might be a good argument as against an individual, if just, but would not go for any thing upon the general principle. But to return to the authorityof Mr. Fox; it was the opinion of that great man, that every court, which appeared to claim a power beyond what was necessary for its proceeding, usurped that power. Was there any case in which the House had gone farther than in the case of Gale Jones? It was the opinion of Mr. Fox, that the House of Lords could not exercise that power, because there was no appeal but to the legislature, of which that House was a part. But was not the House of Commons equally a part of the same legislature? Nothing could induce him therefore to vote that the paper under consideration was a libel. But upon this subject he was bound to admit, that he did not think that the hon. gent., who had brought forward the question, had lent himself as a tool to any administration in the proceedings which had taken place. He begged of the House however, to consider the steps by which the business had hitherto proceeded. It had been said, that he had not on a former occasion declared by his vote that Gale Jones was not guilty of a breach of privilege, and he took shame to himself that he had not asserted on that occasion what he now felt to be right. In the paper under discus-sion, sir Francis Burdett only exercised a right which belonged to him and others, to state his opinion upon a public subject. That he might have done so in intemperate language, he was not prepared to deny; but he must insist, that, Mr. Gale Jones had conducted himself at their bar respectfully and with decorum. The hon. baronet (sir J. Anstruther) had then an opportunity of stating his sentiments upon the subject; he had another opportunity . when the motion of his hon. friend was brought forward for the discharge of Mr. Jones. As to the argument of the noble lord opposite, founded upon the appeal made in the paper to the voice of the people, he was of opinion that it did not rest upon any firm foundation. On the contrary, he was persuaded that the language of the hon. baronet in that particular was perfectly justifiable. But though he idolized, at least respected in a degree little short of idolatry, the memory of the late Mr. Fox, still there were some things which he should not be disposed to admit, even upon such high authority. He could not asHe could not as sent, however, to the justice of the observation of the hon. gent. who alluded to the circumstance of that distinguished Statesman having, whilst a very young man, sat upon the Treasury Bench, and voted in a particular way on a motion of Mr. serjeant Glyn. If he knew any thing of Mr. Fox-if he was alive to his principles if he had imbibed any of his spirit or feelings, he was convinced that Mr. Fox, upon consideration, would have admitted that his conduct in such cases had been erroneous. But in order to shew that the language of sir Francis Burdett's paper was not li bellous, he must again refer to a pamphlet published by Mr. Burke, in the time of Wilkes, called "Thoughts on the Public Discontents." In that work it was broadly asserted, that the people should exercise a vigilant superintendance over the administration of public affairs; and that, in certain cases, there was no remedy for grievances to be expected but from the interference of the great body of the people. Had any thing so strong as that been stated by the hon. baronet? No: he only called upon the people to express by their voices what they felt upon the present situation of affairs. Was there any thing in the production of the hon. baronet to be compared with what had been published by that great man Mr. Burke if they were but to look at both, they would be sensible how feeble that language which had been brought under the consideration of the House was, compared with that which had never been questioned any where. And here he must be allowed to observe, that he held in contempt all fears that would prevent him from doing his duty, and voting conscientiously. His only apprehension was, the degradation that might be brought upon the House of Commons. The paper, he was of opinion, ought not to have been noticed at all, and though noticed was not such as to call for reprehension. He agreed with the Master of the Rolls, that it was a question of magnitude, but did not think that any harsh or hasty proceeding was to be taken upon it. But neither the hon baronet who had spoken early in the debate, nor his bon. and learned friend (Mr. Adam) had convinced him by their arguments that any serious or severe notice ought to be taken of this case. He would not deny, however, that in certain cases, it would be proper for the House of Commons to pos London. Every body asked, what it meant; and at length the waggish writer confessed, that he had it distributed in order to shew how he could puzzle the people by publishing four nonsensical letters. As to the hon. baronet's allusion to the possibility of the Bill of Rights becoming a Bill of Wrongs; that allusion, he thought, warranted by the manner in which that bill had been abused upon the motion for the committal of Jones. But there were many statutes made for the benefit of the subject, which were afterwards perverted to a different purpose. For instances, the Place Bill was, he understood, made use of in Ireland, to get sess the power of commitment, though | that should always be regulated by the necessity. But it was not expedient that it should always exercise that right, in case of libel, as was evident from the manner in which the prosecution against Mr. Reeves had been managed. His learned friend (sir S. Romilly) had never asserted that that House had not the power of removing nuisances; but that such power should never be used but upon a necessity. It would certainly be a most strange mode of arguing, to contend that the placards displayed the streets by Mr. Jones could have the effect of interrupting the proceedings of that House. But it might be said, that as they hadrid of members adverse to the Union, to committed Mr. Jones to custody, they ought also to commit sir F. Burdett. This he denied. It was his opinion, that unless they should agree to the proposition of his noble friend, they ought to vote the adjournment of the discussion for some months, so as to get rid of it altogether. For his own part, upon the best consideration he could give the subject, he did not perceive the smallest matter that was libellous in the publication. As to the allusion to the means by which that House was assembled, he could see literally nothing improper in that: sure he was, that it would puzzle the hon. baronet to point out how the member for Tralee (Mr. Canning) came to have a seat in that House. The true course for that House to pursue, he must contend, was not to arrogate more privileges than it was entitled to, or by constant usage enjoyed. procure substitutes by whom that neasure was carried. This, then, furnished an illustration of the doctrine of sir Francis Burdett. The scriptural language applied to that House, by the hon. baronet, could not be found very inapplicable, after the conduct of the noble lord (Castlereagh), and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been palliated and passed over after their violation of the most essential privileges of the House had been overlooked. Upon such a proceeding, any terms of animadversion could hardly be too strong. He would offer some scriptural language also to the consideration of the House-" The beginning of strife was as the letting in of water;" and he cautioned the House to consider. well the course it was pursuing. He strongly recommended it to get out of this business. His proposition was, that the moon then With regard to the real character of the under consideration should be postponed paper under discussion, he declared, that till such a time beyond the expected - he saw no libel whatever in the first letter sitting of the House, that there would be of the hon. baronet. In the report of his no chance of any farther discussion of itspeech there were some points pushed to that Jones should be liberated-and then - an extreme. But a disposition to exag- let a question be raised upon this subject gerate was the constant error of the hon. in such a shape that it might be discussed baronet. He was too much in the babit without any mixture of heat or prejudice of dealing in the superlative degree.without any proceeding calculated unThis, however, was generally the error of sanguine men, and certainly no man could be more sanguine than the worthy baronet in the pursuit of his object, which was, no doubt, that of true constitutional liberty, for he saw no reason to impute to him any other motive. There were some passages in this paper which, he confessed, he could not understand, and of course he could not set them down as libels. Indeed, those passages reminded him in some degree of the placard of Q. U. Q. Z. which was some years ago posted about duly to influence their own minds or to inflame the minds of others. This course he earnestly pressed upon the consideration of the House, but above all he exhorted it to attend to the moderate and judigious advice of the learned gent. on the lower bench (the Master of the Rolls) and not punishing where there was reason to doubt, by not pushing matters to extremity. Mr. Canning said, he could assure the hon. member who spoke last, that if ever he came to the consideration of a question without the least feeling of political animosity, it was to the discussion of the question now before the House. For himself, he could say, that he met it with a mind as unprejudiced as could be expected from the inevitable infirmity of human nature. He had not sought the question; he could not decline it when it pressed upon him. In the state in which the question was presented to the House, it was not possible to avoid coming to a decision upon it. If the House were inclined to adopt the course recommended by the hon. gent., they should endeavour to make their conduct consistent. If they arrogated privileges that did not belong to them (an opinion in which he was by no means disposed to coincide), the most manly course would be to confess their injustice, and to repair any wrong they might have committed by inforcing them. Upon this principle, the hon. gent. would himself come in for his share of whatever blame might be attached to the late proceedings of the House. He could not learn that the hon. gent. had ever even entered his protest against the commitment of Mr. Gale Jones; and he therefore contended, that the hon. member was consequently himself a party to the injustice of that act, if unjust it were. But after what he had heard that night he would not allow that the House on that occasion had overstrained any privilege claimed by it. He would confess that he came to the consideration of the question with considerable doubts on his mind, as to the power of the House to commit generally-doubts that were greatly increased and almost confirmed by the ingenious speech of the hon. and learned gent. (sir Samuel Romilly) on the other side; but the arguments of the learned gent. on the bench below him (Mr. Adam) completely removed them. employed a flower of speech, and it was asked, what! would you come upon the hon. baronet for a metaphor? But what was the offence of Mr. Reeves, for which he was ordered to be prosecuted? Was it not also a metaphor? His right hon. friend, in the richness of his exuberant imagination, could discover a libel in this metaphor, in this child of fancy; but the less imaginative minds of an English jury could not recog nize any feature of this repulsive description. It was impossible, in his judgment, to separate the cases of Mr. Jones and sir Francis Burdett. If the House should admit by the vote of that night, that sir F. Burdett was entirely guiltless, it followed that their whole proceeding against Mr. Jones was founded in flagrant injustice. For his own part, he must express his sincere regret, that the House was called to decide upon a question of this nature. With the hon. baronet, whose conduct was the subject of consideration, he had not the honour of the slightest acquaintance. He had however opportunities of judging of his abilities and of his motives, as far as one man could judge of the intentions of another, from his conduct. Of the bon. baronet he would say, that he considered him as a man gifted with extraordinary talents; of powers of the very first grasp, which, if directed in a proper channel, might produce incalculable advantages to his country. He never knew the hon. baronet to rise in that House, that he did not acquit himself as a person of first-rate ability; always entering with uncom mon zeal into the consideration of any subject he undertook, and conducting it throughout with equal ability. Of the talents, and he would fain hope the sincerity and purity of the hon. baronet's motives, there could hardly be a difference of opinion. But the question was not respecting the views or parliamentary talents of the bon. baronet. The offence charged upon him, and the necessity of vindicating that offence, was the question on which they were to decide. The question was, whether they would or would not uphold the privileges of parliament. These privileges were not to be sought for as laid down in books and charts, amidst the violence of conflicting parties; but they were to be discovered or deduced in or from the invariable practice of parliament. When he considered the purposes for which these privileges were claimed, that they were claimed to uphold and protect that House against other powers, With respect to the case of Reeves, which had been so much insisted on, he begged leave to observe, that the resolution ultimately adopted by the House was not that first proposed by a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Sheridan), whom he did not now see in his place. The resolution first proposed was for an address to his majesty to deprive Mr. Reeves of any office he might have filled, and to render him incapable of holding for the future any place of trust or emolument under the crown. It had been said, in the course of this discussion, that the defence of the hon. baronet consisted merely in having 541] he felt it to be his imperious duty to maintain them with firmness and jealousy. Though it was far from his wish to be called upon to decide on a question essentially connected with the independence and the existence of the House, he did not look to the decision with the apprehension that other gentlemen did. He came with his mind reluctantly, but perfectly, made up on the question. In deciding on it, therefore, he would take care, as far as it depended on him, not to compromise the privileges of the House, and, above all, to distribute justice with an even and impartial band. [542 PARL. DEBATES, APRIL 5, 1810.-against Sir Francis Burdett. Mr. Ponsonby disclaimed being a party On If some subjects were to be admitted and others rejected, in consequence of the exercise of this privilege, he would be glad to know where the House was to place the limit. This, he believed, was the first time that the House was called upon tò agree to a set of resolutions without being apprized of the ulterior resolution with which it was intended to follow them up. Had he been in his place when the case of Jones was under consideration, he would have opposed the commitment of that person, and he would now equally oppose the commitment of sir F. Burdett. Such practice would close all discussion, and put an end to the liberty of the press. He admitted that there were very intemperate expressions in the letter, perhaps libellous, but they were not of so marked a nature, he must contend, as would justify the House in resorting to so strong a measure as this. He would most readily agree that the House possessed the privilege, in the fullest sense of the word, of committing, and might exercise it when it thought fit; but this was a case, in which he must maintain it ought not to be exercised. Instead of making sir F. Burdett less powerful, it would make him more so, and render the question for parliamentary reform more popular than it had ever been. Mr. Windham in a speech of some length spoke in favour of the former resolutions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer justified the course adopted by his hon. friend, the member for Somersetshire. His hon. friend had proposed his resolutions on the offensive paper, leaving it to the discretion of the House to say what punishment should follow. He could scarcely have expected that any man would be found in that House to maintain that the paper was not a libel, seeing the extravagancies and violence of the expressions, and when it was apparent, that it was published with no other view than to bring the House into disesteem and disgrace. He trusted that the result of the vote that night would be to shew; that they were not prepared to give up the privileges of that House, or to surrender them to be trampled upon by any individual. Mr. Grattan lamented that this subject had ever been brought before parliament. It was a contest in which victory would be without glory, and in which defeat must be followed by disgrace. When the House went to hunt in holes and corners for questions of privilege, they diminished their own dignity. They might depend upon it, that the result of this contest would not tend to their satisfaction. Had they forgot Wilkes's case? Did they not know that it ended in his being elected for Middlesex, and nominated Chamberlain of the city of London, and that parliament was at length obliged to shrink from the contest? In this battle between the giant and the dwarf, the giant diminished in Bize, and the dwarf magnified. The peo ple of England, with their characteristic generosity, would range themselves on the weaker side, and oppose the shield of their compassion against the arm of power. Lord Jocelyn called upon the House to support its privileges. Lord W. Russell could not agree to proceed to the other orders of the day. He thought the House was bound to assert its privileges. General Matthew complained that the hon. mover of the resolutions did not know what he was doing. The hon. member had spoken of his hair standing on end, but he had not spoken in any way to afford information to the House. He was convinced that the House had no right to commit the hon. baronet. On many occasions the worthy baronet had been branded by gentlemen on the other side of the House, with the terms of jacobin, democrat, and demagogue; but the country knew sir Francis Burdett, and knew how to appreciate his virtues and his talents. If ministers sent him to the Tower, it would be against the good wishes of every friend to his country. Lord Milton thought it was impossible for the House to pass over the paper. The question was of that nature that it could not be blinked. If the House adopted the resolutions, they must of necessity proceed farther; but it was advisable that the punishment that was to follow should be as lenient as possible. He would vote against the amendment. Mr. Brand would not undertake to justify every thing that was said in the paper on the table. He professed his intention in case the motion of his noble friend was negatived, to move an amendment to the resolutions, recognizing the right of members of that House to publish their opinions on constitutional points, to communicate with their Constituents, and that such parts in the Letter and Argument of sir F. Burdett, as did not contain inferences derogatory to the Constitution, were not a breach of privilege. Mr. W. Wynn contended that the paper was a gross breach of the privileges of that House, and charged the hon. baronet with having altered and misquoted precedents in the Argument to serve his own purpose. From 1547, when the Journals of Parliament first commenced, all the precedents were in favour of the privilege of commitment by the House. Instead of any harsher proceeding, he would recom |