HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



103 



week. Privilege was only ex- 

 emption, not power. He did not 

 think that the letter was a scan- 

 dalous libel on the privileges of 

 the House. 



Sir Samuel Romilly observed, 

 that the House had two ques- 

 tions to discuss: first, whether 

 the publication complained of was 

 a libel ; and next, whether it was 

 expedient to acquiesce in the reso- 

 lutions proposed. For his own 

 part, he still entertained doubts ; 

 first, whether this publication was 

 a libel, and next, that it intrench- 

 ed upon the privileges of that 

 House. He thought the present a 

 case, on which it would be better 

 not to adopt any proceeding, even 

 if, by a severe construction, it 

 could be contended that privilege 

 had been violated. In matters of 

 authority, as well as in religion, 

 severity against heresy , only served 

 to increase the number of its dis- 

 ciples. 



Mr. Stephen expressed his as- 

 tonishment, that tiiose who were 

 peculiarly attached to the demo- 

 cratical part of the consiitution, 

 should be willing to allow that 

 House to be trampled on, or to 

 go begging for protection to the 

 courts of law. He had not heard 

 the present question met at all 

 upon its real principles, and true 

 merits. The Judges, though not 

 now removable at the pleasure of 

 the Crown, were still appointed by 

 it. They, however, would no. 

 doubt act with impartiality. But 

 llien an appeal would lie to the 

 House of Lords. And then the 

 privileges of that House would de- 

 pend on the other House of parlia- 

 ment. — Mr. Wilberforce, too, con- 

 tended that they had no right to 

 give up their otvn privileges and 

 ixidrpendcnce ; that was, the pri- 



vilege and independence of the 

 people of England, of which the 

 right of commitment was un- 

 doubted. This argument was 



insisted on, too, by Mr. Whit- 

 bread, and also by Mr. Adam, 

 who, with his usual ability, and 

 intimate acquaintance wiih parlia- 

 mentary and constitutional histor)', 

 vindicated the privileges of that 

 House, by proving that they 

 were of old standing, just and 

 necessary. As tt) the autliorities 

 and precedents, on whidi it was 

 contended that the publication of 

 a libel was not a breach of the 

 privileges of the House of Com- 

 mons, Mr. Adam shewed that 

 they were not applicable to the 

 present question. 



Mr. W. Wynn contended that 

 sir Francis Burdett's paper was. 

 a gross breach of tlie privileges of 

 the House, and charged the ho- 

 nourable baronet with having al- 

 tered and misquoted, in the argu- 

 ment, precedents to serve his own 

 purpose. — General Mat thews con- 

 tended that sir Francis Burdett, 

 in freely communicating with his 

 constituents, was justified by the 

 practice of the best days of the 

 constitution. — The Chancellor of 

 the Exchequer couid scarcely have 

 expected that any man in that 

 House would maintain tliat the 

 paper was not a libel, considering 

 the violence of the expressions, 

 and that it wns evidently publish- 

 ed with no other view than that 

 of bringing the House into dis- 

 esteem and disgrace. — Mr. Shari- 

 dan said, if the House were 

 broughtinioan unpleasant predica- 

 ment, woe to the late member for 

 Cambridgeshire I He desired to 

 know, from the gentlemen who 

 supported the resolutions, what 

 conclusion they intended to draw 



