The Sun.
London, England, 1810-05-19 00:00:00

i

i

I

art Right. Hon. Gt..ntlernan in 1808. He

ci for aspecification' of the articles on which
were imposed, shswing-how the smile 'were
ugrnerited, and .the net produce of the new duties
aird the Infgmentalion tl. rein, froM toth
toter 1808 to 1809, and also the 'amount of the
Stamp Duties.
The CHANCELLOR Of the XCIIEQUER would not
'object to*the'tnotirill, btli, at Ate same time he did not
t::i from the woediog of it, the Hon. Gyotlernan
would obtain what he requited ,to prove his asser-

Mr. TIERNEY recommended the serious atten-
tion of the 'Hance to second reading of the
Stamp Duty. Bill, and hipped that the accounts
now moved for. would he produced before the se-
cond reading. He was corvinced- that their pro-
dui Lion would justify the House in not addpting
The,motion, after Some observations in explana-
tion from Mr. Hosskisson, Mr. Tierney, and the
Chancellor of the .xthequer, was arced 'to:
Mr. ROSE brought in a Bill to prohibit the impor-
tation of foreign Silks, Crapes, and Tiffanies, which
was read a,first time, and -ordered for a second read-
ing. on Monday. .. - •
Mr. WIIARTON brongnt in a Bill for raising the
Sum of 12,000,0001. by Loan. The Bill was read a
first time, and nr6red tube read a Second, time on
'Monday.

.. The Scdtcb Suprann,flation was read
a 6rst•time.—To be read a second trine on Mon-
day.

sIR F. BURDETT.

Mr. Davies GIDDY brought' up the Report df
the Seleet Committee apointed to search, for prece-
dents in the case of Sir Francis Burdett. The Re-
port having been given in at the table, was,read by
the Clerk.
The Report stated in substance, that the Commit-
tee had bound various precedents of commitments
which. it would not be necessary to detail that in _
point of fan the power of committal was too clear
. to be called into question ; that the cases to which
they had referred and seleated, uniformly treated
such libels as the one for which- Sir. F. Burdett was
imprisoned, es contempt of the authority and-Privi-
lege of the House, whether such libels originated
with a Member of the House, or with a person not
a Member; that these privileges were traced back
by the Committee to the earliest periods ; and, it
appeared ip them, that immemorial usage con-
firmed them. This general power of comqiittnent
was, asserted by the House in the resolutions of
1701; in the conference with the House of Lords
(in the case of Ashby v. White, in 1704), al7;
thotigh such privilege had been denied by , that
House, 'and contested ; et, it was confirmed and
admitted atterw'ards, and
,received the further con-
- . firmation of the opinions of the Twelve Judges—
that on the question being brought, before the Court
of King's Bench in the case of Murray; it was ad-
mitted—agaio, in the Common Pleas, in the case
of Crosby, and also in the case of -Oliver—the pri-
vileges-of Parliament had been subsequently con-
firmed by the decisiOn in the case of Benjamin
Flower, for a libel on the House of Lords. In
*bort, that there was not alingle decision to' the .
contrary in any ot the Codas of Law, and that these
Courts had uniformly coinmitted persons for con-
tempt of their authority. Amongst the Judges so
deciding and concurring in opinion, there were to be
found men of the roost exalted characters, distin-
guished for legal learning, alad possessing upright
and enlightened minds----meO who were friends to
the constitution of the country, and to the liber-
ties of the subject. The Report further went
on to state that the 1 tw of Parliament; in the
opinion of the Committee, is the lex terns, and
consecpuently essentially necessary for securing
. the liberty of the people, and for preserving their
rights.
The Report was then laid on the table.
Mr. DAVIES GIDDY then moved, that the Re-
port be printed.
• Me.. HORNER could not suffer this motion to be
put without expressing his surprise that the Com-
mittee should think it necessary to go into argument
in their Report, to shew the utili y of the House
possessing-privileges. In his opinion, they were
baldly wartauted in so doing; he was so particular-
• ly struck when he heard' it read, that he thought
the House could not let 'it pass without commenting
on it. Was it necessary, he would ask,' for the
Committee to resort to analocfouscasesln the Courts
„
of Law to. strew that tile privileges of this House
were to be supported. Did those privileges depend'
upon decisions in Law Courts ? The analogy‘Ought
not to be brought into discussion; and in support of
that opinion, he might ;weal to many Gentlemen
who remembered those great sages, now no more,
whether they were not of the same 'opinion, He
depredated the idea of the Committee going into
general reasoning on the utility of Parliamentary pri-
vilege, or 'of contrasting the cases in the Courts_of
Law with any case of privilege decided in this House.
There was another objeClion to the Report, and that
was the statement of ono of the cases being strength-
'ened in consequence of a conference with the Lords,
when that- House admitted the right. Was that an
'argument ? Did the power of this House need such
an argurra nt ? or, indeed, ought the HoUse to think
that as a strong reason fOrconstd:ring their right of
privilege
founded,uponjustice ), On the contrary,
he was convinced the House-would never admit that
they do not exercise the privilege in their own-right.
Mr- Rose desired the Clerk to- read the instruc-
tions to the Committee.
t The Ckrk accordingly re rd theM, by which they
Were de-ired to ‘,‘ report their opinions" in addition.
to the precedents they might find.
Mr. Ross then obseeved, if ,it leas intended to
objed-to the printing of the Report orto discuss it,
it would be more, regular to ;nolo t a day for that
discussion ; the ComMittee on their report had done
no more than their duty; as it appeared, from the in-
struaions which they received from the "nouse.
They had reported their opinions. He could not
conceive hoW the privileges of the House could be
• weakened by refusing a support of them to the opi-
. nions of some of the most enlightened and able
• Ju-Iges that ever sat on the Bench. Their opinions
' _when the privileges of the Hou,se were questioned
were desirable.
Mr. 'WILBERFORCE agreed. with the Right Hon.
Ger Veman that it would be better to reserve the
. eocussion to 'oine other Opportunity. Having been
on the Committee, be could. not hear 80 serious a

charge as that -of the Hnn. 'Gentleman tititOut
making some observations. The-insinuation of the
Hon. Gemtletnan, that the Committee wished
~to
coMpromise the.privtleges of the House did app'ear
to him surprking ; and he could not account' for the
assertion until a new light broke on his (Mr. W.'s)
mind, which' shewed him how the_ matter stood;
he then found that the state of party had induced
. the. Hon. Gentleman. to 'make the observations.— ,
It was-very natural that a, report made by a Com-
mittee, of which none of the Gentlemen usually at-
tached to the party to which the Hon. Gentleman
belonged, should nut be received' without objeaion.
Was ir, however, compromising the dignity of the
House for the Committee to declare that the House
of Lords, originally denying the,extent of privilege
of this House, had subsequently, on a'conference,
confessed their errur.and 'admitted the right to exist
entire ? With.respea. to the analogous cases in the
Courts of Law,. was it not something to have those
privileges acknowleged by Judges who; as it had
been truly said, were an honour to their, country ?
Did it anot tend to strengthen thein, 'and did it not
shew that .they were admitted to the fullest extent.
He thought, therefore, under these circumstances,
the Committee deserved well of the House.

Mr. PONSONBY admitted that he-w.asuot fully pre.
pared to speak on the subjed, not having been in
the H. use when the report was read ; he had, how-
ever, heard the speech of his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Horner), to which he gave his most unqualified ap-',
probation. With respea to the assertion of the Hon.
Gentleman who spoke last, that a new light bad
broken in upon him, and that he could account for
the opposition of his Hon. Friend when he consi-
dered the state of party, he bad thus much to say--:-
that he admired the candour which induced the ob-
servations of the Hon. Gentleman, whom the House.
would recollea belonged to no party, but to'that
party which professed to bey superior to all parties in
point of virtue and patriotism. Were be, Mr. P.
inclined-to make observations upon the conduct of
every Gentleman, he might say that there were
persons in this House who were. continually on the
watch, balancing between all other parties, and
waiting with anxious expeetation how to. decide, till
catching the turn of popular opinion,•and seeing the_
scale was preponderating this or that way, would
Then venture opinions. There were such Gentle-
men ; but they were always, for the reasons he had
stated, to be found on "the prudential side of. the
question. Were, he, however, to make such an ob-
servation upon the conduct of the Hon. Gentleman
it would be untrue, but st 11 the Hon. Gentleman
stood. expdsed to.the observation as much as if he
adually was'one of the persons described.—Having
made, these observations, he would now state his
principal reason for rising, whieli was to objeal to
the printing of the Report, until the House had an
oppoitunity of being acquainted with the contents.
He therefore suggested that it should lie on the
table for three'or lour days. He thought if
.it was
printed, and. circulated as it would be, by rapid
..stages throughout the country, it might- have the
effiaof making an undue impression on the public
mind.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
.the Hon. Gent. was under Vtne misapprehension
.When he proposed delay. . The Report would be
entered on the Journals, and might be considered,
notwithstanding the Order should be made for print-
ing it. The Right Hon. Gentleman had complain-
ed that he had not heard the Report read. Was it
.not astonishing, then, he should give as he had
done, his unqualified, approbation to the speech of
ft:s Hon: Friend (Mr. Horner), when he confessed,
at the same moment, that he didnot 'kno'vv _what
the Report contained. It was an act of-that sort
of friendship and kindness which persons enter-
taining similar opinions with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, were, as be sapposed, in the practice of
paying to each other. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had not coat& forward to give any opinion at an.
early stage of the inquiry, but at last he bad so
done, and the manner in which he had given that
opinion entitled him to credit, but nevertheless he
had not shown himself an adive or a forward de-
fender of the privileges of the House, at the same
time he would readily admit that Gentlemen on the
opposite side.of the,House were disposed to support
their rights and privileges. He regretted that the
Hon. Gentleinan had not, instead of now objecting
to the report,-comeforward at an earlier period, and
given his legal opinion, especially as another Learn-
ed Gentleman of great legal'authority had advanced
opinions against the formation of the Committee.
When the House had decided that the Committee
shontd.report their Opinions, surely it was not for_
Gentlemen to quarrel with the Comthittee for hay-
ing. so done. Ii the Hon. Gentleman thought they
had done wrong, he should have interfered before
or should have objected to the first report. The
Right Hon. Gentleman'then referred to that report,
and contended that the beneficial result of the in-
qUiry, -ivas the laying- before the House a sort of
history, with the opinions of great Constitutional
Lawyers; all concurring. in supporting the privileges
of the House. In the conflict which occurred be-
tween the two Houses, as noticed in the' report,
although at first the HoUse of Lords denied the
.right of privilege, yet they afterwards admitted it.
These opinions and' admission went greatly to
strengthen the claim. But he was satisfied that in-
dependent of these, sthe House in themselves were
right in asserting their just privileges. All that the
Committee intended by • their report was to shew
that great legal and constitutional authorities bore
them out in their. claim. Did the Hon. Gentleman
recollect how the power of the House had been
attacked ? . Was it not right then for the Com-
mittee to enter into the reason and expediency of
exercising' that power. Upon the whole the Right
Hon. Gentleman saw no just ground of objection to
the report.
Mr. PONSONBY and the CHANCELLOR Of the EX-
cHEQUER mutually explained.

Mr. LOCK HART rose to guard the House against
the introduction into 4he Report, after the citation
of a decision in a Until of Law, of the phrase,
" that their • privileges were confirmed. thereby,"
an expression of so exceptionable a nature, that, in
his opinion, the Report ought to be sent back
to the Committee, for the purpose of having it
expunged.

Lord MILTON expressed himself to be very much
of the opinion of his Honourable and Learned
Friend with resped to the improprieties contained
iu the report.

WIIITIiREAD declared, that .from the state of
the appendix, cOntaining complicated erasures of
the pen and pencil, it appeared to him• to be in:-
possible • for any printer-to -know, what .to print or
what not. .He by no means imputed an intention
of deceiving the House to the Chairman of the Com-
mittee ; but be denied that the judgment said to be
given by Wilmot had attually.beengiven
it had only been intended•to be delivered, he having
died before the period at which it ought to have been
delivered. He instanced a vatiety of alterations• in
the report, some of the most complicated-nature,
which he thought did not shewthat.resped to the
House which he thought a Committee of Privileges
ought to evince. It was a most Unintelligible. far-
rago. If a bill were brought into the House in
such a state, the Speaker should return it. Prece-
dents, some wholly eraqed, others partially, of others
only the dates lett. Before any Gentleman • voted
for the-printing of this appendix, he hoped he would
take the trouble to look at it.
Mr. D. GIDDY defended the mode in which the
appendix was brought forward, and which was as-
cribable 16 the promptness with which the Coin-
mittee were desirons of producing it. It was.con-
ceived better to present it in its present state than
to delay it till Monday, it having been unders'ood
that the Members of the Committee would cortea.
the proof sheets. He admitted the accuracy of the
observation of the Hon. Gentleman, with respea, to
the judgment of Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, and I}ad
no doubt that that would have been among the cor7
reetions in the proof sheets. If the House thought
proper to send the appendix back to the Committee,
he should have no objeaion to it, although he
was• not aware that it had been usual to make a
fair transcript of-any paper of this sort, which was
seldom or never read in the House until sent to the
printer.

Mr. C. WYISiNE condemned the cifing of the opi-
nion of any individual of what authority soever in
the report.. He objeded to putting on the 'Jour-
nals of the House analogies from the .pra&ice of
Courts of Justice in support of, the privileges of the
House of Commons. The ground on ,Which those
priNi:leges must stand or fall was the praEtice of their
predecessors. Adverting to the correction of the
statement respeding Chiet Justice Wilrribt, which
the Hon. Chairman of the Committee said would
take place .in the proof . sheets, he expressed his
doubt of the power of any Member to.make such a
correalon after a Report had been la:d on the table.
He thought .it. would be much ,better to return the
Report and Appendix to the Committee, arid movt:d
that the Report be re-committed.
The SPEAKEi, however, observed, that after hav-
ing allowed the Report to be laid on the table, it
could not be sent off again the same day.
After a few observations from Mr. ROSE,

The SPEAXER suggested, that the report should
be
,taken off the table again. It certainly was drawn
up in a manner that did not entitle it to be received,
and it ought unquestionably to be recommitted..
• Sir:S. ROMILLY contended, that the private•opi-
nion of a Judge, even of tech .a high characteris
Chief Justice. Wilmost, ought not to Ilay.e been in-
troduced into the report at all. The-qtiestion which
the Corn(mittee had to_ examine, was not whether ,
the Courts of Law, or that House, had a right .to
commit, but ,whether the decision of the House
ought to be questioned any where but in the
House. It was not incumbent on the. Cerniriit-
tee to have reported opinions, bpt as they did report,
he regretted that they had not given a more distinct
opinion on the case 'of 13nsliell: He accounted for
his not having attended on the Committee; because
he did not think much additional information could
possibly be produced by it, and because his opinion- '
on the general.sithiect was .sb much in opposition w
that of the other Members that he did riot wish by
attending to createan useless impediment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted that-his Hon.
and Learned Friend had not attended and •eplighten-
edi the Committee by his opinions. The best-way of
arriving at truth was by the collision of opposite
sentiments. He conceived that it would have been
much better to attend the Committee than .to have
lain by until the report was delivered, and then to
attack it. He "was astonished to hear his Hon. and
Learned Friend say, that the right of the House to
commit was not one of the topics referred to the
consideration of tl:e Committee. Considering the
extensive information, and high 'character of .his
Hon. and Learned Friend, he could not but lament
that he, of all his profession, should stand up alone
to deny that which was so well established by reason,
by precedent, and analogy. the right of the HoUse
was supported by uninterrupted precedents, by the
analogy, of the praCtice of Courts_ ofJustice, and • by
the unvaried opinion of, the greatest, men of every
age. Against this triple e..nCtion he had heard no
shadow of an argument. An Hon. Gentleman had
.objeded to the reference in the report to the opinions
of individuals, forgetting that on a former discu;sion
he, had himself adduced the opinion of individuals in
support of his assertions. Hecontendedi that al-
though thejudgment of Lord Chief Justice Wilmot,
had not actually been delivered; it was as legitimate
an opinion as the written opinions of Lord Hales and
Lord Coke: It had been even to the world by his
son; and its authenticity was unquestionable. He
trusted his Hon. and Learned Fiend would also
stand alone in his opinion that it was competent to
any Court of Justice to cOntrour or correct any deci-
sion of the House of Commons. ; As to Bushell's
•case, it was by no means an analogy. , It• was, no
-contempt ; murder might as well have.been called
contempt: It a Court of Justice actually comfnitted
for contempt, would his Hon. 2nd Learned Friend
say that any other Court had a right
,-to correa
their proceedings ? So with the House" of COM.:
mons. It was not competent to any Court to con-
travene t heir decisions. if this were once admhted it
would be wholly destructive of the pri, lieges and in
dependence of the House.
•
Sir S. ROMILLY explained.
_ _

Mr. PoNsoNBY expressed his convinion that the
privileges of the 'House slood 9n the Law of Par
ment, and were not to be defended :by any•anolOgy
to the proceedings of the Courts blow.
Sir T. TURTON reprobated the whole of the pro-
ceedings in defence of their privileges, which' he
maintained, with the Hon. and Leai ned Gentleman
who had jost,sat down) s:uud'on the law and usoge
of Parliament alone. •
The report was then ordered to be recom;nitted
to the same Courupittee. •