With regard to the second point, I have just proved that the House cannot shew the exercise of the power to commit and punish at their pleasure, before the first year of the reign of Richard the First; for I have cited the Writ of Inquiry in the reign of Richard the Second, at which time it appears that they proceeded according to the old and sound mode prescribed by the Great Charter; that is, by the Trial by Jury. Where, then, I ask again, is the jurisdiction of the House of Commons to set aside the written law? How does Mr. Ponsonby intend to answer this? He occupied a very considerable time the other evening, in order to shew the right-the ancient, the undoubted right of the House to imprison at their pleasure. He said, "now I have shewn the right." No, my Lord, he has not shewn the right; for I flatter myself that I have shewn the House is wrong. Mr. Ponsonby is not so well read in the history and constitution of this country as he supposes. He is quite mistaken as to the origin of the House of Commons; and he is equally incorrect in saying, that "it is |