The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-02-24 00:00:00

I

other step upon it than to wove that it should be print-
ed. If he were encouraged, he might afterwards move
fur a Committee to inquire into the circumstances of the
case. It was, he thought, possible that the House
might look upon it as a fit case to address the Crown
for a mitigation of punishment.—(hear.)—Ile certainly
was not friendly to such a proceeding, unless where
there existed a great necessity for doing so. Ile cer-
tasty would have voted agair.st such a proeeetling.,—
After shortly alluding to the case of Lord Cochrane,
the Honourable Gentleman said that he could not be
persuaded that it would not be always attended with
mischief and danger, to take front the Courts of Law
that power which the Constitution invested them with
or to subject their solemn judgments to any revision in
that House.—The liberty of the sulijeet, his property,
and his dearest rights, would not he so well protected
in the House of Commons as they were by the Common
Law of England, administered by the Judges of the
land. Mr. D. then moved that the Petition be
brought up.
Mr. HOBHOUSE begged leaved to second the uso-
ion, and to state shortly the reasons which induced
Liao to think that the Petition deserved the attention of
the House. It bad been stated by the Learned Gent.
at-ho presented the Petition that there was no case, as
f•tr as he was aware, that justified a Court in imposing a
tine ou a defendant for contempt ; and, he must also say
that though he had himself searched with the utmost et r
Le had been tkaable to find a single case bearing on toe
Ilut.stion before the House. The adsence of any similar
••7:ereise of power by a judge in farmer times amounted,
be apprehended, to a proof of the illegality of the prac-
tiLe; for, according to Coke; "as usage proved the in-
tentlinent of the law, so non-triage proved what was not
ietentied by the law." The strongest authority in favour
n; the exigence of snch a power was that of Judge Ilult,
io) said, C•at if a defendant was guilty of contempt,
the Judge might issue a warrant against him, if the con-
tempt was committed out of court, or fine him if it was
romulitted in court. This, however, was only the dic-
tum of a judge, and as such could not be opposed to
tita lay of the land. When Judge Jetferies was on the
bench, William Peon had been lined 40 marks for re-
ftt..tig to Lti:e oil his but in court, and the jury had been
imprisoned k;ving a verdict contrary to the opinion
of the bench. lint though Pent) hail insulted the bench,
lie was Hot fined for any expression made use of in his
tlefeace, but solely for refusing to pull off his hat ; and
surely what had been too mach for Judge Jelferies
to do ought to be too
the present time.—(Loud cries of hear, hear.) In the
31 luititute of Cob!, page 142, there was a report of
the case of William Bruce, who, though he had
grossly insulted the Court, had nut been fined for his
conduct. A verdict having been found against Bruce,
he addressed the judge in those words—" Roger
Hager, now thou 11.1.4 thy will of me," and on being
-Led u hat be meant, he added, " what for a long
tittle thou bast sought, any loss and my shame ; and I
Lill think of it, and reward it or recompence it."
Here, theugla the judge had been grossly insulted,
an d thouela the oirence of the defendant was deemed
s ) great that he had aftewards been indicted for it,
atattll it hail Lot been attempted to fine him. But in
his (,ir. ththhottse's) opinion, if even a thousand ad-
judged eases MUM hr produced in favour of the pray
ure, they Wert no: to he regartlel as legal precedents
contrary to the ctonnton law of the land. If the
hat allt:wed the iaposition of such arbitrary fines,
Mr. Fox's libel bill WAS useless, for a defendant might
by this power b • so crippled in his defence, as not to be
able to avail himself of the benefit which that act
1%.34 intended to give. Let the expressions used by
the de:violent in this case have been ever so gross,
that had nothing whatever to do with the question
befo e the House; for, however the grossness of the
language might be proper matter of consideration in
awarding the amount of a fine, it never could of itself
give a judge the power of fining. 'I he Honourable
lientletuan referred to the condurt of the late Lord
Ellenhnrongh on the trial of Eaton, on which occa-
sion, though the defendant introduced the most blas-
phemous and libellous matters in the course of his de
fence, the Learned Judge had said that he thought it
better for the ends of justice to let him go on. The
Monne should bear in mind that the ermine with
as hid, a judge was clohthed did not invest hint with
infallibility. The present case was one that loudly
tailed for the interference of that !louse, and he
Loped they would see the propriety of putting a stop
at once to a practice so imeousistent with every principle

of justice.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not tinder-
stand that his Learned Friend (Mr. Denman) bad denied
Cie legality of the proceeding of the Learned Judge ;
though the Hon. Seconder had roundly denied it. His
Learned Friend, however, doubted the leg,lity of the
Power to fine a defendant for contempt. His Learned
Friend could not have been present when the question
was hilly discussed in the Court of King's /tench, and
when al, j.he Judges gave ther deliberate opinions upon
it. Vie petition called in question the propriety of the
ilec:s'om of .!iat Court. To enable the liouse to judge
on the stliject, lie would state that the offence for which
the defctv!aut was tried, Was not a political libel, hilt
one of the most disgusting of blasphemous libels. He
ahould read one short passage of it as a specimen.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the reading of a pas-
ige of the description which had been mentioned,
hich was alsolitterly irrelevant to the question before
le Muse. No Member could, without Lave, read from
printed cop).
Mr. HOB-HOUSE observed, that lie had disclaimed
iv defence of the Petitioner's libel—(Order
'f lie SPEAKER said, it was true, as the Noble lord
id stated, that no person, without leave of the !louse,
tulti read from a printed paper, though this rule had
general not been strictly insisted upon.
The ATIORNEY-GENERAL said, lie had no inten-
ton of prejudicing the case of the Petitioner by reading
se libel; but when the conduct of the Learned Judge
.ad been called in question, he thought justice would
not he done unless lie shewed the object of the defen-
iant. lie should read, therefore, a short passage—
Cries of " No!" from the Opposition.)—lle would
ion crate it from memory.
As the Learned Gentleman was looking at the paper,
the SPF,A KIM said, as the attention of the House hail
been called to the strictness of the rule, he was obliged
• enforce it.
Mr. BERNAL hoped no difficulty would he thrown
io the way of the Attorney-General's exercising his dis-
cretion in reading the passage he had spoken of—(Cries
of hear.)
The ATTORNEY-OENERAL laid he should read a
very short passage. The defendant in his libel in-
treated his fellow-countrymen to throw from them that
book (meaning the Holy Bible) which was foil of blas-
phemy, lies, and uninteresting nonsense.. The House
mast know that it was ths_practice of permss who were
charged with such an °fence, to reiterate their libel
ea their trial, sad, Weal, to attar ,terse blasphemy.

ur in
'thse":Ltl
stand the
lay legal
though I
Learned
Power ti
Friend e
o as full]
when all
it. The
derision
on the si
the dery
one of tl
should r
Lord
sage of
which
the floe
a priute
Mr. I
an def
'the
bad atm
could r
in Lent
The
tion of
the lihs
hal het
sot be
dint.
(Cries
then st
• As tl
the SP
• been ei
i • tio ears
Mr.
la the
I credo'
at heal
VIVI
SNOW
boa
Om,
aetnt i
'bum
ea ill