Star. — London, England, 1817-06-06 00:00:00

o F e ct, teat onansweraMd. if Miuisters....if the Presentative, of 'Le People, wished to earry the wren:"' with them, and to pain the eieid opinion and ennsdoice of the discfeet, the conscie-itfous, and the te a. i uemnal part of the c"mmunity, they *mild ap pr:ni a Committee, the names of the Member. .11 0 1 4 h W nold cenvince ever; mind of the impartiality of rese investieation. K r . BARHAM consideted the decision of the pre lent guesti •n as involving the decision on the ques t i, n whether the Habeas Coypus Suspension should be c onfirmed! Whether the people of England were ore rte such treason as to render them justly liable to h t . wired of all pretence •f canine themselves a' fr,r elite ? He was anti-:us to enter his earliest pent.:t ay u mt such a proposition, and the more so, to( me hitherto, when such measure. had been re. on:mended (with the exception of the last occasion), he i..id felt it his painful duty to vote for their adop. tiryi. The circumstances of the times were, however, materially iiifferint from those of the periods to which h. 'hurled At those periods we stele at war, not met - 1, or vissessions, but for existence ; at those r ind: it wes indispensible t!'at the attention of the Executive Government should not be withdrawn frail ,xternal conies', by internal commotion; at that rind the discontents existing in the country wer ready to br fomented by a powerful enemy, whose intrigue , had ramified extensively throughout the E m pire. Were any such dangers now existing ?Tu him it appeated that the present was not a temporary surrender of the Habeas Corpus Act. If the Legis. bture were now justified in suspending it, he could• rct cnuceive A case r n which they would be justified in limn away the suspension. He did not at:ribute to the piesent Ministry any such proceeding, but if a wicked Minister wished at any future period to ob. tani that undue power which the suspension would aff , rd him, he would only have to instigate a distur boc, in some part of the country, and plead this recv.le.it for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus.— Nin t h lie did not say that it was so, he would grant, for 11,e sake of the argemen , , that there were districts io the caintry in which mischievous practices were aming on, W 45 that a reason for suspending all h. , ihrwrglo.ut the country' Parliament began to be too much tamihsrised with the Suapension of the }14h..,$ C.rput..Act. That suspended, there was no Ir 'Trice het ween the Government of England. and •a,potic Governments on earth. What were the /rare: de-cachet which it•. France occasioned, and is t. , c inch of rime persons, justified the Revolts tion, b•st stospt.nsion of the Habeas Corpus ? We thanked ?ROVIDENCIL tor the issue nt the late contest. 41 hal we g tined if we were 1.. be deprived et our .tt.s ? What difference should we have felt, be. en filling under the dominion ot Bonaparte, and ig J: proved ot the Habeas Corpus i--(Hear, .Isear.) the suspension were to last during an election, he ' a rig , ,i .to ask at th it raitly be called a C down's, C.tobtla und r such circum- Agin nut any man, who did not please be imprisoned as long as the Minister fir, and that without remedy ? In :ot itis privilege, the House of Commons ender every. thing—they would surrender ito.y would surrender their country (how.) iMITH said, he knew that the Committee ice of Lords had, on this subject, come to decision ; and 'be knew not that tidy other• ad been laid before the Committee ot that . what had been laid before the Committee tiute of Lords. They had therefore a right the decision of this question should not be to the same parties, a no had already de. ig. The evidence taken before the last was undoubtedly tit noted down, altd tat evidence might be laid before the next He hid been.desired by the respectable ; of Norwich who OerSided on the occasion Grand Jury entered into an examination of 'tins with respect to that city, to state to trait in direct contradiction to the Report .nmittee of the House of Lords—in direct :bon to the evidence on which that Report (minded, the Grand Jury ih their presentment only on the evidence of the Constables of it wards, but also as their own opinion; .h Societies ekisted in Norwich as those mat Report. • He knew that this was also opinion of the individual in question, who at he (Mr. Balkh) should represent it as be could to the House. With respect to non., since that time an election had taken did not contend that a bad Spirit had not f—but w as there any one circumstance' occurred, than any Member of this or the Ise would term seditious, in the ordinary word ? When he said a bad spirit, he spirit of riot and tumult which had un-' taken place; but the question Was, who., existed *among the looser orders such a cis Majesty's Ministers had reason to be , such a spirit as they were told by their did actually exist ? He repeated, that nut help thinking that the examination be put into other hands than those who bad luenced oy the same evidence which had mis ',nominee of the other House. He was therefore, that the Committee of his Right id should be accepted, instead of the for mer. He contended, too, that they ought the whole country of the safeguard of union, on account of anew disturbed dis . 4 follow the . example which had been set :r Kingdom under similar circumstances. i'HEROE wished that on this occasion Astenibly or County Members sad indepen ibers had been present, as the country, in would bare paid moteleference to their Wien he gave his support to the measure ailing the Habeas Corpus Act, be did it in confidence in the unanimity of the opinion of lake- But the question was infinitely more now than lt was when it came on the occasion before them, irbeis Parliament was ' had A power of interference. He Could to delegating to any individual the power ',animating a Committee. When the former CoM ' was nominated, there Was at least the sem , it not the reality, of so egression ot the dn .. • senue of the Httu,e. .LAMB understood that the appointment of Loniinitte r , when it was proposed to colt the Suspension ot the Habeas Corpus Adt. VIM altogether unpreciedeneedi Formerly, when suet. a tiliainte eras fliopciseil to be renewed, tile Mi nister asked it oft his own responsibility. On the lath occasion too his Majesty's Ministers had not f ilovel , I prec-dent. Mr. Pitt and Mr A fdiftatto. nana-.! their Committees persons who entertained tl , -• saute views with respect to the situation of the coon!? v which they thems e l ves did. I n hi s op i n i on t hi s was , the constitutional mode. But if Minister; attempte , to gain also the support of persons who entertained opinions at variance with the general principles on which they acted. they ought to have done it on a larger and m ire extensive basis, and in a manner to give sitastaction to the country. If the same Com• mittee were appointed, they would be placed iii a very trying situation—if they gave in a similar Report, it would be said they were prejudiced; and if the Re port were different, they would .also be liable to the accusation of having allowed themselves to be terri• lied by the reproach and obloquy likdy to be thrown on them. He should give his support to the Com mittee of his Right Honourable Friend, though he agreed with the Member for Bristol in thinking the mode of appointment objectionable. Sir WILLIAM BURROUGHS contended, that it would be more satisfactory to the House and the country that 42 Members shand.l concur in the ne cessity of the continuance af this measure, than to hale merely the Report of 21 Members selected by the Noble Lurd and his colleagues. Lord MILTON said some circumstances rendered the appointment of the old Committee advisable ; they would carry on the sequel of the examination with more expedition than a new Committee. Bu: then, on the other hand, a new Committee would give more satisfaction to the country—(!leer, hear). He was inclined to think that the most advantageous course would be to mix up new names with the add Committee. He did not wish to exclude the Mini sters of Vie Crown from the Committee. He could see no harm in giving the Committee a power to cu. mine witnesses. He should vote against the minion' of the Noble Lord. ST J. NMPART and Mr. BATHURST explained. Mr. STUART WORTLEY conceived that it would not be satisfactory to the country if the same names were appointed. With that view he should vote for the motion of the Noble Lord. that if passed other names might be added to the Committee. The SPEAKER said this would be impracticable. The House had already decided that the Committee should consist of 21 Members. It. therefore. there existed in the House the 21 Members who were on the former Committee, this was conclusive, that no others could be appointed ; and the only Member of the former Committee not now in the House was the late Attorney-General. Mr. STUART WORTLEY then declared thit he should vote for the motion of the *tight Honour.. able Baronet. The Gallery was then cleared far a divisions when the numbers were—For the motion of Lord Castle reagh. 126—A g ainst it. 66—Majority, 60. UNITARIANS IN IRELAND. Sir JOHN NEWPORT moved for leave to bring in a 11111 to extend that toleration to Unitarians in Ireland, which they now enjoyed in this country.' The laws ditected against persons who did not be lieve ie the Trinity, enacted in England in the in William and Mary, and 2d of Anne, ch. 2, had been 'extended to Ireland. `What Ite *wished to do was, to extend to Ireland the 53d Geo. 111 ch. 150, by ' which these intolerant laws had been tepealed is England; and also the 19th Geo. 111. chap. 4, by which, instead of a declaration ti belief in the Divi• nity of Jesus Citatirr, a declaration was admitted in certain cases, of a belief that the Scriptures contained the revealed will of GOD. Mr. PEEL And Mr CROKER doubted whether the Act of 51d Geo. 111. did not actually extend to Ireland. Sir JOHN NEWPORT was of opinion it did not. Lamm given to bring in the Bill. DUILIN DOCKS Sir HENRY PARNELL said, that an expendi ture of at least halt a of money was about to be lavished in erecting new Docks at Dublin ; when Government might purchase from the Irish Grand Canal Company, for £60.000, Docks fitted to contain five hundred sail of shipping. His object was to save the country from so enormous an expense.— He then moved for the Estimate of the Expense of the new Docks. Mr. PEEL agreed to the production of this Esti mate. When he went to Ireland, he found the ground for the erection of these Docks had been al ready purchased, near the.Custorit House, at an ex pense of ilfloo.ooo. The Canal Company's Docks were only calculated to contain boats for inland na• trig-ad= ; and it was the opinion of Mr. Rennie, that they were totally unsuitable for the reception of ships employed in foreigo or coasting trade. Mr. PONSONBY wished to know by whom and by what authority the ground for these Docks was purchased ? Mr. PEEL repeated, that when he went to Ire land, he found this ground already purchased, and of course by the former Administration. The best way would be to move for returns of that expense. - Mr. WELLESLEY POLE said , that this pur chase was made before the Administration to which he belonged: either in that of the Right Honourable Baronet opposite, or of the Duke of Wellington, which succeeded it. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that a demand had been made for £l5OO to purchase this ground. from the Administration to which he belonged ; but the proposition was not acceded to when the Administra tion was changed. Thus far he was accountable, and no farther. The expense to which these Docks were to be carried was considered in Ireland as a great waste of public money. Mr. W. POLE said, this wotk had not been no , de:taken until after the bon mature deliberation, and in consequence of the opinions of the most eminent engineers. Mr. V. FITZGLItALD agreed to the motion. The rent of the stores in the Docks would soon repay the expense to the Public. The motion was then agreed to. • Mr. PONSONII/ then n ntoete for ad ateouht of all Minis of PioatrExpejided in the wertioo of Wet 1). cks an Dublin, and of the authorities under which thole eapendituses were anat. , — Ordered. Land sldiffi. On the motion for gain/ Oto s, Conunittee os the Leetllginei roof Races - Bill, Sir J. GRAHAM ob. 'jetted to the till, is !eliding b 4 anhbi all sititienierits. betwon landlords and tenants of Lead Mines. He moved, that the House gd into the Commit •er that da, kit rhombi. Lord LASCELLES contended, that thin sill did not go to inituduc:e any thing nein as to the property .n Lead' Mines. It merely went to rh/ite that law ailicii the proprietors 01 Lead Mines had been accns. corned to pas for 60 years to the li or Rites. Mr. D. GILBERT said, that custom had always Prevailed in the mines of the %Vest of England ; and he saw ro reason why it should not preiail in the lifurth i,F Enitland also. Mr. BANKES opposed the Bill. After some fur ther discussion the House divided—For going into the Comtnittee 28—Against it 71—Maj rity against going into the Committee 43.—The Bill was conse. quently lost.—Adjourned at Half.past Twelve; to ir • ,f, ir itled 1 f r , e , e..1,1r ? pent , A 2;: 4111)t bet - fuse hither' I on:mended (le j be i•ad felt it h I 6)4. The eirc I materially itiffe y! 'hurled A I merit !or p•il rind: it w4S I Executive Gor from ,aternal c rind the ells , ready to br fur intrigue , had Empire. Wei, boo it appetite, surrender of thr Mute were non rct conceive .1 i t i lo lining away I to ihe present I wicked Mini,tet trir that undu, off , rd him, he hoc , in some precv.leo , for th Thiniuli lie did for 11,e sake of I in the cnuntry I riming on, w I A ihrwigh , .ut be too much tai liah.•,s C.rputs diff,rence het wt the nin:,t ...tip at the kora de-cac iot , e Inds 01 tion, Ira A sus' thanked ?nowt What had we g libenws ? Wh: hi , en lilting uf bei:eg d: paved I If the strsprnsic hid a rip, so 'lnn.' ~ C. , w it,.:. :. NI. ,0 tee aiimistee b bp. Oink fir, itude;i. , g this Rehr stiffen& donoelvea, the, kle.W. SMI'l rill. House of a stag deeiste evidence had le blouse than wh dice House ml bask 'halt the committed to t Wed wrong. Committee - wa therefore that e Clainittee. I Magistrate of P when the Gran the allegations the House, tali tit the Colman cultradictft II Was founded, dated, not MI the admit wt that no such d Rod in towt I the pt tease opt isited that ff 4MA) As be c to prediction., Pl 4 crs he did I &Foto itself—it Which had . of ci ether blouse s wee of the we aunt die bpi , inbietily take I htt there exit Whit As his IX theeid f—suel km' informers le could out tight tr, be p it Welt Influence( red the Cima % ,: 11013 , t her r 1 non. Friend ter COnintitte IC I to deprive • 60 Cimsttentr., tttv,. but .o I i' , istrr X Mr. PRO i' 1, l n'tte awash t %tubers , ghtt Case, *oil it . Ciiittli• Ty sirl k etllS;Matling I rct confide tbe Committee C ivirtant nos I l er occasie 4 g, and ha 1 . '` C "stat to hu miliating e 41 the was not lice, it not i 'lid sense o s 41 '. LAME sew Conntol e le the Susp e thing altogtl LAM' INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE S. LIBEL. Tit! O. T. J. WooLLER. The trial of the defendant excited very great in terest, and at an early biur the Court was crowded. Upon the Bench, near his Lurd siop, b , l! Mr B4PIO GARKOW, Lord CAsTLattitao“, and Mr CANNING ; but the two latter tented before the defendant corn menced his case. Syr FRANCIS BURDITT, and seve ral other Members of Parliament, were also present. is was an information filed by the Arrottoxr- GIUMAL for a libel publised by the defendant, race , ling on his Majesty's Ministers. The ATTOHNZY GILNKRAL stated the case to the Jury. He observed, the libel in question was pub , lished by the defendant on the lid of April \last. in a periodical publication, of which he was the proprietor, called Me Mack Dwarf, and whist was vublished by him, :hough he employed other persons tb s sell it for him. Amongst other blessings which we enjoyed. was the blessing of a free press ; but for the welfare ut the State, and the comfort of individuals, it was necessary that bounds and limits should be set to that liberty; without which, it would degenerate into licentiousness. He would state boldly, and without fear of contradiction, that there were bounds and li mits, and if the defendant had exceeded these bounds,. it then became the duty of the law to restrain him.— To discuss freely. fairly, and boldly, all public men sines, was a liberty of the press, the exercise of which, be hoped, he should be the last to attempt to re strain ; but to impute to Ministers of the Clown wicked and corrupt motives of action, was. he would state, witbeut fear of contradiction, a libel on the State and people. It had been laid down by our wisest Judges, both before and since the Revolution, that to impute corruption to Ministers was at all times a crime against the State, which went to affect even its safety and existence. He was ready ti ad. mit, that public measures were open for fair discus sion, and even in the effervescence of the moment, if a man was led somewhat beyond the line of prudence, he would be the last to take notice of it ; but where there was a system of imputing to Ministers entrap. ti a and treachery from beginning to end it was ao longer a discussion at folly or aisdom, but a system of wicked and intentional libel. If it could be al lowed to exist against one set of Ministers. it might ram against all, sod where then would be the safety of the State t The Learned Counsel then proceeded to contend, that such had been the course adopted by the daindant, in the libel with which he had now to chaige him. and by the publication of which h% intended to introduce disaffection into the minds of the Ring's subjects against the Government, and against the King himselt, and to scandalise him and his Ministers Was it not, he would ask, to scanda lize Ministers and the Government to say, that a system had been carried on to destroy the liberties of the subject ? To say that was the motive by which Ministers were guided in their conduct of affairs, not only at home but abroad .? Was this, he would ask, the fair liberty of the press—was it not rather licen.' ' tiousness, which tended to overturn a ll the e stablish. meats of the country ? He was aware it would be said by some, that the present defendant was prose cuted to answer certain particular purposes ; that he would deny ; the act of filing the information was his act ; if he was wrong let all the blame rest on his bead. as it QUghl to do ; he had done it without con sulting any individual who could have been suppo. sed to influence him; and he had done it in a conscien tious discharge of ins duty. He would now proceed to read the libel, and if the detendant, by reading any other part of his publication, could explain away the libellous tendency of it, he was at liberty to do an. The libel began with the words—" When we state what England formerly was, and what she is novi, we start from the contrast, of what we were, and what we are." it went on---. 44 Our Ministers have deceived and betra;ed us. We have to reproach them with most ialamuus duplicity and dreadful treachery—they promised to fight our battles whilst they fought their own. Whilst they talked of pa donuts, they meant blood. They had engaged in a contest against freedom abroad to sacrifice freedom at home—that Constitution which France bad never thought of assailing, and which she never wished to injure, had perished ignobly at St. Stephen's." It went on—is If we were to perish, let it be in the open light of heaven, making appeals to the God of Free dom against the agents of slavery and degradation." The Attorney General said, these were some of the passages of the libel ; upon which he proceeded to comment at considerable length, and contended that the whole was founded in falsehood. So far from combating against liberty, we had combated for and preserved her, not only at home, but abroad. But it was thus that, in all nines, there would be found bad and wicked men, who would take advantage of any opportunity of misrepresenting and working on the folly and passions of the distressed. There was also a second libel in the same publication, on Lord Ca. tlereagh and Mi. Canning, individually. Here, ad verting to Mr. Canning, the defendant said...." The unblushing impudence of Canning's brazen fe mires enables him to sit in that Assembly (meaning the House of Commons) from which he ought to be driven with execrations." He then proceeded to draw a parallel between a statesman who betrayed his trait, and a petty pilferer who plundered from Want and distress{ and applying the parallel to Mr. Canning, he continues —" When the gibbet was pre pared for the one, the scaffold should be ready for the other." To state this generally, the Attorney General said, no one would deny to be legal ; but to . apply it to individuals WI Certainty Marlton& The gteat `ell of th se pittilicat;ons Was, Pia 0-* first stated sums broad and forcil/le Reiter 1 pftetnitilofis and then applied it io individulls. After s .trse fur ther obserest.ons hii the inisel.fevoris tendenty di the line r'f conduct adopted by the .fefendant. the AV t-rney General tOnluded by deciarins his convie. don, that the Jury would with him attrkes that the publicatior no before den, was a most scandelous libel. H- then proceeded to c.illee de , ce. B. Steed was called h. prove the publiLaiion of the libel —The defendant said, Ire would admit himself to be the author, puttlish, r, add prieter ii;s r.e paper called is The Black Dwarf," read by Mr. Attorney- General. The libel was then read. B. Steed was called back and stated, th it he re ceived for sale 1()00 numbers of the paper containing the alleged libel of the "d of April. He received them from the defendant. Mr. Broom proved the name and lid:. c' Lord Castlereagh, and that he WAS a Knight of it e Garter. Witness was also acquainteJ with Mr. Caniiiii. , who was a Privy Councillor, and his title in consequence Right Honourable. Witness had seen ine of the papers in question—that of the 2J of April, and be lieved what was there stated, beginning —o we state from the contrast. He understood the veord eve," to apply to the whole people of England, and where ever the words "our Ministers" were in•roduced, he considered the sentence to apply to his .Majesty's Ministers ; and in the second paragraph, beginning, the "appetite of our statesnum," be c. , nsideted to apply to Lard Castlereagh and Mr. Canning. Grose examined by the ilefendant.—W 1)4 was the witness's reason fur supposing that tl:e word Ministers applied to his Majesty's Ministers ?—Answer. Wit ness did not know any other individuals to whom it could apply. Defendant.—Did witness think his Majesty's Mi nisters were the only persons in the country who could deceive or betray? Mr. Justice Anteerr desired the defendant would put his questions in such a shape that the witness might be able to answer them. The Defendant said, he should decline any further questions. He then proceeded to address the Jury in his defence. He trusted, he said, notwithstanding what had been said by the Attorney-G• neral, that in .publithing the alleclged libel, he had only exercited the privilege legally possessed by es ery public writer. In late times the law ed libel had been pushed to a most a atraoroinary length, and the powers of Attor ney-Generals had been wrested tar beyond *hat they were in old times. He would ask, whether in former times a man would have been dragged fawn his lions* and bit ,amity, shut up in a prison, and perhaps re duced to ruin by such illegal and unconstitutional proceedings ? Mr. Justice Aaaorr here interposed, and cautioned the defendant, that it was not allotted him to say in a Court of Justice, that proceedings by Intorasa ion. which were as old as the law itself. were illegal or unennstitutional. ['he Defendant continued: He consid Ted himself at liberty to describe them as illegal, because he con sideted them as contrary to Mao* Chat La and the Bill of Rights. He then proceeded to reply to the Attorney General's speech, and observed, he could not give the Learned Gentleman toll credit tor his at 'raisin, that tins posecutn,n was entirely h s town ; there were two niacin) ttions prating against him, one 01 which certainly was filed by the I ate Attor ney-General; and the second, he brlievri, was pre paled before the present Attorney-Gratzl came onto' office. .lo advert to the aliedged I.e -lad not come there to deny his principles, but to avow them; and it was not a political harangue 1r -in an Attor ney-General that would make him change them. The Jury. though honest men, might differ front him in politics; but it they believed he had any intenaimi of promoting rebellion they were deceived ; he ad pted the course he had done, in ht-pes of preserving our Constitution inviolate, and therebypreventing rebellion. He should be told, perhaps, he nerd not h a v e b een two hours in confinement, whereas tie had beet. five weeks ; but in a right cause, lie would never bend. He had. therefore, suffered loss 41 liberty undei that law. which he contended ought to ba repealed by the general execrations of the pe iple It he had had a wife and children. and a business which could not have gone on without him, he then oust have sub mitted. Dtu he was single, and had no one to care for him, and lie cared not what distant dungeon the sentence 4,1 condemnation, it it passtd, might send him to. (Here were loud ex/Ire:rival of applause frsis the crowd in the Corer, which was excessive.) Mr. Justice AllSoTTs.ild, it any perstni at; 'in pre sumed to disturb the proceedings, by such Intl, cent expressions, either of applause or disappr. Wotan, be would commit them. The Defendant proceeded.—He was charged with a libel reflecting on the King ; that could not be ; it was said the King could do no wrong ; in other words, he did nothing Innis flf, all acts stele the acts of Ministers, and they were ens , ' erable tor them ; and on the acts of Ministers only had he commented. He contended that, in stating they had deceived and de luded the people, he had only stated truth : they had promised to restore good order and social happinev?.. Good order and happiness were not restored. If fighting to restore Legitimate Governments—if haw. ing restored the most detestable system of G..vei n meet which the people °IA country were eve: hos rtherie d with, was to restore good order on the Omtinent, then st had been done. The Attorney-Genet:A had complain ed of the liberty of the press becoming licentiousness, and said it was necessary to put limits and bounds to it. If it did want bounds, he trusted theAttoritev-General was not the person who would be selected to fix these bounds and limits. If the bantling was rickets'.; and wanted gnidiag, hehoped the Attorney. Generat would . ant have the leading.strinys given into his bands.— ' The Attcrney-General had said public writers aught discuss public measures fairly, Ireelv, boldly, and strongly; perhaps the Learned Gentleman would allow him to have dune the three last, but would deny that he had done the first. The Attorney-Ge neral said, to accuse the Minister of an ~:tempt to destroy the law, was a libel. He would say now, they had not only attempted, but they had th.ne it; they had subvetted that 'Corot tution, whicis they declared was nut sufficient of itself to mt et est ticg evils, which he was of opinion exisied only s.i the.; imagoottma. Was it a libel to attack character and gapacity, where neither character nor eapac:ty existed ? With respect to the law of libel, it was