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

Lora ARCHMA.LD
whatever might be'
the Hon. Baronet's

/emei shillings damages might be given could ,
• ,urt of Record ; the argument came into the
if
• syllogism, and the necessary conclusion was,
I ee •
'le power of fine and impritortment wits not in
1-I.le se. No right to flee was assumed. Why
C
„ the greater power retained, when the Smaller
:s admitted to be illegal ? Why was the maxim
- • and reason violated ? " Cui minus non con-
Val
t Ci MajUS non convenit." The warrant of com.
oittal was illegal in all its parts, but eminently so
is • onclusior. legal warrant most conclude
c
lid, the words, "till the party be delivered by due
coi...t: of law :" this warrant ends with the words
• during the pleasure of the House." He (Sir Fran-
Burdett) valued the rights of that House ; but
from whitever part of the Constitution an exertion of
arbitrary power came, it was his duty, it was the so
lemn and lofty duty of every Englishman, to avow
himself hostile to it. There were, in a matter of this
two obvious questions of justice. The first,
Crime, or no crime ?" The next, " Committal ?"
The House, by such proceeding, involved the as-
and Leislv
semption of Judicial,.
Executive,
powers • but this was in the very. teeth. of lgaw.ati Ine
P° 9
the due administration of the law, st typtrided that
the same men shall not take two steps together ; one
set find the bill, another decide on the fact, another
the law ; but that House, which administers no oath,
which squares itself by no form, which makes no pre-
vious examination of the fact, jumps at once. upon its
' dangerous and most alarming sonclusion, stud finds
the accused guilty. What magic was them to Tie
wad privilege, to make the forms of -the-wise .and
guarded laws of their ancestors worthless, to give
them an instantaneous and institutive. knowledge of
the truth of the case, which might have been unheard
of by the majority. of the House till the moment of ,
the charge, which was also the moment of judgment,
and the moment of condtelition. Who was to de-
file- who had attempied-ter define, the privileges to
which the House laid claim; or what was the value
or the cogency of undefined privileges ? How was
Lie accused to avoid his crime if the definition of Pri-
vilege, if the line that marked off vice from virtue,
was allowed to be so =dilute, so wavering, so shadowy
as to be indistinct to the legislators themselves. The
prerogative of the Monarch was infringed by this as-
sumption. Whatever encroached on the liberty of
the subject was an infriarment of the prerogative
that was bound to protect it ' • and it ill became that
House to give even a colour for insulting the popular
liberty, or acting the oppressor when the power was in
their hands; but it was fortunate for even that House,
that there was a superior wisdom to correct the obit-
quities into which the possession of exorbitant power
might betray the best 01 men ; the law of the land
was paramount, no resolution of the House could be
valid, where it was incoosistentwith the recognised law.
A distinguishedlalyer had smitten an occasion where
the authority of the House was brought forward, that
*he cared no more for the resolutions of that House,'
than the decrees of a parcel of drunken sailors." If
it was to be contended: that the ,yones pf
.tie House
were valid against all sense. end. all authority of law,
then Mr. Jones must remain in prison ; but if they
could be convinced that they had exercised power be-
yond privilege, they would be eager to retract the
measure in which they were implicated, and agree
vith him in the motion which he would make, that
elk. John Gale Jones should then be discharged."
Mr. W. WYNNE could not help taking notice of
the inconvenient situation in which the House was
placed by the Motion of the Honourable Baronet.
Had a proposition been made in the Lintel way, a-
pressive of the contrition of the person who was under
the censure of t'he House, he should feel no difficulty
in agreeing to his discharge. . But he could have
wished that that proposition had not been prefaced
by such a. speech as that which had fallen from
the Honourable Baronet. It had been contended by
the Honourable Baronet that the House had not the
right to commits an individual for a libel ; and any
imprisonment by their minim. such an offence was
unconstitutional, and contrary to the due course of
law, and became more aggravated from the time of
coutinement not being distinctly defined. This argu-
meat was, however, in direct opposition to the prat.
tice of every Court of Justice, every one of which re-
served to themselves the power of committal for any
contempt that might be shewn towards their proceed-
ings, and on such occasions it was pot at all customary
to stipulate the time of confinement. The Honoura-
ble Baronet had. also argued, that the House had no
right to commit any individual, except one of their
own. Members, for a breach of privileges : there were
numerous instances, however, in which recourse was
had to such a practice, and more especially in early'
times.—(Here the. Honourable Gentleman cited se-
veral precedents. ).Till the period of the long Par-
liament, the right of the House in such cases, and the
due limits of its authority, had not been ascertained.
From that time it had been established, that the
power of committing to confinement any person who
had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of th
House, was necessary to the very existence of Parlia-
merit, for the preservation of its authority,.and as a
safeguard for its Members. The Honourable Baro-
• net had also observed, that the privilege of the House
ought net to extend beyond the preservation of its
servants. A libel on any Member, for any thing he
had done in the execution of his duty, was to be con,
sidered equally culpable as an assault on the pemon.
ot tie !Amber, and was not alone an offence against
the individual, but against the whole body, conse-
quently a sort of contempt of Court, and liable to be
punished in the same way as in any of the Courts of
Westminster, whicha.sitting, would not proceed by
action, as suggested by the Honourable Batotiet, but
b _ y its own authority, and corninit the offender witout
hesitation. The Honourable Baronet said 'he wished
t
to put the individual, the subject of his remarks, com-
?kitty out of the question. It was to 'be regretted
be had not done so, and reseived his observations tar
after the enlargement of the offender. And even now,
it was to be hoped he would, in: 'the fu's(instAticti:
move Jolt ve for the discharge of Mr. Gale 304 end
substitute th#4l
some Resolutions deOaratory of the plinee2
Ales he wished to inculcate. "Whatever might have
'
been his (Mr. W.'s) opinion if another Motion had
been made,
die
ade in the present case he must give his vote
Resolution, which after the :Sentiments;
th
• *it had been uttered by the Honourable .Baronet,
wuold only-go tosithvert those :principleiwhich had
mrs
practice for three hundred Yeats, wild
th-cerepni.nvriesgPeesnastYthe6"."firtullse7:f P2tllll°re"ittlel4:
tiuti
..61*

any personal or
casion. There
'Justice hid given . opposition - opi-
nion of the House. Hie recollected an instance in
the Court of King's Bench, where a decision was
made on a question on the right of voting, and that
right had been substantiated in opposition to the opi-
nion of the Parliamentary Committee. Notwithstand-
ing this, however, he was not so fully convinced of
the justice of the Hon. Baronet's remark, as to be in-
duced to vote in favour of his Resolution.
Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that
the Hon. Baronet had stated two cases, in which
Courts of Law had determined against the authority
of the House of Commons ; those cases, however,
were not at all analogous to the present. The first
was, as to the validity'of a. patent, in which a bill of
exception had been tendered to the Judge, which he
refused to sign ; he (the Attorney-General) could not,
however, see how the refusal of the Judge to sign
the bill could be considered as a contempt of that
House. It was true, there was an Act of Westmin-
ster that required bills of exception to be signed, and
a remedy was given if not signed. But as the judge
had refused to sign it in the execution of his judicial
duties, that circumstance could not be considered as'
a violation of the privileges of the House. Another
case which he had cited, as bearing on the present
,question, was the Banlauty case ; but he did not state
to the House the reasons why it did apply. The facts
were, -there was an indietent preferred against Ed-
ward Knowles,, for murdw. when a plea of abate-
ment was made, on the ground of his real title being
the Earlof Banbury. The Attorney-General brought
the.question before the House of Lords, wl.en it was
deplored that he (Knowles) had ho right to the title.
A replication was then made, which was demurred
to, and the. Conn of King'4ll;e-nch decided, 'that the
replication was.bad, and the demur.gocid. This was
not, however, in contradiction to any accredited de-
cision of the House of Lords. A Committee had
been appointed, which made a report, that Knowles
was entitled to the title of the Earl of Banbury.-.-
After which the House had nearly cometo a contra-
ry resolution. The House of Lords afterwards ar-
raigned Lord Chief Justice Holt for his conduct,
when he refused to assign any reason, asserting.that
he was not bound to give reasons for any opinion
pronounced in a Court of Justice. If so minded, the
House of Lords might have sued out a writ of er-
ror ; but a judge being appointed, he was not bound
by law to assign reasons for his decisions. And this
was the ground on which the Hon. Baronet con-
tended the House had no right to commit from their
own authority. That they had such a right, however,
was not without positive authorities, which .had
been derived in Courts of Law. Supposing this per,
son (Gale Jones) had no other remedy than by a writ
of Habeas Corptir, and was brought up to the Court,
the Judges would not decide what were the privi-
leges Of the House, but whether the 'House had a
right to commit to confinement any person infringing
these privileges ? If they did not recognize that
power, trey would discharge the prisoner ; but if
they did recognize the right, then of course they'
would confirm the authority of the House. They
could no more question the right, than if a man had
been committed by the Court of Common Pleas,
Court of Exchequer, or Court of Chancery ; and
having decided the right, which in these Courts was
-.indisputable, they could not question the ground of
'committal. The case of Mr. Wilkes too, to which
ithe Honourable Baronet alluded, when Crosby, who
was Lord Mayor, committed the servant of the House
to prison, and was himself afterwards committed for'
a breach of privilege, was not at all applicable, as
Crosby was nut committed as a Member of the
House, but as an individual acting in a distinct ca-
pacity. The argument which the Honeurable Ba-
ronet had also used, comparing the House to a Cor-
porate Body, acting under byoaws of its own, was
equally fallacious. Mr. Crosby, acting as Lord
Mayor of London, committed a servant of the House
-uilt breach

were

to prison, and was, consecp ty;
.guilty of 3 -
of privilege, for which he was hitnielf committed.
He afterwards brought the subject before the Court
of common Pleas, when Lord Chief Justice de Gray
gave it as his opinion, that in order to see the autho-
! rity of the House of Commons to C011)141% persons to
confinement for breaches of privileges, recourse
should be had to Coke's Report, which stated that
such assembly had authority to commit, and haid a
right, without doubt, to commit to prison any person
guilty of prevarication or any breach.of privilege. It
is stated also that Arthur Long, a Member of that',
House, was committed to the Tower for a libel on
the House, and that it was laid down at the Law of
the land that the House hp 4 the power of committing
perions guilty of any descrioion of contempt. Nothing
could supersede theirnnthority, nor could any Cori*
discharge or bail the person under the adjudication of
the House of Cdlllllll/11S. In the case of Crosby, the
subject was argued most warmly, and every possible
objection was taken to his commitment, which volt
pre4ely the same words 4 those used in the, tpse of
Gale Jones, namely, " YOu are to receive into !cur
custody the body of whom you are to keep In
safe custody during the pleasure of the House„ itch"
the decision of the Court was in confirmation of
House.

Adorer

any,
maintenance of its privileges; witlitifit,a k
of its dignity and a dereliction of its duty. well
knew the consequence of confiding such 7 ; into
the hands of an General. He knew it lime,'
experiende. He had- once the honour of being api
:pointed Chairman of a Committee, in order to assemo.
tarn who was the author Of a libel against the dignity
of that House. The libel proved to be the production
of Mr. Reeves, a friend .of his own, and vent the
length of stating, that the-. Monarch was the chief prop
and strength of the Constitutiehi the root on which
its vigour depended, and which might remain fsgslii
and vigorous, though .even the trunk and bronchia;
were demolished. This he •in the House moved ten.
be a gross and scandalous libel, mid was proceeding
to take future steps in =sequence, when one of the
Gentlemen opposite thouglztproptr to suggest, that
the. further prosecution ibisild be handed over• to
his Majesty's Attorney C.Oesetal.. The suggestion was
adopted, and the antbevot What hadleen ,
Mously condemned in the House as a gross and scan-
Mous libel, was =quitted-3n Court ? This .was the
tonsequenee.of tranzinittin the defence of their insult-
ed privilege:into the handsof an Attorney.-•
He was still more averse doctrine which he heard
Hon.

but le :ton
the proceedings of the . .
In the taw thnt night promulgated by the .. Baronet, ..o
King Benjamin Florer....l4e.res,guirty of libel; did not hesitate to call the House of Commons an infe-
against a Member of the Souse, 0d who was fined nor branch of the Legiblitturei Many opinions might
£lOO, and ordered to be ged six months, and certainly exist est.° the policy
until he paid the fine ; he' 'brought up to the; of improving the Representation, b P,
King's Bench by a Writ of i'fakas Cellos, when his ' ment ; but that sitting as they dr
appiteatiOn for discharge was refused, atid it was tint- • sicknowledged.Representaiives
nimonsly agreed that the House of Commons hacttbri should be deemed by the /
power .to commit for,ogrenges against themselves and inferior importance, was a!7
tt waijaid down As A maxim, that the adjudication, garprixed.hira. Proceeding.from
c'it the Hence orris Com Mens vies a conviction, .` it .did, it.could only have been
ne Court eotlld discharge Or bail the offender. The offence of Mr. Jones ought
-Under these circoteiterices-he, the Atterney ttjetrenti, dered. What was the nature
trusted the 3.-1011 W would negative the Resolution of seemed he was unaninvinsly
the Hpaciniable EaFongt, now,indeedithe entire feeling.
U CREtVEt r. -
. hisinvonr,provided,he couldbe.
by which the motion
*as his offencel—Why,
stitjcct to be' mooted
er• dcrtairr. conduct •
itaa Ibsen or bad
. nnd. ininakikx .of
MAK: Grii1141146,..
' at the-detriteiif an
which lin auld not thin

degree %leen-arr. To lutve houghtiteard the opening of the
•stamier, one.would have tb wus most ezmezne:
1 46-itead-roe" (says the Elm. Member for Cambridge-.
he indeed,

shire, turning to the Clerk), ..e is not now, . ~
Member for Cambridgeshire (said Mr. SHZIIIDAN),
. and I hope, for the hostour of the people of England,
decisions of that House, either to the disinislon of 'I lie will not be again reterned--4, Read me a certain
an ale-house; or the bye--laws. of a Corporation; het Liege of a certaitOchapter in the Bill of Rights.'
had merely alluded to what was matter of historical I Now the. poss.age which he had desired.io pompously
fact by way of illustration. The. Attorney General Ito be read, merely directed that no proceeding of
had said, he had not heard the former part of the 1 that House shouldbe questioned in any Courb or dis.t
lioepusable Baronet's speech: one would have ima- i cussion out of doors. Was this meant to bar all dis-
gined, indeed, from his misrepresentation, that he 1 cussion, all consideration of politics out of doors?.
bad jest heard as much of the beginning as the end. ' Unless it meant this, it colld mean nothing ; it •
Although he was disposed fully to vote for the ac- i must prevent a report of any of their proceediugs ;
quittal of Mr. Jones, still he certainly was not proc- ' it' must cant the Order to its utmost extremity.
pared to go the whole length of the principles-of the Nov to prove how conveniently it might be on.
Hon. Baronet. He could riot, certainly, say that cos* onally • relaxed, he would merely state. the,
the House had- no right to commit fora contempt.— "oontents of a requisition which an Hon. ' Ba-
He confessed, at fl st, when he heard the doctrine, I ronet had shewn him, ' as having been served
he was inclined' utterly to reject it; but, on reflection . on him, requiring his attendance it a Court of Com-
since, and a serious search into cases, he was much ! mon Council—he did not think it would be disorderly
shaken in his first opinion, and not disposed so deter- : to mention the name of the Hon. Gentleman, not
minately to entertain it as atefirst. The Noble Lord certainly as a Member of that Honse, but as an Al.here quoted many cases, to shetv that there had been. derman—he was a very constliutionar Man ; it was Si;
many commitments for libel before the Revolution. William Curtis. (if loud lanh) The requistion de-
On a commitment then, however, the general way ' sired his attendance at a Court of Common Council,
)iflisi, to direct the' Attorney-General to proceed by I to t, consider of the prodigal and i)ro,fligate expendi.
,:process in the Courti against the offender. The right i cure oldie public money by the House of Commons,
4.. cciiiririittal had been 'urged as a necessary pnvi, ' in the gutut of an annuity to Lord Wellington."--
` e; to pteirent the interrnptinn -of public business.{ Now if the Bill of Rights was to be so closely adhered
othil SPAS it good.reason. • Ile hoped the House rto in every ease, why seas such a notice as this made
-*Amid see whether the case in question Was one in"' public with impunity ? What, shall that House
vitsich the Mel vies likely to interrupt a MeMber in i thunder its vengeance on a • poor debating club, when
the disehargeof his duty. If nor,. though the privi.: lit would not dare to raise its arm against a 'wealthy
liege certainly applied peremptorily,. still the punish-. corporation ? If this distinction is to be practised and
ment should be proportioned to the offence. endured, h..... there be an end then to all that gives
• ' The SOLICITOR GENERAL maintained that. our Coostitution value—repress all discussion—pro-
the' privilege of Parliament was a part of the law of -Whit any County Meetings—silence every controul
the .land, as • recognised by Magna Chanta.--The on the part, of the people, and by that Act deprive
I only question was, whether that which Mr. fonest Parliament of the great stimulus by which it is
had done was a contempt of the authority of the i forced to do its duty. If this principle of the Bill
House ? for if it was, he maintained that .the House of Righti is to he-acted on at all, common justice
maintained bed legal power to commit him ; and he kaintained requires that its extension .should be general; and
that nothing could be more clear than that the con-. if that is'once' the case, you rob theyeotile of their
'duct of Mr. Jones did amount to a contempt of the oily consolation under suffering--theithest prop and
'House, and consequently his commital was legal. choinpion—their chief resource under all the miseries
Mr. SHERIDAN had heard, during the whole of misrule and misgovernment, a free Press. • An at-
eight, of cases in the earlier periods of our history; in: tempt, of this
He h: - of
description had been made some time
. .
the reigns of' the Tudors and the Plantageneti, and. since. _ '
the Henrys, and Edwards, before the Reforma,' How, but '
tion and after the Revolution ; now. he wished to that the ex.
draw their attention to one simple and obvious, case, ed to er
that of Mr. Jahn Gale Jana., ?a langh ). It had been mans ;
"aid, that it would be wrong. to think of releasing Mr. a 4Tosion .
Jones, on account of the principles contained to the gre7 Cow;
speech of the Honourable Baronet,. lest the act of Ii- in os 4u2pi,-
beration might seem a consequentol'ofthe doctrine, or' sot ties,
a concession to its validity. Now he sliOuleboertaioly an the t,
vote for the release of Mr. Jones;.but he should nut :P411=1414
do it by any means on the principles contained in test ; fet if
.the Honourable Baronet's speech ; he did not see serable r'
.indeed what the abstract arguments of his speech cach 1
had to do with the liberation of Mr. Jones.— well as poor:
Why should he be sacrificed to a theory with which 'weak ; if it u
he had no concern ? Why should he fall an un- contest against the poor i. date
willing martyr to doctrines which he never propa- not commence against a wealthy Corporation. liti-
gated, nor perhaps entertained ? Did he ever say,
,der thii consideration of the subject, he should move
with the Honourable Baronet, that the House had an Amendment. The Amendment, perhaps, had not .
no jurisdiction over any except its 'own Members ? .Mr. Jones humbly confessed his guiltrat the bar, ought
To this indeed, and to this in its full extent, went the more regularly to have been preceded by a petition ;
arguments of the Honourable Baronet. (Hear, hear.) but this, in his idea, was obviated by a personal sub.
It was in vain to deny it. What ! said he, condemn mission. He therefore shoved as an Amendment..
a man without a trial, examination, or Jury 1 impri- 66 That Mr. John Gale Jones, having been now im-
am a British subject without•the verdict of his peers 1 prisoned since the 21st of February, and having ez.
'This was indeed the whole tenor of his speech, bp; pressed his-contrition 4tlhe time for the offences 0.1
Iwlth mach tenor the motion had nothintseltateve! 3p now ,di ... ~ .
4its kit merely west 'to propose the releaseof liir. The SPA . pit.- before he put the question, eon.
Jones, in consequence of his having been eotifiNistil
..sidered it his duty,ito confirm the staters:ilk of the
Icing enough for the offence. The Hon.outable 14. Right non, GaqtlesPan, that the uniforms courts
ronet had said, that tlier.House &mild have Wore pro- pursued by the House in such cases was not to dis-
perly desired the Attiarn' evideneralto proceed against charge Any individual . who might have incurred it:
the offender by emcee at law-. • This was a practj . displeasure, until he _applied by: petition, expressing
he never could give his sanction to; and in the adot contrition for.bis offence.
tion of which, he had no letitation in saying he On the question being put on the amendment,
thought the House would be dishonoured. It never The 'CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
could delegate into - ••7 other hands than its own, the rose to state the grounds upon which he should dis-
degitati'on - • roam
the amend-
liould
a -tryst

nui,
sent 5.,.._ the original motion, and from .-....
dawn of theßight Hon. Gentleman. He _ not
agree in the motion of the Hon,. Baronet, when he
Ifiill;lected it with the arguments !Iy*Wlikh it was sup-
ported ; nor could he concur . ut, the amendment,
iselten be considered the circumstances under which
t4e question had been brought forward. Every Ho-
, pourable Member who followed the ,Holy. Baronet
*bad abandoned his argument, and his Learned Friend
b4sl clearly ihewn the privilege of thit House as ex-
' iced in the case under consideration, was WS con.
to Av. Meg. The NIA 'Honourable
leraan .Jul shewn his disposition to call upon
the House to exercise its right in *Us case of the
libel, which .he As brought under its ..C.ozance.,
°ugh Iti didQQt think it especfient fOkibi ROG= to
• ins rein tinonglit foriward. Si Attar Gentle.
men. Cerra the -, the result of OW' . .•.
li -the case
*tided .to by . ,light Hon. Gent. . -... by the ac-
,quittal of :.the Party, was .a prtashit ihe House did
not always come wellUp,r of.siickibusiness. It was
iinnOcessify to go, into tie argitment foduded upon
che
.artiCle of to Bill 'of lights ; fin' though no such
article existeicll i. 4 House trust hive the power of
pujiishinic,sudiQfferKei As had a tendency to bring it
:Zito --- The The Right Hon. Gintleman had
i,proceed

Im. contn;ipt.,,
asked wig they tioad. against the Common
Council,2 liut that was a Body Assembled. and for a
4gal - and Pali; - would, be scrupulous4—r with of bodies •

LrthsleztA
th‘ .HpHoUrahle '
Mr. CitttVrt std • toration histogram
down to the Revolutiori;:,;" 4i! `44., se extant el ;. ones
imprisonnritt .4111 ,rfmrintstsids
~hottltvar
Biitee Revrittition, lie aud7it . •as a stil
tobeq Place. An' • ilie•eigre4' girbvtiter
*;•,- iigs Übe Erkigfin‘di timr • Housa. b
rngtlg Awnie girs4:hetst out pi -rapt,. IPees44
ar sloll6ll,**filA .044 .14:ir 'been' moi
6tfilg gagist iha.gtt: a es. -111 C irula for She •lib.. chssed'al
ration of Mr. Jones. caw

MALE/MILTON saia, that Lord FOLIEEern derfnikid *non:Move?
be hia eßinios; of the oi flout havlnkteedutred t%e cases isy the
is politics, he must acjuit him' ~of Attoinie, fairtair ac= inappliafile f ; he
interested motive on the preient oc, bad only used them in- order Miff aritudents
were many cases *here Courts of which,
.at the time, had branched out of their tonal-
n redress in opposition to the opi. filtration. The Hon. Baronet had pot compared the
.•

He had not then the honour ofn seat in that
but it was it pie close of the American war
4...Pree4t.,vies tried. Lord North attempt.
excluae
rinkr
thelptiblic from the. gouse of Coin.
he 1/4 the powers and exercised for above
ion and
. Fit half. .N'irhat was the consetjuence
Cotnithaaits Parliament, and erry Village
frasi*lel.*.lwaces ; clubs asioN,l4l and
es, sprung .no the discussion piste Aghts;
he exaininft•ifii4., *it grievanCes.,_. 'rat not
pent co mmellfg Slat dantiteinf COn•
let ii..n"st.lrtsinfte its ph) :vrith every mi.
LP 44); or is deterrmstd=oh Itch deli.
letl4 boldly MR Ifs force *List the rich as
as the poor, afOkieit the poWerful as well as the
; or, If it does not cid so, let it not wage that
st against the poor man's liberty which it dens
• • ,••

isibility, and perhaps policy 1 legal purppses AO Parliament would be serupulous
bye reform in Parlia, of iateifeling with the ;clarinet of such bodies in the
they then were, the full and exercise of their eonatitutionel franchises. But if they
Ltives of the People, •tliey should transgress the limits of their legal function;
is Honourable Baronet. of and :presume to condeom the acts of the Legislature.
principle which very much • such conduct *count to a gross breach of the
ng.from the quarter whence privileges 4f P.
.asinvicel. and would be visited by that
een a lapse of forgeOulnass. House, against ilOyi bodies whatever. The case of the
ought to be candidly cones- 13ritiih40;,ps was-nnt that of Constituted.
ire of this offence, of which it body.. ..Theofoezeixo instance of an individual cow.
consideredguilty, though m;sktell:forout.Aretice ammust thn.psitvligges of due
int of the House appeared in House berv+schasged unioss PO kOndascended •to
old be abstractedfrons the ar.. p-ese.ut a Ramon, .erfreising his contrition ; and if
iiiou bad been
,preeded; but Alta individual to Ape the motions (erred, were to
thy. be lead merely proposed, pee int. a pet tioß
,ct.t °sat description roauorrow,
he
BUIL :itti a . debating society.. ,was not aware..ot...g,44sivitren ,that could prevent his
t two Members of Abet beiftg4echart •, • -
stoti,illlo- offensive she•
com
sty,Atatest in.fliEPlei.sloo% that tho
toudasteseeioo,. which, .1)&13 OW .. bicif# 1144. s the cOisideratisa
e.v this waspi!rr-trio bai!is. of Paslianaentkhasi been votit4V .that Houve.ta be
ai evening society. It was a talsP, scafidelous, and oialictous
of think severity was in, any Lori TEMPLE, if he could.not ceasent en the