The Statesman. — London, England, 1821-05-11 00:00:00

- ••••• ; I . Why do you pay him three guineas a week if the whole profits of the paper are his ?--Btreause -thatonfis is necessary for his present use ; and he is to hate the balance afterwards. If the whole is Weaver's property why does be not enjoy it, instead of receiving only a portion ?—How do you know he receives three guineas a week ?-1 have seen ,hlns 'mists It. • 'Who pays it ?—Sometimes, Ido ; sometimes Mr. Arrowsnaki. sometimes be pays himself. into whose bands are the proceeds of the paper paid ? Sometimes so Mr. Arrowsmith ; ssmetimes to myself ; sometimes they are paid to Mr. Weaver. Have you an account current with Weaver, as you state yen sit in trust for the balance. due to him ? he-e has not yet been any account made out. There books in which every thing is entered ; and these beoki arropen to Mr. Weaver. Vito keeps these books ?—Mr. Arrowsmith, or my- If, makes the entries, as it may happen. Who is in possession of this book ?—There are two hooka at•the office. I believe they are now lying on desk. I speak of one book—the account current of John ReII I'-There are two books ; the one containing the :eipts, the other the expences. To whom are the accounts credited and debited ? There is no ledger, only a plain statement of the viney laid out and received. D.) you keep your accounts in the same manna with , fo•retwe to the other parts of your trade?—The an ,wer was inaudible in the Are von in the habit of looking at the manuscripts ',tended 'for insertion in John Butt before they are ' ?—I occasionally see them. Dill you see the manuscript of the paragraph in ques on?-1 do not know that I did. I cannot say. I tight or iniglit not. • The manuscripts generally go .031 Mr. Cooper to the compositors. Do you at present examine any of the manuscripts .ot to the office of John Bell v--Sometimes. •Itut yon cannot say that you did not see that of the I l ragraph inserted in the Paper of Sunday last?-1 do tot positively know. I may have seen it ; but I do o.t think 1 'lido lam clear, however, that I did not Tat the paragraph until I saw it printed in the Paper. Did yon appoint Mr. Cooper to be the Editor of n Bull .: I —Yes. What allowance has he ?—Three guineas a week. Is there any other Editor ?—No. Was there never any other Editor ?—Never. Ilas Mr. Cooper the sole management of the Paper? —The sole management. floes he examine every paragraph before it is print ed ?—Yes ; and reads it after it is printed. Then yon consider him as responsible to you ?—To Ilr. Weaver. You consider Mr. Cooper responsible to Mr. Wea ver for the publication of the various articles in the Paper ?—When I transferred the Paper to Mr. Weaver. 1 considered myself as transferring Mr. Cooper to him at the same time. hid you consider Mr. Cooper responsible to you w!lett volt were joint Proprietor of the Paper t•itlered myself as responsible, my name being at the Stamp-otfire. Who pays Mr. Coo;:er ?—Sometimes Mr. Arrow smith !=ometimes myself. Sometimes yon ?—Sometimes 1, as it happens. Then i! appears you have a common purse of the pro ceeis of the Paper, out of which you pay the work men, the printer, and the editor ?—No. flow then ?—Mr. Weaver is to be paid the balance Wl:en it is settled. Who keeps the balance in tl:e mean time ?—Mr. Ar r,w4mitli, or myself. 1;v Mr. SMITII.-11 there were to be a loss iu pub the Paper, who was to sustain it, you or Weaver ? r . Weaver %% as to sustain it. Are yon quite clear of this?? --Perfectly. Was that known to Mr. Arrowswith ?—Yes. At the time of waking the agreement with Mr. W, aver es. Suppose time expenses had exceeded the proceeds ? I dare s.ty the paper would not have gone on. If there had been a balance against the Paper was aat balance to be paid to yen by Weaver ?—Yes. By Sir J. 1101:011E1. —When you made the Pro rrietorship over to Mr. Wearer, did you conceive he had a right to drop the Paper or continue it as he rlight think fit ?-1 conceived that lie might do as be pleased in that respect. I had nothin' wore to do v ith the Paper ; although I started it, and may b considered as the father of it.—(A laugh.) By Lewd UGENT.—I think 1 understood you to say, that some part of the outgoings of the Paper were borne by yon up to this time ":--Out of Mr. IVeaver's 1/10111C y Do vou occasionally par the journeymen and other rrson. who are euiployed P—For Mr. Weaver. Does Mr. Weaver ever pay them himself'—Not always. 113 , be ever paid them ?—I think he has paid Mr. sometimes. P.' you happen to know how often he has paid Mr. Cooper ":—Not exactly. ;.sore than once or twice ?—I think he has. 1;v Sir It. FEROUSSON.—IIes Mr. Weaver been cnipioyeti by you for any other purpose than in print irg .Ivlsn Bull ,'-1 do nut employ Mr. Weaver in printing John Thin. [Ed vou not employ Mr. Weaver to print Joh,. Bell while yon were the proprietor's—Yes, while I was the p-oprietor. Did you at that time employ him for any other pur pose ?—Yes, in my employment generally, as overseer. Are any of the journeymen employed in printing Julia Ball employed by you in any other part of your business' —When there is such an influx of matter that Mr. Weaver requires assistance, we lend him solue men. When those men are lent to Mr. Weaver, does he pay any thing for their labour P—Of course. They are paid so much an hour. Ilas Mr. Weaver ever paid any sum to you on ac count of those men P—They are among the several disbursements in the books, and the amount accounted for in the b lance. By Lord NUUENT.—The question asked you by the lion. Member is, whether, when you lend any extra men to Mr. Weaver he pays you for the loan?—The money s not paid ; but it is among the disbursements in the books. Sir W. DE CRESPIONY.—In what capacity do you consider yourself as standing to Mr. Weaver, agent or 0v T . 4 .. , sometime Have state yin 'I he-e ht are book books sr Who 1 ( self, mal Who 1 10100101 . W the degk I spei Hell t— rect•ipts. To w There rnuney 1 11.) yl referent slyer tr. Are • intemle s in• tea 1 • , -n Pill loon ? Plight from NI Do sent to •Itut irtragr pot po PA 01 t Mt 1 tl . Did Jvittt Wit i la t 1 I Wa Ils. —Th • 1)0 eti Tit Dlr. % Yo %Tr c: . , Tapes I' IVeat i Coopi i Pi tt w%ie t.i...ler I St:lnt W ; .te.if • ' F. 4 1 ue..lTi ren II . a 1:.• 11 • nw I , v•:'. i --1 , - 1 ' . W. i t ' • 1 1 t 1 4 tl . '4 . ; t d II r r . ill ha r, i Id I I. . i 0 I• ' .I. fc ii ri ;, I 4' 1 4 1 I k i •i f 1 / a o ii • I A i A i I 4 ) 1 1 . i • I money before John Ball was transferred to mi.._ then bad a certain salary; be has now three guineas a week for his present maiitensisce, and expects at the end of the year, or of the half year, the balance, if there is any, to be paid him of the profits. You have not answered the question. Were you in the habit of taking care of Mr. Weaver's money before John BO was transferred to him?—He is capable of taking care of his money. The SPEAKER callid the witness to order. Ile would do well with regard to the House, and would make a better Impression with respect to himself, if he would deliberately attend to the questions put to him, and then give direct answers to those questions. Mr. Shackell begged pardon if he had offended the House; but observed, that lie was rather deaf, which sometimes prevented him from hearing the questions exactly. The examination then proceeded. Were you in the habit of taking care of Mr. Weaver's money before John Brill was transferred to him ?—No. Have you given Mr. Wearer any security for the safe custody of his money ?—None at all. I was never asked. What are the journeymen employed in printing John Bull occupied about in the early part of every week ?-1 believe they are occupied in what is called distributing, and preparing for the next publication. The witness was then ordered to withdraw, but not to depart from the House. On the motion of Mr. BENNET, Mr. Cooper was then called to the Bar, and underwent an examination to the following effect : By the SPEAKER. —What is your name?—Cooper. What is your Christian name?—Henry Fon. By Mr. RENNET.—Are you the Editor of the Sun day paper called John 11rrll!"-1 am. How long have you been so ?—From its commence ment. Are yon the sole Editor?—l am. Are all the manuscripts wh ich Are sent to the Paper for insertion submitted to you?—They are all sulnuitted to me. [The Clerk of the House was here directed to place in Mr. Cooper's hands the John Bell of Sunday last, with the objectionable paragraph marked.] Was that article submitted to yon before its insertion? —Part of it is an extract from Tie Courier. The °bur• cations were written by myself. The House will, per haps, allow me to add that I now understand the facts stated in that paragraph are not true. I am extremely sorry to have done any thing offensive to the Honour able Gentleman, and which is considered a violation of the Privileges of the llouse. I believed, from general rumour, that the facts contained in those observations were true, or I world not have inserted them. Whom did yon talk to on the subject?—To nobody. From whom did you receive the facts which you stated?—From general rumour. Name one person from whom you heard them?--I had the evidence fur them of general rumour. What do you mean by general rumour ?—1 heard it mentioned in the office. By whom?-1 heard it mentioned by Mr. Shackell a nd M r . A r rowsmith, as generally current. Did you hear it from any one else?—No. During the whole of Saturday 1 was in the olh e. Then, on the general rumour mentioned to you by Mr. Sitackell and Mr. Arrowsmith, yon wrote the para graph ?—Exactly. The paragraph is headed, We have been requested to republish," &c. who requested you 1:—No one. Then that part of the paragraph is not true ?—No ; nor the latter part, as I now understand. Are you in the habit of inserting paragraphs of this description, on the authority of Mr. Snorkel! and Mr. Arrowsmith ?-1 ans in the habit of receiving intelli gence from various persons, and from them among the rest. But yon inserted this ,aragraph on their authority alone ?--Yes, believing that the facts were correct. Did you see the paragraph before it was printed ?-- No ; the paper was gone to press before I saw them again. Did they know the paragraph was inserted :—No; they did not. IVhatu do you consider as the person in the office to whom you are to account for your conduct?—To account for my conduct' Yes, who is your master ?—O ! Mr. Weaver. Who named you as the Editor?—Mr. Shackell and Mr. Arrowstuitit. Hare you any thing to do with the receipt and payment of money ?—No. Do you keep no accounts ?—None. Who pays you?—Mr. Shackell and Mr. Arrow smith. I once received my salary from Mr. Weaver. But you generally receive it from Shackell and Mr. Arroo smith ?—Generally. By Sir It. FERGUSON.—Was the paragraph in question written in your own hand-writing?—The latter part of it was. Have you it in your possession?- 1 have not. What has become of it?—The paragraphs and all the other articles are given by me to the compositors. What becomes of them Ido not know. I believe they T E STATEM trustee ?—As his friend. I presume it is comoson for - Yon hay, stated, one man to take care of another man's money. graph to be obtrne, flow came yon to in Were you in the habit of taking care of Mr. Wearer's I . ; ., — H e requested to respubli „y~ are destroyed. Do you know if the paragraph in question is de stroyed ?—1 believe it is. In the office of the John Bull newspaper, are all the paragraphs of this nature destroyed after they are printed 2-1 know nothing of them after they are given out of my hands. To whom do you deliver them :—To the Printer. What is his name ?—Blackie. Were you here yesterday ?—Did you hear the exa mination of Mr. Weaver?---No. Where were you when the warrant was served at your house last night the city. I was at Corn- hill at half-past eight, and went home afterwards. Did Mr. Weaver communicate to you that he bad appeared here ?—No. Did any person communicate it to you ?—No person. When did you know it ?--1 knew it yesterday. At what time ?--In the afternoon. Did you see Mr. Wearer yesterday after his exa- L mination?—No. Did you see him this morning ?---Certainly. that if you you would osert the first part it, Lida." Sic bowleg it to be —it is a usual way to introduce a paragraph to say, " tie are haired' to .say," w, " we are requested to say." Have you told Mr. Arrowswith or Mr. Shackell, that you intended to avow yourself the author of this paragraph ?—Yes. When ?—To-Jay. At what honr ?—I cannot tell exactly. Hid they at the time of the publication inquire who the author was ?—They spoke of it in conversation generally. By Lord NUGENT.—You have said that the latter part of the paragraph was in your hand-writing. In whose hand-writing was the foriner part ?—lt was an extract from the Courier. The whole of the remarks were in your hand-writ ing ?—Yes. In whose hand-writing was the extract from the Courier was in print. Then you occassionally send to the press of the Jobs Bull, printed copy from the Courier ?---Y4 s. Ily Mr. MACDONALD.—Was any body prevent at the time you toll Mr. Shackell and Mr. Arrowsmith that you Wendel to avow yourself as the au hor of the paragraph ?—Not any body. Not Mr. Weaver ?---No. When there is any dwelt as to the safety of insert ing a paragraph, to whom do you refer it?...-The ho'e of the literary management of the paper is confided to we. Do you mean to say that you consult with nobody on the propriety of inserting any paragraph that way appear hazardous ?—With nobody. Does Mr. Weaver continue to discharge the same duties with respect to the paper, as he did previously to the month of February?—Yes, he does. By Lord NUtiENT.—Oid you ever see Mr. Weaver at your own house - c—No. bid you ever receive any note, letter, or other writ ten communication from Mr. Weaver, addressed to you at your own houe ?—None. Did you ever tell Mr. Weaver where you Eyed ? Never. By a MEMBEn.—nia Mr. Weaver know before his examination yesterday, that you wrote the paragraph in question P—l do not think he did. When was it you first communicated with Mr Wea ver on the subject of the paragraph ?--Was it before his examination here . :—I do not exactly recollect when it was. Isere the witness was ordered to withdraw, but not to leave the !louse. Mr. P,F.NNET said, they had now arrived at the close of the examination into a subject, the necessity for bringing which forward no one regretted more than himself; although he had felt that be could not in the discharge of that duty which every man owed to his own character and in the discharge of his duty to the House, abstain from doing so. The House had now had before it, the Printer and Proprietot, and the Etlitor of the Paper, the latter of whom had avowed 1.1111 , 4.1 f the author of the paragraph in question. He would say nothing of the falsehood displayed, of the perjury exhibited, of the shameful evidence given by these mere creatures of straw—(Hear, bear,)---in the disgraceful exhibition which the House had witnessed. Nor would he say any thing of the character of the paper with which they were connected. The objects which he had had io view in this investigation were, first, to clear his own character ; next, if possible (although he hardly ventured to think that he should succeed in that object) to extract from the wretches who had appeared at the Bar who the persons were who employed them, and who furnished the funds for assailing the characters of others. In that last object lie had failed. He could not say that he much regret ed this ; and, indeed, he would rather believe, if it was ios,ihle to believe, that those wretches were the authors of the libellous matter of that publication, than that it proceeded from any other quarter. He knew very well that by the rule and practice of the (louse, in breaches of privileges of this or of a much less serious nature, there was one course generally adopted, namely, at once to commit the offenders to Newgate. Since, however, be hail bad the honour of I a seat in Parliament. lie had held and professed but 1 one opinion on the subject of those summary judg. I meats. His heart, if no t his judgment , told him that 1 there was only one course which he ought to pursue., namely, to give these people an opportunity .of rockingl the best of their case before a jury of their country. I He would therefore move, "'(shat the Attorney-tie neral be directed to prosecute Henry Fox Cooper, William Shackell, Thomas Arrowsnah, and Robert Shomas Weaver, for a false and scandalous libel on the Honourable Grey Bennet, a Member of the House of Commons, contained in a paper called John Dull, of the date of Sunday, May t, which libel is as follows, &c." The Marquis of WNDONDERRY assured the Ho nourable Member opposite (Mr. Bennet) that no one regretted more than he did the Breach of Privilege of which he so justly complained. The llonnerable Mem.. ber was certainly placed in a situation of much deli .cacy and difficulty. Ile (the Marquis of Londonderry) did not mean to say that there were not cases in which such prosecutions were directed by the House, but maintained that in this instance it was not the most proper way of vindicating the character and privileges of Parliament.---(Hear, hear !)—Were they to send these persons beforea Jury loaded with the censure of that august Assembly ? There was no instance in which such a prosecution had been, directed by the House after having proceeded so fit in the examina tion of the parties, and after those parties had disclosed that which would be a part of their case before a Jury. The Noble Lord, after expressing a hope that the Ho nourable Member would consider the nature of his air tion, moved as an Amedment, 66 That the further de debate on this question should be adjourned to to- morrow. Mr. W. WYNN said, that it would be unquestiona bly necessary to adjourn this debate if the majority of the House thought that the motion of his Honourable Friend required further consideration. For himself he was ready at once to meet the question. He thought it woukl be not only unjust towards the parties accused but derogatory to the privileges of Parliament, to send the case to a Jury. The misrepresentation of proceed ings in the House was not a fact of which a Jury could take cognizance. Under those circumstances, nothing pevso E e i s t osrd of id als also this tail Paper. fu r ii t . w prt ho ya s ri ta c t a ed i jo h n im o se f at once to proceed in this manner against the ought i t f he th to o be e t r h n e would perhaps be matter of consideration whether th e I rions punishment. Mr. H. BENNET observed, that perhaps *Pwe this question be heW opinions different from may li e , nonrable Gentlemen ; he was most unwilling to r att2 forte against th that sort e parties in question o f p a . nishment which be bad uniformly • opposed, when pre. posed to be indicted on other persons. Indeed bel ie d proposed a prosecution by the Attorney-General as by fur the most lenient course of proceeding. Mr. BROUGHAM stated, that as wasthis • a (m on of more than ordinary importance, be should snak e % apology for offering a few observations u p on it. I to, House of Commons was not entitled to commit • in thi s instance for breach of privilege, then no i t •• ns aneegma g them that power could possibly occur. It was impost'. ble to think, that if the House intended to pr ocee d against the parties at common law, they ought not to bare been much more abstinent in th • that they ought not to have stopped f tie examination; sr short of the course into which they bad been led. Th • et, in the ex ercise of their high persons to their Bar, who, under the fear of instant punishment, disclosed matters which might be made evidence against theta is a Court of Law. Ile was not prepared to say, that c ases might not arise which would justify such a proceediag , but he coutended that the present was not one adieu. lie was opposed to the motion of his Honourabk Friend, and he would oppose the postponement of the question, unless with a view to consider the nature of the evidence given by the three other persons called to the Bar. ' • Sir F. 111211.1/ETT observed, that the House bad Id. don entered upon questions like the present, Maser involving itself in a dilemma. He did not disk flat the House should send the accused parties into &Coast of Law, after having, in the exercise of a power which it claimed as a privilege, extracted from them in as is. quisitorial manner, statements which would make they witnesses against themselves. This was to him as is• superable objection to the mode of proceeding proposed by the Hon. Member (Mr. Bennet.) lie had also as. other objection, which was this, that he doubted the power of the House to direct the Attorney-tieneral * prosecute. The Attorney-General was not an officer that House, he was not known to it in any other caps city than that of a Member. If a prosecution was !ohs instituted, it would be more proper to proceed by as Address to the Crown, praying that the Attorney-line ral be directed to prosecute. The House ought to cote eider the difficulty in which they were placed. As fat as he could perceive, there was no Privilege of Parlia• ment attacked by this publication, unless it was a Breach of Privilege to give a false report of a Member's speech. But that was not the charge here. The thing comphin ed of was a ruin-representation of something which or curred out of the House, and which bad nothings/do with the Parliamentary conduct of the lion. Medals whom it alluded. If there was any Breach of Privilege, it was in that person who called upon the Hon. Meeks to account fur what he was supposed to have said is Par liament. Ile (Sir F. Burdett) knew that the words is. pitted had not beets uttered by the Hon. Member. Bat surely it was a gross Breach of Privilege to account est of the House fur any observi.Cons which, as a Mania of Parliament, he felt it his duty to make upon any pm sons holding official situations in the country. It rat against this species of apprehension and intimidatim that the House bad a right to call for protection. Is former days, the protection of Parliament was called fa against the intimidation of the Crown, but that onset at an end. The llonourable Bart. concluded by es pressing a hope that the lion. Member would not prim his motion. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR thought the question of seas rious a nature that the minutes ought to be printed. Mr. BARING suggested to time Noble 31arqeen (Londonderry) the propriety of withdrawiug his amendment for the present, for the purpose of alley ins the House to proceed nit!' respect to the perm who called himself the Editor of the paper, as he, far one, would have no hesitation in sending him to Noe gate : it would then be for the house to consider bee they would proceed with respect to the other parties concerned. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR explained. Mr. WOHRHOUSE submitted to the lion. Member (Mr. Bennet) with great respect, whether thereat cimv r a tter of the House did not su ff er from Hon. Members seeking protection against the attacks of such era. tures, such men of straw as those who had bee° . called to the Bar. Malevolence and m isreprestets iso° were what they were all subject to, from the lia r tions they held in society. lie would call epos V' tlemen to consider whether this pourer of privilege sis° not looked upon in a ut,,st questionalml2 point of vie* . by the people ? There wa s not an y clause in ssY °I time six Bills so often alluded to by gentlemen 05 til . e other side, so objectionable i n the e y es of the peop le as the exercise of the privilege of Parliament. Sir It. IVIIAON defende d his lion. and lianost Friend (Sir It. Fergu son) front the iuspostimer thrown upon him by the p a p er in question, awl 0 : served, that the only object o f the p resent inquiry ss to drag from behind the shield of the Press the der tardly assassin who daily employed hi i self in att.sethels ing the defenceless and power less. lie supported motion. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE remarked, that the pubiicot i. • e of in question was a gross attack upon the pile, , he pesP it ' Parliament, and therefor e u p on the liberties of was attack ° for whenever the privi le g e of Parliament . 1 his Part the liberties of the people were endangered. - its (John Ball) had been for some time dealit. malignity in a manner disgraceful to the press . I e jurious to the morali t y of the tount .T.hu an advocate for the libert y of time press, t ll he s ipport its licentiousness. Ile felt ther efore ever bad the boldness to stand up and expose tiousness was entitled to the thanks of tbe I: et concinded country.—The Honourable. Baron o _ . serving, that the previsricat!on of three. i t 11 thew. w as su ffi c ient ground to pro.•eed again, _ :aiwlelf to• respect to the p erson who a vo wed . 11I FFL tu stmish its! Thig 9RP s k i m &WI to 41 00 1." owl Ni l • l'ke lti v aisigtos rr e dia pe , " h yr. PI • Afta I It :PM u es do. anew' lb INTERP Sir F son ems some of tise Mu ford. Alm F. Rot was to The hirotieli selsject doe Po re b e d i p 111 The LonJ his prc Keprea terest tion attend , ouch I would which then theref in sub the to was ensui I cone Rep cfacl newt appe► to 2t atuti4 coon greal that land olnd do Si HOS' appe jorit - T pros Si 16'1 _ Aftp--441Mift - 't i h e al Shown the pars- WI the strongest grounds could prevent the House not have 4ssalled-it from departing from its usual practice, which was coa t . t p a rt of it, 44 We are mitroent, and in this way he thought, that they ougLi •1441.• •• _ that the weds ler on. Member. hot the ea lege to account Ne rhich, as a Moshe thismake upon any pm le country. It use Ise in and intimidatim for protection. Is the ament was called for fru wn, but that was sir t. concluded by ev über would not pros lie question of so w. th glut to be printed. he Noble Marques f withdrawiuf hie purpnge of allole• A =peel to the pe r " the paper. as he, fur 1m tending him to Nev. time to consider how .0 the other parties 1 'd. l to the lion. Member 1 whether the real eke r from lion. Member ttacks of such ewe. lose who had bees • and rnisrepresestatio to, from the would call WI tel l " power of privilege Ist ionalil2 point of vie! any clause in soy of by gentlemen oa die he eyes of the people 31 P.trliament• is lion. and 6allset rout t he impurities'c' in question, and he present inquiry ear of tllO Press the der ayed himself in attack - .ss. lie supported the ced, that the pubiicatios upon the privilege of he liberties of the people. Parliament was attacked nolaugeretl. 'lbis Par l e time dealing forth in 41 to the press and i wi ntry. Ile was aboye e prep, but he wo uld aft felt therefore that Orr ip and expose that l ifer i nks of the Iluuse a ri the aronet concluded by of three of the wits ` es eel ag ainst th. lowlelf theme &WWl'