The Sun. — London, England, 1820-02-07 00:00:00

•--- 7 1. z: , ;Tt-t'l'72T.'4.l r . %774,4 ' ' 1 -- , : , 'R N s is4; - -. 4 miAlifiV4k. - 4 acts rit violenc e sagattist the - Legiflattir,e!. Toe third objection I mean '1) submit to the return is, that, oil the return, it does not appear ilia( I nave liqd any heariti at al!, and I eert-tihly shall be able to diens , that this is not only against every principle of English law, but is even against the ptoceedihgs of 4li 1-1,, 0 , • o f Commons itself. 1 tie Cliii-J Justice—ls there any other objec tion you memo) ,0 loge i M , flobi•otise—Y-s, toy Lord. In the fourth place, 1 shall eudtavour to argue, that even as suming the House of Commons to be a Court of Joilicaiore, awl competent to take wider its cog nizance wits , is eliuged to be it seditious libel, ,itt i l assuming it to have authority to «indent° an Englishman in his absence, still it cool.' no. 4 on &out au Englishman to imprisonment. That is flit- phint I shall next attempt to contest be for*. you , . L , rdsitirs. 111,. ni.x point will be to S t ; ,•,, . ! , ,--)1 i fir littoral remedy for me under these eiictinistaht e :, is to claim my libel - allots at y o ur Till L"'"l'l'iPs' hand ‘ , ll ITah-as Coitnis. I shall af r"!' -, 1-‘• art!' tt , • " 't- • . I 1 • 1 ' ) that, ... 21 N s a face of this searra4.l-4.:s, , miti ; .‘" every ‘0 ` (I; hv pr ject ion to be removed, assumin g Ilia! no t! big ihrorto4 isisa taken place in the mode of ~, ~„,,,,,,,,s .„ !Le m c u.. or „„„„ n„s, still there an ii , forni:Jity on 'he face of the warm ,,, that :.....- trj, Attoo, apj , Parg to tile, 111.1ke it itupo,ible any 11 , Pnoer to tle'ail It ; it your Lord. 1.4 , , Wish me to state wit +t that I;hjection is, I I wail do it II • bur , at rite same flint . , yfilir Lord kiLihleS, and peroti.4sion - , I wit , h to re-,t.t it tor arg.ilueut when 1 shell be brought up , i;,;'4111 The Chief Justice, after confertiog With the t; lit Jule Skild, '' yoti must tell us what your rt•maitiii•g objection is." Alr. lloblionse—Th e informaN•y o f wi i i c h 1 complain, is, that (bete is nn publication at all stated in the warraot , the pamphlet alluded to is not called a Folioed pamphlet, and I are not said to have authorised the printing or publishing 0 it ; and this, I submit, is a vice in the wariaut, which, according to all priociples of legal and na tural justice, is a fatal objection, The Chief Justice alter conferring a consider able time wi - b the other Judges, immediately pro• seeded to deliver his judgment as follows :—" We have conferred together, and 1 ant of opinion, th a t siring in this Court, we are not authorized by the la a. to :be land to enter into the discussion of any of the obj , ct)oli s taken by the Gentleman 4 s the floor to his tomiei.inetir. It has been settled by many prece:eor, lamiglit from time to time before the different Courts of Westminster Hall, Hod lately in the most formal manner by a writ of error trwn this Court to 'he. House of fiords, that it is competent for the House of C0m ,.0..s to commit fur contempt ; that they are the . g t i and _the only judge s, as fat as this Conic 411 koow, ef whist is a contempt of them ; sod il:ita. their are a great number , ht CdSeS, where mo ions . for the • wri• of !Jaheas Corpus have been ',.. made, in which ;his .1,41 ott o . l C ourts o f IVest i:i- minster 11.,1: uave, 'rum iinlt! 10 time, reiosed to r');l i , 4 implior two oe awhority of the House to corn ,.'.l ' . ..,i t 'And I n 0,,, s;:ite nio , ,t distinctly, that we t,' ; ,,'Z nave. 00 aorhority to entertdin these objections ry with that view It is su,:gested, that thew is an 4. 1 int,rmidiry it) the form of the warrant, because ~,, publication of the libel is stated to lease taken A ' 'lace ; hut the warrant states, that the House of Commons has ibis day adjudged that a Pamphlet 1 • . , mitten so and so is a scandalous libel. Now, we . cannot suppose th a t th e y a dj u d ge d i t to he a scan . dalous libel, unless th e y b a d t h e pamph l et b efore d • th e m, an J under their cons id erat i on _ . '1 he adju .ti oication necessarily impOrts that the pamphlet was before them, and that they had considered it.- -.-, Then it is said, that it does no: appear that the :' party was h ear d. T he warrant rec i tes, ' That k whereas John Cam Hobliouse, Esq. having ack -04 nowledged himself to .be the author of the pamph !•, let, the House of Commons had, therefore, 'or e dered so and so.' It.is stayed in their resole . , tion,•and it appears by the Speaker's warrant, that ~ fbis GentLeman now before us has acknowledged ~,• himself to be the author o f t h e lib e l ; we cannot, ' - '4 !Iterefore, enter further into the question. In the case brought by Sir F. Burdett against the late i Speaker of the House of Commons, which was ,rguett first in this Court ; Ott!, wards upon a Writ of Error in the Court of Exchequer ; and, • , littuately, in the House of Lords, a distinction vas taken between that case, which was an action .1 trespass and the case of a return to a Habeas Corpus. 'That distinction was taken by Lord e . .,r , kine, when the case was under the consider*. ion of the House of Lords. All the cases that ate been decided'in the different Courts of West , miuster Hall upon this subject were brought un 'ter review, aorthroughout the whole decision it W4l never doubted that the Courts of Common Law, had that authority to interfere with, super sele, of take upon themselves to annul a Resolu 'ion of the House of Commons, by discharging tram custody a person proved to have been com mitted by (Le House of Commons fur a contempt. The cases I have alluded to were iii that case all ackoowledged to be law, and, in the argument, Ito ; House of Lords proceeded 011 the dist iuction between the ease of a return to Habeas Corpus and an action of trespass at law. We should, :herefore, be doing that which we are not autho rized to do, if we were to discharge thieGentlentan out of custody ; and I now repeat, that if we should accede to this motion, we should du what the law won't' not allow us to do." The prisoner must be remanded.—Mr. Hob house interfered, and said : May I have per- :3 :; r,? mission— The Chief Justice No, Sir, wa have heard your points. Mr. Hobbouse bowed, evidently mortified at the unexpected course which the proceedings had taken. Alr. Justice Bayley There have been cases ex pressly deci•ice of this question. The first case upon tie subject is that of Lord Shaftesbury, let Mad. 144, and the principle there laid down is this—ti.at a commiiment by either Molise of Par liament for a contempt, is r commitment in exe cution, and the Courts oh Law cannot during the session discharge ur bail the party. They bare no jurisdiction so to' du., The Judges cannot judge of any law, custom, or usage of Parliament. A commitment for a contempt of eith e r H ouse cannot he enquired of by the Judges ; they cannot ' 1 ,6., • • a:~:y.~ inquire for what the commitment was ; it' is suf ficient that the party was committed fur a con tempt of the House. These are the principles , hat are to be deduced from Lord Shaftesbury's case. The next case was that of the ' Qdeen v. , Vattie,' - rrported in Lord Raymond, 1105. There the question under the consideration of the Court of Kioe's Betich was as to the right of the house of Commons to commit, and similar principles were laid clown to those I have mentioned. There Gould, Justice, said, "That the Courts of West minster H ill cannot j''dge of the privileges of the House of Cormitoos ; those they must debate among themselves. !Then a commitment by the House of Commons is returned, though it does not set out sufficient cause of commitment on t'thjection cud be taken. The Judges are not to airtswer matters urged against this privilege of Par liament, because the privilege of Par Hameln can nor be determined by common law. If the curse of comfoioueot - is stated to be in breach 4 the privilege ot the House, the Courts of Wesimhister cannot knotv of the sufficiency of the cause ; for they have no rules to produce wheel by to judge ot its sufficiency." 'lbis is said by Puwis, Justice : " The Courts and Judges. have on jurisdiction todi•charge n man committed by the House or Crowfoot's for what they have adjudged to be a contempt," &c. &c. &c. This question has again and again hero tin , if.r the consider at i on of this Court on (tiff-rent occasions, and was par ticularly under its consideration, in the case of So: F. Burdett v Ahbott. It ivas with a vie.w to flits!, that I Lave collected the authorities to which I have now referred ; and it was settled and ad judged in that case, that the House of Commoos have power to commit, and that this Court could nor enter into the propriety of that coMmittnent. We !lase not the means ot forming a judgment, whether the commitment was.right or not. That case was under the consideratiou of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and there the Judges were unanitnonsly of opinion that the decision of this Court Was right. That decision, I believe, went afterwards under the consideration of the House of Lords, and there our decision was ultimately affirmed upon the principle to which I have been retesting. For these reasons, it seems to me that we are not competent to hear any discussion upon this subject. If we see on the face of the war rant, that the party is committed for that which the House have adjudged to be a coniempt of that House, I have no difficulty in saying, that the House had a right to tu<fkr such an adjudica tion and that we have no authority to call it in question. At the time when the application for this Habeas Corpus was made, I believe the words of the statute of3l Car. 2. were not so accurately considered, or perhaps ,bl:ilight to the atteorion ot the Court as they ought to have been. It was e assined as a pi opot.ition not to he doubted, that a party had a plain, clear, legal right to a writ of ~ H abeas Corpus upon such a committreot as this. Certainly, if the words of he Habeas Cor pus act ale looked to, it will be found that it does nut apply to a case of this description ; for the benefit of that act is confined wholly to the case where the commiftneot is for a crime, except treason or felony, or suspicion thereof. It is clear that ibe Act does not extend to a case of this de. scripiion. At the same time, independently of the Habeas Corpus Act, this Court has a COW tnon law jurisdiction to grant a Habeas Corpus ; but, in both cases, there ought always to be a proper - wound of lam before the Court to justify them in granting such a writ ; and it m ,, st not he takefr that any man, under any c t irc t t h m e w tsta r t i i t ( ces )f , has a right, as a matter of co u rse, o Habeas Corpus. I merely - throw this out in con sequence of the man net in which this writ was first obtained, because upon carefully looking at the statute of 31 Car. 2, it appears to Ore that this is a case in which the party is not entitled. to Habeas Corpus as a matter of course. E very man who applies for a Habeas Corpus, is bound to lay such a caseupon affidavits before the Court, as will be sufficieut to regulate the discretion of the Court in that respect. Upon the whole, it appears to me, that this Court is not comp etent to hear any argument on the points which have been mentioned, and that we should not be war- _ ranted in acceding to the motion., Mr. Justice 1 - loiroyd and-Mr. Justice Best, in an able and elaborate judgment, severally de livered their opinions in concurrence With the other Judges. l'he Chief Justice then ordered the prisoner to be remanded, and at► et►try to be entered on the 'chat), of the reasons why that eourie was pursued._ Mr..Hoblionse attempted to address the Court again, but was prevented by the Court. He was then remanded to his former custody ; and in his passage through the Hall hr was loudly cheered by an immense crowd which had assembled. Arter he had kit the Court, the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice ilolroyd said, they wished it to be understood that al; h oug h a wr i t o f Habeas Corpus had been grauttd to ►Mr. Hobhouse, in the first instdncc, on the- authority of a dictum of Lord Kenyon, in " The King r. Fowler," T. R., that this must not be considered as a precedent in future, because, after looking carefully through the Habeas Corpus Act, it was clear that the writ of Habeas Corpus could uor he granted as a matter of course, and without eußicirnt woun d s laid h e . fore the Court for its inierposition. MR. HUNT AND THE LANCASHIRE MAGISTRATES. At the riling of the Court at half-past four •'Clock, Mr. Hunt took his station in the centre of the floor, and manifested an inclination to ad dress the Court. The LORD CHIEF- JUSTICE.—Me. Hunt, what do you want ? Mr. Hunt.—My Lord, I haves motion to make to the Court. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.- --What is the us tote of it ? Mr. Hunt.-1 will shortly state it. I move for a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue out of this Court, to wove my trial " the King against Hunt and others," for N conspiracy to overt hi OW t lie C 7 OVer11111r11: at the Manchester Meeting on the I till, of August out of the juricliction of the County of Lancaster, and into that of the neighbourin g County, th.t of York, or else,. within the immediate jurisdic tion ofbis honourable Court, in. Middlesex or West:bluster, I make this motion on the grow that I shill not have a fair trial in Lancashii (,eliere the cause now rests), a n d— The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Are there oth parties in the cause, and do they all concur in 11, motion / Mr. Hunt—l do not know there are othe with me in the indictment. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—We cannot help tha but we must know, before we can consider yo motion. All the parties who are indicted me come into Court, and concur in the application. , That is the rule. Mr. Hunt-1 know some of them do concur the motion I now make, and the rest may, ft any thing I know. But how can I ascertain the consent, so as to bring them into Court, as yo' Lordship says I must ? Many of them I only sa when I was thrown into gaol among them. I a accused of a conspiracy with men whom I neve to my knowledge, saw until I was made a prison , in Manchester. How am I to bring them in Court under such circums , ances am ready stow that the trial ought, for the ends of justic to be removed out of Lancashire ; and 1 trus that under such circumstances the Court will gra' me the rule. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE.—We must kno whether the parties do concur in your motiot That knowledge must come to us in the regal. way. Unless we have it, we cannot receive you application. IMr. Iluni—My Lord, how am I to procure tb knowledge ? The' LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justic BAY LEY then both said, the Court could not gran the rule. The Judges rose lion] their seats, an retired from the bench. THE KING O. MR. SHERIFF PARKINS AND OTHER _ _ Mr. DENMAN rose to call the attention of th Court to the case " of the King against At Sheriff Parkins and others :" his object was t press upon the attention of the Court the neces city of fixing a day to bring this cause to issue As it stood now on the paper, with the quantit , .it business which was fixed before it. there wa little probability, perhaps, of its coining on dur, tug the present Sittit:gs. It was, therefore, mos desirable for the interests of all the parties, an , cwisideriug also the great public importune which attached to the subject, that some da: should be fixed with as little delay as possible for bringing the matter to issue. The Learuet Counsel said, he saw one of the parties interest ed in this cause now in Court. Air. Hunt (she party alluded to) rose from hi, seat, and said that he was most anxious the tria stkould come on as early as possible. He had s, expressed himself when the parties came into Court on ihe first day. "I he postponement (het took place without his conc►,rrence, as he had de• elated his immediate readiness to go- to trial a th e time. He was now ready for trial, and 111 could not half) urging upon the Court the area hardship to which he was wit by the delay : had thus to attend with his witnesses fron t Lae to day at considerable inconvenience, and to Leal postponements caused by others, and with which he hail nothing to do. ►ndeed, Mr. Denman had himself refused to fix a day on a tormer occasion For his ow•n part, he hoped the Court would ac cede to the Learned Gentleman's present applica tion, and fix as early a day as possible for the trial. Mr. Justice BAY Lay.--.llow does it stand on the peremptoty paper. . . Air. DENMAN—It is very low down, and so si tuated as not likely to come on within the pre sent sittings of the Court. The Loan Curer JUSTICE, after conferring with the other Judges, said, that as an arrangement for fining a day had not been acceded to when it was formerly mentioned• in Court, they (the Court) could not now interpose, and place it in a different situation in the paper. This case could not be accelerated except at the expence of others, which must then be obliged to- yield to it. The Court must be always sorry for the inconveniences to which parties are unavoidably exposed-by repeated attendances in their business ; but to give the re lief now applied for, to these particular bodies, would be to cast a burden. upon others. The cause must now take its course as it stood upon the paper. This is the information against Mr. Alder man Waithman, &c. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fkl. 5. BUTT V. CONANT. Mr. Serjeant \ratioHale said, this case came before the Court on a special verdict. It was an action of trespass and false imprisonment, brought by the plaintiff against Sir Nathaniel Conant, for having issued a warrant, by which the plaiwific was arres►ed, and subserviently committed for want of bail. The warrant had been issued on account of the publication of two libels, , one on Lord Elle- , borough, the late Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, ani the other on Lord Castlereagh.—The ipresiions raised on the special verdict were, first, whether any person may be arrested and held to bail for a libel, before in dictmeut p—and, secondly, whether a Magistrate, in his individual capacity, can issue a warrant for that purpose The vestions were of great lin portance, inasmuch as they were not merely legal but constitutional, and as they involved that which had always been highly esteemed, and watchfully guarded by Englishmen —the Liberty of the Press, and the personal freedom of the subject. Fur himself, he was one of those who would give great powers to Justices of the Peace; but - then, • in making that admission, be wished to add, they were not there to legislate, but to expound whet had been enacted. As ►bis was a case in which the defendant contended for the affirmative, the onus of proof lay upon hitn ; and unless be could skew son►e positive rule of 'law, or some clear de cision or authority in his favour,. he (Mr. Nerjeant Voughan)insisted that his claim of jorisdiction must fail, and the plaintif• must recover. And he would add, in the words ut a great lawyer, that if the authority was to he found in tie books, it was raw, hut it not, it should not be adu►itted.— After having cited many_ atchorities, and referred In part i cu l ar to the cases of the seven Bishops, ‘Vilkes, and of the Queen v. Derby, the Learned Serjert►►t submitted, that the Court must give judgment in favour of the plaintiff, or come to the resultitioo of overturning the cases of the seven Bisho• of Rex v. Wilkes, and of the Queen v. •oe ...our' 15111 ''icy wound hear the replY.:' CI __ ____---—-- - i. .. • .. • , •••.o , lC‘t WCI C 1/11111giii un- again, but was prevented by the Court. He was having, issued a warrant, by which the . plait - elf Monday (this day).—Adiou rne d, . ~ .i. ,ter review, atorthroughout the whole decision it th en remanded to his former custody ; and in hi s w a s arrested, and subsequently committed for ~ . ~ ~,. 4 was oever doubted that the Courts of Common A shocking accident occurred on boipi his ' 1 "; ./,:. 1 passage through the H a ll hr w as loudly cheered want of bail. The warrant had been issued on :.iii . ... Low, had that authority to interfe l e with, super- by an immense crowd which had assembled. account of the publication of two libels, , oue on jesty's ship Lee, on IVedoesdav afternoon 0 ,10 . 0 ' sede, or take upon themselves to annul a Residue After he had lett the Court, the Chief Justice Lord Elle- , borough, the late Chief Justice of the ion of the House of Commons, by discharging an d M e . Justice Iloiroyd said, they wished it to Court of King's Bench, ani the other on Lord ..` trom custody a person proved to have been corn- be understood that although a writ of Habeas Castlereagh.—The questions raised on the special firiiig the royal sal ate in honorm of the ae ' cr , e of his Majesty; a seaman named Turner . 4. ` c in the act of ramming borne at one of the carrri. t / . milted by tl.e House of Commune fur a contempt. Corpus bad been grautt dto Mr. Hobliouse, in the verdict were, first, whether any person may be The cases I have alluded to were in that case all 4,. first instance, 'on the- authority of a dictum of arrested and held to bail for a libel, before in- ades, when it exploded, avd blew the poor IOW: into the sea. Mr. Potbury, a midshiPmarr,f; serving the catastrophe, immediately jumped ri, '.. , aCknowledged to be law, and, in the argument, Lord Kenyon, in " The King v. Fowler," T. R., dictmeut )—and, secondly, whether a Magistrate, s ., the House of Lords proceeded WI the dist itiction between the ease of a return to Habeas Corpuses future, i that this must not b e considered as a precedent in in his individual capacity, can issue a warrant for future, because, after looking carefully through that purpose i The qoestions were of great im- board , with the intention of saving the unfoC t 'i nate sufferer, but he stork instantly, s 'end tbus'fa i i ~,,,. dnd an action of trespass at law. We should, the Habeas Corpus Act, it was clear that the writ portance, inasmuch as they were not merely legal ed in his bumarie and courageous. exertions : I l i . . :berefure, be doing that which we are not author of Habeas Corpus could trot he grriuted as a matter b u t constitutional, and al they involved that which .., thought that tbe.man tvas sO severely w lii il! ot .• 1 t, , „ rued to do, if we were to discharge this. Gentleman had always been highly esteemed, an ti watchful{ that he died instantly, as the sea was cv • d ' l4iii ' j ot course, and without sufficient grounds laid he- o etc' It out of custody ; and I now repeat, that if we ts, fore the Court for its 'interposition. guarded by Englishmen —the Liberty of the Press', blood —(Piymouth - Journal ) ki should accede to this motion, we should du what and the personal freedom of the subj e ct. F or MIL HUNT AND THE LANCASHIRE MAGISTRATES. __,,„l morommoscimocivon.c.awrammirmormiareemsworamawreame.onmarasnamllts.., ;he law woold nor allow us to do." himself, be was one of those whowould give -,* The prisoner must be remanded.—Mr. Hob- At the rising of the Court at halt- past four great powers to Justices of the Peace; b i t then, BIRTHS. •,.., house interfered, and said: May I have per- o'clock, Mr. Hunt took his station in the centre in making that admission, lie wished to add, they Ah ,.,, , At Edinbn • It, on the 2:3(1 January, 'Mrs. Johnt,toug) of a da l i g iglitcr, being her sixteenth child. • mission— of the floor, and manifested au inclivation to ad- di i . were not there to legislate, but to expo I I tint. rolle r Yesterday morning, in Baker-street, Portrnan-squaref'A ,0•., 'rite Chief Justice : No, Sir, wa have heard dress the Court. - had been enacted. As Ibis was a case in which . dal ) .* Lady of Sir Gregory Osborne Page Tumor, Bart. or a T, , • It- ' _4l your points. The LORD CHIEF' JUSTICE.-1.11% Hunt, what the defendant contended tor the affirmative, the ter. Monday last, at Edinburgh, the ViscuunWss DO'. : - Mr. Hobbouse bowed, evidently mortified at do you want ? onus of proof lay upon hitt' ; and unless he could of a'sun. ..>•7': s . the unexpected course which the proceedings had Mr. Hunt.—My Lord, I haves motion to make shew some positive rule o f 'law, or some clear de- ,,-.tp taken. to the Court , eision or authority in his favour, he (Mr. Nerjeant On Saturday l MARRIED. last, at St. James's Church, Thomas Wal',. te) ( ; A Mr. Justice Bayley: There have been cases ex- The LORD CHIEF JusTioe.—What is flee 1111- Vaughau)insisted that his claim of jurisdiction must F.s.q. of A tzyle-stt cet, to Eliz4hetb, youngest daugliW: :: pressly decisive o f this qoestion. The first case fuse of it ? tail, and flue plaintiff must recover. And he would ,losepli Guudeliild, Eq.S. E. ' )tithaark. „.........!4%' -. , upon the subject is that of Lord Shaftesbury, lot Mr. Hunt.-1 will shortly state it. I move for add, in the words of a great lawyer, that if the DIED. Hen n ' •:' m a d, 144, an d th e prin c ipl e there laid down is a rule to show cause why a writ of eerlit'fari authority was to be found in the books, it was On th e 6 t h February, Eleanor, you t rg es t daughtp.r of .''.., .:, this..-41.ai a commitment by either House of Par- should not issue out of this Court, to wove mY raw, but it not, it should not be I ; 1 at.m.ttec..— Dealtry, Esq. of Bedford- row. . ~,,fie ' Bament f or d contempt , is it commitment in elm. trial " the flin g against Hoot and others," f ord . i ‘‘ tier having cited many_ atchorities, and refer red s,a(;), d it er S: i i i iia l y, ,, at N t o h r e b h ouse ur o y Ni o i f ss her ri e , h , i r n o s t II er- i n-/a w (r`• 2 : . cution, and th e Comfa of L aw c ammt during the conspiracy to overtlit ow the' Cinvernmen:. at t h e in parti co l or t o t h e cases of th e seven Bishops, ! 1, • r.-,-, session discharge ur bail the party. They bare Manchester Meeting on the I fitlr of Atiguat last, Wilkes, and o f the Queen v. Derby, the Learned --'------- ----- . .._ - - • 60 3 ' - to jurisdiction so tu' do. The Judges comic out of the jurisdiction of the County of Lancaster, -.." UPS -of No. ‘l9, ' • A LoNDON: Printed byJ. B. CARS) ) ~. sv.. :...' s ' Scrjerint submitted, that the Court must give t , judge of any law, custom, or usage of Parliament. and into that of the neighbouring County , . tl!at • . Junginent in favour of the plaiutiff, or come to the Ormond -street, Queen-grin are; atni robilished by ~: , 0 ^ SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South P4oltorz-street, at TH, O O rr ' '.'f',,.. A commitme n t f o r a contempt of ei t h er House of York, or else,. within the immediate jurisdic- resolotiou of overturning the cases of the seven Difcc., No. 112, strand ; where Acireitisenwnts, Of, .',. cannot he enq u i r ed of by the Judges ; they cannot don .01: tills honourable Coati, in : Middleae x or . , oi s h o Is, of Rex V. mikes, and of the Queen v. l o oters, :i.e. (mist- 0 110 most he a•idressf : d _ , k •L'-• Iv,. •• ).• 4' ' ~!'''• • ~._ •,,c , ~,, ,: V,7;"'" , ,•?'' , 774` loP•r. w .ti , •';' ',-. • • t , i'. 1 , . - " , ~...•,—.,' .; . i''' , ;- : ..rrf !..'''';'• i, 7 , ~ • —','• :.•,.. v —, , , ..-..- '" . .-' 1 ' . 7 .* •.. '•• ~''..!;- .. , "4.;• -' ,.:1 , " •. Z,; ''' - ,:t '' , Xj ''. . : ,,.•`;' , ..4 , ;1;?:=.i i .• : V• - • 2 % , . 1, ; '•.•!i.kriy- . c., 4,..,,,4 , . ...., ,?,40.0A ~, , ~.74 , it ,‘. ?, , • ~/V,. ..'",:" t • . •:.•, ' r '• .: ; -, • • ✓ , 4 1,tit- ♦ iilittsi '.7.;, • ::: ..:. , i... ,.. ::' :.:7 , ;•''' l'''r ,- --.-14'' • -.3' '••••• ',,, -'.• ". As.. A . --- -.'.`:'!‘' '•••'•‘ - - ••••• ,• ••• Y:,•0•;`,0.;,e,II)„,. ~ tr ,, , , , . .. , y7 , ...., , ,r,...5 ,,, - s .4%„Ns.Acsikaitt:,str a ., •: • autx*•4l‘ , ..... .0. , *,,,,, • .. - ~ .., , '. -' , . ••:'•-• - •• " I ''''`'',ir.."'!" . , 7 ..t•'.'ell'iaw'stste • ' „ . Isere; - . ee.....e... ~ ee . , e ''..„.. t' - ..t,a,7- e . „. ; ,..yea . ee e e-e.e. , ...,,ea , , a esepe , a,z_eee , ee f .,, , ,e,-, e ,:',. ; „teo at ai-'' ' , ; .7. • ,-.:F-,---..- ', 1 :;. Ina t) 1; Derby ; a n d conten d e d , that as this -claim ''''''''' ire, jurisilictio went directly in derogation of the liberty of the subject it should be strictly watefi . her ed, and that the sebmission of poverty or guilt W. his not to be taken as a precedent or allowed as at / authority. lie concluded by observing, that lb' . ' ers 48th Gco. 111. c. 38, furnished an inference 41 .0 favour, (or it gave the Judges of the King' , it ; Bench, who were, by virtue of their office, Ale DUI' gist rates, power tri bind over a libeller, a nd be ''" 4 'lst contended it was unnecessary if they possessed tha t .- power NT before. Air. Serjeant BOSANQUET, for the clefendall,t , , ' --.... in o b serve d, that lie was justifi e d on the plaintiff's .. roil for own au th or i t y, for having arrested and held 0 01 . .-R. T v • ll air t o b a il. Time only ditletenee i n any libel wee l ' i "' :: i' ll.x °L )111 . its degree o f aggravat i on, and as it might m.ot, e ,l' .e.tioa";l', ay. , or less tend towards a bre a ch o f t h e peace. It 15 . 4 tetn o ; am an offence c o nt ra pc , ac n, and th ere f ore i t eotele' ', "R•sY. er, under the jurisdiction of a Magistrate, who is i'. : - Yl:: n m ' e r let inquire i nto a ll felonies, trespasses, Ste. It lisf ' 'can e le, 110 been contend don the other side, that libd e arl' , . :,- s -e N„ . 1 to not come under the defioif ion of tiespass, h e eattO elOVit ce, it is not an actual breach of the peace ; bit. it i t, i .. :7, p il ii lNE ear SI, observed by Hawking, that " the word trespass II ''' l ; lia 80, Lilt of very genet al extent, end it a large sense, mat ..,,-: a ' 4 f ., the only comprehends all inferior offences which 'T. - ! , ''' e ipi t ' a r e n wl )cc property and directly against the peace, ea 39; i.: icAls e t me seals and batteries, and such like, hut also di ii" ' Jos lan others which are so only by eatmat atjel i on, as al , I:l e Mast , ur breaches of the law in general arc _said to be:‘ i! 1 , 1 , A 1 ,/,' ; l ,' -And then, after noticing the power of Jt" :...-{ 6 4 41,1 .- 6 'at tires in felonies, &c., he adds; that the wort i' Hat,ve, trespass- has been noderst nod to extend 111 r ,,; --:I\AP ce " such offences as have a direct and itutli .. . •,,=,7-':.Putitaiti.i nt diate tendency to cause such - breaches (1, ...,' 4 : . :::i i ig ,. .l A the peace, as libels, and Sorb like, w hi ch 0 ,, e lmi,t . ; pi el i `,T , le r n account have been 'adjedged indictahle betofe JtA' , ;4 A g". ts• (ices of the Paace,"-2 11 twit. c 8, s 38 1..e0 . . ti, ------ / lie Coke defines libal to he a contumely or reproec l . .r. published to the defamation of the Govertrinenre to of a Magistrate or of a private person, end he sesle' ,7;:; At ee-• it is indictable because it tends to a breach of li t ' -i:;', '') , i 'ft e. p eace . There bad been fo ur cases of arrest ; 11). ., i". ~, ' - ' 4 )'' l ty two first were disputed, On the ground thai the! . :rt; t. V, its Were privileged persons ; the two last, thet t i ,i'r '''''''s ' c . ' , a " M . r- warrants had been issued by the Secret ary at In -time two first, the cases of the se; en Bishops 1,9 ,: - P'iim z ' id of Mr. %% likes, they assumed the ems( tvotq: '`, l A . l' - '- a '',"(les ce have beeo good, but that they wereprivileg 4 ;*::';'„..'-' 111: : ,1 1 . i.j, l ' ey persons. In XVilkes's case, they did not affect Li ',Za I_,'yeeari c, say, that a private person might not he arres(Tt i. me,""4le !d The authority o f a S ecretary of State has tilt lA,„ ~ ...7. . isZ 8 1 1 t- been more infirm, because he cannot administer, ',.,' ';::.% e ery, oath. A man may, upon the slightest assault, .',' . -'..2: of . ,, r u be is committed iu default of bail ; and in 1161, whi i : '` _____ -41 '• AI may provoke an aggravated bleach of -t h e palcf ----- , 0 j shall it be said that time Magistrate has not the lit '' f : - ,':' .-4'. , 0 jurisdi c ti on ? L or d H a l e, L ord Holt, and HawkiP S A RA . . S ' ,. ' l ti are all opposed to Loud Coke, a gree i ng t h at a t o! rI ', :- F !-.i may be helll to bail before indictment foond•e i ,t , `-• '' cc it C o k e denied time power o f Justices, even (hall- , / aeNst ce', ie I the Statute -.4 Philip and Mary hail been pasf z i, fr ! '. , e s t. ins. it 'pis', 1) . 4 ' , 1" - :. It is contended that tbe Ms, . ;, t Slmat e ,',\ L , N o l a , - t-'e has only power in felonies, hot he -I "t t '''',ivtsammee-r • iii common assaults, and in any thing witice Le/ : ~ ..J ' :nt d .C l4 CV II I to time disturbance of the peace...We need li• m l , - ,e-el y L i t,':',.!:i 11 I dread the effect of time power of the MaemStrPr• ~ ,- , :. ! b = k)Je- i d since the Habeas Corpus Act will prevent itnitl,'; L' i s`e',,'" ' l'nesti 1., sournent without cause. A Magistrate.may Or' • •' :..".'- hh i l t .f ie A l l t i - mit for treason, altholigh it be beyond his jll „ t r :'', ',J.' vvy;lPlCks• - diction. lie is commanded to " keep a ll ofo, : i ;" i ti4 e"") p , s.O 'l3ATti 1 I. minces," an d (nest he not, theref4e, prevent: 4l ,6 ' ;!tenhaw e possibility of assaults ?--Hawkins , as has bile , .!ele Mr. '. .. ' t ee , I shewn, expressly inelur:es libel. . Ir • has bean 1q: ...iik-111''' - serted that Hale and 1 - rawkins confine the ,1 1 °` ii ' 4 `;„ 1 : ' := Z'''`'; - i' ifj - ium ( ;;, - of the Magistrate to actual breaches of the pi 4 l, ; t . :! ,:llietTa but time passage cieed shews that Hewlemus irate; ' e. .; ~,, , e,,:i g , ,, i'l ail 1 that which has a tendency to a breach of •1 • ' 1,...:i; ati.;,,;;. r peace. Dalton's Justice of the Pence, e . 17 -..."' '‘ lci , ,,;‘ , ,, t 'Qiet t ,, s page 217, says, " usine words Which - shall tete 1 It: s t ‘ i i i ;igt, i I i the breach of the /trace ;" and in c. 124, he sOM ' Ei';' , vele E L . % t 1" libellers may he boend 16r thei..ti o od P .7: 1, 741 .- .1 „11, 7 EYZ !! ! bavinur... In Kendal Vet 'us 'tiff me, iakimiaie ... *.e. le`,,. 11, isil ~f, . ,.... Z l / 4 4: 1 „,, - 3 . llll )iit I I 596, the Court cormaidered the power .....- -; , 1 ""',, &e . i AI ',. t! is t rate anti a Secretary of State iti 'Pk:. '2,'::.l4,i'l'ro:Ds ' I rest as s analogous. There never was e tioolllfe ' ! i:".4 ..; , 11 ( 1 4.1 " , t i 1 toe . ea', h rues i , to the right of the Alagistrete, tor in Qii e. ,e• ;a4',..5,, furzeime Anne's reign there were 43 contaiittu.ents . , in 1. 1 .! ; ';" rl . 4 , r i id ge, t, Of George 1. 36, Georg e I L 53, end in the (0 / % 1 , !:11 , :ti t 4 s . , t a i ) , I year of George 111, there wa s also a precede,ir 7 t;',;-, t;aau.;;(t) Irons that time till the 41 , , t there were tome, 4 . 4 1 ., .'s:i r ki leleG it was this cessation which first caused the ( 1( 1 . '.. : : , . i ;tistri . :l' l lllll that had now been argue d. It appeered too, l',11•-.',. ;.Y. Ulf p` many others had been arrest e d f o r s p ea ki ng 4elt f . : .'- l' - tla au, tious words ; but as they had not been imelKs .1 1 7eu7:"1, 1 tit bail, they were not included in the return he i ii ,"„ .2 ' ', i 'eiti, a ;,', 1 1 just read. Upon the whole, he contended t ' l l ! e , :,;a''' 4 i ) ,; ,,,, the j, the Magistrate had the power, and iltereforY. - L ' '. liiA ce l il) , ,• •.- a.,,,e e r0 ,, ,,,. prayed judgment for the defendant. , c ; . :.,,,I1 - The Court said they would bear the replY: v : .1, t ‘ 6 eY, ~--.. , .I;;. V' ; es., Monday (this day).-Adjourned. . ~ .4 i 15 14.11)C 4' lo . ' • ' t i ;OST c - „, .' On R O r e ..,-_ • -. + ter' A Allock in g accident occurred on beard his' -, ' ;.!, , lster' i ti e r s i l n Y g is t the il r i o L y e a e l , a, o al n im t V i e n (ll l ) m e ri s n 'i o a : I I ra i f , t f e r t t i m l o , n a n c , cr w , b it i l o :, , i e t. . : ,11 tl i,: l e....,.: k eiwe . i b, t y L ,i i , of his Majesty; a seamen named --Turner ....''-,, I :er*tilarb ) in the act of rammlng home at one of the car o .4i , . ':'....k v ,.1y I\l, , ades, when it exploded, aoti blew the poor fel l %, ~seleil l : t 1 1) ;•, .. into the sea. iulr. l'otbitry, a niidshiPmene;!7i.: ~ e . uree i t i' serving the catastrophe, immediately junreed ‘4:v.,ti p board, with the intention of saving the unfotr i .‘i; e i '''' tiocti m ' e Ya ( e , . nate sufferer, but he souk instently,'end thus :. ~ ;ie; Lle-E R) ed in hits humane and courageous ; exertions : 5 ,i..e l ( ~ ' : I • l , t t i i ' lli I: , t:11 thought that the .man was so severely woul if ,,l" ':'.- (), Itim e a Sa ''' that he died instantly, as the sea %eels covered' ' l .e,'', l ' . - .i,.; ' 'SJA ° K u t ! i l blood -(Plymouth journal ) ... i.; -• e tnth,,, i , 4, -- r bE .•., , -,. ~ °rei n . BIRTHS. • '. ' -I MA '' g ' I A l A s.: t i, E,,dfilailiurgh, daughter, nn being tl)e2:3 li d t.r .h s : i i x n t i e ll e n i • l y t , s N c t i t ii s l . e. Jobnstol! ,cL I : : :- ,. ,.. ; :::......,. 4 „-a., - Poly; Yesterday limning, in Baker-street, Portman-squaref:A,. - 4," ; fp."EFF I L a dy of Sir Gre g ory Osborne Page Tumor, Bart. of_____ ;._;.„ a d a f , 'r" 1,; '' 4t, : . , :.1. :: :4 . :: 31: :::4 :,, : 111 ,,,1Fyi e t v i i i i.,,, : ... . f , -A.ML: s ter. On Monday last, at Edinburgh, the VisevantinsDaPr , ... , L..: 411410 0 H, of a'sun. -, 1 1, 1 „s li e Mir,.RIED. ' y, . ti•i , . o r , ). 1 ,.L j , ute e , „ e ee ach ,On Saturday last, at St. James's Church, Thomas n'a '4" 3' .. ' )la ti ',. eV( F.,q. of A,,yl,...stieet, to Eliz=dieth, youteeebt da r tigb i t i ':,.. ~ ,, f. 1 ~,i i; 111 ,, , 1 , 1• i i ,looeph Goodchild, Esq. Southmark. "'". tc.,N ftverq ' _ . . %rt.; tato DIED. r , 4 . ,l .Ll 1: 1 1 1 '' g, '• On th e 6th February, Eleanor, youugest daughter of Hen '', • k i.n. s e . 3 . s , 110 t ,1 ~.•• ea Dealtry, Esc'. of Bedford- row. '. II rr 014 Sunday, at the house of her brother-in-lax (1 1 • , 641 4 . • ~", Sanderson, Esq. Nurbory), Miss Hig:.:ins. .............................„re, , 3,. i ... t . • Ni 0 I ..a. , ....................,,......a......0. ' 6114 dlll ••••••.............. LONDON: Printed by J. B. CARSTAIIIS," of No. V, s i,- . ii.. '..., , i , 4,ie t ., 13 ., , 1 Ormond -street, Queen•vinarc ; and publisi,eil bq ; ! ,..: A i', -,,,,,4 1 , , ,, i,;;-:. 1 SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South Pdolton-street, at TH1,;,,,,f' , ... ni ,..'!;!, - li e s 0 r °Wee, No. 11., Strand ; where Adrantisenwnts, l' , '" 'W,,,,- 1 ( i,..tters, &c. (,mist-olith) nitt‘t be addressq • -a '',,t411,-,i:,'2,TiMi