Star.
London, England, 1821-02-24 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The &MANES, en taking the Chair, communicated to the
House that the Royal A.sant had been given, by Commission,
to several 13i,15, for which see the Lords).
Mr. CU RTEIS Iresented Petitions from the Owners and
Occupiers of L.,.rki in several Parishes in Sussex, complaining
of Agricultural Distress, and praying for protecting Duties on
the Impartation of Foreign Grain. The Honourable Member
observed. that the Petitioners, though now extremely poor,
had (wee been in opulent circumstances, but bad lost every
thing in consequence of the extremely distressed state of the
Agricultural Interest.—The Petitions were ordered to lie on
the ta!rie.
Mr. MORT. IN PITT presented a similar Petition frost
Owner: and Occupiers of Land in the County of Dorset.
Sir JOH SEKRIGHT presented a Petition to the same
erect tom the Occupi,rs of Land in several of the Hundreds
in the County ut I fertforu.-. These Petitions were laid on the
table, alai ordered to be printed.
Mr. Mavoa, from the British Museum, appeared at the Bar
with certirio Returns ordered oy the House.—Ordered to lie
on the table, and to be printed.
Mr. f •URTEIS wished to know from the Secretary to the
Treasury, whether it was the imention of his Majesty's Govern-
ment to restore to the Distillers permis.ion to use Wheat ? This
perm salon was withdrawn on account of the scarcity, an now,
when the reverse of that reason was the fact, there could not
exist the same necessity for the prohibition. He understood
the use of Wheat would be a material advantage to the Divot-
lers, and it would .rlso promote d'e ietereAs of the Public, and
the Agriculturists in particular; he was therefore anxious to
ascertain the intention of Government upon that subject. Ile
was proceeding further, when
The SP EA KRR interrupted him, and pointed out the irre-
gularity of an argumentative question.
Mr. CURTRIS then repeated his question in an abbre-
viated form
Mr. LUSIIINGTON said it was impossible to give an an-
swer to the question put to him by the lion. Member. lie was
rat aware that the subject was under the consideration of the
Treasury, and-certainly it was one of so important and delicate
a natare, that he could not venture to touch it in the shape of
an explanation—Wear, hear).
Mr. BR A NDLING presented a Petition from certain per-
sons in the County of Northumberland against any alteration in
the Duties on Foreign Timber.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, that if the Report of the Com-
mittee up stairs should recommend any alteration. in the Duties
upon Foreign Timber, he should certainly oppose that recom-
mendation.
Lord LOWTIIER presented a similar Petition from Cum-
berland.
Mr. LOCKHART said he had a Petition atrainst any altera-
. _ _ _

Con in these Duties, from the Merchants, Ship-owners, and
others, in South Shields. The Hon. Member said, that already
the Agricultural Interests had been given up to the interest of
the Foreigner, and the British Colonial Interest was to be simi-
larly sacrificed to the same party; and these sacrifices were to
be made without the smallest reciprocal benefit.
Mr. LOCK 11A ET also presented a Petition from Mr. Alex-
ander Campbell, a Member of the Assembly of Prince Edward's
Island, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence who happened to be at pre-
sent in London praying that the house would not alter the
Duties on Foreign Timber.—These Petitions were all referred
to the Committee on Foreign Trade.
111 r. L. KECK presented a Petition from the Archdeacon
and Clergy of Leicester, praying that no alteration might be
nude in the Laws affecting Roman Catholics.—Laid on the table.
Mr. W. PITT presented a Petition from a Parish M Glou-
cetlersbire, complaining of Agricultural Distress; and praying
for relief.—Ordered to he on the table.
Mr. CU w IND gale notice that, on the Oth of March,
be should move for a Committee to inquire into the Laws for
. the Removal of Vagrants. Ile bad received various complaints
ef the grossest misconduct, on the part of the Police, (rum dif-
ferent parts of the country.
Sir T. LETIIBRI DOE gave notice that, on Friday, the 2d
of March, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable.
the Trust Charitable Institutions to exchange or alienate
the props* Eltreof, upon certain conditior.s.
Mr. Serieajt ONSLOW gave notice that, on the 4th of April,
he should move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Repeal of
the Usury Laws.
Sir JOAN NEWPORT complained that certain Returns
tram Ireland, which he had moved for a month ago, had not
kern yet presented, and said, that unless they were brought up
forthwith, he should Move that the Secretary of the Board of
Customs, as Ireland, be tailed up and examined at the bar.—
lle knew that the Returns were studiously kept back, in order
provhat inquiry.
JAJaII,IIVG,TON said, that the Returns were of so
simple a nature, that there was no excuse why they had nut been
prittented.—Oidered to be'presentedfortituids.
Sir JOHN SE.I3 It I G 11T presented a Petition from certain
landholders inllertfordshire' complaining of Agricultural Dis-
tress, and praYing for'relief.—Laid on the table.
Mr. STUA RT. WORTLEY presented a Petition from the
Merchants and Traders of the Town of Whitby, in Yorkshire
•agablisf any 'alteratioti in the Timber Duties.—Referred to the
Copuidtteo.
8Y.1113 510 N. T !nought up the Report • of the Committee
eti Jails, Lfrubtailied leave to bring in a Bilt:for building a Jail
sji 'the. C. of Northumberland.
Mi. NI tArt:B7 ibt.ined leave to bring, a Bill for build-
' 441 the County el Essex.
1...GT.1N presented Returns of Game Certifi-
cues, and the amount of Duty upon Spar and
on the table.

• ;,

IFILTITION OF T. DAViDSON,..A PRISONER IN OASNASI
GAOL, RUTLANDSHIRIL.
Mr. DENMAN said, he held In his hand a Peti-
tion which demanded the serious attention of his Ho-
nourable and Learned Friends on the other side.—
The subject of it was of the greatest importance, as
every subject necessarily must be, which related to
the administration of justice in the country. The
person from whom the Petition came, was Thomas
Davidson, late of Duke-street, West Smithfield, and
now a prisoner in Oakham Jail. The ground of com-
plaint was laid against a Learned Judge, Mr. Justice
Best, and he (Mr. Denman) regretted that he had
been selected to bring forward the question, as he
had lived for some time in habits of intimacy with
that Learned Judge, and had opportunities of know-
ing him as a friend, from having filled an humble
situation in the Court where he presided. This was
not a mere legal question, but one of constitutional
law, and it would be necessary for him to state briefly
the circumstances which it involved. It appeared
that the Petitioner had been tried in the Court a
King's Bench, Guildhall, for having published a
blasphemous libel,and upon that occasion fined three
times by the Judge while making his defence. The
first fine was imposed for his having stated, that " no
Counsel at the Bar could be found who would un-
dertake the defence of a person under similar circum-
stances;" and the three lines, together, amounted to
the sum of £lOO. Now, so far as he (Mr. Denman)
bad been enabled to inform' himself on the subject,
this practice of fining a prisoner in the course of his
defence was not sanctioned by law, nor could he dis-
cover that any instance of it had ever occurred. lie
was not aware that any defendant had ever been pro-
hibited from saying whatever be thought necessary
in his own vindication, when brought before a Court
of Justice. The Petitioner set forth something like
legal argument, to shew that he was justified in the
course he had adopted. He (Mr. Denman) had not
been present during the trial, but a Learned Friend
of his, who argued with great ability when a motion
was made for a new trial, referred to two cases which
bore strongly upon the question. Ile cited the cases
of Sir Walter Raleigh, who, while on his trial be-4
fire Sir Edward Coke and Sir Francis Bacon, was
frequently interrupted, and told he vas speaking
treason ; yet neither. Judge ever thought of fining
him. The next was the case of Prynn, Bastwick,
and Burton, in the reign of Charles the First, who,
upon a bill being filed against them, in the same
manner as bills were now filed in the Court of
Chancery, were bronght berme that tribunal, where
they indulged in the most violent and abusive lan-
guage against the Al chbishop of Canterbury, whom
they considered instrumental to their prosecution,
The Archbishop rernonsti ated with the Authorities
of the Star Chamber, and wished to get the answers
of the prisoners expunged from the hooks, but his de-
Tumid w. uld not be complied with, nor were the par-
ties fined while making their defence. In the case
of Liltburn, at the time of the Revolution, that indi-
vi o.tl attacked the Judges in the most unmeasured
language, but no fine was imposed upon him, and
he was acquitted In the reign of Henry V. Lord
Cobham, while upon his trial for heresy, indulged in
every species abuse against the Archbishop of Can-
ter bury, but he a as ii ruaislied with a fine on that
acc.iunt. In the ca e of. the King v. Williams, Lo d
Kenyon frequently in[errupted the Learned (leAr.
man who defended the prisoner; the conseque cc of
-.Lich was, that the Co ..nsel told the Leat ned Judge,
1, would be impossible for him to go on he de-
fence. finless it were left open to him to pis.ceed in
the course he was pursuing ; and this had the effect
of making the Judge desist. He would not contend
that where the proceedings of the Court we; e inter-
rupted, fines ought not to he inipo ed. Such a pro-
ceeding was essential for the vindication of its on 0
dignity; but when it went beyond the rule which
was necessary to be observed for the iernoval of ob-
structions, then it assumed a power which could not
he watched with too much jealousy—(Heat, hear).
To transgress that rule might he attended with the
very worst consequences. Suppose a man to be in-
dicted for a liltel, he might shew strong circum-
stances why a fine of £`2o could not be imposed upon
him, without bringing him to ruin ; and was the
Court to have the power of inflicting that fine at dis-
cretion? There wei e various other rea-ons why this
practice .ought not to be allowed to prevail. In the
present case, the prisoner stated that he was so much
intimidated by the fines imposed upon him, as not to'
be able to proceed with his defence. Whether lie was
so or not must be best known to himself ; but it was
no answer against the statement to say, that he was
able to speak very fluently afterwards. Who could
tell what effect the thought of the fines might have
produced urftit his mind, and the conviction that he
must be ruined by them ? It was the privilege of
every person to defend himself if he thought pro-
per ; and many had done so with much more success
than if they had been defended by Counsel ; but if
the system of fining was to stare them in the face,
how could it be expected that they should have that
self-possession so necessary to persons in their situa-
tion? Upon this principle, a man, though he might,
by a strong appeal to the Jury, get over a fine of
£5O, still, by going with spirit into his defence, he
ran the risk of a penalty, after his acquittal, much
heavier than if lie suffered judgment to go by de-
fault—(Hear). To a poor man, the fine might be
utter ruin. The principle was most conspicuous in po-
litical cases; yet it was not confined to them alone.—
There was another very strong objection to fines of
this nature, which was, that it committed the Judge
personally with the defendant, than which nothing
could he more injurious to the interests of justice.
He had been told that the Learned Judge in this case
told the Jury, that nothing which had transpired
shoula have the effect of preventing him from calmly
conceding every point that could bear in favour of
the prisoner. He (Mr. Denman) was willing to be-
lieve the fact; but then anything which could eossi-
bly induce irritation, or-expose the mind to prejudice,
was to be deprecated upon such an occasion. At the
due the defendant moved for a new trial, the legs.
lity of the fines could not be made a question, be-
cause after the conviction took place for the libel, the
Learned Judge remitted then). Had the question
ken brought forward, he (Mr. Denman) had very
strong doubts that the Court of King's Bench would
have allowed those fines. Though the allegation for
which the defendant was fined in the first instance
was not correct as it regarded the Bar, still the prin-
ciple of fining a. prisoner on his defence was not,

therefore to btinstiEed. The Petition was couched
in very respectftil terms, and he -hoped the House
would allow it to lie on the table and be printed.—
This was all he should now move for ; but if, after
Honourable Gentlemen had read the Petition, they
should be of opinion that something more was neces-
sary, then he might probably be encouraged to move
for a Committee, with the view of addressing the
Crown for a mitigation of the punishment awarded,
seeing that a prima facie case was made nut in favour
of the prisoner—(Hear, hear).—He was the very last I
man to sanction such a .proceeding, but upon very
strong grounds ; and had he been in his place last
year, he should have voted against any remission of
the sentence pronounced on an Honourable Baronet 1
(Sir M. Lopez), because he should not have felt him-
self justified in supporting it, by the nature of the
case. He deprecated the adoption of any new mea-
sures against the Liberty•of the Press—(Hear, hear);
and he was convinced that the liberty of the subject
would be much better secured by being left under .
the protection of the old law of England, propounded
by the Judges. He lamented that the Petition con-
mined one expression which he thought objection-
able. It was where the defendant said, that Mr.Jus-
tire Best remitted the fines after he had gained his
end, which was to prevent him from making his de-
fence. The Hottourab.e and Learned Member then
moved that the Petition be brought up.
Mr. HOBFIOUSE: solicited the indulgence of the
House while he seconded the, motion. lie adverted
to some points which would come with much more
effect from Gentlemen of the Legal Profession. It
had been correctly said by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman who had just sat down, that there was no
instance of persons being fined while on their defence.
He had not been able to meet.with a single case.—
According to Lord Coke, " usage proves the intend-
ment of law—non-usage the non-intendment." The
strongest authority in favour of the existence of such
a power was that of Judge Holt, who said, that if a
defendant was guilty of contempt, the Judge might
issue a warrant against him, if the contempt was coal-
-pitted out of Cour6or fine him if it was committed
in Court. This, however, was only the dictum of a
Judge, and could not be opposed to the law of the
land. -When Judge Jeffries was on the Bench, Wil-
liam Penn, a Qaaler, had been fined forty marks for
refusing to take dais hat in Court, and the Jury
had been imprisoned for giving a verdict contrary
to the opinion-of the Bench. But though Penn had
insulted the Bench, lie was not fined for any expres-
sion made use of in his defence, but solely fur re-

fusing to pull off his hat ; and, surely,. what had been
too much for Judge Jeffries to do, ought to be too
much for any Judge of the present time. (Hear, hear.)
—ln the 3d Institute of. Coke, page 142, there was a
report of the case of William Bruce, who, though he
liaa grossly insulted the Court, had not been fined
for his conduct. A verdict having been found against
Bruce, he addressed the Judge in these words :
" Roger ! Roger I now thou hast thy will of me r
and on being•asiced what be meant, he added," what
for a long time thou hast sought, my loss and they
shame; and I will think of it, and reward it or re-
compense it." Here, though the Judge had been in-
sulted, and though the offence of the defendant wasl,
deemed so great that he had afterwardi been indicted
for it, stiil it had not been attempted to fine him.—
Rut in his (Mr. llobhouse's) opinion, if even a thou-
sand adjudged cases could be produced in favour of

Lbe praCtice—, they were not toebe regarded as legal
precedents, if contrary to the common law. If the
law allowed the imposition of such arbitrary fines,
Mi. Fox's Libel Bill was useless, for a defendant
ani4ht by this power be so crippled in his defence, as
_ .

not to be able to avail himself .4,f the benefit which

,hat Act was intended to give. Let the expressions
used by the defendant in this case have been ever so
gross, that had no:hing whatever to do with the quer.
Lion before the House; for, however the grossness of
the language might be proper matter for considera-
tion in awarding the amount of a fine, it never could
of itself give a Judge the power of fining. The Ho-
nourable Gentleman referred to the conduct of the
late Lord Ellenborough, on the trial of Eaton, on
which occasion, though the defendant introduced the
ost blasphemous and libellous matters in the course
of his defence, the Learned Judge had said that he
thought it better for the ends of justice to let him go
on. Tile House should bear in mind, that the ermine
with which a Judge was clothed did not invest him
with infallibility. The present case was one that
loudly called for the interference of that House, and

he hoped they would see the propriety of putting a
stop at once to a practice so inconsistent with every
principle of justice—(Hear, hrar).
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL understood that
his Learned Friend who introduced this Petition did
not deny the legality of the proceeding adopted by
the Learned Judge. Some doubts, indeed, he ex-
pressed himself as entertaining on that subject, but
he did not go so far as to assert that the conduct of
the Learned Judge was illegal. The Hon. Gentle-
man who seconded the motion, however, went so far
as to deny that the question of the legality or ilk-
gality of the Learned Judge's conduct had been at
all discussed. Now he had to inform that Hon.
Gentleman, that so far from his assertion being cor-
rect, the contrary was the fact; a solemn discussion
did take place, and a deliberate opinion was delivered
upon it by the Court of King's Bench. So that this
Petition, therefore, could be considered as nothing
more nor less than a request that this House should
review the decision of the Judges—(Hear, hear).—
The present Petitioner had been prosecuted for one
of the most disgusting and abominable libels that
ever was uttered in this country. He would take the
liberty to read one or two passages to the House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to order. He under-
stood it to be the practice of the House that no Mem-
ber should read from a printed paper without the'
permission of the House. He, for one, objected:to
the reading of any part of a prosecution of a bias-'
phemous and libellous character, since the libel itself
was not before the House—( Hear, hear).
The SPEAKER said, that what the Noble Lord
had stated was perfectly true. A. printed paper could
not be read without the permission of the House.--
Now it appeared that, on one side, there was a wish
to read this paper, and on the other a desire to
enforce the order. Under all these circumstances it
was for the House to judge what course they ought
to pursue.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL conceived that,
without apprising the tiouse what tic. libel *as, it

would be impossible for the House tb jl:J.ge.nr
-
course of proceeding "
of which the Pctitiene. „
plained—(Hear, hear).—lt was not hi, vie„. t„
the libel into discussion ; hut to apprise the
of the nature of it, he would read LTA pasq,„
—(Nol rro o—Then he would state the 1)..:s
from memory if the House would allow film o 4"
Ipm
mission—(Order)
The SPEAKER beged pardon for interrupt;„;
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman; hut ultenn;-,,?
tention of the House was called to the libei 4%4'
was his duty to see that that which was nhjeet„,l:e
in one form should not be done in anodicr with„„„
the permission of the House— ( How, hear).
Mr. BERNAL hoped that the House, upon cone,
deration, would see no objection to.allowing the n
and Learned Memler to select a few passages are
the libel, if he thought it really necessary to bit
argument—(Hear, hear).
file ATTORNEY GENERAL was sure ix
the last man in the Hou e who v ould deviate cm;
the rules of the House. But he 'night be penbiteti
to observe, that tins was the first time he sot this
rule enforced—(llrad, read).—The Honourable:nil
Learned Gentleman then read a passage Ina,. 1:,,
libel, in which a gross commentary was mad.?
Sacred -Sc.' iptures. It was the object of the e,
fendant on his trial, not only to re, eat ia CNal tl,e
offence for which he was prosecuted, but tc utter
the face of the Judge still filmier blasphemy in
prevent that, the Lcartit'd Judge apprized hint till
be would not perrni. him to 1:1-oceed tit that
observation, and if he did so, he would confide: t
contempt of Court, and fine him. It was said i!ut
this was interrupting the defendant in his deeace,
and that it embari assed himo. 'Etc House vi.a.,l
judge of the weight of that observation, %helot;
were informed that the defend-ant was reading
ten defence, which he had prepared befose !utak
was n. 1 uttering an extempolaittous address to itl•
Jury. In defiance, however, of the Juaige's :al- a,
nition, the defendant proceeded in the ,arrre or.ust,
and made a broad and gross attack upon theinicis,
sion. For this he wa. not fined. Ile then proceeded
to conduct himself with the grossesz iitsulettce to fat
Judge, dared him, it he could punish by tiae, toile
him ; and holding up his hands in a violent reamer,
he said, " Here is the key of tile dangeon.for
send the to it; it you do not, I will proceed in th!
same way." Then it was that ti:c Learned hip
fined him £2O. He then went on to utter theliikit
blasphemies. The Learned Judie then tol::
that he would not sit there and hear the Chrhaa
Religion reviled; and when the defendant stili ra
ceeded in the same course, he fined him a secowasil
a third time. The defendant then Ideated ha Feu
verty, his large family, and stated that lie was ,t alle
to pay the fines; and the Learned dud, v, Int Ire tit
semmed up the case to the .lury, raid, tha CM
these circumstances, and as the fines ha tat. 4
effect which he looked for—that of checking tau
terance of blasphemy, lie would remit the:b. rne
Jury convicted the defendant. A motion wissehse.
quently made in the King's Bench I r a new trial; s,
full discussion took place. The Judges err
mously of opinion that the Juti:le hat: 410;1.i fined
and, indeed, that no doubt cool i be entertainta await-
it. The motion for a new trial v. as refused: an.: !et,
after that decision, a Petition was now prrientedto
.he House to review it. If his Hon. and learned
Friend thought that the law on that subject oughts
be altered, he might 1) ing tot wars! a propostowia
that purpose. But this House out
Appeal from the King's Bench--(Hear).—As
imputation that the Learned Jadge inflictc
in order to obtain a verdict, it was proved
facts themselves to have been utterly without
dation. Wits it to be supposed, that because!
dividnal was a defendant, that theretore he

be allowed to utter anything he plused?
these circumstances, therefore, seeing th t
duct of the Judge had been pronounced by
petent authority to be legal, it was for the 1.
decide whether the Petition was one to which

ought to object or not—(Hear, hear).

Mr. CREEVEY-said, that the
'had represented his Honourable
cided that the King's Bench "
judgment. His Honourable .
such thing; but he had said, th;
had exercised a power that had
before, not even in the cases of

in which the authority of Judges
high. He (Mr. Cteevey) thought
Mr. Justice Best, that he was an

He had shewn that he was an

the trial of Sir Francis Burdett,

shewn that he was an intemperate
case : indeed, Mr. Justice Best

whom he (Mr. Cieevey) considered
Judge; and he hesitated the less
sion on this occasion, because

Justice Best to be not infallible
that House he had been seen hi

opinions while he passed throng,
til he obtained the place which 1

Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW.—‘
(Hear, hear).—l complain of th
nourable Member. He not onl,

things against a learned person,
to call my friend—he has not or
temperate Judge, and a politick
sured his conduct while a Mem,

Commons, which I conceive is
The SPEAKER said, he had
moment that it was his duty
the opinion of the House mi?h
of the Honourable Member s

appeared to him (the Speaker),
Member was making reference
which the Learned Judge had
the gist and gravamen of the all
tion. He still considered, after

been afforded him of revising .
Honourable.Nember was rot our

Mr. CItEEVEY said, as the
he was not out of order, he di
ceed with any further observatioi

sidered the Petition was entitled

"the circumstance of no Judge
thing before; and he thought als►..
Best was an intemperate Judge—(Hem
The SOLICITOR-GENlifi."

inipossible for him to sit still aft
I onourable Member for Appleb'

.iot a Court .
i--(Hear).—As •ti .
idge indicted the -
it was proved by -t
utterly without i
I, that because t
t therefore he should
he plessevl? ljokr i.
seeing th t the cot-
unounced by the cog. ;
t was for the House to I
as one to which they a
hear).
the Attorney-Gaol c
it
le Friend to have - •
had given an illerl
Friend had doo o
that Mr. Justice bit
d never been e • •
Burton and •••••
;es had been
ghr, with deference' r
an intemperate Jake
int emperateJudge
t, at Leicester. Helot
rate Judge in this •
t was the only -11,u- ,
dered to be a
ess to censure dl
;e he had know: c
e; for when he wg
holding very di- I
gh various partio, •
he now occupy • '
.“ I rise to ordo
he conduct of theft'
lly has uttered scon 4
)n, whom I am pco?
only called him g ,
:al Judge, but has 4
mber of the Hone e
extremely disordellY•
id not conceived at
to interfere, vc•-• '
it be as to the -f,
observations. It 10 1
, that the Ho.
to the motives ug-
d decided, which .
ullegations iu the
er the tine %hien
his opinion, that
out of order. ••
e Speaker bad doik
lid not intend to
Lions; but that Ise
led to attention,
e having done gle"
also, that Me
:—(Hear, hear). •
LAL observed,
,fter the reroarks4,
by. Ile was OP

bear the motive of .resentment ascribed by that
Hotionrable Member to the Learned Judge—(Cries
f to so grave a charge was preferred
e•
onst Learned--EMr. CRZEVEY: " I never made
trh charge:"J—lf the Honourable Member was
4:11* s
jr t, retract that charge, it was open to him to do
so s of No. no! and laughter.)--[Mr. C R EEVEY:
M I retract nothing: I said no such ihing.l—" 1 am
dthat the Honourable Member does retract
Cries of No, no! and laughter.)-1 do
Terlihgalarg-e
bscoo that the charge was made-4 Cries of No; no.).—
I do a,sett that the Honourable Member did say"—
MaSMYTH remarked that unless the words were
taken down it the moment, it was not competent for
„I Honourable Member to assert that they had been
etchal, when they had been denied by the Member
ko whom they hid been attributed.
The SOLICITOR-G ENERA L—" If the Honour?
able Gentleman disavows the words"—
ib M. A. TAYLOR rose to order, and declared,
.bar, having been present during his Hon. Friend's
.qeech, he could affirm, on his honour and conscience,
that ne such word as resentment was uttered by him.
He %Omitted, therefore, whether it was competent
fer t:oe Solicitor-General to assume that it had been
'spOke!)—( Cries of Order !)
The SPEAKER -aid, that as the Solicitor• General
• bad used the word " disavove," he was not out of or-
der. By the word disavowed, it was meant, that the
Honourable Gentleman had disavowed uttering the
words in question, not that he retracted them.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL proceeded. The
Honourable Member for Appleby had. taken an op-
portunity to charge intemperate conduct on the
Learned Judge who was mentioned in the Petition,
and bad referted to the proceedings of that learned
person on the trial of a Member of the House. • Ile
(the Solicitor-General) would ask what there was in
the conduct of the Learned Judge on that occasion,
which called for such a reprehension? As to the
Merits of the publication which was the subject of
that trial, there could be no doubt that it was of a
most
.malicious and malignant nature. All the
Judges of the Court of King's Bench, even Mr. Jus-
tice Bayley, who differed from his Brothers on the
pas.: of form, agreed that it was a malicious and
tual4nant libel. But even on the point of form, the
majority of the Judges concurred with Mr. Justice
Best. Yet the Honourable Member for Appleby ac-
cused Mr. Justice Best of intemperance. When they
talked of intemperance, what was the character of
the Honourable Member who made such a serious
charge opal such slight grounds ?—(Hear, hcar.) As
to the Petition of Davison, it contained an incorrect
statea ent of the proceedings on his trial. When that
person began to make an attack on the Gentlemen of
the Bar, the Judge said, " I allow you the greatest
latitude in your defence, but you must not make it
the opportunity of uttering libels upon others." With
that teproof the matter terminated. The Petitioner
stated that he was then fined, which was not true;
for it was in reply to this admonition, that extending
his hand to the Judge, the defendant said, 4. If your
Lordship has the dungeon ready, I will present you
with the key." For that he was fined £2O. It was
manifest that the object of the defendant was to be
imprisoned for contempt, so that the trial might have
been interrupted. To impose a fine was, therefore,
the only course that remained to the Judge in order
to preserve decorum. The defendant then proceeded
to libel the first ranks of the country, and particu-
larly the Bench of Bishops, as disbelievers. For this
he was again fined, and subsequently a third time.
The defendant complained that he was embarrassed;
bet the Learned Judge desired him to take his own
time, and to pursue any legitimate course of defence
in his own manner. This was a correct history of
the proceedings at the time; and if the affair had
stopped here, would the House have had a right to
interfere ? But this was not all. The defendant ap-
plied to the Court of King's Bench, and the case was
argued with respect to the law, the merits, and the
hardships of it, with all the advantages that learning,
ability, and zeal could give. The cases mentioned
by the Honourable Member for Westminster, some
of which applied to the question, and others of which
were entirely irrelevant, were then quoted. The de-
cision of the Judges was unanimous; and unless the
House of Commons made itself a Court of Appeal,
both in law and fact, the Petition could not be suf-
fered to lie on the table—Weer)—particularly after
the manner in which it had been defended—(Hear,
from the Opposition). The prayer of the Petition
might, indeed, be maintained by those who were of
the opinion of the Honourable Member for West-
ininster, that every Judge, since the Revolution, had
been guilty of a capital offence.
Mr. LOCKHART expressed himself fully satisfied
with the explanation of the Learned Judge's conduct
given by the Attorney-General. He agreed that the
Learned Judge had the right to fine ; indeed, he
could not see how any man could doubt that an
offence which was committed in facie: curia was
punishable by fine and imprisonment.
Mr. SCARLETT began by expressing his regret
that he was not present when the Pitition was read,
as he was, therefore, unable to pronounce any opi-
nion as to its merits. But if it disputed the power of
'tempt, he certainly
ter; for there could
ich power. He was
co by the Petitioner,
decided opinion upon
t the Judge would
•eventing a defendant,
nal violating the rules
listration of justice, or
ion of the Law and
did not possess such
to any excess of it
'ht place himself in
is would be grossly
retence that he could
ition; and surely in
,e power to controul
ye the power of pre-
not that also of pro-
indecency of contro-
_w and the Gospel ?
observed as to the de-
an more strongly felt
that feeling should
the conduct of any
c that conduct ap-
le sliouid, howcve.,
,uch high authority

with great diffidence; but that diffidence could not.
restrain him from making a few remarks upon a re-
cent case, where a fine was imposed upon a weekly
Newspaper, for publishing certain State Trials, con-
trary to the order of the Judge. This wjss, in his
opinion, carrying the doctrine of contempt much too
far. The publication, with fidelity, of a trial in any
British Court, was cettainly no offence; and there-
fore could not legally be construed into contempt:
Tet in the case to which he alluded, the Journalist
was fined for publishing a trial, without a charge of
any want of fidelity in the report. Now, if it were
allowable to punish a man for publishing a trial, he
could not see why others might not be punished for
reading it when published; nay, that any one who
happened to speak of. whatever occurred in a Court,
after the interdict of the Judges against publication,
should not also become the subject of punishment.
The principle upon which this fine was levied, was
indeed such, that according to it there could be no
end to the doctrine of contempt. But there was in
fact no precedent whatever to sustain this principle.
In any of the higher Courts of Westminster Hall, an
attachment could be Lsued to bring any party be!
fore it, who was conceived guilty of contempt ; but
no such power belonged to any Court of Quarter.
Sessions, or Special Commission. The authority, of
such Courts did not extend beyond its own limits as
to contempt. The Special Commission alluded to
had nut, in his judgment, any right to call a party
before it for contempt of its order out of Court ; and
having no right to call any party, it had no power to
hear that party in his defence, and consequently no
right to inflict the penalty to which he referred.
Lord CASTLEREAGH rose to order, and sub-
mitted to the Learned Gentleman whether he was
not, by going into extraneous matter, withdrawing
the attention of the House from the question before
it ? The other question which the Learned Gentle-
man was discussing might be brought within the re-
gion of argument in that House, but certainly this
was not the proper occasion for entering into it. The
House was aware that the Court of King's Bench had
already decided against the Learned Gentleman's
view of the question ; and, understanding that it was
again to be brought into discussion in another Court,
he thought it would not become that House to take
it up at present.

Mr. SCARLETT admitted, that if the case were
sul judice elsewhere, he would have been wrong in
adverting to it in that House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that it might
be brought into discussion in another Court.
' Mr. SCARLETT thought not; and expressed a
wish to know from his Learned Friend, in what shape
it could he subiritted to the consideration of any
other Court ? Still he would at pre.ent abstain from
saying anything farther upon this question.
Sir F. BLAKE objected to the Petition as too in-
flammatory, and therefore calculated to contribute to
the alarming discontents of the country ; but yet
begged it to be understood that he was a decided ad-
vocate for the right of petitioning upon proper sub-
jects, and in adequately strong language, and what
language could be stranger than nolumus loges Anglia
mutare ?—(Laughter). From his solicitude for the
right of petitioning he voted last night, and he glo-
ried in the vote he had given, for referring the Peti-
tion respecting the misconduct of the Sheriff at Kil-
mainham to a Committee of Supply !—(Loud laugh-
ter).—He meant to a Select Committee, which ought
to have been appointed, to inquire into and report
upon the scandalous outrage complained of by the
Petitioners; for if such outrages were overlooked, he
should not he surprised to find another Cromwell
taking military possession of that House.

Mr. W. COURTENAY rose to remark upon his
Learned Friend's opinion with regard to the fine im-
posed at the late Special Commission—(A cry of "he
was called to order").—The Leat ned Gentleman ad-
mitted that his Learned Friend was called to order
upon that occasion, in consequence of the irrelevancy
of his observations to the question before the House;
yet he thought that such observations should not be
allowed to go forth unanswered; but he would bow
to the judgment of the House.

Lord CASTLEREAGH observed, that as no doubt
appeared to be entertained by the highest legal au-
thorities in that House upon the legality of the Judge's
conduct to which the Petition referred; and as the
Court of King's Bench had solemnly adjudged that
conduct to be quite correct, he saw no reason why
the Petition should be received, or that that House
should at all enter into the subject. If a defendant
availed himself of the indulgence afforded him to
make his own defence, to commit fresh crimes, was
his attempt to be tolerated of committing still farther
crimes, in the shape of a Petition to that House?—
(Hear t on the Ministerial Benches.)—•lt would be
quite inconsistent with the sound exercise of the right
of petitioning to allow any conduct of this nature.
The right of petitioning was a privilege which could
never be brought into question except by its own
abuse ; and, therefore, lie felt that he best consulted
the preservation of that privilege, by opposing the mo-
tion for bringing up this Petition. He. had not heard
the Petition read himself, but from what he had
learned of its object and contents, he must consider
it of a most exceptionable character; and as it re-
ferred wholly to a judicial question, which ought
to be left to the consideration of other tribunals, he

thought it not becoming in that House to interfere.
It was to be lamented, indeed, that a practice had

grown up of late years of bringing everything into
the House of Commons, in consequence of the facility
with which any man might find some Member to
present a Petition from him. Thus the time of the
House was unduly., occupied, and its functions di-
verted from their proper purpose. So much, indeed,
was this the case, that upon a review of the month,
during which the House had been sitting, no less
than halt its time had been engaged in discussing
Petitions.. The present then was a proper occasion,
on which he thought it necessary, on the part of the
House, to admonish the People that there was a lin&
to the righ; of Petitioning—(hear, hear, hear)—and
that the abuse of that right would not be tolerated.
Mr. J. P. GRANT must protest against the doc-'
trine of the Noble Lord, and was proceeding t.../ reply
to what he concr:ived to have been said by the Noble
Lord, when
Lord CASTLEREAGII saw, that he had never
objected to the right of Petitioning.
6,RANT tesuared, and thought the Petition
should be accrivoth

Lord CASTLERE.kOH timught that the Unice'
should mark its sense of the Petition; by not having
it brought up.
Mr. BRIGHT was astonished that the question
should be treated as a Mere question of law. Many
Judges had done wrong, and he denied that Mr.
Justice Best, though he might justify bithself by
argument, could do so by precedent. This was the
first time that a Judge had imposed three fines, and
then annulled them. The doctrine of contempt, it
thus acted upon, would lead to the most terrible
oppression. There should be a Court of Appeal to
correct the hasty conduct of Judges. The grievance
had lately grown up, and was increasing. , He called
on the Heise to have the Petition read and printed,
and to have a Committee appointed to consider it.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON was disposed to believe
that he had misunderstood the Noble Lord, who, he
believed, had not read the Petition himself, and re-
lied on the opinions of others. Was it to be endured,
that the Minister of the Crown should say it wa,
enough to have the opinions of his Learned Friends,
and not hear himself a Petition from one of the Peo-
ple ? The plain language was, that after the mea-
sures of the Noble Lord had goaded the People to
madness, he would not listen to their complaints.
He would be happy to find that he had misconceived
the Noble Lord,
Lord CASTLEREAGII said he had been miscon-
ceived in a most extraordinary manner. Upon the
maxim of the Honourable Member, all Petitions
whatsoever were to be received, and the House would
have no discretion.
Lord ALTHORP would have that confidence in
a Member of Parliament, that he would not present
an improper Petition. He hoped the Noble Lord
would not object to the Petition being brought up.
Mr. WYNNE said, that a 'Petition had been put
into his hands by a Gentleman, complaining of a
judgment of the King:s Bench, and he had refused
to present it, as there was a constitutional remedy,
by appeal to the I louse of Lords. In cases like the
present, it was difficult to draw a tine; but if the
Judge had done wrong, the proper mode was by im-
peachment, or address to the Crown.
Mr. BERNAL thought the matter should not he
rested on the mere question of right. He would not
encourage disrespectful language ; but he thought
the Petition should be read.

Mr. HUSKISSON stated the usual practice to be,
for the Member himself to state the subject of the
Petition. The Petition stated, that after the Judge
had obtained his end, to prevent the Petitioner from
being heard, he had remitted the fines. Such a
statement he conceived to be highly libellous. An
injury would be done to the right of petitioning by
receiving such a Petition.
Sir It. FERGUSSON said, the plain and simple
que,tion before the House was, whether this Petition
should be rejected by that House, unheard, and un-
read?—(Hear, hear.) His Honourable and Learned
Friend (Mr. J. P. Grant) had acknowledged that he
was not present when the Petition was presented ;
and he believed the Noble Lord and his friends were
in the same situation, and that they had not even
heard the portion of it which was read. And yet,
said the Honourable Member, the Noble Lord dares
err, the Noble Lord dares to come down to this
House, and call upon the House, not only to reject
the Petition, but to admonish the People against the
exercise of the sacred right of laying their grievances
before Parliament—. (Hear, hear, hear). If the lan-
guage of a Petition were decorous and respectful, it
was a matter of course that it should be brought up
to the table and read; and if afterwards it appeared
to be inadmissible, it was still in the discretion of the
House to receive or reject it. He trusted that :he
Noble Lord would suffer the Petition to be read.

Mr. G. BANKES thought the Petition ought not
to be read, as his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr.
Denman) had stated that he was not prepared to
propose any ulterior measure. There was another
ground on which he objected to the reading of this
Petition. It appeared from the explanation of his
Hon. and Learned Friend, the Attorney-General,
that some of the statements in this Petition were false.
He objected to its being brought up, partly because
it was inexpedient that such a document should lie
on their table, unless some ulterior measure were to
be founded upon it, and partly because it was false.
Though he did not stand in that House as the advo-
cate of the Leatned Judge, and it would be unbe-
coming in him to assume that character, yet he could
not help regretting that the name of that venerable
person had been brought before the !louse in a manner
which was so much to be deprecated and deplored.
Mr. CURWEN said, that so long as.he had sat in
that House, and singular as the arguments\were
which were heard within its walls, he had never
heard more extraordinary language than that which
had fallen from the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) and
the Honourable Gentleman who bad just sat down.
The Noble Lord thought fit to admonish the People
against the exercise of the right of petitioning, and
the Honourable Gentleman objected to even hearing
the Petition read, unless some ulterior measure were
to be founded upon it. This was a most monstrous
proposition, and still more monstrous was the doc-
trine, that the name of the Learned Judge ought not
to have been introduced in that House, as if a per-
fect indemnity were to be granted to Judges to con-
strue or misconstrue the laws, as they thought fit.—
He trusted that, 'whenever a Judge was to be found
corrupt enough to pervert the laws, there would never
be wanting bold and independent men in that House,
who would bring their conduct before Parliament.
He declared, that if this Petition, upon being read at
the table, should be found to impute a base and cor- ,
rupt motive to the Learned Judge, he (Mr. Curwen) li
should be one of the first to reject it; but if, on the
other hand, the Noble Lord persisted in refusing to
hear it read, he should be compelled to vote in favour
of the motion. When the Noble Lord (Castlereagh)
talked of admonishing the People, and declared that
this House was not the place for receiving their Peti-
tions, he (Mr. Curwen) must admonish the Noble
Lord, that if this were the case,- there was a point at
which it became the right of Englishmen to make
resistance against the Constituted Author ities—(lkar,
hear). No man who regarded the happiness and tran-
quillity of the country, would wish to say where that
point was; but every man knew that there-was a
point at which it was the right and duty of English-
men to resist—(Order, order from the ,Speaker) ; and
he did say, unit the Monstrous and unconstitutional
conduct of the Noble Lord, was calculated, in a most

ilarming degree, to accelerate the period when re-
sistance would be virtue—Vicar, heory.—He still
trusted the Noble Lord would not •,er-ist in prevent-
ing the Petition from being brow ;ht up to the table
mid read.

Mr. C. LONG said, that the expression which had
fallen from.his Noble Friend had been much misre-
presented. lie certainly had used the expression of
admonishing the People; but what he understoodhis
Noble Friend to mean, was—that he wat desirous of
admonishing the People not to pi e,cnt Petitions upon
subjects which could not properly he inquired into in
that House. Such was the obvious meaning of his
Noble Friend's expression, though Gentlemen oppco•
site had found it exceedin,Ply convenient for their own
purpose to put a very different construction upon it—.
(Hear, hear front the Oppositi9n).— He thought the
House was bound to reject a Petition in which so fla-
grant an offence was imputed to the venerable Judge
without the slightest found:l6ot*
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, the bialy onestion
now before the House was—whether the !.etition
should be brought up?—and it would be matter of
subsequent consideration, whether it ought to lie on
the table. The Noble Lord and the fronourable Gen-
tleman opposite were not present when the Petition
was presented ; they were ignorant of its nature, and
were actually endeavouring to collect the contents of
it in the progress of the discussion. It had been
urged, that the administration of justice was not a lit
subject for the controul of that House; for what pur-
pose, then, was the Committee of Justice appointed
every Session? 1k trusted, that whatever might be
the opinion of' the House as to its admissibility, when
they heard it read, no objection at least would be
made to its being brought up.
The CHANCELLOIt of the nxctiEQUER said,
that the only Petitions which were received as a mat-
te,r of course in that House, wete Election Petitions.
All other Petitions were liable to be received or re-
jected as that House thought fit, and it would be
found, upon reference to the Journals, that the House
had exercised that discretion in a variety of instances.
Indecorous language was a good ground of rejection,
and in this case the language was admitted not only
to be indecorous, hut lihellous—(No, tto, from the Op-
position).—lt certainly contained an imputation upon
a Learned Judge, which was known or believed to
be false by the Hon.. and Learned Gentleman who
presented it, and upon that ground he thought it
ought not to be received.
Mr. DENMAN said, in explanation, that he had
merely stated that the charges, if false, were libel-
lous. He did not say they were false; bit he la-
mented, from his knowledge of the Learned Judge,
that a charge of this nature should be brought against
him. He had, in his statement, suggested to the
House, that this Petition might be referred to the
Grand Committee of Justice, or to a Select Com-
mittee; or, lastly, that some legislative measure
might be introduced, curtailing the power of Judges
to punish for contempt. As to the legality of fining
a defendant for contempt, he felt no doubt whatever;
but the question here was, whether or not a Judge,
in the particular case, having no precedent to go by,
had outstripped his povveis, and was right in the
exercise of his discretion ?

After a few words from Mr. MARTIN, the House
divided, and the numbers were—
For the Motion 37
Agaitlst it

....Majority against the Notion —c.7

lONIAN ISLANDS.

Mr. HUME said, that it seemed to be the princi-
ple of the Government at home to pay all the de-
mands made by the Government of the lonian Islands.
By the Treaty of Paris, these Islands were to form
an independent State, under the protection of the
King of Great Britain. The Honourable Gentleman
then entered into a detail of what had taken place
since the Treaty of Paris, and stated that the whole
of the expense of the Military Establishment had
been defrayed by the British Government.. The Ho.;
Inourable Gentleman then proceeded to mention the
names of several Officers who held a number of situa-
tions under the Government of the lonian Islands.—
There was one Officer, whom, perhaps, he ought not
to name, but in this instance he must, that was the
Honourable Colonel Stewart, who had not been out
of England for eighteen months. These things were
perfectly in contradiction to the Treaty which placed
these Islands under our protection. We had been
told that these Islands would he no expense to us ;
but so expensive were the Stair of the Army and
Militia, that they ought to be reduced. The Chief
of the Senate had a salary of four thousand dol-
lars; now he believed, he got eight thousand dollars.
Ile complained of their expending, as he understood,
80,000 dollars in building a useless Palace for the
Lord High Commissioner, when there was a Palace
before, and when they could not pay the expense
of their Military Establishment. He also complained
that the Order of the lonian Islands had been be-
stowed by the Lord High Commissioner, not on the
first citizens of those islands, brit on- those who. had
been subservient to the Lord High Commissioner.
The expenses of the jewels of this Order, he was in-
cormed, would be 40,000 dollars. He understood
that the immense income of the Colony was swal-
lowed up by salaries gilien to Magistrates, who then
became creatures of the Lord High Commissioner,
while formerly these offices used to be held by the
most respectable of the inhabitants, wits t any ex-
pense but what they were at themsWes.. These
things, he was informed, were of suchlikature that
the people were quite disgusted with -Our Govern-
ment. They ougLt to have an account Of all thdse
extravagant services; they ought not to vote oile
single shilling for the support of the nlitary Esta-
blishment of these Islands. He should be most happy
to retract all he had said, if the accounts to be laid
before the House slwald be found to prove them, to
be erroneous. Ile then moved fa- an Abstract of
the Revenue of the lonian Islands for 1: 17, 1.818,
and 1819 ; and for similar Accounts of the Expen-
diture for the same period.
_ Mr. GOL/LBURN lamented that the good old
course had not-been pursued in this instance; which
was to move fur-Papers, and then, when
to comment on them ; but the Cetitieniat had
made sonte commests tat Papeis which might falsify
his own observations, • when produced, and whidi
were not to he rectised to'bitn.:'The Hon. Gentienian
had disclaimed nu& ktentii!ifi c imputing artythictig
1-)rsbitill to Sir r.WatitatUl4 but nothing entsid,,be
mere personal than to charge an OACer with con..

?.

a Court of Law to punish for cont
could not concur with the Petitions
3 be no doubt. of the existence of sue
tot present at the trial referred to
o and therefore he could give no dec
it, but could have no doubt that
exercise a sound discretion in preve
or any other person in Court, from
established for the better administi
from controverting every positier
a the Gospel. If, indeed, the Judge t
power, a defendant might resort
regularity; for instance, he migF
r, such a position towards the Jury a:
intfelicate and indecent, under pret
t Only defend himself in such a posii
such a case the Judge should have
• him. It, then, the Judge should has
c • venting personal indecency, why n
Ifileting the moral and religious in
vening every position of the La‘
With iegat d to what had been ohs
firelice due to the Judges, no man
ic ti 34 detei eaze than himself; but 1
mot real:till him from questioning
r. 9ile or mole of the Judges, wheil
Eh
to be errone.,us. Eh
iorAys express Lis &skin from bu