Star. — London, England, 1821-05-11 00:00:00

ifir - .~~ !bit* !Live Do you know where It 1.4?—L10 not : an the paragraphs . a -e iven to the compositors; I cannot say what is done with them fter •' I believe they are destroyed. Do you know whether this has been destroyed I—T do not I looked for it, but could not find it. Are an such paragraphs as this destroyed ?—I don't know that they are. To whom did you deliver the paragraph ?—To the printer. What is his name ?—lilakie. Were you in the House yesterday when Mr. Weaver was ex antinedl—l was not. Where were you when you were ordered to attend at the Bar of this House ?—I cannot say exactly ; I was in the city at half past eight, and at home after. Did Mr. Weaver.tell you that you were ordered to attend this house? —He did not. When did you know you were ordered to attend ?—Yesterday. What time yesterday ?—ln the afternoon. After be was examined, or before ?—After. Did you see him after he was examined yesterday ?—I did not. Have you seen him this morning ?—I have certainly. You said that if you knew the facts•contained in the paragraph lobe untrue, you would not have inserted them?—.Cert a i n ly. Why then state the first part which appeared in the Courier, we ate requested to state," when you knew it to be untrue?— It is the custom in newspapers to introduce a paragraph by say tog, we are requested to state so and so; it is quite common. Did you tell Mr. Shackell or Mr. Arrowsmith that you would avow yourself to be the author of this paragraph?-4 When ?—To-day. At what hour?—l cannot tell exactly. Did they ever apply to you to inquire who the author was ?— Ttey did. By Lord NUGENT.—The witness stated that the last part of the paragraph was in his own hand-writing. In whose hand writing was the first part ?—ltt my own. Then the whole was in your hand-writing ?—No ; part was an extract from the Courier. In whose band-writing was the extract ?—it was not in manu script; it was a printed copy from the Courier. %Ya there any person present when you communicated your intention to Mr. Shackell and 3lr. Arrowsmith of avowing your self the author of this paragraph?—There was nut. Mr. Weaver, the proprietor, was not present ?-lle was not. When there is any doubt as to the insertion of a paragraph, to whom do you refer I—The whole literiry part of the paper rests with me. Then you consulted no one on the insertion of this para graph ? No. Does Alr. Weaver discharge the same duties on the paper now as he did in the month of February ?—He does. Did you ever see Mr. Weaver at his own house ?—I did not. Did you ever receive any note or written communication from ' him ?-1 did not. Did you ever tell him where you lived ?—Never. By Dr. PIIILLI 0111:—When had you first any comma nicatton with Mr. Weaver before • his examination on the sub ject of this paragraph ?—(We could not hear the answer). The witness was ordered to withdraw, but not to j depart the House. Mr. BENNE'rf said the House had now closed examinations which it had been his business to call for, and he could assure them that none regretted so deeply as he did the necessity imposed upon the House of going through such an inquiry —(Hear). — But he had thought it a duty which every one owed to himself, and, above all, a duty which every Mem ber of that House owed to himself and to the House, to remove so foul a calumny—(ll,ear).—The pro prietor, printer, publisher, and editor of the paper were now before them. The editor avowed himself the author.of the paragraph be complained of. He would not travel through the falsehoods and perjury ' ,—for perjury it was by the oath given in the Stamp ' Office—he would not travel through the falsehoods before them. It was evident that these persons were mere creatures of straw !—(Loud and repealed cheers). He would not comment upon their disgraceful occu pation, or say anything of die-character of the paper —its malice—if malice could be talked of in refer ence to a paper—its malice was known to all— (Chcers).—lt was a paper which only the basest, the meanest, and the lowest of mankind could counte nanpe— (Loud cheering).—Who the persons were who countenanced it he cared not; but be they who they might, they were the lowest and basest of man kind—tCheers).—He spoke not of those who catered idle rumours, but of those who gave it substantial support, by giving patronage to such an infamous vehicle of malicious slander—(Cheers).—When men or women were maligned, there were persons who found pleasure in reading the scandal—they read, from idle curiosity, what was malignant and false.— He alluded not to them, contemptible as was their curiosity ; but he alluded to those who gave every countenance in the nature of approbation to false hoods so wantonly malignant—(Hear, hear).—The mere printers were nothing. His object in bringing the subject before the House was, first, to clear what he trusted was not necessary—( Hear)—to clear his own character to the world ; next, to extract a thing be had hardly expected to be able to effect—to extract from the wretches who propagated the vile slander, the persons who had supplied the funds for giving countenance to such a publication—( Hear). He had failed. He did not say that he was sorry ; for he would much sooner believe that the person who said so was the writer, than that any person of a higher class could have given countenance to such a publication—(Loud cheers). He well knew that by the rules and practice of the House a breach of privilege of less malignity than this warranted a motion for committing to Newgate. Upon cases of that kind generally which had come before the House, he had had but one opinion. He had often given his opinion upon such questions ; and he would not now take a course contrary to the opinion he had given in other cases. He would not take for himself what he had disapproved of in others. He knew that what was really a contempt of that House ought to be severely punished; but he was constrained to con sider real obstruction as the only offence which the House ought to visit with punishment ; but a con structive contempt, which this was, he could not view in that light. He could not help entertaining the opinion he did entertain—having upon the sub ject an opinion of the heart perhaps rather than of the judgment—he could not help thinking that these people ought to have an opportunity of stating their case before a Jury of their country--.-(Hear)—and that they should have an opportunity of preparing themselves for making out a case to a Jury. He c° „ uld only move that the House order the Attorney ueneral to prosecute all the persons examined at the bar On this subct. The SPEA KER, after a pause, read the motion thus :—.That the Attorney-General be directed by the House to prosecute Henry Fox Cooper, William Shackell, Thomas Arrowsmith, and Robert Thomas weaver, for: false and scandalous libel on the Ho, riourable H. G. Bennett, a Member of this House, published in the John Bull newspaper. Tile Marquis of LONDONDERRY was anx i ous that the House should wait another day before it came to a decision upon what it ought to do with a Yiestion lik e the present. Ile was quite sure that-the Honourable Member would be the last to wish the ...•••• , •.., !Rouse to take any precipitate s t e p, W hi c h m i g h t l eave the idea of any vindictive feeling. The Honourable • Member must forgive him, if he differed from the I view which he took of the course the House ought now to pursue. In.deed, he thought the House were placed in a painful situation on this account. He had stated that, because he did not think the House should vindicate its own privileges by committal, that a pro secution was the best course - to pursue. He did not mean to say that there never had been a prosecution in cases of this nature; but he must say, that he, for one, thought it a most improper course to take for vindicating the privileges of the House, to send the accused to trial loaded with a previous decision upon their guilt—(Hear, hear).--It might have been per fectly competent for the Honourable Member, when he called upon the House to notice the libel, then to have proposed a direct prosecution. But he appre hended that there never was a case where the evidence of the parties themselves had been examined and sifted, so as to put the accusers in possession of that which perhaps might be their case in defence, even before the suit had been instituted—(Hear, hear). — They would not be sending the accused before a tri bunal with a good deliverance, but shackled and tied down by the proceedings. He really thought that the wishes of the Honourable Member himself would not be accomplished by the plan he proposed, and that the House would be giving up its own power of vindicating its rights and privileges. He moved, as an Amendment, ~ That this debate be adjourned till to- morrow." Mr.SVYNNI said, that, unquestionably, if the House considered time necessary to decide upon this question, he should not object; but he was prepared to meet the proposition of the lion. Member with a direct nega tive, without a moment's delay— (Hear.)—lt would be unjust to the persons charged with the libel—it would be unjust to themselves, and to the privileges of the House. What was the nature of the question before them? There was no doubt but that it was a gross breach of their privileges, and one that could not avoid punishment; but it was not a case for a Jury, because it was impossible that a Jury could know whether the paragraph alluding to the Honour able Member's speech was true or not. It was im possible that the House could suffer any person to go before a Jury to swear as to the truth or falsehood of the statement. It was not, in fact, a case that a juror could take cognizance of. The course was plain, and the House ought to proceed immediately to commit. Mr. G. BENNETT said, that certainly after what had fallen from the Noble Lord, and upon further Consideration, he was induced to consent to the post ponement. He certainly did hold strong feelings upon the question, but they might be erroneous. He declared his firm belief that the course he had recom mended, was the most lenient to the accused parties. Mr. BROUGHAM was of opinion that leniency should be left entirely out of the question. They only ought to remember that the parties had a right to justice, and that the House must have justice also. In his opinion, if the House were to follow the re commendation of his Hon. Friend, its power to com mit for contempt and breach of privilege was com pletely at an end. if ever there was a case when im mediate committal was justified, it was this. The article complained of was a complete obstruction to the proceedings of the House, and standing upon that ground, they ought not to hesitate in decreeing the punishment. He agreed with the Noble Lord, that if the Common law had been infringed by any misrepresentatibn then a prosecution might be neces sary ; but in such a case, they ought to have stopped the examination much sooner than at the stage to which the present had been carried. He thought also that the House would be doing an injustice to itself, and abandoning its own privileges, if it did not proceed in the usual course. With respect to the person who had avowed himself the author, whether he was so or not was another question, surely in his case there could be no necessity for a moment's delay. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT entirely coincided with the views taken by the Noble Marquis, relative to the injustice of sending individuals before a Jury with the judgment of that House upon their backs. He alio strongly objected to the prosecution, because he differed as to the propriety of the House directing the Attorney-General upon such matters. The At torney-General was not the servant of the House but of the Crown ; and the proper way of proceeding, if a prosecution were necessary, would be by an Address to the Crown. As to the question of privi lege, he did not know that it could be a breach of privilege unless it was a false report of what took place in the House. Now, as no one complained of the report, he could not see how it was a breach of privilege. The remarks upon the conduct of a Mem ber, with regard to a discussion which took place in that House, appeared to him to have no mote to do with privilege than remarks upon any other part of his conduct. If there was any breach of privilege at all, it was on the part of the person who called upon his Hon. Friend (if any such circumstances bad passed, which he was aware had not) for an expla nation of what he had felt it his duty to say in his place in that House. Because if every Member was to be answerable for what he thought it necessary to say of persons in office, to all their relations or friends, there would be an end to free discussion ; because Members could not act freely under such intimi dations or influences. He really thought that in this case the saddle had not been placed on the right horse, and if there was any breach of privilege it was in the quarter to which he had alluded. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR thought the House ought to take notice of the gross prevarication of the witnesses, and was in favour of the committal. He thought the House possessed, and ought to protect the power of vindicating itself whenever it was treated with indig nity or contempt. Mr. BARING saw no reason for the House hesi tating in a case like the present. He thought it much better that the Noble Lord should withdraw the Amendment and that the House should dispose of the person Who admitted himself responsible, and he ing), for one, should feel no difficulty in moving hi, commitment to Newgate. Mr. WODEHOUSE was sorry the question had been brought before the House. He thought real character lost much of its weight by seeking the pro tection of that Ho .se against the attacks of such crea tui es of straw as these persons were described to be. lie thought them was no provision in either of the I sit Acts complained of, so obnotlons as the power of the House which it was now called upon to exercise. Sir ROBERT WILSON said, that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Shrewsbury. was making an attempt to drag to light that miscreant, that base and das tardly assassin—( Loud cries of Hear !)—who,' under the protection of the Press, had been waging a savage and unrelenting war against all whom he conceived to be weak, defenceless, and oppressed. Whatever might be the issue of the attempt, the gratitude of the House was due to him for having made it. As many Members had withdrawn under the idea that an ad journment was to take place, he thought that they had better not decide upon the important point of placing one of their fellow-subjects in confinement, until they should be able to discuss it in a fuller Huns... Sir T. LETHBRIDGE thought the Hon. Member was entitled to the thanks of the House for having brought the question forward. The libel was a gross attack upon the privileges of the House, and conse quently upon those of the People. He thought the Paper in qvestioa was a disgrace to the Press— (Hear, hear).--Having had the persons brought be-' fore the House, and heard their prevarication, there were grounds quite sufficient to warrant their pro ceeding at the moment. The question was then put, and the Amendment for adjourning the debate until this day was carried without a division. The persons named in the ori ginal Motion were then ordered to attend this day at the Bar of the house. BOROUGH OF ORFORD. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT presented a Petition from James Mills, who styled himself " a freeborn Englishman, interested in the freedom and purity of Election," but without any connection with the 80-, rough in queition, against the return of the Marquis of Londonderry for the Borough of Orford. The Petitioner stated that the Noble Marquis obtained his seat, not by the unbiassed suffrages of the Burgesses of Orford, but by the undue influence of the ,Marquis of Hertford. He complained that in this instance the laws of Election were grossly violated, and con cluded by praying the House to refer his Petition to a Committee of Privileges. Mr. W. ‘V INN objected to the Petition being re ceived, on the ground of its praying , to be referred to a Committee of Privileges, when it was properly a Petition complaining of undue election. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT denied that the Peti tion was one of that description ; it crupplained of nothing but the interference of a Peer, which he con ceived to be a breach of the privileges of that House. Mr. ROBINSON.—The Petition complaining of the interference of the Duke of Marlborough in the Oxford Election, was similar to this, and was referred to an Election Committee. Mr. W. WYNN did not see any irregularity in re ferring this Petition to a Committee of Privileges ; but what he complained of was, the irregularity of its praying to be referred to that Committee, instead of leaving the disposal of it to the discretion of the House. The SPEAKER said, it was quite clear that this was not an Election Petition, as it did not come from a Voter of the Borough, but frcin a Freeman, com plaining of the interference of a Peer. The Petition was certainly irregular in praying to be referred to a Committee of Privileges.—The Petition was then ordered to be laid on the table. PREVENTION OF SMOTE FROM STEAM-ENGINES. The Steam-Engines Bill was read a third time, and a clause added, by way of rider, providing that the Act should not ex tend to Furnaces and Engi nes em pl o y e d i n mines and smelting ore.—The . Bill then passed. —Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a division took place. The numbers were— For the Resolution that it be considered nett Session 41 Against it 7 - - - 57 - Majority against the Resolution - —l6 The other Resolutions were negatived without a division. On the re-admission of strangers to the gallery, Sir HENRY PARNELL was moving the third reading of the Tithes Leasiun- Bid. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that al though he concurred in the general principle which dictated the present 13,11, yet, considering the erect of its details, he w-ts anxious the subject should be postponed until the ensuing Session. Sir G. HILL objected to the Bill, and moved that the third reading be deterred to this day three months. Mr. NEWMAN spoke in favour of the Bill. Sir 11. PARNELL said there never was a Bill be fore the House supported by the authority of higher names. It was true, that be might not have the con fidence of the Irish Bishops in as great a degree as the Right Honourable Baronet opposite; but there was some reason for that; inasmuch as the Right Ho nourable Baronet had no less than three Bishops in his own family.—The third reading of the Bill was deferred-to this day three months. BANK OF IRELAND BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the second read•ng of this Bill. Mr. MABERLEY objected to the Bill, on the ground that it went to perpetuate on the country the system of improvident bargains which had charac terised all thesChancellor of the Exchequer's proceed ings with the Bank of Ireland. If these bargains were looked at by the House, it would be found that the Right Hon. Gentleman had almost invariably paid a greater amount of interest than he could have procured it for in England. Perhaps the Right Hon. Gentleman had something to say in favour of the measure, if not, he hoped the House would not pass it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the Hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that he had always given five per cent. to the Bank of Ireland. At the time of the peace, and ever since, the Exchequer Bills at five per cent. were drawn in and exchanged for others at four per cent. and it was to perpetuate this rate that the Bill was intended. Mr. HUME thought the objection of his Hon. Friend (Mr.Maberley) still existed; for although the rate was not five per cent. it was four, and if money continued as plentiful as it was now, that rate would be one per cent. too much. Mr. RICE supported the Bill. He thought that this ought not to be a mere matter of figures; it ought to be more a matter of feeling, and the de pressed state of the prosperity of Ireland, in conse quence of its unjon with England, be considered in whatever bargains were made with it. After a few words from Sir H. PARNELL and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. POET OFFICE. The House went into a Committee on the Post. age Act. Sir H. PARNELL suggested that' the Right Hon. Gentleman ought nut to go on with the Bill before the correspondence which had taken place on the sub if:between Government and t he Post Office, had n laid before the House. Mr. F. PALMER made a few observations on the same side. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER main tained that the country ought not to be precluded from benefiting by the improvements which had been made in regard to other carriages when applied to the - mail coaches. Other coaches could go twelve miles an hour, and it was the object of this Committee to come to a Resolution on which to found a Bill to enable the Postmaster-General to introduce this im provement, and char, , e additional rates for it. Sir J. NEWPORT thought the House should not agree to any such measure, till it was ascertained that it would not be productive of injury to the commu nity and danger to the individuals concerned. Mr. PHILLIPS supported the measure, and re prehended the idea of depriving the nation of the be nefit of modern discoveries, on account of grounaess apprehensions. Mr. RICE thought, that some consideration ought to be given to the system of cruelty it would tend to countenance, in over-working the animals. After a few words from Mr. F. PALMER, Mr. RI CARDO, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. GLADSTONE, the Committee divided : . SCOTCH REPRESENTATION. Lord A. HAMILTON said, that when he gave notice of his present motion, he had hoped that it would command a considerable attendance; but in the present state of the House, he felt that he should be acting unhandsomely by his case, giving it an ap pearance of solemn discussion where solemn discus sion was not; doing violence to his own feelings and injustice to the interests of others; and, in fact, treat ing the subject in a way not very creditable to the House, if he entered at large into the state of Repre sentation in a House which it was rather his duty to count than to address—(Near, hear). He was not disposed to shew the House or the Speaker the slight est disrespect. Forty Members were certainly pre. sent, and the Speaker was in the Chair; but he had a duty to perform to the country and to his consti tuent,: and he should at present content himself with doing little' ore than moving his Resolutions. He could not consent to act that farcical part of attempting to argue a question that some hours hence would be decided by Members now scattered about different parts of the town—(Hear, hear). — If he could command the time of the House as well as his own, he should perhaps give ..notice for some future day ; but in the present state of business that was impossible; and he knew too well the duty he owed to those who gave him his seat to introduce so important a topic of debate in a House like the pre sent. He should merely say, that by a Return upon the table, it appeared that there were only 2889 voters for all the Scotch Counties ; and it was still further reduced by the fact, that many of these vcted for several Counties. He asked, then, if about 2000 voters constituted a sufficient representation for Scot land?—(Hear, hear).—His Lordship then moved a Resolution, " That it appeared by a certified copy of the roll of freeholders on the table, presented in July, 1820, that the total number of persons having a right to vote in Scotland did not exceed 2889."—11is Lord ship added, that his object was to pledge the House to the consideration of the subject in the next Session. The question having been put, Mr. MACKENZIE said, that he was never more surprised than at the speech of the Noble Lord, and he should not oppose the Resolution was it not for what had fallen from the Noble Lord at the conclu sion. He would not agree to any abstract proposi tion without being first informed of the use which was intended to be made of the establishment of that The Literary Gazette of Saturday, the 12th instant, proposition. The object of the Noble Lord was to (No. 225), will contain: i t:, now concluded , . and . regaatkable increase the number of voters, and he (Mr. Macken- ' Poetry, by Sir W , ALTTIL SCOTT, T. CAIITIELL, and T. Mame; zie) doubted much whether the number of voters :a Review of would be increased if the superiorities were done s b A f t e -ot o t f er l a dart' wthatehAoaticralltAnc ,e d s ot tr e a s c . u A fro s m ut t e h m at ent o n f r , at away with. If any abuse were pointed out to him, ,tendin'g the Publication of Mr. Fisher's Voya g e to the a tic he should be most willing to go into a consideration Regions, and Extracts from that Work ; Criticisms on the R o y a l , Aderny—Water Colon:, and o t he r Exhibitions ; Letter of the remedy proposed ; but he conceived. increasing 'from Paris, arts, with a comprehensi v e Vi ew o f t h e Commerce, m a _ the number of voters would be in direct violation of Inufactures, &c. of France ; New Method of Lithographic Print the Att of Union, and particularly when not a single ;ing; Communications front Italy, characteristic of that country; Petition frora Scotland, where the cause of Reform A very singular original Description of the Death and Funeral was not dormant,' was presented, praying for such . 0 . f, the . Sdtan of Java, in October last, by the Dutch Resident; an increase. The Honourable Member concluded i A l l i n e ec i d ) l a rY o al f id an am t i Mal v d. a c i ka d eties. lll2 7 other Literary , Scientific by moving thavthe Order'of the Day be 1101 , read. Lit erar y Gazcue oitc, 16 , 2, Strand, May 10, 1821. - Z 8 - Is For the Original Motion Against it - - - - _ _ Majority - - —23 The House then resumed, and the Report was or dered to be received to-morrow. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Eleven o'Clock. It appears by Papers presented to the House of Com mons, respecting the Penitentiary, Millbank, ordered to be printed March 15, that there are now 551 prisoners in that prison, the net expensd of whose mai:tenance has been £14,880 3s. Gd. for the last year, which is £26 17s. per head. This is about half-a-guinea a-week for the board-wages of these worthy servants of the Public. But the lodging of these Gentry is paid for at a much more extravagant rate. The sum of £400,000 has been already expended on the building of this prison ; which sum, divided by five hundred and fifty-on; gives about 1.:722 a-piece as thesum paid for the erection of the residence of each of these persons. A man who builds a house gene rally gets 10 per cent. for his money, which would make the house-rent merely, for each of the pri soners, £72 2s. a-year ; so that altogether they cost .more per head than the junior clerks in public offices, and about four times as much as well-paid labourers with families in most Counties of England. t. j; , ; ~~ ~.~ -. - il at. brisk' r old .•1... ,A ~,