I say nothing now of precedents from the British Parliament, for they are all more or less inapplicable. We live under a written Constitution, with certain specified powers; and all these are restricted by the Tenth Amendment, declaring that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But even British precedents have found a critic at home, in the late Chief Justice of England, Lord Denman, pronouncing judgment in the great case of _Stockdale_ v. _Hansard_,[20]--and also in the words of an elegant and authoritative historian, whose life has been passed in one or the other of the two Houses of Parliament: I refer to Lord Mahon, now Earl Stanhope, who, in his History of England, thus remarks:-- “I may observe, in passing, that throughout the reign of George the Second the privileges of the House of Commons flourished in the rankest luxuriance.… So long as men in authority are enabled to go beyond the law, on the plea of their own dignity and power, _the_ ONLY _limit to their encroachments will be that of the public endurance_.”[21] Nothing can be more true than this warning. But Lord Brougham has expressed himself in words yet stronger, and, if possible, still more applicable to the present case. “All rights,” says this consummate orator, “are now utterly disregarded by the advocates of Privilege, excepting that of exposing their own short-sighted impolicy and thoughtless inconsistency. Nor would there be any safety for the people under their guidance, if unhappily their powers of doing mischief bore any proportion to their disregard of what is politic and just.”[22] With these observations I quit this question, anxious only that the recent Usurpation of the Senate may not be drawn into a precedent hereafter. During Mr. Hyatt’s protracted imprisonment, Mr. Sumner visited him constantly, and thus became familiar with the condition of the jail. This led to the introduction of the following resolution, March 13, 1860. “_Resolved_, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be directed to consider the expediency of doing something to improve the condition of the common jail of the city of Washington.” Before the vote on the resolution was taken, Mr. Sumner remarked that he had visited the jail, and found it neither more nor less than a mere human sty; and since the Senate had undertaken to send a fellow-creature there, he thought that the least it could do was to see that something was done to improve its condition. ABOLITION OF CUSTOM-HOUSE OATHS. RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, MARCH 15, 1860. Mr. Sumner submitted the following resolution, which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.