102 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1810. 



up its privileges, and, perhaps, in- 

 cur the imputation of timidity, or 

 assert those privileges with manli- 

 ness. Hewould havebeen happy if 

 means could have been devised for 

 getting out of such a contest. But 

 that was now impracticable ; and, 

 in order to bring to the decision as 

 much weight and authority as 

 possible, he would support the 

 proposition for the delay required 

 by those to whom so much weight 

 and authority belonged. 



The Chancellor of the Exche- 

 quer confessed that, after what 

 he had heard, particularly from 

 his learned friend who had just 

 sat down, that it would appear 

 obstinate and pertinacious in him 

 to press an opinion, to which, 

 however, he still adhered, and re- 

 fused to accede to the repeated 

 calls which were made for a fur- 

 ther adjournment of the question. 



Upon the question being put, 

 the debate was adjourned till to- 

 morrow se'nnight, the 5th of 

 April : on which day the resumed 

 debate, on which the main points 

 on both sides have been already 

 discussed in the preceding pages, 

 (though now placed innew lights) 

 was continued till half after seven 

 on Friday morning ; and, in the 

 course of which, speeches were 

 made by not less than thirty 

 members. 



Lord Ossulston maintained, on 

 the authority of chief justice Holt, 

 that neither House of Parliament 

 could infringe upon the liberty of 

 the subject ; that the privileges 

 of parliament were founded on 

 the laws of the land, and could not 

 be in contradiction to those laws. 



Sir J. Anstruiher asked if no- 

 thing was to be considered as an 

 obstruction but what was person- 



ally so ? Were there no such 

 thing as constructive obstruc- 

 tions ? Impediments which were 

 not really personal, but which had 

 virtually the same effect. Libels 

 come up exactly to the case of 



obstructive constructions. If 



the House of Commons was not 

 judge of its own privileges, and 

 the only judge of those privileges, 

 he did not know how the House 

 of Commons could be said to exist 

 at all. In his judgment their 

 independence was totally gone, 

 when any other power than them- 

 selves was allowed to be judge of 

 those privileges. It was objected 

 that, if they were the judges of 

 their own privileges, they might 

 make what privileges they pleas- 

 ed. But had they done so ? It 

 would be found that for the last 

 three hundred years, in the same 

 proportion as their authority had 

 become more solid and extended, 

 had their exercise of that power 

 been calm, moderate, and prui- 

 dent. 



Lord Folkestone wished gentle- 

 men fairly to consider the nature 

 of the whole paper. It was writ- 

 ten by an honourable member to 

 hiss constituents, explaining more 

 fully the nature and extent of his 

 arguments than they could have 

 been given bj' parliamentary re- 

 porters. He did not know to what 

 extent members were to be per- 

 mitted to publish tiieir sentiments. 

 Thestandinp orderlorbad thepub- 

 lication of the debates. Neverthe- 

 less that practice had been long 

 connived at. In former times it 

 would not have been considered 

 as such a grievance, since Andrew 

 Marvel wrote a full account of the 

 proceedings of the House of Com- 

 mons, to his constituents, everjr 



