Star. — London, England, 1810-04-06 00:00:00

I 1 Ante was ordered for Thursday, mid so the House got I rid of that business. The Right Hon. Gentleman! h a d given uP the point of the old law of the country. He could do nothing against Magna Charta. ti Nullus fiber hmno capiatur, vet imprisonetur, nisi per legale judiciom par!um sitorum, vet per legem term." H e f oun d only two cases of resistance to this assumed power, a nd in both those cases the resisting parties were successful; and this, he thought, should make the I louse at least cautious in such proceedings. The Noble Lord then quoted and.commented upon several o ther precedents, and made various arguments against the d tims of the House to such a power. The Noble Lord nest adverted to the case of the Kentish petition: The House resolved to go into a Committee on Mr. Culpepper's petition to be returned for Maidstone ; th er e was a great diversity of opinion on this point ; narties ran very high, and the Committee concluded by saying, that Mr. Cul , who was on e o f t h e pet itioners to the scandarZ er Kentish Petition, was 'tot duly returned. As to the case of Crosby, which had been alluded to, the law stated then by Lord Chief Justice De Grey was, that the Court could not framine into the law of Parliaments, because they had no knowledge of it : Parliaments, he said, were the only judges of their own Privilege& It was the same in the case of Lord Shaftesbury in which Mr. Jus,tice Rainsford held, that the Court could not en quire into the commitment, becatise the libel %vas charged as being done facie curie, meaning when the proceedings of the House were going oe. had said thus much on what had been argued' on the la*rela tire to the subject, because he thought the observations ought not to go without a comment though they bore very little on the case now in question. With r egard to the case now before the House, he hoped the HMls* would come to a decision with' a grave and sober judgment, and with such feelings as became judges, and not with those attached only to advocates. He • tint k was. detettainectt. support its dignity and privileges. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, that after all the consideration he had been able to give to the subject now under the consideration.of the House, and if it could be true, as an Honourable Member had asser-. ted on a former night, that he was then the only per-,, son who entertained a, doubt on the subject, he w , glad to find th at was not t h e case now, for he beliet a 41,1 ed many Ho noura bl e M em b ers w h o had taken time 1 to consider it were of the same opinion with himself. • 1-;e congratulated the House on now coming to the question in a more cool, sober, and creditable man. ;net than they could have done had they before enter l ied into it,'- and that they would now be more likely tt:o give their judgment and decision in a manor/el more _consonant with the strict rules of j us ti ce tha n ,whm they were seemingly hurried on by the w rnth iof their feelings. The proposition, he said, involved-, 'two questions ; first, whether the paper was a gross ' iilibel reflecting on the privileges of the House ? Se :con*. whether it was expedient to come to the reso lution? On the former, he did express doubts whether the paper was a libel at all ; and next, whether it were 1 a libel reflecting on the just privileges of the House.. 1 He would state to the House the doubts he entertain ed as to the libel ; . and in doing this, it would be ne-i cessary to see for what Mr. Gale Jones had been coutO , milted. The Hon. Member then referred to the Spelt ! ker's warrant, from which, he said, it appeared, that, Mr. Jones was committed for two offences; one a libel' against the character and c ond uct o f t h e House ; the other, against the past conduct of individual Mem btu, The libel for which Mr. Jones had been com- Mitted, was stated to be a paper published by him as i Manager of a Debating Society. It announced that t the question to be debated was, u Which was the most deserving the censure of the /iublic—Mr. Yon ke's enforce ! ment of the standing order of the House to exclude strangers I from the Inquiry into the Wakheren Expedition; or .fr. 1 Wiodhatn's late attack on the Freedom of the Press ?" I Then followed a statement of the manner in which , the question on the preceding night had been deter "ruined. This Paper, in his mind, did not c ont a i n an y thing libellous against the character or conduct of 1 the House; but only against the conduct of indivi dual Members, on matters that were past. He begged the House would believe that he did not intend to justify Mr. Jones for issuing this paper. He thought it extremely wmni t t :s ta i t any person or per sons calling themselves a rig society, who ad vertised- questions • fee discussion, to which any one might go and there deliver his opinion for a shilling, should take upon them to criticise or censure the con duct of any manor set of min in any other assembly, on points to which the latter could not give any an swer, notbeing present. But as this paper had been made the foundation cif calling Mr. Jones before that House, and of his being committed to prison in conse. quence, he could only argue on it as matter of serious doubt and consideration in his mind, whether the House in their committal, had acted with all that dis cernment and propriety that might be expected from it. The paper alluded to the enf-rcing of the Standing Ordrr. That was the act of the individual Member; the House was not concerned in it.--(Murmurs fives t e h r e lt rerite side of the House). If he was mistaken, he under the highest authority of the House, that' of the Chair, which had repeatedly Informed them, that no Mem ber had a right to enter into the slightest discussion of it. It was only a tew evenings ago, when a Right Honourable Gentleman attempted to speak before he moved the Standing Order, the Speaker told him he could not be allowed to do so. The only part the House took in it, was making the Standing Order on the first day of the Session ; and after that it became the entire and sole act of the in. dividual Member who chose to put it In force. Here the Honourable and Learned Member again referred to Mr. Jones's advertisement, andobserved how guar dedly it was worded—(Hcar, hear, from the Treasury Brach.) —The Learned Member said, if any cue could so far misunderstand him, as to suppose that he intended to justify die Paper by saying it was guard-, ed,- he was at a loss to imagine on what ground he. could do so. He thought the expressions libellous against the individuals to whom they were applied, and he had said so : and he mentioned the word— " guarded," merely in allusion to that part charged as a libel against the character and conduct of the House. —An Honourable Member had, on a former night, said, u Did we not come to an immediate decision in the case of Gale` Jones? and should we not do the same in the case of Sir Francis Burdett ? He (Sir S. R.)would in return ask, did the House do right to crime to such an immediate decision ? If the House. came to a decision in the case of Crosby, as had been contended, it was upon different principles from the present. Mr. Crosby was a Member of the House, and having been committed by the authority 'of the House, the Court of King's Bench could not inter fere in discharging him, because it appeared he was duly committed by the authority of the Speaker's warrant, for a breach of the privileges of that House, to which he, as a Member, *as always amenable.— But if that had been stated in the - Speaker's wttratit as a breach of privilege, which appeared to the Court not to be a breach of prtvilege, then the Court would, on the Habeas Corpus, have discharged him. ' He did entertain a great doubt whether the House had a ri g ht to commit for a breach of privilege in she. case of a libel on the conduct of one of their Members.— He thought the House hid a right to commit in a great many cases ; such as where their proceedings were interrupted ; where the people, by hissing or . , otherwise, insulted Members 'coming to the House; where they threatened Members if they voted on a . particular side, and many others of the same nature ; but when he spoke of libels published On the past cm ' .duct of Members, and not on any proceedings nt. the moment going on before the Hoare, he had great doubts as to the right of comMitting, because he con ceived-it to he . against the firit principles -of . jostiee ; because the House -acted as their own Counsel, 'Jury, and Judge; beeause they were the accusers and the On nishors: they began by reading the paper, andtheycon cluded byordering the party away Without hearing-hitn. - Would any Court of law act m that way t The House were thejadges of the law and of the fact ; and the party was-conunitted during. their pleasure, without any appeal. : But all this was only from necessity; and when the lecessity ceased, the power- ought fo cease with if.=:--litii WA S the doctrine held and sutra. rd by Lord Chief 'Justice De Grey, in the case of Mr. Crosby who. was committed as a Member of that House, for a breach of its privileges. The Court feared, however, that many came there more im pressed with the feelings of advocates than these of judges. The Hon. Mover had said on a former occa. ston, he wished to check the proceedings of Sir Francis Burdett ; a second had said, it was time to repress the spirit of jacobinism ; a third, that the proceedings of Sir Francis Burdett had been very long known. How any of these things were at all connected with the subject before the House he knew not ; and particu larly what the Hon. Gentleman could mean by the proceedings of his Hon. friend being long•known, he was at a loss to guess. What proceedings could he allude to ? He hoped, however, such feelings had on the present evening been left at home, and that the decision of this night would be founded on justice and on reason. It was said by the Resolution, that the Letter was a scandalous libel on the privileges of the House. He, for his own part, did not think it was a scandalous libel, and as such should move as an Amendment, that the other Orders of the Day be now read. The SPEAKER asked whether the House would proceed to the Orde' s of the Day Lord BINI4ING opposed the Amendment, and I observed that he could net agree with the Noble Lord in considering the point which the House was called . onto decide as possessing so much difficulty as• to hare rendered an adjournment of a week necessary for coming to a decision upon it. He considered that the debate was adjourned on account of another KW portant discussion in which the House were then en gaged. Of the nature of the paper now on the table he tlionelit there could be no doubts. These were not ordinary times, nor was the Honourable Baronet who had acknowledged himself the author of that paper, an ordinary person. If Gentlemen would look to the former life of that Honourable Bamnet, they would see that in pursuit of his favourite object, Parliamentary Reform, he had taken every opportu nity of blackening the character of the House of Commons ; and the question' now before the House vas, whether it would support its dignity, or tame'l resign its rights and privilege, and become depen dent On a party ? A Right Hon. Baronet (Sir John Anstruther) described the pamphlet AS harmless, and containing a great deal of nonsense. In the latter sentiment of the Right Hon. Baronet he perfectly agreed, bat not with the former • he considered it as king more of a mi sc hi evous than harmless nature. The Noble la,fd who had spoke last ('Folkestoue), observed, that the word " resist," in the introduc tion to the letter, on whiCh so much stress had been hid, meant nothing more than presenting an humble Petition. Would the Noble Lord state that as his opinion, after having read and compared the other parts of the letter, in which the Hon. Baronet goes on to state his hopes that the voices of these humble retitioners would have more . weight than his had, and they would ultimately prevail ? The Noble I.crd then proceeded to read the other passages of the I parrOler, which have been already alluded to, and c.iittlisied, that the House of Commons had always e , sse:.ed the power of committing persons for breach of privilege, and had. been occasionally obliged to exercise it, although it world be found that they had always ex erc i se d i t w i t h di scret i on. Wi t h respect to", the case of Wilkes, to which the Noble Lord bad al. lel'h an.l stated that effectual resistance had been niaL to the lower of the House, Wilkes Was or'. dared to attend—he, however, refused to comply, un less h were summoned as Member for Middleser.- The House exercised their power of summoning him to attend, lint did not, for reasons best known to itself the time, think proper to enter into a contest with , him. Ile was summoned to attend on the 9th day of the month. and ti:e Horse adjourned on the Bth, the day r c celiii,:—(lirar, hear. the case' of Woodfall MI: Horne, which had also been alluded to, Mr. 1. toLeall had been summoned to attend at the bar_ ti the House, on ac count o f a letter which appeared a publication of which he had the direction, and . tl.rn at ti,e bar he gave ti sa Mr: Home as the was disch arge d . lett er , and, after four clays confinerhent, • as discharged. What Mr. Horne appeared at theba r he was asked whether he was the author of, t he Public:lomi in question ? but he pleaded not gull- tY, and the House not possessing the power o f get ; ling at the fact, he was of course discharged. Had the lionourabk Baronet published a grave, fair, and 4ilassionate direlission of the extent of the power of t he House to in. !et the punishtzient of imprisonment, )he ece tain_ing no calumni ous or inflainmatoiy language, would h ave been the list perso n whO would have c lied on the House to notice it. BUt f.O from such a 'Ls cuEsion *as that contained in the document now 41J er their consideration ; apr , l he .trusted the House' INul.l spew by its cOndtict ou the pseseat occasion, • . • et ConMson Pleas could not give itny reinef, ishittie of Sir Francis Burdett was not su Mciently calm, Would it did not know what were the privileges of the House the House permi, him to remind them of what ;heirs of Commons; The Chief Justice said, the come:aka wad been on a former occasion, ill a contest with the meet was legal, because it was necessery a and the Lords 1 Th.! Hon. Baronet then read an address from chewed .that if. it had not been necessary-it would not Commons-to the Lords, which set forth, that it ha 'e been legal. The House had beeastold44 great swap ma be. wondered m after their Lordships success many precedents and decisions of the Courts.of Lama - is i. thetonstitution, that they should advance to. ate but what were they ? He should be- glad zo know tock.she - -whole frame of it, and endeavour to bring all where they were. , Ofthose that-had been-meationed property -into Ilse. insatiable and bottemless gnlph of the first was in the reign of the Tudors ; and that was . their Lordships' judicature, which would alike 'wale not a time, he thought, to which the House shonlekre- low up the prerogative of the Crown, and the Menke fer in defence and support of iscown privileges.—a ofthe people. Was there any thing in the paper be• time when the House were told, at. the beginning of fore them half so strong-as that which was the result each Session, that they were not to meddle with mat- of tilt calm deliberation of that House ? They ought ters of state ; and when Queen Elizabeth repeatedly to act with disc precaution. The committal of one ordered the House not to proceed any farther in suck man had produced :Anther offence similar to that for and such cases. The casco( Arthur Hall had been Which he had been punished. They knew not how referred to in 1580. What was that sentence of the many might be produced by another committal, as House? Was it any thi ng lik e t h e co mmit men t s of pnlitic,tl punishments, like punishments for heresy, the present House of Commons.? No; the sentence frequently produced new disciples. He concluded, was for six months imprisonment, to pay a fine of making a few.remarks on the vote recently given on 500 marks, and at the end of that six months to a still the question a, to the policy, &c. of the late Expedi. farther imprisonment, till he should make a retracts- Lion ; on the merits cf which be thought the House tion. That retractatiolomight be given during the. and-the country as much at variance as they Were on recess of Parliament. If the individual was obsti- the questions respecting Sir Francis Burdett_ and Mr. nate, hitimprisonment might. last for years, or even Gale Jones. for life, as Parliament.did not then meet so frequent- ': Mr. STEPHEN complimented- his . Friend on the 1y as it does now. When the retractatien wasaaffer-esnoderation afid unlit if.'y so consfsteh't with his manly ..ed, it was- to be in the presence of the Lord Steward chataeter, which he had on the present occasion dis of his Majesty's Household, the Chancell& of the-Ex- phkiedi'but lamented ahat he had (while sneaking on chequer, and several other principal Officers of State. .4 White( osewhich he: wished the • House to be unanis This was the mode of proceeding cited to the House, "moot) adverted to a topic of all others the most likely as authority to justify what had been done in this to create disueiop. ,If Unfortunately the vote of the case. Was there any thing similar between them ? • House had net accorded with the sentiments of the Could the House now commit for an indefinite time, !people, •ii vlid not then 'follow that they were not or for six months ? Can it impose a fine, as was done to assert their privileges. If the House had fano% in those days ? He could himself cite many cases in in the public estimation, it was not' the way to re. which the House had in those times made commits trieve its character by persuading the Public, that meats of the most extraordinary nature, and senten- both sides, while investigating a great constitutional ced men to as extraordinary punishments % There was pntlciplC, had unjustly committed a subject to prisons one of putting two men back to back upon a horse: His Honourable Friend had not interrupted the unit and leading them through the streets with a particu- •nimity of that vote by his single dissent. [Here lar mark upon them. There was another in which Sir Samuel Ronailly signified he was not present.] a new and extraordinary punishment had been inven- If he were not present, feelingly alive as he ever was ted by the House •for the particular o ff ence. . B u t t o th e i n t ere st of others, had that committal struck were these such cases as were at all an be cited• as` him as,beinglinjust, the first time he had entered the precedents on the present occasion ? He was asto- ; Hopei afterwards, he would have moved for the dis. nished to see it attempted. With respect to the charge - Of Mr..lone.s. He therofere contended, the case of Arthur Hall, Mr. Hatsell takes notice of •HOula had not unjustly encroached on the liberty of it in his book of Parliamentary cases, and says that 'the subject while asserting their own. His Hon. it was afterwards declared to be derogatory to the Friend on the former evening was not prepared to say proceedings of the House. These were in fact not de- - whether or not the paper before them was libellous, serving the name of precedents, but were Mere mt.: he (Mr. Stephen) had hoped he would have formed ciscs of authority, for precedents are only the decja hie opinion by that time (yesterday), but he had been sions of a legal Judge, The House had also in for. disappointed. If he were disposed to think the paper mer times carried their authority very higk o in the, was a libel, all those elaborate-arguments to which he resolutions which they from time to time passed.— had called the attention of the House were irrelevant There was a resolution of the House, March 8, 1704, to the question before him, and did not bear him " that no man who had been committed by the out in opposing the motion. He could not con. House of Commons should dare to sue out a Habeas sistetitly oppose it, without maintaining that that Corpus ;" but tlft resolutions of the House were not House had in no case a right to commit. The the laws of the House. In the case of the King paper of the Honourable Baronet (Sir Francis Bur against Flower, that was a committal by the House dett) went to say, that they had violated the Con of Lords for a definite period of time, and a fine was stitution of the country, trampled on Magna Charta, imposed. - This was not for a libel on the House of and subverted the liberty of the subject. He meant Lords, but only on one of their Members, the Bishop to infer that they had violated their first great duty, of Llandaff. From the time of Prynne to that period, and usurped a tyrannical power to imprison a man this question had often been agitated, but never fairly illegally without trial by jury, and that they had determined; and it happened, that some short time transgressed beyor+ the bounds which reason and before this present commitment, Mr. Hargrave, which justice should prescribe to them. He had en. allowed to be one of the most learned, constitutional deavoured to substantiate this by a sort of syllogism; lawyers in this country, had written and published a setting forth that no court possessed the power of im very learned aroument on this point, in which he prisoning the subject but a Court of Record ; and strongly doubts the tight. Mr. Flower was brought that no Court could be a Court•of Record in which before the Court on a writ of Habeas Corpus, and damages amounting to above 40s. could not be reco hie case was argued before two Judge s _of the Court vered. If his Honourable Friend meant to maintain only, and not by the whole Court ; Mr. Justice Law- that proposition, he ought to have stated his inten rence being absent from indisposition, and Mr. Jus- tion; but he admitted the right of the. House to tice Le Blanc sitting at Nisi Priuss The Court, in commit in certain cases, though he denied that Mr. G. gi*ing their_ judgment, began by saying, that in times Jones had merited to be so committed. Thinking so, like those, factious persons always began their mis- it would not be enough that he should move for his chievous course by endeavouring to bring into dis. discharge. He ought to go further, and solicit the grace the Courts of Law and the Houses of radii', Crown to afford. him some remuneration for the con. meat. The House would observe that this was not a l finement he has endured. If he could persuade the libel against the House of Lords, but only against House to that, still one question would remain be , one.nlits individual Members. After commenting hind—Whether the act of committing him was wil at length on the matter of the libel, the Learned fully illegal, wanton, and arbitrary ? as stated in the Judge concluded by saying that the Court would pamphlet. They had been told, that the opinions of make themselves accomplices in the 'encouragement all the great law authorities quoted were not to be of sedition and tumult, if they did not remaiad the heeded ; and his Honourable Friend had censured the prisoner on that occasion. Now (said Sir Samuel decision of Lord Kenyon. He had not been able to Romilly ) can any man say that this judgment was collect from the pamphlet, the grounds on which pronounced in a grave, sober and temperate manner ? these were impeached ; in the caae of Crosby, the He was far from wishing to say any thing which Court had stated the House to be the best judges of might appear a censure on the Learned Judge s for their own privileges. The light thus thrown on the whom he had a high respect ; but he certainly could Legem et Consurtudinem Parliament; was sufficient to es not have supposed that a grave Court could have en' tablish the right of the House to commit for a breach tered into a question of that nature in the manner it of their privileges, as in the case of Mr. G. Jones.— ' bad done. 1i there was any case in which, more than The doctrines quoted on behalf of Sir F. Burdett had any other, it was to be wished that the question was been unfairly cited. They had insidiously endeavou , to be determined by the most-impartial judges, this red to give the words of Coke on the nature of it was ehe case. . Strongly feeling, therefore, and enter- Court of Record, a meaning directly contrary to Gritting this.opinion, he kit much inclined, when this their true one, as be, of all others, bad been most in question was disposed of, to move for the discharge i favour of allowing that House the powers of a Court of f Mr. Gale Jones, -Without demanding from him a 1 of Record. Le., port of this assertion, he instanced petition of that nature which was stated to be custo- o_veoal passages in Coke, to shew that that House had mary. He could not say, whether what was alledg- i exercised the authority of a Court ofJudicature. The ed to be thecostons bad eiser.been dispensed with oro case of llaß was exactly in point ; but in that case not; but he could not help thinking of such a cus- the House proceeded snitch farther than it would tern, that it was ,00e more honoured- in the breach think of proceeding in the present case. His Hon. than in the observance." He believed there was no jFriend had said he was not aware of anf authority of .other civil tribunal in the land (he knew the spiritual , a Court to punish libels on its Members. Here the ones sometimes decided differently) which required a ' Honourable Gentleman quoted Blackstone at some I man to retract the opinions which he had delivered, length to prove the House had acted illegally. H e perhaps on the firmest and most sincere conviction. was astoeisked that one so skilled in law, so strenuous ;The opiniOn half mioht be utterly false anderroneous, an advocate for liberty, should deny the privi. butif the masewho deliver's! it fin ply believed it to be leges of Parliament, and leave them to be trampled true, it %wee neZoo be supposed that am in could be on, or go begging to a Court of Law to establish tOund to change his opininn_by the authority of that their authority. If the House did not vindicate its House ; and it his opinion was unchanged, he thought ; privileges, should the Judges appointed by the Crown it too hard to require oilskin to recant it. In the api- ,be the arbiters ? Should the vindication of the privi ritual courts, he knew that a different course had ' legs of the House of Commons be finally vested r l been often taken ; and that, in the cases where men by a natural transition , in the House of Lords ? He ,had been prosecuted _tor heresy, they had been often was • happy to say popular discontent no longer ex. obliged publicly to recant those docrines which they isted. The Expedition, and the motives which di hod promulgated from the sincerest conviction ; but rccted it, were now explained and approved of; for it was not the custom of civil tribunals to force a man the sake of the permanent interests of the Constitu to take a. part in his own humiliation and punishment. tion, and foi the authority of the House, no consi- He thought the case of the witness (General Clever- ' deration should preclude the necessity of punishing ig) committed last Session very hard; to be confined persons who treated it with contempt. He was quite .for so long a period in .Neu-gate, because he would astonished at the assertion that the Home was the pot confess thethe had prevaricated at the Bar.--. parties, accusers, and Judges in this. case : he de. Thinking, as be did, that the son. Baronet (Sir 'lied that they were parties ; their authority was Francis Burdett) was right in his main proposition, not exercised for their own, nor for the sake,ol though on the whole lee- did not approve of the paper, any ladividUsl, but for the sake of those %%bo a = be could not *assent to the motion. If the language them there. Out of such questions the Homo