from the journals, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors in this kingdom.1

Thus at length, this weary contest was brought to a close A former House of Commons, too eager in its vengeance, had exceeded its powers; and now their danger. a succeeding Parliament reversed its judgment.

Abuses of privilege;

This decision of 1782, stands out as a warning to both Houses, to act within the limits of their jurisdiction, and in strict conformity with the laws. An abuse of privilege is even more dangerous than an abuse of prerogative. In the one case, the wrong is done by an irresponsible body: in the other the ministers who advised it, are open to censure and punishment. The judgment of offences especially, should be guided by the severest principles of law. Mr. Burke applied to the judicature of privilege, in such cases, Lord Bacon's description of the Star Chamber, a court of criminal equity:" saying, "a large and liberal construction in ascertaining offences, and a discretionary power in punishing them, is the idea of criminal equity, which is in truth a monster in jurisprudence." The vindictive exercise of privilege, once as frequent as it was lawless, discredited and condemned.

Exclusion of

"2

66

was now

But before Wilkes had obtained this crowning triumph over the Commons, he had contrived to raise anstrangers other storm against their privileges, which profrom debates. duced consequences of greater constitutional im portance; and again this bold and artful demagogue became the instrument, by which popular liberties were extended.

Among the privileges of Parliament, none had been more frequently exercised by both Houses, than the exclusion of strangers from their deliberations; and restraints upon the publication of debates. The first of these privileges is very ancient; and probably originated in convenience, rather than in any theory of secrecy in their proceedings. The mem

1 Ayes 15; Noes 47; Parl. Hist. xxii. 1407.

2 Present Discontents, Works, ii. 297.

hers met not so much for debate, as for deliberation: they were summoned for some particular business, which was soon disposed of; and as none but those summoned, were expected to attend, the chambers in which they assembled, were sim ply adapted for their own accommodation. Hence the occasional intrusion of a stranger was an inconvenience, and a disturbance to the House. He was in the midst of the members, standing with them in the gangway, or taking his place, where none but members had the privilege of sitting. Such intrusion resembled that of a man who, in the present day, should force his way into Brookes's or the Carlton, and mingle with the members of the club. Some strangers even entered the House, pretending to be members.1 Precautions were necessary to prevent confusion ; for even so late as 1771 a stranger was counted in a division. Hence, from early times, the intrusion of a stranger was generally punished by his immediate commitment, or reprimand. The custom afterwards served as an auxiliary to the most valuable of all privileges, the freedom of speech. What a member said in his place, might indeed be reported to the king, or given in evidence against him in the Court of King's Bench, or the Stannary Court, by another member of the House; but strangers might be there, for the very purpose of noting his words, for future condemnation. So long, therefore, as the Commons were obliged to protect themselves against the rough hand of prerogative, they strictly enforced the exclusion of strangers.

2

Long after that danger had passed away, the privilege was maintained as a matter of custom, rather than Relaxation o of policy. At length apprehensions arose from the privilege. another quarter; and the privilege was asserted as a protection to Parliament, against the clamors and intimidation of the people. But the enforcement of this privilege was grad

1 Mr. Perne, March 5th, 1557; Mr. Bukeley, May 14th, 1614.

ually relaxed. When the debates in Parliament began to cxcite the interest of the public, and to attract an eager audience, the presence of strangers was connived at. They could be dismissed in a moment, at the instance of any member; but the Speaker was not often called upon to enforce the orders of the House.

1

way,

for

Towards the middle of last century, attendance upon the debates of both Houses of Parliament, had become a fashionable amusement. On the 9th of December, 1761, the interest excited by a debate in the Commons, on the renewal of the Prussian Treaties was so great, that Lord Royston, writing to Lord Hardwicke, said: "The House was hot and crowded, as full of ladies as the House of Lords when the King goes to make a speech. The mem bers were standing above half way up the floor." It became necessary on this occasion, to enforce the standing order for the exclusion of strangers. And in this several years the presence of strangers, with rare exceptions, was freely admitted. But the same Parliament which had persecuted Wilkes, was des1770. tined to bring to an issue other great questions, affecting the relations of Parliament to the people. It is not surprising that the worst of Parliaments should have been the most resolute in enforcing the rule for excluding strangers. It was at war with the public liberties; and its evil deeds were best performed in secret. The exclusion of strangers was generally more strict than had been customary; and whenever a popular member of Opposition en

Exclusion of strangers,

2

1 Rockingham Mem. i. 71.

2 This Parliament, assembled May 10th, 1768, and dissolved Jun. 221, 1774, was commonly called the unreported Parliament, in consequel.ce of the strict enforcement of the standing order for the exclusion of strangers. Pref. to Cavendish's Deb. Sir Henry Cavendish has supplied a great hiatus in the debates of this period, and it is much to be regretted that the publication of his valuable work has never been completed. They consist of forty-nine small 4to volumes, amongst the Egerton MSS. at the British Museum. of which less than half were edited by Mr. Wright, and published in two volumes.

deavored to make himself heard by the people, the ready expedient was adopted of closing the doors. Burke, describing the position of an opposition member at this period, wrote, "In the House he votes forever in a dispirited minority; if he speaks, the doors are locked." 1 Could any abuse of privilege be more monstrous than this? Was any misrepresentation of reporters half so mischievous?

in the Lords.

Lord Chatham's repeated motions impugning the proceedings of the Commons upon the Middlesex Proceedings election, were naturally distasteful to ministers, and to the majority of the House of Lords; who, being unable to repress his impetuous eloquence, determined that, at least, it should not be heard beyond their walls. Accordingly on the 14th May, 1770, on his motion for a dissolution of Parliament, the Lords ordered the exclusion of all but members of the House of Commons, and the sons of peers; and no reports of the debate reached the public.

desires the

In the next session, the same tactics were resumed. On the 10th December, the Duke of Manchester Lord Gower rose, to make a motion relative to preparations House to be for the war with Spain, then believed to be im- cleared. pending; when he was interrupted by Lord Gower, who desired that the House might be cleared. He urged as reasons for excluding strangers, that the motion had been brought on without notice; that matters might be stated which ought not to be divulged; that, from the crowded state of the House, emissaries from Spain might be present; and lastly, that notes were taken of their debates. The Duke of Richmond attempted to arrest the execution of the order; but his voice was drowned in clamor. Lord Chatham rose to order, but failed to obtain a hearing. The Lord Chancellor attempted to address the House and restore order; but even his voice could not be heard. Lord Chatham, and eighteen other peers, - indignant at the disorderly uproar, by which every effort to address the House 1 Present. Discontents; Works, ii. 301.

Members of

excluded

Lords.

had been put down,- withdrew from their places. The messengers were already proceeding to clear the House, when several members of the House of Commons, the Commons who had been waiting at the bar to bring up a from the bill, desired to stay for that purpose; but were turned out with the crowd, several peers having gone down to the bar, to hasten their withdrawal. They were presently called in again; but the moment they had delivered their message, and before time had been allowed them to withdraw from the bar, an outcry arose, and they were literally hooted out of the House.1

Furious at this indecent treatment, the members hastened Misunder- back to their own House. The first result of their standing beMr. George

Houses.

66 peers

tween the two anger was sufficiently ridiculous. Onslow desired the House to be cleared, and all." The only peers below the bar were the very lords who had in vain resisted the exclusion of strangers from their own House, which they had just left in indignation; and now the resentment of the Commons, - provoked by others, was first expended upon them.

In debate, the insult to the Commons was warmly resented. Various motions were made: - for inspecting the Lords' journals; for demanding a conference upon the subject; for sending messages by the eldest sons of peers and masters in Chancery, who alone, it was said, would not be insulted; and for restraining members from going to the Lords without leave. But none of them were accepted.2 The only retaliation that could be agreed upon, was the exclusion of peers, which involved a consequence by no means desired, the continued exclusion of the public.

In the Lords, sixteen peers signed a strong protest against the riotous proceedings of their House, and deprecating the

1 Parl. Hist. xvi. 1318-1320; Walpole's Mem. iv. 217; Chatham Corresp. iv. 51.

2 Dec. 10th and 13th, 1770; Parl. Hist. xvi. 1322; Cavendish Deb. ii 149, 160; Walpole's Mem. iv. 228.