Star.
London, England, 1810-03-29 00:00:00

incT to the or-ans of the late Mr. Yorke—(he begiatt
tardon) of th • late Member for Cambridgeshire.—
l'his was tlic "egicy bequeathed to that House by the
7'c Ser ef the; Exchequer—(l-4an, Near.) That Right
lion. Gcrideriia.n had made a complaint against. John
Gale kites, who'made a respectful apology at the
bat (.Ven ) As he *as informed, that person
nun conducted himself with decorum at the bar, and
on th it ground it was his opinion at the time that he
she . ' he discharged. Every thing that had since
been done on the subject tended, step by step, to
mine Jones a• greater personage than he could other
wne have hoped to becomee, was not his intention
then to give any opinion as to the right of the House
to commit for contempt ; that opinion he had before
stated, and it was not necessary for him •to repeat.—
He begged here to return to what he had been drawn
off from longer than he had.. intended=.the allusions
of the Honourable Gentleman, Mr. Lethbridge, to
combinations in that House. The Hopemenble Mem-
ber had said, that on hearing certain statements in
that House, he was so affected, that his hair stood on
end.—(4 laugh.) Now that the House knew that he
had the gift of language, though indeed he had heard
that Hon. Gentleman before make a motion respect.
ing double barrelled guns (a laugh), he trusted that
he would not remain silent ; but when he became sen-
sible of this visible effect, suffer his moral to overcome
his physicakimpfessions, and move that the terrify-
ing words be taken down Linen) It would cer-
tainly he on every account desirable that he should
not suffer the agitating words to remain in obli-
vion for three weeks, and then the • unfortunate ut-
terer of them become the object of another charge,
by bringing them in judgment against him. (Ave,
hear.) He should appeal to that Bench of Lawyers
whom he saw before him—(a laugh), whether such
a practice would be allowed in any Court of Justice n.
whether, on a trial for one offence, it would he tole-
rated to give in evidence a previous act which had
never been questioned ? He was bold enough to dif-
fer from the Honourable Baronet, though he had not
read his statement. He had heard the speech of that
Honourable Baronet with attention, but without be-
ing convinced. That speech appeared to him an able
one, but the fault he found with it was, that it would
not, if agreed to, advance the object of the Hon.
Baronet one step. He also found fault- with his hiv-
ing published in his argument any thing which he
had not stated in his speech, when he brought for-
ward his proposition. It would have been matter of
surprise if his Noble Friend (Lord Porchester) had
not brought forward any motion calculated to pro-
mote the objects stated in his able speech, on the pro-
p-sing the resolutions founded on the late investiga.
ton. Another complaint lie had to make against the
Hon. Baronet, was that when he published his Letter
and Argument, he professed to publish the substance
of his speech. He had read the letter, and thought
that there was nothing in it which any country Mem-
ber might not have addressed to his constituents.
Having read the letter, he put the argument in his
picket, supposing it to he the same as the speech
which he had heard. On coming down to the
Heise, however, he was informed that a notice had
been given of the motion by the Honourable Mem-
be. When he heard this, he thought that the
matter wonl3 soon be over, as he did not think there
was any thing exceptiOnable in the speech. But he
was afterwards informed that there were many things'
in the argument Which were not in the speech ; and
it was upon the ground that he was not prepared to
give an opinion dpon any one of these new passages,'
that he whhed for the adjournment of the discussion.'
It was impossible to say that any one passage was a
libel, without Considering the whole, and ascertaining
how each might be explained or modified by the con-1
text or ether passages iir the paper. That he should
do, if allowecitime to consider the paper ; but if not,
he should not be'driven to-nne for the Resolutions of
the Hon. Gentleman. As a Juryman, and he look-ed
upon the House as,in that instance called upon to per-
form the functions of Jurymen, he should, in CASt of
any deubt,fcel himself bound to pronounce the party
innocent. Others were no doubt in- the same situation
with him ; and he had-no hesitation in saying, that
any Hon. Member who felt a doubt upon the subject,
was hoimltosay notgnilfY. What detriment, he would
ask, mid result from agreeing to the adjournment of
flits discinsien ? All Gentlemen were not so highly
gifted as net Right Hon. Gentleman, to comprehend
the details of nvo important subjects aronce. They
had not, as that Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to
intaN cells in their brains for the reception of dif-
fcent kinds of evidence, nor that constitution of
intellect, which enabled him to cast shades over one
deeeptien of evidence, whilst he applied his atten-
tion to another ; and then to withdraw these shades
at will, for the purpose of proceeding to the consfele-
ream ef the temporarily secluded subjects. When
Ilieht Honounthle Gentleman therefore called
the I louse, not possessing the same advantages
Leith himself, to divide their attention between two
qncsnons, he was doing an injury to the House, to
tech individual in the House, and to the nation. Jut
ehatever effect the Right Honourable Gentleman
might have expected from this interruption, he trust-
ed In would be disappointed, as well within as with.
ont the walls of that House. He might suppose that
the public would be distracted by this question from
paring the same attention which it would otherwise do
t
the question in which he was so deeply and. perso-
nally interested. But the public he believed to be too
wise to give into that delusion. The Right Hon.
Gentleman would grin but a short respite before the
decision should be pronounced upon him. The Hon
Baronet had claims on the House not to proceed preci-
pitately in this question. The House of Commons,
wnose
rights and privileges were interested no less
than the freedom oF the people in the decision, had
L_Claims. upon that House to proceed calmly and deli-
berately, not rashly and precipitately, When the Ho-
Nimble Baronet had made his motion for the libe-
ratim of Jones, he was not convinced by his speech,
but had voted for the discharge of Jones, because his
Previous confinement appeared sufficient punishment,
because his offence was light, and because he had ,
cr)pclocted himself respectfully, when at the Bar of
that House. He did not mean to detain the House'
I"ngnn as he should not go into any argument as to
tie right which had been questioned. He was sure,
if t'e nieht
liouse
ot?. Was not consistent with law, that the
it ; but if ft;nrnmons was too liberal not to relinquish
on the contrary the right was legal, that
41-11:stu;e_z_ould
.always be bold enough to maintain its
6 vs and privileges.