such importance, to sit totally neuter; there is a period when this poised situation in so principal an officer of the crown, becomes dangerous to the state, as well as criminal in the party; and the negation of advice when wanted, very often may be of the most dangerous and fatal consequence. My noble friends, who have spoke early in this debate, particularly the noble lord who faces me, (meaning lord Chatham) have most fully and satisfactorily shewn you the illegality of the Middlesex proceedings in parliament, He has explained how the votes of electors have been unwarrantably set aside ; how the house of commons have assumed a power, in respect to the election in point, of setting up their will against magna charta, the bill of rights, and those fundamental laws from whence the people at large derive their privilege; in short, he has very judiciously paint. ed its process, and held it out in that strong, yet not overcharged colouring, it really wears.

The noble lord on the wool-sack asks, in all contested elections, who should the people resort to but the house of commons to decide on their legality? I agree thus far with the noble lord, they are very judiciously the resort in these cases; but what do they determine on? Why, they are to determine on the qualifications of the voter, the validity of charters, usage of places, and the majority of the number of electors thus qualified. But in the case before us, the opponent does not even pretend that any of these were broke in upon; conscious of being able to play a safer and more expeditious game, he only produces his 296 votes, which though but a fourth part of what was voted against him, serve him effectually, and he takes his seat as if he had an apparent majority, qualified in every respect agreeable to the principles of the constitution, But then it is objected, that Mr. Wilkes being an expelled member, he could not be considered as a legal opponent. Will that noble lord suffer me to ask him another question, by way of answer.-Was there not a time when Mr. Wilkes was not under expulsion,

and when he was unanimously chosen? What then prevented the house from admitting him their member? Iam ashamed to guess at it-merely because they would act in an arbitrary, dictatorial manner, in spite of law or precedent, against reason or justice a secret influence had said the words, "Mr. Wilkes shall not sit;" and the fiat was to be obeyed, though it tore up the heart-strings of this excellent constitution.

The noble lord has been very expert in referring to cases; he has shewn great strength of memory, as well as industry, in so readily producing them; but I apprehend the question should be taken upon a more broad and general bottom; not only as a particular candidate against a particular candidate not as Mr. Wilkes opposed to colonel Luttrell, but as the electors at large against the assumed power of the house of commons. The noble lord, though I am very well acquainted with the goodness of his memory, and have but just now borne testimony to it, has however forgot one precedent, where one branch of the legislature took cogni zance of the other. I shall beg leave to remind him of it, and I am sure, when I mention it, his intimate knowledge with the history of his country will readily furnish him with a recollection of it. It was that infamous tax of ship money in the reign of Charles the first. This inequitable, unconstitutional tax, was as loudly talked of to be legal then, as the expulsion and incapacitation of Mr. Wilkes is at this day, and it received almost as great an authority; it received the authority of the twelve judges of the land, assembled in solemn convocation in the court of exchequer; a ratification than which nothing could be seemingly stronger; but what did the succeeding parliament, who met in the year 1640, do? Why, the very first thing they did, was to nullify that determination, as being contrary to the laws of the land, and injurious to the rights of the people. And will any one be hardy enough at this day to assert they did wrong? So far from being alarmed at one act of legislation inter

fering with another, they considered, that though it was a painful act of necessity, yet it was better to do so, than suffer themselves to be enslaved-the people justly joined in the cry, and it then ceased to be a case between Mr. Hampden and the king, but the people of England against venal and oppressive ministers.

I will suppose, for a moment, that our ancestors acted as the noble lord on the wool-sack at present advises; that they, for fear of fomenting the divisions of the people, acquiesced under the sentence of the judges— what would be, at this day, the consequence? Why, my lords, we should only be taxed at the arbitrary will of a minister, and if we dared to complain, we should be treated as persons acting in opposition to the laws of the land.

As for my part, I must agree with my noble friend who made this motion, "that I will join my feeble efforts to the voice of the people," and the louder I hear them cry, the more I shall be pleased; and shall ever, while they proceed in a legal manner, be proud of the honour of assisting them. Let us consider, my lords, we are not now debating a ridiculous point of precedence, or honour, but the liberties and laws of this country ; and, in such a critical case of necessity, it becomes us to be sanguine, it becomes us to be unwearied in our endeavours. The judgment passed upon the Middlesex election has given the constitution a more dangerous wound than any which were given during the twelve years absence of parliament in the reign of Charles I; and though this bill might be rejected (as we are all sensible how far a majority will supersede reason and argument) I trust in the good sense and spirit of the people of this country, that they will renew the claims of their inherent and unalienable right to a true and free representation in parliament; and if, session after session, the same fatal influence should continue, (which, for the peace and happiness of this country, Heaven avert!) I expect Englishmen will not lose sight of this bill at the next general

election; but that, then, they will make such a compact with the elected, as to procure an equal representation, and a full redress of the many difficulties they have laboured under.

LORD MANSFIELD.

His Speech on the Debate for restraining Privilege and taking all Privilege away from a Lord's or a Member's Effects and Servants.

My Lords,

WHEN I consider the importance of this bill to your lordships, I am not surprised it has taken up so much of your consideration. It is a bill, indeed, of no common magnitude; it is no less than to take away from twothirds of the legislative body of this great kingdom, certain privileges, and immunities, of which they have long been possessed. Perhaps there is no situation which the human mind can be placed in, that is so difficult and so trying, as where it is made a judge in its own cause. There is something implanted in the breast of man, so attached to itself, so tenacious of privileges once obtained, that in such a situation, either to discuss with impartiality, or decide with justice, has ever been held as the summit of all human virtue. The bill now in question puts your lordships in this very predicament; and I doubt not but the wisdom of your decision will convince the world, that where self-interest and justice are in opposite scales, the latter will ever preponderate with your lordships.

Privileges have been granted to legislators in all ages, and in all countries. The practice is founded in wisdom ; and indeed, it is peculiarly essential to the constitution

of this country, that the members of both houses should be free in their persons in cases of civil suits; for there may come a time when the safety and welfare of this whole empire may depend upon their attendance in parliament. God forbid that I should advise any measure that would in future endanger the state; but the bill before your lordships has, I am confident, no such tendency, for it expressly secures the persons of members of either house in all civil suits. This being the case, I confess, when I see many noble lords, for whose judgment I have a very great respect, standing up to oppose a bill which is calculated merely to facilitate the recovery of just and legal debts, I am astonished and amazed. They, I doubt not, oppose the bill upon public principles: I would not wish to insinuate that private interest has the least weight in their determinations.

This bill has been frequently proposed, and as frequently miscarried; but it was always lost in the lower house. Little did I think when it had passed the commons, that it possibly could have met with such opposition here. Shall it be said that you, my lords, the grand council of the nation, the highest judicial and legislative body of the realm, endeavour to evade, by privilege, those very laws which you enforce on your fellowsubjects? Forbid it justice !—I am sure, were the noble lords as well acquainted as I am with but half the difficulties and delays that are every day occasioned in the courts of justice, under pretence of privilege, they would not, nay, they could not oppose this bill.

I have waited with patience to hear what arguments might be urged against the bill; but I have waited in vain. The truth is, there is no argument that can weigh against it. The justice, the expediency of this bill is such, as renders it self-evident. It is a proposition of that nature that can neither be weakened by argument, nor entangled with sophistry. Much, indeed, has been said by some noble lords, on the wisdom of our ancestors and how differently they thought from us.