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

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. I N , HOUSE OP LORDS, MAT W. Berl of LAUDERDALE presented a Petition Rhin Merchants" Compan'y of Leith, praying that the Timber -Dadaa Di l might not pass into a law. • In answer to a question from the Earl of LAVDTRDALT, Earl BATIOIp7 said he ►hould move the second reading of the am ber Duties Bill to-morrow se'nnight. COLONY OF NEWFOUNDLAND. The Earl of DARNLEY said he wished to call the attention of the House to a Petition which had been presented some days ago by a Noble Friend of his (Lord Holland) from several persons residing in the Colony of Newfoundland, who complained of the great hardships under which they suffered in conse quence of the improper administration of justice. le that Petition many atrocious cases of injustice and oppression were set forth ; and, in the absence of his Noble Friend, he should take that opportunity of suggesting to the Noble Secretary for the Colonial Department the necessity of an assurance being made by his Majesty's Government that these grievances should be redressed. Earl BATHURST said, that since the Petition alluded to had been laid before the House, he had made some inquiries into the subject of it, and that he found the proceedings in question had taken place in the absence of the Chief Justice of the Colony. He understood, that in some cases corporal punish ment had been inflicted: but two months ago he sent out directions that such a thing should not be done in future. It had been the practice of the Governor to go up the country in the month of May or Octo• ber, to inquire into the condition of the inhabitants in the distant part of the Colony ; but Lately he was uaable to do so in consequence of his being obliged to reside constantly at St John's. The Earl of DARNLEY took notice of some in- stances of extreme severity under which the inhabit ants had laboured, and for which redress ought to be granted. GRAMPOUND DISTRANCHISENIENT BILL. The Earl of CARNARVON rose to move the se cond reading of this Bill, and at the same time should take the opportunity of making some few remarks -upon it. Their Lordships had already recognized the principle, that when a measure of this kind was sent up to them from the other House of l'arliament. they thought fit to enter into the examination of evi dence upon it, in the understanding that it w,as to receive their Lordships sanction in case that evidence should appear to be sufficient. The first question then was, whether the evidence taken at their Bar could justify this proceeding ? The next was, whe ther this was a measure which ought to be adopted? And after having in one instance admitted the prin ciple, it was for them to say whether the case made out did not call for some legislative provision. The House of Commons had not thought it necessary to bring forward any evidence respecting the last elec tion, but had completely established the existence of bribery and corruption at a former one ; and there. fore, upon that ground, had thought fit to pass the Bill. The Noble Earl now quoted several parts of the evidence that had been already taken by their Lordships, in order to shew that the grossest bribery had taken place it the Election of ISIS for this Bo rough ; and that venality was the leading principle of all its electors. He contended that those elec tors had forfeited their right to exercise the elective franchise ; and the object of the Bill was to deprive them of a tight which they had abused in a way that brought disgrace on the country, and to transfer the right of voting to a more populous place. This Bill would, besides, serve to bring about a salutary change in the Representation of the country ; and would even lead to the extinction of corrupt practices in many Boroughs,where such practices had hitherto pre vailed. If the right of Election here woe to be thrown into the adjacent Hundred, that Hundred included several other corrupt Boroulhs in Cornwall; therefore' no public benefit could result from such a regulation. —He was never friendly to any extended system of Parliamentary, Reform, from which infinite mischief might arise ; but when gross instances of abuse had occurred, it was necessary to suppress the same, to put a stop to a scandalous system of perjury and ve nality. But he would rather leave Grampound to its fate, than throw it into the Hundred. This Bill pro• posed to disfranchise Grampound altogether. He should be far from depriving a place of its franchise, because some electors had acted corruptly ; but here the whole Corporation had always betrayed the trust reposed in it. A majority of electors here could not be brought to act according to the charter ; the Whole body of the Corporation had proved itself unworthy of the privilege it possessed ; and it could no longer be safely trusted with the elective franchise. He would be the last man to try rash experiments ; but this was a measure which the general voice called for, and on which their Lordships were bound to le gislate. The more disposition they shewed to conci liate the feelings of the people, the more would the people be satisfied with and attached to the Govern ment. He anxiously wished to see direct Represen tation extended to the great, populous, and opulent towns of the kingdom, which were now excluded from the right of voting for Members of Parliament; and he anxiously hoped this principle would be -re cognised by their Lordships, in agreeing to the second reading . of this Bill. The town of Leeds was selected by the other House, in preference to Birmingham or Manchester ; and one reason was, that, the town al ready had a Mayor and a municipal machinery. But their Lordships might transfer the franchise to any other place which might appear to them to be pre ferable to Leeds. The Noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he should have no objection to the Bill going into a Committee, where it would, no doubt, receive some alterations ; but he hoped the ultimate decision of their Lordships would be, that of saying Non-content. The Earl of WESTMORLAND objected to the Bill, as tending to give an indemnity to every trans action of the kind which was set forth in it; tor after it had passed, it would not be possible ever to punish any persons concerned in such transactions; because, the. moment a man who had acted honestly attempted to bring others who had acted corruptly t o punish /neat, lie was then to be involved in punishment him self, by a genial disfranchisement, that punished the • innocent indiscriminately with the guilty. Such a principle might snit the Grand. Seignior, but it was contrary to the spirit of the British Constitution, and Marta caarta. This was a direct attack on the char tered rights of the people. He admitted that there was an appearance of fifty persons having acted cor raptly ; of these, twenty-three wet; convicted; and it was to be presumed that the others were innocent. There were about seventy electors altogether; and there were thirty-two persons against whom no com plaint was made whatever ; and were these persons to be disfranchised without any ground ? Was such a thing to be tolerated in England ? There were eight Magistrates, and were six of these to be punished because two of them were guilty ? He was almost ashamed to stand before their Lordships to repel such an argument as this. It was for these reasons he differed from the principle of the Bill ; he differed from it because it went to confound: the innocent with the guilty. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said he should vote for the second reading of this Bill, and he should state his reasons for so doing. He had ever considered the right of election as a public trust, to be exercised, not for the benefit of individuals, but of the Public ; and therefore it could not be said that they were treated with injustice by being deprived of this right after having abused it. With respect to the provi sions of this Bill, he must say that he would not vote for any change on the ground that the right should be transferred from one place to another, and on the supposition that the other place would make a better exercise of it. These rights had no analogy to the right of property ; their Lordships sat and voted in that House not for their own benefit, but that of the Public ; and if the conduct of any Peer was proved to have been notoriously corrupt, that House might justly deprive him of the right of silting in it. The sari* principle existed in regard to a Corporation, the power of whose members the Parliament had a right to take away, if that power had been abused. When. such abuse of power happened to be the act of the majority of its member., although some of them might have been innocent, it was the act of the whole body, and Parliament was justified in depriving them all of the power. The only question then for the House to consider was, whether a case had been made out of such general systematic corruption in this borough as to render the disfranchisement justifiable and necessary. It was clearly proved in evidence that the borough of Grampound had been systema tically corrupt; for it was proved that a sum of money was to be given to each individual for his vote; and he never heard of a more complete case of cor , ruption being made out against the majority of any Corporation. The question then to be considered was, what should be done? The usual practice was to reform the borough by throwing the elective fran chise into the adjacent Hundred ; that was a fair mode; but in the present instance it could not be done without great inconvenience, as there were so many other Cornish boroughs in the neighbourhood, and the rule could not be applied to this particular borough. He had great objections, however, to the particular remedy proposed here, becatr.e it was merely arbitrarv, and founded on no fixed principle. It was agreed that the right of election should be transferred to some other place ; but he doubted whe ther the giving the right of election to the town of Leeds would not lead to as much corruption as that which was sought to be got lid of. He should prefer the giving of two additional Members to the County of York ; or that the two Members for Grampound should in future be returned by such town as his Majesty should, by his ancient prerogative, think fit to name. Many boroughs obtained their right to election by the prerogative of the Crown, which had the power of granting Charters for such purpose ; and this was strictly conformable to the practice of our Constitution. This power would be exercised with more satisfaction to the Public than by either House of Parliament. This would be a safer and less obnoxious principle than any other that could be adopted. Those ideas he thought fit to throw out before the second reading. The Earl of LAUDERDALE could not avoid no ticing a great mistake which prevailed on the pre sent question. It was said that a majority of the voters of Grampound had been guilty of corruption; but that was not proved : for it appeared that against thirty-two of them, who formed the majority, no cor ruption whatever had been proved. There was not a tittle of evidence to prove them guilty. This was an es post facto law, which might be extended to most other boroughs in the kingdom. The Marquis of LANSUOWN said, he conceived that this Bill was entitled to the favourable considera tion of their Lordships ; and because he abs ays ap proved of the principle of a Reform in Parliameia, he was favourable to this measure, which he consi dered less liable to objections than any other mea sure of Reform which could be adopted. It was not on the merits of individuals that a question of this kind was to be tried; but because he believed that all persons belonging to corporate bodies, which had proyed themselves a great public evil, must share the fate to which the bodies themselves, betraying their trust, were subject ; and they must feel, that when they became corrupt, they must lose those privileges which had already become vitiated, although some persons belonging to the bodies might have con ducted themselves virtuously. With respect to the idea of leaving the selection of the new borough to the prerogative of the Crown, he must protest against this proposition as a novelty in the Constitution of the country, introduced under the appearance of an-, cient usage. It would be an innovation altogether inconsistent with the practice of the Constitution to allow the Crown the privilege of selecting another place where a new franchise was to be created; for such a thing ought only to be the act of the three branches a - the Legislature ; and he hoped the House would never sanction the renewal of a prerogative which had long since been abandoned. • If the House should, however, think fit to transfer the franchise to the county of York, he should not object to that. The Earl of LIVERPOOL assured the Noble Mar quis that he never meant to say that the Crown could create a new borough; he only suggested that the Act should empower the Crown to select the town to which the franchise was to be transferred. The Union with England and Ireland completely took away from the Crown the right of creating new bo roughs.—The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday next. At Half-past Eight o'clock the House adjourned. _ ROUSE OF COMMONS. The Raise proceeded to ballot for a Committee to try the merits of the Petition against the return for Portsmouth. The following Members were chosen to form the Committee :-111r. W. Mabetiry, Mr. W. &ewart, Sit R Knatchbull, Mr. Bastard, Mr. R. W. Newman, Lori Stanley, Sir W. Guise, Mr. Clive, Mr. R. Dallas, Mr. W. Thompson, Mr. T. Willia ms, Lord J. Russell, Mr. J. W. Crater, Mr. P. Macdonald, Mr. J. Griffin. General MONTGOMERY presented a Petition against the Scotch JurtCourts Bill. Mr. AB RCROMDIE opposed the prayer of the Petition, and defended the Dill. The LORD ADVOCATE also supported the Bill. Sir R. FERGUSON opposed it. After some conversation, the Petition was received. MISREPRESENTATION. Mr. MA RTIN said he had to complain of a misrepresents den which had appeared in a Daily Paper, of what was said by him yesterday, on presenting a Petition to the House on a sub ject of a very serious nature. He yesterday presented a Peti tion to the House, complaining of the sufferings to which a part of the animal creation, horses, the most useful to mankind, and to which we owed many of our greatest comforts, were subject. He stated, that it frequently occurred that careless or inhuman riders or drivers knocked out the eyes of this noble animal, and otherwise maltreated him ; and the Reporter of the to which he alluded stated, that, at his naming this fact, th P e a L er ouse was contused with, blighter. Now, this statement, which was not correct, must either be intended to, ridicule him, or to do what was worse. to bring into contempt the character of the House, as regarded its humanity. He thought it ought to be noticed, and this licentiousness of the Press repressed. He would therefore move, that the paragraph to which he alluded be read. The paragraph, which was from Tice Times, was then read, and simply stated, in a parenthesis, after the particular passage alluded to, the words " a lauglt." Mr. MARTIN then moved, that the Printer be ordered to attend on Monday. Mr. TIERNEY hoped the Honourable Member would not press this Motion : It was calculated to render nugatory the im portance of that privilege which the House, on important acct. sines, felt it necessary to enforce, for the support of its dignity. Every person in the House gave she Honourable Member cretin for the feeling with which he called the attention of the House i to the subject of the Petition in question. 1 Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW hoped his Honourable Friend would consent to withdraw his Motion ; at the same time, he felt it necessary to say, that the manner in which his onourahle Friend had brought it forward did him the greatest honour, both as regarded his talent and humanity. Mr. MARTIN said he was satisfied with this justification of his motives, and would withdraw his Motion. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. The order of the day being read for the attend ance of Thomas Arruy:sinith, William Shackell, and Henry Fox Cooper, Mr. BENNETT moved, That Thomas Arrow smith be now called in. After a short time be ap peared at the bar. The SPEAKER.—What is your name P—Thomas Arrowsmith. Emntined by Mr. G. BENNF.rF.--Are you proprietor of the paper called .blsn Bull P—l am not now. How long have you ceased to be so?—Since the 10th of Fe bruary. To whom did you give up the proprietorship?—To Mr. IL T. Weaver. For what consideration ?—For none. Was there any arrangement, verbal or written, between you, by which you were to share in the profits?—None. Do you receive any part of the profits?—No, not any. Are there any payments made tayou of the weekly proceeds —Weekly. Do you reside in the house situated in Johnson's-court?—\o, I do nat. Is not that where the printing-press is kept ?—Tes. I las Weaver never given you an'y consideration for this pro perty, which you have made over to him?—No. Is he not your journeyman?—He is not. He has been em ployed by me. Do you not give him three guineas a-week for publishing this paper 7—He does not get three guineas a-week for publishing and printing the .TuAn Bull, but he receives something for read ing the proofs of works printed by us. Is Jda* Bull one of those ?—No. Are you in the habit of letting people set up Papers, or other works in your shop?—lt is not our shop. How ! is it not your property ?—We have rented that house, and the next to it. We pay the rent of k, but receive it of Mr. Weaver. What have you received of him on this account ?—Nothing as yet. How does that happen?—l pay myself out of the proceeds of the paper. How do you receive them?—From Mr. Weaver. They first come to him, and he pays them to me. Do all the profits come to you?—No, not all. Some come through another channel, such as adverti►ements. Who pays the wages of the workmen and others employed on the paper ?—Sometimes 1, sometimes Mr. Shackell, and at other times Mr. Weaver. Then if any one has said you paid the wages of the workmen constantly, they must have said what is not true?-1 have not generally paid them. Then that assertion cannot be true?—Ccrtainly not exactly true. Did you employ Cooper as editor of this paper?--I did not, my partner did. With your consent?—Yes. What does he get a week ?—Three guineas : he was promised more if the publication were successful. Has he ever yet received more?—No more yet. Why did you give it up ?—I was not able to overlook the mat• ter of it. By Mr. R. S3IITIL—Was there no written agreement en tered into between you and Mr. Weaver at the time this paper was given up by you?—None. Who was to pay the difference in ease the expenses exceeded the profits?— If the expenses exceeded the profits of the con cern, then I expected that we were to bear the loss. If the re ceipts exceeded the expenditure, then the surplus was to be Mr. Weaver's !—(.4 laugAfrons the pposition Benches). IA reply to a question put to him by Lord NUGENT, he said there was no oral or written engagement as to the sum to be paid for the paper. Weaver was the sole proirietor of it ;he and his partner bad no idea the sale of it would have become so extensive ; they thought there would perhaps have been a loss on the undertaking ; when they gave it up to Mr. Weaver, there was more than one prosecution pending against John Bah it was very shortly after this they gave up the conduct of this paper to Mr. Weaver; it was more than three days after, or perhaps a week. In reply to Mr. R. SMITH, who asked how they could take on themselves such a thing as to start a paper where they should have all the loss if it failed, and Mr. Weaver the gain if it suc ceeded ? he said, they were content to run that - risk. In reply to Mr. W. WYNN.—Since Mr. Weaver was the proprietor, they had paid over or given in no account of the profits; in the oral agreement no mention bad been made of a power reserved to themselves to drop the publication whenever they found it advisable ; the oral agreement •was about the 10th February; be was certain it was more than two months ago. In reply to Mr. SMlTH.—Weaver was in his employment until this agreement took place; when Cooper became editor, he examined and collated the copy of the paper • he (the witness) bad not seen the paragraph alluded to concerning Mr. Bennett, until he read it in the paper of Sunday last; they did not keep the manuscripts of articles inserted; it was not the practice in their office, in other offices it might be different, but he did not know that. In reply to Lord NUGRNT.—When Weaver saw him et ten o'clock yesterday morning thought he was in conversation with ➢lr. Cooper; not satished whether it was Mr. Cooper or another perssn. In reply to Sir R. FERGUSON.—First heard that Mr. Weaver was to attend this House, yesterday at tea o'clock, and bad tberrno other conversation with him on the subject. The witness was ordered to withdraw, but was recalled by Sir IL Ferguson, to answer whether be had heard any part of the examination of Mr, W yesterday in that House?—Noce. Had he held any conversation with him since on the subject? Certainly, it was natural to suppose he would talk to him and his partner on the subject, on his return to the office. He was then ordered to kave the bar, but to remain within the precincts of the House. r Mr. BENNETT now moved that 07lliam %ad / berr—Are you the pr o p r i etor or the e broug h t s.adnin;d_ Ib t y o u t ‘ t ni h or e w. B b . s a r How had the h lon onou h r a of g ve yseeinou cto be so?—About a week 1r,,„ eased you—Vie:u gh). Why did you give it u p ? I must confess, I was spine eusw of the consequences of a prosecotion. Did you receive a compensation for its surrender ?—No, not ask any. Is Mr. Weaver to make you a compensation hereafter, g e k paper is not hereafter profitable?—Nu. Then did you surrender your property without snaking e stipulation that you should receive any remunerat i on ? I ,r,e What situation did he hold in your service before he • the assignment of this property or newspaper. -lie was oversee t What did you pay him ?—Two pounds a week. we pay hi m now three guineas for superintending the paper. What ! the Abe He pays himself out of the posta i ? —He does. Then to whom is the residue of the profits gives? He will get the rest when the accounts are settled. lie get s what is necessary for his present use. If all is his, why is he not allowed to enjoy it ?—lle gets wkt he wants, which is three guineas. How do you know he gets it?—Because I see it paid, or I And he takes it out of the monies paid. Into whose hands are the profits or monies paid?-Sometimes into my hands; sometimes into Mr. Arrowsmith's ; someti me , into Mr. Weaver's; but it is all in trust for Mr. Weaver. Who keeps the money ?—Mr. Arrerwsruith or myself; sk s l the account book. Who is in _possession do you say of that book ?— Th ere are two books ; I keep one. Who keeps the account of June fluff P—There are two ; is an account of receipts, the other of the expenses, su c h a , stamps, paper, Is the account kept by debtor and creditor ?—No ; only a p'. 42 account of motley received, and money expcnded. No debts; or creditor. Do you see the manuscripts before they are printed or 9et s o have seen them sometimes. Did you see that in the .b , :n 80, of Sunday last ?—r not know ; the manuscript goes to 31r. Cooper, and then to II compositors. ao you examine the manuscripts sent to he printed'-1 not see this paragraph until it 49pear.d i i prim. You appointed Cooper editor e —Yes, I did ; guineas a week ; there is no other editor; and :•e alone exAna u these paragraphs, and reads the paper afterward:, ktvre ;:a completed. _ _ ls he responsible to you for such insertions?—\ o; to lw Weaver. Ilow did he and Weaver bemme connected ?--I tramftmf the paper to Weaver, and with the paper Mr. Cooper's larva., In your time of being proprietor, was Cooper rewonsilik fr the conduct of the paper Ita-1 was the person respousible at do Stamp Office. You say, that sometimes Arrewsmith, sometimes yes or Weaver paid the expenses: was there then a common Inuit the profits out of which these charges were paid by 02, 7 other'—No. How did you keep the accounts?—By balancing the eiptr,v, against the receipts; the balance was to be paid over. Mr. It. SMITII.—If there were a loss on the paper, whom would it fall ?—Weaver would sustain th e loss. You beard from Arrowemith also that thin wac the tarsi the agreem ent?—Yew If the balance were against the paper, then the deficierei va 'to be paid by Weaver ?—Yes--(Laughter). In reply to a question from Sir JOHN BOUGH F.Y, he said.. , I consider Weaver bad a right to do with it as he wished. I ay. self, if I may be allowed the expression, consider myself to father of the paper !—(Loud taus/deep Lord NL'GENT.—Do you now bear part of the expos and outgoings of the paper ?—Yes, out of Weaver's money. pay the expenses weekly. Does Weaver ever pay them ?—Not generally; he has Cooper more than once or Sir R. FERG CSON.—Has Weaver been employed in tar service in any other way than in that of the printing of Jan Buil don t employ him on the JoL.t Ball. I have employed him for other business. Whilst proprietor yourself, Weaver was in yr:users:ex ease time ?—Yes, he was. Since Weaver has been proprietor of the Joh,t Nil, has be not been employed by you in other business ?—Yez, as crasser. Are any of the journeymen employed in your printing-dim also employed on any other paper or other business ?—ies, at the end of the week we lend them to Mi. Weaver to prim his pacer. Does Weaver pay them anything I—Yes, he pays them their wages at so much per hour. Has Weaver ever paid you anything on that account?-Nrox In reply to Lord N UG EN T.—Mr. Weaver never paid thew anything for the loan of these journeymen : they were pail by time. By Sir TM. DE CRESPI GNY.—Are you agent or trims to Weaver?—l am merely a friend. I presume it is not in ID' common thing for one friend to take care of another, or to take care of his money. Did you take care of his money before the transfer took yho of Jars Bull to him ?—We paid him a certain sum of town weekly ; when the transfer was made, he was to receive the guineas as a present. provision fur his necessary• and immeshes expenses per week ; he was to have the remainder of the poi:, if any there were. Why not take care of his money beforel—He was able tot* care of his own, I suppose. The SPEAKER advised the examinant to adopt a se deliberate mode of reply, for his own sake; it would also an the time of the House—(Hear). You never used, then, to take care of Weaver's money befoul Certainly not. Was there no security required of Weaver ?-lle sever asked for security. Did you ever give to Weaver any security for the sccsel so received ?—No. What were the journeymen you speak of employed iseirl during the first part of the week ?—They were eroploysi what is called distributing, or, in other words, preparkg to the next publication. Mr. Shackell was then ordered to withdraw to the lobby the House.—Mr. Shackell having withdrawn, Mr. BENNETT moved that Mr. Cooper be ald to the bar. Haan:lined by Mr. Baxxtrn—What is your name?—finl Fox Cover. Are you editor of the paper called the JAR Bull I—l Eau How long have you been editor of that paper?—Sins It was established. Are you the sole editor of it?—l am. Are all the papers sent for insertion in that paper Oahe your hands? They are all immediately under my inspects Was the article ph hold in your hand submitted to yea bile insertion ?—The first part of the article was inserted is it Courier, the observations were written by myself. Under ee ing, however, that the facts from which the observations sie are not true, I regret that the article was inserted; and lta sorry that any observations were made infringing on the 61r. ties of this House. I heard on Saturday that the facts net true, and I gave currency to the rumours. From whom did you learn these rumours?—General nogg. Cau you name one from whom you heard them'— re moor wet general. What do you mean by general rumour P—l heard it nee' timed at the office by Mr. Shackell and Mr. Arrowsmith n e report was generally current. Did you hear the rumour any where but at the efhte I-4w" not out of the office the whole of Saturday. In the paragraph alluded to, it is said, We are tectit tat. state." Who requested you to state ?—No one. Then that part of the paragraph is not true?—lt is oce. Are you in the habit of inserting such paragraphs to„,,t 11 ! thority of . Mr. Shackell and Mr. Arrowsmith they tell me of some circumstances that occur, and I P' them. Did they see the paragraph before it was published ? " 1" did not. Did they know it was going to the printer -They did a rs Who do you consider as the person accountable for year w duct? Who Is your master ?—Mr. Weaver. Who named you to your present situation?—Mr. Want Mr. Arrowsmith. Ha Wh v o e p y a o y u s been paid sometimes by Mr. Weaver. hand-writing t—The greater part of it. anythingyou?—M to r. S do ha w ck ith ell r an ece d iv Air ing . t he An in ow cm sn el sith ?- : By Sir R. FERG USON.—Was the manuscr i p t in }'ear Have you got the manuscript ?—1 hi% c not• » ~ t -! er (1 •bat ca m qua kip!