are said to have rendered it "so clear and evident," were not such as he was competent to appreciate. Upon the second point, Why the army was not sooner assembled at Batz, to recommence further operations, the gallant admiral enters into a long, and we think, satifactory explanation. He says that the original determination of landing in Zoutiand Bay was laid aside while at Deal, and another plan for landing on Domburgh Beach adopted; but in consequence of a strong westerly wind, the landing, there was impossible, and it became necessary to take shelter in the Roompot and Veergat, where the constant succession of gales for many days made it impossible, independently of other obstacles, to recur to the original intention of entering the western mouth of the Scheldt. The disembarkation was ultimately effected. Sir Richard then proceeds: "When, therefore, Lord Chatham contends in his statement, that the second point, namely, why the army was not brought up sooner to the destination from whence all its operations were to commence, is purely a naval consideration,' his position is certainly true in words, but as certainly incorrect in its implied meaning. It is obvious that the army might have marched to Batz in the course of a few days; but it is also obvious that it could not be conveyed on board a fleet of 400 transports, besides frigates, sloops, and flotilla, through a very intricate channel, without some delay. The difficulty of conducting such a fleet at all through the mazes of such a navigation, can only be appreciated by professional men; it was very greatly increased by an adverse wind,

blowing for some time with such violence as to render the expedient of warping the only means of proceeding) totally impracticable; such obstacles to our progress were only to be overcome by great exertions and perseverance, by a considerable, but not, as I trust, an unnecessary expenditure of labour and time." The gallant admiral totally denies the assertion that an agreement was 'entered into for a stimultaneous attack by sea and land upon Flushing, for the purpose of avoiding the delay of a regular siege: it was impossible, he says, for such an agreement to have been made; as, under the well-ascertained circumstances of the garrison, it was too desperate an enterprise to be entertained. He thinks, however, that if the plan he had suggested had been adopted, namely, to land the cavalry on South Beveland, and select a limited number of transports-that a delay of only a few days would have resulted from the adverse accident which gave a different course to the direction of our operations. The first part of the flotilla which got through the Slough were applied to the cutting off the communication between Cadsand and Flushing. It was not until the 7th of August that the sea blockade of Flushing could be established, owing to the adverse winds; and all the other parts of the naval service were expedited as soon as the various difficulties could be overcome. Sir Richard then concludes: "From this period I considered myself bound implicitly to accede to the wishes of the commander-in-chief. With him alone was there an option between a march of thirty-six hours and a voyage of indefinite length.

I trust

I trust that it was owing to no defeet of zeal on my part, and I am sure it was owing to no want of exertion on the part of the many excellent naval officers whom I have the honour to command, that the progress of a fleet which it was necessary to warp, or, in less technical language, to haul by human labour, through the windings of a most intricate channel, and often directly in the teeth of the wind, appeared so tardy, that Lord Chatham 'saw no movement making to push forward a single vessel to the West Scheldt.' The exertions of the naval officers and men were not rendered less irksome by the persuasion that the labour which, though incessant, often proved unavailing, might have been spared to them at the expence of a short march across the island of South Beveland. To impute to me or to the navy, under the name of delay, the loss of time which was passed by me in constant solicitude, and by the men in unremitting toil, is not what I should have expected from Lord Chatham. It would have been more agreeable to myself to have offered to their Lordships a simple journal of the daily transactions of the fleet, as that course would have afforded me that of paying a just tribute of gratitude to the numerous, able, and zealous officers, by whom I was aided in the different branches of the service under my directions, and who may possibly consider themselves as unjustly subject, together with myself, to some imputation from the marked, and perhaps, invidious accuracy, with which the particular days of arrival of diffe

rent divisions are specified in Lord Chatham's statement. But I am convinced that it was not the intention of his Lordship, in collecting such a multitude of dates, to attribute any blame to those officers.. He has closed his report by pointing me out as the only object of his animadversions. He leaves me to account for the difficulties which prevented the investment of Flushing, as well as to show the obstacles which presented themselves to the early progress of the armament up the West Scheldt. He was not aware, it seems, that the first point. was rendered impossible by the state of the winds; he was not even aware that the circumstances of his being blown into the East Scheldt, had impeded his progress up the West Scheldt. Concerning Lord Chatham's opinions, I have now ceased to be solicitous: but I am, and ever shall be sincerely anxious, that your Lordships should not see cause to regret the confidence with which you have been pleased to honour me upon this occasion."

III. Report from the Select Com mittee of the House of Commons on the proceedings concerning Sir Francis Burdett's arrest.*

"It appears to your committee, after referring to the order of the house on the fifth day of April last, for the commitment of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower; the warrants of the speaker for that purpose; the letter of Sir Francis Burdett to the speaker, dated the seventeenth day of April last; the report, and examination of the serjeant-at-arms, Ff 4 touching

3. Liberty of the Subject, p. 344.

touching his proceedings in the execution of such warrants; the notices of the speaker referred to your committee; the demand made upon the serjeant-at-arms of a copy of the warrant under which he arrested Sir Francis Burdett; the writ served upon the serjeant, and the. summons served upon the speaker, and the notice of declaration filed against the serjeant; which said notices, demand, writ, and summons, are all at the suit or on behalf of the said Sir Francis Burdett, and all bear the name of the same solicitor, John Ellis :-That the said proceedings have been brought against the speaker and the serjeant on account of what was done by them respectively in obedience to the order of the house; and for the purpose of bringing into question, before a court of law, the legality of the proceedings of the house in ordering the commitment of Sir - Francis Burdett, and of the conduct of the speaker and the serjeant, in obedience to that order.

I. Your committee, not in consequence of any doubt upon the question so intended to be raised, but for the purpose of collecting into one view such precedents of the proceedings of the house, upon cases of breach of privilege, as might afford light upon this important subject, have in the first place examined the journals, with relation to the practice of the house in commitment of persons, whether members or others, for breaches of privilege, by offensive words or writings derogatory to the honour and character of the house, or of any of its members; and they have found numerous instances, in the history of parliament, so far as the journals extend, of the frequent,

uniform, and uninterrupted prac tice of the House of Commons to commit to different custodies, persons whom they have adjudged guilty of a breach of their privileges by so offending.

The statement of these prece dents, which establish the law of parliament upon this point by the usage of parliament; the utility of such law; and the necessity which exists for its continuance, in order to maintain the dignity and independence of the House of Commons; its analogy to the acknowledged powers of courts of justice, and the recognition of such rights in various instances, by legal authorities, by judicial decisions, and by the other branch of the legislature; as well as the invariable assertion and maintenance of it by the House of Commons, are topics which may be reserved for a further report. And al though there are some instances in which the House has thought fit to direct prosecutions for such offences, yet the committee confidently state, that the more frequent practice of the House, at all times, has been to vindicate its own privileges by its own authority.

II. The subject which appears to your committee to press most ur gently for an immediate report, is the state of the law and the practice of the House in cases either of criminal prosecution or civil action against any of its members, for any thing spoken or done in the House of Commons; or for any proceeding against any of its officers, or any other persons acting under its authority.

The principal instances to be found under this head arose out of those poceedings which, in the time of Charles the First, Charles the

Second,

Second, and James the Second, were instituted by the officers of the crown, in derogation of the rights and privileges of the Commons of England. Those proceedings were resisted and resented by the House of Commons; were condemned by the whole legislature, as utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and freedom of this realm; and led directly to the declaration of the bill of rights, "That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament;" and your committee have no hesitation in stating, that this article in the bill of rights extends as clearly to actions of indictments brought, or prosecutions by individuals, as to informations or other proceedings directly instituted by the authority of the crown.

The law of parliament on this subject, so far as relates to words spoken in parliament, was legislatively declared in a statute to be found in the parliament roll of the fourth of Henry VIII. By that act, the rights and privileges of free speech in parliament are established, and a special action is given in favour of the party injured by any action brought against him for words spoken in parliament, And from this statute it appears that parliament, at that time, when the case occurred, which seemed to show the expediency of legislative provision to give fuller force and protection to its privileges, made it the subject of such provisions.

In the fifth of Charles I. an information was filed against Sir J. Elliot, Denzel Holles, Esq. and Benjamin Valentine, for their

speechies and conduct in the House of Commons; judgment was given against them in the King's Bench; they were sentenced to imprisonment, and were fined. In the parlament which met in 1640, the House of Commons, after a report made in the state of the cases of Mr. Holles, and the rest of the imprisoned members, in the third of Charles, came to several resolutions, by which they resolved, that these proceedings were against the law and privilege of parliament; and condemned the authors and actors in them as persons guilty of a breach of the privilege of parliament.

In the reign of Charles II. these proceedings were again taken into consideration, and the House of Commons came to several resolutions. On the twelfth of November, 1667, they resolved, That the act of parliament in the fourth year of the reign of Henry VIII. above referred to, is a declaratory law of the ancient and necessary rights and privileges of parliament. On the twenty-third of November, 1667, they resolved, That the judg ment above referred to against Sir J. Elliot, D. Holles, and B. Valentine, Esqrs. in the King's Bench, was an illegal judgment, and on the seventh of December, 1667, they desired the concurrence of the Lords. The Lords, on the twelfth of December, agreed with the Commons in these votes.

Your committee next refer to the ease of Sir William Williams; the detail of which they proceed to insert from the report of a former committee of this house.

"In consequence of this order, Sir Francis Pemberton and Sir Thoinas Jones, who had been two of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, at the time when the jndgment was passed, were heard in their defence; and afterwards committed to the serjeant-at-arms, for their breach of privileges of this house, by giving judgment to overrule the plea to the jurisdiction of the court of King's Bench."

Your Committee think it proper to state, That Sir Francis Pemberton and Sir Thomas Jones, in defending themselves at the bar of this house for their conduct in overruling the plea to their jurisdiction in the acious of Jay v. Topham, &c. defended the judgment they had given, by resting upon the nature of the pleading, and not by denying the jurisdiction or authority of this house; and Sir Francis Pemberton expressly admitted, that, for any thing transacted in this house, no other court had any jurisdiction to hear and determine it

Your committee in the next place think it expedient to state to the house, that there are various instances in which persons committed by the House of Commons have been brought up by rabeas corpus before the judges and courts of common law; and in these cases, upon its appearing by the return to the habeas corpus, that they were committed under the speaker's warraut, they have been invariably remanded.

III. Having stated these instances of the manner in which the acts and commitments of this house have been brought into judgment in other courts, and the consequences of such proceedings, your com

mitte further think it proper, and in some degree connected with this subject, to advert to the course which was adopted for staying proceeding in suits brought against members and their servants, while they were protected from such suits during the sitting of parliament.

The roll of parliament, eighth of Edward II. affords the earliest trace which your committee has found upon this subject. It is a writ from the king, confirmatory of the privilege of being free from suits in time of parliament, and is in the following words:

Rex mandavit justiciariis suis ad assisas, jurat. &c. capiend' assignat: quod supersedeant captioni eorundum ubi comites barones et alii summonati ad parl, regis sunt partes quamdiu dictum parliamentuin duraverit."

There have been various modes of proceeding to enforce this privilege. In Dewes's Journal, p. 436, thirty-first of Elizabeth, 1588--1589, Friday, the twenty-first of February, your committee find the following entry ---" Upon a motion made by Mr. Harris, that divers members of this house having writs of nisi prius brought against them, to be tried at the assize in sundry places of this realm, to be holdeu and kept in the circuits of this present vacation, and that writs of su persedeas might be awarded in those cases in respect of the privilege of this house due and appertaining to the members of the same; it is agreed, that those of this house which shall have occasion to require such benefit of privilege in that behalf, may repair unto Mr. Speaker, to declare unto him the state of their cases, and that he, upon his discretion (if the cases shall so re