The Sun. — London, England, 1837-05-04 00:00:00

bcpt d that foreign corn intended for manufa.!ture for ex porl at on would be kept under lock and key, an not allowed to . Je mixed up in the general stores of the exporter. After a few words from Mr. FORBES, who was under stood not to resist going into Committee on the subject,the motion was agreed to, and the House resolved into Com mit Mr. - WARBURTON in the Chair. :Mr. ROBINSON then said that he believed he .Isho&d . be following- the usual course on such oceas;ins by briefly moving a general resolution on the sailtje t, which lie would now do to the following effect That it is expedicat that the manufacture of foreign corn and grain into flew. for ex portation only should he permitted without the payment of duty, under such restrictions as may be necessary to pro tect the revenue from fraud, and British agriculture from loss or iPjury." He did not think it incutol)ent upon him in the present state of the proceeding to enter into the tie tads of the Bib wlich would be founded upon this resole th:n, if it were :oiopted. He should be glad to leave the conduct of that Bill to his Majesty's Government, and to acquiesce iii any restrictions or regulations which might be decreed- expedient. - Alr. G. F. YOUNG seconded the resolution. Mr. I'. THOMPSON objected to the manner in which the Hon. Member had put his motion, and said that the Member having once put the House into Committee or. the subject, was called upon to explain in detail the mit ore of the measure 'which he proposed to introduce. That was the ordinary course of proceeding. When the Bon. Member moved for leave to bring in a Bill, it would, :according to the usual practice, be necessary to state the nature of it, in order that the House might know what they had to deal with. His conduct, therefore, with regard to the measure must depend on the nature of the Bill, and the extent to which the lion. Gentleman proposed to carry his resolutions. If his sole object was to allow corn to be ground under lock, then he (Mr. P. Thompson) could have no objection to it ; but if it was his object to take corn out of bond to be ground, and have that corn exchanged for English corn, involving the whole proposition of a Bill passed in 1824, which was to be in operation for only one ar—if that was the Hon. Member's object, then he was rtepared to oppose it. He thought the more simple way was for the Hon. Member to state his intentions before the Committee came to any decision on the motion before them. Mr. ROBINSON said, if the intention of the Govern ment was to allow corn to be ground only under lock, that was a course of proceeding which he considered so restricted, d of so little advantage to trade and commerce, that he would be no party to it. But if the Government would al'ow him to bring in a Bill to take a certain quantity of foreign corn out of bond for grinding, on condition that an equal quantity of English flour or biscuit were exported ; or if the Right Hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill, and allow him to move clauses in Committee in accordance with his view, he should be perfectly satisfied. He trusted, therefore, that the Right Hon. Gentleman would either . take his Bill, or introduce one of his own. Mr. HAWES thought the best way would .be for the President of the Board of Trade to introduce a Bill, and allow the Hon. Member for Worcester to make amend ments, with a view to improve it. Sir E. KNATCHBULL thought the subject had been well considered, on the discussions which had taken place on the Corn-laws. If the Hon. Momber, however, would state his sentiments, he could assure him the landed inte rest would give them - a fair consideration. After a few words from Mr. PRYME, who was under stoof's to support the resolution, 'Mr. G. F. YOUNG said he was favourable to the proposition of his Hon. Friend. The plan had been tried in 1824, on a motion of Mr. Huskisson, and he bad never heard of any fraud having been practised. The working of the Corn-laws, however, was very imperfectly under stood ; and he would give an instance in proof. It had been discovered not long ago that biscuit and bread might be introduced under the head of " Articles not specified," at the rate of twenty per cent. duty ; and that was begin ning to be acted upon. Biscuit could be introduced from Haniburgh for 16s. the hundred weight, while it cost 19s. here ; and he knew that a Gentleman in trade had sent out a number of ships to Haniburgh to import biscuits for supplying merchant vessels. Mr. D. ROCHE supported the proposition of the Pre sident of the Board of Trade for allowing Corn to be ground only under lock. Mr. HUME said he was ashamed to see the time of the House taken up in such a discussion, derogatory to the House and to the landed interest. The whole point was, whether they should keep out a few pounds in the quarter of grain, or admit these few pounds at a lower price. He thought. at the same time, that the Hon. Member for Wor cester should bring in his own measure, and not leave it to others, with the expectation of amending it in Committee. He would vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Worcester ; and he intreated his Majesty's Government to take the subject into consideration, and to adopt a more lit eral course of proceeding with respect to it. Mr. WALLACE maintained that the landed interest Ras opposed to the general interests of the country, and re gretted that the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade joined with the landed interest. He should decidedly vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Worcester. Mr. CLAY observed that as it was clear his Hon. Friend the Member for Worcester could not carry the larger measure, he strongly recommended him to bring for ward the smaller 'Treasure, which he could carry. At the same time he (I‘.lr. Clay) confessed that he could not see all the force of the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade's arguments against his Hon. Friend's motion. Sir CHARLES BROKE VERE defended the agri cultural ',aterest from the imputations which had been cast upon Vaem. Sir JOHN TYRELL would not express his opinion until he knew what the precise proposition before the House was. Mr. P. THOMSON repeated his former statement end explanation. If the Hon. Member for 'Worcester wr uld say which proposition he was disposed to adopt, he (Mr. P. Thomson) would be prepared to say what course he would pursue with reference to it. That would be much better than going on with a general discussion which had eo definite object. Mr. ROBINSON observed that if the resolution were agreed to, a Bill must necessarily be brought in founded upon it. Now, he would rather that that Bill should be brought in by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and under the auspices of Government, than by a private individual. If he (Mr. Rohmson) were to bring in a Bill, he should have little chance of success. If he were to bring in a Bill it would be to alley s the taking out of bond a certain quantity of fo reign drain, on the condition of exporting an equivalent gun .itity of flour, and 'biscuit ; under such securities as should prevent fraud. As a commercial man he could not bring in any measure which he knew must be inoperative. If, however, he could not get his own measure, he should avish to see what measure would be proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. P. THOMSON asked the Hon. Member whether he correctly understood him, that the object which ho had in view was that a certain quantity of foreign corn should be taken out of bond on the condition of exporting an equi valent quantity of flow end biscuit ? Mr. ROBINSON replied in the affirmative. Mr. P. THOMSON said that to such a proposition, then, he could, not agree ; for experience had convinced him that an exchange of that sort could not be permitted without e t rening the door to an extensive fraud. The Act of 1824 eernained in force only a year on that account. Corn, a hicli yielded above the average quantity of flour, well be taken out of hoed, while only the average quan tity of flour would be exported, and thus a large amount of duty would be saved. Now, although he was opposed to the Corn-laws, because he believed that they were in jurious to all the interests of the country, the agricultural among the rest, he could not consent to doing- them away by a side-wind. Mr. HEATIICOTE thought that the Right Honour able Gentleman had taken a most excellent view of this subject, and one that d:ele him great honour. Ile thanked him for opposing the seotion. After a few word s from Mr. Hume, Mr. G. F. Young, Mr. O'Connell, nod Mr. Collier, the Committee divided, tt lien there tt.pe%red— For ;.he motion AgUi'.st it 43 Majority LAW OF LIBEL BILL, Mr. O'CONNELL, speaking front the Opposition tems'aes, moved the second reading of this Bill. In doing so he felt it his duty to state the circutustances under which the measure then tame under the consideration of the House, as well as the objects and principles which it bad in view. It was the same Bill that had already been three times before the House, but as yet had never been read a second time. It was in the year 1833 that he first proposed a measure of this description, and at that time Lord Althorp requested him not to press it forward, but to abandon it for that session, upon the understanding that it was the intention of the Government to have a Com mittee upon the subject of the law of libel. It happened, however, that the session was at that time so far advanced as to render it inconvenient then to appoint the Committee, And the, subject, as a matter of necessity, stood over till the next year, In 1834 the then Attorney-General (now the Lard Chancellor) brought the question under the cons lideration of the House, and proposed a Committee to consider the law of libel, and to suggest remedies for its improvement. The Committee appointed upon that occasion went fully into the subject, and not only admitted the defects of the law as it then stood, but fully demonstrated the extraordinary anomalies to which it gave rise. He (Mr. O'Connell) wished it were then in his power to obtain the attention of the House (there was a general confusion reigning), and to reward it by recapi- tulatio;; the able statement made by the Attorney-Gene r,tl in 183-1. That Hon. and Learned Gentleman, now the Noble and Learned Lord s displayed upon that occasion solid good 1.741:',E,'•, that true knowlcd - qe Of the subject, which had made him, he believed ; one of the most useful i4r - all Chancellors this country ever saw. (Mr. O'Con nell) befieYed boatiiinously admitted by the profession ;hat 116 sttt ever filled the high office of Lot-d Chaneellor with more credit to himself er rfteater itd'vantage to the public than Lord eQttcoliairr. Wa§ stran-ge, indeed, that this fact had nt,Wr before bleed noticed in that House, bet nut of the 'loose Ire b'elie.'ed there was but one opinion opoo the subj - da, that he not only exceeded hki predeces ,ors in th duty of hearing 0ri"..;r.t.1 causes for the first time, but that none had re g; been distinguished by r soun der know:edge R , I tiC law, or a stronger or 9.1 , 34\) r 1 my 'ti,Toat deal of evidence ocji:ore{tife ((...,!oin liAit.We appointed in :834. but ; otilce'fturia'tA, tm report had been brought . before the Douse, and I the oldice was not printed Tn.:: Committee, in proved to be a perfect abortierr---no record even bf its proceedings renrizitd—all rise evidence give!). before it was lost. Vet there was no person examined, no person who 00.)ke upon the subject, who did not.admit that, tlee. kw of libel was in a most d'e.fec tive, nay, a most ind4onaible, state. The first question that naturally suggested itself upon the :;nb:ject was—" what is libel?" As the law at present stood, he defied any man to limit the definition of a libel. Any thing was a libel. On one occasion Lord Ellenborough held that the calling Lord Hardwick a sheep-feeder from Lincolnshire was a libel ; yet in the case of Mr. Perry, the then proprieterof the Morning Chronick, the same Lord Ellenborongh insisted very serottey that saying George 111. was not a Popular king. Was not libellous. So that, in point of fact, the matter held to con stitute a libel was just what the Jude chose to determine s or a partisan Jury to insist. The only fixed rule upon the subject was this : that Any thing was a Meet that hurt the feelings of the person against whoui it was directed. Ought there in England to be such a law as that? Ob serve the inconsistency of it. Scandalous words were used viva voce—the same words were written or printed ; the one was slander, the other libel, how did the kw deal with these ? As regarded scandal there really was some thing definite and distinct in the law, because nothing waft held to be scandalous but that which imputed crime, or incapacity, or unfitness to a man in his trade or occupa tion. The law of slander, therefore, had its limits. But if the same words were written er put .into print there was no limit whatever. No anomaly, he thought, Could be greater than that; because, if the words used were criminal in themselves, they must be equally criminal whether they were spoken or written. The nature of the offence must be in the words themselves. It was a singular 'absurdity that a set of words which, if merely spoken, should be held by the Judge to be perfectly harm less, should, if written or printed, be declared by the same judge to constitute a crime. There was another ano maly in the law. 1 here were two modes of proceeding against persons accused of libel—one to prosecute crimi nally, the other by civil action for damages. The mode of proceeding criminally divided itself into three distinct branches :—first, by filing a bill cx officio—that was, by an indictment instituted by the Attorney-General himself ; second, by criminal information ; third, by common indict ment. Thus there were three modes of proceeding in libel as for a crime ; one mode of proceeding as for compensa tion. The moment the criminal proceedings were insti tuted, all the circumstances of the publication were taken into consideration by ,the jury, to determine whether or not the publicatioo were criminal—all except one. And what was that ? The trifling circumstance of whether the allegations contained in the publication were true or not.— (Hear, hear.) One would think that the first thing to be inquired into should be whether the allegations were true or false. If false, it ought no doubt to be deemed cri minal ; but if true, ought it always to be held a fit sub ject for punishment ? But, as the law et present stood, it mattered not how perfectly true the publication might be. Its truth was the only immaterial circumstance con nected with it. It m i g ht b e p er f ect l y true i n every par ticular, and yet conviction and punishment would follow. —(Hear.) Such was the state of the law as regarded criminal prosecutions for libel. How did it stand with re spect to civil actions where the party aggrieved sought re dress in damages ? In civil actions, if the truth of the publication could be proved, it was a complete and perfect defence, no matter how malicious or injurious the publi cation might have been. He proposed to change the law in these respects ; he proposed to make the law definite and precise ; and, if it were not entering too_much into de tail, he would explain the means by which he proposed to do so. It was his intention, if the House allowed the Bill to be read a second time, to propose that it be referred to a Select Committee up stairs to consider its provisions. He proposed, in the first place, to make that definite which was at present indefinite. He proposed to reduce ac tions of libel to the same limit as actions of slander. He proposed also to define distinctly -what should be held to be libel ; he proposed that no language should be held to be criminal which was not in itself an in citement to crime. Any publication accessorial to crime he would leave to be punished by -the criminal law ; but any publication uncomfortable to the feelings of private or public men, unless it imputed crimi nality to them, he would leave to be met by argument, or to be rebutted by the same means as that by which it was advanced. These were the two first principles of his Bill. In the next place he proposed to deal with the criminal modes of proceeding in cases of libel. These, as he had already stated, were three. The first, the ex officio pro ceeding by the Attorney-General, he proposed to do away with altogether. At present the Attorney-General could, at his 'own caprice, indict any person for libel. Public opinion, it was true, was a great protection in London against an arbitrary or improper use of that power ; but he doubted whether it would prove the same protection in more distant parts of the kingdom. He did not think public opinion so good a protection in Edinburgh as in London, nor in Dublin as in Edinburgh. He thought that the Attorney-General ought not to possess this privilege. The only argument in its favour was, that in some cases it might be necessary to proceed with great quickness and dispatch in matters of libel. But proceedings ex officio were not necessary to the attainment of that end, because where would be the difficulty of sending up indictments to the Central Criminal Court., to the ,Quartcr Sessions, or to the other Criminal Courts which are almost per petually sitting. If expedition were required, it would be easy at any time to issue a special commission, and in forty-eight hours a special jury might be summoned, and the indictment laid before them. In the next place he proposed to take away from the Court of King's Bench the power of granting c:iminal informations. He knew that that was a favourite power with the profession, and he had more than once quarrelled with his professional brethren in opposing it ; but it always appeared to him to be a most unsatisfactory as well as a most expensive mod e of pr ocee di ng . I n t h e fi rst place, an affidavit must be made by the party complaining ; if the affidavit were false it must be contradicted by a counter affidavit. There could not be a worse system than that of proceeding by affidavit. The last swearer had always a considerable advantage ; the hardy swearer had a much greater advantage. A striking instance of that fact had occurred within the last fifteen mouths. Instead of these informations, therefore, he pro posed for the future that all criminal proceedings in cases of libel should be by indictment, Ile should wish a Com mittee up stairs to discuss the details of this measure. Next, with respect to criminal prosecutions, and allowing truth to be given in evidence, he thought it better not to allow the parties to go oot of Court free of expenses because they had proved the truth. Then he took up an other point of the law of libel that related to costs. ,it present, in nteions for slander, when the damegea were under 40s. the parties recovered no costs. In spoken libel, or sle . cler, 40s. did not cArry damages, but is cases of written j libel, if the sitilliages were laid at only one farthin, that carried Costs. Thus, in the ono eiOd 110 costs were allowed ; whilst in the other enertlinUs Costs were imposed. Ile had heard of several eases where -toot hal been the ainount of costs of the plaintiff acid defendant, when only one farthing . damages had bon returned. There had been cases in Li verpool and Devonshire where one farthing damages had been awarded, but where 400 t. had beca the actual amount of coess. Was this a state of the law which ono.bt to be al towed 10 Continue ? It was !natter or qweulation to many attorneys in respect to certain libellous paragraphs being copied from one paper into another. Many instances occurred where attorneys speculated upon there being no more than one farthing damages, and brought 15 actions afterwards against each paper into which the libel might have been copied. He might be told that the Judge might certify ; but who ever heard of a Judge certifying under these circumstances ? If a Judge so certified, it might be said it would deprive the parties of costs. His opinion was, that no man who should recover no more than 20/. damages should be.entitled to costs ; or, that if the plaintiff obtained 50/, damages be ,should not recover more than that amount of costs. If the damages exceeded .50/. the plaintiff to be entitled to full costs, as between attorney and client. By this measure he introduced two principles—the one giving the power of retractation in criminal cases ; and, secondly, that the prosecutor must serve notice on the party to retract. The jury, moreover, were to be the judges whether bona I fide this retractation was sufficient in criminal cases. This clause did not go to interfere with actions in civil eases. In the case of criminal prosecutions he had given the power to the parties publishing - the libel to give up the author. If he gave up the name 'of tire author, then no action for damages would lie ; but if such person refused to do this, then an action would lie. But in the case of authorship not being proved, the publisher of the libel was to pay all costs. This Bill also provided that in criminal proceedings the parties should be allowed. to prove that the libel was promulgated without his assent ; though this was not to be admitted as complete evidence 0 the jury, but as mitigating circumstances, He pro eescd that this should apply only to cases of criminal pro ceedings, but should not extend to cases where civil ac tions were brought. He thotight it impossible for any titan to say that the present state of the law was such as should continue. After some further siliservstions, the Hon. srel Learned concladed by saying, that all he wished was, that this Bill should be read it second tithe, upon the principle that the .ekisting wascurl) es re , . :;aired improvement'. lf this thetiall should be agreed to, :Is should move for a Select Committee up stairs, to in quire into and report upon the question. He hoped that his Majesty's Attorney-General weeld help in forming suds Committee. The ATTOlkNi;:\l.-Ci4.lEltAis said he felt himself an der ilitS necessity of opposing, the matiOa fdr the Si.;is.ead reading of this ; bat h&I 0, on the ground that the law did not i -- ).oo.irt's improvement, but that he appre hended tht . ', promoter of the Bill must prove two things ; first, that the law required improvement ; and s , secondly; that this Bill was an improvement mice tlOs: eXistiiig law. The first proposition the Hotiellrahle and Learned Gentle man had. denkonsttated t but in the second proposition he seethed to him utterly to have failed. He (the Attorney-, General) allowed that the present state of the law or libel was defective, and if there were any prospect in the present state of business of carrying through a Bill, he %voidd undertake the task of introducing a measure for the improvement t the law of libel ; but so lamentable was the state of business, that he utterly despaired of being able to do this.—(Hear, hear.) He had prepared four or five Bills for the improvement or alteration of the law of libe4. t hilt what encouragement was there for pro ceeding on this or other matters? On the first day of the Session he had brought forward the measure for the abo lition of imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud, and lie had done everything to forward it. He had, how ever, failed in earrying,it through a Committee, and why? Because it pleased Honourable Members to spend their time in speculative questioris, such as whether the con vocation of the Clergy should meet again, instead of aps plying themselves to the real improvement of the law ; and. oral a change should be made in that House with respect to the mode in which Its time should be employed, he utterly despaired of carrying through any great measure for the improvement of the law. With respect to the Bill of the Honourable and Learned Member for Kilken ny, he must say that considering his talent, he was quite astonished to read his Bill, and he said this most un feignedly. He should have expected from his experience a remedy for the evil which now prevailed. If this 13111 should pass into a law, the law would be in a worse po sition than it now stood in, He had given the House no definition of the, law of libel. In, the - case of pleading the truth as justification in evidence, various enactments were suggested which would only lead to the most mischievous consequences.—(Hear, hear.) This Bill provided that ex officio informations should not be filed on account of libels, Now he thought it would be fairer if the public prosecutor would put the accused at once upon his trial. What would be done iti Edinburgh ? There there was no such thing us a Grand Jury. The Lord Advocate put the acttised upon his trial at once ; and eurely the law was better in the northern than it Waig In the southern parts of - the island. He never yet had had occasion since he had had the honour of holding the office of hiS Majesty's At torney-General—he had never filed an C °Pio informa tion ; but if he felt it his duty to do so at any time, he would much rather file an ex officio information than bring the matter before a Grand Jury. It was not intended by the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny to take 'away the power of the Attorney-General in other cases. Then the Bill next provided that there should be no such thing as criminal informations by order of the Court of King's Bench. Now, he thought this was not a wise or salu tary regulation ; because by the present practice they gave to the party accused the opportunity to purge him self from the charge nude. He knew that Lord Erskine held this, power to be a most salutary one, and Lord Brougham had declared that thesCourt of King's Bench was a Court of honour, and had a tendency to protect the honour of individuals. The Bill proceeded to tell them in what cases there might be public prosecutions for public libels ; and the definition of the matter was this, that " public libel shall be construed to include any matter, written or printed, reflecting upon his Majesty's Govern ment or his Majesty's Ministers, or upon either or both Houses of Parliament, or upon any constituted authority in the State, or upon the conduct and 'management of public affairs in any department in the • State, whether foreign or domestic, or upon the administration of justice ; and shall also include any matter, whether written or printed, that may be accessorial to the commission of any felony what soever ; and that the words personal libel' shall be con strued to' include any matter reflecting or injuri ous to any individual whatsoover, whether in a public or private station, or rank, or office, or employ ment, or trade, or profession, or business, or occupation." Ile would ask whether it would riot be libellous to say that the Government or the Admiralty had sent out transports to sea with troops, which vessels were not seaworthy ? Then, the Bill went on to say, that no indictment or action for libel should lie, unless for words which, if spoken, would be itsdictable. Now, by the law of England, to - say that a man was a liar or a scoundrel, no indictment was to be granted. These words were words of pique. Therefore, according to the clause, if passed into a law, there might be a paragraph in all the newspapers accusing a man of being a liar, or a woman of being unchaste—no indictment would lie. And this was intended as an improvement of the present law. Then came the anomaly of spoken slander as opposed to written slander. - Then, as to the admission of truth as justification or evidence, he admitted that truth should be admitted, not as forming a necessary vindication, but as evidence to •go before a Jury.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The House would recollect the well-known anecdote of a young woman having a child in her youth, who became afterwards a respectable matron and the mother of a family, but against whom the charge of having given birth to a child previous to her mrrriage, was made.' Truth was there an aggravation of the libel, and all persons who would rake up such by-gone circumstances merited the severest condemnation. There was another provision of the Bill which he conceived to be objectionable, that was, that upon retractation there should be complete impunity—(No, no) —complete impunity from all criminal proceedings. It was gravely proposed that before any criminal prosecution for libel should be instituted, that the prosecutor should give a week's notice to the libeller, and then if the libeller should retract, that that should constitute an acquittal. It must be an acquittal, however scandalous, defamatory, or degrading the libel might be, or however malicious the motive of the party might be ; so that if a personal enemy should s..t up a newspaper, and publish against another the most horrible enor mities, yet that person would' go scot free, as far as a criminal prosecution was concerned, if he should in a sub sequent paper publish a retractation ; and this was to go on, totics polies, so • often as the libeller pleased to retract, for there was no limitation, no qualification whatever. It was further proposed, that if the author were given up, the publisher should not be touched. He admitted that this would be a proper provision where a libel had been published in a newspaper, and the prosecutor had not much chance of . success in vindicating his character, unless he could get at the author. So also would it be very well where the conduc tor of a newspaper had bona fide allowed a libellous paragraph to be introduced into his journal. In such a case the author ought to be punished, and not the innocent publisher. But these were exceptions. A man of straw might be put up as the author, and if not the proprietor of the paper, he might be - made the scapegoat at all times. This man might be all the while in gaol. He might consider the, gaol as his home ; and and thus a publisher of a newspaper established for the very purpose of propagating scandal might escape with im punity, and the author being already in Newgate, could be punished no farther, and as to bringing a civil action against the author for damages, that was entirely out of the ques tion, He would not allude to any journal by name ; but let him suppose that the proprietor of any journal was a man era woman of straw ; (for women had been put forward in such a character) end without a shilling in the world, the only remedy against him or her would be by indictment, or criminal information, for it would be idle to bring an action againg them. The result would be that they would es cape with impunity. The next clause was equally objec tionable. The defendant was to be allowed, if he pleased, to have a special jury, but the prosecutor could not, with out the consent of the defendant. Was there any justice in this P Nay, the Honourable and Learned Member's own object might be defeated by it. Suppose some great aristocrat or some overbearing magistrat e should , p o at r rio a t g , ai a n n s d t o p n u slt action a were t a o g a i b n e s t some The Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenn y w ould giv e b rou ght " a 'e g li a - i m ns e t an t i h n e g m sense such Sir Giles Overreach , wh at was to be done ? this Sir Giles Overreach the opportunity of 'having a Spe cial Jury, probably among his own particular f r i en d s , w h o would acquit him against the prosecution ofthe poor unbe _ King. The next friended patriot. This was the kin d of justice that w a s to be meted out to the subjects o f the clause of the 13111 he admitted pointed o ut a grievance that required a, rerneay recovered damages to th e amo unt words, unl ess t h e plaintiff si At presen t in an action brought for r t o e u f e n o P a v t e e e t r l t y e i happened s o more costs than damages, and of 405., he could recover •;nst the plundering system d that was a very proper check lig.- • contrary, it unfor ng efnae a rd t ti t i o tinh rn ga e td y i s an . maang ß ae u es : duo o nn n leros t sr no lti , hb . e . el. juitd : ;..o "' e e e p rt l l a!!! i ff: be obtained his whole costs, He admitted p tb al a n t ti h ft a . d r o e ffe o n: ,er Bill ed ? 20I1t. damages led to great injustice, and was an evil that ought to be coasts plaintiff This tl remedied. But what was the remedy proposed by a m s ag proposed h that unless a u v n e le n s o s might in many cases work great injustice. A person in an inferior walk of life might bring an action against another THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1837 • rerson in the sarire tahh rcever 181. or ] pL, which, to such a person might he d i•vipensation ; but according ig this Bill he would have to,pay his earn cuts; which in all Frobability Would swallow up th e whole of the drmiages ; if ribt. leave the injured plain t;ff a loser for see Ling a verdict to, justify his thai-acter. Next came whit he (the AtterneOeneral) coasidered is ' most ektraerditiai.y n op jiVas Fropijsed to be cnaticd that .the (_;Garl, grie ei itripriSen, and not both ; and it was further proposed to limit the peridd of imrisenincnt and the amount of the fine. It was fur ther proposed la_ t the, term of imprison in kin -shou;,l never e.,teettl . months: Ise admitted iliat very Heavy and itnpidPer sentences for libel. BUt ho Corildconderi'e a libel td lie ,Sri deStrdyirig the peaCe of fariiilielt, rind eildangetlhg the socic fy to be deserving ore. much more severe punishment than tilaity felonious offl.nceS. But, according to this Bill, however enormous the offence roia;lit lie; it was Utterly impossible for the court to inflict a greater. degree of irttprionroent than 5i geertidd id hiM grrite Capricious to fay down any rule of this sort. .Theis it r+o.o pfopdged that no greater fine than 1001. should be imposed ; so that it millionaire chose to libel his neighbours he might do so to the utmost, upon going round to those whom he libelled and pitying them 100/. each. With respect to otl.q ether provision of the Bill, he had always contended that it should be open to the proprietor of a newspaper to show that the libel Was inserted without his consent and against his orders ; and if this could he 61-omi he had always maintained that, although the proprietor was civilly, be could not be made criminally responsible. He would not detain the House further. He thought he had said enough to show that, however defective the law of libel might be, it could not be improved by the present Bill. He had hoped that from the well-known ability of the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny they should have had a measure more worthy of his high reputation. tie had hoped that the reputation of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would have g one down to posterity with the names of Mr. Fox and Lord Erskihe as the reformer of the law of libel, but in that etpectation he had been grievously disappointed. Mr. JERVIS said that if the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Kilkenny had proposed this Bill as a pe&ct measure on the law of libel, and one which ought to be passed into a law during the present session, he should have been disposed to agree with the Attorney-General that it was too imper fect to be allowed to pass a second reading. But inasmuch as. it was admitted on all hands that the present law of libel was most defective, and inasmuch as the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny had laid down in the Bill certain general principles as to that defective state of the law, and as to the necessity of its reformation, with a view that the Bill itself should be referred to a Committee up stairs, he (Air. Jervis) thought that, as a nu cleus of a reform of the law of libel, the Bill ought to be read a second time.—(Hear, hear.) It would be the com mencement of a reformation in the law, the necessity of which was admitted by all. He would submit ,it to the House, that the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny had not been very fairly dealt with by the Attorney-Gene ral. The Attorney-General, instead of discussing the prin ciple of the Bill, had confined himself to certain clauses of it which he deemed objectionable—passing over other clauses which he (Mr. Jervis) therefore assumed were not objected to—and then argued that because some of the clauses were objectionable the Bill ought to be thrown out altogether. The Attorney-kieneral had even argued against the Bill, because the blanks had beets filled up in italics, with the words six months' imprisonment, and only 1001. fine ; although he must have known that those were matters peculiarly referable to a Committee up stairs. Again, the Attorney-General complained that ex officio informations were proposed to be abolished. But, in his (Mr. Jervis) opinion, ex officio informa tions were bad things altogether, and the Attorney- General well knew that a very strong feeling prevailed against them among the members of the bar, The Attorney-General did ,not contend for the propriety of that species of process in other criminal cases. Why then should he advocate it in cases of libel ? If it were a good process in libel cases, it ought to be adopted in every other case. It was his opinion that the power of prosecuting by ex officio process was calculated to act with great severity against the press. No man who had read the excellent treatises written by Lord Brougham in re views and elsewhere, could deny that it was not only an anomaly, but the greatest possible injustice, that in a civil action for slander the truth might be given in evi dence, whereas in a criminal proceeding it could not be given. The Attorney-General admitted that some of the clauses of the Bill were g ood , and that the principle for admitting the truth to b e given in evidence in criminal cases—not as a justification per sc, but as showing the mo tive of the defendant—was a sound principle. What, then, was the objection of the Attorney-General to this clause ? Why, because there was not added to it a proviso saying, that in criminal proceedings the defendant should plead speCially the truth of the libel.—(Hear, hear.) For this reason it was that the Attorney-General would have the whole Bill rejected.—(Hear, hear, hear.) If Bills were to be rejected on the second reading for want of provisos, he begged to inform the Attorney-General that very few would ever be read a second time in that House. So much did he (Mr. Jervis) appreciate the clause admit ting the truth of the libel to be given in evidence, that lie would vote for the second reading of the Bill if it were only for the purpose of preserving that clause. He would take the liberty of controverting another position of the Attorney-General, who had said that in the case of a male or female being put forth as a proprietor, who might be only a man or woman of straw, or if the author of the libel were a mere man of straw, and these parties were in prison, there would be no means of proceeding against any of them with a view to punishment, because they could not pay damages. But could they not be imprisoned ? But the Attorney-General had assumed the author of the libel to be already in gaol ; even in that case, would it not be in the power of the prosecutor to detain him there, and would not that be a punishment ? There was another clause in the Bill of which he highly approved ; it was the clause which provided that if the proprietor of a paper should give up the author of the libel, but should not furnish the prosecutor with sufficient evidence to prove the an thorship, the proprietor should pay the costs. This was a very salutary provision, and was alone amply sufficient to call upon the House to read the Bill a second time. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded by again urging the House to send the Bill to a Committee up stairs. Mr. P. BORTH WICK said the Hon. and Learned At- torney - -Genenal, with reference to a motion he had brought forward, had observed that the time of the House had been taken up by the consideration of theoretical subjects of no practical importance. He begged to sny that the motion he had made related to a question which had occupied the country for centuries, and the speech in which he had in troduced it had delayed the House not more than an hour and about twenty minutes. Sir F. POL LOCK entirely concurred with every gen tleman who had spoken on the subject, that the law of libel was at present in a very unsatisfactory state. With respect to the power of filing ex officio -informations, he thought it a fair question of discussion whether it ought to continue to exist as at present exercised, or whether it ought to be allowed to exist at all. His opinion in this respect went further than did that of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General. The power of the Attorney-General to file an ex-officio information, to, hold a party to bail, and to deprive him of his liberty, a power which was introduced in 1810, was one that, in his opinion, ought no longer to exist, at all events, to the present extent, and he was willing to discuss whether it ought not to be entirely abolished. He entirely agreed with the Honourable and Learned Member for Kilkenny, that it was a monstrous thing that in cases of slander a party who could recover no more than a sum under forty shillings, was deprived of his costs. Yet in case of libel the same amount of damages would carry full costs. It must be admitted that the Judges had the power of interfering by way of certificate, but his experience told him that they did not interfere so o ft en as public opinion called on them to do.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the sum of forty shillings should be extended to a larger sum, but he could not agree to its being as much as twenty pounds. This, however, was a matter of detail Ivhieli might be settled in the Committee. He thought the truth of the libel ought in some shape or other to be receivable in evidence even in the case of an in dictment. One of the provisions contained in this Bill was for the protection of persons when the publication of the libel had taken place without their consent. Speaking his private opinion, he should say that this was now the law of the land ; it certainly ought to be ; but he was sorry to say it was not the law as . decided.—(Hear, hear.) The last time the case was argued it came before the Court of King's Bench, when it was ruled that though a party was utterly ignorant of the publication, ho was to be held cri minally responsible to any extent. A case had occurred in which some books were brought to the shop of a person who was in the , country. Before he returned one of them had been sold ; but as soon as he did return, having examined one of the remaining volumes, he dismissed the whole of them from the premises. Notwithstanding this, for the sale of that single copy he was prosecuted, found guilty, fined, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He believed that such was now understood to be the law of the land ; and he thought that some Act of Parliament ought to be passed to remove the disgrace from the Statute-book. If it was the intention of the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny to get his Bill'read a second time, and then 1 it to Committee, he must say he could not consent to he foresaw what the consequence would be : the rest of this Session, and that that eontie t ' t, P lost, because of the dis it would go to 40(4 ) 4 _ ' which was objec which was beneficial in 4 woui“ of the cussion which would take place as to thaw •• tionable. He must say that there were many part Bill which he considered highly objectionable. There mt, another reason why he was opposed to the Bill hcivg sent to `Acted r:4erninittee. It was well, when. they approved of a meitsitre ; tfiJ di - t.4.Ut . e ~, ? :;e4siaerktien to its details ; but in this Bill there ifeqsa str Mite/ claUseswhich were objectionable, he.olving in theniselve teat he thought that iestend i,f being sent to a Select Committee for decinior, it origin tt by de6ided o'n by the House: To send the Bill to a Select Committee sanction to those clauses the principles of Which he cotild not approve. The course he would reCoinmend to the Hon. and-Learned Gentleman was to IviNidtew this Bill, relieve it. from what it contained of an objectionable ellefakterand bring in another con laiuject o n ;, - those provisions %AA Vate generally approved. lie eoeld not agree to the clause w 4 ,::"41 abelished the power of pi'Oeatiittg - by criminal information ; the prosccn ' lien of parties by did pfeeese often led to a retractation apo'logY • Which obviated the tieeeL•gitr for further pro ceeding, adrditted that the experf , et ititittrfed wag cm:- siderable, but that li.gee One of the unavoid,tbie intern• veniences to which parties wild offended against the few remle'teti themselves obnoxious. Ile diiYlet not object to individtials tidies liable for prosecutions for libel e , ho were net liable to prosecution to slander, but it did not fOltew that he shoadd not object to the lowering of the prosecution for libel to the point at Which prosecution fer slander began. With respect to the clati&l relating to the discovery of the leOters of libels, he thought the objection to that was that it would ee.able a man who might be content to lie in prison to becotte the ostensible of all the libels pub lished. Mr. POULTER considered that S 6 many changes were requited in the law of libel, that he could not, think it a sufficient gratin(' for the second reading of a Bill on the subject that it contaiecd one or -two clauses that were not objectionable. Lookine to the Tith clause, he thought that it contracted the law of libel so much as almost to anni hilate all actions for libel. That Bill, if adopted as the law of the land, would leave private character open to the most calumnious imputations. it would. subject the most honourable man in the community to reproach, and it would leave him without redress. It was his opinion that men should not with impunity be permitted to speak that which was calculated to deprive others of their fair charac ter, and he called upon the House to alter the law of dander, and assimilate it to the law of libel. There was, he considered, one very material point omitted in this Bill : it was, to afford protection to those who gave an honest and faithful report of that which was said in a legislative as sembly and in courts of justice. The publication of such matters ought to be exempted from the law of libel. He wished also to exempt from actions of libel the poor people who lived by selling_ newspapers, and who knew nothing of the contents of the newspapers that they sold. Those persons ought not to be punished who perhaps did not know how to read, and who were not aware whether that which they sold contained abuse or praise. ,It was his opinion that in cases of libel the authors alone ought to be answerable. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD intended, he said, to vote against the second reading of the Bill. It was admitted that there were great defects in the law of libel, but in this Bill the attempt to afford a remedy was all on one side. Everything was done to afford protection to those who were disseminating slander ; and there was not one single tittle of protection, from the beginning of the Bill 'to the end of it, afforded to that character which the Honour able and Learned Member for Kilkenny must feel was one of the dearest possessions that man could enjoy, and the protection of which must be one of' the greatest triumphs of modern legislation.—(Hear, hear.) A man who committed an error in early life, and redeemed it by his subsequent good conduct, ought not to be libelled with impunity. He did not think that the giving up the author on all occasions ought to be sufficient ; he who made his paper the instrument of the malignant passions of another ought to be punished. He who pandered to the passions of others ; he who made a filthy trade in libel, and profited' by slander, ought to be made an swerable for his misconduct.—(Hear, hear.) But in this 13111 everything was in favour of the slanderer. He was to have the choice of his jury, he was to have the right of reply, and everything was prepared for his im munity, comfort, and dignity. This he objected to. He objected also to the defendant, in cases of libel, having costs as provided by the Bill. In conclusion he declared that he could not consent to the Bill going into Committee, as such a Bill was not called for by the state of the pres - s. Mr. MACLEAN, in objecting to the Bill, wished to know from the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny whether, in doing away with ca. (fficio and criminal informa tions, he provided a proper substitute for them ? He un derstood it was not done. Mr. O'CONNELL, in reply, assured the Hon. Mem ber for Oxford that he was quite mistaken in his view of the 14th clause. The House then divided— For the second reading 47 • Against it - Majority On the motion of Mr. HAWES, certain returns were ordered respecting the British Museum. The other orders of the day were then disposed of ; and on a motion for certain returns respecting Justices of the Peace in Scotland, An }lox. MEMBER moved that the House be counted, when, there not being 40 members present, the House ad journed at half-past twelve. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. LAW OF LIBEL BILL. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) WEDNESDAY, MAT 3. Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Question proposed,—" That the Bill be now read a second time:"—Amend ment proposed, to leave out the word " now" and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months :"—Question put,—" That the word now' stand part of the Question :"—The House divided:— MINORITY-AYES, 47. Aglionby, H. A.—Cockermouth O'Brien, Cornelius—Clare Bish, T.—Leominster O'Connell, John—Youghall Blake, M. J.—Galway O'Connell, Morgan—Meath Bodkin, John James—Galway O'Connor Don—Roscommon Co. Brady, Denis Caulfield—Newry O'Ferrall, Richard M,—Kildare Brotherton, J.—Salford Parrott, Jasper—Totness Browne, R. D.—Mayo Pease, Joseph—South Durham Bulwer, K L.—Lincoln Philips, Mark—Manchester Chalmers, Patrick—lnverbervie Power, James—Wexford Co. Collins, W.—Warwick Roche, David —Limerick Crawford, W. S.—Dundalk Rundle, John—Tavistock Fielden, John—Oldham Talbot, J. H.—New Ross Gordon, Hobert—Crieklado l'hompson, Col.—Kingston-on-Hull Hardy, John—Bradford Thorneley, Thos.—Wolverhampton Hawes, Benjamin—Lambeth Waltley, Thomas—Finsbury H clor, C. J.—Peterslield Wallace, Robert—Greenock Hindley, Charles—Ashton Warburton, IL—Blitiport Hume, Joseph—Middlesex Wason, Rigby—lpswich Hutt, W.—Kingston-upon-Hull Wilbraham, George—Cheshire King, E. B.—Warwick W innington, H. J.—Worcestershire I,cnnard, T. B.—Maldon Wood, Alderman—London Lynch, A. Li —Galway Wyse, Thomas—Waterford Maher, John—Wexford Co. ' TELLERS. Nlarsland, Henry—Stockport O'Connell, Daniel—Kilkenny Musgrave, Sir R.—Waterford Jervis, J.—Chester MAJORITY- Agnew, Sir A.—Wigtonshire Angerstein, J.—Greenwich Balfour, Thomas—Orkney Baring, F. Thornhill—Portsmouth Bell, M.—South Northumberland Bramsten, T. W. South Essex Burrell, Sir C.—Shoreham Campbell, Sir John—Edinburgh Copeland. W. T..—Coleraine Corbett, I'. G. —Lincolnshire Dunbar, George—Belfast Elley, Sir John—Windsor Fector, John Millet—Dover Finch, G.—Stamford Follett,lSir \V.—Exeter Forbes, William —Stirlingshire Forster, C. S.—Walsall Freshfield, Jas. Wm.—Penrvn Goulburn, Mr. Serjeant—Leicester Halse, J.—St. Ives Heathcote, G..l.—Lincoinshire Hmbhouse, Right Hon. Sir J. Cam Nottingham Hogg, James Weir—Beverley Hughes, W. H.—Oxford Ingham, R.—Sow h Shields Inglis, Sir R. H.—Oxtbrd University Jackson, Mr. Serj.—Bandon Bridge Lee, J. Lee—Wells Lefevre, C. Shaw—North Hants -NOES, 55. Lennox, Lord J. G.—West Sussex Lennox, Lord A.—Chichester Lowther, J. H.—York Mackenzie, Thomas—Bess-shire North, F.—Hast,ings Parker, John —S!iettield Pollock, Sir F'.—Huntngdon Samuel Grove—S,indwich Pringle, Alexander—Sclkirkshire Rolfe, Sir It M.—Penrlivn Ituihbrooke, Colonel—Stinlk Rylc, John—Macclesfield Scott, J. W.—North Hampshire Steuart, Itobert—Haddington Talfourd, Mr. Serjeant —Reading Tooke, W.—Truro Trevor, Hon. Arthur—Durham Twiss, Horace—Bridport Vere,.Sir Charles B.—Suffolk Verner, Colonel—Armagh Co. Vescy, Hon. Thomas—Queen's Co. NI/est, John Beatty—Dublin Henry—Suttbik Wortley, Hon. James S.—Halifax IYoung, Geo. Fred.—Tyncinoutli Young, John—Cavan TELLERS. \lacle:in, Donald—Oxford Poulter, J. C.—Shaftesbury Sir Richard Simeon, the Liberal representative for the Isle of Wight, is, we regret to learn, unable, from the state of his health, to continue his services in Parliament ; and as Sir Richard will not hear of his son being his successor, it becomes necessary that a Liberal candidate should be proposed without delay. We know of no gentleman who is so likely to unite the suffrages of all classes of Reformers of the Isle of Wright as Captain Pelham, the son of the Earl of Yarborough. We have reason to believe that Captain Pelham will be pre vailed on to conic forward, and no time should be suffered to elapse before this point is ascertained. The Conservatives, we observe, are on the alert; and a meeting of the Conser vative Society is announced at Newport on Saturday next, for the purpose of nominating the Honourable William A. A'Court Holmes as a candidate. This ought to put the Reformers on their mettle. THE NEW NAVAL NOVEL, " GENTLEMAN JACK."—There are in this work a number of ludicrous inci dents—a general vein of that kind of humour which has hitherto been confined to the author of " Peter Simple." Amongst other examples of this vein, there a character of the name of Jim Bell, a perfect Lieutenant Bowling, who is constantly on the scene, and contributes much to the ludicrous portion of the story. His jokes and fun are everlasting. With all this the work is not destitute of pathos. On the whole we regard it as one of the best naval novels that have yet appeared ; and we think that there are few in which the serious and humorous are so well combined. The Brighton Gazette furnishes the following specimen of the sentiments held by a liberal lady and a Chris tian I—A lady residing here gave the other day, in conversation an apt description of the New Marriage Act. "It is," she said, ".in my mind, only intended for the benefit of infidels. None but an infidel would consider it any grievance upon the conscience to be married by a clergyman ; but there must not only be an infidel bride and an infidel bridegroom, there must also be an infidel to perform the contract, under the new law ; for none but an infidel will take upon himself to join together in matrimony a man and woman by a mere civil con tract." A pretty legislator in petticoats this I - AVESTMINSTER ELECTION. --.....--_ (i,i ii r - tste the :),:t.).:le.,..7vrednionig. St.n vci.creyornrienfileirao,u,sov,7re_segtuinagreo)fv,e,alseciticoirds, pur pose or et the Belgrale 11oittl, Ebury-street, tor the Neal: l Y heur:!:g Mr. Leader state his political opinions. t;6O persons were present, amo ng tl.e gentlemen oir t l v ie , platform we observed Mr. ll c . C. .. 1 tiers. M.P. ; D r. Be tt' ring, M.P. ; Mr.' M. J. O'Connell, lei. P , ; M r. W. IV' - hw a, M.P. ; Mr. Elphinstone, M.P. ; Co!on el Thompson, M.P. ; Mr. Crawford, Mr. Place, Dr. Wade, Bte. , Mr. GaoTE, M.P., was called to the chai r amid l oud cheers, and addressed the meeting to the following effec t '-",,, Gentlemen and brother electors—We are about to struggi' : for the representation of Westminster under circumstattelse most peculiar and unprecedented.—( Hear, hear.) 1 , 1 , 4 . , I 6711PtiOrl o f y our late representative, Sir Francis BUNT': his taken place in a manner and with a declaration and with a suddenness which greatly astonished me, and .which uins; equally have astonished you.—(Hear.) 1 am not ab; ie te. indnige in any acrimonious language res pec:in ! g t con , Franeis Burdett's past or present conduct. To h is pat. ' , duct I look back with unqualified esteem and admiration: Meal., hear.) He was the powerful advocate o f the neber e liberties at a time when reform was held to be a daninan'i heresy, instead of its being, as now, a darling creed, an", I cannot, therefore, bear to speak of him in terms bordeirw ?rig on harshness. But, Gentlemen, though you alld r e other electors of Westminster would have pardoned 501 in Sir Francis Burdett, in consideration of his past COntie u ot —hi s past political life—there are things which you can n ot and which you ought not to pardon. — (Cheers.) You ettns, pardon his entire abnegation of reform principles, 44 'l OO very principles which constituted the g reat hoed of tm' 1 between him and the electors of Westminster. — (Cheers ) When I call to mind the speeches of Sir F. Burdett in 1 34 ,5 e times, and compare those speeches with the insultintg, be insufferable, letter which he has been persuaded to write 1 the electors of 'Westminster in tendering his resi can scarcely persuade myself that it is the same person tn / was engaged in both transactions.—(Hear.) Gentletnen'au am persuaded that every one of you feels that this i bis election of no light or trifling importance.—(Heilr•L o e , is in point of fact a contest between the Tory facile.' is the one side, and the cause of Liberalism on the otherv_, which contest the Tories have the advantage of the ne e : of Sir Francis Burdett, and of the echo of his former r `j putation. Gentlemen, the next consideration for us, s e j the most important, regards the gentleman who is propose' as a substitute for Sir Francis Burdett, Mr. Leade r (' gnation 0 (Cheers.) It is a grave and important question for the W e. tors of Westminster—is Mr. Leader worthy of their or port and confidence ?—( Hear.) Gentlemen, I do n ot hes'' tate to say, front a considerable knOwledge of Mr. Lead and his qualities, that he is fully worthy of the esteem a ll i o entire confidence of the electors of Westminster. 1,_°„(1 venture to promise you that Mr. Leader wiil ever b e w e i o the unhesitating and uncompromising adVoeate of ta people's rights, of good Government, both in prioeinte e ;1 11 r , in detail.—(Loud cheers.) I have sat by the side o f ,01 Leader in the House of Commons now between tg I ' three years, and I may state most conscientiously th e ,y o have never once seen him swerve from the cause 01 people, whether under favourable or unfavourable circa 14 stances.—(Cheers.) I can bear full testimony to th e 11 '4 and steady way in which he has always advocated leo principles, even in the face of large majorities, and at tie/to when good principles were not supported as they ought 0 have been by the Ministry.--(Hear, hear.) I can b e j testimony both to the fidelity with which he has advoca te d these principles, and to the. high ability, the intellect, 11,5.0 the eloquence which on many occasions he has displ a Y e let the people's cause.—(Loud cheers.) It matters not, me impress upon you, for the present great p ur e ,' whether a man shall fully and entirely, and in eye% point concur in the sentiments embodied in Mr. Leade d address. It is sufficient that a man is an advocate be the progression towards good Government, and nr _ Af t , 3 principles of Reform, to make him on this occasion On) Sir Francis Burdett and support Mr. Leader.—(Chcr ;S This is the way in which I put the question, and tbiood the way in which I trust it will be regarded by the e ta sense of the electors of Westminster. This is no time {or sense splitting hairs, or differences of opinion among Refornierto —(Cheers.) This is not the time for a friend of refer d to hesitate, because he may happen to go probably h e r!" or may happen not exactly to go so far as, Mr. Leade r ',; s (Hear, hear.) The broad distinction between Sir Fran; Burdett and Mr. Leader is, that Mr. Leader is an °yr; cate of the onward principles sof good and cheap P re-' rribnt, while Sir Francis Burdett is the advocate of stl r tionary principles, the adherent of the Tory fact'- b e' (Hear.) Between such men no genuine Reformer call ''' sitate for a moment.—(Loud cheers.) , r ii Mr. CRAWFORD rose to move the first resolution. eig.;6 years since Sir F. Burdett entered Parliament as a 1"PO but, in due time, became a thorough-going Radical, tbt► best Radical of his time, insisting upon. the vote by ba ll , the extension of the suffrage, the shortening the tin""; tion of Parliaments, and religl'ouS liberty in its broade s s basis. Upon these subjects Sir F. Burdett delive re : some of the finest and most philosop i nleal speeches ever eLe, tered, and he (Mr. Crawford) would take the liher„tf, of reading to the meeting some short extracts from a s P e,e ; , delivered by Sir F. Burdett, at the Crown and ,Anchor lilt vern, in 1818, in which he embraced all these topics: 1° re e P ot to a speech of a Mr. Clarke, a friend of his, J 0 Cis - e it quite so thorough a Radical as he then was, Sir ri'l said, '‘ That as to Mr. Clarke's mention of tolerat e r hope and trust that such intolerable toleration will bee ' tually got rid of in the nineteenth century. I hope set this hypocritical cant of the Church of England, 'lte, only as a means for monopolising the benefits of the S ts t i. will be done away. The prospect in this respect is g r , i s , bo fying ;in Ireland there is a rising spirit of liberality o f eo Protestants have met and petitioned for the libertie° Ds the Catholics—those rights to which all were equally h titled. I trust that persons of all religions will see t_„." there is only one religion in politics—that is, to be fre`bte that it cannot be secured but by securing, each man's °S te , unalienable, and more especially the right of being ii ld presented. * * * * * ;v Now, if a man tri9;e:l be trusted out of Bedlam—if anything at all can be tit). to him, it is the privilege of saying Weich of his ° e "'# hours he likes best, or can best trust or confide in. of * 's l would wish to extend the sub rage to ° co d male of twenty-one years of age of sound mind A nd g ibe conduct. * * >s* 4 I do, indeed, think thettbeir period of a year is a very natural one to assign ror " _ f all Parliamentary limitation. At the end of a year it is lir for most men to look into their accounts, to call in they debts, and to provide for the demands of the next tnwe,tise month. In the same way the Members of annual 1 ,., e ; he merits, having examined into the national affairs , illir t - bel dismissed at the conclusion of the business for whicf f i of were called together." This was the Sir F. Bur"6"itor 1818.—( Hear, hear, hear.) What was the Sir r• f 0 dctt of 1837?—(Hear, hear, hear.) They had healeste letter addressed by Sir F. Burdett to the electors of to ji minster.—( Hear, hear.) The letter was very ing neu %sd dated from Brighton, where the Honourable Baronet os, been enjoying the sea breezes for the last eighteen m en —(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Honourable 1 331. d a y was not at Brighton now, however, for he had that his come up to town in a coach and four, accompanie d 'IMP friend Mr. Croker—(Hear, hear, and laughter)-;blie Croker, a gentleman receiving 2,000/. a-year of the P oo ts money, and one of the most bitter and effective o PP% s ion of the Reform Bill—( Hear, hear.) With th e per m read rea d of the meeting lie (Mr. Crawford) would proceed t°lo,-,) this letter, and offer a few comments on it.—(frear' Mr. Crawford then read the letter as follows :-- ~ 2 7. " Brighton, Aprp bv s he " Gentlemen—l have just had transmitted to no , Aby 6 High Bailiff of Westminster, a Resolution adopte,"wrese public meeting in Covent-garden of the electors 01 gro ans minster, calling upon me to vacate my seat, upon the Th i of my having lost the confidence of my constituents., short application so far differs from a similar one sent to me pr aish time since by a meeting of some gentlemen at the fret fret Coffee-house, that it bears the semblance of rocee"l l , li o ,ti a public meeting of the electors of Westmin ster; fromow hide is at least assumed, though the voice may be 5 t he P e i different ; ' the hands are the hands of Esau,' said , 50 o triarch of old, ' but the voice is the voice of Jacob ;„ o ffeee this meeting, the voice is the voice of the British 'J o e itf , house, and the parties, as far as appears, the same t foti o l 7 o rate it affords me an opportunity, and, I trust, w ith w g i a t o b toti t i ;e t of complying, to use the fashionable patrictici wants and wishes of this portion of the peoind ; 4 s eeeP' or is thrown down thus publicly, and I take up In:. e to rn l ir e challenge thus publicly given. I will apply for the Chi'i o ,en ,i f dreds, and then call upon the electors of Westminst er a dbet P i p themselves for or against a zealous supporter and flail ..,d con s is as I hare ever been and am, of the laws, institutions, 8"_,,,,00.01_, tution of England. I should net, however, ventur 7007 decision, provoked to it as I am, nettled and stung i l uo fsir 5 , ; was I not satisfied from recent eppearances, thst 11 0 80 , pall: 0 , vantage will thereby be given or can be taken, bY injo es, s w ill all will start fair, and upon equal terms, and the op jol ter I timents, and principles of the electors of Weslisoutt.,,o be clearly manifested, and placed beyond coil or a rm r o ll shall offer myself to your support as the s upporte r or 0,0 and institutions of th e coun t r y, as a resolute OPP: e pio) o f the new-fang, led notions, shallow doctrine s and crlpotteiasio now afloat. The resolution passed at the lat.;;;01 0/5e o ott" meeting , in Covent-garden, with a common fallacy t0:03, assertion, or takes an assertion for a proof, and C° „ o hantA id„ elusion as if it were a feet. It asserts that tidies - , i roi)Ol v iot 0 politics, and that I am opposed to all rem r, rhe .se . .,j, the correction of abuses in Church and State.. __: o btiOF; that it is they who make this assertion, wbo 1t5,7 0 1 11 la ." ' and not I—like men in a ship, who fancy the PO" ii i ii , tion instead of themselves. Nit . - 60 , g. Gentlemen, when I was sent to the Tower' w ".. so s i..st' ~ I sill,_„ff 17,, motto ? It was this—' Hold to the taws. . 3 no tnimv st be ' The Constitution, the whole Constitution, ao„"Reforte2,,ior the Constitution,' was inscribed on the banner of . „ d e . 0 "; of we struggled together to obtain it. Under the .s7; tto pe, di we shall, I trust, again contend successfully for th e s i s ofb '- the laws, institutions, and constitution of Entllan