The National Register. — London, England, 1813-05-23 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER; Ah, Eur Minx, conaitution, anD Latrz. PUBLISHED AT NO. 11, NrWCASTI.F.-STIYGLT. SiftAHD. Nn. C.K9 S I) 1 N . • 1 1 1. 7 - 3, .1813. PR «F 9d. :~:., LK% &noir unr.w.asaasamsizartscsoc.scrir wsrargar•Pie POLITI r. 7.4 cin-rxi Y. This Crntlrma?), wh , e else WP some wre t :s ago laid be fore the Pub!i-, and why), wit-Renders will rec-Pect, was convi:ted • f •• a: b. , ,tt;:h• tip on Thn!sdav jtvlg,- men % The sentence of the Court was, .tha' he .I - iottld ay a fine 1001. It must ac' now!edged, 'hat he has been treated with Treat lenity. We ;ire never di:posed on s'ight grou;!ds to arraign a f:ourt of Ju , iee, and shall nor in the ~IIP , P , I► i ns t anc o , mart on) o•Ir di nary pt actire, though we have o:at if it ncees , ary to send th- ()Tender to priion, the Court hate tiv•ught it ;;es;rable to call upon him to find sureties for hip future go, d beil•lvkur. Mr f'rt,cr . .Y EV l'as since in his place, declared it to be his intention to bring the whole hnsiness *hvfore tlrr Iluu c of Commorr, to which alone he felt himself am , nah!e for what he had ut!crt.d. Tit hii hehalf it is contended> that a Mem ber of Parliament has a light to say what he !lease. in his place. That to punish him fer correcting that, of which an imperfect account has been !aid hel): c the Public, is to do an act of manifest injustice, as it got.; to admit, that a verson not a Member of Parliament may publish a false account (,f what a Membe; has said with impunity, whilst he is himself fmbjcced to prosecution for publishing a true a.:count.---“ It was, in deed, essential to the liberti7s of all Members of Parliament," said Mr. BRouGHA NI., on the trial, 66 to have this vital ques tion rightly understood, to have it proclaimed from the highest authorities in the State, whether it be the I. w of the land or the 1.43 v of Parliament, that any one may print, :14 the Speech of a Member of Parliament, that which he did not speak, and that Members of Parliament alone are to be inte!- dieted by the terrors of fine and imprisonment from publish ing what they did say." Mr. BROUGHAM, in this instance, appears to wilfully misrepresent, or wholly to misunderstand the me. The prosecution was not against a Member of Parliament I,r publishing his Speech, as Mr. BROUGHAM would have had the Jury believe, but against a Member of Parliament for pub lishing a Libel Now, if a Member of Patitament is jostilie , t in publishing a Libel on any individual whose character he may wish to abuse, because he has commenced the work f defamation within the walls of Parliament, what a notable engine may a borough be made in the bands of those Gen- time)) who wish to run down their political opponents. If the principle be once admitted, the most exalted charaett;rs in the State may be publicly aspersed with impunity The Libel ready for publication, it %%ill only be necessary for the borough pattiza'n to repeat the principal passages of it in the House, and then the parties concerned in publishing it may get the ATTORNE't GENERAL at defiance. These can be VoL VI. No. CCLXXXIL minnlAed over when there are not twenty Members present. a' any t'tne and on any question suited for the purpose-; just as Mr. lif ouG H.A :Nt used to go over the whole question of the Ord:!rt: in Council, and descant at large on the impolicy of the c::ndoct pursued by Government towards America and on the necessity of Pal liatnentary Reform, while mov;ng for papers relative to the Wapping Docks t If such a principle .be once admitteo, it will be well to abrogate the law of libel altooher, or give the Howe of Commons at once fairly and openly the name which would then belong to it—that -of The Lily! Lieensenfre. .Satirist of the present month puts the danger of ad mitting .this principle very pointedly in the following para- graph : " Suppose, far example, that the writer of this essay were a Member cf the Commons Ilouse, - and chose, on the Chi(l4c.'s (Mr. M. A. TAYLOR) promised motion on the t of Mr. Canny Ev's conviction, to state in the House, that Mr. BRO - UOLIAM was a factious ruffian, a quacking de ma:sogue, an unprincipled, unamiable character in private and in public life: that, not content with alleging this An hi; place, upon seeing that the newspapers of the following day had not . loavery enough to report these strong expres si.•ns and correctly, lie should write them down himself, and send them to a print for publication—would not Mr. BROUGHAM think it extremely hard upon him, that ihe law ceuld afrord him no rcmcd for so atrocious an assault upon his fair fame and unblemished leputation? He Irls too . much understar.ding not to feel the force of this ar- gement." • If a Reporter misrepresents a Meelber of Parliament in any mate' i the party aprieved h 3.; the power Of calling the otTe::der to the bar of the House, but a Member of Par. liament if he chooses to misrepresent himself, and to pub. lisle that ai his Speech which was.never spoken, is not in the same degree responsib:e. at, net remembet a case i:z which one Met..ber of Parliameef called a Reporter to the bar for misrepresenting what had fallen froM another. A reporting Member, in the case which we have supposed, would certainly not call up himself. Enjoying this secu rity which another Reporter has not, ought he also to be privileged to write libels with impunity, which would ex - pese another subject to fine acrd i m p t i so nment ? if t hi s to be conce&d, how will the public welfare be guar d'ed iu the House ef Commons • Admit once teat a Member has a right to publish a libel because he has spekee hee in 11;s pace, and we•give a.Mem• her of Parliament the power of publi-hire any Mel he please; whether he Ills spoken it or not. The e \via be no check on a Member who has a taste for this sort of amusement, provided be has that distegerd fur truth, and unblushing impudence, which, libellers seldom want. For example, sup- A