Star. — London, England, 1813-05-08 00:00:00

D INNER of the FRIENDS to the INDEPEN DENCE of GERMANY : His Royal Highness the Duke of SUSSEX, in the Chair. STEWARDS. Sir W. Curtis, Bt. M.P. WHllatn Davies, Esq. Sir J. Shaw, Bt. M.P. Abraham Mello, Esq. Sir It. Wigram, Bart. Gerard de Visme, Esq. Sir C. Flower, Bart. John Craven, Esq. K. Finlay, Esq. M.P. John Tyler, Esq. Henry Smith, Esq. Thomas Rowcroft . H. Barmester, Esq. M. Oppenheimer, Esq. M. D. Magens, Esq. IJ. C. Splitgerber, Esq. Sebastian Fridag, Esq. H. J. Rucker, Esq. Job M. Raikes, Esq. F. Moiling, Esq. Robert Taylor, Esq. IJ.P. H Hagedorn, Esq. [ J. A. Rucker, Esq. H. Sillem, Esq. E. Simeon, Esq. Jacob Hull, Esq. B. A. Goldschmidt, Esq. E. Goodhart, Esq. J. D. Rucker, E3q. W. Botradaile, Esq. I his great public Dinner will take place on Monday, the 10th Inst. at the City of London Tavern, Bishopsgate-street. Tickets to be had at the bar of the said house ; and at the Thatchetk 1 1 House Tavern, St. James's-street. PiIRLIAMEMARr 13ROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 7. The House met at ten o'clock in the morning. In an Appeal from the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, Magrafie v. Archbold and others," Sir Arthur Pigott and Mr. lijichards were heard for the Appellant, Sir Samuel Komilly and Mr. Hart for the Respondents, and. Sir Arthur Pigott in reply. Judgment a ffi rmed, with a slight variation. In an Appeal from the Court of Session in Scotland, " Smith w. Allan and others," Mr. Adam and Mr. Leach were heard for the Appellant, and Mr. Mackenzie in part fur the Respondents. ' Further hearing on Monday. Petitions for facilitating the introduction of Christian Know ledge into India, were presented by the Earl of Radnor from Wilton, the Earl of Harewood from Bradford, Earl Cowper from liertflird, Lord Holland from Nottingham and several places in Nottinghamshire, the Dissenting Ministers and Dis senters of London and Westminster, Earl Spencer from Da ventry, the Duke of Norfolk Irom Cheltenham and other places in Gloucestershire and Surrey, the Duke of Beaufort from Bris tol and several places in Gloucestershire, the Earl of Lauderdale from the town of Lauder, Lord Gambier from Alfreton, Lo sere, Draycote, Musselburgh, Exeter, Lambeth, Islington, Wantage, Uttoxeter, Foikstene, Duffield, Cheadle, Matlock, Sauley, Castle Donnington, Caudwell, Derby, Ockbrook, Chi chester, St. Austell, Melbourne, Beaumaris, Hevingham, Swaffhatn, Causton, Bury (Lancashire), Ade, Walton (Nor folk), Aylshain (ditto), Bupliam (ditto), Landes (Berwick . Shire), Leeds, Lanark, New Sarum, Nantwich, Kinross (Stir lingshire), Northrlpps (Norfolk), Leeds Missionary Society, Blggar (Lancashire), Horsfordker (Norfolk), Oxford, Shepton Mallets, Great Yarmouth, Denny (-stirlingshire), St. Just (Corn wall), Penzance, Norwich, Eat Stoneham (Devon), New Mills (Derbyshire), Batley (Yorkshire), Barnsley (ditto), Cleek lerton (ditto), Durham, Sauston (Cambeidgeshire), Walworth (Surrey), Wickmore and %Vicke (Yorkshire), Hammersmith, rentcord, Horton (Middlesex), Marazion (Cornwall), Totten ham (Middlesex), Hatfield (Essex), Woolwich (Kent), Dept- ford (ditto), Colcle stet-, Hampton, Horsley, &c. Edinburgh Svoid, Malnishury (Wilts), Ceditimpton (Devon), St. Ives, Oxendon Clulpi 1 (London), Andover, Perth, less, Polton (Bedfordshire), Uxbridge, and 'I adcaster. All ordered to lie on the Tabh, together with a Petition presented by Lord Holland from the Dissenting Ministers of Devonshire, praying • for the rem.,val cf all eisqualificaiions on account of religious opinion r ai.d a Poi:ion presented by Earl Stanhope from the grow , rs of fruit, rows, hobs, &c. in the Counties of Middle sex, Essex, &c. against curtain clauses in the Covent-Garden Market Bill. '1 wo .Private Bills were brought up from the Commons by Mr. Forty brad odo r Members, and read a first lime. Mr. Watt-, field, from the Exchequer Bill Office, presented Accounts relative to Exchequer Bills.—Ordered to lie on the Table. 'I lie Mere' ant Mates' Pond Bill, and the Irish Officers' Wi dows' Pensioi s' Bill, were read a second time, and cusniiiltted for Monday. The Irish Rutter Pill, and the Royal Marine Offic,rs' Wine Bill, passed through Committees, and were repot tctl. The Bermuda Trade 8•11, and the Irish Distillation Bill, were read a third dine and passed. The further considelati , li of the Brirthwick Peerage was postponed till Thursday, and of the Airly Peerage till the Tues day following. A conversation took place on the Cambridge Road BM, be- . tween the Bishop of FLY, who opposed some amendnii nos made by the Committee, and the Earl of Ha DWICK X am; the Bishop of CREST cc, who supported them. be House divided, when there appeared for the Amend anents—Contents 22—Not Contents 1. The Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill read a third time and passedr—Adjourned till Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. MAR RYATT presented a Petition from the Merchants of the City of London, that a Prohibition might be laid on the Importation of Cotton Wool from America. Lord STANLEY gave notice, that on Monday neat he should call the attention of the House to the Mancherer Police Bill. Mr. FINI.AY presented a Petition from the Manbfacturers I of Glasgow, and another from Rutherglen, that the Prohibition on the Importation of Cotton Wool, from America, might riot take place. The SPEAKER gave notice, rbst Monday next being the last . day for hearing Reports on rrivate Bills, he should take the Chair at three o'clock. It was moved, and carried, that the Committee bring up their • Report on the Strand Bridge this day se'nnight. Mr. FREEMANTLE rose to move, that a elan of the New Street from Carlton-House be engraved, to accompany the Bid. Agreed to. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved, that the house at its rasing should adjourn till Monday.—Agreed to. sir W. SCOTT moved for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Prize Act to American Prises.—Leave given, and the Bill brought up and read a first time. Mr. HOUBLON presented a Petition from the Inn-keepers of the County of Essex, setting forth. the Losses they sustained under the Allowances at present given to each Soldier billetted ;Ton them. Mr.WESTERN urged their case upon the consideration of the I }louse, and the attention of his Majesty's Ministers; and said be would undertake to prove that they suffered a loss of above a t shilling npon every man Ix:Betted upon them. Mr. CALVERT corroborated this statement, and supported , their claims upon the attention of the Legislature. It was un derstood that a Committee would be moved to consider their Petition, unless their case should be taken up by his Majesty's Ministers. On the motion of the CHANCEI.LOR of the EXCHEQUER, It was agreed that the House should resolve itself into a Com ' anittee of the whole House, on Monday, to consider of a Supply to be/ranted to his Majesty. Dr. DUIGENAN moved the Order of the Day, for the third reading of the Irish Churches BilL-Read a third time and passed. • Lord CASTLEREAGH moved, that the House should re solve itself into a Committee, to cone der of East India Affairs, gbis day se'nnight. Mr. CROMER moved the second reading of the Irish Militia • Regulation Bill. • Mr. H. MARTIN moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Admiralty Registrar Bill. Lord CASTLEREAGH said, he was not prepared to enter bite the detail of the Bill, but be conceived that it was certainly better that the money of suitors should be vested in the Bank of than in any other private security. The balance at present its the hands of the Registrar (Lord Arden), Which he "."'W toderetood amounted to between 16 Ma JOAO, Wal I Rif& I cient reason for Parliamentary interference and regulation. He did not, however, wish the regulations to take place during the term by which the office was held by law by its present possessor. Sir W. SCOTT briefly supported the claims of the present Registrar. Mr. H. MARTIN said, he did not conceive that the Noble , Lord (Arden) could have any legitimate interest in the money ofl suitors in his hands. He conceived that the sum uninvested ex ceeded 3C80,000, and that there was a distinct account of 5e95,000 accruing since 1777. Mr. STEPHEN stated, and pledged himself to prove, that £95,969, was the whole amount of suitors monies at present remaining in the hands of the Registrar. ME. MARTIN, ME.STEPHEN, ME.FARQUBAR,aftd ME.WRIT• BREAD, entered into a detailed and intricate discussion of the accounts given in from the Registrar's Office, and of another account received by Mr. Martin from a private source, the re sult of which seemed to be, that X 95,969 was all the money at present uninvested, but that it had at one tine amounted to no less than £247,000. After a few words from Sir JOHN Nicaot., Sir S. ROMILLY, and Mr. RYDER, the Bill was recommitted, and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole House this day sennight. Mr. MARTIN moved, that the Report on the Deputy Re membrancer of the Exchequer's Bill be taken into consideration; but, On the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was postponed until next Wednesday. On the motion of Mr. PE eta the Irish Hides Bill was read a second time, and committed for Thursday. Mr. PEELE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors in Ireland. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY approved of extending the spirit of the English Law on this subject to the people of Ireland. He also wished to know it it was in the contemplation of the Right Hon. Gentleman to have the Bill for the regulation of Eccles'asti cal Courts extended also to that country, and regretted the ab • sence of an Honourable and Learned Gentleman, from whom they might expect some information on that subject. After a few words from Mr. Pitts, leave was given to bring it in. Nit% HERBERT, of Kerry, rose pursuant to his notice, to move for the 15th Report of the Commissioners of Naval Revi sion, with a view of founding some motion upon it for the im provement of the Dock Yards of Deptford and Woolwich. He touched briefly upon some plan which he bad seen for that pur pose, and after stating some of the inconveniencies, which it was his wish to see remedied, he alluded to some of the objections that might be urged against the plan. He stated, that the car rying of this plan into effect would tort about X 15,000 a year. He was sure that the production of tae Report could be attended with no inconvenience to the public service. He concluded by moving, that an Address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, humbly praying, that he would be pleased to or der the 15th Report of the Commissioners of Naval Revision to be laid before the House. Mr. CROKER said, that it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at length on this question. The Honourable Mover proceeded on two assumptions t- r -1. That a large Naval Arsenal was to be built, and 2. that the existing D oc k Y ar d s at Woolwich and Deptford were to be abandoned. The int as sumption was premature, and the second still more so. A suffi cient answer to the Honourable Gentleman's motion was, that the Government would not undertake any work at Northfleet, without submitting the subject to the consideration of Parlia ment. On this ground he should give his vote against the motion. Mr. Alderman A said, that be understood the present motion to he a side wind to introduce a Canal Bill. This Canal, if established, would have the effect of taxing all shipping which approached the Port of London, whether they passed through the Canal or no,—(No from Mr. Herbert) — This work, of which the capital was X 305,000 bad beep subscribed to only by ten persons, at XlOOO each. A profit was to be guaranteed by Go vernment to bleeping partners, and for this was the shipping of the kingdom, already too much burthened, to be oppressed. Mr. ROSE opposed the motion. '1 he proposal for a Canal had been thrown out very loosely wheg the Admiralty had appeared to support it, but had upon examination been found inexpedient. The projector of this Canal had,at first proposed to do away wi h the poor Thames altogether, and bring a Canal to Vauxhall Tbe Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Atkins) bad misunderstood the Honourable Mover, as to the taxing ships In the river; a surer plan had been adopted by proposing to secure the interest by taxing the whole kingdom. Mr. CROKER explained. Mr. P. MOORE s iid, that the only ground for this motion was, that the undertakers of a great and useful works should be guaranteed that the capital they expendAi would not be rendered unproductive. Anchorage for 6uo shipi would be required in rime of peace, and it certainly would not he lost time for a Com mittee to iuquire, how far this could be afforded by the Canal in question? Lir. HERBERT replied. The motion was negatived without a division. Mr. HERBERT then moved, that it be referred to a Select Committee to inquire Into the pracdrabllity and ad% aistages of the Erith Canal, espeelal:y as to rendering easy the access to Woolwich aid Deptford. - Mr. CROKER hoped that the !louse would not in this cage depart from its natal mike s and give delusive hopes to a spc culation now ae its last gasp. Mr. HERBERT obittved, that to call the p'an a speculation, WAS no answer to the strement of ha advantages. Mr. ROSE said, that the plan, if expedient, might be adopted by Governineut. Aftir a kw words from Ales4rs. A - n(l%s, P. MOORE, and flEitlitiLf, the motion was negatived.—Adjotaned to Monday. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 7. PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES. TITS KING V. T. CREEVY, ESQ. Mr. BROUGHAM moved for a Rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial in this cause, on the ground of misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge. Lord ELLENBOROUGH asked, if the defendant were in Court?—Mr. Brougham said, he was. Mr. ROUGHAM then stated, that it was an indict ment fora libel, in publishing a writing, purporting to be a copy or report of a speech in the Commons House of Parliament. Having been first removed, by certiorari, from the Sessions of the county of Lan caster, into the Court of King's Bench ; it came on for trial before Mr. Justice LE BLANC, at Lancaster, when he ( Mr. Brougham) moved to have the trial put off, on account of the absence of a material wit ness, Mr. Bennett, a Member of the House of Com mons, who was willing to come forward to prove, that the.writing in question was the substance of the speech delivered by the defendant in the Commons House of Parliament : but Mr. PARK, the Attorney-General for the county palatine, having agreed to allow that it was the substance of the speech, the trial proceeded. The only witness on the part of the prosecution, was a Mr. Egerton Smith, who proved the publica tion, and that he had received the paper from which it was printed enclosed in an envelope from the defendant, expressing a wish to have it printed. He also said, that although he had lost the envelope, he recollected the substance of what it contained, which was, that defendant having seen various misrepresentations of his speech in different newspapers, he wished a more accurate report to be inserted. The Learned Counsel said, the publication was therefore bona fide, and at this stage of the trial, he had objected that there was nothing to go to the Jury on ; for, he contended, that there was nothing in the publication libellous or defamatory, and that what ever might be the nature of the publication, enough had been shown, to prove that it had been printed under circumstances which rendered it justifiable, and he relied on the case of the King v.Wright, 8. T. R. 293., But the Learned Judge disposed of both &Quads, particularly the latter, stating, that after --..,_. _ .~... «.~.y~ _, the ease of the King v. Lord Abingdon, it was im possible to say, that it was justifiable to publish an account of what a Member had said in Parliament in jurious to a third person ; and whenever a Member of Parliament should publish a- report of his speech, he would hold him liable for its contents. The case of the King v. J. Wright, he said, did not apply, as it was an application for a criminal information, which was an application to the discretion of the Court. But the Learned Counsel stated, that he had contended, as he should now contend, that that case was not decided on that ground, but the application was refused expressly on the ground that there was no reason to send it to trial, as it was not punishable or a matter of judicial inquiry, being a fair account of proceedings in Parliament ; and he also stated to his Lordship, that there was also the class of cases (well known to the Court) of persons who gave un favourable characters of servants to third persons, for which, however defamatory, they were held not lia ble. His Lordship stated, that then a confidence had been reposed. But the Learned Counsel had stated to his Lordship, that the occasion, and not the con fidence, was the reason why they were not held lia ble ; and in the case of Weatherstone v. Hawkins, 1 Term Reports, 110, both Lord Chief Justice Mans field and Mr. Justice Buller, relied on the occasion, and not on The confidence. It was a legal objection which excluded malice. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—The party is not a volunteer, he owes it to society. Mr. BROUGHAM then went on to state, that the Learned Judge said, that malice depended on the thing itself, and if the matter were injurious malice must be inferred. Mr. B. said, that in general, he was aware that their Lordships would not travel out of the four corners of the writing ; but the malice in some cases, might be rebutted by evidence. In his charge to the Jury, the Learned Judge stated sub stantially the same doctrine. He stated that the ques tion for them was, whether it was defamatory or not ; that it was not material when the indictment was pre ferred [the Learned Judge made this remark in consequence of evidence having been given, that it was preferred during a contested election in which the defendant was a candidate :] that it was not a question for them to consider, whether the defendant, having spoken it in his - place in the House 9f Com mons, was justified? As to the manner of the publi cation, which was printed, purporting to be a speech of the defendant's in the House of Commons, and to have been sent by defendant as a true report, in order to correct misrepresentations, it was for the Jury to consider whether the manner did not imply malice. It was not any matter whether defendant knew the plain tiff or not ; it was not necessary to prove any pique or animosity. His Lordship left it to the Jury to say, whether it was defamatory or not, but declared that, in his opinion, it was defamatory, and in consequence the Jury found a verdict of Guilty. The Learned Counsel then stated, that he had to submit to their Lordship, that the publication was made under such circumstances as to prevent the possibility of implying malice. It was universally allowed, that a Member of Parliament was dispunishablc for whatever he might say in the House of Parliament—he was bound to perform certain duties to his representatives, and it had been oft,n laid down that he was the represen tative not only of the place which returned him, but when returned, he became the representative of the whole country ; and he was not merely justifiable, but it was his duty to explain his conduct in Parliament to his Constituents. If in any case it could be justifiable, it was most particularly so in this, when his conduct had been misrepresented. It was in the execution of this trust that this act of publication took place. He begged to call their Lordships' attention to the case of the King v. Lord Abingdon, 1 Es?. '226, and it appeared from that report, (a more full n , ite with which he had been furnished), that Lord Abingdon having quarrelled with his attorney, Mr. Sermon, gave notice of a Bill to correct the practice of attornirs, and in his place read a written speech, which was a string of defamatory remarks against Mr. Sermon, which paper he afterwards, at his own expence, had printed in several of the public Papers. Lord Abingdon appeared in Court without Counsel or Attorney. Lord ELLENBOROUGH-It was an information ? Mr. BROUGHAM stated, that it was granted imme diately, there being no opposition. Lord Abingdon claimed a right to sit in a particular place in the Court, and to sit covered, but took no legal objection, except that he bad spoken the words in his place in the House, of which he gave no evidence. Lord Kenyon said, that a Member of Parliament had cer tainly a right to publish his speech, but that such speech should not be made a vehicle of slander against any individual. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Does it not reflect on the prosecutor? Mr. Baoyonast said it was published bna . fide, and was not made a vehicle of slander. If it were writ ten for another purpose, it could not be said to be a vehicle of slander, although the character of an indi vidual might be defamed. Lord Kenyon, in the case alluded to, went on to state, that in order to consti tute a libel , the mind must be in fault, and shew a malicious intention to defame ; for if published inad vertently, it would not be a libel : but when a libel. lous publication appeared unexplained by any evi dence, the Jury should judge from the overt act ; and when the publication contained a charge slanderous in its nature, should from thence infer that the inten tion was malicious. In that case there was not any evidence of the publication having been a speech de livered in Parliament. In the case of the King v. Wright, 8 T. R. 293, which was a motion for a cri minal information against the defendant for print ing and publishing a libel on J. H. Tooke, in pub lishing a Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, in which Tooke was charged with prac tices almost amounting to high treason, the publica tion was allowed to be an accurate copy of the Re port. The case was fully considered, and the Judges gave their judgments at length, and refused the in formation, on the ground that it could not be libel. lous, being an accurate account of proceedings in Parliament. Lord Kenyon said, " it is impossible for us to admit that the proceeding of either House of Parliament is a libel; this is a proceeding by one branch of the Legislature, and therefore we cannot enquire into it." Mr. Justice Grose concurred in opinion with Lord Kenyon. Mr. Justice Lawrence also, on that occasion, compared the proceeding in radiament to those ht a Court of Law ; which were open to publication ; and he had never known a ;7 4 . secution for publishing a correct report of a Court of Law proceedings, even though such publication d: not entirely relate to points of law, but was matter of information to the public. Such had been the opi. nion of Lord Chief Justice Eyre, in the case of per v. Walter, which.was the publication of an to pante statement in a Court of Law ; yet Lord Chict Justice Eyre said on that occasion, it was a fair re port of a proceeding in a Court of Justice, and.there. fore not libellotts. Such publications were of gene. ral advantage to the country, and the public benefits derived from them more than outweighed the incur. venience to individuals. Such would also apply t i the publication of the proceedings of Parliament; : t was of advantage both to the Public and to the Le. gislature, that its proceedings should be published, The Learned Counsel then proceeded to contend Cr.: he could not distinguish the present case from dm! the King v. Wright. There the publication was tr r report of a Committee; here the publication v.-as the report of a speech delivered in the House by a Mem ber, in the discharge of his duty, addressed to the Chair, and which the House had listened to. It these hal been any thing improper, the Mouse might have called the Member to order, and have even commit. ted him fur an abuse of privilege of speech ; and, to use the expression of Lord Ellenborough in a recut case, Burdett v. Abbott, it was barely decent to suppose that the House would become a p arty to the abuse of its privileges." This they must in the case in einestion have done, had they suffered a speech im. proper to be made to be uttered ; and by sitting to listen to it, they must have become a party. The Learned Gentleman proceeded at some length to contend, that it was the duty of Members of l'aili.i ment to give an account of their conduct . to tl.eir Constituents, and that they were hot l iable to answer out of the House for any thing which they had said in their place in Parliament ; that they were authorized to publish their speeches, since it was not to be supposed the House itself would suffer any speeches to be made which were improper to be corn. mui:icated to the Public. He also submitted, that he had proved sufficient at the trial to do away the charge of malice against the defendant. The publica. Lion was part of a long speech on another subject, a very inaccurate report of which b a d b een gi ven in several Papers, and particularly in the preceding num ber of the Paper in question ; and to correct that misstatement, and explain his conduct, the defendant had requested the proprietor to insert the manuscript which he sent him. Lord ELLEN BOROUGH said, it remained till the pre sent day to be asserted, that a Member of Parliament, for the purpose of explaining his conduct to his con stituents, might publish any libels he thought proper on an individual, and not be answerable for them.— This was an exception from the law of the land, never claimed till the present moment. Mr. BROUGHAM said., he did not argue that he might publish any thing he chose of any person, but that he might publish any thing he had uttered in the House of Commons ; and upon these grounds it was that he had presumed to make his present application. Lord ELLENBOROUGII said, if there belonged to this case any question on which to raise a doubt, he should be most noxious to grant the rule, that an opportu nity might be afforded for further argument ; but he had heard nothing advanced oa which to found even a colour for argument, except, indeed, in the unwar. rant ible constt uction which the Counsel had put on the opinion of Lord Kenyon, as delivered in the case of the King v. Wright, Lord Kenyon did indeed say, the proceeding of the House of Parliament could never be considered as a libel. That the report of the House for its own information could not be libellous no one could deny ; but if such report was published with a view to individual injury, he was dot prepared to say such a publication could be legitimate. But how could the present proceeding even be compared to that of the publication of a report of the House verbatim, as had been in the case of the King e. Wright ? This was a speech delivered in deGate, which the defendant had afterwards chosen to re• publish, in what he was pleased to call a more cor rect form ; whether it was more or less accurate, his Lordship said he cared not ; the only question wai, whether the republication went to repel the ma lice contained fn the speech ? The speech might not be improper in the House • but he had no right to publish it out of doors. How could it be contended that a proceeding in Parliament could not be libellous, when the case of Lord Abingdon proved the contrary. The case of Cowper v. Walter had been alluded to. That case, he thought, should be taken with great limi tation; it was a doctrine, to the full extent of which he conld not go. In the present case, the Learned Judge had left it to the Jury to say if the publication was a libel ; they had found it was so ; and he could see no principle on which the Court would be warranted in drawing the question again before the Public, and rais;ng doubts which did not at present exist. Mr. Justice GROSE was not inclined to find any fault either with the Judge who directed, or the Jury who decided. The Jury had found malice ; and he thought they had found right. Mr. Justice BAILEY had no doubt remaining on his mind. Members had certainly a privilege of stand ing. up and speaking boldly for the ends of justice, sir their places in Parliament; and even to throw out imputations on individuals. without being liable to answer for them elsewhere ; but if they were to be at liberty afterwards to publish what they so uttered, where might the evil stop ? He did not think they were justified in circulating in other places what they uttered to the injury of individuals in the House. He could not approve of Members letting themselves down so low as to give their speeches to Newspapers. In the present case, it was said, there was a misre presentation. If it was so, there was a course laid down, well known to the defendant. He might have rose in his place and complained of misrepre sentation, and he might have had the Printer of the Paper at the bar of the House; but he was not to correct the error by writing. his own speech. He saw no reason whatever for disturbing the verdict. Mr. Justice La BLANc said, if there had appea t ei any doubt whatever on the minds of the Bench, I:c should have been anxious for a rehearing of the cas,'; as there was not, however, he felt it his duty to say. his opinion now was the same as that expressed at 1 5 e triaL—Rule refused.—Mr. Creevey was in Co in himself during the proceedings, accompanied by Mr. Western, General Ferguson : and the Hon. 111- Grey lknnet:. ad never known a per. ct report of a Court of h bitch publication d: law, but was matter of ch had been the opi. re, in the case of t publication of an ex Law ; yet Lord Chiet ision, it was a fair re- •t of Justice, andthere• ications were of gene. and the public bencfitl outweighed the incur. a would also apply t t , ings of Parliament; :t Public and to the L e . should be published, needed to contend C.;? • resent case from t h an the publication was tl r :he publication v.-as the th e House by a Meta- hay, addressed to the iad listened to. It thee the M ouse might have ind have even commit. •ge of speech ; and, to lenborough in a recut t was barely decent to I become a p arty to the s they must in the case ey suffered a speech ed ; and by sitting to become a party. The led at some length to of Members of their conduct to their r were not liable to any thing which they Parliament ; that they ir speeches, since it was itself would suffer any me improper to be com. also submitted, that he trial to do away the fondant. The publica. on another subject, a ich bad been given in yin the preceding num- ; and to correct that conduct, the defendant o insert the manuscript it remained till the pre- Member of Parliament, his conduct to his con. bels he thought proper answerable for them.— ' the law of the land, ailment. did not argue that he hose of any person, but ig he had uttered in the )n these grounds it was his present application. if there belonged to this raise a doubt, he should rule, that an opportu. ther argument ; but he OR which to found even indeed, in the unwar. :he Counsel had put on as delivered in the case Kenyon did indeed say, of Parliament could That the report of the I could not be libellous EAST-INDIA HOUSE, May 7, 1819. THE COURT of DIRECTORS of the UNITED COMPANY of MERC WANTS of ENGLAND, traits' Atha EAST INDIES, 010 hereby give Notice, • That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Honourable House of Commons in a Committee of the wuoxe House, to whom it is referred to consider of the Affairs of the East India Company with respect to the Renewal of their Charter, are now printing for the information of the Proprietors, and will be ready to be delivered at this Mouse on Thursday next the 19th instant. JAMES COBB, Acristamt Sect tary. d