In addition to these arguments, there are others, which arise from the superior efficacy of a summary punishment for defending the dignity and independence of the House.

There have been many instances already, and many more will probably occur, when the publication of a libel on an individual Member may subject him to popular insult, or where that apprehension will deter him from the discharge of his duty.

The attainder of Lord Strafford, the most unjust and disgraceful act that ever received the sanction of the Legislature, was carried simply by the terror which resulted from posting up the names of its principal opponents, as enemies of their country.

By these means, even the bold spirit of Lord Capel was, intimidated, into what, in the last moments of his life, he repented, as a coward consent to what his conscience disapproved.

In all such instances, speedy and summary punishment is requisite; or before an example can be made, the mischief, which it is wished to prevent, will have attained its utmost degree.

If offences of this nature are to be proceeded against before other tribunals, the long delay which

I

which must intervene before they are brought to trial, render a severer punishment necessary, than would have been sufficient in the first instance, h over and w

9 If we look back at the precedents we shall perceive, that the imprisonment by order of the House, has, with very few exceptions, been of much shorter duration than would have been inflicted for like offences by the courts in Westminster Hall.

r

There are also many offences which it is highly necessary to notice, but of which those courts cannot take cognizance. The proceedings of the House or Parliamentary conduct of individuals, may be not only misrepresented, but falsified, without being so libelled as to be the subject of an indictment.

$ 10

เป

That which violates the privileges of the House, may also happen to fall within the legal definition of libel; but this is not necessarily the case. Such an instance occurred, but a few days since, the speech of one of the most respectable Members, and ablest constitutional lawyers, was misrepresented and ridiculed in a daily paper, and the House itself was described as receiving with derision the arguments of a per

son,

son, to whom it always listens with merited attention.

For this offence a suitable apology was made: had it been otherwise, this insult could not have been punished, but by the authority of the House. No indictment could have been drawn, no declaration framed, to meet this case. It struck at the privileges of the House, and by the House 7 batoj only could have been noticed. Ho

It is, indeed, only under the existence of such a privilege, that the practice of publishing the debates could subsist. Were this controul removed, the language of all public men would be continually misrepresented, not as now too frequently happenis, by error or inadvertence, but by wilful perversion, according to the violence of party, or malevolence of personabhostility. ng sdt etslor d

7

T

A

This must lead, of necessity, to a great public evil, to the closing the gallery of the House, and debarring the people from all means of fearning through the press, the conduct of their representatives, and of "correcting any misconceived opinions of public affairs, by the superior information and judgment of those by whom they are discussed in Parliament, oraino

12

Y

It

It is further to be remarked, that without this power, every inquisitorial function of the House must be nugatory. No witness could be compelled to attend; or if he attended to answer! questions which might be asked him, unfettered by the restraint of an oath, he might relate any falsehood which he chose, secure, even if dela tected, from the possibility of punishment?? nogi

It is difficult to imagine, what reason can be urged, why the House of Commons should not be entrusted with a power, which it has been found necessary to grant to every court of record in the kingdom.ng yom ber

હતું .

The importance of its functions, the dignis ty which it is necessary should belong to it, and the relation in which it stands, both to the King lady 20 and the people, seem at least equally to call for its being surrounded with all those means, which are necessary to to maintain its independence, from whatever quarter it may be assailed. ad

H

Recourse has been had, indeed, in this case, to the trite argument drawn from the possibility of abuse, an argument which would be of equal validity to disprove the expediency of any other heist 97 de spuide to 0-1£ possible

possible power entrusted to any human autho rity to

V

rest

The acts of all governments, the sentences. of all tribunals, must at last be referred to the judgment of fallible men. Checks may be provided references to other courts may be be estab. lished but, their ultimate decision must a upon some human power of unappealable autho rity, and that power is, in our constitution, committed to the High Court of Parliament, Unลาน ) questionably, this, like every other supreme authority, may abuse its powers.

The Lords may give false judgment in civil cases; nay, in impeachments, acquit notorious offenders. The Commons may so exercise their inquisitorial functions, as to produce vexation to inno cence, and impunity to guilt; and the whole Legislature may grossly abuse all the powers with which it is entrusted for the public benefit.

TO

If it be asked, whether the Court of King's Bench must not grant relief, if the House were to vote any action, perfectly innocent, to be a breach of privilege, and on those grounds to imprison, we would enquire, in return, in return, whether, in the other cases, also, of abuse, above stated,