Mobile daily commercial register and patriot., 1841-09-06

lory of Virginia and Mir. Rhett. of South Carroll na addressed the Editors of the National lnteli gencer.
 That of Rheu, the Intelligencer Aatly refused to publish, although il was strictly defensive letter g,ins the injustice done that gentleman in their port of Congressional proceedings. At the request of MT Rhett, his communication was published in the Globe, whose editor accompanies it with the remark that
 "Ne,er, before, did any paper reporting the pro- ceedngs of congress, hesitate allow a member to do himself right, where the grossest misrepresen- tation had been indulged to traduce him. under the form of Congressional reportl The covering of the National lntegencer under this explanation, and its recoing from the performance of duty uni yersally acknowledged by the press holding the re- atiOn theirs does to the House of Representatives, proves that they perceive in this letter something that must work most fatally for their party and themseves.''
 Mir Rhet charges the IntelIigencer with intersper- sing what they profess to give faithful reports of Congressional proceedings, with other matters which do not occur at the time in the House, for the pur pohO UT NSdhSHIiS pusitlOuSs oi consistency those who politically opposed to its editor After defending himself successfully from the charge implied by the lntelligencer, Mir. Rheu proceeds in a iorcble and eloquent strain to exhibit the absolute tyranny exercised by the federal ma
 ority at this session the rights of the minority, and to defend the great principle of free discussion of liberty of speech in every legislative minority pre- tending to be free. We regret that cannot find space for the whole letter, but we cannot forbear copying the conclusion of it, and inviting to it the earnest and candid attention of every citizen, who is ignorant ot the alarming strides towards despotism taken by the federal majority ofhe present congress. Extract from letter of the Hon. R. B. Rhen of s. c.
 10 he editors of the'National Latelhsencr, dated Washington, August 25th, 1S4l.
 Permit me briefly to show the origin and nature of this great principle of Anglo American liberty. | On the 18th of February, 1867, coeva with the establishment of liberty in England by the revolution | of 1868, by which James the Second was expel-
 led from the throne, the Commons of Eng gand resol- | ved:-
 sThat If any motion be made in the House for any pnblc aid charge pOn he people, the consideration and debate thereof ought not presently to be entered upon but adjourned till such further day the house small tnlnk III lO IL to De ferred to the Committee of the Whole House; and their opinions be reported thereupon baiore any solution vote of the House do pass theIen." Upwards of century afterwards, in l7S4, Mir. Hatsell, in the Parliamentary Precedents, in com mlenting this rule, observes:
 FThe House of Commons have, with great wisdom,
 imposed these rules and resolutions upon themsel, in the exercise of that great and important privilege, the sole exclusive right of granting aids and supplies to the crown; in order, it IS their duty when they ale imposing burdens upon their fellow subjects, give every opportunity for free and frequent dseus- sons that they may not, by sudden and nasty votes, incur expenses, be induced approve of measures which might entail heavy and lasting burdens upon themselves and their pOserity. It is upon this prin- cpe, that as long ago as the year 1867, the House laid down for a rule that motion or proposition for aid or charge upon the people should be pre- sently entered upon"
 '''fhat by this means, due and sufficient notice of the subject should be given, and that the members should not be surprised into a vote, but might prepared to suggest every argument which the impor iance of the case may demand. Another part of the same order-'that such propositions shall receive their first discussion in Committee of the Whole House,-is no less wise and prudent. There epry member may speak otten as he finds necessary, and is not confined in delivering his opinions by those rules which to be observed when speaking in the House and which in matters of account and compu- tatlon, would be extremely nconyenient, and would necessarily deprive the House of much zeal and use ful information. This mode of proceeding likewise gives an opportunity of further and more mature deliberation when the resolutions of the committee are reported whch the House may eithar not on- ly agree disagree, but if they of opinion that the subject has not been sufficiently canvassed, they may recommit the whole any part of the report flor the purpose of receiving more accurate information, or more narrowly inquring into the nature and expe dieney of the proposed measure For these reasons, this resolution of the 18th of February, 1867, has been particularly of late years Uery strictly adhered to and it appears to be one of those rules which, it has its foundation in prudence, and attention to the of the people, ought to be, in all instances, inviolably observed"
 Here is the origin of this great rule, with the rea- sons for its exercise and continuance in the British Parliament to the present day. And beg you to remark, that instead of it's being relaxed in it's ad ministration it has been according to the testimony of Mr. Hatse particularly of late years, uery strictly adhered to- The reason is obvious. In proportion as the British Government has become free and the interests of the people more regarded in it's le gslation, in the proportion has this great prn cipe of parliamentary law, introduced by the people for their protection and sel-goyernment, been sacredly observed. It has become sanctioned by usage and hallowed in great principle of liberty and if any President King of England, at the pre- sent day. should dare violate it to half the ex- tent this Congress has wtnessed 1t would produce a revolution as signal that of 1868. Nor had it been confined alone the bills of supply. "Ihe speech, messages and other matters of great concernment are usually referred the committee of the whole House. Grey, sll There the ineslimable privilege of free debate is obtained, untrammelled by technical rules There the representatives of the people speak to the taxes to be imposed upon his constituents again and again. unchecked by the previous question. Sug- gestons are freely made-tlme for investigation given that all the light and information which the subject admits of, may be freely impared and freely receiv- ed. This is English parliamentary law, brought by our ancestors with them into all our colonial assem- bes as that rule, in the enactment of laws, above all others the most sacred liberty and protection of the rights of the people, It has been invariably practised on, far am informed, by every State Legislature in the Union, except where the previous question has not been adopted rule of govern- ance, and then it may be unnecessary. It has been as inyiolahly observed by every Congress which has sat in the United States, from the Revolution to the Congress of June, 1841 Even the Federalists of
 98 disregardful they showed themselves to be of popular right, in the enactment of the alien and sed- ton laws, whilst they assailed the freedom of the press left untouched the right of free debate in Con- gress. The liberty of speech to the people and their representatives unassailed abridged. For the first time since 1867, this rule has been set aside not by Engshmen, or in Monarchy-but in Re- public, by the descendants of Englishmen, claiming to be freer than ever.
 Free debate no longer exists in the House of Re- presentayes of the Congress of the United States. The people, through their Representatives, have no longer the right of speaking to the taxes imposed upon them. Tyranny, in the shape of majority,
 is erected in the Capitol. The new reign of terror is begun.
 have remarked gentlemen, that whenever the guillone, cutting of debate, has fallen upon bill, you have raised shout of congratuaton at it's spec dy passage. The patriotism of the deed is extoled, and the people are bid to rejoice, If you have re- aeced on this subject, will you be good to in form me how liberty can be maintained by people, if the freedom of speech in their deliberatve plies is destroyed. Why did Cromwell turn his par liament out of doorsl Was it not because he could