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

tended to justify the paper, by saying it was
guaraed-he was at a loss to imagine on
background he could do so. He thought
the expressions Iibellons against the indi
viduals to whom they'were applied, and he
had said so and he mentioned the word
{" guarded" merely in allusion to that part
charged as libel against the character and
conduct of the House. =
| An honorable member had, on former
night, said, Did we not come to an imme-
, diate decision in the case of Gale Jones
! and should we not do the same in the case
OF Sir Francis Burdett S'-He (Sir S R)
would in retnrn ask, did the House do right
to come to such an Immediate decision. IF
the House came to decision in the case of
CROSBY, as had been commended. it was upon
different principles from the present. Mr..
Crosby was member of the House, and ha.
wing been committed by the authority of the
House. the Court of Kings Bench could
not interfere in discharging him, because
It appeared. he was duly committed by the
authority of the Speakers warrant. for a
breach of the privileges of that House, to
| which he, as member was always a.
| menable. But, if that had been stated in
the Speakers warrant, as breach of pri.
viicge, which appeared to the court nc. to
be breach of privilege, then the court
| would. on the habeas corpus, have discharg
ed him: lie did entertain a great doubt,
whether the House had n right to commit
for a breach of privilege in the case of Ii
bel on the conduct of one of their members
He thought the House had right to COM
init, IN great many cases-such as where
their proceedings were interrupted; where
the people, by kissing, or otherwise. insult
ed members coming to the House; where
they threatened members. if they voted on
particular side, and many others of the
same nature; but when he spoke of ,libels
published on the past conduct Of members
and not on any proceedings at the moment
going on before the House, he had great
doubts as to the right ofcommitting. because
he conceived it to be against the first prin-
ciples of justice; because the House acted
as their own Counsel, Jury and Judge; be-
cause they were the accusers and the pu-
nishers They began by reading the pa.
per. and they concluded by ordering the par
ty away without hearing him. Would any
court of law act in that wayf The house
were the judges of the law andof the fact !;
and the party was committed during their
pleasure, without any appeal. :, But all this
was only from necessity and when the ne
cessity ceased, the power ought to cease
with it. This was the doctrine held and
started by Lord Chief Justice De Grey,
in the case of Mr.. Crosby, who was com
rnitted. as member of that House, for a
breach of its privileges. The court of COM
mon pleas could not give any relief, because
1t did not know what were the privileges
of the House of Commons. The Chief Jus
tice said, the commitment was legal, be-
cause 1t was necessary and that showed,
that If it had not been necessary, it would
not have been legal The House had been
told of great number of precedents and
decisions of the courts of law but what were
/ they ?-He should be glad to know where
they were !-of those that had been mention,
ed, the first was in the reign Of the Tudors :;
and that was not time, he thought, to
which the House should refer in defence
and support of its own privleges-a time
when the House were told. at the beginning
Of each session, tina. they were not to med
die with matters of State; and when Queen
Elizabeth repeatedly ordered the House not
to proceed any further in such and such Ca
| ses. The case of Arthur Hall had been re
ferred to in 1880. What was the sentence of
the Houses Was it any thing like the
commitments of the present House of Com
monss No:--Thc sentence was for six
months imprisonment-to pay fine of
500 marks, and at the end of that SIX months,
to still farther imprisonment, till he
should make retraction. That retraction
might be given during the recess of Parli
imprisonment might "last for years." or
even life, as Parliament did not then meet
SO frequently as it does now. When the re-
traction was offered. it was to be in the pre- :
sence of the Lord Steward of his majesty's
house hold, the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer and several other principal officers of
State.
This was the mode of proceeding cited to
the house, as authority to justify what had
been done in this case. Was there any
thing similar between them Could the
house now commit for an indefinite time, or
for six months Can timpose fine. as was
done in those days He could himself cite
many cases in which the House had in those
times made commitments of the most extra
ordinary nature, and sentenced men to as
extraordinary punishmenfs. There was one,
ct putting two men back to back upon a
horse, and leading them through the streets
with particular mark upon them.-TLere
was another, in which new and extraordi-
nary Punishment had been invented by the
House for the particular offence-But were
these such cases as were at all to be cited as
pfecedents on the present occasion He
was astonished to see il attempted. With
respect to the case of Arthur Hall, Mr.. Hat
sell takes notice in his book of Parliamenta-
ry Cases, and says, that it was afterwards
declared derUgatory TO tine proceedings of
tile house. These were in fact not deserving
the names OF precedents, but were mere ex-
ercises of authority for precedents are or
| Iy the decisions of a LEGAL JUDGE The Ho,se