The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-05-29

before this present commitment, Mr.. Har
grave, allowed to be one of the most learn
ed, constitutional lawyers in this country
had written and published very learned
argument on this point in which he stronel,
doubts the right. Mr.. Flower was brought
before the Court on writ OF hateas corhus
and his case was argued before two Judges
IF the court only, and not by the whole court
Mr.. Justice Lawrence being absent from in
disposition, and Mr.. Justice LIE Blanc, SIX:
ting, at Nisi Prius. The court, in giving
their Judgment, began by saying, that in
times like those, factious persons always be.
gan their mischievous course by cndeavor.
( ing to bring into disgrace the courts of Law
1 and the Houses of Parliament.-The House
would observe that this WAS not libel a
gainst the House of Lords. but only against
one of its individual members. Alter com
jmenting at length on The matter of the libel,
the learned Judge concluded by saying that
the court would make themselves accompli.
Ces in the encouragement of sedition and tn.
mutt, if they did not remand the prisoner on
that occasion.' Now (said Sir San,ue, Romil.
| ly) can any man say that tf;s Judgment was
pronounced in a grave, sober and temperate
manner - He was far, from wishing to
say auy thing which might appear a'cemsure
on the learned Judge, for whom he had a
high respect but he certainly could not
have supposed that a grave Court could have
/ entered into question of that nature in the
manner it had done-If there was any case
in which, more than any other, it was to be
wished that the Question was tohe determin
eddy the most impartial Judges, this was
the case Strongly feeling, therefore, and
entertaining this opinion, he felt much in
clined, when this question was disposed of,
to move for the discharge of Mr. Gale Jones',
without demanding from him petition of that
| r1o tlrr.f faA te,<
He could not say, whether what was alledg-
edto be the custom had ever been dispensed
With or not; but he could not help thinking
| OF such a custom, that it was one 80 more hon :
ored in the breach than in the observance, y
He believed there was no civil tribunal in the
land Che knew the spiritual ones sometimes
decided differently which required man
to retract the opinions which he had delv-
ePed perhaps on the firmest and most sin.
lcere conviction. The opinion itself might be
utterly false and erroneous ;,but if the man
who delivered it, firmly believed it to be
true, it was not to be supposed that man
could be found to change his opinion by the
authority of that house and if his opinion
was unchanged, he thought it too hard to
require him, to recant it. In the spiritual
courts, he knew that different course had
been often taken !; and that, in cases where
men had been prosecuted for heresr, they
had been often obliged publicly to recant
those doctrines which they had promulgat-
ed from the sincerest conviction /; but it as
not the custom of civil tribunals TO. force a
ms.n to take,a part i'll his own humiliation
and punishment. He must confess that in the
Course of last session he thought it was ra-
! Their hard to expect an individual called to
their Bar Gen. Clavering) to confess him
self guilty of prevarication. That individu.
al had, however. as he thought properly,
preferred staying some time longer in pri.
son, to make that abject submission which
was, required, by what was said TO be the
custom of the house. AS to the paper in
question, although he conceived that in ma !.
ny parts il was Incorporate and improper,
yet he did not conceive it particularly deser-
wing the attention of that house. AS to that
passage, of " the Commons lording it over
the king, as we'll as the people" it was a
passage which he thought unintelligibe at
the first reading, and which he did not vet
understand. But he could not allow that the
warmth which ran through the paper was
lproof OF its being written in contempt of that
house for he conceived, on the contrary,
that Certain vehemenCe in the expression
of any opinion, was often rather a proof of
the sincerity Of that opinion, and of the i'm
Portance that the person delivering it at.
tached to it. . A noble Lord lord Binning)
seemed to take great credit to himself when
| he said, that if SIR Francis Burdett had ar
| gued the matter with perfect calmness, he
should not then have thought it necessary to
view the production as a breach of the priv
leges of that house.-The Noble Lord was
entitled to no great credit for that declare
| ton for if such had been the case. nobody
could have complained of it as breach oil
privilege, and the question would not have
been brought forward. In considering how
ever, the degree of warmth in which such
questions might be fairly agitated, he would
bring forward to the house, whaj, if brought
forward against All individual, would be CAL
| led an argunlenEum ad hoHrineD, He
would recall to the recollection of the house
language which had been used by the House
of Commons itself, in conference with the
House Of Lords, upon a question of priHle-
ges. j he House of Commons then said
"they did not wonder, after the many sue
cessful attempts their Lordships had made
upon the fundamental principles of the cor
stitution, that they had ventured TO proceed
still farther but chat if the Commons did
not resist their claims, the liberties of the
country would be sank in the bottonLess
and Unsuitable abyss oflheir LorGShih8' an.
fhority."
| This was sort Of language which the
I house Of commons had formerly supposed was
not unbetomlng them to use and ne should
confidently ask, whether there was any thing
in the paper OF Sir Francis .Burdett's, which
at all aDOroached this Ianpuape which the