PRICES OF STOCK S, &c. in APRIL 1771. India Sou.Sea.olds S. New S. S. 3 per C. 3 per C. 34 per C. 3 per C.14 per C. 14 per C.In. Bond. 4 per C. Long Lottery Stock 216A 216 Ann. Stock 84 플 Ann. confel. reduced 85 3 1756. 1729 1758. confol. Prem. Navy. Ann. Tickets AVERAGE PRICES of GRAIN, by the Standard WINCHESTER Bufhel. THE LONDON MAGAZINE: For APRIL, 1771. N our lat we concluded the debates of the lower club room upon the fubject of the Spanish convention, and it remains only neceffary for us to acquaint the readers, that the motion for an address of thanks to the throne upon the occafion was carried by a majority of • Ben. Allen Ifaac Barre Sir Rob. Bernard Hon. Edw. Bouverie Sir Piercy Brett Ld. Fred. Cavendish Sir Rob. Clayton Hon. John Damer Hon. W. Dowdefwell John Dunning Tho. Durrant 271 against 157.In a note be low we have inferted the names of the minority *. This great question was fcarcely determined, when another point of the utmost importance engaged the univerfal attention of the kingdom.-The printers of various periodical publications had, for a confiderable time, inferted the parliamentary debates, and Bt. Hotham Geo. Hunt John Luther Herbert Mackworth John Manners Sir Mat. Featherftone Jofeph Martin Cha. Marfham haugh Henry Fletcher John Glynn Sir Wm. Guife Lord A. Hamilton 4. Mayor of London Wm. G. Hamilton Henry Curwen April, 1771. John Hanbury Joshua Mauger John Norris Richard Oliver Z 2 Robert Pratt Chace Price James Townfend it must be confeffed with a degree of freedom that often offended the ferious well-wishers to the caule of popularity.his, as might be naturally imagined, at last routed the refentment of the houfe. On the 8th of Feb. therefore Ofirius Otho. (Col. Ow) after reading a paragraph in the Gazetteer, and another in the Middlefex Journal, which he complained of as a breach of privilege, moved that Mr. Thomfon and Mr. Wheble, the printers of thefe two papers, fhould be ordered to attend the houfe to anfwer for their behaviour.-In our lait number a minute narrative is given of the proceedings in confequence of Ofirius's motion; we hall on this account enter immediately upon the debate for fending the Lord Mayor of London and Mr. Alderman Oliver to the Tower, and flatter our felves, the arguments on either fide will not be very materially injured in our hands.-Previous however to the debate, it is neceffary to obferve, that feveral inferior motions relative to the rule and order part of the bufinefs, the adjournment of the main queftion, the attendance of Mr. Wilkes, and the appointment of counsel to affift the two magiftrates, were agitated; at last on Monday the 25th, Caius Caffius' (Mr. W-E-s) made the following speech for the commitment of Mr. Oliver to the Tower, the Lord Mayor being fo much indifpofed, that he obtained leave early in the evening to return to the Manfion-Houte. Mr. Prefident, Sir, AT a time when we are told by every little pretender to patriotifm, that nothing but parliamentary independency can poffibly maintain the liberties of the people; it is with aftonishment I fee two magiftrates of the first city in the British empire, endeavouring to deftroy the very exiftence of parliament, and even trium phing, though members of this houfe, in having violated thofe privileges, which are effentially neceffary to the maintenance of our juft weight in the conftitution. One of the most favourite principles of the prefent oppofition, Mr. Prefident, is, that all authority is originally derived from the people, and that in exigencies of peculiar neceffity, where the law has provided no reme. Ay for unforatcon criminalities, that then the power of the people fhould interpofe, and the fafety of the state ever justify occafional infractions, upon the established ordinances of the kingdom. The oppofition, however, while it reafons in this manner, while it contends for this all-ruling fupremacy in the people, never once reflects, that it is actually enforcing the propriety of parliamentary privilege. This houfe, fir, in its legislative capacity, constitutes the only people of England which the law acknowledges, on the expiration of our term indeed, or our diffolution by the royal proclamation, our power reverts to the hands of our conftituents, and the moment they elect new reprefentatives, thefe reprefentatives, and not the constituents, again become the legal body of the people. To imagine any other people, either in a judicial, or an argumentative fenfe, is to lay the political axe immediately at the root of our conftitution; it is to fubstitute anarchy in the room of order, and to drag down that very deftruction upon. our heads, from which our modern reformers tell us their only folicitude is to preferve us. As we are therefore the people of England, fir, nothing is more abfurd than to fay we are trampling upon the rights of the nation, when we are merely fupporting our own conftitu tional claims, and exercifing thofe powers, which have been immemorially allowed us for the moft falutary purposes. Gentlemen tell us, fir, that the privileges of parliament are manifettly repugnant to the fpirit, nay, to the letter of Magna Charta-manifeftly repugnant to many pofitive ftatutes, which declare, that the fubject fhall not be deprived of his freedom, but by the immediate law of the land. Now the law of the land according to thefe notable cafuifts, confifts in an act paffed by the joint copcurrence of the three eftates in parlia ment, and not in the private refolu tion of any one; to fet up the private refolution of any one, they plaufibly enough ergue, above the joint act of the three, is to commit a murder upon common fenfe, and to overthrow, every idea of a rational government. It is not a little unfortunate however for the oppofition, that the lay of the land, which is thus pleaded agaluf against parliamentary privilege, actually admits the exercife of privilege in the most unbounded latitude. It expresses for inftance in the 9th claufe of the Bill of Rights-THAT THE PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT OUGHT NOT TO BE IMPEACHED OR QUESTIONED, IN ANY COURT OR PLACE OUT OF PARLIAMENT. How then have the city magiftrates dared to fay, that their paltry corporation-charters are to be put in competition with the dignity of parliament? How dare they set their inconfiderable claims above the whole body of the British people? Or how dare they imagine, that a Guildhall justice is to determine upon the privileges of this houfe, when neither the lords, nor the crown, would pretend to fo dangerous a liberty? During the debates on the Middlefex election, Mr. Prefident, when patriotifm called upon us to know, whether the refolutions of this houfe fhould be confidered as fuperior to the law of the land, it was repeatedly obferved, that if the law of the land recognized, if it confirmed our privileges, that they could by no means be illegal. By the law of the land it was obferved, fir, that a man refufing to pay a juft debt was liable to be ar refed-whereas by the privilege of parliament, the perfon of a member was rendered facred-he could not be arrested for debt, and the officer arrefting him was fubject to the difpleafure of this houfe. The very meaning of the term privilege implies a particular right of difpenting with particular laws and privilege was originally claimed, as well as originally granted, for the public good of the kingdom-to ferve as a check upon the power of the peers, and the prerogative of the crown, and to make the fcale of the people as important in the conftitution. Will the friends of the people therefore contend, that the House of Commons should be made inferior in their legislative capacity, either to the peers or the crown? Shall they, while equal to both in the formation of laws, be rendered lefs refpectable in the circumftance of privilege? God forbid. The confequences are big with horror--they fhake the temple of freedom to its very centre, and threaten infant annihilation to every thing, which can poffibly be dear to the independency of the Britifh empire. Let us for a moment launch out into the regions of political fuppofition, Mr. President, and grant with our popular reformers, that parliamentary privilege is a monfter which calls for immediate extermination, and cannot exift without manifeft danger to the community: ftill it is neceflary to enquire, whether the extermination is not more deftructive than beneficial, and more likely to encrease than diminish the catalogue of grievances. If privilege is removed, fir, every individual in the kingdom will undoubtedly be indulged with an opportunity of abufing parliament; of mifreprefenting its proceedings, and inculcating a general contempt for all legal authority. Such will be the benefits refulting from the total abolition of privilege; but if this abolition is fuffered to take place, and if the written, the pofitive law of the land only, is to be restrictive upon the perfon of the fubject-if the comions are allowed no inherent power of imprifoning, where their orders are difregarded, what returning officer will attend them, who misbehaves on a general election? Every fuch officer will fend up his patron, or his friend, to parliament, when there is no legal court in being to punith his delinquency; and this houfe, from a reprefentative of the people, will speedily degenerate into the tyrants, or the creatures of fheriffs, bailiffs, and portreves: univerfal anarchy muft fucceed to tolerable order, and if we now find it difficult to preferve the purity of election, that prefervation must become utterly impoffible, whenever the falutary rod of correction is taken out of our hands. In reality, fir, nothing but the exceffive folly of our modern patriots could once defire the abolition of our privileges; for let us even fuppofe the prefent reprefentatives of the people are every thing which they are pictured by the licentioufne's of faction, ftill does it follow, that their turpitude is to leffen the dignity of their fucceffors down the whole lapfe of time, and that a power, confeffedly fa. lutary in the custody of honeft men, is to be annihilated, because it may be be occafionally abufed by men of profligate characters. If the electors of Great Britain can depend upon their own virtues they may at all times depend upon that of their members; but, if the fountain of elective legiflation is once rendered impure, the ftreams must naturally be corruptedvenal conftituents muft of courie pro duce venal reprefentatives, and fuch whether privilege is, or is not, taken away, will always have the power of overturning our happy conftitution. The farther I enter upon the fubject of parliamentary privilege, fir, the more I am aftonished at the infatuation of our political reformers.Their principal exclamation is for the punishment of bad minifters, for the reformation of abufets, and for an enquiry into the conduct of our judges upon tome late judical determinations; yet if an Englithman is bound by nothing but the exprefs, the scritten law of the land, how are the commons ever to impeach a minister, or to anfwer any other end of their iaftitution? Take away their power of imprifoning perfons, or demanding papers, and you render them totally ufefefs; you give every individual of the whole community a right of defpifing their authority; for who, give me leave to afk, will attend their orders if unobliged to attend ?-Will the monopolizer fhew a voluntary obedience to their commands againft his own intereft? Will the proprietor of common take a journey of perhaps a hundred miles at his own expence, to counteract his own inclinations, when he is left at liberty to decline it? And above all, will the venal judge, or the arbitrary minifter dread the indignation of this aflembly, when none are bound to give teftimony of their guilt, and when the evidences of this guilt may be particularly defirous to conceal it? Seeing therefore, Mr. Prefident, that the deftruction of parliament muft neceffarily follow the abolition of privilege, and fecing that the liberties of the fubject can have no existence independent of this houfe, I must now proceed to a very painful, though a very ellential part of my duty, and complain of Rd O r, Efq; one of our own members, for a daring violation of our privileges By a long and well-known order of the Commons in parliament, it is highly criminal in any printer to pub lifh an account of our debates without your particular permiffion, fir.In the most popular periods of the English hiftory, a proper regard was paid to the dignity of our deliberations, and even favourite minifters have fometimes thought a compliment to thefe deliberations, a freedom injurious to the fanctity of our legiflative character; but to fuch an extravagance has the licentioufnefs of fedition at prefent extended, that patriotin has thrown off all restraint, and made it actually meritorious, not only to vilify our determinations, day after day, but to deny our very being as a legal reprefentative of the people. I nced not, Mr. Prefident, dwell upon the groffefs of thefe infamous publications, nor mention the unexampled lenity of the houfe, in bearing it with fo much patience. Our refentment has at laft been roufed,, and we have ordered fome of the delinquents to be apprehended; yet, fir, though we are the fole judges by law of our own privileges, though we exercified no power but what has been immemorially exercifed by our predeceffors, Mr. 0-- r, nevertheless, while holding a feat in our aflembly, has thought proper to oppofe our refolutions, and fet the mere municipal charters of the city, above the rights of the British Commons, as if the inhabitants of London were fuperior to the whole body of the people at large; and as if the true friend, of this kingdom could ever wish to invest the crown with a difcretionary rule over the indifputable claims of parliament. I therefore move, that Mr. O—r, in difcharging the perfon whom we or dered to be taken up, and in aggravating his offence, by figning a warrant for the imprisonment of our meffenger, has been guilty of a high breach of privilege, and that for this breach he be committed to the Tower, during the pleasure of the houfe. This motion being feconded by Marcus Lepidus (Mr. O- — 13' ) the previous queftion was put, but pafied in the negative 272 being again, and no more than 90 for it. The main queftion was then amended upon the motion of Decius Draco (Sir J-n GG-n) the amendment - |