« הקודםהמשך »
I. Lord Chief |ustice Pratss speech on deli
vering Mr JVUkti from the Totoir. II A remarkable re^i-rcr at Ktym. Ltkejltr/b.
III. The story of FooTJt"i Cummiffiry.
IV. New law for the p efervation of nlh,
V. Admiral Burnaby't letter respecting the logwood cutters.
VI. Sfawijb Governor's letter on the fame.
VII. Major Mut'o't account of the late battle in the End India.
VIII. His Majesty's letter to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
IX. Life of Militrt concluded.
X. New demonstration of»n important mathematical principle.
XL Remirlc.blc letter of the Great Qoeen of Sibtutn, on toleration
XII. New and curious particulars of the field and mule Cricket
XIII. Hradsof t!»c Act lo relieve Insolvents.
XIV. Sndiman'i ductrine of faith farther confuted.
XV. New account of llrrculartuti, its ruios and discovery.
XVI. Accounc of the MSS found there.
XVII. Account of some curious antient mlnuscrlptsjust printed.
XVIII. An improvement of the Wheel Ba-
XX. Abstract of the Regency Act.
XXI. Of an Act to grant a duty on Coali ex-
XXII. Alman't defence by in eminent hand.
XXIV. Proposals tor improving the Arts,&fc.
XXV. I'or. r r> Y. A journal of a tour thro' /f'dAarrr,—Prologue on opening Rlcbmcrd playhouse, by Mr Carrick.— Stanzas on Miss P*rrl, ■&.
XXVI. lift rf Bxh, n/iti Rmarli, irraj. New Dialogues of the Dead j the Eloquence of the Pulpit j on the longing of pregnant women, &c.
XXVII MifaHantrut Arlichifromtbi Pafttr. —Controversy between the Governor, and Assembly ot jsaftta'-fu j proclamation relating to the Ijle tj Man, &'c.
XXVIII. Hist. Cbren-.ci. Dreadful earthquake in the 1'yrtman mountains; account of a curious clock j sires at R.'r.trIn':-, and Ifoffing, &c.
XXIX. List of births, deaths, marriages, "r. With a Representation of the Improvements in the Wheel Barometer; and
a Perspeitive View of the Chapel at Market Harl/orcugh, neatly engraved on Capper Plates.
LORD Chief Justice Prats % argu-
A circumstantial account of Foote't
Letter from York on the consequences
■*-The Governor of 'jucatan's letter to
His Msierty'k Letter to the Geneial
—His epitaph 159
A new demonstration of the principle
—His tenet, that Saving faith is ivbolhp
—Confutation of his notion, that For-
—— of an Act for granting duties
Account of the parochial chapel at
—Act relating to broad-wheel wag-
—Additional Stanzas on Miss Pank —
UJI of new Bcoks, ivhb Remarks.
Letters on the eloquence of the pulpit
—These letters are an example of false
—Marigalanle split by the same—Dis-
Hi/lorical Chronicle. Dreadful earth-
—-Freedom of the City presented to
EltRAT. In mi lats, in the Ruin to hi ob-
Gentleman s Magazine';
For JUNE 1765.
Lard Chits Justice Prattv Argument «n delrvering Mr Wilkes from the Tower.
Blq; was committed to the Toiver by Ihe Lords £i>remont and Halifax, the two prin ipal Secretaries of State, tor refusing to enter into a recognizance to appear before the Court of King's Bench j and being t»rotjght into the Court of Common Pleas, by the Deputy Lieutenant of the Ttwcr, upon an Habeas Corpus to him .directed, the return was read, which Mr Serjeant Glytt (the defendant's council) prayed might be filed j was ordered accordingly; and then he took two exceptions, and submitted further, that the defendant being a member of parliament was entitled to his privilege, and ought for that reason alone to be discharged.
After solemn argument at the bar, and taken for consideration, the Chief Justice delivered the resolution ot the Court (which was unanimous) to the following effect:
Prat.', Cii. Just.] "When this return was read, my brother Clyn, council for MrWiHts, made two objections to it; and tho' thole should fail him, he insisted that Mr Wilkti, from the nature of his particular station and character, as being a member of the House of Commons, was entitled to privilege of parliament, and ought for 'that reason alone, to be discharged from his present imprisonment. To begin with the objections. The first was, That it did not appear by the warrant that Mr Wrftes stood charged upon any evidence with being the author of the libel described in the warrant. The true question arising upon thi* objection it. whether Hat
ing the evidence be essential to the validity of the warrant 1 and upon this point we are all clearly of opinion, that the warrant is good; we consider the Secretaries in the light of A common Justices of ihe Peace; they, no mere tlian any common justices, can issue warrants merelv ex cjj-.cio, er for offences within their private knowledge, being, in those cases, rather witnesses than magistrates; bur tho' this be admitted, it will not affect the present question. The present* ques
B tion is, Whether the stating the evidence be essential to the validity of the warrant j no authority has been cited by the defendant's council t.> shew it. Radyard'"* casein Ventr.ix. was indeed referred to; but upon examing that cafe, it does not apply.
p The commitment there was a commitment in execution, and therefore it was necessary in that cafe to state the evidence. It was urged farther, that the ground of the justices jurisdiction rested in the charge by witnesses; and if it were otherwise, every man's liberty would be in the power
D of the justices. The objection deserves an answer; and if it had not been determined before, I Ihoulii have thought it very weighty and alarming; but it has been sensed. Before I mention the case wheie it was solemnly adjudged, I would take notice, that neither Lord Coke, Lord Hale,
E nor Mt Hawkins, all of them vciy able writers upon the Crown Law, have confident! such a chatge as is contended for to be essential. In the trial of the seven Bishops, tho' they were committed upon a similar warrant, their council did not take the fame objection. In referring to that
F great case, I am not to be understood as intending to give any weight to the determination of the judges who fat upon the Bench in that cause; I rely only on the silence of the defendant'! council, who were all of them
lovers of liberty, and the greatest law- stated, we could have no other mea* yers of that age. _ We have seen pre- sure of bailing than this; besides, cedents of commitments returned up- there has been no cafe (hewn to waron Hubtas Corpm't into the King's rant this reason, and it was not urged Bench, where the warrants have been in the cafe of the seven Bishops; but all in the. fame form, and no such ot>. then it remains to be considered, whejection taken ; but the very point was thet'Mr Wtlkts ought not to he disdetermined in the caie of Sir W. . charged j the King's Council have Wyndham, 3 Vin. abr. 130, 555. Stra. thought fit to admit that he was a ». who was committees tor high trea- member o( the House of Commons, son generally, and not on the charge and we ate bound to take notice of it. of any body, stated in the commit- In the case of the seven Bishops, the ment. z. Hawk. PI. Cr. no, chap. 17. Court took notice of their privilege sect. 17, refers to the cafe of Sir W. from their description in the warrant} Wyndham, and says, it is safer to set _ in the present case there is no suit dVforth that the parly is charged upon pending > here no writ of privilege oath, but that is not necessary. Thus can thereforeissue; noplea of privilege stands this point on authorities. The can be received; it rests, and must other objection was, that the libel it- rest on the admission of the council of self ought to have been set forth in the crown ; it is fairly before us upon baeverba; but upon that point too, that admission, and we are bound to ■we are all of opinion that the warrant de;er:nine it. In Lord Cuke, 4. In/I. 5s good. It was urged, that the spe- 14.15. after shewing that privilege of ciric cause of the detention ought to c parliament is conufable at common be stated with certainty; and there- law, he s.iys, that privilege generally fore, isa man be committed for fe- holds, unless it be in three cafes, viz. lony, the warrant mult briefly men- treason, felony, and the peace. We tionthe species of felony. Now the have not been able to have recourse species of every offence mast be col- to the Original record, but in Cotton'* Iccted by the magistrate out of the Abridgment, sol. 596. you will find my evidence, but he is not bound to set Lord Coke was right. Thecase I would forth the evidence, he is answerable D refer to is that of IVilliam Lake, 9th of only for the inference he deduces from Hen. VI. who being a member's serit. As to a libel, the evidence is vant, and taken in execution for debt, partly internal and partly external. was delivered by the privilege of the The paper itself may not be compleat House of Commons; the book adds) and conclusive evidence, for it may (and for that purpose I refer to it) be dark and um'ntelligble without the wherein is to be noted, that there is n6 inum.ks, which are the external evi- cattle to arrest any such man; but for dence. There is no other name but E treason, felony, and the pease. In the that of libel applicable to the offence trial of the seven Bishops, the word*, of libelling, and we know the offence "the Peace," are explained to mean specifically by that name, as we know "Surety of the Peace." In the case the offences of horse stealing, forgery, of The King against Sir Thomas Cul&c. by the names which the law has pepper, reported in 12 Mod. 108. Ld annexed to them. Bit two reasons Holt fays, that whereas it is said in our were urged wly the libel oucht to be books, that privilege of Parliament Hated. First, it was said. That with- Fwas noT allowable inTieason, Felony, out it the court cannot judge whether or Breachof the Peace, it must be init be a libel or not. The answer is, tended where surety of the peace is That the court ought not in this pro- desired, tliEt it (hall not piotect a man ceeding to give any judgment of that against a supplieavit, but it holds a* sort.as it would tend to prejudication, well in cafe of indictment, informato take away the office of a jury, and tion for breach of the Peace, as in cafe to creite an improper influence. The 'of actions. In the cafe of Lord Tanother reason was, Thar unless the li- G kerville, a few-years ago, which, tho* bel be stated, the Court cannot be not reported in any law book, is upon able to determine on the quanity of record in Parliament,it was held, that bail. I ansver. That regard to the bribery, being only a conflru3i<ve, and nature of the offence, is the only ne- not an aRitat breach of the peace, cessary rule in bailing: As to the of- should not oust him of his privilege 5 fence'of a libel, it i« an high misde- thrre is no diffuence? between the two rnsanor, and gnr.d bail (hivingregard ^ H uses of Parliament in respect of ■■o the qtnlirv ot the cff-.n.ler) should Privilege. The statutes of i» and 13
1 . ^ .