assumes tends to invite the people to a resistance of the decision of the House of Commons. He cannot have read the paper fully when he ventures to draw such an inference. Had he taken the context into his contemplation; had he reverted to preceding passages, he would have found that the term resistance was coupled with the word legal. It was conveyed in such a manner as must convince every impartial mind that such was the fair and candid interpretation of the passage. If therefore such a difference of opinion as to the nature and to the interpretation of the publication does exist, it is, with many others, a very strong reason with me to vote for the adjournment. could be obtained from the precipitancy. with which they were called upon to act that night? The House must be aware, that the accusation brought against the hon. baronet, was not one recently agitated. It was now 20 years since a member had been called upon to answer in that House for misconduct, by publishing a libel on the House or any of its members, and thereby committing a breach of its privileges. This was the case of major Scott in the year 1790. What course did the House of Commons pursue upon that occasion? Did it hurry and almost compel members to the declaration of an opinion, without being able fully to inves tigate the merits of the case? The House made no such improper exaction. It allowed an adjournment for a week, to enable its members fully to understand that upon which they were called to decide. Though a professional man much practised in professional habits, he (Mr. Adam) was ready to confess, that upon the Resolutions now submitted to them, he had not the opportunity of stating his grounds and reasons for the judgment which he should think himself bound to deliver, on this great question of privilege. In the case of major Scott, to which he alluded, the single act of publication constituted the criminality; yet time was allowed for full and mature consideration. How much more forcible was the claim for postpone ment now, when the publication com plained of, contained long, prolix, and disputed arguments, connected with references extracted from the common law of the land! The case of alderman Oliver, in 1771, also received the most comprehensive discussion, when brought before that House. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with professional habits, and surrounded as he was by so many others qualified to arrange for him the necessary information, might be prepared to go to a decision. But far different was his case; he had nobody to furnish him with materials, he must himself investigate the sources that may enligh Mr. Adum said, he had no intention of entering into the merits of the question, but would confine himself strictly to that of adjournment. He said he had never hitherto been present at, or taken any share in the commitment of Mr. Gale Jones, which had given rise to the question under consideration; and that he could not approve of the discretion which dictated it. He should add, however, that there was not an individual in the House, more sincerely anxious to uphold its constitutional and recognised privileges than he was. Actuated by a desire to support them, he then ventured to trespass upon its attention. When, therefore, a question was brought before it, complaining of a violation of these rights, he must esteem it as most consonant with the character of that House, to have, upon such an occasion, its proceedings regulated by the principles observed in all places were justice was administered. With such feelings, he wished to impress upon the House, that in all judicial proceedings it was a main ingredient, not only that the Court should deliver its judgment, but that, in such delivery, it should state satisfactory, reasons for such judgment. It was that principle which made him feel it a duty to request the House, not only to declare its decision upon the pub lication of the hon. baronet, but that it should also impress upon the people often him; and it was impossible that he the country the propriety of that decision In order, therefore, to produce such impression, it was not alone necessary that the House should decide justly, but it was bound, in regard to the country, to declare that decision in the most satisfactory and intelligible manner, and, therefore, with all due deliberation. How then could it be expected that such an effect could apply himself to that full investigation which such a grave and serious charge warranted. He had, however, even after the late hour that morning, endeavoured to acquire some necessary knowledge on the subject. He had referred to the precedent of alderman Crosby, as in some degree analogous. But when the various arguments and refer. rences of the present publication were taken into view, he defied the most inform ed lawyer to encounter, on a sudden, the discussion with real advantage to the case of privilege, which was now so boldly questioned by sir Francis Burdett. To do this with satisfaction, due time must be given to collate, compare, and refute the matter asserted. It was that course alone that would be satisfactory. That alone would enable the House to give a judgment, which would not only overturn the doctrine of the hon. baronet; and would establish by clear, cool consideration, the libellous nature of his work; but would be such, as the public would approve, by the deliberation with which it would be given. For what was he anxious? Only that, as the hon. baronet had quoted lord Coke to support his interpretation, so he (Mr. Adam) might have the opportunity of also citing lord Coke to support his view of the privileges of parliament; that as the hon. baronet had brought forward the case of Ashby and White, to corroborate his inferences, he (Mr. Adam) might be able to communicate his interpretation upon it; and in doing so, that he might show, that sir Francis Burdett had quoted lord Coke's works, in which he was treating of civil rights, and of the common law of the country, and not of the law of Parliament.He was well aware that individual inconvenience was no ground for delaying the proceedings of the House; yet he could not help thinking, that the defect under which he laboured, was felt by very many members of the House; and if there was a general feeling of that sort, surely that was a reason for adjournment, because it was a proof, that though judgment might be given, it could not be given satisfactorily. As to himself, he was not prevented by indolence or want of interest in the question; but as he had before said, it wat absolutely impossible for him then to state his views of the question in a manner either useful or creditable; as, from the moment it was first brought before the House, until the period when he rose, he was engaged by either public or professional duties. Until three o'clock that morning, in the House of Commons, and after the ordinary refreshment which nature required, being kept, if he might use the phrase, in 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 others not so provided, at least a short time for ulterior consideration. If this re quest was denied him, he would be then reduced to the dilemma, in common with many members of the House, either that he must surrender the privileges of that House, or agree in the condemnation of an individual, without being able to state, in a satisfactory manner, his conviction of his guilt. He hoped, therefore, that the motion of adjournment would be acceded to. The Attorney-General had many reasons for thinking that the discussion ought not to be postponed. He retracted the proceedings on the subject, and contended that if an adjournment took place, it might perhaps be attributed to the influence of motives, to the imputation of which the House ought never to expose themselves. He could not understand the grounds on which the hon. and learned member who had just spoken wished for an adjournment. The question had been treated as if it were a new point, and as if the House in many former instances, and recently in the case of Mr. Gale Jones, had not determined it; for let it be recollected, that the argument of the hon, baronet was against the power of the House to commit strangers, he admitting that they had the power to commit members for breaches of privilege. The House, therefore, would not have committed Mr. Gale Jones, had they not been fully satisfied of their power to do so. If his bon, and learned friend was not so sa. tisfied, why had he not attended the motion for the commitment of Mr. Jones? And farther, when the hon. baronet made a motion for the discharge of Mr. Jones, why had not his learned friend then attended if he entertained any doubts upon the subject. He had abundant opportunity to consult authorities, for the hon. baronet had given a week's notice of his motion. The question however had been discussed in a very full House on this sole groundnot whether the House had a right to commit Mr. Jones in the first instance, but whether his having expressed his contri. tion at the bar might entitle him to be discharged without a petition. The question at present before the House was-not whether the House was vested with the right of commitment, for that was fully established, but whether the paper of the hon. baronet was a libel or not? If any doubts could possibly exist on that subject, he should be perfectly disposed to concur in the adjournment of the discussion; but it appeared to him that it was only necessary to read the paper, in order to be convinced that it was a libel, and a gross violation of the privileges of the House. Mr. Bathurst observed, that when the business was before the House on the preceding day, he was of opinion, from the nature of the Paper under discussion, that it would be the preferable course that the consideration of the question should be postponed 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 hon. gentlemen. He did not think that either with reference to tenderness to the object who was the subject of the discussion, or from any apprehension of the consequence of the result, should the House be induced to pause. On the grand principle of giving the Paper a full and candid perusal, so as that the House might come to a just decision, and not throw discredit on the debates, would he agree to the adjournment. With respect to the particular parts of the Paper, on which much difference of opinion prevailed, some gentlemen pointing out passages which they deemed libellous whilst others were of a different opinion, he thought it was not a fair line of argument to draw such inferences from insulated passages, because the Paper should be taken together. On the other hand it had been urged, that if the House did not consent to delay, the people might be excited to discontent. Without entering into an examination of those topics, he thought it would be better on a question of a doubtful nature not to precipitate the decision of the House. Between these difficulties he would wish to steer a prudent course, and though he would not go the length of the Amendment, yet he was of opinion that at least the discussion should be postponed till to-morrow. Mr. Owen, in explanation, stated that he certainly did understand the passage to which he had alluded as conveying a charge against the House of having imprisoned Mr. Jones under the sanction of the Bill of Rights. Mr. Brand then proposed to move an amendment to his motion; but the Speaker having intimated to the hon. member, that he could not in point of form, Mr. Tierney moved an amendment to the following effect: "That a great question being depending before the House, respecting the Expedition to the Scheldt, which so fully occupies and engages its attention, it is fit that the consideration of the motion now under discussion be adjourned till to morrow se'nnight." The right hon. gent. challenged the gentlemen opposite to deny that the Resolutions last night moved against sir Francis Burdett were of treasury manufacture; (hear, hear!) he would go farther and challenge the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to deny if a meeting was not convened at his house, to consider, discuss, and decide upon these Resolutions, which in the person of an independent county member were to be offered to the consideration of that House. Mr. Lethbridge, the mover, rose to utter the monosyllable "No!" to the right hon. gent.'s assertion; and further, said the hon. gent., I declare upon my honour, that the Resolutions which I had the honour of moving are not of treasury manufacture. Mr. Tierney observed, that there was an understanding upon the subject, for the seconder, as he was informed, was there. Mr. Blachford, the seconder, arose, and denied the assertion. Mr. R. Dundas was not surprised the hon. gent. who brought forward the motion of adjournment should have said that the question was one of great importance. Although he should object to the adjournment, his objections were much stronger to the amendment now proposed. With respect to the paper under discussion, his objections to it were not so much to the matter as to the manner in which the hon. baronet had chosen to discuss the subject. The simple question for the House to decide was, whether the hon. baronet had discussed it in such a mode, and in such terms, as were not an infringement on the privileges of this House. As to the assertion, that the Resolutions before the House were prepared at the treasury, he could declare for himself that he knew nothing about them until they were read in the House; nor did he believe the assertion; and he was still more warranted in his disbelief from the declaration of the hon. member himself, by whom these Resolutions were brought forward. Mr. Wilberforce declared, that no man was more firmly convinced than himself, that the privileges of that House ought to be maintained; for he thought those privileges highly essential to the benefit of the people. But he did not think they were to be blown away with a breath; that intentioned from those who appeared to be of a contrary character. It was really much to be desired, that the House should. come to a decision of this case with a cool mind, which was more likely to prevail, by allowing of the intervention of a few. days. He wished the House to consider the publication rather as matter of history, and to determine upon it as such. There were many who looked to it with, no doubt, an honest warmth, but that was a disposition ill suited to sober judgment. Let the House consider how their conduct in this transaction should appear in the page of history, even to themselves in a year hence, and so considering, he was persuaded they would cautiously avoid pronouncing any sentence under the warmth of the moment, or proceeding with any precipitancy. If such a proceeding were taken in opposition to the sentiments of those gentlemen of weight and consideration, who called for the adjournment, he felt that the House would they could not withstand an attack without adopting sudden and precipitate means of defence. He therefore saw no danger in acceding to the proposition of delay upon this occasion, in order that the House should have the fullest opportunity for deliberation. This was, in fact, a case in which that opportunity ought to be afforded, because it was desirable that those who completely and substantially agreed a principle, should be able rightly to apply that principle, and satisfactorily to state the grounds of that agreement. Such a statement was due to the case, and was absolutely necessary in order to satisfy the minds of the people. The people ought to be satisfied that the privileges of that House were only enjoyed and exercised for their advantage. Upon such a question, the feelings of the people ought peculiarly to be consulted; for it was only in connection with the people, that the constitution of that House could be really strong. For this reason, it became the House to proceed with he utmost serious-be sacrificing the substance to the appearness, and gravity, and therefore he was determined to vote for the adjournment. To that vote indeed, he was the more determined, in consequence of the declaration of several members of high character, that they felt themselves unable, from the pressure of time, to make up their minds upon the subject. When a gentleman, for instance, so distinguished for legal knowledge as the learned gent. on the floor (Mr. Adam), and from whom the House had heard to night such sound constitutional doctrine, expressed his inability to determine upon the merits of the paper under discussion, not having had time to consider it, it was surely but proper to grant him that time: but that grant was not only proper with regard to him, but to others in similar circumstances, who concurred in opinion as to the privileges of the House, while they required time to examine, whether the paper under consideration involved a breach of those privileges, or was a proper case for the exercise of the power, which the House possessed, for the preservation of these privileges. He therefore deprecated any hasty proceeding. On this occasion he would, in favour of the principle of his recommendation, quote the authority of his right hon. friend, now no more (Mr. Pitt). It was uniformly the maxim of that right hon. gent., that, on all constitutional questions, he should take such grounds as would serve to separate the really well ance. While he fully agreed with the right hon. gent. who spoke last, as to the necessity of upholding the privileges of the House, he must still support the adjournment, as the best means of consulting the character of these privileges. Indeed, he could not conceive how any thing could be gained by the advocates of the Resolutions, from a perseverance in resisting the motion of adjournment. For even though it were negatived, it would be impossible for the House, at that late hour of the night (nearly one o'clock) to go into the discussion of the other questions, which must necessarily occupy a considerable time. For these reasons he recommended it to his right hon. friends on the Treasury bench to proceed in the case with peculiar temperance and candour, and above all to avoid any thing that should expose the House to the charge of being actuated rather by passion than by judgment. The Master of the Rolls was of opinion, that whatever decision the House might come to upon the principle of the motion immediately under consideration, it was obviously right that the other question should not even appear to be determined prematurely. Whatever opinion the House might express upon this question, it was extremely desirable that it should go forth accompanied by the fullest grounds of justification. Nothing equivocal or hasty should appear in such a transaction. ble to give it the go-by. He was sorry, because he never knew any good to arise out of such contests that could counterbalance the disadvantages. But the House was brought to the alternative, either that it must give up its privileges, and perhaps incur the imputation of timidity, or assert those privileges with manliness. He would have been happy, he repeated, if means could be devised of getting out of such a contest. But that was now impractica as much weight and authority as possible, he would support the proposition for delay, required by those to whom so much weight and authority belonged. Let it be recollected that the judgment of the House was liable to be impeached, and he should be sorry to witness any proceeding that should seem to sustain such impeachment. Therefore he most earnestly deprecated precipitancy, and more particularly as so many respectable members were heard to state that they were unprepared to pronounce any decision upon the subject. He declared, that had he been aware last night that the debate upon the business was likely to ex-ble, and in order to bring to the decision tend to such a length, he would not have voted for the short adjournment. There was no reason to doubt, that several gentlemen might have been unable from their various avocations, as yet, to examine this The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he paper, and to decide upon its character. would confess fairly, that, after what he The hon. gent. who spoke last, had put had heard, particularly from his learned the question under discussion upon the friend who had just sat down, it would apfairest grounds. Gentlemen might be pear obstinate and pertinacious in him to fully agreed in their opinion as to the press an opinion, to which, however, he privileges of that House, and yet unable still unfortunately adhered, and refuse to to determine whether this paper involved accede to the repeated calls which were a breach of those privileges. Time suffi- made for a further adjournment of this cient for all due consideration ought there- question. At the same time, he begged fore to be granted. He had read the leave distinctly to state, that upon exapaper this day, and he was of opinion, mining his mind, the last motive which that it was a clear libel upon that House. could induce him to yield was any thing Many who required time for considera- like timidity or fear. He believed, intion, would, he had no doubt, entertain deed, that that was the last ground upon the same opinion, if that opportunity were which the House would yield in such a afforded. After this motion should be case. The House, he was persuaded, must disposed of, it would be remembered that be alive to the necessity which called for another question would arise for discus- its interposition on this occasion, and that sion, into which the House could not at if it declined to assert its privileges, the that hour be in a state to enter. He there- most serious consequences were too likefore, without wishing to influence any ly to follow. In agreeing to the adjournother person, would vote for the adjournment, he protested against the ground ment. By that course, it appeared to him that the end in view would be attained with more satisfaction to the House and to the public. Whatever the House felt in this case, gentlemen must be aware that they were acting as judges in their own cause. If he were to frame a constihe was satisfied that he should feel it necessary to invest the House with the privileges it now possessed. Of course he was an advocate for those privileges. But still it must be borne in mind, that the House, in asserting such privileges, were judges in their own cause, and therefore he always thought that, although those privileges were never to be formally relinquished, they were yet to be very discreetly exercised. This case, however, was forced upon the House. He should have been glad not to have heard any thing about it. But it was now impossi tution anew, laid for that proceeding in the amendment, nor could his objection be overruled by the assertion that the other question alluded to in that amendment was of more importance than that under discussion, and that therefore it was entitled to the precedency. (Hear, hear! from the Opposition bench.) He wished it to be understood, that his only reason for assenting to the adjournment was that delay was required. One word as to the cheers of the gentlemen on the other side. Those gentlemen professed a wish for unanimity, and yet when that disposition appeared, they exulted in it as a species of triumph. With this short remark he would leave those gentlemen to enjoy their triumph. Mr. Ponsonby asserted, that the right hon. gent. was not justified in the language which he had thought proper to apply to |