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

'0 lie

,4441

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
lot (le

Icy 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 lie coirwratelated tie that no tin.
r. .
Irina. Waal likely 10 . ill ille l eNt,,l conaiderution.
lii „nisi atu Wed theist, that they did not herr on
th.', as they did nn a former night, that they sliould.
tfpu,rtble,carry it by ucchunation ; in short, Valet
toq sere in a temper, better calculated to hi
lee 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 expedient to declare it as sue,' ? They were ques-
ti,,,, extremely distinct, and each of them was co-
wl,' In a calm and deliberate inerettgution. In
-'„,,,,dang 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-
Is,.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„priety, he woit:d not ray legulitv, of the act ;
for t heir decieom could not be corrected by any other
cdott. lie did not neofetesto.untlerstand the law of
I...,Tiwnelit, 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 to pronounce that the committal was
The 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
ageceons 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
sourced 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 be 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
wave OW 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
was 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 wenth 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 right, 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'mz• 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 the Members 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.chanstwev 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 could 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, should
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