Star. — London, England, 1816-05-09 00:00:00

-. I .. PitRL.IOIMENTARr PIIOCEBDINGS: HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY s. Conned were beard in continnatine and finally, respecting the Scots Cause, " Majendie w. Carruthers." "Judgment postponed. • .1* the Beats Appeal of " Carmichael s t . Gibson," Counsel wets partly bear!. •n. yrocerd again on Ftlday. ' • The Earl of LAU OE presented a Counter Petition 'rpm General Gyott, in consequence of that before theft Lord. Alps, from Mee l).ott, against their Divorce Bill, in its pre sent shape, setting forth a d.fferent statement with respect to , the Property, Setilement, Ac. sad praying that the Bill may be slowed to proceed. • The kORD CHANCEL I.OR suggested the propriety of their Lordships having prout in support of the allegations, and in that view moved, that the farther coosideration of the whole ease should stand over till Friday. Ordered accordingly, and the Pe-, titioo was ordered to lie on the Table: The West Cowes Paving and Lighting, and the Woolwich, Fri ry Bills, were read a second time, and ordered to the cond.. decagon of Outdoors Committees. l'he Agent, Proctor, and two other witnesses being in at• tendance, were shortly questionAl at the Bar, rel#tive to the present residence of lady Abdy, in reference to Sir William Abdy 's birocce Bill, now before the House. It appeared, that• thelAdy was not long•sinte in Paris, from a letter recently re ceived from her, dated io that city, sod which was sworn to be her baud-writing. In the result k was ordered. on.the motion of the LORD CUANCLL2OI, that the-service on the Proctors, of the necessary notice, ace. on Lady Abdy, should be deemed a god service. An Account of the number of 1 lollies taken out at. the Stamp-Mike, authorizing Country Banks to issue Promissory Notes within a certain period, was presented at the Bar, by Mr. Sawaot, of the Stamp-Other, pursuant-to an Order of the . Hausa The Cotton Export Prohibition, and tha fbeitims Tenses purtadon Bills, were Wought up from the (riot amine by me. Baoonas and others, and read aam time. ' • • The Cork Duty, and tie Additional Tonnesiopities giereieverally pawed through Committees of 11w whole House, and were reported without any Amendment. • The remaining huh (chiefly private) bring got through, the Rouse pdjonnied till tomorrow (• his day). HOUSE OF COMMONS. Accounts were'presenteti of the number of persons prosecuted by the Bank for forging Bank -notes, in the last four years: from the Tax and But-Offices, Accousitx.of Exchequer Bins, licc. GetteraITHORNTON gave notice, that he should to-morrow move for an Account of the Expense' of Prosecuting perms for forging Bank notes, in the last four years. Mr. THORNTON said be should oppose the motion of the Honourable Grotty!, because it would give an iufluity of trouble, without answering any isesul purpose. Sir JOHN NewPotcr postponed the second reading of the Irish Landlords' and Tenants Bill till Friday next. Several Petitions were presented from Tanners in different tarts against the loather Tax. The Wrought Goods Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. MARRYAT r presented a Petition, signed by about AO persons, Sidpsowners, in favour of the Ramsgate Harbour Bill. Mr. BARING corrected an error into which be bad been led, when this Bill was before the House, in consequence of mishu. formation he had received, .respeaing a respectable Meeting of the Ship-owners of Ramsgate who had signed the Petition in fa vour of the Bill. These Gentlemen bad been described as form hug a Society for I.,sigring Transports, to evade the Stamp Duty; but they were not of this descriptiou. Ilse statement bad given offence to a r...spectable body of men, sad he therefore took the earliest opportunity of correcting the error. Sir SAMUEL. ROMILLY gave notice, that on Tuesday next be should submit a motion on the state of the Protestant. in the South of France. BANK PROFITS. Mr. GRENFELL said he should move, in the course of thi. Session, for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of the 4Sth of the present reign, for the purpose of causing the Bank to make a consi derable reduction in its profits for the management of the National Debt. He should also make another motion, on the subject of the unclAisintai <fielders*, unleis the Right Honourable Gentboons opposite brought forward the plan wl.ich he intimated he bad in contennilation upon this subject. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, that on Friday next he should submit a nos sure to the House on the last-mentioned subject. On the Motion of the COAKCELLOR Of the EXCHIE QMILitt the farther consideration of the Report ots the Busk Restriction 11 was postponed till this day se'unight. COMMUTATION OP TITHES. Mr. CU R.WEN, on rising to move for certain do cuments relative to proceedings in the Court of Ex chequer in Tithe Causes, prefaced his motion by a series of pointed observations on the injurious ten dency of the present Tithe System, which was in applicable to the distressed condition of agriculture, and had ,a tendency greatly to degrade the character of the Clergy .them.elves, and thus to injure the 4stablisliment. No persons had so great an interest In tie commutation of Tithes as the Clergy, and be hoped that what he had to propose to the House would tend to lessen and prevent those litigations which were now too frequent. The object of his first motion would be to bring into view the conduct of the Court of Exchequer respecting Tithe Causes, which he thought to be iontrary to the esublished lases, and injurious to the security of property. The Honourable Gentleman took a review of the dissen sions which- prevailed on this subject between the Court of King's Bench and the Ecclesiastical Court, in the reign of James I. when it was determined that all Tithe causes should be decided by a jury. but tin present assumption of deciding on Tithes by the Court of Exchequer was contrary to law, and at tended with injustice and oppression, while it encou regal litigatiust. He believed diet !hove one hun dred' Tithe causes were now depending in the Court of Exchequer. These disputes were of the most pernicious tendency, as they not only created divisions an parishes, where the Clergy ought to be respected, but gave rise to caiumnies against them, and thus afforded to the Sectaries a very great advantage.— Could the House imagine that pine-apples had ever bean a subject of litigation with respect to tithes ? They were no snore the produce of the earth than the web in the mannfuctory. But such was the con duct of the Clergy, in many instances, that it became high time for the House to interfere, in order to ye store the Tithe System, to what it was by law origi nal); intended. He should therefore move, a That here be laid before the House a Copy of the first de cision made by the Court of Exchequer, in the year 1687, on the subject of moduses or composition for Tithes. Also for Accounts of the number of Tithe Causes instituted by the Clergy, and now_pending in . the Court of Exchequer, distinguishing the time when they vivre commenced, as well as an account of the number decided within the last seven years. The Motion, after a few words from Lord Cum,- stain's, who did not oppose is, was agreed to. Ria'aßM IN PARLIAMENT. f. BURDETT moved for leave to present a Petition from Eifbarchass, in Rtnfrewshire, on the subject of Reform.. Lord MILTON said be could not omit this op. roluetity of mills a fcw reacti s ks on the sob acct of a Petition of a silleeier ottluer Jews nighty ego, from the I." which time he did not liappeit to was stated.t• hers been signed by respectable persons, inhabitants had been requested by many of inhabitants of that town, to deny their part, of the Petition. Althonio . nut .go the length of saying that the contents of the Pau• tion mightnos deserve the attention of the House, yet he must state what had come to his knowledg respecting its. origin. In the year 1812, that part of the country was in a state of great alarm and agftao lion. from which it was now-happily relieved. ' At that time. a venerable patriarch in the cause of top form (Majdr Cartwright)visited Huddenfield,haviog with him several printed copies of the very Petition that was now presented to the House. This was its origin, and it was singular that it should be presented to the House three years after the time when the sig. DAWNS were first solicited fot it. All he wished was that it ehould not be considered as coming fromthe most respectable inhabitants of that populous town. Lord LASCELLES bore testimony to what had been said by the Noble Lord, with regard to the uri. gin of the Petition. He held in his hand a letter, which he read, by permission of the House. It was signed by. twenty-four of the most respectable inha bitants of that towni•who, after adverting to the nn• happy outrages that bad convulsed it, stated the ar rival of Major Cartwright amongst them, at the very' time when the bodies of the murderers of the late H4rafall had ban brought there; that he col. hated see or twelve persons of similar sentiments with himself, and on being taken before a Magistrate. on suspicion of his visit being of a seditious tendency, he had stated that he had a bundle of printed peti tions, with which he was going about the country. for the purpose of procuring signatures. The main object ot• the letter was to declare that those who signed it, knew nothing ,of the Petition that had been preheated to the House, and declaring that nu public meeting had been convened for.the purpose. Sir FRANCIS BURDET r said, that all lie knew of the subject in question was, that the petition had been seat to him to present, signed by 10,30 g persons, and he had used his discretion in presen ting it. The petition from Kilbarchan was then ordered to lie on the table. Mr. H. AUDINGTON brought up a Bill to amend the Acts of the 59th and 4t)th of his present Majesty, respecting the custody of detained persons charged with offences, which was read a first Um,. LORD PIIASIDENT Of SCOTLAND. Sir FRANCIS BUR.DETT said he had soother petition to present of a totally different nature. It eras against the conduct of the Lord President of the Court of Session, in the case of a Lady of high re spectability. who prayed the interference of the House ; she having been deprived by the decisies of that Court of the guardianship of her children. It Was a case of great importance, as involving the ad ministration on justice. and therefore, if received, it WAS not likely that it would be long suffered In lie on the table without farther notice. The. SNEAKER. having asked the Hen. Baronet what was the prayer of the petition Sir FRANCIS 81111.4.)Err said he could not. irate the particulars from meeneey, but this pre y- . peered to be, that the House would interfere to bring back the guardianship of her children, so that they might be placed under the protection of the Court of Chancery iu England.. It also accused the Lord President of injustice and oppression. Lord OSSULSTON seconded the motion, that be .might have an opportunity, when the petition bad been read, of refuting the calumnies it contained. Lord CASTLEREAGH said the House ought to be cautions how they lent themselves to a moose which would mislead the sobject. If it was supposed that the House would inteifere in the administration of the course of justice, that course would become' disturbed and contused. It there was no charge in the petition of the great Law Officer in question having committed malversation or oppression in the exercise of his high office, and if such charges were, not borne out by a statement of facts in the petition. the House ought nut to interfere. it, however, it were allowed to be read, he begged he might MI be 'understood as giving his suppbrt to it. Sir JOHN NEW4ORT contended that its com plaining of great injustice and oppression on the. part of a high Law °Cheer, was a sudicient reason for its , being attended to. Some farther conversation ensued, in which Mr.' BROLIOLIAII, Mr. W. Dusthait. and Sir A. Hon par ticipated, it was agreed that the petition should be brought up nnd read. It began by stating, that Melinda, widow of the late Colonel George Colebrook., was left by her bus. band in 1809, sole guardian to their two daughters, with a jointure of Et2tlo a year, besides property to .l the amount of £lB,OOO in the New River Company, and £5OO a year for the education and support of .each of the children: that she afterwards soarriitl. j again, and, at the suggestion of her present ha t band ) ? prayed the Court of Session to remove her childrenl from her guardianship. It then accused the Lord '1 President of using coarse and calumnious language to her, and charging her with being such %corrupter ofj the morals of her children that it was proper eend 1 them under better costronl ; that he carried his per-, secution so far as to prevent professional gentlemen from affording her assistance, that he threatened.her with five years imprisonment, and afterwards commit ' bid her from March till Novemeer ; that he called on the children to give up their mother, as•she was an abandoned woman, and that she' was finally' com pelled not to correspond with them. The petition, after many.otber details, went on to argue on the in justice and oppressions of this conduct, delaying the truth of the allegations against her, and praying the. interposition ofthe House to procure for her redress. Lord OSSULSTON strongly reprobateil this con duct of the petitioner... The interlocutor stated that she was not a proper persqp to be intrusted with the , guardianship of her childsen, and the children bad tie desire to return to the custody of their usether l . 'She was justly attached and punished for comp* of Court, having made,in defiant* of, the Order of the Court, as attack, by force Of arms&and at . aight.oon the house in which the children wore, for the piarii+ of taming them out of the kingdom. •• •• •• - Mr. GRANT staioure - the Mouse srooldoot suffer is *am to lie an the table; 'Um argued , adored tortulitting pinitifted the wandua of , could not act on his own that there was not one word authorized the inference of ,cor was nothing of more impor to bpen u doors to the pi felt themselves aggrieved,. ~es they arraigned the Aficial administration of justice, without bearing nut their charges by facts.— But it ought to shut its doors against all loose alle gations of this nature. Lord BINNING rejoiced that the Noble Lord and the. Honourable Gentleman, had been beforehand ' 'with him 'in did jusacatiun of the conduct of the lord President, who, he was proud to say, from the knowledge he had of him through his near connexion with Hasa*, was totally incapable of any of the allegations aide against him ; but, above all, be knew him to be at utterly incapable as any man who *vlr lived of exercising oppression over an unfortu nate and defenceless woman. The Huuse of Lords was open to the appeal of this Lady, and he wasalmost sorry the Petition had been brought up and read.— He should now move, " That the Petition be re- jectecl." •Lord COMPTON said, the Petitioner, by her se cond marriage, had, according to the law of Scot land, given up the guardianship of her children. Mr. HORNER stated, the impression on his mind was, that the Learned Judge, who had had a diti , cult task to perform, had not only done his duty, but had appeared aninsatect by an affectionate conceru tot tlsq welfare of.the petitioner and her daughters. He thought it right to state this an the present occut:on, and the more so as he should on a future day have to animadvert on the tone of a report made by that person to the House, which to ham (Mr. Horner) appeared by no means what it ought to have been. The ATTORNEY GENERAL took this oppor tunity of saying, that printed papers on • the subject of the proceedings in Scotland on this question, had beer. forced upon him. ft the practice which he had mentioned were continued, he wished the parties to understand, it would not be suffered to pass un noticed. Sir F. BURDETT, in reply, asserted nothing had been advanced that proved the Petition ought to be rejected. He contended the facts brcught before them made in favour of the character of the Lady, and thought the only question on which they had to decide was, whether the petition contained any alle gations, true or false, that came properly under the cognizance of the House? Suckanegations he thought it contained, and therefore he could not help being of opinion, the petition ought to be received; and it it were permittkd to lie on the table, he should cer tainly move that some other steps should be taken on the 'batter of it. Mr. BROUGHAM made a few observations on the reply of the Honourable Baronet, which were briefly answered by Sir F. BURDETT ; after which, the motion for the Petition being laid 6:1 the table was negatived. The question on the rejection of it was then put and carried. Lord COMPTON presented a petition from Nor thampton against the Leather Tag. Ordered to lie on the table. A new Writ was ordered forWarmick, in the room of LOrd Bruelio vatted up to the House of reefs. • • ,t a bwCeart was folly of nea wh~ak • .preilioner forflegogempt , • bir in the Lord Presiient, who c sy upwards of I • • isbority and insisted th4l snt that tows. He, the petition which author the most respectable rapt motives. There was ny all knowlcclige, on ,taneethsn for the Holum ti though he would nut titian of all persons-who LIBERTY or THE PRESS. Mr. BROUGHAM, in rising to mike the motion of which he had given notice, respecting the Liberty of the Press, claimed the indulgence of the House for the statement which he should have to make, on account of the magnitude of the subject. The im portance of the privileges connected with a free press were so well khown, that he should not say one word respecting then. ; his object was to prove, that the laws by which that liberty was seemed were ca pable of amendment. In. shewing the necessity of an alteration in the law, it was not enough to make it appear that there was an absurdity in the letter of the law, without going a step further, and strewing that practical inconvenience did result, had resulted, er was likely to result from it ; because nothing would be less wi* than to attempt to legislate for the pur pose of removing an apparent inconsistency merely. It WAS necessary for him to guard against another error into which sumo persons had fallen, as to the improvement of the la*, which was the supposition that all that was necessary was to revert Co the juris prudence of former times, or what were called by those persons the purer times of our Constitution. — He mentioned this argument because it was urged by persons of great respectability and profoind know ledge, but at was an unfortunate prejudice, MS it tended to throw discredit on their attempts, and formed an answer to their plans of improvemein.— For his own part he thought that, with one el two , exceptions, our Constitution was never in a better state than now, except in one or two instances, in whkh it was best to try to remove its blemishes., Another error which had arisen from the nature the' press was a supposition that its liberty could be se cured bj . law k defining libel ; similar to that by which I ciiiiiructiveireaions Lad beln . abolished—how to de fine treason was perhaps au easy task, and though possibly the law of Edward HL had drawn too lien :ow a Line by **raining treason to the levying war against the Kit* or conspiring against his lite, it was a prodigious ittiprovement, compared with the laW by which so many multifarious offences were visited' by the terrible punishment attached to that crime. Bat in an attempt to define libel, if it were said that alihel was an attack on the character of the Sovereign, it re mained to be explained what was an at tack nn character. The truh was, that it was best left to common sense to dui& what was ap attack on character, and cen sequently a libel. The chief injustice under which persons prosecuted for libel at present lalwitred was, that it was of no consequeuce, en the trial of his cause, whether the whole of the writing alledged to be a libel was truth from beginning, to end, or an arrant false ' hood.—Now though whetter a statement was true or false, did not altogether determine the guilt or inno cence of the writer, let it Was orimportance• to take it into account in weighing the motives of the writer. To say that a Minister of State deserved impeach ' meat, or that A. B. was goilty , of felony, might be perActly tree, but the writer might be actuated by nothing but malice, and might, therefore, be guilty of a libel.—Unless the opponents to his argument were prepared to say that them wasno yossiote case In which the cinestion . of Guilty or Not Guilty could be aimed by the truth Is faluitood °Abe libel s and that it was not at all material to the issue Court was trying then they must con 03n. In his opinion it was moat mat( Court should have before it evidente falsehootl, together with another &cunt could in any way elucidate the at eller. now stood, however, such a practice w; He did not mean to say that t h e l aw now from what it always. hod been. II alteration had tarn place, it was in m; extreme 'rigour upon the snbject. It shill ed also, that the truth or falat•hoorl of in a case of libel being wholly excluded, circumstance to which that exclusion real other which could in any way develope or character of the offender was freely produced. Thus, in the case of a libel liament or a Court of Justice (becomin. ever, only from the pubhcation), bei! reported, the individual was allowed tit p i „ ve 11,4 the report was a correct one, though, being i Pored, a si l i l u t i ns i • t ed w i t t s to " be j p u r st o i' v fi e e d eit t i They 1 11 i lo e W C ed ou i r t t ; go h° , er t,' Jury, because they had to sift the g n ii ter cence of the indieiduil, the protable maitre, Which he was actuated, and to ascei.t4n was only an imaginary speech, written, p er h aps.. ;' gratify private malignity, or a lona pi : accre s ;4 ' what was really said. The Hon. and Learned G d , tleman then cited several cases, in which thepo e ' he mentioned had been adopted. Ameng er b e „ referred to the celebrated Ca 5 2 of Lord Ituistit(se . '::, ,condemnation, he s tid, the Statute Book w 0u ,4,„ • rant him in denominating a murder), and h e d,“ the more willingly, because lees indulgence wa, granted than what was usually sheWn. 1". „ion Oat trial, Dr. Tillotson, afterwards Archbishop (,! terbury, was allowed to give evidence as to tie moral and religious habits cif Lord !tinsel!, ant the Court allowed it even to go to the Jury, as tending to illustrate the probability or the imp,. bability of such a man afterwards commuting crime of high treason. In the case of Horae Tloic also, who was tried for high treason in the sear a book which be wrote in 1 782 was permitted to t. put in as 'evidence of his loyalty : he alluded to ba celebrated Letter, addressed to Mr. Dunning, oath, subject of Parliamentary Reform; and, lachily fa Mr. Tooke, there happened to be in that letter , ,tole. they with many constitutional doctrines some vey satisfactory proofs of his loyalty. Upon that grolitql the book was tendered as evidence, and upontt i a l ground it was received. It was not, of course, CO. sidered as a justification; but it went to prove tie probability or improbability of a man using the Tits tion of Parliamentary Reform in 1791, as a cloak ti cover purposes of high treason, who, in 1782, hat written upon the same subject with much loyalty.— He thour e Lt those cases sufficiently established the fat that although the Court would not allow the to be given in evidence in a question' of libel , y every other kind of tvidence whichdrOuld throw am light upon the subject was daily and hourly receive. And what was there in truth that it s!tould ..ot taken into consideration ?.. Why should that he G. eluded, in tact, which +natty cases was der.;!,ivr, I l and in all of sore? weight r• It was needless to eme. tiply instances to prove the materiality of truth e .false)lood, in de:A-fol . /Tains Abe degree of guilt or inert con... It was searecly posvibles-Wieleed, to ersocese any circumstance which more closely affected the malice, the Filthy,, or the motives of the delenhear and it would be ineoulbent upon these who driiitsi his proposition, to prove, that in a ntinity of coo, the truth or falsehood of an alleged libel was ebony beside the question at issue. There stets no pits in which he considesed the present subject as of en-Air importance than in libels• on pi ivate chatacar. would appeal to every one who heard hies, as to !t.e licentiousness of the Press (not meaning to Ain* that its licentiousness was greater now than foram years past); but when that licentiousness-was lames. ted, the only thing ever attempted to be said in its defence was, that. like the air, it was u a charteral libertine," and that the evils must be endured toy di sake of the good. The Press, in conseginnite, joyed a sort of impunity in its licentiousness, and k would tell the House whence that impunity ;loaf. — In this country :hoe was no public prosecutor-0 one whose business it was to watch over the plot* tion of private cliaractet and morals. When .n trio vidual was defamed, therefore, in a libellous cal9t?). lion, he had no remedy but by the expense of a private prosecution. The law, it te, , s would afford redress, it the law was sought ; Out tta , reason why it was so seldom thought of was steS ciently obvious. There were only two ways in whirl a person libelled could apply for justice—either try an action for damages, or by a criminal prose( titiv. Suppose the former' be adopted. Tue inditidual went i n to (..:eifirt to demand reparation tar his injureb chetraiier and wounded feelings. There, after ras• gauntlet of the whole Court, and attar curt mg the expense of the litigation, he a t ive.,;rd the jur y for such tilinAges as siii:;111 br tiamAllt estimate of his character and Ow injury it had sse gained. We was tar from meaning to cast any rr• blection on the Trial by Jury, for no man felt a greater veneration for its principles than lie did, id every one who reflected upon the way in which Juries were commonly couiposed, muss know that they sik the last people from Whom an adequate compew• tion in such a case entild be expected. Whit V would be the pi ohahle issue of an appeal to the lim in a case of Eitel ? individual would go out d Court, alter a frill investigauori of his complaint, alts a very ingenious 'peed', per sal, and attar a spctea irom compi:ed Li) which he Afoul( such libels, Inc u:se it went detantatii:n, cornmented upoi ed more. publitit), and wa: infinitely greater ability, w did not mean to state that Jury would award. There cent instance in which AT and upon that subject he Idue respect for Courts of names garnished the reef always to be resisted. own experience, not in cal names appeared on one or of pounds were awarded otherwise have been given. composed of men, so loo' ble to influence front, such side via tii 41 ie 61 • ;sue wttel l 01 sp. •to his conk fait serial that tt aol 4 the tie.h q 1 for ltst , fleet w!ii c ' 404 • As the h. OW Was prol..l)i?ej, tic( V was differ e , E prO If, indeed, an y the litigatio n <4 ; 4 met ould be otse rt ina the alleg4tirre poi i, was the otiy doc cached. Ev ery rat pe the mom % did r allowed btu oit spolcco in tar. pro [414 such, tatit- :Ile, Pig a''t ct *416 in(' 1 . Ig pi a •r u it ° :t r i flrnisrLaull:isvo. CiAt- P rom the defendant's Cow:A maid tat.her base endur ed its 11 . c nt over the wht.le bi upon its application, MAPS!. 1 4 was genvrati worked UP ..i y, with sESU damages. H iat sum as the greate•a*thatv here had, indeed, been a it 02000 damages were give(' ° e wished to observe, with al a of Justice, that wrien cord their influence was W /I _, It had happened within b ases of libel, but ahem a or both sides, that thotisas d where hundreds would en. As long at. Juries we , ng they would always be lit ti ch ipzti4ic calsv. • War b . _