The Statesman. — London, England, 1813-06-26 00:00:00

which effect he should certainly make a. 'motion, if the suggestion was not acceded to. CIIANCELIDit of the EX.CIIEQUER said, he certainly had intended to bring in a Bill si- ; milar to the present, hut as his time was so.greatly occupied, he hats requested his Hon. Friend to take that trouble. Mi. Fit KNIANTLE contended, that it was a Bill of great importance, not only as it affected indivi duals, hut as it affected the revenues of the Crown, and thereforele saw no reason why the Hon. Can tlemn►l should not anticipate a discussion upon One of the clauses, he understood, enacted that all property put up to sale should be liable to duty, whe. Cher sold or not.—( 4 Under certain circumstances," . from Mr. Vharton, across the tahle.)—There were other points, also, that required discussion, in his opinion. Mr.-WHARTON said, he had been totally mss-'' apprehended. What he had said was, that in the present stage of the Bill he had no reason to expect any diseussion. Indeed, he did not apprehend the Bill was liable to much objection ; he had had fre quent interviews with persons affected by its provi sions, with Mr. Martin, Mr. Christie, and others, en d he i la ,l frimed it, as nearly as possible, upon •t% hat he conceived, from those communications, mould be more likely to seiore the interests of Auc tieneers in general. lig would, however, propose, that instead of the Bill being recommitted on Mon thy, it should be committed now, with the Amend ments, and be taken into further consideration on Tuesday next. Mr. lIUSKISSON wished it to be printed , toge ther with the Amendments. Mr. WHARTON said, that when he introduced it, he intended it should have been printed after hay. ing been committed. The Bill had been communi cated to a great many Members of that louse; and several of the Amendments were in consequence of svnyfroions from thoit Gentlemen. Mock Auctions, indeed, had become an evil of such intolerable ex tent, that some regulation was imperiously called for. Mr. TIIOMSON spoke in favour of the Bill.— Ile thought the evil of Mock Auctions, which were nothing bit- swindling transactions, had been con. lined to the metropolis ; but he found that they now infested every part of the country. Mr. 11USILISSON explained. Mr. P. MOORE suid a few words in favour of it ; irhnt the Bill was committed . , the Report received, and the further consideration of it fixed for Tuesday neat. It was also ordered to be printed. A Message from the Lords announced their Lord ships' ascent several Bills.—[For the titles of which see Lortls.]—Their Lordships also desired a conference in the Painted Chamber, upon the sub ject of the Resolution which had been communicated to them at the last conference. Those Members who had managed the 'ast conference were then ap poietptl to manage the present; who, together with several additional Members, went forth accordingly. On their return, Lord BURGHERSH informed the house that their Lordships had agreed to the Reso lution (the 13th, respecting the sending of Mission aries to India) without any Amendment. OR \GE LODGES. A Mr. W. WYNNE gave nodes, that he should call the attention of the House to the Orange In stitutions now forming in this cbantry, en Tuesday reit. MISSIONARIES TO INDIA. Sir IT. MONTGOMERY inquiredoiLord Castle reagh, whether he intended the Resolution respecting the introduction of Missionaries into India, to stand as at present, or to incorporate it with the B:11? Lo . rd CASTLEREAGif replied, that he intend ed to introduce it as a preamble to that claim of the Bill %%hick vested the coutroul in the East India Com pany over persons going to India. lIELLESTONE ELECTION BILL. Mr. BAKES moved the second reading of this Bill. Ordered to be committed on Wednesday next. MR. CREFVEY'S CASE Mr. CREEYEY, having previously signified his willingness to postpone his motion, if the Noble Lord (Cas!lereagli) thought it would interfere with the discussion a the East India Bill, and Lord Cas tlereagh I.aling replied that he apprehended no lengthened debate would arise upon the second read ing of that Bill, the discussion being rather under stood to take place in the Committee, he proceeded to make his motion. He began by stating, that he never had any intention of complaining, so far as he himself was individually concerned. He had suf fered the trial to go on, and he had let it come to judgment before he thought it necessary to make this , statement upon a case which affected the privileges ; of every present and every future Member of that House. lie would not ask the House to come to any resolution, but he would mention as an induce ment to be heard patiently, that this was the first I case in the history of Parliament of any Member being arraigned and condemned in a Court of Jus- I tice for any words spoken in that House, although they might be afterwards printed and published. The Honourable Member then went into a detailed state ment of the transaction, recapitulating all the facts of the case as they have already appeared in the; course of the judicial proceedings had upon it, and which, as it contained ne additional information, need not be here repeated. Having gone through; this statement, and contended that in declaring his opinions in his place as a Member of that House, he was net amenable for so doing, to the jurisdiction of any Court, he illustrated his argument by a refer ence to several cases of impeachment by the Com mons, and among others, to that of Lord Ba con, asking how it would have been possible for any Member of the House of Commons who con ducted that impeachment, to have delivered his reasons for voting in favour of it, without uttering expressions which ►could be defamatory as applicable to Lord B.? If he had explained on the hustings to those whose representative he wished to become, why he had voted in that House for the expulsion of Mr. Haut for peculation, how was it possible this could be done without defamatory words ? And how, accord ing to the doctrine laid down by the Judges, could Mr. Hunt be prevented from calling him (Mr. C.) to account in a Court of Justice? The same remarks applied to his votes in the cases of Lord Melville and the Duke of York. If he went to his Constituents with au explanation of his eoudect on these owe. 1 /1 J i , 1 scone, he was told by Justice being a bona fide representatioo in that House, and the judos nothing to do with the question. must cut off all correspoydence.between sentative and his Constituents. This too, when reports were permitted by , House, so that, by the Judges' law, left at the mercy of Reporters, un l ess throw themselves on the mercy of the - much from the reason of the case (; son was said to be law), he should impossible that a Member should - give a bona fide account of his conduct stituents; and if the accounts were not a bona fsde one, it was to the House alone, he contended, that he should be obliged to answer. Now, as to what Was the practice of Parliament on this ? The first cases which occurred were during the Loos Parlia ment, when the House was debating ',Atli closed doers, and when, accordingly, it was not necessary for Members to correct what was said for them by other persons. The House at that time, ordered, at particular times, the speeches of its favourites to be printed ; for instance, those of Mr. Pym and Soli citor St. John, in the conference with the Lords; and that of Mr. - Pym, on the subject of Strafford's ettainder. These were recognised, as printed by order of the House by Charles I. who entered into an argument with the House, founded on parts oT these speeches. After this, the speeches of per. sons on the other side came to be reported.— ' Lord Digby printed his speech also on the subject of Strafford's attainder ; and although the Haase had ; ordered the speeches of Pym and St. Joint to be printed, yet fearing the effect of the soundest* of the arguments of this speech of Lord Digby, on this motion they condemned, after an enquiry into the matter, the publication of it as scandalous, and a crime, and ordered it to be burnt by the common hangman. This case was one of the most atrocious acts of the Long Parliament ; but it was curious that neither the House, nor Solicitor St. John, nor Sir Harry Vane (whose evidence, among others, was impeached in this speech) ever thought of prose. cuing Lord Digby. The House then grew bolder, and resolved, that Members were bound to deliver out no notes or copies of what was pro. pounded or agitated in the House. These were dan gerous precedents, but they showed at least that the' House alone was the judge of what was spoken by its Members. Sir E. Dering's speech being printed, was also burnt by the hangman, and himself ex pelled. Some time after, Mr. Taylor, the Member for Windsor, having expressed his opinion to his , constituents on Lord Strafford's attainder, a paper, containing a copy of what he said was brought into the House, and he was expelled, rendered incapable of sitting again, imprisoned,- and ordered to ac knowledge his offence at the bar of the House, and at Windsor. They thus claimed jurisdiction over words as they had done over printed speeches, so by parity of reasoning, if the Courts of Law had power over the one, so would they over the other. After the Restoration, Andrew Marvel, from the year 1660 to 1678, used to send weekly to his constituents at Hull an account of the proceedings in Parliament, to all purposes a publication.-- Than these accounts, to judge from his other works, nothing could be more sarcastic, yet he was never visited by the Attorney-General. The speeches of Sir F. Winnington and Lord Caven dish, in 1679, on'the Duke of York's exclusion Bill, were ordered by the House to be burnt by the hang man ; and after the Revolution, a speech of Sir J. , , Knight on the Naturalization Bill, was treated in the same manner. These speeches voted libellous ' and scandalous by the House, some libels on the Parliament, others on the King, were never prose. cuted in Courts of Law; and now, for the first time, on a prosecution by a Gentleman concerned in the collection of the revenue was it decided that they rshould be punishable in that manner.—These cases I occurred when there were no reports of what passed in the Horse published ; but since the battle with the Pi inters in 1771, the reports bad been published in much the same manner as the reports of the pro ' °endings in Courts of Law. In 1771, the House committed a printer for publishing the debates, but the magistrates, in.return, committed the messenger. Messrs. Oliver and erosbie, two of the magistrates, were committed by the House, but Mr. Wilkes, the ; other, stood out, and no further notice was taken. No resolution passed on the subject since that time. The reports being thus authorised by usage, Members of Parliament were the only persons precluded.from stating what was slid by themselves; or if they did it, they must do it at the mercy of judges, and with the experiment of a jail. There was no legal means of correcting these reports—the printeri might be called to thelar and reprimanded • but it would not, answer the purpose of setting a Member right with his representatives, to punish those mistakes which might be made in the hurry of reporting. It was said by some whom he highly respected, that they should be very jealous .of Members of Parliament abusing their privilege of speech, but this jealousy came too late. Debates were published, and when a man bora the responsibility of publishing what had been said by himself, it was much less likely that individual character should be injured than by the common mode of reporting. He (Mr. C.) was very jealous on the subject of Parliamentary Privilege, but it was of the Judges he was jealous. It was the object of their privilege to protect them from the Sovereign, and it was not too teach to say that the Judges had always been willing instruments of the Crown. This might be seen on a review 'of their interference with the House of Commons. Inj the time of Charles I. on a case which then occur red, the Judges of the King's Bench spoke for all the world as they spoke at present. Sir J. Elliot, and four other Members, having. been troublesoilie in that House, were to be got rid of, and theyhav ing been prosecuted in the Court of King's 1 the Judges said (just as Lord Ellenborough aid Vii , present), " We will not daem into question the trio privilege of Parliament men,"—" but they have no privilege to speak at their pleesure."—" The Court of Parliament is a high Court, and so . ought not to be disorderly." The lightness of the sen tence was equal to the clearness of the reasoning.— The Defendants were to be imprisoned during the King's pleasure,—Elliot to pay WOOl. Hells 1000 narks ) and Valentine 6001. to the King. During did*not die& diminished; by eage, :011 whici he could' true, sal, he ___ not feel the least penonal sore- ness. There were suflicienr grounds fa jealousy of .Parliament awe body, - but these did Rot apply to the publication .sof speeches in Parliament. Of the abase of Parliamentary privilege, there were in stants not o n ly in the bong Parliament, but in our ow' times. In the last' Parliament proofs were ten dered of the trafficking of seats In that House by some of iti Members. t h his most violent breach of privilege (as he conceived it to be) was passed over ; but then such a miserable' person as Gale Jones of fended,. the Bill of Rights was read with great pomp and ceremony, and he was committed to Newgate. —When the Dukes of Leeds and Cumberland interfered in elections, no uncivil proceedings were instituted against them—but Mr. Crogan °fended in like manner, and was committed to priton.—Tbas the privilege of Parliament was offensive towards defenceless Individuals, bat aban. dead when it should by field up against the, Crowe. -- Jealousy eget reasonably be shown towards such privilege, but not towards a Mem ber explaining his conduct. A case very simi lar to his own he should introduce, to show how varying the conduct of Judges had been, and how liable to be influenced by extraneous circumstances. The case was Rex v. Wright ; - it was an information Horne Tooke against Wright, the bookseller, for having printed (he not being the authorised Printer of the House of Commons), a Report of a Secret Committee, in which Mr. Tooke was charged with high treason. On this occasion Lord Kenyon said that a rule nisi bad been granted under the uncer tainty, whether or no the publication was what' it 'purported to be, but there being no doubt there was Hats ground for the motion. Justice Lawrence, whom no one doubted, was not inferior in judicial abi lities to Lord Ellenborough, put the publication of Reports of proceedings of Parliament on the footing of those of Courts of Law. Till he saw this case reconciled with his own, he should think that the decision in this case was such, because Mr. Tooke happened to be obnoxious to the State. The Bon. Gentleman concluded by proposing his Resolu tion, which consisted of a narration of the judicial proceedings in his case, and the circumstances at ' tending it. Mr. BENNET seconded the motion. Mr. C. W. WYNNE opposed the Motion, on the ground that there was no precedent on which such a matter as the present had ever been brought before the House by way of resolution. If the House came to a decision on this point, they must take some steps in consequence ; but, as he saw no breach of privilege, he should not consent to it. The sen timents of Mr. Fox were, that the first privilege of Parliament was freedom of speech in the House ; but it might be a libel if the same words were published out of it. It was true the debates of that House did find their way. into the newspapers, but there were many instances in which speeches were made, parts of which those papers would not give. He believed the privileges of the House were the strongest bul wark of the Constitution, but the surest way to overthrow that privilege would be to extend them in the manner contended for by this motion. Colonel O'HARA spoke in favour of the motion. He argued, that the right of Members to give their Constituents an account of their sentiments delivered in Parliament, implied a right to publish them to the kingdom at large. Mr. WESTERN said he could not vote for the motion of his flon. Friend, in the shape in which he had brought it forward, though he should have voted for an enquiry to ascertain the right of Parliament on the subjeet. He thought it of the utmost import ance to guard their privileges with respect to the law of libel from any encroachments on the part of the . Crown. . . Lerd A. HAMILTON observed, that if the law were not as the judges bad laid it down, it ought, for the general benefit of the public, to be so established; since -Members of Parliament ought not to be al lowed the impunity they would possess, if the doc trineslaid down by Mr. Creevey were concurred in. If it were otherwise, and Members were only to be restrained by the House, the freedom of debate would be more effectually abridged, as none could speak but under the terror of correction of the Speaker. The representatives of the people were not to be deemed a separate class of individuals, amenable to no law, not for what they might ntter„ but what they might afterwards deliberately publish. Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that the better mode of meeting the Resolution of Mr: Creevey would be to move upon it the other orders of the day. The subject had been already argued so much to his sa tisfaction, that he should only make a single remark upon the quotation produced by an Hon. Gentle man (Mr. Western). He ought to recollect, .in re ferring to the doctrines laid down in the document he cited, that circumstances were now greatly changed, and the judges were now completely independent of the Crown, and could not be said to be at any time influenced by its wishes. Mr. Western, Mr. Wynne, and Lord Castlereagh severkily explained. Mr. WHITBREAD thouiht that his Honourable Friend bad been perfectly regular, and had intro duced this subject &reedy as posiible. With regard to himself in the proceedings, three years ago he had steered a middle course, always contending for moderation, because, when its privileges were pushed to extremes, the House had uniformly been Ulmer. Every man must be In favour of the publication of the proceedings of Parliament, but whether the Member himself ought to deliver his speeches to the public, especially if they were of a libelloes ten dency, was soother question. Upon this, point hel could not go the'whnle length with his lleueusibie '.4/o,kra • r 10 ;. e b b y o t f h e t hutecewnheci)sasa Lary rstlgll:tuet. cdpethreeitvali:allei.: e ow due by bins were rd in e it protecti d o . Mi n mha i'y o indlvidualsecurity s libelled al tNh dt e oh oo pe fh h i t k c it a t hn h d oa eu e L ui I a P i. _ w o e k ia l n r iu s P ri suui to u t h e e appealed Government , guhiilityprteoisennh v t4 Offi -o eers ilwin o i f endi t ° l saberedffl C ecreu f, whether there was or o s t o i o o u n a g , : b u u h s t e e d s h c o o a% u u l l i la d t i l not is the power of the individual remedy for the gross injury which be sustained his character ? Upon the whole, not vote In favour of the original m a support the . Amendment of the although Lord, he Cretwey had done the country smsisold thaugh e t ra t b ha le t M se r r . vice,' by introducing this important a s se aid, that the !'Mouse n wt u ,s p r ? nr n oot th a e caN j l o eled u y r n .G a u ts pEo o Nn f E the A lt (11111 :T u h se . e. record. mo t on but .h rather iie hc he doctrine that n o we receive am so Members I .desirous titu t i t he d w t leb°aryef- authorisedl) a ing ap upon •lion. Gentleman'; nrig:it think proper to say in Gentleman,a n b a l m e th'el vih 1 a t hep publish dour w ha teve r a was If r iib te i repugnantlib el s of thteo foulestevery principle kind v o r e i tat, b Il the ll a x m in e g a , n s s ou to bj o ec b t ta s i t n o pu si b t lic q i u ty ie , te il u e nd a e o r u l s d u c a b s li tir g a r . a e r r : attacks, without feeling and without resentment 1— Was it justifiable, was it necessary, that any Mem her should be at liberty to send his speech to the press, reflecting upon'the characcv and repu:n tion of an individual to whom he was inimical ? Such precisely was the case of the Honourable Me.oct, and of Mr. Kirkpatrick : and were the doors of justice to be shut against the proceedings of the !at ter, because the Noble Member had done that, uniter the plea of privilege, which no other man in the country, out of that House, could do with impu nity.?—An unfounded charge had been made against Lord Kenyon ; and an unwarranted insinuation made against Lord Ellenborough ; and thus the d, a :! and the living were at once attacked. lie was, he would say, very attentive to what had passed in the Court of King's Bench before, and when setite.lce was passed on the Honourable Member :—he per suaded himself he was correct in stating, Nat Ellenborough had said, he never before heard is main. tained and argued, that a Member could pnbli:h his speech containing an attack upon an individual, founded upon an unjust and injurious claim. • Ano ther Learned Judge had said, it was a degradation Rif any Member to call in the assistance of Neas papers to give publicity to his speech, convey in; reflections upon any individual. The motives of the Honourable Member were entirely out of the ques tion, and were in fact to be estimated by the deed. It would be absurd to enquire into the motives of the murderer of Mr. and Mrs. Botar ; for the per petration of the crime sufficiently exposed theta.— Vi:ith respect to the sente:ice, it was marked with a degree of lenience and mitigat , d severity, caused by the consideration, that the prosecution did not uri from the pure sense of public justice. Mr. CREEVEY said the Hon. and Learied Gentleman just sat down had thought proper to in. terrogate him as if he were a criminal at the Old Bailey ; and after he had exhausted his questions, any person coming into the House tui ? •;lit have !thought from the rest of his speech that he (Mr. Creevey) was the murderer of Mr. and Mrs. Boner. Notwithstanding the opinions he had heard that night, he should at all times continue to exercise his dety in the same manner whenever he thought pro per. Having got this precedent, the next step would be to bring a Member into Court for what was ut tered by him to his constituents at the Hustings. As the majority of the House was evidently against him, he would submit to the motion of the Noble Lord. He was glad that they had the admission of the Attorney-General that the words stated to have been uttered by Mr. Justice Grose were used by him. Sir W. GARROW explained. Mr. WHITBREAD said, that he could depoße to the words uttered by Mr. Justice Grose, as he was present at the trial. . .Mr. BENNET said, that he also had been in Court and had taken down the words which ap peared to him to constitute a gross and scandalous libel. The Amendment was then carried without a divi sion. _ _ EAST INDIA BILL Lord CASTLEREAGH moved the second read ing of this Bill, which was ag reed to , and the Bill or dered to be committed on Monday neat. SUPPLY. The House haying gone into a Committee of Sup ply, it was resolved, " That the Sum of One Mil lion be raised by Exchequer Bills." After which the House resumed, and the Report was ordered to he brought up on Monday next. The Land Tax Commissioners, and Deputy Re membrancer of Exchequer Rills were both ordered to be committed on that day three months, and are consequently lost for the present. The Duty-free Goods, the Funded Debt, the Lo cal Tokens, the Peninsula Courts-Martial, the Mi litia Pay, and the Land Tax Amendment Bills s ere .severally committed, and ordered to be reported en Monday next, with the exception of the last, which was ordered for Tuesday. Adjourned to Monday next. The Theatrical Fund benefited a clear 1,0001. on Tuesday night, principally from the united awn dons of Mrs. SIDDONS and Mrs. JORDAN. In a considerable portion of North America, it is It fundamental principle of education never to beat a child, whether male or female. When the child commits a halt the mother begins to cry, and her tears haves more powerful effect than every other sort of correction. When the fault is repeated the greatest correction is, to throw a glass of wuter iu the child's face. • 1.011)ON : Printed and l'lthlisbrd by Imvu. at to STermilicOrtics, 67. Flett.st.-txt. * • ..,, • _ .. TIIE STA3T.SIIIAN:. .. . , tv.. _ . L., ~._ _,. __ _._ .. Le swab; that` Its - th e seitioidg", tilieliiteilfifiri A#sparvin im . IVirmail'aithiegh he apPioved of 'latch lof what ha had said paw% gempook• tifm• ewe notini'lldirentliWriailit ) tinker many of the remarks that of the remarks, had lin fairer nf .11te fiwilasalbst4ofor the Veit . • rbi. Pan*. -Be was somewhat surprised by en. Suck a doctrine ; mil . . , : -Isron, 14 .A . Oso stveorer- tailed I for esteems pronounced by the Nob', ',etween the Repro. lesm 'ft 14edS, , 71 `. t, Sher Chhe(,Stoelte t dectsp . our courts of Justice; but while the II This too, at the timer! a : . e 'lf ~ . likii, "'that', he (14eri S.) i' videos, for the welfare and security of I by the•practite of lisn •Ma - ' thiliiihit ate' fofleiteted of 'high boa. I ought not to forget the protection due irners% ' law Members wire we' . Thekrifant `lllieledhode this after the Rate= i Membeis; • If the individual libelled h; udelf they chose to : reilmity Olio tart 1110 Mt: Williams, the Speaker , against the libeifer, what remedy had of the Jodges.—Thds lof tijakip ense k lo,,,, ..for hiring published, , by, againsithe unroll** assertioni of the se (and what wain*. orde r . o the ease, a aansgwg or the press of pose it was said (nett had been in his p ould infer that it was ; the Bill for @minding the Puke of York. 'these 'his Honourable lorignd.had. been guilty ad not be allowed to ! specimens of Jatßifigioasty and law tildnot dimi- , stance, of a libel upon the l a t e . M r . I conduct to his Con. 1 nishitisjesioney 4 Oak sot was it diminished; by that he wiis disaffected to the Geverno were not a bona fsde! the Proteitilass is.llf44ll.case, 'on which he could.; to obtain no. redress ? He appealed ', he contended, that I truly saj, he did nit Ibei the least personal sore - ' Of of the Crown_ wh..k... .1.-- r ;;. i I t , 1 1 1 i