whole legislature. However plausible these opinions were, the consequence shewed they were ill-founded. A most expensive suit was not only commenced against the Duke of Portland, but the whole county of Cumberland was thrown into a state of the greatest terror and confusion: 400 ejectments were served in one day; and though a great many of the causes were afterwards withdrawn, it was notwithstanding said, some time before the matter was debated in the House of Commons, that there were fifteen bills in equity, and 225 suits at common law, then open. Nor were these mischiefs confined to those whose titles to their lands were immediately derived from the Portland family; for as the royalties were very extensive, and their antient limits and jurisdiction undefined, no length of prescription could afford security, nor goodness of title prevent the consequences of a ruinous law-suit. In these circumstances, singled out by that clause from the rest of the nation, and exposed as victims to satiate the last rage of exploded prerogative, the terror was great through all that part of the kingdom. Accordingly, on the 11th of February 1771, Sir William Meredith moved for leave "to bring in a Bill to repeal a Clause in the Nullum Tempus Act, which_protects such Rights, Titles, or Claims, under any Grants or Letters Patent from the Crown, as are prosecuted with effect, within a certain Time therein limited." Leave was accordingly given, and the bill was brought in. It was supported by Mr. Constantine Phipps and Mr. Cornwall; and opposed by Mr. Dyson, Mr. Serjeant Leigh, Lord North, Governor Johnstone, and Mr. Fox. On the 27th, upon the motion for going into a Committee, Mr. Fox said: Sir, I take great shame to myself, that I have not risen sooner to declare my sentiments on this important question: for I think it disgraceful in any man to sit silent on such an occasion, who ever had the use or faculty of speaking in this House; but, Sir, my silence has been owing to my astonishment. I was astonished. I was amazed. For though I viewed this Bill at first in the same light in which I now behold it; yet, when I looked round me, and saw who the Honourable Gentlemen are who introduced it; that they are men of character, men of ability, men of knowledge, men of reputed integrity; I hesitated, I strove to persuade myself, that I must rather be mistaken myself, than that any thing so bad, so violent, so lawless, so monstrous, could be advanced by men such as those who proposed this Bill. But I could not long remain undecided; I soon beheld the proposition in all its naked, genuine deformity: then, Sir, as I was at first struck dumb with astonishment, I was seized with horror and indignation: for who that has a reverence for justice, a sense of liberty, or a regard for the constitution, can listen, without feeling an honest zeal to defeat a proposition, which, at one blow, destroys our constitution, our liberty, and our laws? Gentlemen are loud in their clamours against ministerial influence. I avow the systematic support of that minister in all. his measures, who has my good opinion and confidence; but that minister shall never have my support, who shall dare to propose what these gentlemen, who are so proud of their opposition to ministers, now propose. Mr. Speaker, it is under the law that every man holds his property, and enjoys his liberty in security and ease. But I firmly believe, as far as I am informed, that no man can have a better title to his estate, than the very title which the crown has vested in Sir James Lowther to the estate in question. If that title is to be taken away by act of Parliament, why not bring in an act to take away any other part of his estate? Why not of another man's? For, if Bills are thus to pass for transferring the property of one man to another, there can be nothing sacred, nothing secure amongst us. I wish, therefore, Sir, that the gentlemen who brought in this Bill, would, for their honour's sake, withdraw it. Sure I am, that my conscience would never suffer me to be at rest, were I to perpetrate the injustice intended by this Bill. As to myself, Sir, the same conviction, which dictates my present opposition, shall carry me on to oppose the Bill in every step, through every stage. But if it should succeed here, it cannot succeed elsewhere. I do therefore again deprecate the honour and justice of this House, that we may not suffer the scandal of passing this Bill to lie at our doors, and give the honour of rejecting it to the other House of Parliament. The question, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair," being put, the House divided: YEAS Tellers. Tellers. Fox} 164. SMr. Seymour 154-NOES Mr. Onslow The Bill was consequently lost. DEBATE ON COMMITTING THE LORD MAYOR AND MR. ALDERMAN OLIVER TO THE TOWER, FOR DISCHARGING THE PRINTERS APPREHENDED BY ORDER OF THE HOUSE. N March 25. 1771. On the 8th of February, Colonel George Onslow made a complaint to the House, of Thompson and Wheble, two printers of newspapers, for misrepresenting the speeches, and reflecting on several of the members. The obnoxious passages being read, Colonel Onslow moved, that the printers should be called to justice for infringing the standing order. After some debate, the printers were ordered to attend. When the Serjeant at Arms went to the houses of the printers, they were constantly denied ; which being reported to the House, Colonel Onslow moved an address to the King to issue a proclamation for the apprehension of the offenders. In consequence of which proclamation, Wheble was taken and carried before Alderman Wilkes, who not only discharged him, but took recognizances for prosecuting the person by whom he was apprehended. Thompson was similarly arrested, and discharged by Alderman Oliver. On the 12th of March, Colonel Onslow preferred a fresh complaint against six other printers for the same offence. They were ordered to attend the House: four presented themselves; a fifth could not attend, being in custody in Newgate, by order of the House of Lords; the other, whose name was Miller, refused to obey the summons, and an order was issued for taking him into custody by the Serjeant at Arms. When the messenger appeared, Miller refused to submit to the arrest, and violence being used, a constable, prepared for the purpose, took charge of the officer, and carried him to Guildhall, to answer for the assault. Mr. Wilkes, the sitting alderman, having finished the business of the day, refused to take cognizance of the affair, and the parties were conducted to the Mansion-House. The Lord Mayor (Alderman Brass Crosby), attended by Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, admitted the parties; Mr. Miller made his complaint, and the Lord Mayor asked the messenger what offence the printer had committed, and by what authoriry he presumed to assault him? The messenger pleaded, that he acted under the direction of the Speaker, and produced his warrant, The Deputy-Serjeant now announced himself, and said he came there by the Speaker's command, to demand, not only the messenger, but Miller, his prisoner. His application was refused, and Mr. Miller discharged. The assault was next proved: the messenger refused to give bail, and a warrant for committing him to the Compter was signed by the Lord Mayor and the two Aldermen. When the matter had proceeded to this extremity, and the officers were ready to take away the messenger, bail was given. The Deputy Serjeant at Arms immediately related these transactions to the House. Orders were issued for the Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver to attend in their places. The Lord Mayor was heard in his defence; after which it was resolved, that the discharging Miller out of the custody of the messenger, the signing a warrant against the said messenger, and the holding him to bail, were breaches of the privileges of the House. Mr. Alderman Oliver was then heard in his defence. He declared that " he owned and gloried in the fact laid to his charge; he knew, that whatever punishment was intended, nothing he could say would avert it. As for himself, he was perfectly unconcerned; and, as he expected little from their justice, he defied their power." Upon this, Mr. Welbore Ellis moved, "That Richard Oliver, Esq. be for his said offence committed to the Tower." The motion was supported by Mr. Attorney-General Thurlow and Mr. Fox; and opposed by Sir George Savile, Mr. Serjeant Glynn, Mr. Alderman Townshend, Mr. Barré, and Mr. Dunning. Mr. Fox spoke in answer to the latter gentleman. Mr. Fox said: Sir, notwithstanding what the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who spoke last has been pleased to urge with regard to the divided views and the divided interests of the House of Commons and the people, he has not been able to convince me, either that the authority of this House is not the best security of the national freedom, or that our welfare can possibly be separated from the welfare of the public. Sir, the Honourable Gentleman is pleased to say, that the voice of this House is not the voice of the people, and he sets the language of clamour without doors in opposition to our deliberations, as if we were not especially appointed by the constitution, the only revealers of the national mind, the only judges of what ought to be the sentiments of the kingdom. I say, Sir, what ought to be, because many laws are highly necessary for the public safety, which excite the discontent of the people. If we were never to pass a law, until it obtained the sanction of popular approbation, we should never have a settled revenue to support either the establishment of our domestic policy, or to defend ourselves against the invasion of a foreign enemy. You never see a tax instituted, Sir, without hearing loud impeachments of parliamentary integrity. The uninformed zealots, who seem animated with an enthusiastic love for their country, generally charge us with having sold them to the minister; and we are accused of venality for imposing those burdens, which we know to be absolutely necessary, and to which we ourselves, if the House of Commons is supposed an assembly of the first property in the state, must always be the largest contributors. Sir, it may possibly appear strange, that a representative of the people should not deem it more meritorious to comply with the wishes of his constituents, than to counteract them; and it may possibly be urged, that it is his duty, upon all occasions, to act in conformity to those wishes, however repugnant they may be to the sense of his own conviction. Sir, I will not differ with the Honourable and Learned Gentleman about the idea he annexes to his term of the people;' I will, for argument-sake, allow that nine-tenths of the people are at this moment in opposition to government. But I shall at the same time insist, that we have higher obligations to 1 justice than to our constituents; we are chosen the delegates of the British electors for salutary not for pernicious purposes; to guard, not to invade the constitution; to keep the privileges of the very freemen we represent, as much within their proper limits, as to controul any unwarrantable 'exertion of the Royal authority. We are bound to promote their true interests in preference to the dearest desires of their hearts, and the constitution makes us the sole arbiters of those interests, notwithstanding the imaginary infallibility of the people. To shew, Sir, the propriety of this reasoning, let us suppose that the people, instead of this mixed monarchy, which we celebrate as equally the pride and envy of the universe, should instruct us, their representatives, to introduce a democratical form of government; should we act as good subjects to our King, or as faithful guardians to our country, if we complied with so dangerous an instruction? We have sworn to maintain this constitution in its present form; to maintain the privileges of Parliament as a necessary part of that constitution, and neither to encroach upon the legal jurisdiction of the peers, nor the just prerogatives of the Sovereign. Shall we, then, do what we are sensible is wrong, because the people desire it? Shall we sacrifice our reason, our honour, our conscience, for fear of incurring the popular resentment, and while we are appointed to watch the Hesperian fruit of liberty with a dragon's eye, be ourselves the only slaves of the whole community? Perhaps the Honourable and Learned Gentleman will tell me, that nothing but the "soul of absurdity" could suspect the people of a design against their own happiness. Sir, I do not suspect the people of any such design, but I suspect their capacity to judge of their true happiness. I know they are generally credulous, generally uninformed; captivated by appearances, while they neglect the most important essentials, and always ridiculously ready to believe, that those men who have the greatest reason, from their extensive property, to be anxious for the public safety, are always concerting measures for the oppression of their own posterity. Sir, if I misrepresent the people, whence spring those eternal terrors of being ruined in the midst of the most unbounded prosperity? Have we not tottered, if popular clamour is to be credited, upon the verge of ruin, since the first moment of our existence as a nation? Indeed, at the period of the Revolution, patriotism itself acknowledges we were saved; yet from that period let us only read the works of our greatest politicians, and we shall find ourselves utterly undone! Even our glorious deliverer was 15 |