knowledge of the laws and constitution of my country, and the more I know of it, the more I admire and revere our glorious Constitution. But with all this reverence for the Constitution, I cannot admire the abuses which have from time to time crept into it. I will rally round the King, the Constitution, and the Laws, but I will not rally round the present weak and inefficient Ministry! men who have paralyzed and exhausted the strength and resources of the Country, in ill-fated, and inglorious Expeditions. With regard to the argument that the present is not the time for the people to declare their sentiments-I am of a quite contrary opinion. This was the stale trick always resorted to by the Enemies of Reform, by which the good People of England had been so long and so often duped and deceived. It was indeed the old story over again. "When I have a more convenient season, I will send for you." On the contrary, in my humble opinion, to use the emphatic language of Sir F. Burdett, "Now is the time for every Englishman to speak out," and no danger could possibly result from the expression of the public opinion. Those who are acquainted with the honour and probity of Lord Ellenborough and the integrity of a British Jury, know, that they would decide according to the Law of the Land; for my part I most cordially approve of the whole Parliamentary conduct of Sir F. Burdett, who I believe to be one of the most patriotic Members in the House of Commons, who has been the steady and uniform friend of Reform, the determined enemy of Corruption, and has always stood forth the Champion of the Rights and Privileges of the People. The question was whether the House of Commons had a right to imprison the people of England without trial. Sir Francis has denied that rightand in that opinion I beg leave humbly to concur. By Magna Charta, no man could be imprisoned except according to the Law of the Land, or the judgment of his Peers It was contended, that the privilege claimed by the House of Commons was according to the Laws and Custom of Parliament, and consequently part of the Law of the Land, and in support of this doctrine, the names of Lords Hale and Coke were cited; great names certainly to which I am bound to pay respect and reverence. But if it should appear that there were statutes unrepealed, standing on the statute book in restraint of this

custom, which I have no doubt will turn out to be the case, I say with Lord Erskine, that such statutes while unrepealed must be taken to be the Law of the Land

and no power in this country short of the authority of King, Lords, and Commons can repeal them. The Laws of the Land I reverence, but I also say with Lord Erskine, that I would rather die than submit to any authority but the dominion of the laws. For these and other reasons I beg leave most cordially to second the Resolution.

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jameson says that he approves of the whole of the conduct of Sir F. Burdett: Now, I wish to know whether he approves of that part of his conduct of purchasing a seat in the House of Commons from the Duke of Newcastle-this is a fact which cannot be denied, (cries of Lie! lie! False false !) It is well known too, that at the Middlesex Election, when he opposed Mr. Mainwaring, 1,200 persons were guilty of perjury; when prosecutions were commenced against them, bills of indictment were found against sixty; Sir Francis then proposed to Mr. Mainwaring, that if he would withdraw his prosecutions against those persons he would resign his seat, which was accordingly done.-(Loud hisses.)

Mr. Todd, schoolmaster.-Mr. Jameson says, that he has the highest confidence in my lord Ellenborough and a British Jury, and that the verdict which will be given will be a just one. If that is the case, why does he press this Resolution and not wait till that verdict is given? It is surely premature to give an opinion at this meeting as such an opinion may be different from, that verdict-(Hisses, and eries of Go to School! go to School! where are your scholars! what business have you here!)

The first, second, and third Resolutions were then put, and carried amidst a general acclamation. The Chairman then read a draught of a Petition to the House of Commons, for a Reform in that House, which was most highly and loudly approved of. The Magistrates who called the Meeting retired with one or two of their friends, amidst groans, hisses, and cries of Sneaking off, sneaking off, Stole away, stole away.-Mr. Jameson then moved the 4th Resolution, which was un animously agreed to amidst the loudest plaudits. It was then moved that these Resolutions be inserted in the Berwick Advertiser, and in the Alfred Loudon

pa

per, which was agreed to. On the motion of Mr. Jameson, That a Committee be appointed to revise and correct the Petition which had been read by the Chairman, to be presented to the House of Commons for a Reform thereof, and that it be signed by the Chairman and the Committee in behalf of the Meeting, was unanimously agreed to. A number of gentlemen were then nominated and appointed as a Committee for that purpose.

Mr. Graham was then chaired from the Hall, and followed by several hundred of the Inhabitants, who cheered him all the way to his own house.

SIR FRANCIS BURDETT. First REPORT from the Select Committee on Proceedings relative to Sir Francis Burdett.--[Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be printed, 11th May, 1810.

The Select Committee, appointed to consider of the Proceedings had, and to be had, with reference to the several Papers signed "Francis Burdett;" the Contents of which related to his being apprehended and committed to the Tower of London; and which Papers were communicated to the House by Mr. Speaker, upon the 13th and 17th days of April last; and to report such Facts as they may think necessary, together with their Opinion thereupon, from time to time to the House; and to whom the matters stated by the Serjeant at Arms attending the House, and the Process served upon him in an Action at Law by Sir Francis Burdett; and also the Summons served on Mr. Speaker, and the Notice of Declaration delivered to the Serjeant at Arms, at the suit of the said Sir Francis Burdett, were referred; have, pursuant to the Orders of the House, with all dispatch, considered the matters referred to them; and have agreed to the following Report:

It appears to your Committee, after referring to the order of the House of the 5th day of April last, for the commitment of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower; the Warrants of the Speaker for that purpose; the Letter of Sir Francis Burdett to the Speaker, dated the 17th day of April last; the Report and Examination of the Serjeant at Arms, touching his proceedings in the execution of such warrants; the notices of the Speaker referred to your

Committee; the demand made upon the Serjeant at Arms of a copy of the warrant under which he arrested Sir Francis Burdett; the writ served upon the Serjeant, and the summons served upon the Speaker and the notice of declaration filed against the Serjeant; which said notices, demand, writ, and summons, are all at the suit or on behalf of the said Sir Francis Burdett, and all bear the name of the same Solicitor, John Ellis:-That the said proceedings have been brought against the Speak er and the Serjeant, on account of what was done by them respectively in obedience to the order of the House; and for the purpose of bringing into question, before a Court of Law, the legality of the proceedings of the House in ordering the commitment of Sir Francis Burdett, and of the conduct of the Speaker and the Serjeant in obedience to that Order.

1.-Your Committee, not in consequence of any doubt upon the question so intended to be raised, but for the purpose of collecting into one view such precedents of the proceedings of the House, upon cases of Breach of Privilege, as might afford light upon this important subject, have in the first place examined the Journals, with relation to the practice of the House in commitment of persons, whether members or others, for breaches of privilege, by offensive words or writings derogatory to the honour and character of the House, or of any of its members; and they have found numerous instânces, in the history of Parliament, so far as the Journals extend, of the frequent, uniform, and uninterrupted practice of the House of Commons, to commit to different custodies persons whom they have adjudged guilty of a breach of their privileges by so offending.

The statement of these precedents, which establish the law of parliament upon this point by the usage of Parliament; the utility of such law; and the necessity which exists, for its continuance, in order to maintain the dignity and independence of the House of Commons; its analogy to the acknowledged powers of Courts of Justice, and the recognition of such right in various instances, by legal authorities, by judicial decisions, and by the other branch of the legislature; as well as the invariable assertion and maintenance of it by the House of Commons. are topics which may be reserved for a further Report. And, although there are some instances in which the House has

thought proper to direct prosecutions for such offences, yet the Committee confidently state that the more frequent practice of the House at all times has been to vindicate its own privileges by its own authority. 2. The subject which appears to your Committee to press most urgently for an immediate report, is, the state of the law and the practice of the House in cases either of criminal prosecution or civil action against any of its Members, for any thing spoken or done in the House of Commons; or for any proceeding against any of its officers, or other persons acting under its authority.

The principal instances to be found under this head arose out of those proceedings which, in the time of Charles I, Charles II, and James II, were instituted by the officers of the Crown, in derogation of the rights and privileges of the Commons of England. Those proceedings were resisted, and resented by the House of Commons; were condemned by the whole legislature, as utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm; and led directly to the declaration of the Bill of Rights, "That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;" and your Committee have no hesitation in stating, that this article in the Bill of Rights extends as clearly to actions or indictments brought, or prosecutions by individuals, as to informations or other proceedings directly instituted by the authority of the Crown.

The law of Parliament on this subject, so far as relates to words spoken in Parliament, was legislatively declared in a statute to be found in the Parliament roll of the 4th of Henry VIII. By that act, the Rights and Privileges of free speech in Parliament are established, and a special action is given in favour of the party injured by any action brought against him for words spoken in Parliament. And, from this statute, it appears that Parliament, at that time, when the case occurred, which seemed to shew the expediency of legislative provision to give fuller force and protection to its privileges, made it the subject of such provision.

In the 5th of Charles I. an information was filed against Sir J. Elliot, Denzel Holles, Esq. and Benjamin Valentine, for their speeches and conduct in the House of Commons; judgment was given against

them in the King's Bench, they were sentenced to imprisonment, and were fined; In the Parliament which met in 1640, the House of Commons, after a report made of the state of the cases of Mr. Holles and the rest of the imprisoned Members, in the 3d of Charles, came to several resolutions; by which they resolved, that these preceedings were against the law and privilege of Parliament; and condemned the authors and actors in them, as persons guilty of a breach of the privilege of Parliament.

In the reign of Charles II. these proceedings were again taken into consideration; and the House of Commons came to several Resolutions. On the 12th of November 1667, they resolved, That the Act of Parliament in the 4th year of the reign of Henry VIII, above referred to, is a declaratory law of the ancient and necessary Rights and Privileges of Parliament. On the 23d of November 1067, they resolved, That the judgment above referred to against Sir J. Elliot, D. Holles, and B. Valentine, Esquires, in the King's Bench, was an illegal judgment; and on the 7th December 1667, they desired the concurrence of the Lords. The Lords, on the 12th of December, agreed with the Com. mons in these votes.

Your Committee next refer to the case of Sir William Williams; the detail of which they proceed to insert from the report of a former committee of this House.

The case of Sir William Williams, against whom, after the dissolution of the Parliament held at Oxford, an information was brought by the Attorney-General, in the King's Bench, in Trin. Term. 36 Car. 2, for a misdemeanor, for having printed the information against Thomas Dangerfield, which he had ordered to be printed when he was Speaker, by order of the House. Judgment passed against him on this information, in the second year of King James II. This proceeding the Convention Parliament deemed so great a grievance, and so high an infringement of the rights of Parliament, that it appears to your Committee to be the principal, if not the sole object, of the first part of the eighth head of the means used by King James to subvert the laws and liberties of this kingdom, as set forth in the declaration of the two Houses: which will ap pear evident from the account given in the Journal, 8th February, 1688, of the form ing of that declaration, the eighth head of