The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1810-04-06 00:00:00

tht it :rK rq '0 lie ,4 441 yrnt‘,l Fect, 11. y._ is las a ov 14 u pea from t of ii,el ;a lik ii,,,- qui s. • 414 ▪ a.tit 0414 Ultra p:o. tA ad. ure uir i mind, trn ,I, In ttU- iin.l 1111. Gut.. ci, row 4 ptries latairs- Eng. ml oat NA. Ind to He nly 111114-• —Hat fur hi sop %atilt! mina. Pr'• tated. !arta ; I W. 4 dime I tr., it•rl a Lave nprs the I *eat, 04 111 Derted to it it—(s totisel 1 other r to the sing a J that puhh— r that (Inks : amore ght to I out, Myr e he t , .t 1.1 de, t s, h. 1,1 ite till 1 . 11.1 it TI t'•• fsro- , 1 • tl.ef 1111 Ir l ot (le Ic y now before them. If it was true, as a Noble Lord tsaid . that he Vail the only perm* who ed to entertain doubts before , lie Arnold only 6 : l" tliJi. he was stet ashamed or stick doubts none ; he thought them neither usireusotio•-le our impro t li e coirwratelated tie that no tin. r . . Irina. Waal likely 10 . ill ille l eN t ,,l conaiderution. lii „ nis i atu Wed theist, that they did not herr on t h.', as they did nn a former night, that they sliould. t fpu,rtble,carry it by ucchunation ; in short, Valet to q sere in a temper, better calculated to hi le e in site nolividual, mud honour to thehnielves.— * The subject appeared to hum to branch intisiwo ~,uo.leralions; first, whether it was • grows arid se italalumi libel, reflecting upon the just rights and partleges of the House:" and, secondly, whether it nets e xpedient to declare it as sue,' ? They were ques ti,,,, e xtremely distinct, and each of them was co wl,' In a calm and deliberate inerettg u ti o n. I n - '„,,,,da n g to decide upod the first of these slues rt,„„., they should consider what was the object of be. petite:atom it was to complain of nu ant sup- I s,.rd to br illegal; surely then, it should initighte heir judgmeitt. if it appeared shit the act was die -1,1--that the committal of Mr. Gale Junta, as he inntetiledow es set-wig. He would state his di/I'l44as to the is „ pr iety, he woit:d not ray legulitv, of the act ; for t heir decieom could not be corrected by any other c d o t t. lie did not neofetesto.untlerstand the law of I ..., T i wneli t, which Lord Coke had described Yam' law % ,:nsh no ie but -l'ailiainentsrnao understood, rhoh all would seek, lint few could oomprehesid;" if it was riot fin-this diffidence, he should not hest. tate t o pronounce that the committal was Th e warrant had described the production as a libel on the clueracter arid conduct of the House. and of tome of its 'Members. lie bad looked at Mr. Jonrs'e paper, and found that it contained no a geceons whatevir upon the character or conduct at the House, but only upon that of tenant of its wenthers. He did not mean to jostify the prat tler of putting individual' upon their trial in Mirk debate/. Where any persois who paid a shil ling might become an unditor or an accuser, and when the side of popularity was. always that of accusation. The paper, in fact, complained only et the courluct of ass individual member, who had s ourced the otasiding order for the exclusion of eriNeri; but that iva, our complaining of or sect wing the House—lie had the authority of the Chair itself for saying sir. Here he read the paper, which rimmed. as Si questiou for debate, a COOP. parieo.i of the conduct of Mr. tViiitlliain and Mr. Yorke; and stated, at the Sallie tissue, that it bad been decide:id, on the former night, that the euforeement of the standing order, was NM illiberal 111.10/1 lite bbrrh of the press, and calculated to excite a still greater degree of discontent in the public mind. Could tiny using b e more guarded, am thing snore directed against the individual ▪ sod more perfectly Pia-tired agamst any :in vitee:ion to the Howe itwit ? An lion. 3leinber hail said, that it would not he proper to decide at wa v e O W ease of Jaites, while they hesitated upon that of Air Frani is Burdett. But the cases were quite different. Ile did not meals to deny that this piper outwitted to a libel %Mu the individual, though he befit red it did uot.thnount to a libel on the House. 'Else warrant did not state that this 1144 a libel ng,ieissot ft was said, that DO Oilier Court should decide the privileges of that Home. Out Ite supposed, that if a party had been committed, and applied for a 11a6eas Corpus, and if, upon inquiry, it appeared, that that for which he wa s committed slid toot sur•uut to /4 breach of pri vilege, the Court would be roaspetent to set him at liberty. He di I not to dispute whether they had a right to comma fir breach of privilege. Lr all cows that went h to create a direct olotetic tuch as refusing to obey the orders of the Wiese, anti;;; Members trout voting swain]- . in; !is the diem.* of their oon jadgicelos, &c.; it lois Proper that they should have such a ri g ht, and be co uptittit to pr./feed is this summary way ; hat rhea the past conduct of the Member nits all that was cubed in questioti, he doubled it very such; and doubted it etootiminiet arpear-d to hen to be a very strong i„,sroobt.l, beesiuse It was agstiot all the sacred pruseeples of imbue, Mid -in uolitise If every rule of reeat - ; became, in such a case, the characters of.ju.lge and accuser were blest, d together. add be, rasa the party accused was i3Ot permitted to he beeed hi his /own defence. The llouourablef Baronet was not aware of the obstruction which had, been ingeniously and eloquently put upon the word w eaturce," and no other court in the kiisitdom would proceed to de ride upor it, we hrt hearing his own construction. But though, in the preset instance, the publica tion was admitted, it might net in others; anti yet. upon the same penal's!. that they decided. now, they would be justified in deciding, when the putt litttion was not admitted. He reprobated, in htrnng terms. the idea of being accusers. party, and judge, ; judges without appeal. If it was arcessary. he allowed, it ehauld be bossie ; but without ee tilthelting its necessity, it ass questionable at d ""fials Lord Chief Justice be Grey had said, it was legal for Parlisinent to ci:entnit, 'weenie it was one's try ; the inference from Which was. that where it %Isom neceseniy, it was not legel. Hots. Friend " reprobated the unison of tystilidosvn the Howe Ctimmons to the technical holes which regulate 4raw courts. But those were not technical rules "-Hwy were rules above them all, mad ahoy.. all Esutts of Justice—they were rules to which every tr ' m z• but what was above Immian nature, must hear.)—Many precedents had lure talked of, but only one was adduced. which ea, trot of Arthur Hall. It was surprising, firsts (! hit tiiee should go to the reign of the Tudors bee s precedent ; and. secondly, that they should Se. let 89 eomplicated a case. This individual had published a work, reflecting upon th e Member s of is • e Reuse, and. on bring summoned, hail refused l ''llettar. They inspriarmed him for 6 months; they him !00 marks; nay, they eeteniled the leo !ence of imprissinosent, until he should make retrace n of the principles for which he had coutended. I . 'erne time after the House resolved thins no re- had been rn.cle; upon which they <tele r''d 1 " the Croons of the Eleil.chanstwe v the k ...c.ltor of the Exchequer, and other servants of It' :wn. the plot, to cominne the imprison- In'at until this retructritiou ehnu!.l be at-reeled. Sit Fat they had gives' authority. under certain circa to IMIIIIIOO iti•rt for life. Much wss the • I ; .ou which they *eft called to act.—(!fear, hair.)—lf they were to he bound by precedents, he could trot, the case of a men sent to the House of Correction, during his life, for an alleged breach of pAvilege; he co u ld groote another, in which the pillory was the panishinent ; and 11. third, iii which tbe , llnuse had invented a lostaishuseut unknown to the law, setting-two persons Oa buraeback,with their facer towards the horses' tails, and (hiving them, in that ignominious pusition, through the sown. If on. single case would serve to justify any measure, there could scarcely be a propositina started, which might not receive such support. When they talked of precedents, he swathed they had produced the last. There were Revolutions of that House, which went to justify it; one of which was in 1690. But a Resolution of the House did not make the measure law ; rod at the same time that this Resolution was passed, it was declared. that to sot for • Rehm Comes, when committed by the House. was a breach of privilege. In the case of the King germs Flower. the individual was committed and tined. He .poke with great respect for the Judges nen that occasion, but whets lie considered the argotarnts upon which their judg ment was founded, he could not consider it a grave decisiou. He paid many compliments to the legal sagacity of Mr. Ilargrave, by whose means the case was submitted to the Court of King's Bench. The language held by the Judges upon that occasion, was, " when is linos mei; pro ceed to destroy the Constitution, they will begin by calumniating Parliament, an I the Courts of Judi cature, nod utiles, we intend to become parties in the subversion of the Government, we must re mand the prisoner." Could any one, he would ask, whe heard that. pronounce that such a judgment was given in that cool, dispassionate wanner, which was necessary to give it weight as NU authority for future decisions? Under all these circmusbnices, he conceived that be hail every reason to doubt the legality of com mitting a man fur using such strong language vs might be construed into a libel, or which actnally cone under the precise denomination of a libel.— He represented the great danger which might result from the decision of the House upon a punishment for the expression aped censure, when it wander ed into libel. As such was a true statement of his sentimeuts upon the occasion, he would think it hut fair, after the present question had been disposed of, to move the discharge of Mr. (iale Jones, without obliging him to present a petition. or to act in such anu ras had been prescribed by the House. He could not help thinking, that, if such a mode of authoritative prescription had been the citation of the House, it was a custom, " Mitre honoorta in the Wesel, 11131. the observaace." fl• di.' not know of any civil tribunal that is nub' r. yaine • retraction of the opinions of the l ing before his discharge from coidine. mem. A man had made u statement of cir cumstances, which presented themselves, with great peculiarity, and great str.ngth, to his view, and had m.de that statement, according to his sin. cere and mature opinion ; and would the House oblige him to declare, that this statement was n misrepreeeutation, that this opinion wits false and erroneous, and that lie would retruet it ? In the course of the last Seeman of Michel:mot, a person was committed, (General Clot reing,) and Fits con duet ear most tangly and jitstiti Lisle ; for he did not ignommi-usly retract his opinion. But the conduct of Sir Francis Burdett was by no means deserving of censure ; as it wits evident be a its right in hie main object. Gentlemen had attacked the Noble Baronet for not hewing acted with more caluiviese. That such a epoodton its that, upon which the Noble Baronet had been engaged, required reignites., was a very good argurneet, Wi kiwi/tees ; but, then, in what words had that Hous- expresstd itself upon an occasion when they eeliceived their privileges had been violated by the Upper Reese ? The language which was wird un der such circumstances, was for from bearing that clianic•er for mildness which had been represented as so necessary fur the observance of each individual Member, The inieener in which that House std. dressed the 'Lessor Lords, upon this attack on its rfghts, indeed, of a very different complexion. After having expostulated, in a very angry manner, the Hume proceeded to state, that it DU firmly con vinced of their Lordships' determination to bring the lib-sty and property of the subject into the bottom!CS4 gulf of their Lordships' judicature; and it would pot be wonderful, after whist they had done, 'lilt they would go to any length against the House of Commons. He would beg leave to ask, whether the paper which was the subject of their prtrsent eomideration, contained any thing of so violent a nature, or so violent a tendency its this ? And was any individual in that House, whose mo. tires were influenced by the suggestions of inte grity and juleiceeto express hints. If calmly upon a subject of such vital and immeasurable importance? Here wire two cases, which bore some saulogy to eat: II other; the our, in which an individual of that House had given his opinion, certainly with ardour, and perhaps with some precipitancy; the other, in which that House had given its deliberate, violent, and unchangeable opinion, expressed with such comparatively intolerable warmth and disappro b emu. When such a circumstance was considered, no censure could possibly attach to a man for act. Mg as the Noble Baronet had done. He deprecat ed the idea of au attempt to influence the House by any allusious to what might have been deemed blameable in the Noble Baronet's past conduct.— Ile believed that any attempt to operate upon the decision of a judge, would be highly punish able, as an attempt to obstruct the course of jugice, and • violation of the priaciples laid down in Mapes awes. He had no inten tion to Custer into a diseussiost of the past con duct of the Noble Baronet, who was an utter straw gs r to him; but the present question was one which called loudly for the interference of every man who knew and admired the principles of the crinstito ' lion. Ina Court of Justice, the Judge was obliged to decide upon the merit* of the question be fore him ; it was 01141.611 ; but that House was not Deregsliated to set with such precipitation. Was it to judge hastily upon au occasion. where a member should take op a pamphlet for perusal, should be at the momeet Irritated at the contests, and in the midst of his resentment. represent it under all those rercutneitlCEM of libellous and pernicinue teudency f The committal of a man for politics, es well as fur heresy, created disciples; the discu woo of the privileges of that Howse, would cer tandy be productive of no poswide advent ige. And he was pin twirl:My averse from the idea of coupling thst que!dion with the question of the late unfortunate Expedition. He did not think that the opinions of the opposite Gentlemen were influenced upon the latter question by prin. civics other than highly conscientious ; but it should be considered that the nation and that House were at issue as to that question.-010, 50.1—And would the House, alter having acquitted Aliiii.ters, censure an individual, fur what, if he was considered as in error, was so comparatively trivial and insignificant ? Mr. STEFFIBM said, that he had peculiar plea sure in hearing the eloquent speech of the Hon. Baronet ; but his conviction was by no means pro purtioued to his admiration. The motive a which had influenced the Hon. Baronet's conduct were himoursible, and completely compatible with his manly character. Bot there were upon the pre. sent *object circumstances which militated against the approbation to which the Hon. Baronet's libe rality was usually entitled. He had adverted to • topic which occasioned the prevention of any con cordance with him upon his (Mr. Stephen's) side, and went strongly to obstruct, instead of hastening an the objet he had in view. II! claimed the op:nion of his Hon. Friend, whether, if he hail thought that the House had violated any constitu tional rule, with respect to the commitment of Gule Jones, he would not, at the mordent, have proposed his liberation ? Such were the priuciples of his lionoorable Friend, such were his notions of justice, and love of rectitude, that a proposition to that effect would have Leen rustle without delay by him. But no such proposition had ever been made or suptnrted by the Honour able Baionet ; and his silence was a proof of his acquiescence in the sense of the House. He (Mr. Stephen) had paid the utmost atteution to leis Hon. Friend, because he expected to hear from him, with great decision and accuracy, the manner in which contempt of that House ought to he punished ; and also, the maitre of what should be termed con tempt. But his Hon. Friend hail not fulfilled this expeciation, neither had lie said whether the pamphlet nos a libel or not. He had spoken amen, but did not give his negative or affirmative upon that subject ; if he did not think it a libel, all the elaborate arguintait by which he defelided Gale Jones, was entirely irielevant to the tpiestunii. 'rise meaning of the words its the pamphlet, if there was any Inert • g in them, was, that she (louse had 110 right to imprivai any person; that such conduct Wail a violation of Magma Charia; that the first duties of the /I nese were infrings (I. alien it committed a man to pr.sati without a trial by Jury; and that the war. rant was contrary to the privileges of all Englishmen. tV hat innumerable instances had occurred to over turn all die logical arguments of the Hon. Bart. (Sir Francis Busdets). He had set it down, that the House had 110 right to tine or 101p1 - $Oll for any of fence or contempt offeresi to it. His Noble Friend (Sir S. Itoinilly) had not made any such proposi tion ; but, on the contrary, had declared. tart the House could commit to prison for contempt Many had said that Gale Jones should not have been sent to prison ; if that was the case, t, e con duct to be pursued, with respect to him, s ho u ld not be mere liberation firm confinement, but it full and satisfactory compensation should be made.— If such an sweation was just, such • line of conduct should be immediately followed.— But, in his opluion, the pamphlet was a violent and arbitrary attack MUM the privileges of the House of Commons. With respect to the autho rity of the Courts of Law, it had been said that such modern examples as those of Kenyon, Mans field, and Le Blanc, were not of any account.—He (Mr. Stephen) could not conceive upon what grounds those high legal authorities could he ques tioned. In the Court of Common Pleas, in the case of the King 'Oust Crosby, the opinion respecting the lux cowoilwtaparliamentarii, was set down int most distinct, precise, and authoritative language. The Houseof Commons was not only competent to judge upon its rights, but to punish any invasion of them. The authority of modern Judges had been ques tioned, but no ancient legal authority had been ad duced to confute it ; and if such authority had been consaltrii, there would he initiol in it nothing to operate in favour of the Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Bur dett). It had been said, that the House of Com mons was not a Court of Record. Lord Coke was the authority in contradiction to this assertion. lie sail, that the House acted seewitclwffs lege* par/ia werstarri, upon cases of cont.-row, and that the mode of punishment was not to be transferred to the de cision of any other Court. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the CAM., Lang, for bribing the Sheriff, was an exemplification of the establishment of this power. lit another case, Hall, who was confined for publishing a book in reprobation of the Parliament, was ordered by that Parliament to mike a recantation. The order was immediately complied with. This power, then, must be looked upon by all as •n ancient privilege. A further proof was the case of Monk. fur assaulting a member of the Home. All these circumstances, strengthened by the opinion of' Lord Coke, were strong arguments in favour of the unquestion able • privileges of the House, and of its right to take zogniz ince of any question of its authority.— Lord Coke had said. in the case of Hatchell. that he wished his tongue might stick to the roof of his mouth, if that House was not • Court of Record.-- As to the nature ofcontempt, he had the authority of Blackstone to quote, in which it was laid down from whence contempt originated, its gradations, and the punishment which ought to be inflicted for its application. Mr. Stephen then reprubated• the idea of raising a sentiment of aversion in the 'Mods • of the people with respert to that House, connect ed as it was with the vital principles of the Consti-; , tution. In former timer it had been said, that if the Hauaeriid nest take taut.. its own hands the main teriance,of its privileges, other Judges would be arbiters of those privileges.-_ The House of Lords would. in was ease, be matter of the privilege, of the House of Ominous. The late Expeditiou had bead aliusied to unnecessarily. There *Mated no ne cessity for ideutify mg it with the present question. The noble purposes for which that Expedaioa vas • intended. had been loaf t.. 1 lie tither want of' energy or waist of spirit. and the fittest opportunity fur distinguishing the Bluish arras. was lost by the miscarried,. !Is cootended, that if disconteat had 0N...* for some time prevailed in the minds or the people it was not now the case; and he 0 ought it rather, hard that the opposite ride of the House should use such manifest exertion to remiteate the popular disatnehatiou. Rut it had been said, that the House should apply to the Courts of Law, Ile would suppose, that the elector, of Middlesex and Islewoitti constituted the House of ('unitriteis, and that' they thought proper, divested of these old Pe... tablished privilege% to call for an inquiry tutu the calamities of the Expedition ; what would he the consequence ? The witnesses whose test iluoily would be w materially important, might refuse to attend; mid other evils might happen in surf) a 'tat. of im potence and Erbil ity. The House of Corn mons would then have to apply to the Courts of Law, 11114 bet that vengeance fur which the people called so loni!ly. Would any one dispute the power of the House, es exercised towards General Clay( ring and Captain Sandon ? In the Court of Chuhcery, d.d not the Lord Chancellor exer. ise the power of committing soy person for a contempt of its authority ? And when an individual was committed f,rr mariying a ward of that Court, did not the sane artruments apply with respect to the want of trial by Sury ? It had been argued, that this case ought not to lie put to its utmost extent. It reminded him of the story of a drunken Irishmen, who, having received coutosions on his face, with his eyes and mouth swelled up, was accosted with till% remark, that he was a disgrace to Ireland. " answered the man, '‘ my dear creature, I like to take the world easy." lii the present instance, this was the worst possible way of taking the measure. lie must ac.. kimelodge, it was a most unfortunate occurrence; but, independent of every consideration of that Da- Wry, it became the.. House to come to a final vote ou the occasion. Mr. ADAM contended, if the arguments of an Honourable and Learned Friend of his s ere to be attended to, there was an end of the authority of the House of Commons. Had not the !Luise of Commons, from the earliest tunes, through the reign of the Tudors, darling the tyranny .of the Jamesee, armed with nothing bat its owe pri vileges, Inaght its way through every exercise of despotism, and the effusioo of human blood ? Rut it was reserved for the present times, for the year 1810, to start grace doubts upon this important subject. Hecoujured the House not to give up its Privileges merely because, in a solitary meranee, they might not hare heen exercised with a due re. gard to discretiou. Ile would appeal to every man alto undeestood the Law and Constitution ef the country, if it were not the character of every court of justice to maintain its authority by an inmate power? aid upon this whject lie would refer them to the 4th of Cube's laquotes. Wes it to lie restricted to the House of Lords and the House of Commons, that they alone should tie de. Kind of that power so essential to preserve the au thority of every other Court ? An.l were they to be limited to possess no higher authority the.. • tiat of a constable of the night ? He would ask if the offence attributed is Mr. Gale Julies was 10.0 cuasi derably greater than that of preventing tam in hid Way to the House ? When he I 11 , .:tedupuu she past struggles of.the House of Common,' he Was convinced there was not tiny thing. eacepi its quisitortal power, winch maintained it in the Cse... mitigate's. He quoted the authority of the care of Crosby, where Gould J. had expressed his how far a man was legally liable to be puinsherl far outing or speaking contemptuously of Judits;— and to make that opinion apply on the present oc. coition, it was only required to change the oh i jeet, namely, Courts of Justice, into the House of Lome. mons, and with them it must be acknowledged, that whenever Comte of Justice lose Hutt right, they lose their authority amongst the people.-- Judge Blackstone, alto had been appesled to as an authority, certainly went on to stale, that if coma• mellitus behaviour was practised, an attachment immediately ensued, as a necessary come e;uence. —This authority, like the pre-cut wider dill. custaon, could not be traced to it., commencement. Uid his Honourable Friend recpllect, there was once a time when a Lord Chancellor, the Keeper of the Great Seal, attempted to deprive them of the decision upon the election of their own members The power of that lions, resisted the attempt, and preserved their iudependence; and he hoped the day would come, when the sense of the ',emir, ex pressed by there Representatives in that House, would remove from their situations, those rueu who incompetently directed the affairs of the country. —ln support of the doctrine he laid dowp, he would rite a case in 1774, when Mr. Woodfall was imprudent enough to reflect upon the conduct of the person who then tilled the Chair of the Home of Commons. Th. question then was, whether Mr. Woodhull should be committed? but Mr. W. having stated his author to be Mr. Herne, sad the latter Geottemen being brought rip. plead. ed not guilty ; acid at that time there was not one word heard about the privileges of the House. It was the more extraordinary, because an scrums. eons discussion took place, and the most eminent characters of the country, Fox, Thurlow, Lough- • borough, &c. took part in the debate; but it nevi f occurred to them that the House of Common, d iit cot possess the power to commit oither Mr. Woorif..ll Of Mr. Home. It was left fur the times in which we iive, t o disput e such power and privilege, and he almost considered it* waste of their nine to referee, any other prrcedent.With respect to the caw of 1701, there was dent a division upon the privilege of the Home of Common. ; and it would be observed, that Sir Ho. bert Walpole was one of the tellers foe the majority. It had been admitted in all time*, and reorgnized by every great autheritp that the pewee-oft:nut ts oh 1,41 C could not restrict the privileges of the Hausa of Commons. The great 4.0ril Holt sever delivered se opinion ogainet their hiving power to commit. It was no orpiment to adducce the conduct of en intemperate Committee, as an indemnity to the intemperei ce of en Whir, in the rouse of Crosby. a Habeas Corpus was moved for. mot the gnestiort was argued Wine the Court of Census.* nen, and shoot the weine nine in the Exchequer, • the Judges never iittektiened the wiener" of lad House. He would refer to this eXpTellllOl44 of Lend . Chief Jnerice Grey. Dennison, and Forst. r, who aid • maintained there• wait no reason to gnu..time the privileges of that House; sell would they be Nis. posed to overturn sto-h great authorities, by that of a case, suppled nude by the deel-,rat or , of Lord Kenyon. In tweet of the dottnne• hr now