Star. — London, England, 1813-06-26 00:00:00

. 1 here read from a paper ist his hand the statements which he made in his original speech.] So far from.; the communications, alluded to by the Hon. *Gentle.' man, having been of a very amicable nature, he was informed by the parties concerned that great diffe rences of. opinion existed between the Hon. Gentle man and themselves, in the interviews 'which they had had with him ; and that the debate between them was conducted much in the same mantier as the de bates in Parliament between Ministry and Opposition. The parties most nearly interested were not in pos session of the facts. He had been informed by some most credible persons, that they were completely in the dark with respect to the provisions of the Bill. It was highly necessary, therefore, that the Bill should be printed. Unquestionably it was right to put an end to any frauds that might exist ; but, at the same tiMe, great care should be taken that in so doing the auctioneers and proprietors of estates should not be so incommoded as to prevent any man from putting up -his property for sale in an auction-room. He gave notice that when the proper time should arrive, he would move the printing of the Bill. Mr. FR EEMANTLE hoped, that the objection able parts of the Bill would be altered. He expressed his surprise at hearing the Honourable Secretary of the Treasury lay, that he did not expect much dis cussion on a measure of such great importance, af fecting the revenues of the Crown. He maintained that the revenue would be muck .deteriorated were the Bill allowed to pass in its present shape. The exiting duties on property sold by auction, afforded a considerable produce. By one of the clauses of the : Bill hef re the House, all property put up to sale was to be considered liable to a duty, whether sold or not, tinder certain circumstances.. These circumstances were, that security should be given, if the property remained unsold by auction, that it should not for twelve months he disposed of by private contract, without plying rh • Auction duty. The natural con sequence lit such a provision would be, to prevent pr perry from being put up for sale at all, and the revenue w. aid thus lose a considerable annual sum now paid to it as auction duty, and would also suffer materially from the diminution that must necessarily take place in the Lumber of advertisements in the public Papers. Mr. WHA RTON said, that the Honourable Gen tleman had totally mistaken him, if he supposed that he had said he did not consider the Bill of import. ance. On the contrary, he thought it of great im portance. What he had said was, that in the pre sent stage of the Bill he did not expect much discus sion upon it. Having communicated with most of those persons out of ihe House, who were interested in the measure, and finding among them no disposi tion to object to it, he certainly bad a right to calcu late on meeting with no very strong opposition in the House. He expected that all those with whom he had communicated on the subject were favourable to the Bill. He bad seen Mr. Marten, and a-Gentle nem from Mr. Skinner's in the City ; and he had seen Mr. Christie and two or three more respectable auctioneers in the West.end of the town. He had corresponded also with the principal auctioneers in various p..rts of the kingdom ; and he had found, that with certain alterations the Bill would prove ge nerally satisfactory. He repeated, therefore, that he no reason, in the present stage of the Bill, to expect much opposition to it in Parliament. Nevertheless, he had no objection to the printing of the Bill ; and he would suggest that the Bill should be immediately recommitted, for the purpose of receiving several amendments that he wished to introduce into it, that the Report should be brought up, and that the Bill should then be ordered to be minted, and the Report to be taken into further consideration on Tuesday. Mr. HUSKISSON said, that the Bill ought to have been primed before. It was not merely a mea sure to prevent fraud ; it inflicted an auction duty on an extensive description of property, which had never yet been rendered liable to it. It was not the Auctioneers only, the public would he materially af fected by it. Such a measure ought not to pass with out notice. The Bill contained many objectionable' clauses, and he was happy that even in this last stage they had by some fortunate accident been discovered. ' Mr. WHARTON remarked, that the Hon. Gen tleman was extremely mistaken if lie supposed that ample notice had not been given of the introduction of the measure in question. As to the obnoxious clauses to which the Hon. Gentleman alluded, they had been introduced into the Bill at the express de-' sire of persons who had felt themselves peculiarly ag grieved by those mock auctions, the effects of which were so generally pernicious. Mr. THOMPSON was persuaded that the Bill would be productive of great public benefit, if it pre vented the impositions that were now so commonly practised by nests of swindlers. Mock auctions were not confined to the Metropolis ; they were spread over the whole kingdom. He had a ccrrespondent in the North of England, who had described to him the evils which they occasioned, and the expediency t putting an end to them. He certainly hoped that he clauses of the Bill would undergo proper exa inatton and correction ; but in opposition to the lion. Gentleman who spoke last, he must think that some measure of the kind was absolutely necessary. Mr. HUSKISSON disclaimed having said that e did not think the Bill necessary. Mr. P. MOORE said, that those who opposed the bnoxious provisions of the Bill, thought the Bill itself accessary, but wished it to be so modified, that they light not be ruined by its enactments. 'flae Report was then brought up, the Bill was re ()Milliard, and several amendments were introduced y Mr. WHARTON, and the Report of the re-Commit- rot was brought tip. • . Mr. WHARTON, in moving that the Reprrt be ;,ken into further consideration on Tuesday, admitted that although he had not used the expression, " I ill try the experiment," attributed to him by an , n. Gently man, he had said to a Member of that ouse, that if tie measure were nut found sufficiently perative, it would be necessary to have recourse to bne eif a stronger nature nest Session, The Report was then ordered to be taken into fur :her coiisidt ration oft Tuesday. On the motion of Mr. BANKES, the Hclstone Election Bill was road a second time and ordered to we committed on Wednesday. A Mia—ge f!. m the Lords requesting a present touteietice with the Commons in the Painted Cham on the subjt.ct of the last Infer - (the Thir-, teenth Resolution relative to the East-India COM• pany) the Committee that managed the last confer. ence were re-appointed to manage the present, and lent forth for that purpose. On their return, Lord BURGHURST reported at the Bar that their Lordships had agreed to the Reiolution communicated to them by the Commons in the last conference. r, ou thy subjt.ct et the last conterewe (the ORANGE SOCIETIES. Mr. W. WYNNE, in consequence of the notice which had been given for him by an Hon. Friend, (Mr. Freemantle) having dropped yesterday, gave notice, that on Tuesday next he would submit to the House his motion respecting Orange Societies. MISSIONARIES TO INDIA. Sir E. MONTGOMERY wished to ask the Noble Lord opposite whether it was his intention to let the Resolution respecting Missionaries remain as it was, or to introduce it into the Bill that was in progress through the House. Lord CASTLEREAGH replied, that he meant to introduce the Resolution as a preamble to that clause of the Bill which vested in the Company the regulations of persons going to India. PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. CREEVEY could have wished that this sub ject could have been brought forward at an earlier period. On his own account he had never intended to make any complaint ; but the sentence passed on him affected, in a most essential degree, the privileges of that House, both with regard to themselves and to posterity, though he should not ask the House to come to any Resolution upon the case. This was the first instance in the history of Parliament of a Mem ber being arraigned for words spoken in that House. Early in the last Session, upon a discussion respec ting the East India Company, he had taken occa sion, among other reasons for laying open the trade, to state the condition of Liverpool, and maintained, that because the American trade had been suspend ed, the India trade should be laid open. On this subject he had entered into some debate respecling theincrease of the poor, who had been compelled to apply for relief from their paris!ies. He had after wards learned that General Ta.ileton, then one of the Members for Liverpool, had stated that the account ' he (Mr. Creevey) had given was grossly exaggerated, and had read a letter from a merchant in Liverpool to that purpose. A petition having been coon after presented from Liverpool, for laying open the trade to India, he had taken that opportuetty to restate what he had asserted before, and mentioned, as an addi- tional vexation upon the town, a new surcharge upon the taxes, and that this had been laid on by a collet tor of the name of Kirkpatric. Shortly after, a very incorrect report of his speech had appeared in the London Newspapers, which had found its way into the Liverpool Papers, and he had thought it a duty to himself to insert it in the Paper that had given an incorrect account of his speech, a correct and faith ful account of what he had actually spoken. This account had been given last March twelvemonth, and it was not till the middle of October he had learnt that an indictment had been preferred against him fir a libel before the Bench of Justices at Man chester. This had appeared to him a very new case, and, with all his respect for the Gentlemen forming that Bench, he did not conceive them a proper tribunal to decide upon a question of privilege of Parliament, and had removed the indictment, by certiorari, into the Court of King's Bench.--it had been admitted by the prosecutor, that all contained ( in the Paper had been spoken in the House, and had i been insetted as a correction of an erroneous report. No attempt had been made to impute malice, and he i . I:rad made an affidavit that he had never seen the prosecutor in his life. His Counsel contended, that ! he, being a Member of Parliament, was not amena- I I ble to the Courts below ; but the Judge maintained that privilege was out of the question ; that malice was no necessary part of the charge, and that die real question was, Were the words defamatory or not?— Such was the charge of the Learne4 Judge, and he had accordingly been found guilty. He had then made a Motion for a new trial grounded upon the/ plea of a misdirection on the part of the Judge. The Judges, however, had been unanimous in thinking they were bound by the case of the King versus the Earl of Abingdon. Lord Ellenborough had said, he had never heard of a plea so absurd ; and Justice !Bailey had termed it a degradation to publish a speech in a Newspaper, though B4ronWood had not scrupled to correct, in that manner, a mis-statement that had appeared respecting a charge he had given. Mr. Justice Grose, in pronouncing the judgment of 4 the Court, and fining him £lOO, had apologized for the mildness of that sentence, and insinuated, that it could not but appear that the publication in question was a libel on the late Mr. Perceval, and that it was bottomed in disaffection to the State—(Hear, hear.) Thus the Learned Judge, in pronouncing the judg. ment of the Court on him, uttered two libels upon .him, by stating him to be guilty of two crimes of which he had not been convicted—(Hear, hear.) The case of Lord Abingdon related to an attack upon the professional character of an individual, be tween whom and himself there had existed a quarrel, and malice had been proved. Lord Abingdon meant to make the House of Lords a vehicle for printing his speech. His (Mr. Creevey's) speech related to a servant of the Public, and no attempt had been made to prove a private quarrel. The two cases were in ' complete opposition to each other. Should this doc trine prove true, it would put an end to all commu nication between the Representative and Constituent Bodies. If Judge Grose was right, then his (Mr. Creevey's) speech was a seditious libel, and he had made a similar speech upon the hustings at Liver pool, the Attorney-General might have filed against him an ex officio information, and, instead of address ing that House, he might have been now in gaol. In giving a viva 'ace account, he was liable to dif ferent actions of legal process, even were he stating his Parliamentary conduct to his Constituents, al though unheard of till now, that for such conduct a Member of Parliament was liable to prosecution.- -If a man were to state his reasons for voting for an impeachment, could he do it without using de famatory words ? ti e himself had voted against I Lot d Melville, and against the Duke of York ; and 'were he to state his reason for doing so, must not defamatory words be made use of ? and, upon the principle of Justice Le Blanc, lie might be indicted fur a libel. He regarded it now as settled, that re ports of speeches in Parliament should be given to the Public ; and, according to this new doctrine, a MeWber must be at the mercy of a lipporter for any thing he might say in the Hodse, and at the mercy meth to his honour, and the treatment of whom air of the Judge for any correction he might make of so disgraceful to that period. This was en additional an erroneous,report. It was impossible it should not reason, he contended, for jealousy against Judges, be law, that a man might give a bona fide account who might so easily become the instruments of the of 'his conduct, and for this he was amenable to the, party most in power at the time.. The Honcu-able House alone. In the long Parliament (when the de. Member mentioned also the case of Mr. Speaker bates were carried on with closed doors) the House Williams, who, in the reign of Ch.ules the Secosf, occasionally adopted the practice of ordering speeches was fined ten thousand pounds for publishin g hie to be printed, and particularly those made by Mr. speech, though a servant of the House of Common& Pym and Mr. St. John, on Lord Stafford's At- The first objects of jealousy then were the Judges, tainder Bill, and this was recognized by the King. akd they ought not to be l ess so i n his own case. —But Lord Digby also printed his speech agai nst 'Me Honourable Member disclaimed all pets , nal mo. the Bill, and though the House had ordered Pym's tive in the publication of his speech, or resesentuees speech to be printed, they appointed a Committee of the slightest degree against the person concerned, to inquire into the printing of Lord Digby's, and whom he had never scot), to his knowledge. It was came to a resolution, that it contained matter un- from a regard to the House he had brought heel:. true and scandalous to the proceedings of both ject forward. He denied that the case of the Ke e . Houses, and should be publicly burned by the hang- against Lord Abinedon forreed any precedent ir. man. He had scaled this „to shew that this matter i instance. When privilege was mentioned he had give! , was cognizable by the House alone, and that the pu- ' jealousy too of Parliament it-: It es a body, as in the nishment only was that the speech should be burned. long Parliament it was well haown that they order. 4 This was a great offence against the Parliament of the speeches to be printed that were is f _Avow of te e that day, as the speech of Lord Digby was highly majority, and forbade such as were against them to injurious to - the witnesses against Lord Strafford, and be published. Even in more modern times iie :anat. in particular to Sir H. Vane. Yet the House only :of a similar nature were not .. , wanting. Ia the la.; came to the resolution of addressing ilieCrown against Parliament it would be lectiliected that proias we:,: conferring any additional dignity on Lord Digby, offered of Ministers having been trafficking in seate and made an order that no Member should give notes which was a gross breach of the Privilege of Pai d any thing that should take place in that House. liament. This, however, was passed over, whale This clearly shewed the power of the House, and pour Gale Jones, for speaking of a particuhr proved that the House was the only judge whether a Member of that House, was sent to Newgnte, ;Ira Member should print his speech. In the same Parlia- confined there for nearly a whole Session. Here, nt ment Sir Edward Deering printed his speech; this this Session too, the Duke of Cumberland acid the was decided to be an offence against the House, and Duke of Leeds had been both before the. Ilt.ese, for Sir Edward was expelled. Could a Court of Law call interfering in Elections ; but the moment mention a Member before them to give a lieu yore statement was made of prosecution, they were told this would of his conduct ? In the long Parliament, Mr. Taylor, be the highest degree of ill manner 4. 'While the ere who had been of the same opinion with Lord Digby ment mention was made cf Mr. Coogan, who vete as to the case of Lord Strafford, stated at Windsor guilty only of a similar cal) etehe was ordered instantly that the House had not his consent to pass the Bill to prison, with'-ut any ceremony. Thie with him, lagainst that Nobleman, as that would have been to was a strong reason for distrust of Privilege in the commit murder with the sword of Justice. The hands of Perliament itself, as it was liab!e m such Mayor of Windsor gave evidence as to these ex- misapplication. When it was permitted to ethers to ! pressions having been used, and the House came report their speeches, Members themselves ought cer ito a resolution that Mr. Taylor should be expelled, tainly to have a right at least to correct them. Had committed to the 'rower, and should make acknow- the Judges looked ter any precedent with respect to ledgement of his offence. This shewed that a Mem- • his case, they might have found one better than that ber could not be called into any Court to explain his of Lord Abingdon. He contended, that Judges, in conduct, but must be amenable to the House alone. such cases, were liable to be warped, as in the case These were all the cases before the Restoration: after of the King against Wright. Mr. Wright net being that period, from 1660 to 1678, Andrew Marvill, the person appointed by e.eliority to publish the tit ea Member for Hull, was in the habit of sending weekly of the House, was prosecuted for publishing these, to his constituents an account of all that he said in and a Select Committee of the House charged hint Parliament ; and as he was in constant opposition to with high treason, though he was afterwards acquitted. the Government of that day, his account would, pro. Lo r d Kenyon said, that it the publication was w! , at bably, partake of that sarcastic spirit for which lie it professed to be, a true copy, he saw no pretence was so eminent. In 1679 a Committee was appointed for a rule to shew cause ; but the opinion of Judge to inquire. into Sir F. Winnington's speech, and that Lawrence was the most remarkable, whom nobody of Lord Cavendish ; but no proceedings took Wee, would doubt of being inferior in learning to Led though it was about the time when the question of Ellenborough, without any disrespest to that Learned the Exclusion of the Duke of York was so warmly Lord. Judge Lawrence said, that the publication of agitated that those speeches were made. They had, the proceedings of Courts of Law might, in some therefore, cases, he argued, of printed speeches; of cases, be attended with inconvenience ; but there was which no complaint was ever thought of being made no act against it, and it was generally of advantage in a Court of Law, but for which, if any punishment to the public to have such cases known. 'the same, was to be inflicted, it was to be done only by the added the Judge, would h o ld true with respect to Pars House itself, and this had been generally done by an liament, and as the defendant only published a true • order to burn the publication. At last comes this case copy, lie had the rule discharged. Lord Ellenbo of a speech against a person employed in the collec- rough said, on the contrary, that nothing was so vile Lion of the Revenue at Liverpool, and was he to have as a Member to publish his speeches. It was not for a right to punish by applying to a Court of Law, him to contend with so high an authority ; but he while before this even the Crown itself had claimed must say, that there appeared, too much, to be one no such power ? To printed speeches delivered in law for one and another law for another. The Hon. Parliament, the public had owed much information ; Member concluded by moving a Resolution declera. and Members, before the system of reporting was tory of the whole of the legal proceedings against known, he had shewn, had been often in the habit him, with respect to Mr. Kirkpatric. of publishing their oan spee c h es , w i t h out b e i ng 'file SPEAKER observed, that ;t was not usual amenable to any Court of Law. Now, however, for the House to receive the whole of d narrative that the practice of reporting had become in some ' without any evidence before them. At the same measure legalized, at length this case had occurred, . time, if the House thought proper, a question might where a Member-was liable to prosecution fur pub- be raised on the meiiion ; and asked, who seconded lishing a correct statement of his own speech, • the Hon. Member against the misrepresentations that might have gone , Mr. BENNET seconded the motion. abroad. He believed there were about thirty orders ! On the question being put — of the House against printing and publishing speeches, ; Mr. C. VYNNE said, the question for the House but notwithstanding these, the practice of reporting to consider was simply this, whether any Member of seemed to be legalized, and surely in that case a that House had a right to publish whatever he Member could not be punishable in a Court of Law , thought proper, as a speech spoken by him in Parlias for publishing a correct statement of his own speech. ment for to this extent would the privilege claimed The right ot punishing had always resided hitherto in by his Honourable Friend go. The privilege of Par the House itself. The Hon. Member here adduced liament implied that every Member should have lull the case of Mr. Wilkes in 1771, who, though in dis- and uncontrouled liberty of speech within those grace with the House of Commons, resisted the sum- walls ; but it could not extend to any thing said or mons of the Magistrates. That Gentleman pleaded published beyond them, without giving to every that the publication was for the interest of the public, Member of the House of Commons I right to libel r and if so, the interest of the public must be the same whom he pleased, under the pretence of now as in 1771. Reporters being now in seine mea- his Parliamentary duty. This had been the decided sure authorised by usage, should they make an incor. opinion of Mr. Fox, than whom there was no man rect report, the case became still stronger, and made , who better understood the privileges of Parliament, it more necessary that Members should, when neces- or who was more attached to the liberty of the press. sary, correct their mis-statements. Allowing the case, —Mr. Wynne took a view of the cases cited by his with respect to him, to be a just or legal proceeding, Honourable Friend, every one of ishich, he thought, it would follow that any man might report a speech made strongly against his argument. The case of but the Member himself. Ife knew it might be said, Lord Abingdon, which Mr. Creevey considered as that lie might call a person to the bar, or have him very different from his own, appeared to him exactly committed to prison for any mis-statement of a speech in point. The greatest injury that could be done to or for stating it at all ; but he wished to do neither : the privileges of Parliament would be an attempt to on the contrary, he was friendly to the liberty of re. extend them beyond the limits Axed by our lore porting. He knew that speeches taken in haste, and fathers. often under great disadvantages, might sometimes be Colonel O'HARA spoke in favour of the motion. incorrect, without any intention of misrepresentation. He argued, that the right of Members to give to their He wished the speeches to be printed, but he wished, constituents an account of their sentiments delivered in at the same time, not to be prevented himself from Parliament, implied a right to publish them to the correcting them when necessary, for the information kingdom at large. of his constituents. When Parliament talked of pri- Mr. WESTERN said he could not vote for the vilege, the first object of jealousy, in his opinion, motionof his Hon. Friend, in the shape he had brought were the Judges, who, in most cases, have always it forward, though he should have voted tor an in been the willing instruments of the Crown. In quiry to ascertain the right of Parliament on the sub- Charles the First's time the Judges had the same ject. He thought it of the utmost importance te affectation of regard for privilege as now. In Mr. guard their privileges with respect to the law ot libel Selden's case the same sort of language was employed from any encroachments on the part of the Crown. by the Bench that he had lately heard in his own case, I Lord A. HAMILTON observed, that it the law and, like Mr. Justice Grose, they attributed his mo- were not as the Judges had laid it down, it ought, tives to sedition.—These sam e. J u dge s, however, sen- for the general benent of the public, to be so establi. tented Mr. Selden to imp r i sonment d ur i ng the Kigg's I shed ; since Members of Parliament ought not to be pleasure, (hear, hear,) and to p a y a fi ne o f Raw.. i allowed the impunity they would possess, it the due-. At that time some even died in prison because they ; trines; laid down by Mr. Creevey were concurred in. could not pay the fines. They reasoned exactly as If it were otherwise, and Members were only to be they did in his case. You may say what you like m restrained by the House, the freedom of debate would the House of Commons, but you must say it no . be more effectually abridged, as none could spe uk hut where else. When these Judges made their first de.., under the tenor of correction of the Speaker. MA cision they were on the s ide o f t h e C ourt , afterwards Representatives of the people were not to be deem ed the very same Judges, d ur i ng t h e l ong P ar l iament, a separate class of individua l s, amena bl e to no law, were for Parliament, because the strongest party ; noe for what they might utter, but what they mug" and the same Court of King's Bench were against i afterwards deliberately publish. Lord Stratford, for whom the Xins was figloing I 4,0ril I so • CASTLEKKAGki wide that the heists