want of fidelity in the report. Now, if it were allowable to punish a man for publishing a trial, he could not see why others might not be punished for reading it when published: nay, that any one who happened to speak of whatever occurred in court, after the interdict of the judges against publication was issued, should not also become the subject of punishment. The principle upon which this fine was levied, was indeed such, that according to it there could be no end to the doctrine of contempt. But there was in fact no precedent whatever to sustain this principle. In any of the higher courts of Westminster-hall, an attachment could be issued to bring any party before it, who was conceived guilty of contempt; but no such power belonged to any court of quarter sessions, or special commission. The authority of such courts did not extend beyond its own limits as to contempt. The special commission alluded to had not, in his judgment, any right to call a party before it for contempt of its order out of court, and having no right to call any party, it had no power to hear that party in his defence, and consequently no right to inflict the penalty to which he referred. Sir F. Blake objected to this petition as being too inflammatory; but he begged it to be understood, that he was a decided advocate for the right of petitioning upon proper subjects and in adequately strong language; and what language could be stronger than nolumus leges Angliæ mutari? From his solicitude for the right of petitioning he had voted last night, for referring the petition respecting the misconduct of the sheriff of Dublin to a select committee; for if such outrages were overlooked, he should not be surprised to find another Cromwell taking military possession of that House. Lord Castlereagh observed, that as no doubt appeared to be entertained upon the legality of the judge's conduct to which the petition referred, and as the court of King's-bench had solemnly adjudged that conduct to be correct, he saw no reason why that House should at all enter into the subject. If a defendant availed himself of the indulgence afforded him of making his own defence to commit fresh crimes, was his attempt to be tolerated of committing still further crimes, in the shape of a petition to that House? It would be quite inconsistent with the sober exercise of the right of petitioning to The right allow conduct of this nature. of petitioning was a privilege which could never be brought into question except by its own abuse. It was proper, that on this occasion, the House should express its opinion of such attempts, as there appeared a growing disposition, on the part of the public, to drag every subject before the House-a disposition which was fed by the facility with which members lent themselves to present their petitions. As this was the case, he could not do better than call the attention of members to the way in which the House had been engaged during the month they had sat. More than half that time had been employed in discussing petitions from various places. He meant those applications to the jurisdiction of the House, in matters in which it afterwards appeared that the House, in the exercise of its discretion, decided that it ought not to interfere. He thought this ought to be a caution to gentlemen not to be too ready to listen to such applications as the present; and that when made to them, it ought to be pointed out when the cases were such as the House should not interfere with. The present was a case in which as it appeared to him, the House could not do better than to mark its sense of such applications by not allowing the petition to be brought up. Mr. J. P. Grant said, that it was too much for any minister to talk of admonishing the people upon the exercise of their inalienable and most sacred right, or that the time of the House was misapplied in discussing their petitions. As to the petition under discussion, he could not decline voting for its reception, upon the ground that it referred to the conduct of a judge; feeling, as he did, that it was competent to that House to take cognizance of the conduct of any judge, however high his character. Lord Castlereagh explained. If the House permitted the petition to be brought up, it would be an admission that the subject of it was matter fit for the consideration of the House. Mr. Bright said, that this was not to be regarded as a mere question of legality, but as an appeal to that House upon its great constitutional privilege, according to which, it was competent and imperatively bound to superintend the proceedings of the judges, and to watch with jealousy the manner in which justice was administered. It was known, indeed, from history, that judges had often acted wrong, and by that House they had been set right. But where was the remedy for mal-administration on the part of the judges, if that House, acting upon the false delicacy of which he had heard too much that night, should decline to interfere upon any charge against a judge? He did not mean to say that Mr. Justice Best had acted wrong, or that that judge would not be able to justify his conduct in argument; but this he would maintain, that he would find it difficult to do so upon precedent. There was not, he believed, any one precedent for such a proceeding, as a judge inflicting three fines on an individual under such circumstances. The fact of his afterwards remitting them was, in his mind, an admission that he had been wrong. If this was to be considered the law, the people of England should be informed of it; the House of Commons should know it, in order that a remedy might be applied. If this doctrine of inflicting immediate punishment for alleged contempt were to be acted upon, it would lead to most horrible aggression. It should be considered whether a discretionary power should be given, which might be exercised at the very moment when the feelings of the party exercising it were roused. If this were to be held as law, it was a most dangerous one, and a remedy for it could not be too speedily applied. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he thought they were such as justified the petitioner to make the present application; which, in his mind, ought to be embraced, in order to set the matter at rest. Mr. Hutchinson said, it was not to be endured, that a minister of the Crown should declare, that a petition complaining of a grievance should not be brought up. Was it not too much that it should be assumed that the petitions of the people were so immoral, seditious, and blasphemous, that they ought not even to be heard? Lord Castlereagh said, it was true he was a minister of the Crown, but he was also a member of parliament, and he had yet to learn that he was to be precluded from offering any observations to the House, upon any subject before it. If there was to be no discussion allowed upon the question of bringing up a petition, it was unnecessary to have it put to the House from the Chair. Lord Althorp expressed a wish to have the doors of that House thrown wide VOL. IV. open for the reception of the petitions of the people. As to the language of a petition, he thought the House should not object to any strength of expression which naturally arose out of the case of a petitioner, for otherwise a case of great oppression or injustice could not be adequately described; but he would object to any strong language which was not strictly relevant to the matter of complaint. Mr. Wynn thought, that a complaint of a decision in the court of King's-bench, was not a fit subject for a petition to that House. He was far from maintaining, that the conduct of a judge might not be so flagitious and unconstitutional as to be a fit subject of parliamentary inquiry. If any member was satisfied that such had been the conduct of the judge in the present case, the proper course would be, either to lay a charge upon the table by way of impeachment, or to propose an address to the Crown for his removal. If the House sanctioned the present application, where would they draw the line? Mr. Bernal would put it to the noble lord, whether the present was the time when they should discourage the petitions of the people. In the present state of the public feeling he would open the doors of the House as much as possible to their petitions. Mr. Huskisson said, that the general practice on presenting petitions was, to state their nature and object, in order to let the House see whether they were such as ought to be received. The reading of the petition would inform the House of the language; but the matter should be stated before it was brought up, and the House would decide on that matter. He understood that the present petition contained a charge against one of the judges, that the petitioner had been illegally fined by him, and that the judge having thus gained his end of preventing his defence, had remitted the fine. Now this was a gross charge; and the question was whether they would receive a petition which was admitted to contain a libel. Mr. Denman.-I did not say it was libellous. Mr. Huskisson maintained, that if the petition contained this charge, it was a libel, and it ought not to be received. It had been said that if this petition was not received, the House would be shutting its doors against the petitions of the people; but he contended, that the rejection of 30 such petitions would be a benefit to the people. Sir R. Fergusson said, that the plain question before the House was, whether this petition should be rejected unheard, and unread? If the language of a petition was decorous and respectful, it was a matter of course that it should be read; if afterwards it appeared to be inadmissible, it was in the discretion of the House to receive or reject it. Mr. G. Bankes thought that the petition ought to be rejected. The learned gentleman had said, that he was not prepared to propose any ulterior step. Besides the petition contained an imputation against a learned judge which was false upon the face of it. Though he did not stand up in that House as the advocate of the learned judge, and it would be unbecoming in him to assume that character yet he could not help regretting that the name of that venerable person had been brought before the House, in a manner so much to be deprecated. which could not properly be inquired into in that House. The charge against the learned judge was no less, than that he had interrupted the petitioner in his defence, for the purpose of obtaining an illegal verdict against him; and that, having effected his object, he remitted the fines which had been imposed upon him. He thought the House was bound to reject a petition in which so flagrant an offence was imputed to the venerable judge, without the slightest foundation. Sir J. Newport said, it had been urged that the administration of justice was not a fit subject for the control of that House, for what purpose, then, was the committee of justice appointed every session? He trusted that whatever might be the opi nion of the House as to its admissibility when they heard the petition read, no objection would be made to it being brought in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the only petitions which were received as a matter of course in that House, were election petitions. All other petitions were liable to be received or rejected as that House thought fit, and it would be found, upon reference to the Journals, that the House, had exercised that discretion in a variety of instances. Indecorous language was a good ground of rejection, and in this case the language was admitted not only to be indecorous, but libellous. It contained an imputation upon a learned judge which was believed to be false by the learned gentleman who presented it. Mr. Curwen trusted, that whenever a judge was found corrupt enough to pervert the laws, there would never be wanting bold and independent men in that House, who would bring their conduct before parliament. He rejoiced that the subject had been brought before the House; he was before disposed to think not very favourably of the conduct of the learned judge, but this discussion had satisfied him that his conduct had been perfectly correct. It was the right of the people to complain to that House of the conduct of courts of justice. If, when the petition should be read, it should be found to impute to the learned judge, a desire to obtain a conviction, then he would concur in rejecting it. When the noble lord talked of reading a lesson to the people of England, not to come to that House with their complaints, did he consider the consequences of the people being compelled to look for redress by other means at the expense of the constitution? There was a point he would not say where-but there was a point, at which resistance was a virtue and a right; and if the petition were re-lous, there was an end to the doctrine of fused to be brought up, the moment at impeachment; for how would it be possiwhich we should arrive at that point ble to impeach, if no charge could be would be accelerated. made, which, in the event of its being disSir C. Long said, that what he under-proved might turn out to be libellous? stood his noble friend to mean was, that he was desirous of admonishing the people not to present petitions upon subjects Mr. Denman said, he had never stated that the petition contained a libel on the learned judge; he had said, indeed, that it contained a charge against him, which, knowing the learned judge as he did, he did not believe to be true; but, if the man believed the charge to be true, he had a right to state it in his own language, and if parliament was a part of the constitution he had a right to lay his grievances before that House, and if necessary, have an opportunity of proving them. If no charge was to be entertained by that House, because, if false, it might be libel An hon. gentleman thought that no petition ought to be received unless some specific measure were founded upon it; forgetting that it was a breach of privilege | to point out any specific measure in petitioning parliament. But in point of fact, he had pointed out two specific measures, for he had stated that the matter might either be referred to the grand committee of justice, or to a particular committee which might judge of the expediency of founding some legislative measure upon it, with a view of limiting the excessive powers of courts of law, in cases of contempt. The attorney general had said, somewhat invidiously, that he had not ventured to express any doubt of the legality of fining for contempt. On the contrary, he entertained the strongest doubts whether the expressions of the petitioner were such as justified the learned judge in imposing the fines. At all events, it was a fit subject of inquiry by that House, whether in a particular case, a venerable judge acting without precedent, had or had not overstepped the powers vested in him by law. 64. The House divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, vernment, had, entirely changed this system. A variety of useless offices had been created, or at least filled, by the friends of ministers. Although the militia was not embodied, four inspectors had been appointed with considerable salaries; and one of them, the hon. colonel Stewart, had since he received the appointment, been travelling about, or amusing himself in this country. This was surely contrary to the intention and spirit of the treaties. With regard to the military staff, it was everywhere overgrown, but was nowhere more easily reducible than in these islands. But the civil officers had also, he understood, received an increase to their salaries; and the allowance to the chief of the senate had been raised from 4,000 to 8,000 dollars. Whilst 44,000 dollars had been charged to us for the necessary repairs of fortifications at Santa Maura, a splendid palace was now building, which would not cost less than 80,000. What rankled in the minds of the natives was, that whilst many young men, he might say boys, from this country, were receiving 500l. or 600l. a year, their own biIONIAN ISLANDS.] Mr. Hume rose, shops, in consequence of the change in pursuant to notice, to bring under the church property, were receiving stipends consideration of the House several parti- of 150l. per annum. The order which culars relative to the state and revenue of had been instituted there, called the order the Ionian Islands. Whilst the attention of St. George, and which would lead to of parliament was so justly called to the an expense of 40,000 dollars in brilliants, means of effecting a reduction of our pub- had, instead of being conferred upon lic expenditure, he was persuaded that the most deserving natives, been conthe colonial department was that in which fined to the friends of the noble lord, an immediate saving might be most easily and of sir Thomas Maitland, or those who made. This he should take an opportu- had rendered themselves subservient to nity of proving most satisfactorily in the the British government. His motion would course of the session, but he should con- show what was the necessity under which fine himself that night to a few circum- Great Britain had been called upon to stances relative to the Ionian Islands. pay 130,000l. in consequence of the cesThey could not be considered in every sion of Parga. It was charged against the point of view as colonies, but as a state in lord-high-commissioner, that whereas, bea great measure dependent upon us. We, fore his arrival, the civil officers of the in fact, had the direction of their affairs, state had been looked upon as offices of and had bound ourselves to make good honour, and were filled, like those of our the deficiencies of their revenue; or, in own magistrates, without any emolument, other words, to pay whatever excess of he had thought proper to allow salaries expenditure might arise, or be created, to them all, and had greatly increased by ourselves. The hon. member here allowances to others; the effect of which took a rapid review of the affairs of these was, to swallow up and appropriate the islands since the treaty of Paris, by which whole of the Ionian revenue. By this their independence was acknowledged. means all those offices became dependent Their revenue had originally been ade- upon the high-commissioner; and the quate to all the charges upon it, and their very judges might be removed at his disgovernment was conducted upon the cretion. The natives had found in our principles of a regular and systematic eco-protection none of those blessings which nomy. But the presence of a British they were taught to expect; but the adforce, and the influence of the British go- ditional taxes, and, above all, the exac tions levied without any other authority but the commissioner himself, had produced deep irritation, and had already led to many disastrous consequences. The House would not do its duty if it gave a single shilling of the money of Great Britain to maintain civil or military establishments in the Ionian Islands, without knowing how the local revenue of these states was managed and expended. He begged leave to say, that he spoke of the lord-high-commissioner only as a pub. lic man; as he knew him only in his public capacity. He entertained no personal feeling towards him, as he possessed no personal knowledge of his character. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, for à detailed abstract of the revenue and expenditure, both civil and military, of the Ionian Islands during the years 1817, 1818 and 1819. was directed into the public treasury' It was true that they were formerly considered as gratuitous, but now they were compulsory. He denied the confiscation of church property for the use of the public chests. The truth was, that one of the first acts of the administration of sir T. Maitland was a bill to restore to its origi. nal destination church property, which, during the different previous transfers of the islands, had been confiscated by successive governments, and vested in individuals. Hence one cause of the tumults in Zante, excited by the persons interested in withholding from the church its due. Another cause was, the delusion spread by the same persons that the militia was to be sent to our West India plantations.-On the subject of the increase of salaries, the hon. member had been betrayed into great error. For instance, he had stated the salary of the lord-highcommissioner to be 2,000l. a year, when in fact it was only 1,000l. The hon. gentleman had also observed, that sir T. Maitland had filled his staff with his own relations.. This was the first time he had understood that lord Sidney Osborne, sir F. Hankey, &c. were connec tions of sir T. Maitland. With regard to the next charge against sir T. Maitland, that he had prevailed upon the senate and legislature to build him a palace, it was equally ill-founded. A palace was a grand word, but palazzo did not always imply our idea of a palace, being a phrase often for a house. The House would scarcely believe that the alleged ostentation of the lord-high-commissioner should have been hitherto satisfied with one bed-room and a sitting-room for his secretary. This was all his palace. His dining-room was appropriated to the senate during its sittings, and his drawingroom was the hall for the legislative assembly. The only rooms which he held Mr. Goulburn said, that it had formerly been the practice to call for papers first, and to discuss them afterwards if granted; or if they were refused, to show from the best sources that could be applied to, that there existed grounds for demanding them. The hon. gentleman had reversed that order; and, even when there existed every disposition to grant him the documents required, proceeded on imperfect or erroneous statements, when by waiting a little longer he might have obtained official and certain information as the basis of his reasoning. He proceeded to state facts in a motion for papers without waiting to see whether the papers might not falsify his facts. To this novel mode of proceeding he must strongly object; for whatever the hon. gentleman might say about his unwillingness to cast imputations, the effect of his speech was, to cast the greatest imputations when he accused the lord high-commissioner of facts which showed that he pampered his vanity and increas ed his patronage, to the oppression of the inhabitants, and the detriment of the pub-exclusively were two, his bed-room and a lic service. The right hon. gentleman then room for his secretary; and on occasion proceeded to answer thedifferent statements of the opening of the sessions, instead of Mr. Hume's speech; and contended, that of a splendid procession, the lord-highso far as they impeached the character of commissioner, in giving an account of the the lord-high-commissioner, they were un- ceremony, said, "I stepped out of my founded. He admitted a great increase of bed-room into the senate-house of the revenue and expenditure; but the in-states. The next thing, brought in the creased revenue arose from a better sys- shape of a charge, was, the star of the tem of collecting the taxes, and not from order of St. Michael, worth 40,000 crowns, the imposition of new burdens. The re- which was voted to the governor; but the venue now appeared greater, because it fact was, that, as the hon. gentleman had was not diverted into the private chan- doubled the salary, he now quadrupled nels in which it formerly flowed but the value of the star, for it was not worth |