The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-03-08 00:00:00

UNION DUTIES.

Colonel BAG ELL presented a Petition from the
Noblemen, Gentry, Clergy, and Freeholders of the
County of Tipperary against the Repeal of the
Union Duties.—Laid on the table, and urd"red to be
printed.
Colonel BAGWELL presented another petition
from T. Prendergast, E.g. Cursitur of the Court of
Chancery, in Ireland, against the Bill now in pro-
gress, so far as respects the officer of Cursitor.—
Laid on the table, and ordered nu be printed.
Mr. CURWEN presented a petition from the Owners
and Occupiers of Laud of the parish of Harrington,
county of Cumberland, complaining of Agricultural
Distress.—Laid on the table, and ordered to he printed.
Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from certain Land.
holders in the neighbourhood of Horsham, in Sussex, on
the subject of Agricultural Distress.—Laid on the table.
Mr. H. SUMNER postponed his motion relative to
the Orphan Fund to ttris day fortnight.
Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from 116 Oc•
copiers of hand at Northampton, and another signed
by 7U Occupiers of Land near Peterborough, complain-
ing of Agricultural Distress, and
Mr. WILSTURN presented a Petition from a parish
in Essex on the same subject, all of which were ordered
to lie on the table.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Mr. LAM BIOS said, that as doubts had arisen with
regard to Ms intentions of bringing on in this Session

Mr. H0111101:811 held is his hand a Pewit.n
signori by 11100 or 1500 inhatitants of London, and
the terms of which, he trusted, would be foetal ones -
ce; Crmble. The petitioners complained of the re-
jectioo of a Petition lately presenteal to this Honour-
able House, by an individual, who charged a Learned
Judge with an a•:t of oppression towards hint—thoogie
the Honourable 51over of the Petition declared that
contained tootling in it offensive to the House ; and
petitioners coosidered such rejection as an encroacl.-
nrent on the sujects right to petition the Legislature.
The inilividn-,1 iitluiled to was Davison. and the op-
tp of was the rouilnet of Judge RCS'.
wbWiteillinsed a power of smottuitilifiaing the peti-
tioner, whilst emuleloing his defeueo, to a prosecution
against him by the Crown. Petitioners considerC I
this House was the proper place fur Davison to has;
come for relief, and aware that a Committee was con-
stantly 'Sitting to watch ever the administration of deo-
tier, O.t.y pr.tyv.i tie florae to refer, without defile, the
consideration of this case to that Committee. 'Elul'
hoped the lioese vrooid not refuse the propositivo
suggesting that if they slid, they would entirely
f• Welt whates er share of respectability the.;
already possessed the country. Their prayer sr:..
to refer the matter to the Cousneittee on the Admi-
nistration of Justice. As the Petition routeined
reflection on the Learned Judge, anti only ade..raiel
justice in the abstract, he trusted there wuul I be r
objection to its being received. lie Cllr. H.) entirely
agreed with the Petitioners, that this House was the
most proper piaci: to make the complaint ; and thoilei
it Was U 0 question of the Privilege of Parlooneio, :r
was, in fact, a quo stints affecting the privileges of t'o•
people ;—(llear.)---it was idle to say the law wio,
upeu to all. Horne Tooke, when hr heard this. o°';*.
said, `` so was the Tavern." The Courts of
law were, as t;olllm4slitli slid of the !O en, •
•• !tithing the ;Amine stomper sills evold pny."
He (31r. II.) i1....1.1.nl tau. h whether there us. an ao-
peal from the four du•lges of the Court of Kieg...
Bench to the House of lairds, on a point of ju►isitic-
thin. Vet the power of 'king sinittuarily assume/I
the Learned Judge tits a frightful tote. Perhaps it
did not equal the question of c.oninittal without bail,
which was agnate." in the Cone of Charles the First,
and which eventually raved the nay for the
Petition of Rights, but still it Was of consogoenee.
those days Parliament pail but little regard Is the
decisions of Jadgrs in the Courts of Law,. for in
the rase of • committal without hail, the torauti,•.;
was known to have been sanctioned by as great
name as Sir N. Hyde, and supported by prece-
dents from Elizabeth, commented upon loy Sir
yet Pent's manuscripts, taken into a . familiar work,
Howell's State Trials, testified that three authorities
were little attended to. lie did not,agree with those
who contended that this subject waa. in itself imma-
terial; ler though the maxim of law was that de
non reret lex : yet if little things were to be
always overlooked, the great ones wOuld soon be en-
dangered. The ju risdie tion of a Supreme Court waseery
superior to that of a single Judge sitting at .Visi
If Judges were allowed to lett an extensive construc-
tion on what they termed contempt of Court, there
was no possible case which they could not apply it
to. He was not for Latino. aw iy all disi:retion from
Judges—be would only disable them from punishing
very severely in an arbitrary manner. Again. it was
that Davison's was a case of so gross a nature
that it was unique in its kind, and therefore n 3 pre
cedent was to he found for it. He asked them, was
William's or Caton's before Lord Ellenhocough, or
Cathie's before Chief Justice Abbot? In Carlile's
case the Attorney-General admitted that the Court bad*
nu power to punish the Defendant by fine, fur aro*
that the blasphemous defence which he set up was
iutended only fur publication. The Attorney• General
stated distinetly, that the only remedy against
the Jirsemination of this blasphemy, was by pro-
secuting those who should vend it. If defen4ants
were to he thus intimidated, the trial by Jury
' might be got rid of altog. titer. In Sweden
they hail tie trial by Jury in the seventeenth rev
tury, but through the corruption of Judges and the
' apathy of the people. they since entirely lost it. The
Hon. Member then quoted a late instance of the same
assumption of power. by a justice at Horsemonger-
lane, where a Mr. Mit:teary was intimidaled jut', si-
lence, by the threat of tine coming from the CQurt.—
It was time character of all political libels, that ther
were greatly aggravated by the defences set up for
them. In a recent case at Westminster, a Mt. Mot
was charged with writing a libel on the House of
Commons, Mr. Hunt in his defence took a room
which, if the Learned Judge (Chief Justice Abbott)
who presided, had been a passionate or political Jake,
would have exposed him to fining without end. Mr.
Hunt cited the authorities of men much greater than
himself, who said much worse things of this Hausa
than he had, and yet the Learned Judge, wi:la his
characteristic mildness and impartiality, gave him no
interruption. But it was said the ease was differeut
j in blaspheme; his opioion was, that blasphemous
, libels were in one sense political libels, and he con-
tended, that at least so far as the facilities fur defence
went, they utt;ht to be treated alike. It was by Do
; means necessary to give the Judges so large a discre-
tionary power, for there was a moral obligation on
defendant to keep within reasonable Ilnauds in his de-
fence, if lie wouid conciliate the Jury. But he was
told the matter had been already settled by the Judges
and lawyers, and there it ought to by let rest. Um e
' for all he would say, that in their own cause, boat
above all as legislators (with al' dote deference) he had
no great respect fur the diets oi.bulgas on the berneli,
or nut on the bench. Mr. Harrington, is his °emote,
says in his Parliament, no lawyer should find a place.