220 
LON 
difcuiTion, it was unnnimoufly decided, that the enforce¬ 
ment of the (landing order for (hutting out Fcrangers from 
the gallery of the houfe of commons, ought to be cenfured 
as an i n fid ions and ill-timed attack, on the liberties of the 
prefs, as tending to aggravate the difcontents of the peo¬ 
ple, and to render their reprefentatives objects of jealous 
fufpicion. The prefent queftion was brought forward as 
a compaiTitive inquiry, and may be juflly expected to 
furnifh a conrefted and interefting debate. Printed by j. 
Dean, 57, Wnrdour-llreet.” 
Mr. Yorke having Hated this in the houfe of commons, 
February the 19th, John Dean was ordered to attend at the 
bar of that houfe the next day. He attended accord¬ 
ingly; and, being afked what he had to fay for hinrfelf re- 
fpedting the offence he had committed, declared that he 
had been employed to print the paper by John Gale Jones. 
It was moved by Mr. Yorke, and voted nan. con. “that 
the (aid John Dean, in having printed the faid paper, 
had been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of that 
houfe.” Dean was'committed to the cuftody of the fer- 
jeant at arms, and Jones ordered to attend next day, Fe¬ 
bruary the 2.iff. John Gale Jones being brought to the 
bar, the Speaker ftated to him what had been declared by 
the printer, and alked him what he had to fay in his "own 
behalf? Mr. Jones anfwered, “I acknowledge, fir, that 
I was the author of that paper; and I am extremely lorry 
that the printer of it has buffered inconvenience on 
my account.” Jones, at the defire of the Speaker, re¬ 
peated what he had faid ; and, the queftion being put to 
him, if he had any thing more to fay in his own behalf, 
declared, that “ in what he had done lie was not actuated 
by any difrepeff to the privileges of the houfe, or the per- 
fons of any of its members individually. He had always 
confidered it to be the privilege of every Englilhman to 
animadvert on public meafures, and the condufl of pub¬ 
lic men. But, in looking over the paper in queftion again, 
be found that he had erred. He begged to exprefs 
3iis fincere contrition, and threw liimfelf on the mercy of 
that honourable houfe—that houfe which, asan important 
branch of the conftitution, had always had his unfeigned 
refpeCf.” The Speaker then put the queftion, “That the 
faid John Gale Jones had been guilty of a grofs breach of 
the privileges of that houfe;” which was carried rum. con. 
Mr. Yorke then moved, “that John Gale Jones, for his 
offence, be committed to his majefty’s gaol of Newgate.” 
The queftion, being put, was carried nern. con .—As to John 
Dean, he was, at the interceftion of Mr. Yorke, on pre- 
fenting a petition humbly praying for forgivenefs, and 
being reprimanded by the Speaker, difeharged out of cuf¬ 
tody, without paying any fees.—It was ordered nem. con. 
that what had been (aid by Mr. Speaker, in reprimanding 
the faid John Dean, ftiould be entered in the journals. 
The attention of the houfe of commons was again called 
to Jones, March the 12th, by fir Francis Burdett, who 
lamented exceedingly that, in confequence of indifpofition, 
he had not been prefent when John Gale Janes was com¬ 
mitted to Newgate for a breach of the privileges of that 
houfe. He knew it was at all times much eafier to prevent 
the adoption of a meafure, than to induce the houfe to 
retract a refolution. He could not, however, difeharge 
his duty if he did not (till endeavour to induce the houfe 
to retract a ft dp wdiich they were not authorized to take. 
•—The houfe, he contended, and parliament, were different: 
there mint, confequently, be a difference in the extent 
of the privileges which they might, feparately, or in con¬ 
junction with the other houfe of parliament, be fuppofed 
to poflefs. On this ground, he maintained that the im- 
prifonment of John Gale Jones was an infringement of the 
Jaw of the land, and a Jubveriion of the principles of the 
conftitution.—The queftion was. If the houfe of com¬ 
mons had a right to imprifon a perfon, not a member of 
that houfe, for an offence punifhable by the ordinary 
coirrfe of law; and, by a vote for that purpofe, deprive 
the people of their imprefcriptible rights? In this quef¬ 
tion there was involved the confideration of two diftinft 
D O N. 
qualities: privilege and power. Privilege the houfe pof- 
fefied for its own protection: power was a right to be ex- 
ercifed over others. Privilege they were to exercife to pre¬ 
vent the crown from molefting them in their proceedings; 
as a fhield to themfelves, not as a fcourge to the reft of the 
commons. A court of record only had a power of commit¬ 
ment : that houfe was not a court of record ; therefore that 
houfe did not poflefs the right of commitment. The war¬ 
rant of commitment, too, he contended, was illegal in all 
its parts, but eminently lo in its conclufion. A warrant 
mult conclude with the words, “ till the party be delivered 
by the due courfe of the law.” The warrant for commit¬ 
ting Jones ended wit h the words “ during the pleafureof the 
Itoule.” Lord Coke laid it down explicitly, that no man 
could be lent to prifon without trial and judgment. The 
privilege talked of would make the ho.ule as great asking, 
lords, and commons. He might be told this was a privi¬ 
lege of parliament. He anfwered, No : it was a privilege 
affumed only by one branch of the legifiature. If tiie 
members were of opinion that a refolution of that houfe 
v. as equal to that of all the branches of the conftitution, 
they would agree in rejecting his propofition; but if, with 
him, they thought that they could not overturn the law 
of the land, and the aids of parliament folemnly paffed, 
by any aflumed power exercifed by that houle alone, they 
would agree with him, “ that John Gale Jones mult be 
difeharged ;” with amotion for which purpofe fir Francis 
concluded. 
The Solicitor General faid, that the queftion before the 
houle was, Whether Jones, convidted on his own confef- 
fion and by the unanimous vote of the houfe of a grofs 
breach of privilege, (which contained in itleif a grols and 
fcandalous contempt.) and punilhed for his offence in the 
way that appeared molt fitting to the houfe, was guilty or 
not ? As far as the prefent practice could be traced, it 
was found to be legal and co.nftitutional. It was open to 
Jones to apply by petition ; and, for his own part, he 
might agree to his dilcharge in this way, the next mo¬ 
ment after difpoiing of the queftion as it now ftood ; 
but he would not, and he trufted the houfe w'ould not, re¬ 
lax now, after hearing the kind of arguments adduced by 
the honourable baronet. If they did, it would be faid that 
they yielded becaufe they doubted their own right. 
Sir Francis Burdett replied, that the legal meaning of 
contempt was that which throws obltruetion, in the way of 
the proceedings of any court ; but how were the proceed¬ 
ings of that houfe obltrubted.by a libel ? When fir Francis 
had ended his reply, the houfe divided: for the motion, 
14 ; again ft it, 153. 
On the 24th of March, there appeared in Ccbbet’s 
Weekly Political Regilter, a Letter inlcribed, “SirFrancis 
Burdett to his Condiments, denying the Power of the 
Houfe of Commons to imprifon the People of England 
accompanied with the argument by which he had endea¬ 
voured to convince the gentlemen of the houle of com¬ 
mons, that their a£i«, in the cafe of Mr. Jones, were illegal, 
— This publication was brought under the notice of the 
houfe of commons, on the 26th, by Mr. Lethbridge, at 
whofe defire the queftion was put.by the Speaker to fir 
Francis Burdett, whether he acknowledged himlelf to be 
the author? Sir Francis having anfwered in the affirma¬ 
tive, Mr. Lethbridge gave notice of a motion on the fub- 
jeff.—Next day, in confequence of this notice, Mr. Leth¬ 
bridge role, with a degree of pain and ent ban-ailment, 
which, he declared, he had never felt before, to make a 
complaint againlt one of the united commons.of Great 
Britain and Ireland, who, in his opinion, had violated 
the privileges of the houfe. He did not mean to enter 
upon'rbe lubjeff itfelf, but only to lay on the .table the 
document which the honourable baronet, who was the 
objedf of the motion he had to make, had admitted to 
have been publithed by his authority. For the purpofe of 
faving the time of the houfe, he had marked certain paf- 
lages in that document, which, in his opinion, more par¬ 
ticularly juftiiied him in the charge which he had pre- 
3 ferret! - 
