Star.
London, England, 1810-03-13 00:00:00

A.

Motion of the Honourable Baronet, should not cen-
sent to the attainment of the' same object by-a side
wind, in agreeing to thnAmendrnent. He thought
the confinement already suffered by theindividaal a
sufficient punishment for his offence ; but would not
consent to his discharge till he should express contri-
tion for his offence. The Bill of Rights was not in-
tended to prevent constitutional meetings, legally
convened, for discussing the conduct of public men.
He could not consider self-called Meetings as entitled
to the same clinsideration as Corporation meetings or
County meetings, legally convened by the Sheriffs.
He should therefore vote against the original Motion
and the Amendment, distinctly stating, that if a. pe-
tition were to be presented, he should vote for the
discharge of the individual.
Mr. WHITBREAD was sorry that the Honour-
able Baronet had brought forward his motion in a
shape which, whatever way it. -should be decided,
would not attain his object. He could not but agree
" that the House had the right to commit persons for
a breach of its privileges ; but he must also add, that
in his opinion that House very seldom got well out of
such proceedings. It was clear that the Hcinourable
. Baronet had gone the whole length of denying that
that House bad the right to commit any person, but
one of its own Members ; for he had put his ergo-
*tent in the form of syllogism : a Court 6f Record
only had such a power of commitment, that House
was not a Court of Record, therefore that House had
no such right of commitment. He should therefore
Vote for the amendment.
Mr. CHARLES WYNNE declared his intention
to vote for the amendment, because he thought the
• confinetnent already suffered sufficient as a punish&
went for the offence. •
' Sir FRANCIS BURDETT in reply,recapitulated
Most of his arguments. He contended that his ori-
ginal propositionVias yet unshaken. The point to
which he was, anxious to direct the undivided atten-
tion of the -House was the legality of the sentence of
imprisonment by that House upon persons not Mem-
bers of that House. This had been confounded with
the power of committing for contempt:. All Courts
had that right, because without it they could not pro-
ceed in the adMinistration of justice. What was the
legal meaning of contempt ? That which throws
obstructions in the Way of the proceedings of any
Court; is a contempt of that Court ; therefore the
privilege of the Court in such instance was.the right
of removing such obstruction ; but how were the pro=
ceedings oftliat House' affecte, or at least obstruct-
ed, by a libel ? besides, upon what principle had the
House a right to call to their bar, accuse, adjudge,
and punish in their own cause ? Law was the per-
fection of reason ; what was opposite to reason must
be opposed to law. He had expected a nruch
greater display of constitutional and legal knowledge,
from the learned luminaries of the law, than he had.
yet heard: Notwithstanding what they had said, he
still relied upon the cases he had already mentioned.
The Attorney General had in vain relied upon the,
case of Ferrons, in Henry VIII. Neither had that'
Learned Gentleman '''at all affected the obvious in-
ferences from the -case of Bridgemen v. Holt, He
admitted .that he had called the Ilsitise of Commons
the Third Estate. .He had always considered it. as
such. The' Government he had always thought to
be in the Monarchy—a Monarchy limitecl_by the laws;
and if extraordinary poWer was to be given to one
of the three estates, he should rather it was invested
in the Mostarelly, because the King could do no act.
He Whist:Vette his advisers, and those advisers
Must bereitoonsible. Chief Justice Martin was asked
by- Edward' the Fourth, if lie (the King) could
not attest a --nsan ? The. Judge replied in the
negative, because that his Majesty_ could do nothing
rs advisers were his agents, and those advisers
*ere respOnsible. 'They had heard a good deal of the
ietc'Parrtaatentaria. He knew 'of no such law ;at least,
of none committed against-the la terra. Magna Chaste
was the law of the land ; and if law was founded' upon
reason, laws could not be contradictory. 'They had.
been applied to, to preserve their dignity. He (Sir
Franeis) did not wish them to do any thing that
could-hazard it; but he, for his part, thought that
true dignity in individuals or bodies, consisted in, the
due discharge of the duties of their respective stations,
it surely could- not consist in, punishment. The dig-
airy of punishing, was a dignity that Jack Ketch
Might shale With the best of them (a laugh)—but he
thought that House ought to trace its pretensions to
dignity us another and higher source. He concluded
by stating. ; that none of his ' arguments had ,been
answereder conceived, and that the authorities
he had cited, had not been at all controverted.
Mr. SIiERIDAN'S Amendment was then put and ne-
gatived Withoot,a division, when
Thequestion on the original motion being loudly.
called for, the gallery was cleared for a division, when
the min:tiers Ns-6e
Ayes' i'4 —Nc-es 152 - Majority 138.
On the roadlncssion of strangers ' we fopnd
Mr: FREEMANTLE
son is legs, complaining
of a staterdent'that had appeared in one of the Daily
Pspers, of arcaidged oversight that had been made
in the telling of the numbers on the division upon
Friday night list, Of overlooking a whole row of
/,'embers, to the number of 40; the publication in
csestion had not merely stated. this,—it had gone
further—it had intimated, that he (Mr. Freemantle).
as one of thelekters, had obsirviiithe error, and had
not detected'it. Now, he had only to appeal to those
who foie* him, to say if he could he capable of such
connivance. He felt toefident, that he and his
Honourable Colleague (Mn. etoker)• had done their
Any with accuracy ; and however natural or national,
the propensity of his Honourable 'Colleague might 1*
*ld to be in 'the way of blandeni, he, could answer
for hint, that he had been Oil* of maw upon that
occasion.
Mr. CNER observed, that he should be very
happy tote satisfied by a mistake of his, that forty
Members' had voted upon his side, more than had'
been counted; but unfortunately the matter of fact
was agaitittshim, anil he must agree with his Honour-
able Colleague, that the numbers were told with
mornthan usual care, owing to the great numbers
present, as indeed had been preliiously agreed on
between thetei, . -
scuILDT EXPEDITION.
Lord' PORCHESTER understanding that the ex-
iination tit the bar by the Committee, appointed to
(dire into the Policy and Conduct of the Expedi-
o alt-scheidt viouid.4o.3 close, or was likely to

•

.

or remoi
ceedings
ed, by a
House v
and ptm
fection e
be oppo
greater c
from the
yet hears
still relic
The At
case of ]
Learned
ferenc es
admittec
the Thir
such.
be in the
and if e
of the th
in the /s,
He int
must be
by Edv
not arri
negative
—his
were res
lex Parli
of none c
was the
reason,
been am
Francis')
could ha
true dig
due disc,
it sorely
pity of
Might a
' thought
dignity 1
by stab
fairly an
he hid
Mr. S
gatival
The 'q
called fo
the uum
On th
Mr. I
of a rat
1):. pets,
in the to
Friday 1
lvfnlber
rIICStIOR
further-
-4 its one of
not deter
who kne
connivan
Honour%
duty wit
the prop,
.said to I
for him,
occasion,
Mr- C
happy tc
• Member,
been cou
was agai
able Col
more tha
present,
between
Lord.
lltninatic
1 moire
Ow to is
• .