PRIVILEGES OF THE COMMONS 7r 



diametrically opposed to the House of Lords. On 

 March 14 the peers attended the Queen with a long 

 representation of the Aylesbury election case ; they 

 affirmed that the proceedings of the Commons were 

 wholly new and unprecedented, and it was the 

 birthright of Englishmen to seek for redress for any 

 injury in her Majesty's Courts of Justice. The 

 Queen, finding it an absolute necessity to put 

 an end to the session, and knowing there could be 

 no further proceedings in the matter, prorogued 

 Parliament the same day, and so rid herself and 

 others of the Aylesbury election business, which had 

 set Queen, Lords, and Commons at variance for 

 the past four years. 



On April 5 Parliament was dissolved, and after 

 that nothing more was heard of the great Aylesbury 

 case of ' Ashby versus White.' I have thought 

 a condensed account of this often-quoted great 

 constitutional case would interest many persons 

 who felt some desire to follow the development of 

 our Parliamentary history, and have, in fulfilment 

 of my object, diligently searched many public 

 documents, but really am less indebted to them 

 than to my old friend, the late Mr. Robert Gibbs, 

 from whose pen I have gleaned a great part of 

 these details. I have been informed that, after all, 

 the real question was whether the Returning 

 Officers were justified in refusing Mathew Ashby 's 

 vote, under the plea that he had received parish 

 relief. However, this celebrated case is another 

 illustration of the great value of the House of Lords 



