The Sun. — London, England, 1830-03-03 00:00:00

should content himself, unless further accusation should lead him to go through the ninety-seven documents laid before the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. ARBUTHNOT said, that the Member for Prest,ai moved the resolution of acquittal ; and with that and tl:e other proceedings of the Committee he could not help fee ing the utmost astonishment at the statement of tin. , Her.. and Gallant Officer. He really expected front him something more of generosity, candour, and good ictlin;r, than he had manifested on such an occasion as the pie sent. Mr. WARBURTON said, he was not present at the last sitting of the Committee, and probably he should not have arrived at the same decision as that of the majority of the Committee. He contended, that no lease should be given to a Surveyor of Lands which it should become his duty to set a value on ; and he put it to the Noble Lord, whether he had not refused lately to sign leases upon that very ground, until the Attorney and Solicitor. Gene rals had given their opinions upon the subject ; for there had been a recert attempt to set aside a lease, owing to the circumstance of its having been made to the surveyor. He called the attention of the House to the Resolution agreed to by the Committee, in which they stated, " that, although there was no evidence that any loss had accrued from the conduct of Mr. Nash, yet it was the opinion of the Committee that the Commissioners of Woods and Forest, ought not to grant leases to surveyors or architects lowing any immediate interest, or being liable to be called on to give their opinions—until their duty, as surveyors or architects, had ceased." Thus, by implication, they dial convey that Mr. Nash had an immediate interest in the lauds which had been made the subject of observation. Besides, it was most important to observe, that the charges made last year would have been much more full and numerous had they not been brought forward at so late a period of the last Session. Now there was time enough to go through them all, and his lion. and Gall,tet Friend h►d piedzed himself to bring forward further charges if the House would only grant hint a fresh Com mittee. Mr. WARD said he was a Member of the Regent's Canal Committee, and there the conduct of Mr. Nash had been made the subject of discussion. The facts there brought to light were certainly such as enabled him to bear favourable testimony to the conduct of Mr. Nash. Mr. MABERLY supported the motion, and adverted to some transaction between Mr. Nash and Mr. Edwards, in which he treated the latter on the footing of a partner, or did acts which amounted to that. He doubted whether Mr. Nash, or the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, had even made a title that would stand investigation in an Equity Court. —(Local cries of "Question, question.")-- In his opinion, however, the attack that had been made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not warranted. —(Hear, hear.)—Whether the Committee was granted or not, he thought that his Gallant Friend bad made out a case which the Government ought not only to take into its eonsi,leration, but also to take care that it never occurred , again. From the resolutions that had been passed by the Committee, he thought that it was a fair inference that they ►sere dissatisfied with the transaction ; and though the Committee bad not actually pronounced that fraud existed oil the pa: t of Mr. Nash, it was pretty evident that that gentleman had not properly discharged his duty, and that any one acting as he had done would be held culpable in the public estimation. Mr. CALCRAFT—He would appeal to the House whether the Committee could have come to the Resolu thins they did on the case as stated by the Gallant Member. The fact was, that the Gallant Member, in giving what he called a fair narrative of the case, quoted the answers given to his own questions only, and not one tittle of any other part of the evidence.—(Hear, hear.)—The Gallant Member had complained that he had been called upon to prove his expressions : there was very good reason fur tins —his expressions were charged against Mr. Nash, and be was, therefore, required to prove them.—(Hear, hear.) — The Gallant Member had also complained that the Com mittee and the witnesses were against him ; hot he had forgotten to mention that there was one person still more against him—and that was no other than the Gallant 31eroher himself—(A laugh)—for never had he (Mr. Calcrsit) seen anything manaeed with so much ill temper, —(A laugh)—or with such en appearance of personal animosity, and total neglect of everything like public duty. —( Hear, hear, and a laugh.)—lt Lad been proved in evi dence that there was no connivance whatever between Mr. Nash and Mr. Edwards ; on the contrary, when the ground in Pall mall East was leased to Mr. Edwards, that gentle man was abroad, and when he returned, he found that the ground was much more than he wanted, and he was there- Awe very anxious to getrid of it. The Committee had de rides! that Mr. Nash ought not to have appeared in a daulde character ; but this he could tell the House—that if Mr. Nash had nut been speculator as well as surveyor, Regent street would never haveheen finished. Mr. Nash, at great risk and hazard, had aarried that noble project into com plete execution. Ho (Mr, Cideraft) would undertake to say, that with all his speculations Mr. Nash had been no gainer, but had involved himself in great responsibility and risk. As to the attack on the Chancellor of the Eache quer, he need not say one word, for there was no other man but the Gallant Colonel in that House that would have brought such au gccusation.—(Hear.)—ln this respect the Gallant Colonel had been more unlucky than ever; for in Slut attack on Mr. Nash he had only bad the Committee awl witnesses against hint ; but in this very foul aspersion IV the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had the whole House against him,—(Hear.) Mr. RUMBOLD said a few words which were inau elible in the Gallery, ,Sir M. W. RIDLEY—He should vote against the 'no. tion, fir it appeared to hint to be nothing more than an attempt to get a Committee to find fault with a former Cotnmittee,—.(Hear.)—But though lie opposed the Corn. mittee, he was authorized by Mr. Nash (who was now suffering under illuesz, severely aggravated by the repeated attacks upon him) to state that he bad no desire to avoid any inquiry ; and that lie was ready to adopt any course which the House might impose, he felt that nothing could be adduced against him to Latish either his honour or his characte7,—(Hear.)—One fact he would state about Mr. Nash, heeanse it would serve to show the spirit by which be was actuated. Whets the new street watt tiret is Agitation, Foley-house And gardens were offered for sale, and ,Mr. Nash gave 400 W. more than any other bidder, and afterwards cut it up into shreds and _plebes for-the purpose of suiting the objects of the new street line, by which he greoly depreciated the value of his property. Mr. PBOTIIEROE said a few words, but was con tinually interrupted by cries of " Questioo !" so as to be inaudible. _ Mr AIONCK Wall also much interrupted by cries of " Question!" The Resolutions of the Committee did not go to the entire acquittal of Mr. Nash, In his opinion, that gentleman's conduct had been not only 4aproper, but illegal. Colonel DAVIES, in reply—He congratulated the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Calcraft) on having found his voice, for it was long since the Howe had heard its melodious sounds.--(Laughter.)—No doubt there were very proper reasons for hie silence—what they were Ira did not knew, perhaps it was owing to his getting among those whom he bad been lampooni4K and abusing all his political 1ife...,.- (Latighter.)—The Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancel ior of the Exchequer) had certainly refused to consent to two very reasonable Resolutions in the Committee—one being only the statement of a matter of feet, and the other to the effect that there were sufficient grounds to justify the inquiry. He had no wish to re-try Mr. Nash ; but lie wanted an examination into fresh matter, which, owing to tbe lateness of the inquiry last year, he had not been able to bring forward. At all events, he trusted that Go vernment would cause the houses in the Regent's-park, and Regent•atreet, and still more BuFkingham Palace, to he surveyed ; for he thought that a great deal of foul play would in consequence come to light. With respect to the division of the Committee, Lord Mlton, Sir J. Yorke, 7-Ir. W. IVliitreore, and Mr. Warburton, were unable to be present at the division; and he (Colonel Davies) could answer for it, that all those Hon. lien:hers would have voted on his side. _(Loud laughter.)—As the Minister bad said that he would not allow the Committee, he (World Davies) knew that the matter was settled, and that it would be of no use to press a division, At all events, he had the satisfaction of knowing that he had ells charged his duty to the House and the country. The motion u se then negatived without a division ? THE LATE PROSEWTION'S FOR LIBEL. Sir C. W ETHERELL—In rising to bring under the contiri,-ration of the House the important motion which h e h a d f t. lt it to be his duty to submit to it, be wa:4 aware that the circumstances under which lie had to solicit their attention were rapt very auspicious as to the honour or feeling of the Homo. But since he had the honour of baring a seat there, he had too often witnessed the patience, duty, and diligence of the House in attending to all matters of public and general importance., to in duce !rho, for one moment, to suppe;se that any not-aus picious circumstances would preclude hue from such a patient hearing as be would have been entitled te - , under a more favourable aspect. Therefore, instead of request- , ing the House to consent to the postponement of the emotion, he felt it to be his duty, at whatever personal hazard or inconvenience, now to bring it forward, The flonse had just bestowed an hour or two on the trial of 31r. Nash ; and he trusted that he should he excused for thinking the trial of Mr. Alexander of still greater iin portance.—(A lauit, dad bear, liear.)-4aviag prc wised thus much, he imagined that it would not be bold to trespass, or presumption on his part, if he stated two or three words as to the motives which had induced him to bring forward a motion on the recent attack on the liberty of the pres,. He had not forgotten the situ• ation in which be had formerly been placed with regard to the present Lord Chancellor. and the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Secretary of State, in that House; and under those circumstances, when he was desired to un dertake the defence of Mr. Alexander, on the prosecu tion of the three informations which had been laid against Lim, lie (Sir Charles Wetherell) had felt him self bound to decline the undertaking. He was ad vised, though, if required to say by whom, he (lid not think it was necessary to say; indeed, he thought he was bound not to say ; be was advised that it was his duty not to undertake the advocacy of this case, and to the judgment of these honourable persons be had deferred. He did well, he was convinced, to retire from the advocacy of Mr. Alexander. After retiring from that advocacy, he was at liberty, if lie so pleased, and it was one of his pri vileges, as a Member of the House of Commons, if he thought the privileges of the House insulted, or the Con stitution of the country invaded—that it was his right un restrained, and it belonged to him as a Member of that House, to bring that subject before it for inquiry, which, as an Advocate, lie bad refused to undertake. In that House, if he made any mis-statements, they might be cor- rected ; if his ar;lm:ents were wrong , they might be re futed ; if ml:le any claims which were ungrounded-- any observations which were untenable in principle, and not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution —he was there liable to have his misrepresentations exposed, his absurdities ridiculed, and his arguments refuted. In that plsc,—by bringing the subject forward there, he exposed hin.v:c:f to an ordeal which he would not have been ex posed to in a Court of Law. If he said any thing un manly, unjustifiable, or unparliamentary, he would there be open to censure, .to which in another place he would not be subject. Under these circumstances, having de clined the advocacy of the individual mentioned, he felt himself at liberty to resume the subject, and to call the attention of the House to what he considered a matter the most important to the privileges of that House and to th e constitutional law of the land, and involving the most im portant discussion that had been engaged in since the Revo lution. The papers he tnehnt to move for were the proceed ings in the three informations for libel, which had recently been tried in the Court of Ring's Bench, against the Editor of the Morning Journal. He meant to call, first of all, for a literal copy of the informations which bad Leen filed ; next be should move for the judgments which had been entered upon the information ; and then for the minute, in one case, in which the Jury recommended the in disidual to mercy. This would be the object of his motion. He would call the attention of the House to these documents, as be had not stated, in giving the notice of his motion, what practical measure he should found on them; indeed, what ulterior measures he should found on them would depend on the view taken by the House, and whether it acquiesced or not in the views which. with the candour and indulgence of the House, he meant to lay before them. By his present motion he wished to lay on the table of the House, and before the pubic, documents which would enable the House and the public to come to a correct opinion as to the legality or illegality, the fairness or unfairness, the candour or oppressive ness of the proceedings to which they related.— He would first state a few words by way of pre face, and then he wou'd proceed directly to the subject.—(Hear, hear, and a loud laugh.) He did not sub mit the motion to the House from his own individual opinion only that these measures were unconstitutional; for if he were correctly informed, throughout the kingdom these proceedings had excited general dissatisfaction.— (Hear, hear.)—He believed that they had excited such dissati,fiiction, because they were felt to be not so much an attack on the Editor of the Morning Journal, as on the party who advocated the great cause which he repre sented. If he were correctly informed, these sentiments were general, not only among that party which had been vanquished in their opposition to Catholic Emancipation, but, he believed, these sentiments were common to all parties and to all persons in the House and out of the House ; and that there was a general opinion that these proceedings were partial, unfair, and oppressive.—(Hear, hear.)—He would nut use any expressions limiting his own individual opinion, which was that these proceedings were partial and oppressive. He thought so, and he would state why. He would shortly call the attention of the House to the proceedings to which the papers he moved for related. Gentlemen must be aware that the trials of Mr. Alexander, the Editor of the Morning Journal, had taken place on three informations; the first was for a libel against Lord Lyndhurst, the Lord HiA Chancellor ; the second was for a libel against the Duke of Wellington and his Majesty; and the third was for a libel of an indescribable nature—a libel against he knew not whom—(A laugh)—a libel he could not otherwise describe than calling it an omnibus libel—(Laughter)—he called it an omnibus libel—a hotch potcl; of libels—(Renewed laughter)—it was against whom ? Why, against the Go vernment—against all the Ministers -against his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State; and ►orry he was to see him mixed up in such a manner ; his dignity deserved something better; but it was a libel against his Right Hun. Friend, the rest of the Ministers, the House uf Com- mons, and quibusdamaliis—a proceeding, b e would ven ture to as , ert, for which no precedent could be found in all the forms of libel that ever were exhibited. Here three ex-officio informations were filed by hie Majesty's Attorney-General in the execution of his office, and as a part of his plan of proceeding*. If, in the course he should adopt—:should he go wrong, quern Deus vult, he wished only to speak of die, and not of persona, be wished to ab strict the office from the individual, and to speak only of the office in the observations he meant to address to the House. He would be glad to deal with it as a case in which only A, B, and C were concerned; but if he should say anythini , reflecting on individuals—ifbeshould diverge from the line he had marked out, he wished the House to consider itindictuns puce, as not said.—(A laugh. )—lle would take credit for that declaration, particularly because he knew that there any attacks he might make on per sons were liable to he refuted. He would preface the re marks he meant to make on these papers by saying that he thought the Lord High Chancellor (Lord Lyndhurst) did quite right in instituting a prosecution against Mr. Alex ander, for having charged him with receiving a bribe to raise an able and Learned Gentleman to the high office of Solicitor-General. He was bound to say of that Learned Gentleman, whom he had long known, and whose talents, as a lawyer, he admired, that his promotion was entirely the consequence of his own merits, and the reward of his own exertions.— He should not do justice to the Learned Lord (Lord Lynd hurst) if he alluded to him in any other manner than in terms of approbation—if he did not concede to him what ever he would claim—it lie did not give him all the pro tection he could supply—and • if he did not speak of him in terms such as► his warmest friends could call for. Ills Lordship, in his proceeding's, bad been counselled by his own feelings to bring forward for public investigation the charge that he had illegally and immorally, for a corrupt consideration, or fur a matter that was a convenience to himself, given the appointment of Solicitor-General to a Learned Gentleman. The Learned Lord was quite cor rect in instituting a prosecution. He moved for his infor mation through his Advocate in the Court of King's Bench. If he differed from his Learned Friend, the At torney-General—and he regretted that he should differ fiom him—he meant to speak of him without departing from that personal respect, which he was bound to pay him; anti he regretted that he was obliged to censure the individual who held the office of his Majesty's Attorney- General. He meant rather to speak of the office than of the individual who filled it. If he knew how, he would separate the individual from the office—for lie meant to give no offence. When the information had been filed it we* necessary to deny the truth of the allegaiien. The Learned Lord had accordingly made an affidavit denying the imputation ; the Learned Gent, also made an affidavit, and then Mr. Alexander also made an 4ffidavit, denying that the libel was meant to apply to Lord Lyndhurst, He would not enter into the merits of the denial; the view which he took was quite collateral to the merits or the truth of Mr. Alexander's affidavit; but lie having denied that the Lord High Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, was meant, what happened next ? Lord Lyndhurst bad ap plied to the Court of King's Bench, acting by the Attorney of the King, who was employed as his private advocate; after the affidavits were made, after• they bad put the de fendant to the vexation, trouble, and expellee necessary to answer the information moved for by the Noble and Learned Lord ; rfter the prosecutor had taken that course and the defendant bath been put to this expence, the Lion. Gent., virtute o,Oicij, 4;led ap information against the de fendant.—(Hear, hear.),--In all the history of the Courts of Westminster such an extraordinary and oppressive proceed ing had never befoie been heard of. This statement he par, ticularly and solemnly made to abandon a course of pro. ceeding after it was begun, to move for a criminal informa tion ; and then to institute, virtute officii, another course of proceeding, was a case unprecedented in the annals of legislation. § . upli a line of conduct was oppressive, intolerable, and ruinous to the individual; and, in say ing this, he knew he was epeakipg the sentiments of every lawyer in Westminster Hall. There was not a single man acquainted with the Courts at Westminster who would ch4rackrisc thm f rocadingi iu any othar manner than as wholly uprecedented in the Lis- I tory of the law. If they were unprecedented, they were, as a consequence of being unprecedented, vexatious, causing additional and unnecessary expence and trouble, and highly oppressive. If he made complaints that were unfounded or futile, he was speaking in the presence of those who could correct him, and he would repeat that the mode of first moving for a criminal information, and then filing an (x.officio information, watt oppressive and vexa tious, The defendant was put to double expence. That was enough ; but, in fact, he was brought to trial a second time. The Right Hon. Secretary had lately brought in come Bills to relbrm the law ; and to those Bills, for which he felt much indebted, he should be ready to give his sup port, as he should to every measure of reasonable refoim ; and one of the Bills was to exonerate persons from paying acquittal fees ; but the Attorney-General first put the de fendant to the exrence of answering a private suit, and then subjected him to a public prosecution. Perhaps the Right Honourable the Secretary of State would introduce a clause into his Bill, to indemnify Mr. Alexander for the costa of his private suit or of his public trial. The Learned Judges who presided in the Court of King's Bench —and it wasno new eulogy of Lord Tenterden, Mr. Justice Bayley, and the two pnisne Judges of that Court, to say that they were irreproachable in conduct ; indeed, he should scarcely consider them as irreproachable if any euloey from him were necessary—these Learned Judges were placed in a peculiar situation, and what was that ? The Attorney- General moved for his es-officio information after he had obtained the affidavit from Mr. Alexander that he did not mean the Lord Chancellor (Lord Lyndhurst.) Mr. Alexander employed a gentleman of well known talents and rare accomplishments, Mr. Denman ; and he called on the Court of King's Bench to direct the Attorney-General to make his election, and not to allow hint to go on with the information, without first dismissing the rule which had been granted by the Court. But the Attorney-General said no, he did not like to make any election ; and tine At torney-General could not be compelled to make an election. He remembered that when he was Attorney-General, he had been called nn to make an affidavit; but he said no, his word was as good as an affidavit, the Court was bound to hear him, and the Judge decided that he was right. If lie thought the decision of the Judge wrong, he would freely say so, but he thought the decision right. Eo in the case under consideration, the Learned Judge did not compel the Attorney-General to make an election. He said he could not cuntroul the Attorney-General; but he would say that the Attorney-General should not be allowed to resnme the rule for a criminal information granted by the Court, with nut its leave. The individual was tried on the ex officio in formation—he was found guilty, and sentenced by the Court of King's Bench to pay a large fine, and to be im prisoned four months. Of the sentence he said nothing, but the proceeding was an extravaeant departure from the law of the land. He could not believe that in the Cabinet, which gave directions to the Attorney-General to file the ex-officio information—he could not believe that at the Meeting of the Cabinet which gave this order, the Lord High Chan cellor, the head of that law, way present, or he never would Dave sanctioned such an unconstitutional proceeding.— (Hear.)—What he complained of was the departure from all precedents in this case. Suppose, in such a case, the individual had not been convicted on the es-officio infor mation, was he to be tried a second time on the informa tion granted by the Court? No man would say so—no man could think he ought to be. The Court, however, might happen to be composed differently. The integrity of Lord Tenterden was an assurance, a guarantee that such an occurrence should not take place. He would say to the Attorney-General—No, Mr. Attorney, you have brought the defendant to trial—you have nut obtained a verdict—one trial is enough, and we cannot try the same person twice for the same offence. But the times might change; the time might come when there should be no Lord Tenterden on tie Bench—the time might come when it might be supposed desirable to try a man a second time, and when an understanding might exist between the Judge and the Minister ; and such a thing was not quite a specu lation, it was not a mere abstract possibility—if he might judge from a celebrated letter lively published, and which a ship might probably Root) bring from India.—(Hear, hear.)—lt might happen that there should be an under standing between the Judge and the Government, as it was said, though he did not know it was the ca-e that such an understanding existed on the banks of the Ganges —(A laugh)—and with such an understanding in exist ence, an Attorney-General might say that on the informa tion you grant me you can try a case, if I fail by my own information, over again ; and he did not know, with such an understanding, that the country could have any protec tion against such proceedings. At present the character of the Judge was a guarantee that they could not take place. He was not certain that a plan might not be adopted here to promote an understanding between the Govern ment and the Judges, similar to that which was said to prevail on the banks of the Ganges, and concerning which letters might then be on board a ship in the Thames. This was an important constitutional topic for the House to take into its consideration ; and to this be would take the liberty of calling its attention. He had heard it stated the first night of the Session, by a Noble Lord, that the offices of the State were bestowed and re gulated, and the Government conducted, on a new prin ciple, and that the present Administration was composed of Tories, who governed on Whig principles. A Tory, he admitted, would not have instituted these proceedings, nor did he think they would ever be sanctioned by Whigs or Tories, but only by the present Attorney-General. The Government, however, was formed on a new principle of being neither Whig nor Tory, but a mixture of both, which was what writers on this subject called, he believed, a tertiuni quid, or, in other language, the Government bad no principles at all. He might call such an Administra tion—though if he were to do so twenty yards front where he was then speaking, an ex-officio information might be filed against him, and though he should, his application of the words sanctioned by all the dictionary makers and writers in the English language—he might call such an Administration an unprincipled Administration, not mean- • ing that it was composed of men morally bad, or of inn proper persons, but that it had no principles whatever.— • (A laugh.)—lf he were asked what practical remedy he should propose for what lie had described, he should state that toe powers of the Attorney-General were incautiously left undefined at the Revolution. He was not a Reformer— he never had concerned himself about Reform, and did not mean to propose any impracticable scheme for an imprac ticable purpose; but he would say, that since the Revolts tion—even since the rudiments and foundation of the Eng lish Law, a case like the - present had never been heard of; and that it was necessary that the Legislature should take some measure to prevent a similar occurrence, Tories and Whigs were, he bdieved, both agreed. He did not mean to restrict the Attorney-General's power to file ex-officio in formations ;he thought he ought to have the power. The state of the Government might be attacked in such a man ner as to make it necess iry for the Attorney-General to interfere ; and if he bad not the power of filing such in formation•, it might be attacked with impunity. But iu his opinion it would be wise and wholesome that the Legis lature should provide, that when the Attorney-General, having once moved for a criminal information, wished to take the case into his own bands, out of the superior Court of the King's Bench, he should not have the power to file an ex•-officio information unless the Court first gave permission. He contended, however, that there never had been, either before or since the Revolution, a course pursued so tyrannical, so arbitrary, or so oppressive, as that adopted by the present Attorney-General. He repeated this, and he would proceed to prove it—(Hear, hear)—and prove it, too, out of Whig times as well as Tory times—as the present Administration, being com posed of Whig as well as Tory, might desire to have a little of both:--(Hear, and laughter ) The Attorney- General, in the first place, moved for a criminal inforrna- tion aga'nst the Editor of the Morning Journal. Very well; but then, without any reason assigned, except per haps that the Lord Chancellor had changed his mind, the same Attorney-General filed an ex-o f ficio information, and withdrew the other.—(Hear, hear.) He knew no reason why the Lord Chancellor had not as good a right to change his mind as any other man. Lord Chancel _ !ors had an official right to change their minds—(A laugh)—but then, he contended, they Ivero not on so lemn occasions like this to veer about in their opinions on the ad% ice of the Attorney-General or any other person, to the manifest prejudice of the accused.—(Hear.) Now, he said, he could prove that such a course had never been adopted before by either Whig or Tory. Let the House obs e rve what had been done by a Whig in a case clearly rese►nbling the present, in the year 1773. In that year Lord Sandwich was the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Ilalifax was Secretary of State, and Lord North Prime Minister. Lord Sandwich was charged by some person in one of the public journals with having sold for a sum of money one of the Commissionorships of the Navy —a case, be it remarked, extremely like the subject of this prosecution. Well, what did Lord Sandwich do ? Why, acting under the alvice of an Attorney-General, who, be it remarked, was not a Whig like the present, but an old Tory—(A laugh)—and one, too, who liked a bottle of Burgundy in the afternoon, although he did not seem to act under its influence—(Cheers and laughter)— Lord Sandwich was advised with great coolness and dis cretion to bring an action. He did bring it, awl reco vered 2,0001. damage (Hear, hear.)—This was what Lord Sandwich did. He had taken an Opportunity to lead th 9 4CliVCre4 byLord Thurloy on that occasion. It is to be found in the " Annual Register," and'a mos. able and eloquent speech it was; and any one who took the trouble to look at it would find that Lord Thurlow put the gravamen of the libel expressly en its being against the personal character and probity of Lord Sandwich, anti not against his reputation as a Minister. The idea of making the invasion of the dignity of the Lord Chancellor an additional ground of prosecution, and a reason for adopt ing a peculiar, am! extraordinary, and out of the way course, never entered into the head of Lord Thurlow, and never was once alluded to by him in the course of the pro secution. Well, to pass to another case, Lord Loughbo rough was charged by some one with having entered too frequently a certain house, such as those which are to be found on the west side of St. James's-street—( A laugh) —in other words, with having lost a large sum of money at play. Well, what did Lord Loughborough do ? Why, be brought an action. Then there was another case, still more recent, and which occurred when Lord El don was in the Ministry. Certain imputations were thrown out against the character and conduct of Lord Rawdon, afterwards the Marquis of Hastings. An in formation was moved for ; hut it was a common one. Lord Eldon made an affidavit ; Lord Itawdon made an af fidavit ; and Lord Grenville made an affidavit ; and the result was that the person who made the charges being convinced they were untrue, and having expressly declared he ha►l found they were so, the idol 'nation was with. drawn.—(Hear, hear.)—Not one word, however, it will be perceived, was said all through of the dignity of the parties : the whole was put on mere personal grounds, and the dignity formed no ground at all for any portion of the proceedings; nor was it attempted by any Attorney-Gene ral for the prosecution, to contend that it would form such a ground. If the names of the parties were changed, the cases were one and the same as these they were now con sidering. He trusted, whatever he might say of others, that he had done justice to the Noble Lord's (Lord Lynd hurst) motives with respect to these prosecutions. He hoped that whatever animadversions he might feel it ne cessary to make on the conduct of those who bad mixed themselves up with these prosecutions, that he had done as much justice to the Noble Lord's feelings and sentiments as any man, and that he had not used one expression which one political opponent might not fairly and conscientiously use to another.—(Hear. )—He meant to do so. He hoped he bad done 60.—(Hear, hear. )—Although, he repeated, he could scarcely restrain expressiag in stronger language his :sense of the toast oppressive, most unwise, and most unprecedented prosecutions of which his Lordship had been made the instrument.—(Hear, hear.)—The nextcase to which he had occasion to allude was brought before the Court on an information filed on precisely the same terms, for a libel upon his Majesty and his Ministers, and which was tried, he believed, during last Jauary. He trusted the House would permit him to call their attention to each of these individual cases, because he thought they were of very great importance. He now passed to the second in formation, which was far a libel on his Majesty, his Government, and the Duke of Wellington. Before lie spoke of the Duke of Wellington, who made such a cor, spicuous figure on this occasion, he begged it to be under stood that he most fully coincided in all that had been said the other evening by the Honourable Member for Cumber land (Sir J. Graham), in language more eloquent and more glowing than any he could pretend to, with respect to the exalted merits and transcendent powers of that illustri ons Duke. It was not, however, as a Minister, or as a General, that they were to look at that illustrious Duke, in connection with these libels, but as a mere individual.— (Hear, hear.) This was the ground he took on this oc casion. This was the course the Horse saw had been pursued in all prosecutions of the kind before. If the dis tinction was not to be preserved between the great military commander and the individual, he was prepared to con that there must he an end of all discussion.—(Hear, hear.) If the Hero of Waterloo, or the Victor of Blenheim when he returned to the country he had saved by his glorious achievements, lord allowed the soldier to blend with the citizen, was still to plead his military renown; if, when he became once more a member of the free commonwealth of ours, he was trot to permit the soldier to merge into the civilian, but to plead his claims on the gratitude of the people, as a privilege to exempt him from the consequences of citizen ship, then he was prepared to say there was an end to all free discussion in this country.—(Cheers.)—He lisped no friend of that Noble Duke, whether personal or political, would suppose that, in anything he s now, he intended to utter aught which one gentleman should not say to another, or which was inconsistent with the greatest ad miration - iLthe Noble Duke in his military capacity. Having sat us much, he would take leave to observe, . _ that this information which he wax now considering bore a very extraordinary appearance. An information for a libel on the King, his Ministers, and the Duke of Wel lington, was one of such a mixed character as they were not often in the habit of witnessing—it was a sort of Ego et Rex meus—(A laugh)—which, although they had heard of it before, was, at least, something new in these days.—(Hear, hear.)—lf there was to be an information in future filed for libel against the Sovereign and his Ministers, he thought it alight be as well to separate them, bee tuse a mingling of this kind would eventually lead to a good deal of confUsion—(Cheers)—for however well it might sound in theory that the King and his Ministers were one and the same, every body knew that, practi cally, it was not the ease. He repeated, I.e had never seen a proceeding, emanating from au Attorney-General, more unintelligible—(Cheers)—or one in which the name of the Sovereign was mingled in a manner less reverential and respectful with those of his subjects.—(Cheers.)—The name of the Duke of Wellington and the Members of the Ministry had become mixed up in a manner as new as it was extraordinary.—(Hear, hear.) There were passages in the libel about the Duke of Wellington, which he would not trouble the House by repeating ; but he would con tend that Mr. Alexander would have libelled the Duke of Wellington, if, in speaking of him, he had not aged these expressions. —(Hear.) In the first place, the Duke was called an ambitious Minister. Was he not an ambitious Minister ? Had we ever a Minister that was not ambi- tious? In .another place it was said that the Duke of Wellington had been coldly received by the King at Wind sor. Coldly received by the King at Windsor• ! Had ever anything like this been heard of in England since the iniquitous tiu►ei of the Star Chamber? Was there any man in that House, lawyer or not lawyer, learned or un learned, soldier or civilian, layman or not layman, Mem ber or not a Member, who would stand up and say that that most iniquitous and infamous tribunal, the Star Chamber, in the very zenith of its power, had pronounced any sentence, or any charge of libel, so ptierile and so ridiculous as that a Minister had been coldly received by his Sovereign at Windsor?—(Loud and lung continued cheers.) He would call on the Members of the House, on the historians and the readers of histories, on the anti- quarians and the readers of antiquaries, on the Whig, on the Tory, on the Minister and the Constitutionalist—he would call on any man and every man, to say whe ther in the very meridian and zenith ,of the Star Chamber in the worst and most tyrannical period of this country, they had ever heard, or could find any record of a prosecution like this?—(Cheers and loud laughter)—This was but a small portion of the ribaldry and absurdity introduced into the information thus filed by his Majesty's Attorney-General. In the next sentence, however, he saw that the Duke of Wellington was libelled by being called an imperious Minister_ Now if any man would look at his Dictionary—and he hoped that all the Dictionaries had been burnt by the fire at the Argyll Rooms—(A laugh)—they would find that an im perious man meant a man of a lofty and commanding mind; and this, with a further assertion that the Duke was an ambitious and also a dangerous 'nag, formed the burthen of the imputation. Ambitious he was and there fore dangerous; and who that was ambitious was not dangerous ? and what public man in this country that was not ambitious? It was, he believed, a remark of Dr. Johnson, that criticism disdained to chase schoolboys from co mmon places._(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)—He would leave, therefore, the information to those who framed and supported it.—(Hear, hear.)—But what said the Jury to this libel? No set of men without shoes and stockings— (Laughter)—without hats or coats—(Laughter)—without shirts—even sans culottes—(Continued laughter)—no Jury, however ignorant, naked, or destitute, could have been packed together to find it a libel. The Duke was called imperious, and who could say he was not most justly called so? What ! that man not imperious who carried that measure respecting the Itoman Catbolics,which had dissolved three Cabinets—which had put an end to Mr. Pitt's Administration —which had put an end to the rule of All the Talents, and which had prevented the formation or the Administration of Cllr. Canning. To say that the man who had carried a measure of that kind, in the face of a powerful party, was nut an ambitious and an imperious man, was to deprive him of those qualities which had enabled him to accomplish that mighty object. The libel then went on to allude to a subject which, he contended, was most strictly within the line of constitutional discussion, namely, the rumour, a rumour known to every man in the country, that in the course of that unfortunate discussion on the Roman Catholic claims, his Majesty entertained opinions different from those attributed to him in the Speech front the Throne, and at variance with those of his Minis ters. A Noble Lord (Pahnerston) had observed the other evening, in the course of the debate on foreign c.ff.irs, that all secrets of State were not confined to the Cabinet. Thip secret way known. It was known that the State machine ~~ was at one time going at a very slow pace—at another in danger of an overturn ; and that altogether those who had the management of it were not quite agreed about the road it was to take. Now, he contended that in our Government of King, Lords, and Commons, it war possible there might be a difference of opinion, and that it was perfectly justifi able to say so. Mr. Alexander wished to say nothing more, and yet this was the libel. Now, he denied that it was illegal to say that one of the three branches of the Legisla ture held, suijuris, opinions on any question, delicate or not delicate, different from those of the other branches. He denied that it was illegal to discuss such a question, and the whole of the question, as it affected Mr. Alexander, rested on the assumption of a right which was perfectly justifiable and legal. In the case of Mr. Perry, the Editor of the Minting Chronicle, who was tried for drawing a comparison between the conduct which it was presumed the present Sovereign (Geo. IV.) would adopt with ze gard to public affairs contrasted with that pursued by the Ministers of George 111., the House would find, that the nature of the case presented a strong resemblance to that which he had just described. It was tried before Lord Elenborough, one of the ablest and most acute Judges who ever sat on the Beneh ; and although he would not troul.le them with any detail of the trial, the House would see, from the language of that Learned JuJge in his charge to the Jury, what were the opinions he enter tained on such a question. Lord Ellenborough there says, after animadverting on the language of the libel, "If it meant that his Majesty, during his reign, or for a length of time, may have taken an imperfect view—or erroneous contemplation of the interests of the country, as it regards either foreign nations or our own, on the system of our internal policy—if it impute nothing but honest error, without crime, I am not prepared to say, that that is of itself libellous"—(1-fear, hear.)—These were no words of doubtful meaning ; they were the expressions of Lord El lenborough, in a cage of almost the same description ; and who, he would agk, could say, that to tell the world his Majesty did not entertain opinions of the same nature as his i•iinisters, or that he di I not entertain opinions held by a portion of the people, was to be punished as a libel ? Ile article also declared that the Ministers ought to be dismissed; and, without expressing any personal opinion on the subject, he (Sir C. Wetherell) would say that an individual entertaining opinions such as the Editor of the Journal hold then, was perfectly justified in giving ut terance to such opinion. The wholo tnatt,r was, haw- ever, presented to a Jury, and they found a ♦erd ic t ; ha ' what did they find ?—(Alaugh.)—lie was not in the House the other evening when the nature of that raffia was al !oda to, but be understood that the Hon. Member for Westminster (Sir F. Burdett), and the Attorney-General had exchanged some conversation on the subject.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)—The Attorney-General boasted then that he got a verdict. He (Sir C. Wetherell) would tell him what he thought he got. He got a sound rap over the knuckles.—(Cheers, and laughter.)—He did not mean to say that the jury were not prepared to follow the Learned Gentleman in a straight fora and libel ease ; but this case was too much for than.—(Hear.)—They said to the Learned Gent.—don't talk to us with all these gallopades -(Cheers and laughter.) —we do not wish to go out to waltz with you.—(Continned laughter. )—This is not a case fit for a Court of L .w, and they concluded by deliver ing the following memorable verdict :—" We find the de fendants guilty of a libel on his Majesty, but we do not find them guilty of a libel on hi■ Majesty's Ministers. - We also beg to state it as our opinion that the article was written under feelings of very great excitation, occasioned by the unprecedented agitation of the time; we there - fore, most earnestly beg to recommend all the defen dants to the merciful consideration of the Court."— Now, if any lawyer would stand up and say that this was (Maining a verdict, he would say to that man " good luck to you."—(G rod laughter. )—He did not envy the gainer of such verdicts.—(hear, hear.)—Mr. Alexander was not brought up to receive judgment on that verdict, as ordered ; how could he ? The Jury thought he was to be excused on account of tie agitation of the times, and well they might think so ; for he believed no man then living recol lected a time when the agitation was so vehement and so general. There was the Prime Minister of the country on one side declariog that the Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholic. was necessary to its salvation. On the other side up rose the Primate and Metropolitan Bishop, and declared it would be its destruction. Then the Chancellor on the Woolsack was to be heard declaring that the country must stand stock-still if the Bill was not carried ; and on the other side an Ex-Chancellor followed him, and pre dicted the ru'n of the country if it was granted. One part of the Right Reverend Bench of Bishops prophesied the overthrow of the Protestant Constitution; another assured us of the additional stcuritiesto its stsbi:ity, which _ _ it was about to receive. A Chief Justice of Ireland said the connection of England with Ireland would be infallibly shaken if the Catholics were refused x participation in the rights of the Legislature. An English Chief Justice was to be found, who assured us that it would tend to the overthrow of all Protest,int Institutions. Then the Right Hon. Gent., the Secretary of the Home Department, and the leader, as he called himself, of the Protestant interest, who, not more than nine months before, had declared with great solemnity of tone and manner, that there was no possibility of formiug a Cabinet unless under the prin ciple of a division of opinion on the Catholic Question, was the first to come down to the House and declare that that measure would, in his opinion, no longer be resisted ; while a Noble Viceroy and a Great Commander, whose leg was chopped off at Waterloo, had the further ill luck to see the Viceregal stool chopped front under him in Dublin. —(Laughter, and cheers.)—Ail these things were symp tonic of the agitation of the times—all the bonds of society were loosened—all ancient institutions were overturned— all friendships were affected. At the Revolution of 1688, there bad been no such confests of feelings and opinions. At the settlements after that revolution there were no such divisions betwteo man and man. At the close of the American war—at the close of the French revolu tionary war—in all times known in the history of the country, there never had been such a separation of pri •.te and public connections—of persona and opiniona.— Well, indeed, might the Jury say it was a time of un precedented agitation when the libel was written. And was the Editor of the Morning Journal not to be per mitted to participate in that feeling ?—(Hear. )—Why could not the Attorney-General and the prosecutor say that the purpose was to beat down the party with which the Journal was connected, rather than those who held these sentiments? Could they not have done that without sending Alexander to Newgate ? In a time of the moat unexampled agitation, when there was a collision of opi , nion—a warmth of language—an angry feeling—a sepa ration of connection which affected oven those the least accustomed to take part in political discussions, were they to demand of the Editor of the Journal that he was to be silent and divested of feeling? Was he whose duty it was to recerd the opinions of the public, not to express the general sentiments? and when all was tumult and agitation, and discord, was he not to speak a word, write a paragraph, or record an expression which might echo the opinions of those around him? and the moment he did so, and departed from the unnatural apathy and coldness prescribed to him, and violated the bounds of decorum which it was his solitary duty to observe,' than he was visited with this ill-judged, unjust, and tyrannical ex-officio information of his Majesty's Attorney-General.—(Cries of Lear, hear, hear.)—He (Sir Charles Wetherell) was bound in the present case to say nothing but that which his own unbiassed judgment dictated, and he really could not avoid closing this part of the subject by observing, that if he had been in the Pima- tion of the Editor of the Morning Journal at the time, he thought he might have been inclined to enunciate senti ments precisely the same which he placed in the pages of that journal. He would take the liberty of reminding the House that he contended, every man had the power to Bay, without being guilty of libel, that one part of the Legisla ture was of one opinion, and the King or any other part of that Legislature of another. If it were not so, they might be said to revive the practice of Tiberius, who made it a libel to praise A, because it was a reflection on B ; or, in other words, they were not to exaggerate one man's merits tiro highly, lest by eulogising him, they dispossessed some other person of a part of the honour which would be due to him. Ile &nitd that such was the law of England, and he repeated, that they had the dictum of Lord Ellenborough that such was not the practice. He now came to the•, next trial, and he really approached it with some apprehension. They had now g4,t an Adininistration—Whig or Tory he did not know—some people said it was both—and as the times required it, he should not be surprised to see them send fOrth a new dictionary, as the guardians of the poli tical principles and minor morals of the age. He hoped, if they did so, that it would contain a copious glossary of phrases fur the direction of rising politicians ; and that if any man turned to the words " imperious or ambitious," h e would find a reference to the trials which took place be fore Lord Chief Justice Abbott, in 1/329, where he would find the meaning of those words fully explained ; and there fore, gentle reader, take care of yourself. lie would row allude to the inauguration of the new system, and the ceremonies which attended it—ceremonies which bore more the appearance of a raree show thaw the formalities of a Court of Law.—(Hear.)—First then came, and seated' himself on the Bench, to prove the nature of the libel, the Lord Chief Justice Tindal. He was. followed by the Master of the Rolls, and after him catne Mr. Baron Vaughan. Now, in order to counteract this preponde 'smuts of Torlisui itt a Whig and Tory Administration, the next person who was summone d to appearwas the Lord Holland, a high Whig ; and lest the balance should be rather too much affected by the weight of his Lordship►. they introduced a ; hi s successor , t h at ran k o ld T ory Lord Bexley.—(Loud laughter.)—Now he did not know what the principles of free trade or the removal of the restric tione from the commerce: of India could have had to d° with the libels; but to add to this most singular mixture came next the Chairman of the East India Company. (A laugh)--Then he did not understand what the currency or the question of an e xt ens i on o f paper an d s restr i ct i o n cash payments might have to do with it, but there followed him the Chaitman of the Bank of England ; and, although he did not cleanly see why, the procession was dosed by the Veriest; Padiarnentorum.—(licar, hear, and Oca" firmed laughter.)—This was the kind of theatrical poluP with which a prosecution was introduced, which in other and graver times would not have been considered necessary , or called forth much less of an attempt at effect. Hs would not make a motion on this subject nor bring in 3 Bill to prevent this gallery of National Worthies.—(Loud laughter)—from being introduced at such places and on such occasions; but lie would take leave to express all opinion that their presence might well have been spared. This was not a case for a Jury, but one calculated to pre (Wee a stage effect. He came now to the third ease; but before he left a second—(A laugh)—lie would just venture to say that he was one of those who were induced, hy a contemplation of all the circumstances, to think that this most unjustifiable and reprehensible attack upon the Editor of the Morning Journal was meant and designed—it was merely a (contrivance to beat down and insult the van quished Protestant party in that House.—(Hear, hear.) — Now, to go on to the thin.' case, and upon the third in formation, he would first come to a point which he thought of great importance. With reference to what he had ob served first, he begged the House to pay similar attention to the administration of justice, which concerned indivi duals, whether they were out of that House, or among its Members. He did not mein to say that the topic on the . third was more important than that of the first point ; but the third point would be found to involve matter more ex ceedingly interesting to the practice, the privileges, and to the independence of Parliament. The third ease was a prosecution for a kind of mixed offence—a kind of law yer's offence.—(A laugh.)—He looked upon this to be most objectionable. The third object of prosecution iu volved an attack on the King's Ministers, au attack on Parliament, and it involved a principle of subverting the privileges of Parliament. He would first generalize sod decompose that strange heterogeneous mass which con stituted the libel upon the King. Let those who heard him reflect upon one point--that upon the second prose cution, although the publication was foetid to he a libel, the Jury had said that if they were bound by law to fins . the defendant guilty, they could not help saying that w ith reference to the unprecedented agitation of the times, -awl the strong feelings that then existed throughout the coun try, they could not help recommending the prisoner to mercy. This ought to have been a lesson to the Att o rney.' General. Such a hint from any quarter to an Attorney- General exercising the functions of his 'Ace against an in dividual ought to have been listened to ; but coming free , a Jury, it ought to have been imperative upon hint. But notwithstanding this, the third prosecution was persevered in. Government must either avow or disavow the proceed ings of their Law Officer., and he should therefore treat this as the prosecution of the Government carried ed against the King's subjects. The three indictments were , at the suit of an officer whom the Government had a right to command as long as lie was kept by them in office- The attack upon the King was a repetition of the offence upon the indictment for which the Jury had thought them selves bound to recommend the party to the mercy of the Court. Wl:at he condemned was, that after the second Jury had declared that the publication was no lib e l u pon the Government, and that so far as it was a libel upon the King it was a fit subje ghts c oau t alyvad f sge o , e r ut bhe i ra cy:on e ul r a_ e l(wdi y tn , tso‘it t v)ri h eent ai y:_ t :o h luGd. e see: A n Awfit t ri t :ai i p i dai r r; t: tt e .:e y i:aee, - a au g i l ,ti e lli p tow r i a i s 6 o e c t uh r d g o e ti n d ih i en a o J e l tu i l rt e a oy n guilty, but yet we think that uo judgntent ought t (epiGia o ueriefo: l eg i cielndl3. passed on the individuals, ought not to have been renewed. But yet the Attorney-General went on to try the third case, which was substantially the same as the second. Upon this second case the Jury were absent f r ont the box three hours. So evident was the impression made upon all persons by the strong impropriety of the prosecu tion, that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Tenterdeu, said, " Mr. Attorney, what do you mean to do ?" Now, he (Sir,C. Wetherell) did not mean to say that this was the ease—(A langh)—but it was very much like it..-4A laugh.)—lt was not identical; but what he alluded to was well known, and it was a kind of locus penetentice--- a Sott of opportunity in which his Majesty's Attorney- General might turn round—a period in which a luau might say, " Why this won't do—(Lund laughter)-.-or it will do." But the next case was called on. What then was the next case? As far as he knew, it was merely the repetition of the same matter, upon which cue experiment of a prosecution had been tried. He would take the liberty of stating, that when the Chief Justice said—" What, Mr. Attorney-General, do you mean to do ?"—the Attorney-General, instead of proceeding, ought at least to have put his brief in his bag, and to have said, " I will consider of it till the Court sits the next morning." But instead of this, the third information was called on, and the Jury pro nounced a verdict. This verdict was not accompanied: by the recommendation to mercy which had accompanied the second; but still it was unprecedented, that when an At torney-General had got only such a verdict, accompanied by a recommendation to mercy, he should proceed to try the same, or similar matter, in a second information.-- This was taking the chance of verdicts; and, if. one failed, another was to be tried.—(Cheers.)—If this was not using the law as an instrument of oppression —if this was not bringing all the power, the resources, and the purse of Government to bear against an individual—if this was not going beyond the spirit of the times—if this was not perverting the equity of office, and violating its decencies,_ he knew not what was.—(Cheere.)—He had done all this in breach of that mercy and forbearance and impartiality which on former occasions had characterised Attorneys-General.—(Hear, hear.) If he erroneously com pleined of the green injustice, of the manifest indecency' and want of all proper feeling in these proceedings, he was liable to be attacked by those who differed from him ; but till lie heard such reprobation—till that was done, he should continue—and when that was done, he should still retain his own opinions.—(Laughter.)—lfslr. Alexander was convicted on the third libel, the Jury having recommenteed him to mercy, or virtually acquitted him on the second, was it possible that the man could be sent .to Newgate ? The man ought nut to have been punished upon the second information, and the Attorney-General did not Clare to bring him up for judgment upon it, well knowing that the recommendation of the Jury mast have been opei wive on the Court. He had stated in the course of the discussion, that lie should be able to treat the subject with out stating any thing in language disagre:able to the feel ings, either political or in a gentlemanly point of view, of any individual who heard him. This libel was an attack upon the Right Hon. Secretary, and the Right Hon. Gent. was a considerable party in that line of politics which the Journal advocated, lie had said, however, that he would not allude personally to anybody in the dincussion, and therefore, instead of the Right Hon. Gent., he would merely say the Right Hon. Mr. A. He would not say the Right Hon. Mr. P., for then every person might guess whom he meant.—(Laughter.)—All that the libel had said was that this Right lion. Mr. A. had been seen to smile at the detail of distresses in that House. If this smiling at petitions or statements of distress in that House were to be made the subject of libels, he feared that the Attorney-General would have occasion to file informations against die Noble Lord who moved the Address, and against the Noble Lord who seconded, and against the Worthy Alderman or City Member, at least, who had thirded it, and against the Right Hon. Minister who had spoken fourthly ; for they had all treated the statements of distress not only with miles, but with cheers and sneers ; and was their smiling and sneering to go to a Jury as criminally involving a contempt to the sufferings of the people—the fact having impunity, and the representation of the fact sending a man to Newgate ? lie did not m e an to say, that if any friend of the Right lion. Mr. A. had thought fit to come down to Parliament holding the Journal in his hand, and required Mr. Alexander to be convened to the Bar, that he would not have a right to do so, nor that the House might not have taken up the case, and reprehended Mr. Alexander with that impartiality and spin it and mercy to which they are acoustonae I ; but this was totally a different course of proceeding. H e w a uld not deliver in that House a syllable of that passage which constituted the matter of this libel—but this had taken place on tl.e 16th of June, and the House did not rise until been da of J u ne. i Indeed In this siHntoeurvsealhoad d of aw on ee e very k no business little business after the Catholic Bill had p asse d, an yet in that interval no complaint had been m a d e o f th e libel to the House. The Attorney-Gen era l h a d no r i g ht t o take the case into his own hand s , an d out o f t h e power o f the Howie. The Right H on . G ent l eman (M r. A.) bad the ha th been attacked for sneering, and he should like to know when discussions were carried on in that House so gravely' as to be without smiles or sneers. The Right Hun. Gen tleman might have convened Mr.• ileamileit to the Bar. No such step had been taken. And then the queatOn. Was, Lad file ex-qj of that 11 to tell (Cheers whilst ti wou righ t . colle c t t there uri thsettetl culled t the char case unti long disc that the headed. 'tient la! Mons ou Law_ 0 domestic had ex - pr reminded Pruseeuti further 4 might ; they w•ou This racy H . nuse Air. Pitt Vute(t th * custody c Roth e of lous of am to ite'rrie the BY r ; of nine 21 to the pr General upoi that 11443 (if the H tireeted t General 1 Berl /atm' of that -Alelnhe e i where w; other? House, ft from the the oppos (A laugh Supp ose tress ; xu Attorney But Rapp Supp ose that he al the Opp, ask the would (lei a ease to libellous he must i Mom ins) the barof the inter! vernment him to ja complain of public it would person w that distr &r+u'efal presentati too warn Alexaude of distre 1830, u every tow vated fort Had Mr. he ought for three suffering d 1R u readl t t b Ary, the House. or itirm now, and —(Hear, Oeratated advocate ; disposed complaint ■red by 3 many Inn: opened a had opens under the of the wl damnator powers of iiidividia.: divided ui his proeet tiled but i Were bac in the Jc not muc•.h against by 4ecused tion and., into the li Alexandet duty to ii publisher from this I on is the a foe aga Member t against Id Which w a then bteu Tory Ad, principal's lett) was