91 - `V • • , • . • • THE N ATION AT, R ISTER• members of the Committee, who pointed out the line of pc /titles of the paper. 1:1 regard to the character in which I.e wished to stand before their Lordships, the affidavits which he has produced must be considered exceedingly proper, as going back so far, eight and nine years, and ( cueing from such, per sons, they were entitled to every ,weight, which they would claim in vain, if they referred to a time subsequent to the offence ; for now it cannot be said that he has become loyal to answer a particular end, when it appears that this has always been his general character. But it had been objec ed, why he did not resign, rather than act in subservience to such persons ; but it should be considered, that this was the first time that the defendant fell into an error of this kind—that his means of sup port arose from. his employment. What, he says, is the de fendant thus circumstanced to do ?—(Lord ELLEN BUR OU GIL re plied from the Bench, to prefer duty to profit.) Mr. Marriott proceeded to extenuate his °Renee from his situation and his feelings, as a married man, and that his conduct, if at all to be excused, must find it as well in the subsequent conduct and cha racter of the Paper. Under his management it has become altogether a . GOvernment paper ; coupling this with the favour able report given of his client's general demeanour, be hoped it would operate as .a mitigation. It had been asked from tt.e. Bench, bad liar*ey offered any apology ? he answered no. He trusted, there re, that as Roche's conduct was different, it would meet a suitable return.—lt was a matter of great moment to his client to have his character re-established, which he hoped would be accomplished by haying it thus nroyed, that it was dear of moral, though net of legal guilt. If the faults of the Committee are to be voiced on the Defend a.et'a the legal end nn - a! guilt can not hero be separated. AnL! if for the se airity of the law - their inexorable sertence must be hurled against bins, a man of hij r , al character would be likely to bear that sentence with great submission. What ever mitigation he is entitled to he will he sure to meet with from British Judges, ai:d it wlll be as great as is consisteet with the ends of public justice. To this the Count bowed assent. Mr. Roche was remanded, and ordered to be brought up on IVionday next. • [RIDAY, Frß. 8. SIR FRANCIS BURDETT ) BART. V. THE WWI? .110 N. CHARLES ABBOTT. This was an action bronglet by Sir Francis Burdett, ban. against the defendant, who is Speaker of the. Idnuse of Commons. 'I he.declaration st ated, among other things, that the defendant had by his warrant'directed that the plaintiff should be arresttd, and be committed to the Tower of London, for a libel published' by him in Cebbett's Weekly Register, which, by a resolution of the House of Commons, was voted to be a libel on that House. That in obedience to that warrant, the house of the plaintiff was broke open by George Edward: Coleman, Es 2. Serjeant at Arms of the said House of Corr mons, assisted by a great number of armed soldiers ; and that the plaintiff being then and there arrested, was conveyed to the "lower, and it, the Tower falsely impeisoned. this declaration the defendant pleaded first the general' issue, that he was not guilty, as the said declaration stated, and for further plea so set forth, that as to the subsequent proceed ings after the issuing of the said warrant, as to the breaking and • entering the plaintiff's dwelling-house, he pleaded that he, the defendant, was himself a member of the House of Commons„- and Speaker of the said House ; that plaintiff had published a letter in Cobbett's Weekly Register, of the 24th of March 1316, reflecting on the rights of the House of Commons, whereupon the said Commons, by their resolution on a subsequent dabs, voted that the said Sir Francis Burdett was guilty of a . breach and violation orthe Rights and Privileges of the House of Conh e mons ; and they next resolved, that the said Sir Francis should. he committed to tht Tower for the same. The plea went on further to state, that the defendant, in pure uance of the said vote, and by command of the House of Com mons, isseed his warrant under his hand and seal, directed to the said Seijeent at Arms, and commanding him to arrest the said Sir Francis, and convey him prisoner to the Tower. That plaintiff was afterwards arrested, his doors being broke open, and subsequently conveyed to the Tower, where he was deli vered into the custody of the Deputy-Lieutenant thereof, and confined within the said - Tower. The pleas therefore to the , assault and false imprisonment were the same as to the issuing of the warrant, namely, the authority and custom of Parlia' ment, as exercised by the House of Commons. There was a demurrer to each of those pleas, and to each de murrer a reininder. Mr. Hr LROYD then proceeded, after reciting the special mat ters in the pleadings, to argue the demurrers. He observed that the drift of his reasoning should be directed to spew that these pleas were had, inasmuch as the defendant was not entitled . to plead the privileges of Parliament so as to take the jurisdic tion of this action out of the hands of the Judges, and next tes :thew that this was not a privilege of Parliament, but the privi-' lege of only one House of Parliament, and being, therefore, not a privilege of Parliament, cannot be noticed as a law, not being a law of the land, but a prtial privilege made by a vote of the House of Commons, and only of force till it should be by the like vote cancelled ; and the general conclusion which he snould . draw from the whole was, that the special pleas being bad, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment upon each of them against the defendant. • Having thus entered into the general outline of his system for maintaining the proprh ty of demurring to these pleas, in stead of joining issue upon them severally, he entered into a long and ingenious technical display of law learning exceedingly pro found and extensive upon pleading in general, and then as to this particular action and the pleadings therein. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to quote a multitude of creses with the view of shewing that the defendant cannot screen himself from the.eognizance of the law by any privilege of the House of Commons, that it is not constituted such by an Act of Parliament. In other words, that those privileges which either House of Parliament may make such by their respective resoe }anions, cannot go beyond the threshold of that individual House, any more than the private resolution of one Houie can hind the other House of Parliament, and therefore if the resolu tion of one House cannot bind the other House, much less could •it bind the general law of the land, which is superior to both Houses put together. The extent of the law argument, and which is termed black. letter learning, which this Gentleman manifested, would far exceed the limits of a weekly journal. He occupied the Court upward* of five hours. Lord ELLANIII6ROUGII thought it would not he convenient for the Court to hear the Attoruey-General in reply. The tither lwariug was therefore postponed. • THE KING V. PETER FINNERTY. ThiS defendont, who was remanded thi.: day week, on ac e ount of gross ieformality in the afPdavitl he produced in Court, was again brought t:p on the motion of the Attotney-(;eneral. He this day addressed the Bench, and said, in compliance with the advice of the I,ord Chief Justice, he had amended his ac!idavit ; hut it was found to be still so objectionable, and con toiiiing so much irrelevant matter, that it was ordered to be en tirely rejected, the Court giving it as its decisive opinion, that tlef..ndant could inn be suffered to go into a justification of a etynfqshvd crime, but that he must confine himself merely. to pleading for mitigation of punishment.—The defendant retorted tpon the Court, that he had shaped his conduct in his own case recisely on the model prescribed by the case of Col. Draper ; namely, that he intended to go into a history of the Govern trimt of Ireland, during the Administration of Lord Castlerf agh, and prove certain acts of cruelty, which were to be attributed 1:o Lord CastlereaoL—The Court had occasion to repeat its i,t.rse of the henropriety of the defendant's conduct, and over 'oil over again to inform him that such a line of conduct coUld rot be permitted in a Court ofJustice. It txas then asked if he t.ad any affidavits, which were feee from the same objections 1 The defendant put in Srd(Tal (Wier affidavits, but they were all - rejected, as tending to the same object, and all equally inadmis si•ole..-After several ineffectual at ttonpts to prevail on the Bench to receive his affidavits, the defendant addressed the Court in a sieo,ch, certainly of considerable ability, but r:•plete with matter inhnitely more strong than the libel which was the subject of the prosecution. The Court bad trequeot occasion, during his harangue, to repress the warmth of his expression.., and confine burn to matter more relev.,:nt to •,be subject ill question.—After the Attorney-Gonerul and Mr. arrow had severally spoken in support ofjuciement, the Court pmceeded to consider of the sentence, and after a very short consultation, Mr. ,lustire Gitosr 41diVPrel a suitable ron•ment do the enormity and malignity of his offence, and sent..need the defendant to be c.onfine(4 for 18 calendar months, in Ids Majesty's gaol in the city of Lincoln, and at the expiration of that teriod to.give security for his - rood behaviour fur five years, himself in 53:)1. and two stint; is ‘2501. each; and to tellUdli in custody until the same shall be given. In the mean time. to be committed to tile custody of the - Marshal of the Marshalsea. Mr. Finnerty..." I thank your Lordshtpsi" . • London : Printcd and Edited by E. ROCHE, and PubliThed by JOHN FISHER, No 5, Pickett-street, Strand, near Temple-Bar and forwarded ty all the Newsmen, the Clerkbof Roads, and Booksellers throughout tlieUsited kingdom, tree uf postage, int* tile Country ar BSc!, per (Drafter. 1. - • Jv