That his majefty, having received information, that his late embaffador in France, Mr. Montagu, ' a member of this house, had held feveral private 'conferences with the Pope's nuncio there, to the end that he may difcover the truth of the matter, has given order for the feizing Mr. Montagu's papers.'

Mr. Powle.] No man can defend an embassador's having correspondences or conferences with the Pope's nuncio. Montagu is a member of parlia ment; and it is an old rule, that, in treafon, no private man, nor member's perfon, can be feized, before the accufation be given in upon oath; if not, any member may be taken from parliament. I would know whether any legal information has been given against your member. This was a fatal cafe in the last king's time of feizing members and their papers; I hope never to fee the like again. If a great minifter has a quarrel against a gentleman, and one go and tell the king a ftory of him to his prejudice, and his papers thereupon must be feized, I know not whether that will go. In the first place I would be inftructed from Ernly, who brought the meffage, whether there be any legal information against your member? and if there be not, then you may confider what to do.

Sir J. Ernly] I have told you the meffage as I received it.

Mr. Bennet] If his papers are feized, papers may be put into his cabinet as well as taken out.

Col. Birch] This is a mighty mystery and the greatest bufinefs I have heard here. I have always taken it for granted, that no member's papers can be feized. Forty more members papers may be feized at this rate and the houfe garbled, and then the game is up.

Sir Tho. Lee] I fee there is no harm in making an addrefs to the king about this matter, that he may let the houfe know whether there is any in

'formation

'formation upon oath against Mr. Montagu.' If there be fuch information as the law warrants, I would fit down under it; if not, I would look to our privileges.

Col. Titus.[ I fecond that motion; if there be no information upon cath, then it is a breach of privilege.

Sir Wm. Coventry] An embaffador has nothing for his juftification but his papers; and his neck may go for it, if he has not his papers to justify himself. I should be loth to have my papers feized, though but for matter of reputation. I had rather have my fhirt, than my papers taken from me.

Mr. Powle] I purfue the first motion to fend to the king to know, whether the information be ' upon oath; and when you have this answer, then to confider, whether the papers fhall be feized. Elfe you give up your rights to fatal confequences.

Mr. Vaughan] If papers are feized at this rate, a great many of your members papers may be feized, because fome men are guilty of high-treafon.

Mr. Williams] I cannot give my opinion whether it is a breach of privilege or not, till you have the thing entirely before you. I would know what this information is againft your member. I know by the law of England there is no diftinction of ftate-treafon, felony, or breach of the peace, against which there is no privilege. It is not every breach of the peace a member may be feized upon, &c. where there is no more required than fecurity, &c. and he ought to have the privilege of an Englishman. He that will be ridden, fhall be ridden; therefore I would addrefs.

Col. Titus] If the information be upon oath, and it be neither treafon, felony nor breach of the peace, your privilege is violated.

Sir Wm. Coventry] I am againit the whole thing, either fending to the king to know what the crimes

are, or whether upon oath. He may be guilty, he may be innocent; poffibly the thing will be put farther. But to take away his armour that must defend him, a little thrust will deftroy him. The very law gives him his papers for his defence to justify himself by; his papers to be delivered out of his hands clearly away, is a very dangerous thing.

Mr. Montagu] I believe that the feizing my cabinet and papers was to get into their hands, fome letters of great confequence, that I have to produce of the defigns of a great minister of fate..

Col. Titus] To feize papers thus is very illegal. Any man's may bé feized at this rate. I look upon this, as one of the wifeft actions the minifters have done. Were I one of them, right or wrong, I would have seized Mr. Montagu's papers.

Sir John Lowther] I am of opinion that we fhall. not fit here to-morrow; I move, therefore, to have the papers fent for now.

Sir Henry Capel] I fecond that motion. We know what practices have been in the late times, &c. how papers of members have been seized. The king has power on his fubjects, but it is according to law. I know not what may become of us to-morrow; therefore I would have Montagu's papers brought to night.

Lord Cavendish and lord Ruffel clofed the debate for fending for the papers; they were fent for immediately, and among them two letters from lord Danby to Mr. Montagu were found and read to the house; and upon them, the house immediately refolved, that there was fufficient matter of impeachment against the lord treasurer; and he was accordingly impeached.

Remarks

Remarks on the North Briton.

BEING at a friend's house the other day, I had the pleasure of reading No 45. of the North Briton which has occafioned fo much noife, and brought on a moft alarming attack on the common rights of the fubject, as well as a violation of the privileges of parliament.

After perufing this famous paper several times with the utmost attention, I could not help being aftonished at the proceedings which have happened in confequence of its publication. When my friend put it into my hands, I expected to find the most outrageous infult upon majefty; but judge of my furprize, judge, every honeft Englishman, when I faw nothing of the kind. Inftead of finding the lie given to my fovereign, as the tools of the prefent miniftry are in every news paper afferting, I found him spoken of and treated with that respect and reverence which is due from a good fubject to a good prince. Nor am I afhamed to fay in the midft of the torrent, with which the miniftry feem endeavouring to overwhelm the public, that I fee nothing in that North Brition which is either treafonable or feditious. I deliver my opinion in this free manner, because it is the birthright of every Englishman to do fo. This nation is a free nation, and I hope ever will be, in fpite of the principles of Scotchmen and Scottish ariftocracy, and every defign of wicked minifters, whofe aim has been to trample on the liberty of the prefs, to prevent the people being acquainted with their meafures.

There are two ways in which a king of England is to be looked at. In an individual fenfe, if he is a good king (and I believe we never had one poffeffed of fo many virtues as the prefent) he ought to be M 4

poke

spoke of with that truth and justice which are due to his perfonal merit. In two very strong paffages the North Briton has obferved this. The words charmed me; nor is the fentiment finer than juft.

When we confider the king of England in his regal capacity, we cannot, if we have any regard for our excellent conftitution, imagine him as acting alone, like a defpotic monarch, because it is known, that in all the royal functions he is obliged to act by the advice of his minifters, and in confequence of their advice they become refponfible to his people, if any wrongs are committed; hence arifes the liberty of the fubject to exprefs his abhorrence of any measure, because it is the measure of the minifter, not the fovereign. It is likewife known that the fpeech which the king pronounces to his parliament is previously made by the minister, therefore the minifter becomes anfwerable for whatever that fpeech contains; and it is in parliament called the fpeech of the minifter, and treated accordingly, not as conveying the fentiments of the fovereign, but the miniftry. It therefore ought not, nay it cannot be deemed an infult upon majesty, to treat the fpeech at any time as it deferves; for if it was, it would not be fuffered to undergo fo many fevere animadverfions as it frequently does, in the house of

commons.

A freedom fimilar to this is even allowed in defpotic countries. How often do we fee in the remonftrances of the French parliament to their grand monarque, mention made of his having been furprized into fuch a thing, which in plain English is nothing more than his having been impofed upon.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY.

On