Star. — London, England, 1821-02-24 00:00:00

•• • . - 1 4 • * t -. ' rift Vi Alt& AlfrffrAßY PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 23. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Queen's Annnity Bill, the Malt Duty Bill, the Grant Transfer 13i11, and the Longitude Bill. The Commissioners were, the Loan Carar czu.oa. the Earl of SMAITIMIUDY, and Lord RI:DEIMOS& Mr. Mimi, from the India House, presented Accounts of the ]Regulation passed by the several Governments of India In the year le 1 9.—Ordered to lie on the table. Tug CATHOLIC QUesTION- The Earl of DONOUGH MORE said, he had several Peti tions from his Catholic Countrymen, which he meant to pre- Sent to the House ; and which complained of the grievances they laboured under, in being excluded from those constitu tional privileges which other subjects enjoyed. This exclusion ethended to four-fifths of the population of Ireland, who had committed no crime to merit such disability, except that of ad flawing to the religious faith of their forefathers. This was not the first time he had bad occasion to present Petitions of the same sort; but he presented them now with an increased con fidence, because he considered that there was now a new and Ottpledied Parliament, and a Prince on the Throne whose mind did not appear to be possessed by any of those conscientious scruples which had influenced his illuserious predecessor; and a Prince whose conduct, whilst be acted for another, might ap pear to have been dictated by a wish to follow the policy of the individual whom he represented, and not as abiding by the im pulse of his own judgment. He wished that-the Petitions he had to present might proceed paripessu, in both Houses of Parlia ment ; while at the same time a precedence should be given to the other House, because in that House one step had been gained in favour of the Petitioners. On this account, he had delayed presenting the Petitions for some time, until he learned that in the other House a notice had been given, and a day fixed, for taking the subject into consideration. He should therefore now take the earliest day for bringing the subject for ward; and he should fix on Thursday, the Bth of March, for makit g his motion in favour of the Catholics of Ireland. ile wisheu to add, that it had been intended to present these Peti tions in the last Session ; and that they had been sent to him at the time. But the important subject relating to the Queen then occupied so much of the attention of Parliament, that he did net think it fit to obtrude any other subject on the House at the time. Ir was, then, in pursuance of his advice, that his Catho lic friends deferred putting forward their Claims until the pre sent time. His Lordship th.n presented Petitions from the fol lowing Maces :—A i.etition from the Catholic Inhabitants of the united Pat ishes at St. Mary, St. Thomas, and St. George, in the City of Dublin ; soother from the Catholic Inhabitants of the united Pell tsbvs of St. Andre..v, St. M.ark, St. Anne, and St. Peter, Dublin; from the Catholics of the City and County of Waterforti ; arid the general Petition of all the Catholics in lidand.—The Petitions were ordered to lie on the table, and their Lordsh.ps were ord-Ted to be summoned for the Bth of IMarch :I:xi—Adjourned to „Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The &MANES, en taking the Chair, communicated to the House that the Royal A.sant had been given, by Commission, to several 13i,15, for which see the Lords). Mr. CU RTEIS Iresented Petitions from the Owners and Occupiers of L. , .rki in several Parishes in Sussex, complaining of Agricultural Distress, and praying for protecting Duties on the Impartation of Foreign Grain. The Honourable Member observed. that the Petitioners, though now extremely poor, had (wee been in opulent circumstances, but bad lost every thing in consequence of the extremely distressed state of the Agricultural Interest.—The Petitions were ordered to lie on the ta!rie. Mr. MORT. IN PITT presented a similar Petition frost Owner: and Occupiers of Land in the County of Dorset. Sir JOH SEKRIGHT presented a Petition to the same erect tom the Occupi,rs of Land in several of the Hundreds in the County ut I fertforu.-. These Petitions were laid on the table, alai ordered to be printed. Mr. Mavoa, from the British Museum, appeared at the Bar with certirio Returns ordered oy the House.—Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. Mr. f •URTEIS wished to know from the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it was the imention of his Majesty's Govern ment to restore to the Distillers permis.ion to use Wheat ? This perm salon was withdrawn on account of the scarcity, an now, when the reverse of that reason was the fact, there could not exist the same necessity for the prohibition. He understood the use of Wheat would be a material advantage to the Divot lers, and it would .rlso promote d'e ietereAs of the Public, and the Agriculturists in particular; he was therefore anxious to ascertain the intention of Government upon that subject. Ile was proceeding further, when The SP EA KRR interrupted him, and pointed out the irre gularity of an argumentative question. Mr. CURTRIS then repeated his question in an abbre viated form Mr. LUSIIINGTON said it was impossible to give an an swer to the question put to him by the lion. Member. lie was rat aware that the subject was under the consideration of the Treasury, and-certainly it was one of so important and delicate a natare, that he could not venture to touch it in the shape of an explanation—Wear, hear). Mr. BR A NDLING presented a Petition from certain per sons in the County of Northumberland against any alteration in the Duties on Foreign Timber. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, that if the Report of the Com mittee up stairs should recommend any alteration. in the Duties upon Foreign Timber, he should certainly oppose that recom mendation. Lord LOWTIIER presented a similar Petition from Cum berland. Mr. LOCKHART said he had a Petition atrainst any altera . _ _ _ Con in these Duties, from the Merchants, Ship-owners, and others, in South Shields. The Hon. Member said, that already the Agricultural Interests had been given up to the interest of the Foreigner, and the British Colonial Interest was to be simi larly sacrificed to the same party; and these sacrifices were to be made without the smallest reciprocal benefit. Mr. LOCK 11A ET also presented a Petition from Mr. Alex ander Campbell, a Member of the Assembly of Prince Edward's Island, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence who happened to be at pre sent in London praying that the house would not alter the Duties on Foreign Timber.—These Petitions were all referred to the Committee on Foreign Trade. 111 r. L. KECK presented a Petition from the Archdeacon and Clergy of Leicester, praying that no alteration might be nude in the Laws affecting Roman Catholics.—Laid on the table. Mr. W. PITT presented a Petition from a Parish M Glou cetlersbire, complaining of Agricultural Distress; and praying for relief.—Ordered to he on the table. Mr. CU w IND gale notice that, on the Oth of March, be should move for a Committee to inquire into the Laws for . the Removal of Vagrants. Ile bad received various complaints ef the grossest misconduct, on the part of the Police, (rum dif ferent parts of the country. Sir T. LETIIBRI DOE gave notice that, on Friday, the 2d of March, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable. the Trust Charitable Institutions to exchange or a li e n a t e the props* Eltreof, upon certain conditior.s. Mr. Serieajt ONSLOW gave notice that, on the 4th of April, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Repeal of the Usury Laws. Sir JOAN NEWPORT complained that certain Returns tram Ireland, which he had moved for a month ago, had not kern yet presented, and said, that unless they were brought up forthwith, he should Move that the Secretary of the Board of Customs, as Ireland, be tailed up and examined at the bar.— lle knew that the Returns were studiously kept back, in order provhat inquiry. JAJaII , IIVG,TON said, that the Returns were of so simple a nature, that there was no excuse why they had nut been prittented.—Oidered to be'presentedfortituids. Sir JOHN SE.I3 It I G 11T presented a Petition from certain landholders inllertfordshire ' complaining of Agricultur a l Dis tress, and praYing for'relief.—Laid on the table. Mr. STUA RT . WORTLEY presented a Petition from the Merchants and Traders of the Town of Whitby, in Yorkshire •agablisf any 'alteratioti in the Timber Duties.—Referred to th e Copuidtteo. 8Y.1113 510 N. T !nought up the Report • of the Committee eti Jails, Lfrubtailied leave to bring in a Bilt:for building a Jail sji 'the. C. of Northumberland. Mi. NI tArt:B7 ibt.ined leave to bring, a Bill for build ' 441 the County el Essex. 1 . ..GT.1N presented Returns of Game Certifi cues, and the amount of Duty upon Spar and on the table. • ;, IFILTITION OF T. DAViDSON,..A PRISONER IN OASNASI GAOL, RUTLANDSHIRIL. Mr. DENMAN said, he held In his hand a Peti tion which demanded the serious attention of his Ho nourable and Learned Friends on the other side.— The subject of it was of the greatest importance, as every subject necessarily must be, which related to the administration of justice in the country. The person from whom the Petition came, was Thomas Davidson, late of Duke-street, West Smithfield, and now a prisoner in Oakham Jail. The ground of com plaint was laid against a Learned Judge, Mr. Justice Best, and he (Mr. Denman) regretted that he had been selected to bring forward the question, as he had lived for some time in habits of intimacy with that Learned Judge, and had opportunities of know ing him as a friend, from having filled an humble situation in the Court where he presided. This was not a mere legal question, but one of constitutional law, and it would be necessary for him to state briefly the circumstances which it involved. It appeared that the Petitioner had been tried in the Court a King's Bench, Guildhall, for having published a blasphemous libel,and upon that occasion fined three times by the Judge while making his defence. The first fine was imposed for his having stated, that " no Counsel at the Bar could be found who would un dertake the defence of a person under similar circum stances;" and the three lines, together, amounted to the sum of £lOO. Now, so far as he (Mr. Denman) bad been enabled to in form' himself on the subject, this practice of fining a prisoner in the course of his defence was not sanctioned by law, nor could he dis cover that any instance of it had ever occurred. lie was not aware that any defendant had ever been pro hibited from saying whatever be thought necessary in his own vindication, when brought before a Court of Justice. The Petitioner set forth something like legal argument, to shew that he was justified in the course he had adopted. He (Mr. Denman) had not been present during the trial, but a Learned Friend of his, who argued with great ability when a motion was made for a new trial, referred to two cases which bore strongly upon the question. Ile cited the cases of Sir Walter Raleigh, who, while on his trial be- 4 fire Sir Edward Coke and Sir Francis Bacon, was frequently interrupted, and told he vas speaking treason ; yet neither. Judge ever thought of fining him. The next was the case of Prynn, Bastwick, and Burton, in the reign of Charles the First, who, upon a bill being filed against them, in the same manner as bills were now filed in the Court of Chancery, were bronght berme that tribunal, where they indulged in the most violent and abusive lan guage against the Al chbishop of Canterbury, whom they considered instrumental to their prosecution, The Archbishop rernonsti ated with the Authorities of the Star Chamber, and wished to get the answers of the prisoners expunged from the hooks, but his de- Tumid w. uld not be complied with, nor were the par ties fined while making their defence. In the case of Liltburn, at the time of the Revolution, that indi vi o.tl attacked the Judges in the most unmeasured language, but no fine was imposed upon him, and he was acquitted In the reign of Henry V. Lord Cobham, while upon his trial for heresy, indulged in every species abuse against the Archbishop of Can ter bury, but he a as ii r uaislied with a fine on that acc.iunt. In the ca e of. the King v. Williams, Lo d Kenyon frequently in[errupted the Learned (leAr. man who defended the prisoner; the conseque cc of -. Lich was, that the Co ..nsel told the Leat ned Judge, 1, would be impossible for him to go on he de fence. finless it were left open to him to pis.ceed in the course he was pursuing ; and this had the effect of making the Judge desist. He would not contend that where the proceedings of the Court we; e inter rupted, fines ought not to he inipo ed. Such a pro ceeding was essential for the vindication of its on 0 dignity; but when it went beyond the rule which was necessary to be observed for the iernoval of ob structions, then it assumed a power which could not he watched with too much jealousy—(Heat, hear). To transgress that rule might he attended with the very worst consequences. Suppose a man to be in dicted for a liltel, he might shew strong circum stances why a fine of £`2o could not be imposed upon him, without bringing him to ruin ; and was the Court to have the power of inflicting that fine at dis cretion? There wei e various other rea-ons why this practice .ought not to be allowed to prevail. In the present case, the prisoner stated that he was so much intimidated by the fines imposed upon him, as not to' be able to proceed with his defence. Whether lie was so or not must be best known to himself ; but it was no answer against the statement to say, that he was able to speak very fluently afterwards. Who could tell what effect the thought of the fines might have produced urftit his mind, and the conviction that he must be ruined by them ? It was the privilege of every person to defend himself if he thought pro per ; and many had done so with much more success than if they had been defended by Counsel ; but if the system of fining was to stare them in the face, how could it be expected that they should have that self-possession so necessary to persons in their situa tion? Upon this principle, a man, though he might, by a strong appeal to the Jury, get over a fine of £5O, still, by going with spirit into his defence, he ran the risk of a penalty, after his acquittal, much heavier than if lie suffered judgment to go by de fault—(Hear). To a poor man, the fine might be utter ruin. The principle was most conspicuous in po litical cases; yet it was not confined to them alone.— There was another very strong objection to fines of this nature, which was, that it committed the Judge personally with the defendant, than which nothing could he more injurious to the interests of justice. He had been told that the Learned Judge in this case told the Jury, that nothing which had transpired shoula have the effect of preventing him from calmly conceding every point that could bear in favour of the prisoner. He (Mr. Denman) was willing to be lieve the fact; but then anything which could eossi bly induce irritation, or-expose the mind to prejudice, was to be deprecated upon such an occasion. At the due the defendant moved for a new trial, the legs. lity of the fines could not be made a question, be cause after the conviction took place for the libel, the Learned Judge remitted then). Had the question ken brought forward, he (Mr. Denman) had very strong doubts that the Court of King's Bench would have allowed those fines. Though the allegation for which the defendant was fined in the first instance was not correct as it regarded the Bar, still the prin ciple of fining a. prisoner on his defence was not, therefore to btinstiEed. The Petition was couched in very respectftil terms, and he -hoped the House would allow it to lie on the table and be printed.— This was all he should now move for ; but if, after Honourable Gentlemen had read the Petition, they should be of opinion that something more was neces sary, then he might probably be encouraged to move for a Committee, with the view of addressing the Crown for a mitigation of the punishment awarded, seeing that a prima facie case was made nut in favour of the prisoner —(Hear, hear).—He was the very last I man to sanction such a .proceeding, but upon very strong grounds ; and had he been in his place last year, he should have voted against any remission of the sentence pronounced on an Honourable Baronet 1 (Sir M. Lopez), because he should not have felt him- self justified in supporting it, by the nature of the case. He deprecated the adoption of any new mea sures against the Liberty•of the Press—(Hear, hear); and he was convinced that the liberty of the subject would be much better secured by being left under . the protection of the old law of England, propounded by the Judges. He lamented that the Petition con mined one expression which he thought objection able. It was where the defendant said, that Mr.Jus tire Best remitted the fines after he had gained his end, which was to prevent him from making his de fence. The Hottourab.e and Learned Member then moved that the Petition be brought up. Mr. HOBFIOUSE: solicited the indulgence of the House while he seconded the, motion. lie adverted to some points which would come with much more effect from Gentlemen of the Legal Profession. It had been correctly said by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that there was no instance of persons being fined while on their defence. He had not been able to meet.with a single case.— According to Lord Coke, " usage proves the intend ment of law—non-usage the non-intendment." The strongest authority in favour of the existence of such a power was that of Judge Holt, who said, that if a defendant was guilty of contempt, the Judge might issue a warrant against him, if the contempt was coal -pitted out of Cour6or fine him if it was committed in Court. This, however, was only the dictum of a Judge, and could not be opposed to the law of the land. -When Judge Jeffries was on the Bench, Wil liam Penn, a Qaaler, had been fined forty marks for refusing to take dais hat in Court, and the Jury had been imprisoned for giving a verdict contrary to the opinion-of the Bench. But though Penn had insulted the Bench, lie was not fined for any expres sion made use of in his defence, but solely fur re- fusing to pull off his hat ; and, surely,. what had been too much for Judge Jeffries to do, ought to be too much for any Judge of the present time. (Hear, hear.) —ln the 3d Institute of. Coke, page 142, there was a report of the case of William Bruce, who, though he liaa grossly insulted the Court, had not been fined for his conduct. A verdict having been found against Bruce, he addressed the Judge in these words : " Roger ! Roger I now thou hast thy will of me r and on being•asiced what be meant, he added," what for a long time thou hast sought, my loss and they shame; and I will think of it, and reward it or re compense it." Here, though the Judge had been in sulted, and though the offence of the defendant was l , deemed so great that he had afterwardi been indicted for it, stiil it had not been attempted to fine him.— Rut in his (Mr. llobhouse's) opinion, if even a thou sand adjudged cases could be produced in favour of Lbe praCtice — , they were not to e be regarded as legal precedents, if contrary to the common law. If the law allowed the imposition of such arbitrary fines, Mi. Fox's Libel Bill was useless, for a defendant ani4ht by this power be so crippled in his defence, as _ . not to be able to avail himself . 4,f the benefit which ,hat Act was intended to give. Let the expressions used by the defendant in this case have been ever so gross, that had no:hing whatever to do with the quer. Lion before the House; for, however the grossness of the language might be proper matter for considera tion in awarding the amount of a fine, it never could of itself give a Judge the power of fining. The Ho nourable Gentleman referred to the conduct of the late Lord Ellenborough, on the trial of Eaton, on which occasion, though the defendant introduced the ost blasphemous and libellous matters in the course of his defence, the Learned Judge had said that he thought it better for the ends of justice to let him go on. Tile House should bear in mind, that the ermine with which a Judge was clothed did not invest him with infallibility. The present case was one that loudly called for the interference of that House, and he hoped they would see the propriety of putting a stop at once to a practice so inconsistent with every principle of justice—(Hear, hrar). The ATTORNEY-GENERAL understood that his Learned Friend who introduced this Petition did not deny the legality of the proceeding adopted by the Learned Judge. Some doubts, indeed, he ex pressed himself as entertaining on that subject, but he did not go so far as to assert that the conduct of the Learned Judge was illegal. The Hon. Gentle man who seconded the motion, however, went so far as to deny that the question of the legality or ilk gality of the Learned Judge's conduct had been at all discussed. Now he had to inform that Hon. Gentleman, that so far from his assertion being cor rect, the contrary was the fact; a solemn discussion did take place, and a deliberate opinion was delivered upon it by the Court of King's Bench. So that this Petition, therefore, could be considered as nothing more nor less than a request that this House should review the decision of the Judges—(Hear, hear). — The present Petitioner had been prosecuted for one of the most disgusting and abominable libels that ever was uttered in this country. He would take the liberty to read one or two passages to the House. Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to order. He under stood it to be the practice of the House that no Mem ber should read from a printed paper without the' permission of the House. He, for one, objected:to the reading of any part of a prosecution of a bias-' phemous and libellous character, since the libel itself was not before the House—( Hear, hear). The SPEAKER said, that what the Noble Lord had stated was perfectly true. A. printed paper could not be read without the permission of the House.-- Now it appeared that, on one side, there was a wish to read this paper, and on the other a desire to enforce the order. Under all these circumstances it was for the House to judge what course they ought to pursue. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL conceived that, without apprising the tiouse what tic. libel *as, it would be impossible for the House tb jl:J.ge . n r - course of proceeding " of which the Pctitiene. „ plained—(Hear, hear).—lt was not hi, vi e „. t „ the libel into discussion ; hut to apprise the of the nature of it, he would read LTA pasq,„ —(Nol rro o—Then he would state the 1)..: s from memory if the House would allow film o 4" Ip m mission —(Order) The SPEAKER beged pardon for interrupt;„; the Hon. and Learned Gentleman; hut ultenn;-,,? tention of the House was called to the lib e i 4 %4 ' was his duty to see that that which was nhje et „, l : e in one form should not be done in anodicr with„„„ the permission of the House— ( How, hear). Mr. BERNAL hoped that the House, up on cone, deration, would see no objection to.allowing the n and Learned Memler to select a few passage s a re the libel, if he thought it really necessary to b it argument—( Hear, hear). file ATTORNEY GENERAL was sure ix the last man in the Hou e who v ould deviat e c m ; the rules of the House. But he 'night be pe nb i teti to observe, that tins was the first time he sot t hi s rule enforced—(llrad, read).—The Honourable:nil Learned Gentleman then read a passage Ina,. 1 :,, libel, in which a gross commentary was mad.? Sacred -Sc.' iptures. It was the object of th e e , fendant on his trial, not only to re, eat ia CNal tl, e offence for which he was prosecuted, but tc utte r the face of the Judge still filmier blasphemy i n prevent that, the Lcartit'd Judge apprized hint till be would not perrni. him to 1:1 - oceed tit that observation, and if he did so, he would confide: t contempt of Court, and fine him. It was said i!ut this was interrupting the defendant in his deeac e , and that it embari assed himo. 'Etc House vi. a .,l judge of the weight of that observation, %helo t; were informed that the defend - ant was reading ten defence, which he had prepared befose !utak was n. 1 uttering an extempolaittous address to itl• Jury. In defiance, however, of the Juaige's :al- a , nition, the defendant proceeded in the , arrre or.ust, and made a broad and gross attack upon the i ni c i s , sion. For this he wa. not fined. Ile then proceeded to conduct himself with the grossesz iitsulettce to fa t Judge, dared him, it he could punish by tiae, toi le him ; and holding up his hands in a violent reamer, he said, " Here is the key of tile dangeon.for send the to it; it you do not, I will proceed in th! same way." Then it was that ti:c Learned hip fined him £2O. He then went on to utter theliikit blasphemies. The Learned Judie then tol:: that he would not sit there and hear the Chrhaa Religion reviled; and when the defendant stili ra ceeded in the same course, he fined him a secowasil a third time. The defendant then Ideated ha Feu verty, his large family, and stated that lie was ,t alle to pay the fines; and the Learned dud, v, Int Ire tit semmed up the case to the .lury, raid, tha CM these circumstances, and as the fines ha tat. 4 effect which he looked for—that of checking tau terance of blasphemy, lie would remit the:b. rne Jury convicted the defendant. A motion wissehse. quently made in the King's Bench I r a new trial; s, full discussion took place. The Judges err mously of opinion that the Juti:le hat: 410;1.i fined and, indeed, that no doubt cool i be entertainta await it. The motion for a new trial v. as refused: an.: ! et, after that decision, a Petition was now prrientedto .he House to review it. If his Hon. and learned Friend thought that the law on that subject oughts be altered, he might 1) ing tot wars! a propostowia that purpose. But this House out Appeal from the King's Bench--(Hear).—As imputation that the Learned Jadge inflictc in order to obtain a verdict, it was proved facts themselves to have been utterly without dation. Wits it to be supposed, that because! dividnal was a defendant, that theretore he be allowed to utter anything he plused? these circumstances, therefore, seeing th t duct of the Judge had been pronounced by petent authority to be legal, it was for the 1. decide whether the Petition was one to which ought to object or not—(Hear, hear). Mr. CREEVEY - said, that the 'had represented his Honourable cided that the King's Bench " judgment. His Honourable . such thing; but he had said, th; had exercised a power that had before, not even in the cases of in which the authority of Judges high. He (Mr. Cteevey) thought Mr. Justice Best, that he was an He had shewn that he was an the trial of Sir Francis Burdett, shewn that he was an intemperate case : indeed, Mr. Justice Best whom he (Mr. Cieevey) considered Judge; and he hesitated the less sion on this occasion, because Justice Best to be not infallible that House he had been seen hi opinions while he passed throng, til he obtained the place which 1 Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW.—‘ (Hear, hear).—l complain of th nourable Member. He not onl, things against a learned person, to call my friend—he has not or temperate Judge, and a politick sured his conduct while a Mem, Commons, which I conceive is The SPEAKER said, he had moment that it was his duty the opinion of the House mi?h of the Honourable Member s appeared to him (the Speaker), Member was making reference which the Learned Judge had the gist and gravamen of the all tion. He still considered, after been afforded him of revising . Honourable.Nember was rot our Mr. CItEEVEY said, as the he was not out of order, he di ceed with any further observatioi sidered the Petition was entitled "the circumstance of no Judge thing before; and he thought als►.. Best was an intemperate Judge—(Hem The SOLICITOR-GENlifi." inipossible for him to sit still aft I onourable Member for Appleb' .iot a Court . i--(Hear).—As •ti . idge indicted the - it was proved by -t utterly without i I, that because t t therefore he should he plessevl? ljokr i. seeing th t the cot- unounced by the cog. ; t was for the House to I as one to which they a hear). the Attorney-Gaol c it le Friend to have - • had given an illerl Friend had doo o that Mr. Justice bit d never been e • • Burton and ••••• ;es had been ghr, with deference' r an intemperate Jake int emperateJudge t, at Leicester. Helot rate Judge in this • t was the only - 11, u - , dered to be a ess to censure dl ;e he had know: c e; for when he wg holding very di- I gh various partio, • he now occupy • ' .“ I rise to ordo he conduct of theft' lly has uttered scon 4 )n, whom I am pco? only called him g , :al Judge, but has 4 mber of the Hone e extremely disordellY• id not conceived at to interfere, vc•-• ' it be as to the -f , observations. It 10 1 , that the Ho. to the motives ug- d decided, which . ullegations iu the er the tine %hien his opinion, that out of order. •• e Speaker bad doik lid not intend to Lions; but that Ise led to attention , e having done gle" also, t h a t Me :—(Hear, hear). • LAL obser ved, ,fter the reroarks 4 , by. Ile was OP