IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^o 1.0 LI Li|2£ 12.5 Sf U£ 12.0 ^ L25 1.4 III ■« 6" — ► P: ^ ^ / %. ^ / HiotDgraphic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST .*k\H r 'RSET WEBSTER, ry.>. 14580 (716) 87:-4S03 W-A ■'■I CiHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVi/ICIVrH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut cantidien de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checlted below. D D n D D □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou peiiicuiie □ Cover title ttiissing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ n Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en cotileur Bound with other material/ ReliA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure sortie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'una restauration apparaissent dans ie texte, mais, iorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6ti fiimdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6ti possible de se procurer. Les ddtaiis de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^lthode normaie de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ D Pages restaurdes et/ou peliicuides Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages d^color^es, tachet6es ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materia Comprend du materiel suppi^mentairo ryl Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~7| Showthrough/ Fyj Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partieilement obscurcles par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6x6 film^es 6 nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meliieure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratSo checked below/ Ce document est fiim6 au taux de rMuction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X IfX 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy fllm«cl hare hat baan raproduead thanka to tha ganaroaity of: Library of tha Public Archivas of Canada L'axamplaira filmA fut raproduit grica h la gAntroaitA da: La bibliothAqua das Archivas publlquas du Canada Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality possible considaring tha condition and iagibility of tha oi-i^.nal copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spaciflcatlons. Original copias in printad papar covars ara fllmad beginning with tha front covar and ending on the last page with a printad or illuatratad Innpres- sisn, or the back covar when appropriate. All other original copiaa are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated imprea- sion, and ending on the laat page with a printed or illustrated impreaaion. Tha last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —i»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever appliaa. Las images suivantea ont 4tA raproduitea avac la plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at da la nettett de I'exemplaira film*, et en conformity avac las conditions du contrat de filmaige. Lea exemplairaa originaux dont la couverture an papier est ImprimAe sont filmte en commengant par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreaaion ou d'illustration, soit par la second plat, aelon le caa. Tous las autres exemplaires originaux sont filmfo en commen^ant par la pramlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreaaion ou d'iiluatration et en terminant par la dernl6re page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dea symboles suivants apparaftra sur la darniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: la aymboia — ► signif le "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifle "FIN". Maps, platas, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, aa many frames aa required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmte d des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque ie document est trop grand pour Atra raproduit en un seul clich6, il est film* A partir de Tangle sup6rleur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en has, an pranant le nombre d'images nicessaira. Las diagrammas suivanta illustrant la mithoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 M n\ I frij 1 , m wmmmmm THE E B ^A T E 'N TH| HOUSE Wedki ^ COMMONS, ON # The Bxt. to i,ep«d , cjauft i^ a, L - ■ ^ ■*'; - - V^ O N Dp ^. printed for T Ar.*« ,. Houfe, in PiccadiJiy. ^ f Price Oj^ I Shiiiing jyid s]lx. •pence] WW * ■f^ .K~ «* . * 4X a ? 2 TT •*% T* =-J~v ■.(i>^J;, •• "■v .. .... ' ■ , ;» ■Vi» :-^:', v» ;^ * V ..'i/'^'S S ii ' piii*ii)ii ' ■!■ Ill II i K iM i i< M — iwiiii wi*<»-o. . iiii i wiw I i MMiw ■ n ' fc« w »'ifc j *i> tf ii'«- »iw ■' v ^ m mniitimmmmmmtm ,;mi'0 a >1 O J -v _; .^^ ^-J- .- :^- ^. ■ . '-ni^ gjj,,Q ,^iy>;) J CONTENTS. Adverttfemen^9 * -» Page 5 Speech of Mr. Dyjbn, - - - . - g — — — fl «'*immimmmmmmmm ■.»^».x- jp...-«^~...:^|>~. ,..,-JiX.,v,., -fTp^^rt.,,,^^--.-^. ,i^i,. . -,..*% ,^■<*/ ■^■i%i- ■ f-9-i'''i^ ' va-^\ 1 0:.; . "%*o(i. ,i ^«<\V:A-: V. ^: :>. ., & f ■-" - »*■•-•«*•. 'o ' * 'v ■ • > H* W ^«^ ■- •I* «"•-•<* /M '' t'V'*^* i'\''* r'^ ♦ -i^-i* 5 '^ 1 .iV^s W ""■W" (») t;;..:. uu.*u, ;:ur ■ » » « ADVERTISEMENT. ! .' ON Monday the i ith of February, 1 7 7 1 , Sir William Meredith made a motion, which was feconded by Lord Charles Spencer, for leave to bring in a bill to repeal a ciaufe in the Nullum Tempus ad, which allowed a year to the grantees or leffces of the Crown to profecutc their claims to effect. This motion was carried . by 152 againft 123. On the 20th of the fame month, the bill having been twice read, the Houfe divided again. Whether the bill fhould be committed ? which was carried in the affirmative by 155 againft 140. " ' On the 27th of the fame month the further confideration of the bill came on. The de- bate of this day, which determined the fate of the bill, is the debate here printed. For fome days before this debate came on, the pub- lic papers were filled with fcurrilous articles againfl: the advocates of the bill, and the moft grofs mifreprefentations of the ftate of the cafe between the Duke of Portland and Sir James Lowther. With what view all this was done, is not difficult to guefs ; and to fhew that it was done, we Ihall give, as a fpecimen of the whole, the abufe of only one day, from only one paper, viz. The Public Advertifer of Tuefday February 26, 1771. ut ' A Word '^mmmm t»ij A Word to the Oppositioi* in the Lower Room. ■*»i^*i»»»».. Bifciie jusTiTiAM moniiit My Lords and Gentlemen^ .A I OBSERVED on Wcdncfday night laft how ex- tremely cock-a-hoop you all were on occafion of fo numerous a divifion in fupporc of a motion to deprive a Northern Baronet (by an eit poft fa£io law) of a great part of his landed property ; and that too at a time when the matter is fnb judice. How you can reconcile this conduct with the principles of juftice, 1 cannot conceive. — Allow me only to afk you a plain queftion : fup- pofe that a meafure of this fort had been at- tempted by a Minister, what would have been the confequence? — It would have blown him up-, it is fuch a flagrant a(ft of injuftice as would have overturned any adminiftration.— - And does a flagrant aEl of injuftice change its Nature, becaufe it is adopted by Opposi- tion ? — This would indeed be verifying the old proverb, that "it is fafer for one man to ** Ileal a horfe, than for another to look over a For fhame, Gentlemen ! paufe but for a moment, and refled on your prefent conduft. — Let not private pique and animofity to an individual fo far hurry you out of your fenfes, as to make you overleap the bounds of juf- tice, and give a mortal ftab to the conftitu- tlOn. .,.^j, ,^r^ ^.,.^,-i: >(> 3ij;<,;; MENTOR. To L. * , To the PRINTJ^R, ■io ,> S i R, I so much hate what Shakefpearc calls the law*s dtlay^ that I am glad to fee a profpe<9: of all laws being at aa end. Thefe tedious Courts in Weftminfter are beyond bearings they examine witneffes, they pay a regard to evidence, they refpeft the authority of old mully deeds. Comjnend me to that great and upright judge Sir William Meredith and his an*en[brs, who will, without proof, or cvcq examination, difpatch you a caufe in a few mi- nutes. It is Ikip Jack and begone with them when a friend is concerned. Who the devil, cares a farthing for old rolls of parchment? IJfurpation is the bell foundation of right ; and the world, as well as the foreft of Ingle- wood, was made for the longeft fword. ' ■■'i ' iiJ *S, To Sir JAMES LOWTHER. y-.v, I WOULD have you to know. Sir, that the juftice of your caufe Ih^ll avail you nothing. What right has a proud» referved, though, per- h^pSa honourable man to juftice ? Have you not prefumed to marry the daughter of that unpopular Lord whom we all hate ? Have you not been uniform in your fupport of govern- ment againft anarchy and confufion ? Have you not had the imprudence to deted one of us in a robbery? Yet you exped to meet with juftice! -—Know, Sir, that you expeft to receive what we have not to give. We live by injuftice ; we 2 fojourn I [ viii i fojourn with partiality. All our motions are retrograde ; thoy are direftcd to our own inte- reft ; and were every man to have his own, poor patriotic knaves might ftarve. ,„ ..». j Joseph Snip, Taylor and Patriot, ' To Sir WILLIAM MEREDITH. ^ Dear Knight, ^^ Having a damned bad caufe depending in Weftmlnfter-hall, I am under terrible apprehen- (ions that juftice will he done \ and that I fhall be difappointed in my views upon the pelf of a proud deipot, whon. I have Tingled out, as a proper perlon to fupply my prefent wants. I, therefore, requeft of you, my dear Baronet, to remove the caufe into the proper place ; and that_yo« and our friends resolve the fuit in my favour. Though I ad: not fuch a confpicu- ous part in patriotifm, as his Grace of Portland, I have done fomc little fervice in the London Tavern *, and, with all due fub-r miflion, claim my fmail modicum of the fpoils of our enemies. — Pray, good Sir William, would it not be highly proper to fliut up, at once, all the Courts of Law ? I am fure they do us no 30od : our bufinefs is with injujiicey for what the devil have poor rogues to do with juftice ? ^: I am Sir William's t '■ '^^'^3v:'':\7U^ % ■'■in Molt obedient, A POOR PATRIOT. : t ' • ■ . M0NDAV> 1 - Monday, February 27, 1771. " The order of the day was read, for the Houfe to refolve itfclf into a Committee of the whole Koufe, , upon the bill to repeal a claufe in an a&. made in the ninth year of his prefcnt Majefty's reign, intituled, yfn aSi to amende and render more effec- tual^ an a£l mode in the twenty-firji year of the reign *■ fif King James the Firji^ intituled^ An ail for the general quiet of the fuhjecli againji all pretences ofcon- cealment luhatfoever^ which protects fuch rights, titles, or claims, under any grants or letters patent from the Crown, as arc profecutcd with cfFcft within a certain time therein limited. ** And a motion being made, and the queflion being put, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair j ^ The following debate enfucd : i\,' ! h^ ,1; yH' viri Jeremiah Dvson, Efq. ;'^f Mr. Speaker, ' > WE are now entering into a debate of the moft folemn and ferious quef- tion, that I ever remember to have been agitated in this Houfe. For the extent of the prcpolition goes to this : Whether we ihall fufFer the law of the land to proceed in its ufual and anticnt courfe, according to tlic known, certain, and eftablifhed rules of judicature 5 or whether we fhall interpofc the authority and controul of Parliament, in order to fubftitute a new, unprecedented, unconftitutional mode of trial, in the room and in fubverfion of that, which has been fpunded in the policy, and confirmed by iiiwi i>f«"n«^nn^"' ■f [ 10 ] the wifdom of paft ages, and which our anccftors hoped to have delivered dov^rn fafe and inviolable io all future times : for, how- ever gentlemen may attempt by their powers of eloquence to diigulfe this propofition, it is clearly this ; That, in the inftancc of a fait now depending in the Courts below, this Houfe uiall fend forth a new rule of decifion, in order to oblige the Courts of Weftminfter-hall to decide in a 'different manner from what they muft decide, pro- vided no fuch rule was fent down to them. I affirm this to be the cafe. Sir, becaufe the gentlemen who bring in this bill affume the propofition, that the Courts of Weftminfter- hall muft of themfelves decide in favour of Sir James Lowther, againft the Duke of Portland ; for, if they could at all rely on the juftnefs of their caufe, this bill would, in their own opinions, be unnecefTary. The defign then is to compel the Courts of Law to decide in favour of the Duke of Portland, which Courts, if not put under fuch controul, muft decide in favour of Sir James Lowther. I have the ftrongeft rea- fon for ftating the fuit againft the Duke of Portland, as the only foundation for the bill, becaufe there is no other ftated. On what principle of equity, juftice, law, or the conftitution, we can proceed on fuch a bafis, I own, I cannot difcover. I aver, that the proceeding, as far as my knowledge goes, is totally unprecedented : for although gentlemen have named one precedent, 8$ thejr I ' *:' ■ < '■ H •• I •' i a t, ' tj vS tl t\ t _■ ; d( a^ th [.I] they are pleafed to call it, which is that of the Icgiflature not only indemnifying per- fons who have neglefted to qualify, but flopping fuch fuits as are commenced on fuch occafions -, yet I am fure no gcntlertiaii can be ferious in comparing a forfeiture linder a penal ftatutc, to a civil fuit commenced for a landed eflate> under a right founded in common law, and profecuted under the immediate' fandtion and direction of Parlia- ment. Indeed, Sir, I wifh gentlemen would confider the extenfive confcquences of this proceeding. For my own part, I feel myfelf bound in confcience, as a candid, honeA, and impartial Member of Parlia- ment, to give my vote againft any further proceeding in this bufinefs, and therefore I fhall diflent from the motion, that you do now leave the chair. AU Honourable Constantine Phipps. *^ ■It . > . I SHALL, I hope, to the fatisfadion of this Houfe, prove how groundlefs all the obje by which it was autho- fi(b4:! but it is not contended, that Sir James Lowther's confent as an individual wal neceifary, in this cafe, to have pafTed th^ ddt originally without this claufe : Par- liament had then an undoubted right to b^ve taken away the right from the grantees as wtll as the Crown -, but having referved it for future conlideration, they are now, it being brought before them, as much at liberty to take it away, if they fhall think it Expedient. The Houfe as a body is abfo- lutely unpledged; every individual has a right, and ought, to exercife his own judg- ment in the vote he fhall give. There is indeed another kind of parliamentary faith, which ought to be kept very facred; I mean the fulfilling, by the provifions in the bilU whatever is promifed to the people by its title. This was intitled " An ad: for <* rendering more effectual an ad of James ** the Firft> for quieting the fubjeds againft <* all pretences of concealment whatfoever." A claufe was inferted in this bill, not in the original adl of King James, which, from two years experience, we find, has, in a great meafurcy defeated the intention of the adt. The faith of Parliament will indeed be broken, if we obftinately adhere to what we inadvertently pafled, by fupporting a claufe which gives the lye to the title of the ad. The people, who fee the quiet that Was promifed not obtained, will have reafon •.^. n*. \V' WK"^ <( <( «( <( (C <( reafon to believe that it was never intended^ (hould the bill now offered for repealing th^ the claufe be rejected. To prove that it ij| a violation of juftice, we are told, ** Xhif bill is to give a dire^ion to a Court <^ Law, in the cafe of a particular perion> which will oblige them to decide by ^ different rule from what they muft other- wife do, and that it is an ex poji fy^ law/' Now, Sir, let us fee how thi^ charge will fland : The claufe propofed X^ be repealed might have been necelfary t(| fome cafes: A perfon long poffeifed of s^ crown-leafe might have omitted to profo- cute fome encroachers upon his propei,J}'4 from knowing that no prefcription coulj bar him : if from any confiderations of convenience he had fu^ered his claims tq Heep, it would have been unjufl to preclude him without any warning from afferting his right. No fuch grantee has availeq himfelf of this claufe, but a grantee of ^ very different kind has ; on^ who has oh-. tained a grant of an eflatc in the poffeflioii of another man, upon the fuggeftion of % fuppofed defeat in that title. If therefore this bill will only decide one caufe, it is becaufe only one fuch caufe exifls ; I mean the caurt jf one grantee againfl many pojjef'* fors» The provilion is general; but if only one man has brought himfelf under this defcription, is it a reafon why that man ihould be fudfered to avail himfelf of thi$ inadvertency ?.*' inadvertency of Parliament to the injury of of the quiet fubjcdt ? But, Sir, this is not, as it is reprefented, a bill to give a diredlion to a Court of Law to determine a parti- tiCular caufe -, it is to prevent a title by fixty years pofleffion being canvaffed upon any other ground in a Court of Law. Thofe, who think the Duke of Portland equally intitled, with every other fubje^t, to the protedion of Parliament, will confent by this adt to extend that protection to his property, which the oppofers of this bill admit is already afforded to every other man's, Thofe, on the other hand, who think the Duke of Portland alone fhould be left to be opprefTed, harrafled, and plundered, under the colour of a law, now in every other cafe obfolete, and reprobated by Par- liament, will vote againft the bill. To deter gentlemen from agreeing to this bill, it has been called an ex pojl fadio law: fuch a law in criminal cafes (which is the general acceptation of the exprefTion) is indeed juftly alarming and odious, becaufe it makes an adtion, innocent at the time it was done, criminal by a fubfequent acfl, and makes the adtor liable to a punifliment he could not be aware of at the time he did the adt, and confequently could not be deterred by. But why is this fo alarming ? Becaufe it makes the unwary fubjedt the objedl of profec ation and oppreflion, for fomething he could not know he had aded wrong in. Put theiHe ; .3 ^§ ■PIPPVIR \ IS another kiivd of ex poJlfaBo law, which has ever been deemed as advantageous, ar the other is injurious to the fubjedt : I mean laws for the redrefs of grievances, which muft neceflarily be ex pojl faSlo^ fince no grievance can be red'-efled before it has been felt. This bill is calculated to redrefs a grievance; in that light, and in that only, it is an ex poji faBo law. The honour- able gentleman has called upon us to fup« port by precedents this invafion of property (as he terms it) : he tells us, none have occurred to him; but one has been brought in this cafe in a former debate ; that of the indemnifying bill, which now lies upon the table to be pafTed, taking away the penalty from a common informer, vejied in him by law, which, he tells us, is no way appli- cable to the prefent cafe ; he has not, how- ever, fhewn us wherein they differ. I will fhew in what they are alike, and doubt not of proving to the Houfe, that the lituations of the two kinds of informers are more fimilar, than the two kinds of ex poji faSio laws, which he has endeavoured to confound. A penal ilatute makes men liable to a cer- tain penalty for omitting to do certain things by law direBed', and vefts the property of that penalty in any informer, who fhall in- force the law againft the delinquent, by ftridtly following the diredtions of that a(S, as a reward for his diligence in difcovering the breach of that law. The indemnify- t i8 ] ing a<5l ukts away from the informer tJbis property fd mefted in Sim hy law^ tho' he has complied with tlie directions of tha ad, and adtually obtained a verdid, and reftores to the delinquent that property, which, under the former adt, he bad for- feited by non>obiervance of the law. In this cafe, the legiflature, determining that the omiiTion (hall not be punifhed, takes away the reward from the in rmer, which was only given for the difcovery of thofe omiffions. What is the cafe of the in- former of concealments ? Nd iaw, iut ike cuftom of office^ has given a bene^cial ieafe of any property, which (hall be fuggefted to belong to the Crown> in confequence of , any deficiency of title in the actual poiTeifor, though for upwards of fixty years^ as a bribe to informers to rake into the title of their neighbours, and difcover informalities and defeds by which the Crown may reap advantage. The legiflature, JufHy abhor- ring this odious and oppreflive principle, have (as they in the penal cafe remitted the puni(hment) ena<^d, that the Crown ihall not avail itfelf, to the prejudice of the fubjed:, of any fuch defedt j but that fixty years pofleflion (hall be as good a title againll the Crown, as it was before againft the fub* jedt : where then is the injuftice of taking nway from the informer that reward, which was only held out as an inducement to him to do that which you declare iliall not be .. ' dont:? mm 3 a ;s P U g }d -t «9 ] done? Is that man more the innocent ob- je<3: of parliamentary protedlioni who has vomitted, however inadvertently, to comply with the dire(ftions of a law, which be might know becaufe it is public, than he, .wbo> refting fecure in Ipng hereditary un- difturbed poffeffion upon the credit of his anceftors^ the tacit evidence of his neigh- bours, and the Crown, whofe right alone cap be invaded s when this pofleflbr has not even a poflibility of knowing the defeds of his title, becaufe he has not accefs' to the papers that are to point out fuch defeats ? pr is that man lefs the objc<^ of parliamen- tary faith, who, frgm interefted motives, becoflies the fervant of the legiUature, and "proves a breach of the law, than he, who, from motives as avaricious, becomes the tool o{ ofHce, to queftion the rights of an unfufpedting owner ? However this prece- dent, ftrong as it is, is not the only one. The very ftatute of King James, and every quieting bill that ever pafled, have taken away the claims of grai)tees fo circum- ftanced ; and Lord Coke, in his reading on .that ftatute, mentions it as one of its greateft merits, that it protedted the fuhjedl againft that turbidum genus hotninum. — My Lord Coke, in his fourth Inftitute, men- tions another cafe ftrongly in point. Some of thefe informers had obtained a grant from the Crown of a pofTeflion always repu- ted to belong to the Bifhop of Norwich . The C 2 Biihop [20] Bi/hop had taken a leafe of this from the grantee, by a friend of his, one Hammond : Lord Coke, then Attorney-General, much mifliking this, as he expreffes it, prevailed on the Bifliop, that an adt of parliament fhould pafs to fecure this poffeflion to the bifhoprick. The Houfe is, I hope, con- vinced, that the object of this bill is not to violate, but fulfill the faith of parliament ; not to obftrudl, but fupport juftice; not to in- vade, but to fecure the property of the fubjedt. The only queftion is, whether, by rejecting this bill, you will fupport and countenance informers; a race of men hardly to be tolerated, certainly not encouraged or fa- voured, in a free ftate ;•— or, by pafling it, fecure that right which is the moft honour- able, and the moft juftly and univerfally favoured by the common law; a right founded in long hereditary, undifturbed, bonajide pofTeflion." {■ Srs. "••;.» I 7J{ W- Honourable Mr. Vane. '^ 'j^* I RISE, Sir, to give my diflent to the motion that has been made for you to leave the chair, becaufe I think it my duty, as an honeft man, and true reprefentative of the people, to oppofe every ftep in every ftage of proceeding, which, I am firmly of opinion, is a violation of the rights of "" ■'....'^-■^> the :ti'W ^i I 'n'- ■I ; [21] the people, a breach of parliamentary faith, and an overturning of the jurifdidion of the Jaw. This proceeding, Mr. Speaker, had its commencement in rage and in tyranny ; it was founded in the hope of bearing down the right and title of an honourable perfon, who afks no favour, but the equal and unbi- . afled judgment of the law ; who does not rc*- fort to the law, but under the faith and di- rection of an adt of parliament recently given. With what juftice, what decency, can we annihilate the claim> that we ourfelves have ratified? How can this parliament take away from Sir James Lowther that very „ 'fight, which this very parliament has di- rected Sir James Lowther to maintain ? For when parliament gave Sir James Lowther , an authority to commence a fuit, that au- thority can bear no conftrudtion, but that of a command fo to do. And he was bound to profecute his right, not for his own fake, but on account of the public, to which the eflate in queftion will devolve, as foon as Sir James Lowther's grant ex- pires. — Surely, then, I may apply the - expreffion of our great poet on this occa- ■:. lion ; for, fince it was by our own command that Sir James Lowther began his fuit, tc 'Twould be our tyranny to ftrilce and gall hinv '* For what we bid him do." But I, Sir, take up this queftion on ' higher ground than that of perfonal confi- deration. I think it the caufe of common juftice, ^^•i [22] juflice, common fecurity, and public liberty ; for I know no protedlion by which any man can hold nis property, or live in freedom, but under the line and barrier of the law : if that is taken away, or over- powered, every thing is left in common to the will of a tyrant, or the fury of the mul- titude. To undermine, or to fubvert the law, is the language, the principle, the adt of defpotifm. I am forry to fee, that this principle of defpotifm has carried us fo far already j I earneftly hope it will carry us no farther ; but that we fhall leave this caufe where it now is, to be determined in the courts of law, according to the rules and principles of law. iM'A Mr. Seymour. 'v;,..^ir: '■».*-« I RISE to give my teftimony to the fair- nefs of the manner, in which an honour- I able ^mmm [24] able gentleman *, who fits below me, has ftated this queftion. He has put it, I think, on the faireft iffue imaginable : for he fays, that whoever thinks this caufe unfit to be tried by the courts below, will agree to the motion ; whoever thinks it fit and proper for the courts of Weftminfter to decide this caufe, as it is referred to them, will difl^ent from tlie motion, that you do now leave the chair. -— ' *v vW.^;?;' I am free moft cordially to declare, that had I been pofiTefltid of a feat in this Houfe when the bill pafied, I fhould have oppofed ' the infertion of this claufe. No man fhall hear me adopt luch a principle as that of excluding a man from the benefit of a gene- ral law •; much lefs could i have made a no- bleman of the Duke of Portland's charad:er the obie-- j- •'i ;;VM«^ Lord John Cavendish. ?^ The fubjedl that is now before you is of a nature that makes me extremely un- willing to fpeak a word upon it ; but there can be no Iituation, which obliges a man to filence, when juflice requires him to fpeak. — That juflice impels me now to inform the Houfe, that there is a young ' lady, near in blood, and dear in affedlion to me, to whom I am a guardian, who has this very eflate in queflion fettled upon • ^i^'* her* tfll II.ILIIIII !'*.*■ Jt^l... . ; . . r 33 1 her in part of her jointure : if then it had been pleaded for thofe, who, it feems, are already exempted, that their ignorance of ^ any defedl in their titles (hould cntitl© them to protcdlion ; fure I am, that the Duke of Portland, had he not been in ignorance that the eftate, which his family- has poflefTed for fo many generations, was liable to be torn from him by a grant j ' and that the able and upright lawyers, who \ drew up the fettlement, had not been in equal ignorance;, the Duke would never ^ have offered, nor they accepted the eftate, as part of her jointure, or included it in the ^. fettlement made upon her fon. 1 Governor Johnston. W*i I HAVE heard with indignation, rather than lurprife, the arguments that have been ufed, in fupport of a meafure, the moft violent, arbitrary, and unjuft, that ever was propofed to parliament. ' I therefore faid. Sir, I was not furprifed; even though I have heard the bill lupported by allega^ lions, as falfe in fad:, as the end propoled is unjuft:. It has been treated, as it' the property in queftion was the eftate of the Duke of Portland ; and Sir James Lowther the invader of his ellate. Sir, I deny that the Duke of Portland ever was the legal owner : I have the belt authority to affirm, his Grace never had a right by law, and' . E that I J4 J ^lat Sir James Lowther's grant is ftricViy according to law : I therefore fubmit it to the underfhanding of every man pfefent*- whether he is the right owner who has a legal title, or he who has no title at all? If the Duke of Portland has fo juft a right as is pretended, why is he fo afraid of try- , ing of it ? Why has he pleaded privilege ? Why has he uled every artifice to gain time, perplex, and alfo draw the pity of the public ? I fuppofe the noble Lord, who fpoke laft *, mentioned the cafe of an inno- cent Lady, to draw the compafiion df the Houfej but I can alTure the noble Lord (for I am authorized to fay fo) that Sir James Lowther is as ready and as willing to make a rccompence to the Dutchefs of Portland, " as to the other perfons who may be fup- pofed to have efcaped the view of the legif- lature when the bill palTed^ and who are fo nobly exempted from all further pro- fecution by Sir James Lowther; but whofe bounty and magnificence on this occafion have been molt ungeneroufly turned againft him in favour of the Duke of Portland. It has been faid, among other falfehoods, that Sir James Lowther applied for this . grant, in order to influence the Cumber- land eleiftion. That falfehood has been re- futed by the honourable gentleman in his , place, who has folemnly declared, that no regard to the Cumberland elecftion governed vr . - . . liim '» ' • • Lord John Cavcndiflj, h » \ [3J] Jum in tljie leaft. Hearing it from my ha- nourabfle friend's own mouth, it is impof- ffalc to doubt the truth of what he has faid. All the world muft now believe, that Sir James Lowther had no view to the e!e > tion, when he folicited the graut. It was the defence of his own property that in- duced him to apply to the Crown, per the l)uke of Portland, not content with ufurping the eftate of the Crown, could not ' reft without attempting to ufurp the pro- perty of others, by virtue of his pretended ^rant. For he filed bills in Chancery againft Sir James Lowther and the Cor- poration of Carlifle, in order to take from them the fifliery of the river Eden ; though Sir James Lowther's family have enjoyed the faid fifhery ever fince the reign of Edward the Firft, and the Corporation have had theirs for centuries back. With with what juftice or truth, then, can Sir James Lowther be faid to invade the an- cient property of the Duke of Portland? ' when all he does is in defence of a moft ■ ancient property of his own, againft the attacks of a new man in that count : for I will venture to fay, that the anceftors of ' Sir James Lowther had noble pofleflions there, many hundred years before the name 'of the Duke of Portland was known or heard of in the kingdom of Great-Britain. * But all that my honourable friend afks, is a fair trial at law; and whether he '"'- ' . E 2 ' that • [ 36 ] ■ that wifhes to avoid the law, or he that d^fircs to be tried by the law, has the better caufe, I fubmit to the judgment of the Houfe. Counfellor Wallace. I HAVE heard the queftion treated as an in- trufion upon the jadicature of common law, for which gentlemen have affigned this reafon, that, as it is already referred to the decifion of the Courts below, we fhould ufurp their authority, and controul their jurifdidtion, were we now to flop the fuits that are commenced. But every gentleman of my profeflion knows, that it is the fre- quent practice of the Court of Chancery to difmifs fuits, when there appears juft reafon ■why they fhould proceed no farther in them. In the prefent inflance, the Courts below are bound to proceed in the fuit now under our confideration ; the legiflature only can ftop its pro^refsj the legiflature is there- fore applied to in this cafe, as almoft in c\'ery other, to do what the common law, without the aid of parliament, cannot do. The point, therefore, for vs to conlider is, whether the common law, on ihofe general principles on which it adts, would enter- tain this fuit ? Certainly not. Sir ! it is tref- pafling upon the patience of the Houfe to repeat it, that no Court can entertain a fuit againfi an uninterrupted pojfejjion of Jixty year 5^ \ \ u A o y [27] ■^'•years. But it is faid, that this claiife d(x*l not give Sir James Lowthcr any powci', except againft the Duke of Portland : but Sir James Lowther has inftitutcd fuits againft two hundred pcrfons at leaft, who are no way concerned with the Duke of Portland ; and, as I am informed, fome of , ihofe perfons have given up their eftatcs, rather than conteft them. ^ It is faid. Sir, that the Duke of Portland has pleaded his privilege againft Sir James Lowther ; that I deny. It is alfo faid the Duke of Portland has attempted to take away from Sir James Lowther, and the Corporation of Carlifle, their fifhery of the river Eden. Sir, the Duke of Port- land has attempted no fuch thing ; he has never queftioned the right, either of Sir James Lowther, or the Corporation of Car- lifle. The cafe is this : The Duke ef Por^'land had a valuable fiftiery on the river Eden ; betwixt this fifhery and the fea, Sir James Lowther and the Corporation of Carlifle have alfo fiflieries. But by a new niiode of fifli- • ing, which is to lay filLing-nets quite acrofs the river, they have intercepted all ■ the iifti from running into the Duke of Portland's part of the river ; fo that it is ufelefs, and of no value. But all that the Duke of Portland has done, is, to file a bill in Chancery for permifTion to record the teftimony of antient perfons^ who remember what t 3^! •] 'wh«it the mc^ds pf iifhing were before Chefe nets w«re invented, and this ne^ -mode prac^ifed : this is all the Duke cf Poftland has done. It has been often fai^ in this debate, that we have no precedent 'for flopping a law-fuit in the trddH of iljs ^urfe. Sir, the annual bill ,^at ^we pa% ,both for preventing and flopping fqits, ^nd negle<3:ing to qujify, is a precedent in ^iht ; I am perfuaded there are an hundred more i(i your flafUe-book. But, Sir, if ja man takes an office, civU -or i^ilitf^ry ,qr r€ccle(ia/^ical, aud negledls to take tjic pftths and the facrament within a cer-tair^ titne, lie is to forfeit 500 L to the inforiaw*. In -that ciife it is not 3 caufe of a doubtful nature, that a jury may decide upon or>e •way or auother ; it is a certain fpecjfic fun?» >c;na(fted and declared by parlian^ent to be the right of him who lays and profecut^s the information. A bdl for this -purpoie •now Hes upon your table ; but any gentle- man would, I believe, be laughe^ at, who was to ufe fuch an argument agginft the bill, as to fay, that by flopping the infor- mation he fhould rob the informer of 500!. The only difference I perceive in the tvifo cafes is, that poverty and diftrefs mig{it induce a man to inform in one cafe j but no fuch motives can be applied to the cafe in gueflion. ^ _ v-. N I ts^J i,^ ! Honourable Charles Fox. "'/ 1 take great fhame to myielf, that I have not rifen fooner to declare my fentiments pn this important queflion; for I think ic diigraceful in any man to lit lilen^ on fach an occafion, who ever had the ufe of faculty of fpeaking in this Houfe: but, Sir^ my iilence was owing to my aftonilhment ; 1 was confounded, I was amazed ! f;:r though I faw f:his bill at Hrfl in the fame iight iti which I behold it now ^ yet, when I looked round me, and law who the honour- abie gentlemen are who introduced it; that they are men of character, men of abili- ties, men of knowledge, men of reputed integrity j I helitated, I ftfove to perfuade myfelf, that I muft rather he millaken myfelf, than that any thing fo baa, (o violent, fo lawlefs, fo monftrous, could be advanced by fuch men who propofed this bill. But I could not long remain unde- cided 9 I foon beheld the proportion in all its naked, genuine deformity : then. Sir, as I was at firfl ftiuck dumb with aftonifh- ment, I was feized with horror and indig- nation. Who, Sir, that has a confcience to revere juftice, a fenfe of liberty, or a regard for ;the conftitution, can lillen, with- out feeling an honeft zeal to defeat a pro- polition, which, at one blow, dedroys our i " conflitution. WBSm r 40 ] conflitution, our liberty, and our laws ? Gentlemen are loud in their clamours againfl: minifterial influence. I avow the fyftematic fupport of that minifter in all his meafures, wfio has my good opinion and confidence; but that minifter fhall never have my afliftance and fupport, who (hall dare to propofe what thefe gentlemen, who are fo proud of their oppofition to mini- fters, now propofs. Mr. Speaker, it is under the law that every man holds his property, and enjoys his liberty in fecurity and eafe. But I firmlv believe, as far as I am informed, that no man can have a better title to his eftate, than the very title which the Crown has vefted in Sir James Lowther to the eftate in queftion. If that title is to be taken away by aft of parliament, why iiot bring an adt to take away any other part of his eftate? Why not of another man's ? For, if bills are thus to pafs for transferring the property of one man to another, there can be nothing facred, no- thing fecure amongft us. I wifh, there- fore. Sir, the gentlemen who brought in this bill, would, for their honour's fake, withdraw it. I am fure my confcicnce would never fuffer me to be at reft, was I to perpetrate the injuftice intended by this bill. As to mylelf, the fame con- feience, which dictates my prefent oppo- fition, ftiall carry me on to oppofe the bill in every ftep, through every ftage. But , [ 41 ] But if it fucceeds here, it cannot fucceed elfewhere. I do therefore again deprecate the honour and juftice of this Houfe, that we may not fufFer the fcandal of pafling this bill to lie at our doors, and give the honour of rejediiig it to the otlier Houfe of parliament. i-- v v,v?^(^?r Sir George Savile. ':l i4^rA}i'!0-yj-ii-i IIJS I AM extremely obliged to the candour of thofe gentlemen, who have beftowed on me fo much more praife than I deferve, in .'e part I had the honour to take, in bring- ing in a bill for the general quiet of the fubjedt, which the Houfe thought proper to pafs three years ago : but I own that I do not feel myfelf much elated by it. How- ever grateful for their praifes, to fay truth, I am the more humiliated at having re- ceived them, being fo fooh to lofe them; for I obferve, that the fame gentlemen, who ha\ e flattered me fo much with their commeoif^tions for what I &ave done, think no n . *ii" too bad for thofe who may give the fa ! 'ji te, that I fhall probably give on the queii un before us. Perhaps, Sir, if nobody but myfelf was in queftion, I might reft contented under the cenfure in one fcale, fo balanced by applaufe in the other. But there is another perfon (Sir Anthony Abdy) to whom much ^ F ^h9 . S mmm ^■■l t 42 ] the greater part of the praifc, bcftowed on me, is due j and who, if he was prefent, would not, I believe, be afliamed to fhare any difgracc that may fall on me : He is, unfortunately for himfelf and the Houfe, confined at home. I am doubly unhappy in his abfence, as he would do much more juftice to his own fentiments than I can by relating them. But we have talked the mat- ter overij our memories correfpond to the fad: pretty nearly, and our inferences do not differ much. Firll of al. ^ ''-fire to difclaim, for my^ felf and my Cv gue, every imputation that we ever thought the Duke of Port- land ought to be debarred for ever from applying again for that juftice, which we think was violated in the claufe by which he was profcribed. Let me, however, fuppofe, that a con- verfation of this fort mig'it have happened during the courfe of tne bill. Suppofc fomebody (hould fay to the Duke of Port- land, " Here is a bill for the general quiet and protection of the fubjeS ; but, un- ' luckily for the bill, your Grace is to be " proteded by it ; which is thought fo unjufl " and fo unreafonable, that the bill may pro- ** bably be loft, unlefs your Grace will con- " fent to wave your right to that common " proted:ion which every man is to derive ** from it." Well then, theperfon thusquef- ^tioncd is the Duke of Portland, and the ikir : Dukq I c 'n n n e e - d 'c :t ,- e fl »- n e ,e « <( C( <( « <( [ 43 ] Duke of Portland muft neceflarily anfwer for himfelf : the Duke of Portland, therefore, could only fay, " God forbid that my pri- vate interefl ihould fland in competition with that of the public : let my caufc be feparated j let the public be anfwered in ** the firft inftance ; perhaps in fome future day the ear of juftice may be opened to my caufe; perhaps Parliament may not perfift in profcribing me and my family <« for ever." I believe. Sir, I fhall explain my mean- ing by a fable better than by argument. Sup- pofe then a boat, with all her crew, fhould be caft away upon fome barren rock, which yielded not a grain of fubliftence, and their provifions were confumed to the lafl morfel; they muft put out again to fea, or elfe ftarve upon the rock ; they put out to fea, but they find their boat had fufFered much in the ftorm, was become leaky, and in dtnger of being overfet, by having too many men on board : the pilot is, however, of opinion, that if they had juji one man lefs the boat might poflibly be faved : one would naturally fuppofe a difpute muft arife, who that one man ihould be; but there happened to be one man on board ready to offer himfelf a facrifice for all; they put him on fhore, and leave him cxpofed upon the rock. Now, Sir, fhould the crew once find themfelves out of danger, ought they to abandon the man Fa . who ^^'mmmmim ^ [44] ijA\o Jhved them, or ought they to put back to favc /6/>«, to whom they owed their own prefervation ? Sir Wil'liAm Meredith. The pectrtiar lituation in which I ftand iii this queftion, will, I truft, entitle me to the indulgence of the Houfe, if I once more pfefume to trouble you. Par- tiality to an individual, in fubverfion of law ^nd jufttce ; invalion of private rights, fecurcd by the fiaiith of parliament ; toge- ther with every other name and epithet *ihiat can be given to violence and injuftice, ^have b^n afcflhed to thofe who intrftdi^'^d, and whb fiipport this bill. It becbmi me therefore to flate, as I will do fully and fairly, the grounds on which I have adted; and alfo examine the truth and juftnefs of 'thofe gendemen, who haVe tajcen a con- 'trary part; whofe confciences would ^d'/» to have bden fo ex(iefcdingly agitated, and ^ho have been fo liberal of their invedives during the courfe of the whole debate. And though I cordially adopt every fenti- 'nient that fell from an honourable friend of mine*, ^vho fpoke ffecond in the debate, yet he will forgive me, if I lament that he 'took fo much notice of thofe indecent and abufive publications, fome of which have been haiidcd about privately, and others circulated f Hon. Conftaminc Phipps. >i ■- ' / [45] circulated by the news-papers. As tomy- felf, I have fo long and fo often borne the efforts of ineffedtual calumny:, that I am quite indifferent about them. I hope it will not be an unbecoming vanity in tne to fay, . -*' '*' «« That i am arm'd fo Urong inlitJrtefty, *i <* That they pafs by hie as the^idfe Wind, ,ti * Which I regard not." ' But ilill. Sir, I cannot be infenfible to the reproach of fuch pfcrfons as are near and dear to me -, and I own it affeded me deeply, to hear from an honourable gentle- man*, whofe friendfhip and good opinion are above all things valuable to me, that this proceeding was commenced in rage and tyranny, and that nothing could crown it with fuccefs, but perfeverance in a fpirit of dcfpotifm, which, he hoped, would either be changed or overcome, before the bill can pafs into a law. As to the rage which my friend attributes, had any other perfon charged me with it, I fhould have appealed to him as a witnefs of the fame temper in private, which this Houfe has feen in my public demeanor through this , . bufinefs. I ftiall fpeak to the tyranny by- .; and-by. My honourable friend thinks, (that, as Sir James Lowther was authorized ,|o profccute the fuit he has commenced lender an ad of parliament, Jbe has done '%)i ii. M ,f" \i'iiii- • Mr. Frederick Vane. m»-* v.' jjv ruriMi'.'^vwnV' / -"^mm^ ■BW^PT no m6re than obey that authority; ariJ • therefore he applies a paffage in an author, who^ wt '*11 admire and fo often quote : • ** wc. be tyranny to ftrikc and gall him *"■ For what we bid him do." Mr. Speaker, the Nullum Tempus bill, that ' we pafled three years ago, took from the Crown the power of difquieting hereafter pofleffions of fixty years, but referved a power oi profecuting fuits to effe£l within the year. Of this power Sir James Low- ther has alone availed himfelf ; but, in my fenfe of things, that honourable perfon would have fhewn his obedience to parlia- ment, by defifting from his purfuit, much better than by taking a momentary advan- tage to difturb a poffeffion of fixty years, which parliament has condemned, and annihilated the power to attempt in any future time. But had my honourable friend flated the whole fentence he quoted, I be- lieve we (hould not differ in our application of it. It runs thus ; - : ■ '^ ■j'.i^- -^l J:'' ■ 'J'.'f " *Twould be my tyranny to ftrike and gall *em , *' For what I bid them do. For we bid this, *' When evil deeds have their perraiffive pafs, •' And not their punifliment." What then is the evil deed that has been done ? Is it not the tyrannous and odious grant, by which the county of Cumberland has been fo difquieted ? I admit, I aver, that Parliament^ 5irx<' ^^.\VT- T 47l ^^: Parliament, inftead of allowing Its per-* miflive pafs, ought to have puniflied the Minifter that made the grant. But where the tyranny lies of (lopping its further pro- grefs, I am at a lofs to conceive. Will my honourable friend permit me now to refer him to the fable and the moral of that iCxcellent play (Meafure for Meafure) from ' whence he took his quotation? The ftory is of an old, abfurd, obfblete law being revived, and an amiabi . young nobleman condemned to die by it. The great poet .never tried his genius more, than in uniting .all the vile and deteflable qualities that human nature is capable of, in order to draw the charader of a minifter capable of reviving and executing fuch a law. Let my honourable friend next turn his recol- led;ion to that part where poetic jufticc clofes the laft fcene. There he will fee what the decifion of virtue, rcafon, and mercy was, on the execution of that anti^ quated law. Did the wife and gracious prince of that drama fuffer it to take its courfe, and deftroy an innocent man ? No, he fav.ed and protedted him ; but afligned over the execrable minifter, who revived and would have enforced the law, to pu- niftiment, remorfe, and fliame. Now let my honourable friend apply his fable to the hiftory of this day. The law of the land has ordained, that an uninterrupted pofl'eftion of fixty ye^rs ihall be a bar to 3 ^yery /L T 48 ] ^ every poffible claim of fubjed againft fub- jcift. Bat there was an old obfolete law, a wretched remnant of tyranny, that faid Nullum tempus occurrit regi. This law was attempted to be revived in the reign of James the Firft, but the attempt was ilopt at the out-fet by adt of parliaraent.- For one hundred and fixty years it has lain dormant, till a few years ago, when, toge-^ ther with every principle, policy, and maxim of that reign, this law was revived alfo. Here do I reft the merits of this quel^-^ tion. I contend for that rule of law which, ^• after fixty years uninterrupted pofleffion,! eftates the owner in an unqucftionable right. My honourable friend contends for that rule of government y which gives to length of pofleflion no fecurity againft the claims of the Crown. Which then is the fide of defpotifm; which that of law, liberty, and juftice, let God, and every rational being, judge betwixt us. *4 I A noble Lord *, who fpoke lately, has condefcended to make me a compliment of having introduced this bill with politenefs, candour, and perfonal attentions : He has been pleafed to return my compliment by charging me with injuftice, violence, and breach of parliamentary faith. He afks, why is the fame parlian^ent, that kept its faith with Sir Richard Brook laft year, to ^ *Ipr4NoTtS, •"' a Break its faith with Sir James Lowther ibis year ? Mr. Speaker, in the cafe of Sir Jlichard Brook, I prefumed to take a more a£tive gart than perhaps became me. Sir Richard rook confented that the Duke of Bridge- Water fliould carry his canal through his cftate, on condition of keeping at 9 certain diflaflce from his houfe and gardens. The Duke of Bridgewater prefented a petition to enable him to come nearer his houfe than the agreement allowed, and to cut through his garden. I denied the right of parliament to break that agreement, with*- out Sjir Richard Brook's confent : I. opppfed the motion for fubje<$^iag this point to be litigated in a committee, and decided by the evidence of Mr. Brindley. I then ftood, as I now jfland, in defence of ancipn^ pro- perty againft the attack of pov/er. The noble Lord having ?ittributed in- juftice to me, I am happy th^t he has given •»6^ his own idea of ju nee. He has told us, that Sir James £ «* Be thcfe juggling friends no more beHevcd, ,. •< Who palter with us in a double fenfe, . ^ «* Who keep the word of promife to our ear, . «' Aixd break it to our hope." ^. ^ Well, indeed, might the people of Cum- berland apply thefe lines to us, when we pafTed an a(^, with a title that promifed quiet, and whofe provifions expofed thena to deftrudtion. But does the noble Lord remember, who gave the example of alter- ing the bill ? It was the late Attorney Ge- neral this very fefllon; who fat on the noble Lord's right hand^ and, under his .countenance and affiftance, brought in a bill ♦for enlarging the term, to enable the Crown to ptofecute the occupants of a numbei* of houfes in the Savoy. If the noble Lord .thought the faith pf parliament pledged to l^ljia ' * ' © ' maintain /■( n i ^ [51] maintain the ad inviolable, why did he afTent to break through it, in order to pro- fecute the inhabitants of the Savoy beyond the time as limited by the adt ? Surely the noble Lord muft flatter h* iifclf with.fup- foiing, that the fyftem of defpotifm (which wifh to believe his LordHiIp is not intruded to execute) is already in a flate of maturity and perfedion, and that we have made a compleat furrender of ourfelves, if he can expert us to acknowledge, that it js a breach of parliamentary faith to narrow the powers of the Crown in favour of the fub- jfcd, and no breach of faith to enlarge thofe powei* againji the fubjedt. The learned Serjeant * who lits behind me» fpoke with great candour, and was followed by that attention which his per- fonal abilities and profeflional character deferve : — But he refts his argument chiefly on the danger that private property may incur, by flopping a fuit now in its progrefs through the Courts, for which, he fays, there is no precedent. I fhall fpeak to the precedent by-and-by ; but the learned gen- tleman, I think, is miftaken, in dating the intereft of his profefllon, as the intered of the public. I grant the profefllon will b^ a lofer, by flopping a law-fuitj which, aj its very commencement, has coft one of the parties 4000I. But the public is neither interefl;ed in the commencement* prog<:ef$« t'T'-ify*** '^^'^»^*-"-*' * Scrjcsmt Lctight; i,r"rj which they have a common right to try i it is merely, whether wc flidl continue a competency in this one cafe, that the kw itfelf has taken away in every other. — And I am proud to be able to affert to that learned gentleman, that ike very Motive for introducing this bill, was, to faye the people of Cumberland from the heceffity of maintaining the inheritances they were born to, at a ruinous expence, peAapis, as fatal i-o themfelvcs and their families, as the entire lofs or furrender of their fortunes. ^ '^'*' r^nny^ - lj {|.fi.,if; A& to the precedents, of which, it i* faid, there are none, our hiftory is a com- pendium of them. Every adt, by which our anceftors vindicated the rights of the fjcopleagainft the power of the crown, is k pfedectent in point. The end and aim bf evefy ftruggle for liberty has been, to reduc«J* the regal within the limits of a (^gaiffuffth Freedom of per/on and free^ dom of property went band ia hand toge^ ''* . then iwa m V ■ [ 53 1 dier. I think, indeed* Sir, the general caufe of libe*^y more interefted in the one thftn the other; becaufe, if. a man fhould lofe bis perfonal liberty, and b6 confln'xi» even to a dungeon, though he would be- come an object of commiferadon, yet he would be rendered incapable of extending his miferies to others : but if it is ever faid to a man, who is dependent for his pro-: perty, do as you are commamf^dk or your ejiate Jhall be taken away i ihould theSi neceffity compel him to yield, he might be not only enflaved himleif, but become ar^ adive and efifediual inflrument in impofing flavery upon others. Magna Charta, all the foreft laws from the reign of Henry the Third to the i6th of Charles the Firfti, together with the ad: for abolifhing thd tyranny of feudal tenures at the reftoration of Charles the Second, are every one of them precedents for rendering private pro- perty independent, and fccuring it jtgainft the attacks of the Crown. It is there- fore unaccountable in gentlemen, efpe* daily of the learned profeffion, to objeft the want oi precedent. v ?snt nv- ,>.^ \ I The ftatutc of James the Flrlt, which we are erideavouring to extend to the cafe of the Duke of Portland, is a precedent, that, in principle, as well as fa<5t, goes to every point of the queftion before us. It rvjt only gives future quiet to the fubjed:, b,ut ftops every law-fuit then depending. The cfift ■ expreft mmmm i 54 ] tkprefs provifions are, to fecUre fiveiy eifiatc of fixty years pofTeflion, againji all and every perfon, iavtng, or preimdlng to have, any ejiate, right or title, by force, or colour of any letters patents, or grants, uponfuggejlion of concealment, or defeSiive titles, of or for vjbicb faid manors, lands, and tenement s% no verdict, judgment, or decree, hath been bad or given. Let it now be remembered, who it was that introduced this bill, and carried it through the Houfe. Sir Edward Coke was the man. Did Sir Edward Coke then think it a violation of law, to fecure a pof- feffion of fixty years againft the claim of the Crown ? Did he call the antient property of an ancient houfe, the property of an in* former ? Did he contend for the lucre of lawyers, againft the principles of law ? No, Sir, the ftatute of King James is the brief of Sir Edward Coke's thoughts on this fub- jedt ; but he did more ; he has left a com- ment on that a(5t, in further teftimony of his opinion, and as a guide to pofterity. , If the learned Serjeant has not read, or has forgotten that inftitute, which the great mafter of his own fcience wrote, let him perufe it — I will then make him the judge between us, who a hereafter. ^i ■i [ 56 1 ]iereafter, as has been ilated by m)r honiour- aJWfi friend*. But allowing the Duke d'd give his con- fent* it ihaU not carry me to do injulHce |» thofe, whom his confent ought *not to gijSbdt. For the eilate in queilion is under fetUement to his Dutchefs in jcinture> and entailed upon his fon. The Dutchefs, in*- 4eed, is fortunately in a way to be taken CJU*e of. For an honourable gentleman -^y as authorized by Sir James Lowther, has pFopofed to make up her jointure out of 5ir Jamea Lowther's eftatc. To be fure, Sir, the kindnefs and generofity of taking aw^y St man's eilate, in order to make a jointure upon his wife, is very tranfcendent > but decency forbids me to imagine, that fuch a wife, of fuch an huiband, can take a jointure from one who is not her huf.- >ii" r/f il*. .14 'M*. But Jet me for one moment fupppfe the Duke of Portland as much bound by this confent, as man can be by any bargain whatfocvcri What then was the agree- ment ? It was as univerfally admitted, that the Duke of Portland (hould remain ex- pofed> and others be protefted.- Anagroo- ment, if broken by one party, is iifcharged a^ to the other. If therefore profecutions liuve been commenced ; if they, for wIk>^ ij^uiet the Duke of Portland engaged to lacrifice himfelf, kave been difc^uieted^, then ^ , • Sit Owrgf flavilt, f Governor Jbhnfton. 4 «, < [ 57 ] is the condition void. Profecutioifs have been commenced— he who commenced them has made the agreement void. ' I did move the rejbeal oS t\ii% claule, be* capfe I thpught it mould never have been in the bill. I thought the bill fit to pro*- tedt all or none, the claufe, if applied to the claims of the Crown, violates the prin- ciple of the quieting aft itfelf ; if applied fp the cafe of fubjedt and fubje(^ (as it does in fa€t, for the right of the Crown is vefted in Sir James Lowther) it violates that facred rule of law, which fecures the fubje^, in a pofTef^on of fixty years, againft every other iubjedt. That we arc bound by our former adt, is an argument not to be admitted ; we are as free to repeal as to ena^. In all other courts there is an appeal againft every erroneous judgment. In parliament, the appeals lie to parliament only— if therefore we have done wrong, and upon deliberation and reviiion we fhould perfift in it, we fliall ihew ourfelves in the very worft light in which human nature can appear. It is our lot to ^rr, but to perfevere in error i? our crime. ' r ' . - My learned friend *, who fits near me, in the laft day's debate on this fubje<^, quoted a comparifon of the two forts of government, as defined by an elegant writer of antiquity, the Imperium hominumy and the Imperium legum^'-^Regem hominem ejje, a ^ H : • mpetres • Mr. WcdderbuM, SolicitOt General. I -.:. -i.^.,] ■ ,.J'L\ttjJiALn. ■ Cj8] imfttres lihijusy ubt injuria opus Jit, hegem^ remfurdamy inexorabilem, I am as willing to reft my caufc on the true application of this pa^Tage, as on the quotation from Mea- fure for Meafure, in the beginning of the debate; for I cannot define the two forts of government better than by calling ont the l(m of the iand, and the other a dijpenfij^g po'wer in the Croivn. The former, then, ^ is deaf and inexorable to any claim fet up againft a pofTeffion of fixty years.. But nullum tempus cccv^rit regi. The King, in rhis own perfon, is exempt from every thing 'that is not the perfection of wifdom and goodnefs. But the Minifler, who executes the powers of the Crown, has no rule to exert this power ovvt property, but that of his own will, which may incline him to fet up one man and pull down another, as each may be adverfe or fubfervient to his purpofes. My learned friend thinks all "ground of complaint taken away, becaufe Vthofe perfons, who would have been real ^ilifFerers, are now exempted : according to Vthat idea, where there is no cruelty, there " is no tyranny. But I am fure, my learned "^^ friend's ideas are not. fo narrowed j he ^*1cnows, that not the man alone vfho feels , Ibuthc who is expofedto tyranny, is without -freedom. Tyranny is like the thunder* ^boltv which firikes the oak rather than the H willow j to refift it, we muft protect: him \who is the objedl of the tyrant's ftrokej ci the poor man is beneath it ; where there- ibrc % Ibre Ihe caufe of humanity enJs] there ilie caufe of liberty ^i-^/w/* *. .v^/»* ^^^t is high time. Sir, that I (hould ceaie to trouble you. After being fo accufed of Injuftice and violence, I thought my de* fence neceffary, though I am afraid it ha$ trefpaifed too much upon your patience^ Let me then only ilate how it fiands be- twixt me and my accufers. I have brought in a bill to refcue two hundred perfons from oppreilion. In one hundred and ninety- nine inflances they not only applaud, but are glad to fhare my merit. For extending the law to one man more, I am charged ivith rage, tyranny, defpotifm, and every •appellation that denotes injuflice. Let, how- ever, thofe who affedt to think me fo un- principled, confider how deeply they par- ticipate of my guilt; for, in refpedt of one hundred and ninety-nine perfons out of two hundred, they fland in the fame predi- cament as myfelf. But why are they ^opt at that one ? Is it from a genuine wiih to profcribe the Duke of Portland ? I acquit them of fuch a motive. But, alas! his Grace is no favourite at Court. The man- date is gone forth; and the Minifler has proclaimed that, ** if thou let this man «• efcape, thou art not Cafars friend" i « -t1*-'^-B«5*».- " The Houfe divided upon the queftion. Whether the Speaker fhould leave the chair? -'^SS ^^^® ^^^ *^» **"^ '^4 againft it» H 2 Mr. ii I i'^' l6o1 - Mr. Dyfon then moved to put off' t&c ]3ill for three months. The two following Letters contain a £\it* ,ther illuAration of this important matter. \ iC To Lord NORTH. ; My Lord, •t. ' ■ «. • , The attention of the public having lately been recalled to the Nullum Tempm BiU, it was very natural to enquire into the part that your Lordfhip took in the progrels of itj and it v^as not wonderful to find that the fame Minifter, who two years ago di^ graced his conflitutional principles by the moil inveterate oppofition to it, (hould now endeavour to rob the people of England of the flill cffeds of that noble, and, I truft, immortal Bill. But, my Lord, you muft forgive an old man, when he tells you, that the low and paltry degradations of yourfelf, to which you have been obliged to ftoop in order to carry this favourite point, are unworthy of you** private charafter, and ferioufly crimi- nal in the Minifter. Peribnally unknown to both the contending parties, I have no neceflity, nor have I much inclination, to pay them compliments : parallels are invidi- ous. One cannot however forget that the two parties are the Duke of Portland and i" •- „ L> .. .. , , . ■ -'- ,?■ • oir mm I6i] Str James Lovvthcrf botl^ of j(^ta ypmg men, both of large pbflpfnons, bolji ciepided in their pubUc conduft, equally true to their prinoiples. their connexions, andtlieif friendihlps. Of their domeftic chara€^6rs-j[ r^rfonalty know nothing ; but I confds tha^ have beard enough of their private UveS| and have feen enough of their public cimn du(^ to wiih« as I uioqld certauily a^ on the great ilage of life with die noliileDu)^^ lb rsth^r that I might pafs my privatq hours in ^i€ focietv than with Sir Jamec* Your Lordfhip is of a different bpiniqn, an4 Jou feei a pride in the patronage dF Sii; ames, that I fhall not be inclined to dif* pute with you* But whatever might have peen, your zeal to ferve his caufe, fttrdy you might have done it more honOurr ably than by following the prefling ad- vice of that illuftrious inheritor of the deepeil Tory blood in this country. Sir William Bagot, who emphatically conjured you to exert, in favour of Sir Tames, all your mintfterial influence , due or undue , fair or unfair, right or wrong ; who invoked to your affiftance every good and malignant ffirit, every power in heaven or hell: j^Si^j fie£Iere Ji n%. i ^' '^ . ;rj qatMon, nor the difgraceful humiliation of imploring afililance under his own hand^ as well as the impeachable mandates uoder the threat of more than minif^erial vengeance* if that alTiftance were withheld. It may become a Secretary of the Treafury, who is at the fame time the Attorney and the Steward of Sir J^mes Lowther, to ufe thefe arts i but coming under the hand» and from the mouth of the MiniAer himfelf* they are hateful and dangerous to the conflitution, infulting to his adherents^ and ignominious tohimfelf. But the caufe was not a common one, the parties were not indifferent : No, my Lord; they were not, it is true -, for the caufe was the very caufe, which tho' your Lordfliip was a chief inflrument in originating, every honefl EnpliHiman to this hour abhors. . It was to fupport that abominable grant of the Duke ot Portland*s eftate, for the pur- pofe of influencing an eledtion, and of in- flicting an exemplary punifhment upon that firm Nobleman for his fteady oppofition to Tory miniflers ; but above all, the party was Sir James Lowther. Under fuch pro- vocation, and 1:1 the fervice of fuch a patron, (for I mufl rather call him your patron than adherent, when it is well known that your miniftry depended upon the fuccefs of this meafure) I would allow you the due and the fair influence of your office. Sir William Bagot will forgive me if I can tvti make li i f [64l maktfrto greater facrificc. But, my Lord, j all ui^t you have done might have been for*. ;? ciyen, had not this black tranTadtion invaded > t "t^ie moil facred rights of friendihip and of u lionour.— Yes, ,my Lord, to lend your. it a^ltiance, to encourage and reward the iq treachery of one young man towards anothefp ^ ii ftrikes deeply at the root of every thing^i i which a good man holds in the dcaref^ eftfc-'t»\ mation. Can you take that adder to your-rl tofom ? can you truft him with your confi- jui dence, when you have feen him, in ^u: courfe of the fame caufe, thinking it nothing o;;. to ad a double part, but nobly triumphing. I iv; over every feeling that binds the heart tor.a.' honour and humanity ? '^ It was not glorious enough for Mr. jb*. Charles Fox barely to contradict himfelf ; ]<: > it ^yas referved for him, at the opening ofjo / his life, to prove how eafy and irreproach-: ;i able it is under your Lord(hip's adminiftra- lj ; tion to betray his firft, his neareft, and his v o deareft friend; to facrifice the interefts and I the honour of a young Nobleman, the :cq companion and the confident of his pri- ', vate hours, at the difhonourable fhrineof .^a- minifterial infliience. But he too heard the ^ tq leflbns of Sir William Bagot; and I will do.t..,,j Mr. Charles Fox the juftice to allow, that i,^.? he is a ready fcholar.^. =^l' %v /yfi? My Lord, I mention this, not fo much -;u from regret at the baneful tronfequence it^i,,., mufl carry to the public charader of the ^,_r A..:... ' Earl , Earl of Carliile, \yho^ at his firfl oiitfet in the world, has thought it befl to efpoufe and encourage & meamre, in order to defert it afterwards with a more fignal tc^at, as from the pain it gives me to fee all f^nfe of private and yihlic faith and honour fit Co ■ lightly on young men of birth and education. ' I n^ention it too, my Lord, ^o you as being partfceps criminu\ A minifter, or a man of nonour, would have difdained to involve himfelf in fo perfidious a compromife. A minifler, or a man of feeling or of. virtue, wotjld fiever wifh to nurfe the tender fenfi- bility of infant minds to deeds of ignominy and reproach. J Thus might I have taken the liberty of addreffin<5 to your Lotdfhip, as being the capital a<^or in this bad fcene ; and I hope you wil' not deny^to thofe, who wifh well tp a v^nCj'iifhed party, the poor comfort of flating to the public thofe miferable methods by which you became the vidtor. p if your caufe was good, and your wea- pons fair, the judgment of the world will go, along with you. But if a queflion^ which ought peculiarly to have continued a private queflion, is by any influence {due or undue) made more miniflerial than any poli- tical contefl, and has been carried only by the weight of the Miniftry, and not the afTenting confciences of individuals, the con- jdudl of your Lordfhip as Minifler, exerting hat influence, mufl be amenable to public :"r*if..- MS} revliion. The aueftion being now no lon- ger under the deiiberation of parliament, my next letter (hall exanmine the merits of the Bill itjTelf, and fefbte fome of the ntirn- berlefe faJfehoOdS' fb induftrjoufly pi'opa-' gated, fliameful in themfelvts, but mt)re KT^ndalous from iifie time, the manner, and- the motive of their publication. '^ A To Lord NORTH. •■' i* ^*')i*'.m '■ V .-'■.. . ^ " », ■■ jfc - .' ''»**■ Mr LoRTJ^b:l^'Tf£) j^if^ i>,ito'* ii^r^/i- In my laft letter addrefled to ycmfl^r^^ ' ^p, I took the liberty of obferving upon the ftrong methods you had ufed to defeat the late Nullum T'empus Bi\h The fubjed of this Ihall be, to ibte what the merits of that r^iil were, upon the fucceft of which your cxiftence as- a Minifter was mfcde to depend. ■■-::■>.,. i,-i': ^v'-.: ' ■■.,,y^'--- ;■..•• The odious gralit d^'the Duke 6f l*&rt- land's eftate, in thd county of Cumberland, having railed a general alarm in the minds of men, Sir George Savile, ever awake to the conftitutional calls of his country, mo- ved in the next fcflion, for leave to bring in that famous bill, emphatically called //6<* Br// of^iet ; by which the property of the fubjed: was to be fecured againft all claims of the Crown, after lixty years uninterrupted P'oiTeflion. It was natural that your Lordihip, who could affix the Exchequer feal to that fhamc- ful grant, who could, without compunc- tion. ima mnwrn^ > S !■ c iS d o [67] tiOii, exult in the iniqtiitoti's aidf antiage yXu thereby gave to Sir James LoWther in tl|e approaching cleftion, and who could, for - fuch a purpofc, rob a man in colJ blood of the poiTeffions of his anceflors, fhould exett the fame unconftitutional powers to fupport a prerogative, of which your Lordfhips arid the Miniftcr of that day, had cxpofed the abfurdi.ty and the tyranny, by the grant in queftion. The Bill was loft. But the perfeverance 'of a good man in a good caufe is not eafily fhaken. Sir George Savile revived the Bill in the fucceeding feffion j and its fuccefs at Hik, notwithftanding all the efforts of your Lordfhip, and the reft of the Adminiftra- tion, gave a fignal proof of the conftitutional fpirit which will break forth, vvhen the ftruggle begins between liberty and prero- gative. — In the progrefs of the Bill, a claufe was propofed by the friends of Sir James Lowther, which left to the grantees of the Crown twelve months from the ift of January, 1769, for the profecution of their fuits. The friends of- the Bill, anxious to fecure to the fubje,,\ ^« ^^*^v, ..AM M- »-'^ietri t '-^^'"V ■ >^ri. ^4. I do not mean to enter into abilrufe h^v arguments upon the fubjedt. In truth, it is » ) . . t « / ' 1 [70 ] ' is a fubjedt that the plain commcn fenfe of every moderate capacity, the natural and firft feelings of every generous and honefl heart, mull inftantly decide upon. A law is made for the general quiet of the fubjeSi. A claufe improvidently admitted (upon a principle of delicacy which fubfequent events have not juftified) eounteradls the intention of that law, by perverting its bene- ficial purpofes, and making it operate as a partial infti^ument of oppreffion, inftead of fecuring to the whole kingdom the bleffings it was intended to diffufe. Is not this a ftate of the fad: ? Was not the whole king- dom, Cumberland excepted, in the full en- joyment of that fecurity which the Bill of 1 * ■■4 iteriiyw ■f >' ' ''^"•'wmme^^^mmmmmmmm Jhallht attainted by name: he muftfall thei. iingle vidiin, and be made the only facrifice for the peace and quiet of this country. Let us then hear no more of the objedioa of parliamentary interpofition^ pendent g ltte» hf an ex 'poji fii6lo law. Your Lordfhipv^, heard in the proper place, and could not refute, the many precedents of laws made ' ex J^oji faBo upon urgent occafibhs. Your Lordfhip could not then, nor will now deny, that when Parliaments have interfered to i , protcdt the fiibjedt againfl oppreffive grants, they have always done it, they muft ever do it, pendente lite. Till the grant is put in fuit, no grievance can be faid to exift. The profecutions under it are jthe very grievance which Parliament interpofes to redrefs. Such was the view, and fuch was the efFedl of the bill for the general quiet of the fubjedl^.^. in King James's time, and which Sir George Savile^s was intended to purfue.— But, my Lord, you cannot avail yourfelf of the argument: The conceflion of Sir James ., Lowther has alone defeated it. »' A grant is pafled, afFeding in its eonfe-A.^' queneesthe rights of two hundred and twenty- ^^J five perfons. By a law that fhould be made;* ^^. ex poJlfaSio, pendente lite, you would deem it honourable and juft to reftrain Sir James ^,| Lowther from proceeding in two hundred '^ and twenty-four of thefe fuits* It remains ' ^ for your Lord (hip to fatisfy the world that;^ it is honourable and juft that h^ fliould pro- •;^ , s' D i ceed tmmm *. \^ t 73 1 coed in the two hurx4re / \-\ ..i w 1^^' I. ■♦ n / m