The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-03-29 00:00:00

ridt. Thoiteh a professional man, not a little
varied'in professienal habits, he (Mr. Adam) was
ready to confess, that upon the Heselotions now
sehmitted to them, he had not the opportunity of
making op his mind. In the case of Maj. Scott,
we which he alluded, the single act of publication
eonisituted the criminality ; yet time was allowed
far fell anti mature consideration. How much
more forcibly was the claim fur postponemeot now
pressed, when the publication complained of con-
tained long, prolix, and disputed arguments, con-
nected with rerecenees extracted from the laws of
the land. The case of Alderman Oliver, in' 1771,
ale) rec. ived the most comprehensive discussion,
Is bee brought before that House. It was very
rob lisle, that his Right Honourable Friend (Mr.
I'ercevat), with'the professional acquire mots that
he possessed, and surrounded as he was by so
many others qnalified to arrange for him the ne-
cessary information, was then prepared to go
to a &icicles,. But far different was his ease, de.
twined by his ditties in that House until three
o'clock that morning, it was impossible that he
could apply himself to that full investigation
which such a grave and serious charge warranted.
lie had, however, even et that hoer endeavoured
to acquire the necessary knowledge. He had re.
!erred to the case of Alderman Crosby, as in some
degree analogous. Rut whet) the various
meets and references of the present publication
were taken into view, he defied the must astute
Lawyer to encounter the • discussion without the
deepest attention. For what was he anxious ?
—Only that as the Honourable Baronet had
quoted Lord Coke to support his ...inter-
pretation, so that he (Mr. Adam) might
have the opportunity of also citing Lord Coke to
rapport his view of the Privileges of Parliament ;
that as the Honourable Baronet bad brought fur.
ward the case of Ashby and White to corroborate
his inference?, he (Mr. Adam) might be able to
communicate his interpretation upon It [Hear,
Aear!) As he had before stated, it was abso-
Ititely impossible. for him, then, to make up his
mind upon the question. Frain the moment it
was first brought before the House, until the pe-
riod when he rose, he was engaged by either pub.
lie or professional ditties. Until three o'clock
that morning in the House of Commons, and af-
ter the ordinary refreshment which nature re.
qnircil, being kept, to use rather a vulgar phrase,
ill harness all day, it was not too much to ask of
those whose situation afforded them the means of
being assisted with a variety of opinions, to allow
othetteusseetethns provided, it least a short time
for ulterior Consideration [hear, hear!j If this
request was.denled him, ha would be then reduced
to the dilemma, either that he must surrender the
privileges of fleet House, or agree in the con.
denination of an individual without feeling a
conviction of his guilt. In making these ob.
serrations, ha still wished not to be as at all
thought entering Into the question, whetter the
present publication was libellous or not? [Loud
fries of hear) hear ! followed ate conclusiox of
/Mx speech
The ATTORNEY-G ENER A L had many rea-
sens for thinking that the discussion ought net et)
be-postponed. He retraced the proceedings on the
subject, and culla:tided that if an adjotirnment took
place, it might perhaps be attributed to the influ-
ence of motives, to the imputation of which the
House ought never to expose themselves. He could
not nntleretand the grounds on which the Hon.
and Learned Member who bad just spoken wished
for an adjournment. The question had been treat.
ed as if it more a new point, and as if the House in
many former instances, end recent ly in the case of'
Mr. G. Jones, had not determined it ; for let it be
recollected, that the argument of the Hon. &Irene'
st as against the power of the House to commit
rraiigers, ha admitting that they hail the power to
commit strangers. Thu House, therefore, would
net have committeAlr. Gale Jones, had they not
been fully 'satisfied of their power to do so. If his,
Ilimourableand Learned Friend was not so satis-
fied, why hail he not attended the million for the
commitment of Mr. Jones ? And farther, when
the Honourable Baronet made a motion for
the discharge of Mr. Jones, why had not his
Learned Friend then attended, if he entertained any
doubts. He hail abundant opportunity to consult
eethurities, for the Honourable Barmiet had given
a week's notice of .his motion. The question,
however, had been discussed in a full House on this
sole ground—not whether the House had a right
. to commit Mr. Jones in the first instance, but whe-
ther his having expressed his contrition at•the bar'
Might entitle him to be discharged without a pe-
tition. The question at present before the House
was—snot whether the House was vested with the
right of commitment, for that was fully esta-
blished, bet whether the paper of the Hutt.
Owlet was a libel or not ? If any doubts could pos-
-0114 exist on Thersubject, he shouthl be peeked,
disposed to voicer in the adjournment of the dig.
esissiott ; but it appeared to hie] that it wits only
necessary to read the paper, in tarderd to be con.
vieced that it was a libel, arid a-gross. violation of
the privileges of the House.
Mr. BATHURST observed, that when the bit-
aiiiess was before the House on the preceding day,
he was of opinion, from the nature of the Paper
under diecusaiun, that it would be preferable the
consideration, of the question should be post.
pone) to a future day. He was still of the
same opinion, in which he was not guided by
the same motives which had influenced the opinions
• of many Honourable Gentlemen. lie did nut
thick that either with reference to tenderness to
the Oka who was the subject 'of the dis.
•ussion, or from any apprehension of the cense-
(pence of the result, should the House be induced to
rause. On the grand principle of giving the.
Paper a fide:end candid perusal, so as that the
House might come .to a just decision, and nut
throw d'euiretlit on the debates, would he agree to
the adjournment. With respect to the particular
. parts of the Paper, on which much difftwetice of
°vision prevailed, some Gentlemen pointing out
passages iiirich they deemed libellous, he thought
it' was not a fair line of argument to draw
such an inference, because the paper should
be taken together. On the other hand -it had
been cried) that if the House did not consent to .
•
_ ,

~,,t!