all such abuses has been anxiously, and would be effectually discountenanced by every class of protestant dissenters-and that it must be injurious, because it will introduce forms unprecedented, inconvenient, or impracticable-will render itinerant preachers, students of divinity, ministers on probation, and many persons to whose ardent piety and disinterested labours multitudes are indebted for religious instruction, liable to serve all civil offices-and will expose all ministers, or the witnesses to their certificates, to be harrassed by repeated attendances at different sessions, and to capricious examinations, and unlimited expence because by limiting the right of persons to become dissenting ministers, it will impose new restrictions on toleration-and because it will create a precedent for future attempts at even more dangerous or fatal experiments against religious liberty.

VII. That although most reluctant to interference with political affairs, they cannot but regard the present attempt with peculiar sensations of alarm, and that veneration for their ancestors, regard to their posterity, respect for rights which they can never abandon, and the sacred obligations which they feel, will therefore compel them to disregard all doctrinal and ritual distinctions, and to unite by every legitimate effort, to prevent the pending bill from passing into a law, and to oppose the smallest diminution of the privileges secured by the act of toleration.

VIII. That from the noble declaration of the liberal-minded and illustrious Prince Regent of the empire, that he will deliver up the constitution unaltered to his royal father, this meeting are encouraged to indulge confident hope that a measure so innovating and injurious. can never obtain the sanction of his high authority, and they also rejoice that it has not been introduced by his Majesty's government.-That respectful application be therefore made to them for their wise and continued protection. -That a petition to the house of Lords against the bill be signed by all the persons present at this meeting, and that all congregations of protestant dissenters, and other friends of religious liberty throughout the empire, be recommended to present similar petitions, and that a committee consisting of persons resident in London be appointed to effectuate these proceedings, and to adopt

any measures they may deem expedient to prevent the successful prosecution of this bill-and that dissenting ministers of every denomination resident in the country, be also members of this committee and that such committee may increase their number-and that any three members be competent to act.

IX. That a London Committee be immediately appointed. [The committee consisted of 55 persons, ministers and laymen.]

X. That these resolutions be communicated to the committee for guarding the privileges of the methodists, and to the deputies and ministers of the congregations of protestant dissenters of the three denominations in or near London -and that their co-operation and assistance be respectfully invited.

XI. That a subscription be entered into to defray the expences which may be incuried-and that all friends to religious liberty throughout the empire be invited to contribute-and that such subscription be appropriated at the discretion of the committee.

XII. That a treasurer be appointedand that subscriptions be received by him, and by Messrs. Robarts, Curtis, and Co. and Sir James Esdaile and Co. Lombard Street.

XIII. That Thomas Pellatt, Esq. of Ironmongers' Hall, and John Wilks, Esq. of Hoxton Square, be solicited to act as joint secretaries to this committee.

XIV. That the acknowledgements of this meeting be presented to the gentlemen by whom it was convened, for the vigilance meritoriously displayed, and for their prompt attention to every attempted infringement of the valuable and long established rights of protestant dissenters.

XV. That this meeting present their ardent thanks to the chairman, for the attachment to religious liberty which he has displayed, by consenting to preside on this occasion, and for the attention and ability which be has manifested.

XVI. That their thanks be also presented to John Wilks, Esq. for the ability and zeal which he has manifested as temporary secretary, and for bis eloquent and useful exertions at this meeting.

XVII. That these resolutions be published in the newspapers, signed by the chairman, and that measures be adopted by the committee, necessary to give them requisite publicity.

SAMUEL MILLS, Chairman.

was not so propagated in ancient times. That it was disgraceful in any country for people to be persecuted for difference of opinion in religious matters, but more particularly so in this country, where every man is allowed to think and choose for himself. He dreaded the bringing of such instances as this into discussion in a public court, as they often reflected on the conduct of the magistrates, in not duly repressing the spirit of intolerance which occasions such disasters. He repeatedly said, that nothing had a more direct tendency to pull down the established church than an attempt to support it by persecution. As we could not all think alike, it became our duty mutually to bear and forbear with each other. all conceive our different sentiments to be founded in the New Testament, and if we be in error, persecution is not the way to correct it.In reference to the present case, his lordship expressed a strong desire that it might be settled without going to the jury, and hoped that if the defendants (who were present) asked pardon for their offence, and engaged to behave well in future, the matter would be terminated without further trouble.

We

Mr. GARROW replied, that it was always a pleasure for him to coincide with his lordship's opinion, but especially in this case, as he was sure he bad also the concurrence of his clients. Punishment was not the object sought by the prosecutors -they only wanted to worship God in peace. For his part, if he lived at Wye, he should certainly attend the established church, in which he had been educated, and the doctrines of which were most congenial to his own ideas-but what then? he would not go and knock out the brains of the methodists because they attended their own meeting, as he should not like for the methodists or Roman catholics, or any body

else, to knock his brains out because he went to church. He could not expect them to square their consciences according to his views, any more than they could expect he should square his conscience according to theirs. However, as his clients only wanted peace, he had already on their behalf engaged, that if the defendants pleaded guilty, they should not be brought to the King's Bench for judgment, but he was willing to settle the matter in any other way that his lordship should suggest. Mr. Garrow then addressed the prisoners, and observed, that they must not think this a triumph, as though they were acquitted. It must go out and be known that this people can worship God undisturbed. The defendants were to know, that the prosecutor, Mr. Robarts, would again go to Wye, and the very next Sunday he would be there to officiate in his own place, which he must do without interruption.

In this his Lordship fully agreed, and addressing himself to the defendants, assured them they had no cause for triumph, and that they ought to consider themselves as treated with great lenity that they were not capitally indicted for felony.

Their counsel (Mr. Serjeant BEST and Mr. MARRYATT) perfectly acquiesced in his Lordship's and Mr. Garrow's observations, and expli citly said, the defendants were ex tremely sorry for what they had done, and that it would never happen again, and that the lenity of the prosecutor should be considered as an indulgence granted to them.Mr. Serjeant Best also said, he was anxious for a most respectable magistrate to say that this affair, which he had been very desirous to prevent, had given him great concern.

His Lordship then, with much humane feeling, expressed his satis faction, and directed that the defendants should enter into recog

nizances of 501. each, for their good behaviour for five years, which was accordingly done.

At the quarter sessions for the county of Berks, of which Lord Radnor was chairman, held at Reading in January last, Mr. W. Kent, of Childrey, in that county, who had been convicted in the penalty of 201. for teaching and praying, appealed against such conviction, and had his trial by jury, who found him guilty, although he, with others of the congregation, only engaged in extempore prayer on their knees, and in singing of hyms, on the Sunday evening. Mr. Kent, in the last term, applied for and obtained a certiorari to remove the proceedings into the King's Bench, and on Wednesday the 15th. the conviction, with the judgment of the sessions, was quashed by the Judges in Westminster Hall. In consequence of which Mr. Kent is entitled to be repaid the 201. which has been levied by distress and sale of his

horse.

SIR F. BURDETT V. THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The Demurrer to this action has at length been argued. During last term, Mr. Holroyd argued against it in the court of King's Bench. After going over various legal points and precedents, he concluded as follows. But Sir F. Burdett had only admitted the printing, and the warrant said, that therefore he had been guilty of a breach of privilege, without going farther. This he submitted was not sufficient. He begged leave farther to add, that if there was no remedy for persons imprisoned in this manner-if any body of men in the kingdom could thus commit for contempt at their discretion, without being liable to an action for false imprisonment, the country would be placed in the situation in which it stood with respect to commitment by the King's council before the Bill of Rights had been

passed.

Nothing should deprive the subject of his liberty without a remedy except the law. No power should exist without a check, except the whole parliament. The constitution was itself a system of checks; the different branches of the legislature were checks on each other, so that in passing a law, all the different interests in the commonwealth were consulted. The power of the whole parliament should alone be uncontrouled. It was utterly inconsistent with the principles of the constitution that such a power should be suffered to remain in an individual or separate body like the house of Commons. It was very material that it should be ascertained what the law of the land was on the subject. He contheir lordships that this, though it might cluded this point by again reminding be a libel, was not a breach of privilege, if it were not a libel on the House of Commons.

Mr. Holroyd had sat down, when the Attorney General reminded him that he had omitted to enter on the subject of the breaking of the door.

Mr. Holroyd continued. He submitted to their lordships, that every man's house being his castle, the law will give no privilege to break the outer door, except where the King is a party. This appears from the 13th of Edward IV.

Lord Ellenborough believed it was the 18th.

Mr. Holroyd said, he rather supposed it to be the 13th, page 9--where, in the case of felony, the house could not hold him, but should in the case of debt or trespass-Semayne, Coke 91 and 92; and the keys must first be demanded when the King is a party. It is for the common welfare that felons should be apprehended; but he submitted, that the door can only be broken open for a crime. Lord Coke, 4th Inst. 176, seenis to have held, that in a felony, the door could not be broken open till the party was indicted. He did not mean to state that the law was so now; but formerly it was not upon surmise of a crime that a door could be broken open, but only upon an indictment when a charge was found against a party by the grand jury. It appears, however, that a door can only be broken open for felony, and that in a case of trespass, &c. the King's writ cannot break open the door. The exception therefore only applies to crimes, and so far protection does not extend. But the present case is very

different, It is not like the case of a person who has committed 3 crime against the law of the land. The house of Commons cannot take cognizance of a libel; they can merely decide upon a breach of privilege. Therefore in order to warrant the breaking open of a door there must be an offence against the kingdom at large, and not against any particular body-for no mischief can come to any particular body in the one case; but it concerns the whole kingdom that in the other case the offender should be brought to justice. He would state it as a very extraordinary circumstance indeed, if a party was not cntitled to this privilege, that no case has ever yet occurred of a door being broken open in any case except for felony.

Here Mr. Holroyd concluded, and at the suggestion of Lord Ellenborough, the Attorney-General agreed, on account of the lateness of the hour, to postpone his answer to a future day.

On Friday, May 17th, the argument was renewed.

The Attorney General this day was heard on the other side, in support of the defendant's plea above mentioned. He contended, that the very statement of the plaintiff's own case put him out of court. It is an action of trespass against the defendant, for having issued his warrant by an order of the house of Commons to the serjeant at arms, to take the plaintiff into custody, and to convey him to the Tower, and to commit him to the custody of the lieutenant there; and this upon a resolution of that house having competent jurisdiction to do such acts. He asked what lawyer, what man, who had ever heard of the law and the constitution of this realin, ever doubted that the house of Commons had the jurisdiction, and having the same, had a right to exercise it. If then the house of Commons had the jurisdiction, and had the right to exercise it, would any lawyer say, that an action would lie against its officers for obeying its command, in exercising that jurisdic tion and authority? The house of Commons has a right to stand at least upon an equal footing with other courts of judicature. Other courts have the power to commit in cases of contempt, and so should the house of Commons; and it is unwise to suppose they will abuse their power, because that may be au objection to every jurisdiction under the sun. In the case of the King and Murray, in

the matter of Habeas Corpus, the judges, una voce, all said, that they would not interfere with the rights of the house of Commous: for in fact they had no jurisdiction over the house of Commons in matters appertaining to its rights and privileges; of these the members themselves, in their aggregate capacity, were the only judges. From this part of the case the Attorney General proceeded to that part of it which related to the execution of the warrant, namely, the breaking open the outer door of the plaintiff's dwelling, and entering with soldiers, taking him into custody, and subsequently lodging him in the Tower; all which be maintained were done in strict conformity to law. The plaintiff had been, by the house of Commons, (having competent jurisdiction) adjudged guilty of a breach of their privileges, had brought himself into a contempt, and the warrant issued was for that contempt, which was of a criminal, not of a civil nature. The party was the people against the individual, and, as it were, the King, for he is acting for the people; that contempt becomes a breach of the peace, and therefore of a criminal nature; and consequently the officer executing it has the power of breaking open an outer door, when refused peaceable entry. - The learned gentleman concluded a speech of nearly four hours with stating, that he hoped he had convinced their lordships of the illegality of

this action.

Mr. Holroyd briefly replied to the several observations made by the Attorney General, still maintaining the principles which he had originally supported for the plaintiff.

Lord Ellenborough stated his opinion to be in fauour of the arguments of the Attorney General. His lordship thought that upon every principle of reason, independent of precedents and former rules, that the house of Commons ought to be possessed of the privilege of carrying their authority into effect. In vain would they have authority, if they had not the means of commanding the respect and obedience of that authority.— The privileges claimed by parliament were not, as many had supposed, of iecent date. From the 43d of Henry III. they had possessed those privileges unimpaired. At that period, when the Commons were made a separate house from the Lords, they carried with them the privileges they enjoyed when united