54

plaintiff by the common law, and consequently he may maintain an action for the obstruction of it." He concluded that the plaintiff ought to have judgment; but, the majority of the judges having given a dif ferent opinion, judgment was given for the defendants. On the 14th of January, 1703, this judgment was reversed in the house of lords, and judgment given for the plaintiff by fifty lords against sixteen. Holt supported his opinion in the house of peers, and observed, “That whenever such a cause should come before him, he should direct the jury to make the returning officer pay well for depriving an elector of his vote. It is," said he, "denying him his English right; and if this action is not allowed, a man may for ever be deprived of it. It is a great privilege to choose such persons as are to bind a man's life and property by the laws they make." But the affair of the electors and returning officers of Aylesbury did not end here. In December 1704, John Paty, and four others, who had also commenced and prosecuted actions at common law against the constables of Aylesbury, were committed to Newgate by a warrant from the speaker of the house of commons, for breach of the privileges of that house. The counsel for the Aylesbury electors having moved for an habeas corpus, they were brought up to the court of king's bench; and when the judges came to deliver their opinions, three of them were for remanding the prisoners to Newgate; but Holt gave his opinion in the clearest and strongest manner that the prisoners ought to be discharged. The following are the most remarkable passages in the chief-justice's speech on this occasion:

"I am very sorry I am forced to differ from my brethren in opinion; but whatever inconveniences or dangers I may incur, I think myself obliged to act according to my conscience. I must declare it is my opinion, that the prisoners ought to be discharged, because it is an illegal commitment; and Magna Charta says, Quid nemo imprisonetur nisi per legem terræ.' And if prosecuting a legal action in a legal method can justify a commitment, then no Englishman's freedom is safe. ""Tis by the law of the land that the house of commons have their being, therefore it can never be in the power of the commons to control the law. For my part, I know no privilege of parliament that can be valid, and at the same time contradict the law of England.

"It is by Magna Charta that the liberty of an Englishman is preserved; and without destroying the constitution of England, the liberty of an Englishman cannot be taken from him, but for a legal cause.

"It is pretended, that acting legally is a breach of the privileges of the house of commons, and that we are not judges of it. This is impossible; when the law, by which the house of commons sit, justifies the prosecuting this action; and 'tis not in the power of the house of commons to supersede that power which gives them their essence.

"If we can discharge a person committed per mandatum regis, a fortiori, I think we can discharge from a commitment of the house of

commons.

"The house of commons, 'tis true, have a power over their own members, and may commit them; but to say that their commitment of any other person, though never so unlawful, is unexaminable, will tend to make Englishmen slaves, which, while I sit here, I can never consent to."

The chief-justice then observing that several members of the house

of commons were in court, added as follows:-" I hope never to be overawed from doing justice; and I think we sit here to administer equal justice to all her majesty's subjects; and, therefore, it is my judgment that these prisoners ought to be discharged." However, as the three other judges had given a contrary opinion, the prisoners were remanded to Newgate. Upon this, John Paty, and another of the prisoners, moved for a writ of error, to bring the matter before the house of lords. This writ was only to be obtained by petitioning the queen that the judgment of the court of queen's bench might be brought before her majesty in parliament. The commons were alarmed at these petitions, and carried up an address to the queen, desiring her majesty not to grant the writ of error. The opinion of the judges was taken upon this; and ten of them, of whom Holt was one, agreed, that, in civil matters, a petition for a writ of error was a petition of right, and not of grace, and that for the queen not to grant a petition of right would be plainly a breach of law, and of the coronation oath. The house of peers too, having received a petition from the prisoners for relief, passed several votes, among which were the following:

"That neither house of parliament has any power, by any vote or declaration, to create to themselves any new privilege that is not warranted by the known laws and customs of parliament.

"That every freeman of England, who apprehends himself to be injured, has a right to seek redress by action at law; and that the commencing and prosecuting an action at common law against any person, not entitled to privilege of parliament, is legal.

"That the house of commons, in committing to Newgate John Paty, &c. for commencing and prosecuting an action at the common law, against the constables of Aylesbury, for not allowing their votes in election of members to serve in parliament, upon pretence that their so doing was contrary to a declaration, a contempt of the jurisdiction, and a breach of the privilege of that house, have assumed to themselves alone a legislative authority, by pretending to attribute the force of a law to their declaration; have claimed a jurisdiction not warranted by the constitution, and have assumed a new privilege to which they can have no title by the laws and customs of parliament; and have thereby, as far as in them lies, subjected the rights of Englishmen, and the freedom of their persons, to the arbitrary votes of the house of commons."

This affair at length occasioned so violent a contest between the two houses, that Queen Anne could find no method of putting an end to the dispute but by dissolving the parliament, which was accordingly done on the 5th of April, 1705.

The following anecdote is related of this excellent judge:-A serious riot having occurred in Holborn, in consequence of the discovery of a scheme for kidnapping and carrying off young people of both sexes to the plantations,-a party of the guards was sent for; but the commanding officer used the precaution to acquaint the chief-justice with what had taken place, and to request that he would countenance the interference of the military by sending some constables along with them. The officer having delivered his message, the chief-justice said to him, "Suppose the populace should not disperse at your appearance, what are you to do then?" "In that case," replied the officer, "we have orders to fire upon them." "Have you, Sir?" replied Holt.

"Then

take notice of what I say. If there be one person killed, and you are tried before me, I will take care that you, and every soldier of your party, shall be hanged. Go back to those who sent you, and acquaint them that no officer of mine shall attend soldiers; and let them know, at the same time, that the laws of this kingdom are not to be executed by the sword. These matters belong to the civil power, and your soldiers have nothing to do with them." The chief-justice then proceeded himself to the scene of riot, accompanied by a few constables, with whom he succeeded in dispersing the mob.-Sir John died in 1709

Sir Robert Atkyns.

BORN A. D. 1621.-DIED A. D. 1709.

SIR ROBERT ATKYNS, lord-chief-baron of the exchequer, was descended from an ancient and opulent family in Gloucestershire; and it has been remarked as a singular circumstance, that for more than three hundred years consecutively, some member of this family always presided in one of the superior courts of law. His father, Sir Edward Atkyns, was a judge of the court of common pleas during the commonwealth, and shared with Hale, Rolle, Wyndham, and other judges, the merit of the various improvements in the administration of the law which took place at that period. Immediately after the restoration, Sir Edward Atkyns was named as one of the judges in the special commission for the trial of the regicides, and appointed a baron of the exchequer, in which latter office he continued till his death, which took place in 1669, at the age of eighty-two. Sir Robert Atkyns was born in 1621, and educated at Baliol-college, Oxford.

In 1661 he was made a knight of the bath, at the coronation of Charles II., and in 1672 was appointed a judge in the court of common pleas. In 1680 he retired from public life. But in July, 1683, on the imprisonment of Lord Russell, Sir Robert being applied to for his advice, gave it in a manner equally honourable to his courage and learning. "No fear of danger," he observes, "shall hinder me from performing the duty we owe one to another, to counsel those who need our advice how to make their just defence when they are called in question for their lives." He then goes on with a luminous exposition of the law of treason, in the course of which he takes occasion to declare, that "there is, nor ought to be, no such thing as constructive treason."

In 1684, on the exhibition of an information against Sir William Williams, speaker of the house of commons, "for appointing a certain seditious and infamous libel, entitled, ‘The information of Thomas Dangerfield,' to be printed and published," the defender pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, and Sir Robert, in support of the defender's plea, undertook to prove "that these being matters transacted in parliament, and by the parliament, the court of king's bench ought not to take cognizance of them, nor had any jurisdiction to judge or determine them." Sir Robert Atkyns was returned to the only parliament called by James II., as representative of the county of Gloucester, but he does not appear to have taken at that time any active part in the debates. In the

reign of James II. he composed another legal argument, the subject of which was the king's power to dispense with penal statutes, and which was suggested by the well-known case of Sir Edward Hales. In this treatise he considers at large the doctrine of the king's dispensing power. It is clearly and candidly written, and the truth of the reasoning against the royal prerogative contended for by the judges in Hale's case will hardly be denied at the present day.

Sir Robert zealously promoted the revolution, and was made lordchief-baron of the exchequer in May, 1689. In October following he succeeded the marquess of Halifax as speaker in the house of lords, and sat as speaker till the great seal was given to Sir John Somers in 1693. In the month of October of this last year, when the lord-mayorelect was sworn in before him, Sir Robert made a singular speech, in which, after drawing a terrible picture of the designs of the French monarch, he hints his shrewd suspicions that "perhaps he (Louis) does take upon him to know, by the help of some confederacy with him that is prince of the power of the air, that the wind shall not serve in such or such a corner until such a time. He knoweth when our royal navy is to be divided, and when it is united. And shall I guess how he comes to have such intelligence? That were well worth the hearing," continues his lordship-and we can fancy the worshipful mayor and aldermen pricking up their ears to hear the chief-baron tell the curious tale"I would but guess at it," his lordship goes on to say, "and I would in my guesses forbear saying any thing that is dishonourable to any among ourselves." He then edifies the worthy citizens with his views of the nature and employments of evil spirits, and draws this most potent conclusion, that "wicked spirits hovering in the air" report to Louis from time to time what the English fleets and armies are doing!

The best apology that we can make for this extraordinary exhibition, is to remind the reader that Sir Robert was at this time beyond his seventieth year. He retired from the bench in June, 1695, but lived to the age of eighty-eight. His writings have been published in one volume, octavo, under the title of Parliamentary and Political Tracts.' His son, Sir Robert Atkyns has obtained some celebrity as an antiquarian writer.

William Dampier.

BORN A. D. 1652.-DIED a. D. 1712.

THIS celebrated navigator was born in 1652. He was descended from a good family in Somersetshire, but losing his father when very young, and being of an errant disposition, he was bound by his guardians apprentice to the master of a trading vessel belonging to Weymouth.

After seeing a variety of service, and being wounded in the war with the Dutch, he sailed for Campeachy with a Captain Hudsel, on a mercantile speculation. The success of this voyage encouraged him to take a second trip, during which he conceived the idea of exploring the Musquito shore in company with a Mr Hobby. They had proceeded no farther on their voyage than the west end of Jamaica, when all the

men resolved to go on a buccaneering expedition to the Spanish main, and Dampier himself was also prevailed on to accompany them. After an attack on Porto-Bello, they set forth on the 5th of April, 1680, across the isthmus of Darien, and when they reached the South seas, embarked in such canoes and vessels as the Indians furnished them with. By the 23d of April they reached Panama, and, after a fruitless attack on Puebla Nova-in which assault they lost Captain Sawkins, who till then acted as their commander-they steered their course to the southward for Peru. They continued in the South seas, variously occupied in cruising, but with indifferent success, against the enemy, and quarrelling amongst themselves, till the month of April, 1681. A separation then took place between the two contending parties; the most numerous body continued with a Captain Sharp. Dampier, with the remainder, amounting to about fifty persons, embarked to seek their fortunes in other quarters, furnished only with a large boat, or launch, and one or two canoes.

After escaping a multitude of dangers from the Spanish guarda-costas, Dampier and his people agreed to run on shore, and return back over the isthmus to the gulf of Mexico. They began their march on the 1st of May, 1681, and, after a tedious and dangerous journey of twentythree days, got on board a buccaneer lying near the mouth of the river Conception, commanded by Captain Tristram, a Frenchman. This vessel, with several others manned with crews of the same profession, continued cruising with moderate success till the month of July, 1682, when they put into Virginia. A new band of adventurers was formed here in the following year, consisting of several of those who came from the South seas with Dampier, and some newly entered men, making altogether a crew of seventy persons. Their vessel, which was called the Cygnet, was well-equipped for the intended service, mounting eighteen guns, and well-stored with every thing necessary for a cruise in the South seas, whither it was determined to proceed. They sailed from Virginia on their intended voyage on the 23d of April, 1683,-passed through the straits of Le Maire, and round Terra del Fuego,-and arrived at the island of Juan Fernandez, March 22d, 1684. Having refreshed their people, they sailed from Juan Fernandez, after a stay of sixteen days, and cruised in the South seas with very good success, being afterwards joined by several adventurers in the same line. They made some valuable prizes, but were disappointed in the object of their principal hope and pursuit, the capture of the Spanish fleet bound from Lima to Panama. They were, however, by turns unfortunate and successful in a variety of petty enterprises which they undertook; the most memorable of these was the surprise of the city of Leon, which they sacked and burned. They continued afterwards to cruise on the coast of Mexico till the 31st of March, 1686, when, having parted company with all their former companions, and being now reduced to the number of one hundred and fifty persons on board one ship and a tender, Dampier and his party took their departure from Cape Corrientes, on the coast of California, for the East Indies.

They made the island of Guam on the 20th of May, and on the 2d of June sailed from Guam for Mindanoa, one of the Philippine islands, which they reached on the 22d of the same month. They continued at this place till the middle of January, 1687, when they left the river