OMNIPOTENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

353

matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal, this being the place where that absolute despotic power which must in all governments reside somewhere, is entrusted by the constitution of these kingdoms. All mischiefs and grievances, operations and remedies, that transcend the ordinary course of the laws, are within the reach of this extraordinary tribunal. It can regulate or new model the succession to the Crown, as was done in the reigns of Henry VIII. and William III. It can alter the established religion of the land, as was done in a variety of instances in the reigns of King Henry VIII. and his three children. It can change and create afresh even the Constitution of the Kingdom, and of Parliaments themselves, as was done by the Act of Union and the several statutes for Triennial and Septennial Elections. It can, in short, do everything that is not naturally impossible, and, therefore, some have not scrupled to call its power, by a figure rather too bold, the Omnipotence of Parliament.

66

True it is, that what the Parliament doth no authority upon earth can undo, so that it is a matter most essential to the liberties of this kingdom that such members be delegated to this important trust as are most eminent for their probity, their fortitude, and their knowledge. For it was a known apothegm of the great Lord Treasurer Burleigh, that 'England could never be ruined but by a Parliament;' and Sir Matthew Hale observes, this being the highest and greatest Court, over which none other can have jurisdiction in the kingdom, if by any means a misgovernment should any way fall upon it, the subjects of this kingdom are left without all manner of remedy.' To the same purpose the present President Montesquieu, though I trust too hastily, presages, that, as Rome, Sparta, and Carthage had lost their liberty and perished, so the Constitution of England will in time lose its liberty; it will perish whenever the legislative power shall become more corrupt than the executive.

"It must be owned that Mr. Locke and other theoretical writers have held that there remains still inherent in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislature when they find the legislature act contrary to the trust reposed in them; for when such trust is abused it is thereby

A A

forfeited, and devolves to those who gave it. But, however just this conclusion may be in theory, we cannot practically adopt it, nor take any legal steps for carrying it into execution, under any dispensation of Government at present actually existing. For this devolution of power to the people at large includes a dissolution of the whole form of Government established by that people, reduces all the members to their original state of equality, and, by annihilating the sovereign power, repeals all positive laws whatsoever before enacted. No human laws will therefore suppose a case which at once must destroy all law, and compel men to build afresh upon a new foundation, nor will they make provision for so desperate an event as must render all legal provision ineffectual. So long, therefore, as the English Constitution lasts, we may venture to affirm that the power of Parliament is absolute, and without control.

"The whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its original from this one maxim, that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere. Hence, for instance, the Lords will not suffer the Commons to interfere in settling the election of a Peer of Scotland, the Commons will not allow the Lords to judge of the election of a Burgess, nor will either House permit the subordinate Courts of Law to examine the merits of either case. But the maxims upon which they proceed, together with the method of proceeding, rest entirely in the breast of the Parliament itself, and are not defined and ascertained by any particular stated laws.

"The privileges of Parliament are likewise very large and very indefinite. And, therefore, when in 31 Henry VI. the House of Lords propounded a question to the Judges concerning them, Sir John Fortescue, in the name of his brethren, declared that they ought not to make answer to that question, for it hath not been used aforetime that the Justices should in any wise determine the privileges of the High Court of Parliament. For it is so high and mighty in its nature that it may make law, and that which is law it may make no law, and the determination and knowledge of that privilege belongs to the Lords of Parliament, and not to the Justices.'

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE.

355

"Privilege of Parliament was principally established in order to protect its members, not only from being molested by their fellow subjects, but also more especially from being oppressed by the power of the Crown.

"It is declared by the statute 1 Wm. and Mary, c. 2, as one of the liberties of the people, that the freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament; and this freedom of speech is particularly demanded of the King in person by the Speaker of the House of Commons at the opening of every new Parliament. So likewise are the other privileges of persons, servants, lands, and goods, which are immunities as ancient as Edward the Confessor, in whose laws we find this precept'ad synodos venientibus fine summoniti sint fine per se quid agendum habuerint sit summa pax,' and so too in the old Gothic Constitutions-' extenditur hæc pax et securitas ad quatordecim dies convocato regni senatu.' This included formerly not only privilege from illegal violence, but also from legal arrests and seizures by process from the Courts of Law; and still to assault by violence a member of either House, or his menial servants, is a high contempt of Parliament, and there punished with the utmost severity."Blackstone, B. i. c. 2, Rights of Persons. See also the Bill of Rights.-Editor.

No. 6. COMMON LAW PROCEDURE.- (Page 104.)

The forms of Common Law procedure which have been simplified by recent legislation, have further been improved in England by the erection of County Courts. The various bills introduced by the last Parliament and since the meeting of the present session in both Houses will be attended with great advantages not only in the Common Law Courts but also in the Court of Chancery, in both of which much time and expense will hereafter be saved.-Editor.

No. 7. p. 116-See No. 6 and p. 114 of the Text.

No. 8. LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.-(Page 130.)

Blackstone observes, "by the law of the twelve tables at Rome, libels which affected the reputation of another were made a capital offence; but before the reign of Augustus the punishment became corporal only. Under the Emperor Valentinian, it was again made capital, not only to write but to publish, or even to omit destroying them. Our law in this and many other respects corresponds rather with the middle age of Roman jurisprudence, when liberty, learning, and humanity were in their full vigour, than with the cruel edicts that were established in the dark and tyrannical ages of the ancient decemviri or the later Emperors.

"In this and the other instances which we have lately considered, where blasphemous, immoral, treasonable, schismatical seditions, or scandalous libels, are punished by the English law, some with a greater, others with a less degree of severity, the liberty of the press, properly understood, is by no means infringed or violated. The liberty of the press is, indeed, essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public. To forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he published what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion, and government. But to punish, as the law does at present, any dangerous or offensive writings which when published shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishments. Neither

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN REPUBLIC.

357

is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry: liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating or making public of bad sentiments destructive of the ends of society is the crime which society corrects. 'A man,' says a fine writer on this subject, may be allowed to keep poisons in his closet, but not publicly to vend them as cordials;' and to this we may add, that the only plausible argument heretofore used for restraining the just freedom of the press, that it was necessary to prevent the daily abuse of it, will entirely lose its force when it is shown by a reasonable exertion of the laws that the press cannot be abused to any bad purpose without incurring a suitable punishment, whereas it never can be used to any good one when under the control of an Inspector. So true Iwill it be found that to censure the licentiousness is to maintain the liberty of the press.”—Blackstone, B. iv. c. 2.

We have remarked in the text that the constitutional freedom of the press and of public speech only exists in the countries inhabited by those who speak and legislate in the English language. In the Netherlands, Belgium, and Piedmont, freedom of speaking and writing is allowed to a greater extent than in any of the other kingdoms of Europe, unless it be Norway, where the Storthing are allowed freedom of debate. But in Norway the legislature only meets three months once in three years, and although a man may publish what he pleases, he does so under greater responsibilities than in England. In Switzerland the press is constitutionally free; but since 1848 it has been subjected to political restrictions.-Editor.

No. 9. THE ANGLO-AMERICAN REPUBLIC.-(Page 192.)

It is greatly to be regretted that when the Crown of England acknowledged the independence of the United States of America, it did not at the same time place the commerce and intercourse of every port and place in the United Kingdom, and in the United States of America, on much the same footing of freedom as if both countries had still continued under one government. This General Washington and his Cabinet were inclined to do, and Mr. Pitt was in favour