The National Register.
London, England, 1811-02-10 00:00:00

91

- `V • • , • . • •
THE N ATION AT, R ISTER•

members of the Committee, who pointed out the line of pc-
/titles of the paper. 1:1 regard to the character in which I.e
wished to stand before their Lordships, the affidavits which he
has produced must be considered exceedingly proper, as going
back so far, eight and nine years, and ( cueing from such, per-
sons, they were entitled to every ,weight, which they would
claim in vain, if they referred to a time subsequent to the
offence ; for now it cannot be said that he has become loyal to
answer a particular end, when it appears that this has always
been his general character. But it had been objec ed, why he
did not resign, rather than act in subservience to such persons ;
but it should be considered, that this was the first time that the
defendant fell into an error of this kind—that his means of sup-
port arose from. his employment. What, he says, is the de-
fendant thus circumstanced to do ?—(Lord ELLEN BUR OU GIL re-
plied from the Bench, to prefer duty to profit.) Mr. Marriott
proceeded to extenuate his °Renee from his situation and his
feelings, as a married man, and that his conduct, if at all to be
excused, must find it as well in the subsequent conduct and cha-
racter of the Paper. Under his management it has become
altogether a.GOvernment paper ; coupling this with the favour-
able report given of his client's general demeanour, be hoped it
would operate as .a mitigation. It had been asked from tt.e.
Bench, bad liar*ey offered any apology ? he answered no. He
trusted, there re, that as Roche's conduct was different, it
would meet a suitable return.—lt was a matter of great
moment to his client to have his character re-established,
which he hoped would be accomplished by haying it thus
nroyed, that it was dear of moral, though net of legal guilt.
If the faults of the Committee are to be voiced on the Defend-
a.et'a the legal end nn-a! guilt can not hero be separated.
AnL! if for the se airity of the law - their inexorable sertence
must be hurled against bins, a man of hij r ,al character would
be likely to bear that sentence with great submission. What-
ever mitigation he is entitled to he will he sure to meet with
from British Judges, ai:d it wlll be as great as is consisteet with
the ends of public justice. To this the Count bowed assent.
Mr. Roche was remanded, and ordered to be brought up on
IVionday next.

• [RIDAY, Frß. 8.
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT) BART. V. THE WWI?
.110 N. CHARLES ABBOTT.
This was an action bronglet by Sir Francis Burdett, ban.
against the defendant, who is Speaker of the. Idnuse of Commons.
'I he.declaration stated, among other things, that the defendant
had by his warrant'directed that the plaintiff should be arresttd,
and be committed to the Tower of London, for a libel published'
by him in Cebbett's Weekly Register, which, by a resolution
of the House of Commons, was voted to be a libel on that
House. That in obedience to that warrant, the house of the
plaintiff was broke open by George Edward: Coleman, Es 2.
Serjeant at Arms of the said House of Corr mons, assisted by a
great number of armed soldiers ; and that the plaintiff being
then and there arrested, was conveyed to the "lower, and it, the
Tower falsely impeisoned.
this declaration the defendant pleaded first the general'
issue, that he was not guilty, as the said declaration stated, and
for further plea so set forth, that as to the subsequent proceed-
ings after the issuing of the said warrant, as to the breaking and •
entering the plaintiff's dwelling-house, he pleaded that he, the
defendant, was himself a member of the House of Commons„-
and Speaker of the said House ; that plaintiff had published a
letter in Cobbett's Weekly Register, of the 24th of March 1316,
reflecting on the rights of the House of Commons, whereupon
the said Commons, by their resolution on a subsequent dabs,
voted that the said Sir Francis Burdett was guilty of a
.breach
and violation orthe Rights and Privileges of the House of Conhe
mons ; and they next resolved, that the said Sir Francis should.
he committed to tht Tower for the same.
The plea went on further to state, that the defendant, in pure
uance of the said vote, and by command of the House of Com-
mons, isseed his warrant under his hand and seal, directed to
the said Seijeent at Arms, and commanding him to arrest the
said Sir Francis, and convey him prisoner to the Tower. That
plaintiff was afterwards arrested, his doors being broke open,
and subsequently conveyed to the Tower, where he was deli-
vered into the custody of the Deputy-Lieutenant thereof, and
confined within the said- Tower. The pleas therefore to the,
assault and false imprisonment were the same as to the issuing
of the warrant, namely, the authority and custom of Parlia'
ment, as exercised by the House of Commons.
There was a demurrer to each of those pleas, and to each de-
murrer a reininder.
Mr. Hr LROYD then proceeded, after reciting the special mat-
ters in the pleadings, to argue the demurrers. He observed
that the drift of his reasoning should be directed to spew that
these pleas were had, inasmuch as the defendant was not entitled.
to plead the privileges of Parliament so as to take the jurisdic-
tion of this action out of the hands of the Judges, and next tes
:thew that this was not a privilege of Parliament, but the privi-'
lege of only one House of Parliament, and being, therefore, not
a privilege of Parliament, cannot be noticed as a law, not being a
law of the land, but a prtial privilege made by a vote of the
House of Commons, and only of force till it should be by the
like vote cancelled ; and the general conclusion which he snould.
draw from the whole was, that the special pleas being bad, the
plaintiff was entitled to judgment upon each of them against the
defendant.
• Having thus entered into the general outline of his system
for maintaining the proprh ty of demurring to these pleas, in-
stead of joining issue upon them severally, he entered into a long
and ingenious technical display of law learning exceedingly pro-
found and extensive upon pleading in general, and then as to
this particular action and the pleadings therein.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to quote a multitude of
creses with the view of shewing that the defendant cannot screen
himself from the.eognizance of the law by any privilege of the
House of Commons, that it is not constituted such by an Act of
Parliament. In other words, that those privileges which either
House of Parliament may make such by their respective resoe
}anions, cannot go beyond the threshold of that individual
House, any more than the private resolution of one Houie can
hind the other House of Parliament, and therefore if the resolu-
tion of one House cannot bind the other House, much less could
•it bind the general law of the land, which is superior to both
Houses put together.
The extent of the law argument, and which is termed black.
letter learning, which this Gentleman manifested, would far
exceed the limits of a weekly journal. He occupied the Court
upward* of five hours.

Lord ELLANIII6ROUGII thought it would not he convenient for
the Court to hear the Attoruey-General in reply. The tither
lwariug was therefore postponed.
•