The Sun.
London, England, 1810-04-06 00:00:00

Common*, they must. feel also, that it stood in
singular*tuittion, that it was the'first f
Parliament while guarding the Conaitutional tt
of the tpeople against the encriachnients ca.
Crown; to take care that they did not allow any s
croaatirlients ou„the • popular side. It was als-
duty of the House, when yielding. to the one side or •
the otherytts-goad against infringement of siationat
rights, and to forbedr iacreasing its own. Tiros
much, however, he was bound to say, that he b. -
lieved the privileges of Parliament were.never esters
cased but for the' benefit of the realm.. The question
which 'was trove under discussion, wis One which •
had been frequently discussed: It, „was whether.a
libellous publication was an infringement of the pri;:
vileges of this House, and whetherthe House had
the possession of the privilege -said, to be: infriosid
by .the. publication. Now_ on this .sabjeet
heard a great deal of loose talk, and many cireii
,s,t,apces brought to view, to•sliew- that even sup-
posing the letter .to be of a Libellous rendences =--••
author might be punished by the law of the land.
Who ever doubted the truth of these arguments-
-Was it less a; libel because it might be so punished ?-
Or was it becathe 'the' publication was a crime pt-
nishablesomewhere else, that therefore this House
should not punish ?=-NNras sloe House in possession
of that privilege ? The day might, come when; per-
haps, the' privilege of commitment might be doubt-
ed—The Hon. Baronet then went on. to state tne
law in reference to the tetter.. In the first para.
graoh, the Horr..Baronet had said, that the [loose
of Commons were stiperior to Magna Charta."
VVhysintlitstoKery sentence he began his Letter by
►ibellrng, the lanse; for the very assumption that
the:House helditself superior to the constitutional
la va; 'pi, the land, was'a libel ; there was something
insidiom!in sa stating. Ifit was so stated, what was
the HoUse to inquire into? Why ibis, whether the
House itself is not a part of the law of the land.
The very name was sufficient to prove the fad. The
Housenf, 'Commons could not exist unless it were
a part -qt the law of the land. Now, as to its being
a partof the laW of the land, it might bees well to
look ssiliere-' it, 'had its existence; he did not know
where;lo plook; 'but in the prad ice ever since the
country had a name. What, then, was the_ privi-
leged claim which: the House sought to maintain.
It was this—that being one of the br.inches of the
Legislature, of high authority in the State, it Was
sotto besubjected to obstructions, or to be Cd:llM -
niated, in the exercise of those functions which the
Constitution had invested it with. The question was
not varied, even though the calumny might be ern--
bodied into a printed paper. The House of Com-
mons must be 'allowed, to have the free exerti,e
,of that bond which, as between the crown and
the People; must never be run.- down.7.-.;-WJs it
ever• beard 'of,' that any` court of justice, in any
public meeting, in any club authorized by law,
had not the power of protecting themselves against
obstru{tions or calumny in their proceedings ? but
then it had been argued, that personal obstrodious
might be removed ; that was an argument he would
not dispute ; but be should like Io know how it was'
possible to remove such kind of personal obsti uc-
tions, unless it were to be insisted on, that force
must be resorted to, and then he should be glad
to know how it could be said that the House pos-
sessed the free exercise of its functions, Did Gen-
tlemen who were advocates for this unlimited use
of obstructions, recoiled how the vnte. against toy
Lord Strafford was carried ? That vote was carried
by posting up placards all over the streets of London,
acct.taiugssuch-pnd such Members of being Strafford-
ians, by hooting and hissing others.: If then this
sort of aoleration was to be permitted, might the
case notaccrue again to-morrow ? Were not those
placards libellous publications, tending to bring the
authority of the House into contempt ? Were net
Membersprevented coming down to the House be,
cause they were liable to insult in their passage ?
But those Gentlemen were obliged to admit that
therievilis a .constructive sort of obstruction, which
wifie.vident in the.present case, and therefore the
offence did noCeall for a severe punishment. With-
out glVirit-ail'Opinion on that argument, he must say
that anything Short of the exercise of a power to pre-
vent the House from being calumniated ; or indeed
if a Court of legal judicature could have any effect,
the- praelice must be stopped in limine. Would the
House endure to wait for' the. slow process of in-
dictrrient, to eunish men for covering the wails with
libels, and for °Winding the,Members in the free
exercise of their duty ? Would it not ba more pru-
dent to take cognizance in she-first instance, espe-
cially. when proceeding by indictment could, not
take cognizance' of it in the 'view which the House
did ? But as a breach of the publie peace, an indict-
ment, therefore, iu the opinion of the Hon. Baro-
net, Would not obtain the end now sought to be
obtained. Another question , then presentedirselt,
and that was, whether-. the Rouse ,ought to judge of
its own .priVileges Or 'not. c‘ To be sure, said the
Baronet, I ought to apologize to the House
for having stated this questien; ler if the House
cannot Lodge of its own riVileges, I do not know
how it can exist at all."—lf it exists to be/useful, it
must 'exist as an independent House. When I
claim that, do I claim mote than what the lowest
Court of Justice 'in the kingdom is in the practice-of
exereising+ Will any man in this House dispute,
or will attf'l.aktryer say, that when a Court corn-
mitas'ar -eolite-Mpt, the commitment is liable to be •
questiOired brany other ? That he might be told the
liotrie'crtfighf exercise its authority to abuse, he
wOuldnot deny; but he would put it to the jerk.
meet of any one, whether, as a body, any abuse of
its authority had been known to be exercised for
three or four centuries past ? whether its proceed..
ings had not been wise, prudent and moderate, as'
it obtained -higher authority and weight in the Stale
Had npetheliouse exercised the authority in times.
past.,? or..his;part he anust confess that when Gm.
fietnvnlttinted,ol4tbreach of privileges not being Co..