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

oppose the transfer proposed by the Noble Earl opposite to the county of York. The Earl of LIVERPOOL had never meant to say that the Crown had the power of creating a new Borough. He was aware that the Union with Scotland and Ireland was an insuperable obstacle to such a creation. lie had-only stated, as a doubt, whether, after one borough had been extinguished, the Crown had not the power of reviving its Charter and giving it to another place ? Ile had not wished that the Crown should assume that power, but should be authorised by -tire Bill to make the selection. The question eras then put and agreed to with out a division. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to he committed on Monday next.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMAIONS. The House was occupied till half past four o'clock, in balloting for a Committee to consider the merits of the Petition complaining of an un flue return for the borough of Portsmouth. SCOTCH JURY BILL General - MowroomtillY presented a Petition from the Freeholders'of the county of Ayr against the Scotch Jury Bill. Mr. ABERCROMBY thought it strange that the House should be called upon to reject this most necessary measure, because some people imagined that it was not called for. The LORD ADVOCATE said, that when the se cond reading or the Bill came on, he trusted he should be able to state such reasons as would induce the House to dis * countenance this Bill. Sir R.FERGtisoN re-stated his opinion of the use fulness of this Bill, and denied that the opinion of the majority of the Scotch people was against it. DENMAk spoke in favour of the Bill. Sir G. CLERK begged to state that the opinions of all those enabled to form one upon the subject were against the Bill.—The Petition was ordered to be printed. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. It. 'MARTIN said he had to call the atten tion of the House to a matter connected with its character and privileges. lie had on the preced ing evening presented a Petition from the Stage Coach Proprietors of London, praying that some measure might be adopted for punishing, in a summary manner, those persons in their employ ment who by ill-treatment injured and maimed `their horses. This, said the ilonourable Mem ber, was a serious and grave matter, and yet a Daily Paper had represented the very mention of it as having convulsed the House with laughter. He (Mr. M.) had spoken of a horse's eye being ]:necked out, and this lamentable fact, which in such an Assembly ought to excite any other feeling than that of merriment, was said to con vulse the House with laughter. • Such a state ment was derogatory to the character of the , House. lie would not detain the House longer by commenting upon it. The report had appear ed in The Times Newspaper of that morning, and it was his intention to move that the Printer and Publisher of that Paper be called to the Bar. lie then gave in the paragraph complained of, which was read by the Clerk at the'. Table as follows : " Mr. RICHARD MARTIN rose for the _purpose of calling the attention 6f the House to a P e tition which had been put into his hands by several individuals of capital and respectabi lity in this metropolis, and its vicinity. In the present state of the law, it was much to be lamented that' horses of the most valuable description might have an eye knocked out—(A laugh). —cr be irretrievably ruined for ever—(A laugh)—by . grooms or other servants, against whom, from their station in life no damages could be recovered. It was, therefore, but properlhat those by whose act such mischiefs should be occasioned, should stiffer in their persons ; and to provide some such punishment was the object of this Petition." He denied the truth of what was here asserted to have taken place, namely—that the House was convulsed with laughter. He thought that the paragraph reflected "on the ;House, and he thought it malicious, because all the other Morning Papers reported his speech correctly ; and this very paper reported the speech of the Worthy Alderman, who seconded his speech, correctly: • The paper was then put in and read by the Clerk. Mr. MARTIN then moved that C. Bell, the printer, do attend the Bar of that House on Monday. The SPEAKER—Who seconds the motion ? After a short pause, a MEMBER on the Opposi tion side, seconded the motion. Mr. TrraNty would assure the Hon. Gentle man that if the Reporter attempted to raise a laugh against him (Mr. M.), he would be amongst the first to take serious notice - of it. If a laugh did take place, it certainly must have been at some expression of the Hon. Member's, and not at the subject. He was sure one . moment's re flection would induce the Hon. Member to take no farther notice of the subject; if such matters were to be animadverted upon whenever they occurred, there would not be a day without the House tieing employed with them. He would appeal- to the good sense of the Hon,. Member, whether it would be worth his while to proceed any further.--(Hear.)--The notice that was taken of it already would be a sufficient warning to the parties concerned to be more cautious. Mr. MARTIN yielded to the appeal, and the motion was withdrawn. Lord J. RussELL presented a Petition from a Body of Separatists residing in Ennis, praying that they might be allowed to make affirmation, instead of an oath.—Laid on the table. Mr, THOMPSON presented a Petition from the Company of Dyers, praying that the Thames Wharf Bill may pass into a law.—Laid on the 'Table. PORTSMOUTH ELECTION COMMITTEE. Mr. DYSON brought up the reduced list of the Committee appointed to consider the merits of the Petition complaining of an undue return for the Borough of Portsmouth. The names were as follow : W. L. Maberly, Esq • W. Stewart, Esq. Sir E. Knatchbull. E. P. Bastard, Esq. R. W. Newman, Lsq. Lord Stanley. Sir B. W. Guise. Sii R. Griffiths. BREACH OP PRIVILEFIE. Mr, BENNET moved the Order of the Day for Iron. H. Clive. R. Farrand, Esq. W. Thompson, Esq. T. P. Williams, Esq. Lord J. Russell.-_ T. W. Croker, Esq. James-Macdonald, Esq. calling T. Arrowsmith, William•Shackell, R. T. Weaver, and Henry Cooper, to the Bar. The SPEAKER directed the .Serjeant at Arms to inquire whether the aforesaid persons were in attendance, and on being informed that they were, ordered Thos. Arrowimith to be called in. On Mr. ,- Anaowsmiyit appearing at the Bar, he was examined as•follows:— . By the SPEAKER. Q. What is your name ?=—A. - Thomas Arrowsmith. By Mr. BENNET. Are , you the proprietor of the paper called the " John Bull ?' --No. How long have you ceased to be the, proprietor of that paper ?—Since the 10th of February last. To whom did you give up the proprietorship ?—To Mr. Weaver. What_ consideration did he give you for the proprietorship ? None. Was there any engagement, written or oral, by which you Were to receive a , share in the profits to be deiived from the sale of the paper ?—None whatever. • . Do you receive any of them now ?--Not any. Do you receive the weekly proceeds ?—Yes, generally. Where do you live ?—Answer not audible. Do you keep a shop in Johnson's-court ?—Yes. Do you reside there P—l never did. Is that the place - in which the printing press of the John Bull is set up ?—Yes. Does Weaver give you any consideration for setting up the press there ?—Not any. Is he not your journeyman printer ?—IIe was,' but he is not now in that capacity. Do you not give him three . guineas a week ?—Not now. Do you give him any thing ?—Nothing for the John Bull, but something for printing. Do you say you give him nothing for the John. Bull ?—Yes. Does he receive any salary from you P—He receives some thing for reading proofs and printing. Is the John Bull included ?—No. Are you in the habit of letting journeymen printers set up presses in your printing shop ?--Not in my shop. .Is it on your premises P—There are two houses, one for the John Bull. ,Is that next door ?—Yes. Who pays the rent ?—I pay the rent and Weaver,pays me. What do you receive in the shape of rent from Weaver ?-- Nothing, because'l am paid out of the proceeds of the paper. How do the proceeds come into your hands ?—Through the publisher. Who is the . ptiblisher ?—Weaver. Do the proceeds come to you through the hands of 'Weaver ? —Yes, certainly. • Do you mean all the proceeds ?—Not all, there is money for advertisements which p asses th roug h o th er hands. Who pays the wages of the workmen?—Sometimes I, some times my partner, and sometimes Mr. Weaver. Do not you generally pay the wages ?—No. If any one stated that you paid the wages generally, would not that person .state what was untrue ?—I do not for John Bull. If any one told the House so, would he not say that which is untrue ?--I do not pay the wages generally, I sometimes do. If any one was to say that the wages were paid by you gene rally, would it not be untrue ?—lt is not the fact certainly. . Did you employ Cooper ?—My partner employed him. Who is your partner —Mr. Shackell. Was it your privity and consent that he employed him ? yes. During your partnership ?—Yes. What is he paid ?—Three guineas a week, with an under standing that he was to have more, if the paper got np. What has be now ?—He has no more yet. What induced you to give up the paper ?—I did not find it very profitable, and could not continue - to read the proofs. By Mr. SMITH. - Did you ever receive any money from Weaver for the pro prietorship ?—None. ,Was there no agreement between you that you were to have a sum of money for the profits, at a future time ?—No. Whose are- the types ?—They are ours. - What allowance does Weaver make you for the use of them ? —Answer not audible. If the receipts exceed the expenditure, isVeaver to have the benefit of them ?—Yes.- And if the expenditure exceeds the receipts, who bears the loss ?—The loss falls upon me. By Lord NUGENT. Is there any agreement, oral or written, between you and. Weaver, as to the consideration ?—There was an engagement. IVliat were the terms ?--Yeaver was to become proprietpr ; but we had no idea of the paper coming to any number, we thought, we should lose by it in the end. There was then no consideration ?—Not any. Was there not a prOsecution instituted against the John Bull? —Yes. How long after that proSecution was commenced did you give up the proprietorship ?—Shortly afterwards. How long was it ?—About three weeks. Was it a week, or three days ?—lt was more. - By Mr.. SMITH. What prevented you then from laying down the paper alto gether ?—Answer not audible. How - came it that you made so strange ail agreement as you stated ?—We started the paper, and risked the consequences. What induced you to enter into an agreement of that sort, by which you could not gain, and mierht lose ?—Because, if the Paper did not s uccee d, - it could be dropped. By Mr. C. WYNN., Have you ever paid any thing to Weaver on account of the profits ?—No. - You have . paid kiln nothing on that account3—Never. Did you, in the oral agreement, reserve to yourself the right of giving up the Paper when - you thought fit ?—Yes, certainly. Was it about the 10th of February you gave up the Proprie torship ?—Thereabouts. Are.o sure it was mo re th an t wo mon th s ago ?—Y es . Did Weaver continue to be your, journeyman up to the pe riod of the . agreement ?—Y es .- . By Mr. BENNET. Did you ever after exercise any controul over the articles which went into the Paper ?—No, they were all left to Cooper. Then, had Cooper the controul over them ?—Yes. Did you see the article complained of in the John Bull of Sunday Last , before it was printed ?—Not before it was printed. Is it usual to keep the manuscripts of the articles which go into the Paper ?—No. Is it the practice in your office not to keep them ?—lt is. Is that the practice in the offices of the other London Pa pers ?—I don't knoW. Don't you know to the contrary ?—I do not. • By Lord NUGENT. I ask you whether, in the - forenoon of yesterday, you had any conversation with Weaver relative to the order to attend here yesterday ?—Nothing more than that lie told me be had received such an order. - About what time was that ?—Between nine and ten o'clock. Were you alone with him at that time rather think Cooper was present. Are you certain f—No, not certain. By Sir R. FERGUSSON. When did you first hear that Weaver was to attend this House ?—About ten o'clock yesterday. - Was the first time you heard of that a bo u t ten o ' c l oc k yes terday ?—Yes, thereabouts. 'Was there no further conversation took place at the time ? N.othing further passed on the subject. -Were you present in the House yesterday, or did you hear the questions that were put to M r . W eaver 1?-1 was not here, nor did I hear the questions. - HaVe-you communicated with Mr. 'Weaver since his exami nation yesterday ?—Of course, I could not help asking him re specting it. _ The witness was then ordered to withdraw, but not to de= part from the House. On the motion of BENNET, Mr. Shackell was then called to the Bar, and examined to the following effect By the SPEAKER. What is your name ?—William Shackell. By Mr. BENNET. Are you the Proprietor of a Paper called John Bull ?—Not now. How long have you ceased to be so ?—About last February. I believe it was the week after I had the hononr of waiting on you: What was the reason of your giving up the Proprietorship ? —I, candidly confess that the idea of a prosecution was not pleasant. Did Weal, er make any compensation to you for your giving up the Proprietorship - ?—No; I did not ask him. Ishe to make you any compensation hereafter if the profits , should allow ?—No. Then you surrendered this Paper to Weaver without receiv ing any remuneration at all ?—None at all. What was the situation of Weaver when the proprietorship of the paper was transferred to him ?—He had been some time in my employment. Was he then your printer ?—He was my overseer. What did you pay him ?—Two pounds a week. Do you now pay him th a t sum ?—ll e now receives three gui neas a week. What does he receive that for ?—For the superintendance of the paper. 'What paper P—John Bull. What ! Do you pay him for superintending his own paper ? —lt is his Qwn, What is done with the fest of the proceeds ?—lle has three guineas a-week, and when the accounts are settled, he is to have the balance. Why do yOu pay him three guineas a week if the whole pro fits of the paper are his?-11eca.use that sum is necessary for his present use ; and he is to have the 'balance afterwards. If the whole is Weaver's property why does he not enjoy it, instead of receiving only a portion I—How do you knew he re ceives three guineas a ' wee k ?—I have seen him receive it. Who pays it ?--Sometimes • I do ; sometimes Mr. Arrow smith ; sometimes he pays himself. Into whose hands are the proceeds of the paper paid times to Mr. .Arrowsmith ; sometimes to myself;-sometimes they are paid to Mr. Weaver. have you an account current with Weaver, as you state that you are in trust for the balance due to him 1--There has not yet been any account made out. There are books in which every thing is entered ; and those books are open to Mr. Weaver. Who keeps these books?—Mr. Arrowsmith, or myself,makes the entries, as it may happen. Who is in posSession of this book ?—There are two books at the office. I believe they are now lying on the desk. I speak of one book—the account current of John Bull ? There are two books ; the one containing the receipts, the other the expences. To whom are the accounts. credited and debited ?—There is no ledger, only a plain statement of the money laid out and received. Do you keep your accounts in the same manner with refe rence to the other parts of your trade ?—The answer was inau dible in the Gallery. Are you in the habit of looking at the manuscripts intended for insertion in John Bull before they are printed ?—I occa sionally see them. Did you see the manuscript of the paragraph in question ? Ido not know that I did; ,I cannot say. I might or might not. The manuscripts generally go from Mr. Cooper to the compositors. Do you at present examine any of the manuscripts sent to the office of Jo hn Bull ?—Sonictimes. • But you cannot say that you dia not see that of the paragraph inserted in the paper . of Sunday last ?—I do not positively know. I may have seen it ; but Ido not think I did. lam clear, however, that I did not read the paragraph until I saw it printed in the paper. , • Did you appoirif Mr. Cooper to be the Editor of John Bull ? --Yes. What allowance has he ?—Three guineas a week. Is there any other Editor ?—No. \Vas there never any other Editor ?—Never. Has Mr. Cooper the sole management of the Paper ?—The sole management. Does he examine every paragraph before it is printed ?—Yes ; and reads it after it is printed. Then you consider him as responsible to you ?—To Mr: 'Weaver. You consider Mr. COoper responsible to Mr. Weaver for the publication of the various articles in the Paper ?—When I transferred the Paper to Mr... Weaver, I considered myself as tlansferring Mr. Cooper to him at the same time. Did you consider Mr. Cooper responsible to you when you were joint Proprietor of the Paper ?-.4 considered myself as re sponsible, my name being at the Stamp-office. . Who pays Mr. Cooper ?—Sometimes Mr.!Arrowsmith, some times myself. Soinciimes you ?—:-Sometimes 1, as it happens. Then it appears you have a common, purse of the proceeds of he Paper, out of which you pay the workmen, the printer, and he editor ?—No. How then I—Mr. Weaver is to be paid the balance when it is settled. Who keeps the balance in the mean time ?-31r. Arrow smith, or myself. • By Mr. SMITH. If there were to be a loss in publishing the Paper, who was to sustain it, you or-Weaver ? —Mr. Weaver was to sustain it. Are you quite clear of this ?—Perfectly. 'Was that known to Mr. Arrowsmith At the time of making the agreement with Weaver ?—Yes. - , Suppose the' expsnces had exceeded the proceeds ?—I dare say the Paper would not have gone on. If there had been a balance against the Paper was that ba lance to,be paid to you by Weaver ?—Yes. By Sir J. BOUGHEY. When you made.lhe Proprietorship over to Mr. Weaver, did you conceive he had a right to drop the Paper or continue it as he miht think fit ?—I conceived that he might do as he pleas= ed in that respect. I had nothing more to do with the Paper ; although I started it, and may be considered as the father of it—(A laugh.) 13,7 Lord NUGENT. I think. I understood you to say, that some part of the out goings of the Paper were borne by ybu up to this „time ?—Out of Mr. Weaver's money. Do you occasionally ray the journeymen and other persons who are employed ?-1 or Mr. Weaver. Does Mr. Weaver ever pay them himself ?—Not alwaTs• Has he ever paid them ?-1 think he has paid Mr. Cooper sometimes. Do you happen to know how often he has paid Mr. Cooper —Not exactly. • More than once or twice ?—I think he has. By Sir R. FERGUSSON. Has M. Weaver been employed by you for any other pur pose than in printing John Bull 2-1 do not employ. alr, Wearer in printing John Bull. Did you not employ Mr. Weaver to print John Bull while you were the proprietor ?.---Yes, while 1 was the proprietor. Did you at that time employ.him for any other purpose ? Yes, in my employment generally, as overseer. Are any•of the journeymen employed in printing John Bull employed by you in any other part of your business ?--When there is such an influx of matter that Mr. Weaver requires as sistance, we lend hem. some men. When those men ere lent to Mr. Weaver, does he pay any thing for their labour ?—Of course. They are paid so muel an hour. Has M. Weaver ever paid any sum to you on account of those men ?—They are among the several disbutsements in the books, and the.amount accounted for in the balance. • . By Lord NUGENT. The queStiOn asked you by the - Honourable Member is, whe ther, when you lend any extra men to Mr. Weaver he pays you for the loan ? -..The money is not paid ; but it is among the disbursements in the bboks. Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY. In what capacity do you consider ourself as standing to Mr. Weaver, agent or trustee ?—As his friend.' I presume it is common ibr one man to take care of another man's money. Were. you in the habit of taking care of Mr. Weaver's Money . before John Bull was transferred to him?—He had then a certain•salary ; he has now three guineas a week for his pre sent maintenance, and expects at the end of the year, or of the half year, the balance, if there is any, to be paid him of the profits. - You have- not answered the question. Were you in the habit of taking care of Mr. Weaver's money before John Bull was transferred to hitp ?—He is capable of taking care of his own money. • • • The SPEAKER called the witness to order. He would do well with regard to the House,_ and would make a better im pression with respect to himself, if he would deliberately attend to the questions put to him, and then give direct answers to those questions. Mr. 4 Shackell begged pardon if he had offended the House ; but observed, that he was rather deaf, which sometimes pre vail:col him from hearing flit questions. exactly. The examination then proceeded. Were you in the habit of taking care of Mr. Weaver's - mo ney before John Bull was transferred to him ?—No. Have you given Mr. Weaver any security for the safe cus tody of his money P—None at all. I was never asked. What are the journeymen employed in printing John Bull occupied about in .the early pert of every week ?—I believe they are occupied in what is called distributing, and preparing for the next publication. The witness was then ordered to withdraw, but not to depart from'. the House. . On the motion of Mr. BENNET, Mr. Cooper was then called to the Bar, and underwent an ekarnination to the follow ing effect : By the SE'EAKE it. What is your name ?—Cooper. What is your christian name ?—Henry Fox. By hlr,. BENNET. Are you the Editor of the Sunday Piper called John Bull ? —1 am. How long have you been so ?—From its commencement.. Are you the sole Editor ?—I am. Are all the manuscripts which arc sent to the Paper for inser tion submitted to you ?They are all submitted to me. [The Clerk of the House was here directed to place in Mr. Cooper's hands the John Bull of Sunday last, with the objec tionable paragraph marked]. - 'Was that article submitted to you before its insertion ?—Part of it is an extract front The Courier. The observations were written by myself. The House will, perhaps, allow me to add that I now understand the fitcts stated in the paragraph are not true. lam extremely sorry to have done any thing offensive to the Honourable Gentleman, and which is considered a viola tion of the Privileges of the House. I believed, from general rumour, that 'the facts contained in those observations were true, or I would not have inserted them. Whom did yOu talk to on the subject ?—To nobody. From whom did y o ur receive the facts which you stated ? From general rumour, Name one person from wham you heard them ?- - 1 bad the evidence for them of general rumour. What do you mean by general rumour? ed in the office. . . By whom ?--I heard it mentioned by Mr. Shackell and Mr, Arrowsmith, as generally current. Did yOu hear it from - any one else ?—No. During the whole Of Saturday I was in the office. .Then; on the general rumour -mentioned to you by Mr. 'Shackell and Mr. Arrowsmith,. you wrote the paragraph ? .Exactly. • - The paragraph is headed, " NlT?ha , 7e 'blen reqnesled to re publish," who requested you ?—No one, Then that part of the paragraph is not true ?—No ; nor the latter part, as I now understand. Are you in the habit of inserting paragraphs of this descrip tion, on the authority of Mr. Shackell and Mr. Arrowsmith —I am in the habit of receiving intelligence from various per sons, and from them among the rest. But you inserted this paragraph on their authority alone ?. Yes believing that the facts were correct. Did they see the paragraph before it was printed ?. Paper was gone to press before I. saw them again. Did they know the paragraph was inserted ?.—No, they did not heard it mention ; the • Whom do you consider as the person in the office to whom you are to account for your conduct ?—To account for my con duct ! Yes, who is your master ?-0 ! Mr. Weaver. •Who named you as the Editor ?—Mr. Shackell and Mr.. Ar rowsmi tin Have you any thing to do with the receipt and payAient of money ?—No. Do you keep no accounts 9—None. Who pays you 9—Mr. Shackell and Mr. Arrowamith. 1 once received my salary from Mr.. Weaver. But you generally receive it from Mr. Shackell and Mr. A rrowsmith ?—Generally. By Sir R. FERGUSON. Was the paragraph in question . written in your own hand , writing ?—The latter part of it was. Have you it in your possession have not. What has become of it ?—The paragraphs and all the Other articles are given by me to the compositors. What becOmes of them Ido not know. I believe they are destroyed. Do you know if the paragraph in question is destroyed ?—I believe it is. In the•office of the John Bull Newspaper, are all the para graphs of this nature destroyed after they are printed ?--4 know nothing of them after they are given out of my hands. To whom do you deliver them ?—To the Printer. • What is his name ?—Blackey. Were you here yesterday ? Did you hear the examinatibn of 'Mr. Weaver ?—No. Where were you when the warrant was served at your house last night ?—ln the City. I was at Cornhill at half-past 3, and went home after Wards. Did Mr. Weaver communicate to you that he had appeared here 9—No. • Did any person communicate it to you ?-No person. When did you know it ?—I knew it yesterday. • At what time ?-4n the afternoon.- Did you see Mr. Weaver yesterday after his examination ? No. ' Did you sec him this morning?—Certainly. You have stated, that if you had known the paragraph to be untrue, you would not have inserted it. How came you then to insert the first part of it, " We are requested to republish," B.c. knowing it to be untruel—lt is a usual way to introduce a' paragraph to• say, "'we are desired to - say," or, " we are re quested to say." Have you told lir. Arrowsmith or Mr.,Shackell, that you intended to avow yourself the author of this paragraph ?—Yes. When ?—To-day. At what hour I—l cannot tell exactly. Did they at the time of the publication inquire who the author was I—They spoke of it in conversation generally. By Lord NUGENT. You haVe said that the latter part of the paragraph was in your hand-writing. In whose hand-writing was the former part ?—lt was an extract from the Courier. The whole of the remarks were in your hand-writing.?—Yes. In whose hand-writing was the extract from the Courier ? It was in print. Then you occasionally send to the press of the John Bull, printed, copy from the Courier ?—Yes: By Mr..-MACDONALD. Was any body present at the time you told lir. Shackell and Mr. Arrowsmith that you intended - to avow yourself as the author of the paragraph ?----Not any body. Not Mr. Weaver ?—No. • When there is any doubt as to the safety of inserting a. para graph, to whom do yoti refer it ?—The whole of the literary managcment.of the paper is confided to me. Do you mean to say that you consult with nobody on the pro priety of.inseiting any paragraph that may appear .hazardous-? —With nobody. Does Mr. Weaver continue to discharge the same duties with respect to the paper, as he did previously to the month of February ?—Yes, he does. By Lord NUGE - NT. Did you ever see Mr. Weaver at your own house ?—No. Did you ever receive any note, letter, or other 'written com munication from Mr. Weaver, addressed to you at your own housel—None. - Did you ever tell Mr. Weaver where you lived ? By Dr. PHILLIMOItE. Did Mr. Weaver know before his examination yesterday, that you wrote the paragraph" in question ?—I do not think he did. —Never. When was it you first communicated with Mr. Weaver on the subject of the paragraph ? Was it before his examination here ?—I do not exactly recollect when it was. The witness was ordered to withdraw, but not to depart the House. ' Mr. G. BENNET rose and said that the House had now gone through all the evidence that .could be procured upon this subject, and no one was more sorrythan himself that a necessity had existed for bringing such a question before it. But he felt he should not have been doing that duty to himself which every man owed to him self,--he should not be doing his duty to the House, if he had not acted as he had done. The House had now before it the Printer, Pub lisher, and Proprietors of this Paper ; and it had, before it the Editor, and the avowed author of the libel. He should not travel through the vile, the base, the perjured evidence of the witnesses, because - they were nothing more than men of straw.—(Cheers.)—There could be but one opi nion upon the iniquity of their conduct, and none except the basest and the lowest of mankind would encourage it.—(Loud cheers.)—He cared not.who they were that gave them encourage- they were the basest and .the lowest of mankind.—(Continued cheers.)—His object in .bringing forward the proceeding was, in the first place, if it was necessary, and he trusted it. was not, to clear his own character ; and in the next, he thought there would be some chance, although a very slight one, of getting at the persons who were at the bottom of the infamous paper. - In the latter he had failed. And he could not say he was sorry that he had so failed, because he Was rather glad that those wretches whom they had seen should stand in the situation they.'were in, than persons of a different station in life. He was aware, that according to the ordinary prac tice of the Ilous', there was but-one plan n6w to be adopted, namely, to exercise the power of committal. - He had held certain opinions upon this subject, which having applied to others, he would not refrain from applying to himself. He did not therefore approve of the plan he, had mentioned, notwithstanding the advice of many of his friends, whose judgments were undoubtedly superior to his own. He might possibly be in error, but his, heart told him that the best.course would be to leave these people to make the best case they could, and send them to a Jury of their countrymen. He should therefore move, " That the Attorney-General be .directed to prosecute Tho mas - Weaver, Robert William Shackel, Thomas Arrowsmith, and Henry Fox Cooper, for a false and scandalous libel upon the Hon. Grey Bennet,,a Member of this House, published in a-newspaper of Sunday, May 6, called John Bull.' , The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was anxious that the House should wait another day before it came to'a final decision upon what it ought to do with a question like the present. He was quite sure that the Hon. Member•would be the last to wish the House to take any precipitate step which might leave the idea of any vindictive feeling. The Hon. Mertiber must forgive him if he differed from the.view which be took of the course the Hope ought now to pursue. Indeed he thought the Hoiase,werd placed in a, painful situation %on thiS account: lie had stated that because he did not think the HOuse should vivid dicate its own privileges by committal, that a prosecution was the best course to pursue. Ile did not mean to say That there never bad been -a prosecution in cases of this nature ; but he must say that he for one thought it a most improper course to take for vindicating the privileges 0 1 the- House, to send the accused to trial loaded with a previous decision upon their guilt.-.7-';. (Hear, hear !)—lt might have been perfectl' competent for the lion. Member, when he called upon the House to notice the libel, then to have proposed a direct prosecution. But he appre hended that there never was a case where the evidence of the parties themselves had been ex mined and sifted, so-as to put the accusers in possession of that -which perhaps might be their case in defence, even before the suit had beet! instituted.—(Hear, hear !)—They would not be sending the accused before a tribunal with 3 good deliverance, but shackled and tied dOwl l by .the proceedings. He really thought that the wishes-of the Hon. Member himself would not be accomplished by the plan he proposed, a nd that the House would b e giving up its own -power of vindicating its rights and privileges. He moved as• ao Amendment " That this Debate be ad' journed till to-morrow.".. Mr. AVYNNE said that unquestionably if the House considered time necessary to slecide upon .this question, he should not object ; but he was prepared to meet the .proposition of the Hen' Member with a direct' negative without a mo rnent's delay.(llear, hear !)—lt would be tia' Just to the persons• charged with the libel, i t would be'unjust to thernseLves, and to the privi' leges of the Hotlse. What was the nature o f the question before them. There was no doubt WI that it was a gross b reac h o f t h e i r privileges. al-0 one that could not avoid punishrm nt. But it wa" not a case for a Jury, because it was impossible that a Jury could. kno w Whether the paragraph alluding to the Hon. Member's Speech was true or not. It was impossible that the House calla suffer any person to - go before a Jury to swear.3s - the truth or falsehood of the statement. i f was not, in fact, a case that a juror could taW cognizance of. The course- was plain, and tie House ought to proceed immediately to cominit' " Mr. G. BENNET said, that certainly aftel . what bad fallen from the Noble Lord, and noe' l further consideration, he w_as induced to consent . , to thepostponement. l ie c er t a i n ly did hold strong feelings upon the question, but they .mig - „bt be erroneous. He declared his firm belief that the- course, he had recommended was the u l 9 st . lenient to the accused parties. Mr. BROUGHAM was of- opinion that lenierlef should be left entirely out of the question. The , ' only ought to remember that the parties bad .6 . right to justice, and that the House must hav e justice also. In his opinion, if the - House went' to follow the recommendation of • his 1 10°. Friend,- its power to co m mit f or con t emp t an' breach of privilege Was completely at an end."' If ever there was a. case when immediate coal'. mittal . Ivas justified, it was this. The articl e : complamed of was a complete obstruction to O' proceedings of the House, and standing uP° a that ground, they ought not to hesitate in d e ; creeing the punishm e nt. H e ag r ee d w ith t l ' Noble Lord, that if the common law had bee" infringed brany misrepresentation then a pros e ' cution might be necessary ; but in such a cas e, they - ought to have stopped the ,examinati o " much sooner than at the stage to .which the Pr e ; sent had been carried.. He thought also that House would be doing an injustice to itself, an t , abandoning its own p r i v il eges , if it did not p ro ceei_l in the usual course. With respect to the pero7 who bad avowed himself the author, whether, 11 ; was so or not was- another question, surely hi case there could be no. necessity for a moment delay. 4 Sir FRANCI S B URDETT en ti re ly co i nc ided - i/ the views taken by the Noble Marquess, relatio_ to the injustice of s en di ng i n di v id ua l s ; before Jury with the judgment of that House uP° . their backs. - He also strongly objected to the pr o secution, because he differed' as to the. proPril of the House di rec ti ng th e Att orne y - Gene' upon such ma tt ers . Th e Attorney-General ".11, not the servant of the House but of the Cr°" 4 : and the prop er w a y o f p rocee di ng , if a lircs• eco. tion were nec e s sar y, would be by an Address t, the Crown. As t o th e ques ti on o f privilege, lo did not know that it could. be a breach of pris a l , lege - unless it was a f a l se rever t o f w h a t . 1.07 1 place in the llouse. NOW as no one comploin e ` i of the report, he could net Fey liew it was a brz 3c. / 1 of privilege. The remarks upon the conduct ° a Member with r egar d t o a di scuss i on w hich took place in that House, appeared to him to hav e no more to do with p r i v il ege th an remar k s up° il any • other part of his .conduct. If there any breach of privilege at all, it was the part of the person who called upon his IP d Friend (if any sitch circumstances had pass e i ; which he was .aware had not) for an e xplanatl ° , of what 'he had. f e lt it his duty to s a y i n his Pl ac o • in that Hous e . B ecause if every Member was t be answerabl e fo r w h a t h e th oug h t i t necess?-ra _,'s to say of persons in o ffi ce , t o a ll t h e i r re laticw or friends, th e r e _ w o uld be-an end to free disci.'s, sion ; because- M em b ers c o u ld no t ac t fr eely under such intimid a ti ons or i n fl u e nces . He really cea thought that in thi s c a s e th e sa ddl e h a d 11 0 t , n y placed on the right h orse , and if there vr as breach o,f privil e g e it was in th e qua rt er to `Whic h he had alluded. Mr. M. A. TAY,OR thought the !rouse ought the to take notice of the gross prevarication or witnesses, and was i n f avour o f the. ]louseo committal., He thought the ]louse possessed, and ought whenever protect the power of v i n di ca ting itself. when ° it was treated with indignity or contempt. - pose be sita M ti r o ' g ß in A itaiNcGas''''eaTi.kneot' He thovuil. it much better that the Noble Lord should .1 reason a sori present.for the.