HISTORY O Iv EUROPE. 



101 



soning, andalltlie great author! ties 

 and precedents on the subject, 

 were given and argued on with 

 much learning. He agreed that 

 there ware offensive paragraphs in 

 the paper : but did they anaount to 

 a hbel ? He dared to say that 

 gentlemen, much better acquaint- 

 ed with the nature of a libel than 

 he could pretend to be, would be 

 prepared to answer this question, 

 and he should be obliged to some 

 of them to favour the House with 

 an opinion on this subject. — He 

 hoped the House would take some 

 time to deliberate before they 

 came to a decision on a question 

 of such importance. 



The Chancellor of the Exche- 

 quer could not conceive how any 

 one, possessed of the sense and 

 information of his honourable and 

 learned friend, could doubt that 

 the paper in question was distinct- 

 ly a libel. — This opinion he sup- 

 ported by an examination of the 

 paper. The main business of the 

 argument, he observed, was to 

 prove that the House had not a 

 right to commit a stranger for a 

 breach of privilege : for the right 

 of committing a member was ad- 

 mitted. Now, that was a case of 

 <loubt on which the honourable 

 baronet had a right to argue as 

 fully as he cho?e in the House. 

 But it behoved him to take care in 

 what manner he wrote or spoke on 

 the subject out of the House, It 

 did not follow that that which it 

 was lawful to say in the House be- 

 fore a decision, was lawful to 

 Bay out of the House after a deci- 

 sion : and still less lawful was it 

 to recommend resistance to that 

 decision — Where would be the 

 impartiality of the House, if, after 

 committing Mr. Jones for a breach 



of privilege, they should treat a 

 member who, with a better know- 

 ledge of those privileges, had 

 violated them, with more indulg- 

 ence ? If they hesitated to pro- 

 nounce that against the honour- 

 able baronet, which they had not 

 hesitated to pronounce against a 

 poor and obscure offender, they 

 would sink low, indeed, in the 

 public estimation. Grossly libel- 

 lous as the proceeding of John 

 Gale Jones had been, it was trifling 

 and contemptible, when compared 

 with that of the honourable 

 baronet.— As to the right of the 

 House of Commons to commit 

 strangers to custody, it was con- 

 firmed by precedents, a number 

 ofwhichhe stated.— It appeared 

 to Mr. Perceval that the House 

 could not hesitate in concurring in 

 the motion for adopting the re- 

 solutions proposed by his honour- 

 able friend, and he was persuaded 

 that they would not hesitate in 

 doing so. 



The Attorney General cdntend- 

 ed, that if an adjournment took 

 place, it might, perhaps, be attri- 

 buted to the influence of motives, 

 to the imputation of which the 

 House ought never to expose 

 themselves. It appeared to hira 

 that it was only necessary to read 

 the paper in order to be con- 

 vinced that it was a libel, and a 

 gross violation of the privileges of 

 the House. 



The Master of the Rolls observ- 

 ed, that the present case had been 

 forced upon the House. He was 

 sorry for it, because he never 

 knew any good to arise out of 

 such contests that could counter- 

 balance the disadvantages. But 

 the House was brought to the al- 

 ternative, that, either it must give 



