THE decision of the house upon the Walcheren expedition was so utterly discordant with the opinion of the public, that it would probably have excited a feeling throughout the country little less violent than that which had manifested itself during the inquiry of the preceding year; but the attention and the passions of the people had been effectually diverted by circumstances which, during the progress of the business, had grown out of the commitment of Gale Jones. On the 12th of March, Sir Francis Burdett moved that Jones should be discharged. "He lamented exceedingly," he said, "that, in consequence of indisposition, he had not been present at the time the resolution for committing John Gale Jones to Newgate was passed, conceiving as he did that the house possessed no such privilege, and that no such privilege could legally or constitutionally exist. The law of the land was the standard by which the privileges of every individual, and of every body of individuals, in this country were to be measured; but he maintained, that the imprisonment of John Gale Jones was an infringement of the law of the land, and a subversion of the principles of the constitution. The question was, if

the House of Commons had a right to imprison a person, not a member of that house, for an offence punishable by the ordinary course of law? This question involved the consideration of two distinct qualities,-privilege and power. The one, privi lege, the house possessed for its own protection; the other, power, was a right to be exercised over others. Privilege they were to exercise to prevent the crown from molesting them in their proceedings; they were to use it as a shield for themselves; but they were not to allow it to change its character, to be converted into power, and to use it for the destruction of others."

Sir Francis then entered into an historical argument, she wing how this privilege, according to his view of the subject, had arisen. "By the exercise of that privilege, in the present case, "he affirmed, "the common law, Magna Charta, and trial by jury had been violated. Mr Jones was imprisoned for an act, the illegality of which had not been proved, the facts not ascertained, nor the law determined. And what was there to prevent Mr Yorke from preferring a bill of indictment, according to law, against him; in which case, if they

could suppose that any twelve lawful men in England could find a verdict of guilty, then would he be punished twice for the same offence. If, on the other hand, a verdict of acquittal were returned, then would he have been sentenced to undergo the most severe punishment short of death, that of indefinite imprisonment, by an order of the House of Commons, for having done an act not proved to be a crime. It was a doctrine clearly laid down by Lord Coke, that no man could be fined, or confined, but by a Court of Record; no court but that in which forty shillings damages might be given could be a Court of Record; the necessary conclusion was, that the power of fine and imprisonment was not in that house. No right to fine was assumed. Why then was the greater power retained, when the smaller one was admitted to be illegal? The warrant of committal, too, he contended, was illegal in all its parts, but eminently so in its conclusion. A legal warrant must conclude with the words, till the party be delivered by due course of law;' this warrant ended with the words, during the pleasure of the house.' The house, by such a proceeding as it had resorted to, involved the assumption of the judicial, executive, and legislative powers, which was in the very teeth of the law. In the due administration of the law it was wisely provided, that the same men shall not take two steps together; one set find the bill, another decide on the fact, another the law; but that house, which admini sters no oath, which squares itself by no form, which makes no previous examination of the fact, jumps at once upon its dangerous and most alarming conclusion, and finds the accused guilty. And for what? for their pri

vilege. The privilege talked of resembled the bye laws of a corporation, sufficient to bind themselves, but which could not overturn the law of the land. This was to shew the house to be as great as kings, lords, and commons. It was, besides, an encroachment on the prerogative of the crown, whose privilege it was to see that no unlawful restraint was laid on the liberty of the subject." Sir Francis concluded in these words: "Sir Fletcher Norton has said, that he would pay no more attention to a resolution of the House of Commons than to that of a set of drunken porters in an alehouse. The observation was coarse, but it was just. If gentlemen, therefore, are of opinion that a resolution of this house is equal to that of all the branches of the constitution, they will then reject my proposition; but if, with me, they think that they cannot overturn the law of the land, and the acts of par liament solemnly passed, by any as sumed power exercised by that house alone, they will agree with me that John Gale Jones must be discharged."

Upon this Mr Williams Wynn said, that if a motion had been brought forward for the liberation of John Gale Jones, upon the ground of his contrition for the offence which he had confessed at the bar, he should not have objected to it; but the proposal of that liberation had been so interwoven with other topies, that he really knew not how to proceed." Then taking up the historical argu ment which Sir Francis had produ ced, he shewed him that there were cases on record of the assertion of this right as early as the reign of Henry VIII. "It was indeed true, that no instance of committal for a libel was to be met with prior to the reign of Elizabeth; but the fact was, that in

the times immediately succeeding the invention of printing, there was no liberty of the press. The right of printing, and the liberty of publication, were so completely under the restrictions of the Star Chamber, and so liable to be limited by the king's proclamation, that there was no probability of any libel appearing against that house. The same reasons which justified a court of law in punishing any contempt or interruption of its proceedings, justified the privilege which the house had exercised in the case before them. Any offence to a court of law was deemed not only personal to the individual immediately presiding, but to the whole tribunal of justice, or (according to the older language of the law) to the king's person, which was considered as perpetually present there. So in this case, the libel was not treated so much as an offence to the member attacked, as to the whole house. He wished Sir Francis had waited till the discharge of Mr Jones from prison before he had brought on a question which was now moved in parliament for the first time: in the present mode of proceeding there was this inconsistency, that the motion had nothing whatever to do with the speech by which it had been prefaced. Even now he wished that Sir Francis would propose a declaratory resolution on which to found his present motion, though he, for one, must vote against such a resolution, as tending to deprive the house of what it had enjoyed for above three hundred years, that of guarding its dignity against libels."

Lord A. Hamilton and Mr Creevy both declared that they could not concur in the opinion of Sir Francis. The proper distinction seems to have been made by Lord Folkestone.

"That house," he said, " was com petent, by its own authority, to punish any contempt or interruption of its proceedings; but he denied that a libel and a contempt of court were tantamount." The attorney-generaland solicitor-general delivered their opinions decidedly for the privilege. The discussion led necessarily to much historical and legal argument, and many cases were cited; but Mr Sheridan said " he wished to draw the attention of the house to one simple and obvious one,the case of Mr John Gale Jones. The abstract argument of Sir Francis's speech had nothing to do with his actual liberation, and why should he be sacrificed to a theory with which he had no concern? why should he fall an unwilling martyr to doctrines which he never propagated, and perhaps never entertained?-It had been asserted, that a prosecution by the attorneygeneral would have been preferable to the course which had been taken in this case. This was a practice to which he could never give his sanction. The house never could delegate the maintenance of its privileges into any other hands than its own, without a degradation of its dignity, and a dereliction of its duty. He well knew the consequence of confiding such a trust to an attorney-general: it had been done in the case of Mr Reeves, and the author of what had been unanimously condemned in the house as a gross and scandalous libel, was acquitted in the court below." Mr Sheridan then considered the particular case which was before the house. "While he differed," he said, "from the doctrine of Sir Francis, that that house had no right to commit any person but one of its members, he could not, on the other hand, agree with Mr Yorke in his application of

the Bill of Rights, where it directs that no proceeding in that assembly should be questioned in any court or place out of doors. Was this meant to bar all public discussion? all consideration of politics out of parliament? Unless it meant this, it could mean nothing; and to shew how conveniently this principle might be relaxed, it was sufficient to read the words of a requisition with which Sir William Curtis had just been served, requiring his attendance at a Court of Common Council, to consider of the prodigal and profligate expenditure of the public money by the House of Commons, in the late grant of an annuity of 20001. to Lord Wellington.' Now, if the Bill of Rights were to be so closely adhered to in every case, why was such a notice as this made public with impunity? What! should the house thunder its vengeance to batter down a poor debating club, when it would not dare to raise its arm against a wealthy corporation? If the principle were to be acted upon at all, common justice required that its extension should be general. Well then,-let there be an end of all that gives our constitution value,-repress all discussion,prohibit all county meetings,-silence every controul over public men on the part of the people, and by that act deprive parliament of the great stimulus by which it is forced to do its duty. That experiment had been tried at the close of the American war. Lord North attempted to exclude the public from the House of Commons; he had the power, and he exercised it for above a session and half. What was the consequence? Every county had its parliament, and every village its delegates; clubs as sembled, and societies sprung up, for the discussion of their rights, and the

examination of their grievances. He well remembered that much mischief was apprehended; but the minister, seeing his mistake, restored the usual opportunity of communication between the people and their representatives, and thus the danger was dissipated by the restoration of that freedom which was the most effectual foe to danger. Therefore," said Mr Sheridan, " I see with pain every act of hostility against the freedom of the press. It is inconsistent with the interest of the house, as well as with the safety of the country. But in the case under consideration, their interest, their principles, and their pride should restrain them from engaging in such conduct. There is something so silly, so small, so ignominious in the contest in which the house is involved, that I cannot think of it without pain, and must there fore feel anxious to rescue it from its warfare with the British Forum. Upon this ground I move an amendment, that John Gale Jones be discharged, in consequence of the contrition he has expressed and the time he has been imprisoned."

Mr Sheridan, when he moved this amendment, asked of the speaker, whether this mode of applying for the discharge of Jones, or his own application by petition, was the regular course in such cases? He was told, that an application to the house by petition would be more consonant to the ordinary mode of proceeding. Upon this ground Mr Perceval called upon the house to consider the consequences of such a precedent as they would establish, if Mr Gale Jones should be released, without having, according to the invariable practice of the house, previously sent in a petition, acknowledging his offence, and expressing his contrition. At the

same time, he had no hesitation in say ing, that if the person in question should, according to the ordinary and regular course, submit such a petition, he would be the first to accede to any proposition for his enlargement. Mr Williams Wynn said, he should vote for the amendment, because he thought the punishment had already been sufficient for the offence. Mr Whitbread was of the same opinion; the right of the house to commit persons in such cases he did not question; but he added, that the house very seldom got well out of such proceedings. Sir Francis, in reply to all which he had heard, repeated and enforced his former arguments. "He never," he said, "had asserted, or could think of asserting, that the house had not the power, in the exercise of its constitutional functions, to remove nuisances, that is, obstructions to judgement, a power which every magistrate possessed. That which throws obstructions in the way of the proceedings of any court, is a contempt of that court; therefore the privilege of the court, in such instances, was the right of removing such obstructions; but how were the proceedings of that house obstructed byalibel? The Lex Parliamentaria was binding upon their own members, but not upon others. It did not give that house a power which is not possessed by the sovereign,-the power of committing a person for an offence cognizable by the legal tribunals. It was likewise a most material objection against this supposed right, that they could not proportion the punishment to the offence; as an individual might by possibility be confined seven years, or only five minutes. Much had been said of the dignity of that house; but if dignity was to be measured and supported by punishment, Jack Ketch

must have more dignity than any other individual in the kingdom. If strong powers were to be given any where, he should prefer giving them to the king. But as he had ever been an enemy to the exercise of arbitrary power in any quarter, he must oppose what he looked upon as an usurpation of an unconstitutional and arbitrary power on the part of that house." Mr Sheridan's amendment was then negatived without a division, and only fourteen persons were found to vote for the original motion against 153.

A few days after this debate, Sir Francis printed his speech in an enlarged form, and containing more offensive language than he had used in the house; he published it in Cob. bet's Weekly Register, and introduced it with a letter to his constituents. "The House of Commons" he said in this letter," having passed a vote, which amounts to a declaration, that an order of theirs is to be of more weight than Magna Charta and the laws of the land, I think it my duty to lay my sentiments thereon before my constituents, whose character as freemen, and even whose personal safety, depend, in so great a degree, upon the decision of this questiona question of no less importance than this: Whether our liberty be still to be secured by the laws of our forefathers, or be to lay at the absolute mercy of a part of our fellow-subjects, collected together by means which it is not necessary for me to describe?

"Should the principle, upon which the gentlemen of the House of Commons have thought proper to act in this instance, be once admitted, it is impossible for any one to conjecture how soon he himself may be summoned from his dwelling, and be hurried, without trial, and without oath