The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-04-06 00:00:00

TR P. STAtighlAN

ration of the sabjed, which might thence
to be before them. It would be OA* a wide
interpretatiue indeed,- to the privileges of the
House, however, to contend that they were
to be attended to the length now contended
for. As to-hissing and hooting the Members in
coming to Or front the Hence that Was *cry slif..
ferent from the present case. ' He was far frosn
objecting to the right of the Reuse to remove all
obstructions to its proceeilittgs, but the present
was not a case of that kind. The Master of
the Rolls had stated, that it was necessary the
House should have the power of commitment.—
He did not state, however,. that it was necessary
they should have this. privilege. Chief Justice Do
G rey,ten, had said, that it ttas necessary the House
should have this power. What was this but say.
ins, that it was necessary the House should have
the power of removing all obstructions to their
proceedings. Here there was nothing of that
kiad. In the offence committed by Jones there
was nothing that could have obstructed the pro-
ceedings of that House, had no question been
raised on the subject. In former cases they had
gone on equally well without any committal.
They had dune so in the eases of Stockdale and of
Reeves. I( had been said by the Right honour.
able and Learned Gentleman (Anstruther) that all
Courts had a power to . punish contempt against
themselves. Then, ho suellatteds it will necessary
to chew what contempt was. It must, he Was sa-
tisfied, be something calculitletl to obstruct the pro-
ceedings of the. Court,or to 14a4 it with contumely.
Lord Kenyon had laid it down, that contempt might
be conint..:ted out of Court; but he had only ad-
' d fleet! one instance to this effect, which was the case
of an Under-Sheriff, who had neglected his duty
in putting in force the process of the Court.-
In the Court of King's Bench,- Mr. Bitigley,
a bookseller, had been brought before Lord
Mansliel.l, charged with publishing libels against,
the Court, and •on lila refusal to answer, in.
sisting that he had a right to be tried by his Peers,',
was committed to prison, where he was detained
far two years, still refusing,. during the whole of
the time, to submit to the . jurisdiction of the
Court. Finally, ho was discharged on the mu.
lion of the Attorney General, on the ground that
his imprisonment had been Of longer duration,
probably, than he might.have suffered had he re.
ceived judgment fur the offence. this, how-
ever, instead of being an argument fur, was an
aggravation of the offence originally commit-
ted, and which had been weekly and daily re-
peated by Mr. Bingley during the whole af, that
period. If a contempt, therefore, had iwtbat case
been committed in the first instance, •it hid been
aggravated, and the Court had been foiled in the
attempt to punish it. In the recent case of Hart
and IVhite, ['lilac'. and Proprietor of a Newspa.
per called The Independent 'nig, for a libel
against the Court of King's Bench, that eourt
had nut proceeded against them as for eoeteMpt,
but they had been tries!, and were convictarby
thelrPeere. In the same way, on former °eat-
Biotite that House had• net committed Svochrlale
and Beeves for contesisple but had erdertit Prose-
cutions against them. An honourable Gentleman
had said, if the Worthy Bart. denied the right of
that House-to commit any person not a Member of
the House, why did he nut object to the committal, 1
duriag the last Session, of Huxley Sandon ?.• That,
however, had no relation to the present case;
there then was an obstruction Iti the proceedings of
the House. It was essential that the House should
have it in their power to take every step to en- i
force the exercise of their own privileges n a
Court of Inquiry. If, therefore, they had a
power to examine witnesses at the Bee, it was
essential to the due exercise of this right diet they
should be entitled to enforce, compliance, with
i'. Ile contended, however, that the House
was entitled to exercise this power only in'
the removing of obstructions to their own pro.
ceedings. .At one time it had been assumed
as the privilege of that House to imprison a
man -fur week, a .month, a year, or any other
indefinite period. Now, however, •it was
admitted, that nn such power existed. It
was obvious, therefore, that this could nut
be meant for punishment. The Ronso could
only commit (luring its own sitting, thereby, clearly
shooing that the power was conferred solely to
revent the obstruction of their own proceedings.
If otherwise, and the power were given them fur
the sake of punishment, what would be the infe-
rence? That for a petty brteich of privilege one
.man who was-guilty of it on the first, day of the
meeting of Parliament might be at their mercy for
seven years, while another perion who hail corn-
-inkiest a grievous offence on the last day of their
sitting-, mast be aiheeateslaso the Inv iiifito .da.Y?„,
If the power; therefore, was meant to be eon.
furred for the sake of punishing offenders, he sub-
mitted that this uncertainty yield not have been
tolerated. The privileges Or that House were
to ha regulated by Magna Charts and the Law
Of the Land ; as Mona Charts Itself bore,
the subjects of this country were to be impri.
wined only per juilicium psriunt, vet leg* Teri.a.."
Eye" its the reign of Charles the' ireti there was
a direct acknowledgment to this effect, by the
three branches of the Legislature, where it sede.
clared that no freeman can be confined or detain,
ed in'prison. That a writ of Habeas Corpus cats.
not he denied to any man. And that if any one
should be emninitted without just cause, he ought
to be delivered tee or bailed. This, was at a
time' when the House wail assuming to itself great
powers, and when- it was contending with the
Crown as to the power of commitment. The
house of Lords too had declared this right on
the part of the Commons to be an assumption
of power against law. 4autl in the case of A,shhy
and White, in the year 170.11 it had been resolved
that neither House lied any' such power, so fad'
as it was not warranted by Act of farliament..—
These Itesatotions passed during periods of keat
and conteetion, and When the Huaaa'bad ISSIOOIt4I ,
powers which nobody would venture to sleny were
illegally assumed. There was no doubt theifouee
would aut go to the Journals of the Halite of,
Lords to learn what their privileges
were;
bat 0
*hen they were ealleti.on to tonideiale use. of their ,
they could
.
privileges, they could hardlyaettieslmin mein: what
, .

•

Were they opittions of *there en the subject of these
privilege,. Each of thg Hires broaches wore at all
times enstious enougpt deny such a privilege to
aeaeh other ; but therelereall, is their turns, alike
eager le assert it tothemselves. There was &wither
circumstance whicli might be *orthy of consider-
Httion. On what ground did either House claim
,this privilege? The House of Lords might assert
it. in their Itepal capacity ; but that House could
lay claim to it only ass branch of the Legieleture.-
The Right lion. and Learned Gentleman who
spoke last, had said, it was necessary that no slur
should be cast on that House. Were. Ibex, how-
ever, to be inure protected than the Ciewn Z. The
Crown could do no more that. trrder a,proaccution
in due of a libel against hs privileges ; so 'could
that House, without resorting to the present ex.
traordinary privilege, without which they would
be signally protected with the Crown. The
Right flonottrablOand Learned Gentleinao went
on to say, that this privilege was agreable to law,
andAhat there were instaticei *of complaints of the.
kind from the earliest period, when there was any
necessity for making them. This he denied. Tne
first instance of such a complaint was in the case
of Hall, in the reign of Queen Elia iheth. The..
Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman also
said, that there had been a 'regular and undisputed
custom of contusitting OR such charges., This he
must alsodenyi In the case of Crosby And Oli-
ver, lite House bad 'surely proceeded to' cum•nit-
ment, and the Judge Mail refused them the bent•fit
of the Habeas Corpus, althOugh it was declared to
be the right of every man; but this they had done our
the groundlthat these two persons had been commit.'
ted for an infringement of the laW of Parliament,
which was unknown. This, be presumed trithiek,
.was a dangerous doctrine, but he left It to abler
hands to discuss it. In thc csse of Mr. Wilkes, ho w -
ever, , the House had not venter.d to commit, fur
•he had resisted their authority. There Were only
two cases of the kind in which resktence hail been
made, and iir both of these the commitment had been
prevented. In the year 1880, Mr. `towel e•as or.
tiered to be committed, bet he • resisted the order,
nod the House finding itself in a dileirona, voted
that he was sink, and could net be brought Ito till st.
dis tag t day. The oilier case was that of Mr. Wilkes,
who haring refused to attend in cousequence of
the order of the House, the House again fixed
the Friday forliis attendance, and -avoid meet.
ing the guesrion, adjourned Ott the Thursday. The
Noble Lord proceeded to notice the ease of 'the
Kentish Petitioners. One of these, a Mr. Cul:
pepper, afterwards petitioned against a return of
one of the Members, alleging that he had the
greatest number of legal votes, and's Committee
of that Ilonse • reported on his petition, that he
being one of the petitioners in the scandalous.'
Kentish Petition, was not duly elected. Could
there, his 'Lordship asked, be a 'stronger speeimeol
of the feelings of such a Parliament, and of the
danger of such an arbitrary right than this ? He
begged the House to recollect that tlic two emits de,
rided by Churl Justice De Grey were determined
on this ground, that the law of ParManttlat was
soknosva. 4.ord Shaftebury too, vracrefused to be
rvleased on similar grounds, but froth this additional/
reason alsot, that he had been guilty of a .breach of
privilege in facie curia., so that his conduct might
have amounted to an obstruction: Were the sub-
jects of this country,to bo tried by a law which
was not known ? Were they even to become
%me:tette to a Secret Tribunal ? lithe. House had-
a right to call before them persons nut Members of
the House, to answer for their conduct, would not
such persons in 'reality become subject to a secret
Tribunal? Would they not be deprived of digit/
fair trial by their Peers ?-rbecotne subject to a td.,
bunal not bound down by the solemnity of an nano
and where the privilege of counsel would not• be al.:
lowed them? The Noble Lord hail stated whit he
conceived to be the law on this subject. He had (tulle
so to show what would be the grievous oppression
to which the .public tungt he exposed, if per.
sans, not Members of that Home, were abli, to
be so called on. •He hoped tilt House would re-
, collect that they were called ou to determine a
question of the most grave consideration,' and
hich was so doubtful in the oploion of a great
majority of that Ilousei that they adjourned the
consideration of it for a week. The Worthy 84.
ronet had not hail the Opportunity of hearing the
observations against lthn, or of making any reply
to them ; he hoped, therefore, the House would
come to the consideration of the question nut with
the feelings of advocates buts of Judges. The
Gentleman who • brought forward the motion
stated it to be his object ,to give a check to such
Observations us he had been accustomed
.to hear
from the. Worthy Baronet. • The lion. Gentleman
who seconded time motion stated tt to be his Mike' to reprise
penbittkol filed Oerntenrinr, ow o- forams eight Am&
slid, that on perms mold doubt as to the opinions of Sir F.
ilu`rtlett. -Ile tripled the' House was not prepared to come to
decisino on so lespertast4 question with arch Pettily:a as
these but that they were prepared diipassionately to say,
whether the publication in question was or war not aSeantla-
Inn libel, reflecting on the just privileget of that • lloasP.
' For his own part, he thought it was not.. lie felt, h•wever,
that the House was in a dilemina nq the• subject, .and there,l
fore slmuld muse, that the other Orders of the Day be now
read. •
Sir J. ANSTRUTIf ER eapiained.
Lord BINNING denied that the discussion of
the present subject had been postponed from any datiht that
existed upon it, but merely itelliale the House was cam.
pletely occupied with the consideration of soother must ha-
rming question. He did not conceive it pobsible to over-
, state the importance of the present subject. Had the paper
under discussion been written at aay'time, an.l by the most
insignificant individual, it would Itaye.dentanded the serious
attention of ...e House; but these were nos ordinary
Mir was the I I on. Baronet any ordinary personage. If the
House looked back on the conduct of thatilonourahle Harp-
: nolo they would find, that la perusing his object of Perlis-
meobtry Reform, he had lost on opportunity of blackening
the chararter of the House of Commons. Had Af not told
his Constituents last year at Westminster Hall, that she Howe
of. Commons was the only place where the people' etV.
treated with disrespect'? lee prevent
.queslitin was,rit
more nor less than, whether the. Hon,e would tarot sor
Maki Saar riebto amid prisiieges, or terntlymaiutaia'Airm.
He thought his Fla. ltelstinn had gone too Will fisikim fins*
the paper of the Honoitrable Barimet was harmless, because
it was written with such but to Ile allowed It was sink-
tea with hid taste; bet he could not admit that h was harm-
kw. Nanette, if salted to the appetitei and tilting of the
pompon to whoa it was addrytwed. men lig muck Wore dan-
t erliajl than good sew, The Noble Lord had contended that
a strained imerptioation had been given to thesord "retit'"
aid titelFol-4111ont ahumble petition to the Boar o _ron-

.

:~

,