The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-24 00:00:00

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT:

Sir H. HA RDINGE wished to know when the Foreign
Enlistment Bill was likely to be brought forward? It had
been in the order book at Yeast eighteen or twenty times, and
on every occasion he had waited, sometimes until twelve
o'clock at night, in the expectation of its being brought under
consideration. As his patience, if not his health, was at
Jenp-th altogether worn out, he trusted some day might be fixed
for its further progress.
The LORD ADVOCATE said he was quite as anxious as
the Right Hon. Baronet could be to proceed with the Bill, but
as yet no opportunity had presented itself. He could only
say that as early as possible he should move the next stage, but
it must be obvious to the Right Hon. Baronet he could not
specify any particularday for that purpose.
The order of the day for the Committee on the Irish Dis-
turbances Bill was then read.
On the question that the SPEAKER leave the chair,
THE TRUE SUN.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR, in ,purstianCe of a notice, rose to
move an Address for his Majesty's pardon to Mr. Patrick Grant
and Mr. John Bel, editors of the True Sun Newspaper, now
imprisoned in the King's Bench Prison for a seditious libel.
The Hon. Member commenced by referring the House to ex-
tracts from several Newspapers and periodicals, and amongst
others from the Standard, the Albion, the Morning He; ald,
the' Guardian and Public Ledger, Blaeliwood's Magazine,
the Examiner, the John Bull, the Morning Post, and the
Times, in order to. show that, in the opinion of the. public of all
Classes, the prosecutions to which the individuals in whose be_
half his motion wv.s brought forward had been subjected, was
both unjust, ill-timed, and.n direct variance with the policy of
the case. The editors of the True Sun were imprisoned for
giving the same advice to the people which on another occasion
a Noble Individual, once a Member of that House, and at pre-
sent occupying a seat in the House of Lords—he meant the
Earl Fitzwilliamhad offered them. That Noble Individual,
when Lord Milton, said he would refuse to pay the King's
taxes unltirthfentaltlits granted, and while the editors of the
Traf-:".;":7611Pw.foli r recommending the people to fol-
-10,7k4/eXt'unt takNo c Lord had not undergone even a
pr.t,.. lap- A .
..t., a Newspapers of the land had on
jar
.1)
a , • .., ir...o** • .tfo th the same principles in the same
.ti. nstead of prosecuting them, had
la '......51 e, "IT' 0:111-ne,,
„,,a ifig; tici6 - their,: uct. Even the Times, that
haft 'it -*:\,' ;1( 0 4*Qy th upon the True Sun, had
ackno it_ivs 1. at t ~ the prosecution was impolitic.
s,.
0)e

The proprietors of the True Sun had been hardly and
unjustly deal with. The Attorney-General had told
them that s would not call for judgment if they
made__ _2y concession, and because these Gentlemen had
been so, manly , and honourable as not to concede or
retract where they believed themselves in the right,
they were now suffering in gaol. As the law now stood the
most virtuous proprietors of the press might be prosecuted for
exposing the most flagitious conduct of the most flagitious
Government. He believed that public opinion was never
wrong in the long run, and that therefore the press
should be the judge of public or even of private cha-
racter. The law of libel had often been tortured to suit the
temper of those who administered the government. He would
recommend Ministers to entrench themselves behind the bar-
rier of public opinion, and not to seek safety in prosecutions
of the press. He would appeal in its behalf to the clemency
of Ministers, especially as men who were acknowledged to be
guilty of worse offences were allowed to be at large. He
concluded by moving that an humble address be presented to
his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be graciously
pleased to grant a pardon to Patrick Grant and John Bell, the
proprietor and editor of the True Sun Newspaper, now in
confinement for libel.
Mr. HUME seconded the amendment upon public prin-
ciples. Ministers in this prosecution had belied all their
former opinions, and he was at a loss how they could give to
that House opinions so contrary to those upon which 'the law
officers of the Crown had acted in this case. The Attorney-
General had either acted upon his own responsibility or upon
that of Ministers, and yet the Lord Chancellor had given his
opinion before a Committee of that House against resorting to
such prosecutions. He would not in this case appeal to the
mercy of Government, for he deemed it a case of common
justice. There was a period at which it became a virtue to
resist a tax, and when a writer pointed out the faults of any
existing system of taxation, and advised the people tq refuse
quietly to pay a tax, he ought not to be subject to a prosecu-
tion. An editor did not do his duty if he conscientiously be-
lieved a tax produced evils and did not avow his opinions. The
only tendency of such prosecutions was to make men corrupt
slaves, and to stifle the voice of truth.—(Hear, hear.) He
called upon Ministers to expose themselves to the fullest dis-
cussion upon all their actions.—( Hear.)
The question was then put from the Chair.
'The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would briefly state to the
House the part he had taken in this transaction. The ex-
officio information had been filed by his predecessor, but it had
been filed with the full concurrence of all the Administration,
the Lord Chancellor included. It had been purely from the
mere accident of his predecessor being confined by illness, that
lie (Sir J. Campbell) had had anything more to do with the
transaction further than to call a witness from the Stamp Office
to prove the proprietorship of the paper. He did not, how-
ever, mean to shelter himself from any responsibility, for he
entirely concurred in the prosecution, and he would maintain
that Government would not have done its duty if it had not
instituted the proceedings. This he believed was the first
time that an attempt had been made, under such circumstances,
to supersede the prerogative of the Crown. If too harsh a
sentence had been passed, the Crown u as the legitimate source
of mercy, and if the motion were to be carried the prerogative
of the Crown would be superseded; and, with all due defer-
ence to the functions of the House, he could not but think that
the prerogative of the Crown had better remain where the
Constitution had reposed it. Another objection to the motion
was that the record of the case was not before the House.
The defendants had alleged that they were prosecuted be-
cause they had abused his Majesty's Government. This in
itself was nothing but a g joss libel, for lie never would have
sanctioned, and never did sanction, a prosecution for any
attack that might be made on the Government to which he
belonged, or on the character of any public man belonging,
to it. Let there be the most ample discussion.of the con-
duct and characters of public men and their measures. With
these he would never feel disposed to interfere.—( Cries of
" Hear, hear, hear," from Mr. Hume.) The Honourable
Member for Middlesex cheered those sentiments ; but lie (the
Attorney-General) would say that if those sentiments were
true they ought to be expressed, and if not they ought to be
suppressed.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the law of libel,
he did not wish that it should continue as it at present stood.
He thought that it was a disgrace to the law of England that
the truth should be shut out from the consideration of the Jury
in cases of libel. The Jury ought to be left to judge of the
malicious intention of the party prosecuted. Another great
evil he considered to be, that when an action was brought for
libel, and only a farthing damages recovered, this amount of
damages should carry costs, thus sanctioning by the state of
the law this pettifogging sort of action. This was his gene-
ral opinion on the existing law of libel with reference to the
points he had mentioned ; but when publication went to excite
to a violation of the law, it became necessary that the law should
be vindicated.

Mr. HUME—A free expression of opinion should be a;

lowed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—If a free expression of
opinion were suffered to the extent that the Hon. Member for
Middlesex would seem to imply, what would the Hon. Member
think if a pamphlet were published instigating to bloodshed,
to treason, to the burning of stacks and houses ? Surely no
Government could be sustained if publications of this nature
were to be suffered to go forth with impunity ? As to libels
that were merely hurtful to the feelings of individuals, it was
ridiculous to speak of them as deserving of prosecution. It
was like telling Shylock that he might have his pound
of flesh, but no blood. In former times ex-officio
informations were filed against persons for abuse of his Ma-
jesty's Government or of either House of Parliament ; but
this should never happen in his time. Where, however, pub-
lications were calculated to lead to a breach of the public
peace, he should be always found ready to vindicate the law
by prosecuting such publications. What, he would ask, was
the nature of the publication that was the subject of the present
discussion ? It was not an abuse merely of the House of Com-
mons, but a direct incitement to supersede the House of Com-
mons altogether, to pull it down, and that a reformed House
of Commons too.--( A laugh.) This prosecution was not, in
fact, for a libel at all, but for a direct instigation to disobey the
laws. Indeed, the Hon. Gentleman who brought forward the
motion, would not find the word " libel" in the whole infor-
mation. He would let the House see what the character of
this publication was. The words of the publication were
these The House of Commons stands in all its unseemli-
ness before us directly in our path. Are we to go out of our
way ? No. We must make the House of Commons go for-
ward. It cannot stay where it is, or, if it does, we must leap
over it.—( A laugh.) We cannot bear to look on it day after
day. It is a thing too venomous, and brings on us gloom and
despondency; We have hitherto tried to soothe it ; now we
must try the effect of threats, and if the threats should operate
no better than our attempt to soothe, we must carry our threats
into execution. Let us in future petition Heaven, but not the
House of Commons, for we are past man's help ; and, above
all, let us resist the payment of taxes." What was this but
saying that the House of Commons had lost all respect, and
ought to be resisted ? And one of the defendants, when brought
up for judgment, had repeated in his speech the opinions he
had published, for he said that the state of this country now
was worse than any state of anarchy that could arise. This
publication took place on the Ist of May, and on the next day
a letter appeared in the same paper of an equally violent cha-
racter: That letter said that as Parliament had opposed defiance
to the people, the Parliament should be met with defiance and
resistance ; the people must take their Effairs into their own
hands ; and that a Committee should be formed for mutual
aid and ad% ice to resist the payment of taxes. Could there
be any doubt that this advice would soon be adopted, and
that associations of the nature recommended would be forint(' ?
Reference had been made to an opinion said to have been ex-
pressed by the Lord Chancellor on the law of libel with respec
to prosecutions of a political nature. He did not think that
this opinion of the Lord Chancellor should have been quoted
if he even had given it.. The proceedings of the Committee
where that opinion was said to have been given were secret,
and no Member of that Committee had any right to divulge
what took place there, as no report of the proceedings had
yet been made. The evidence was only printed for the use of
the Members of the Committee, and was only circulated
amongst them with a caution that it was only to be perused
by the Hon. Members themselves. If, however, the Lord
Chancellor had expressed such an opinion as the lion. Mem-
ber had attributed to him, all he (the Attorney-General) could
say was, that he totally dissented from that opinion, and he
knew that the Lord Chancellor himself had on several other
occasions expressed very different opinions. Surely it could
not be fair or just to punish those who committed offences
against the law and breaches of the public peace, while those
who were the instigators to such acts were left to go un-
punished. Let it be considered what was the state of the
public mind at the time that this publication took place. At
that very time associations were formed to resist the payment
of the King's taxes, and in several instances where goods had
been seized for taxes they were rescued from the sheriff's officer.
It became, under such circumstances, indispensable that a pro-
secution should be instituted at such a time. Could the Hon.
Gentleman who brought on this motion say that the trial was
not fairly conducted, and the Jury not fairly chosen ? Was
not the charge of the Learned Judge on the occasion in per-
fect accordance with the law, ail did he not put a most equi-
table construction on the case of the defendants Even the
defendants' counsel had admitted this. He would allow that
the House had a right to interfere with an address to the
Crown for mercy, and would be well justified in doing so when
individuals were overwhelmed with ex-officio informations.
But could it be said that he had been forward, or that the
present Government had been forward, in urging such prose-
cutions ? The House would judge of this by the fact that the
case in question was the only one of an ex-officio information
that had been filed during the last three years and a half. As
to the individuals who were the objects of this prosecution,
and of the present motion, he had no wish to press upon them
with any undue severity. He believed that in their private
capacity they were very respectable persons, and he regretted
the suffering to which their own conduct had subjected them.
Individual feeling he could have none upon the question ; but
he could not help saying that he thought the defendants had
greatly aggravated their offence by the language they used on
being brought up for judgment. Mr. Bell on that occasion
maintained his former published opinions, that the country was
then in a worse state than the greatest degree of anarchy could
reduce it to. After this how could the Government be car-
ried on if such language and such publications were to go un-
punished? It had been said that the Government had re-
frained from prosecuting others who had been guilty of simi-
lar offences; but he utterly denied that either the Govern-
ment had been remiss, or that any others had beep guilty
of a like offence. Reference had been made to certain
language that had been used by a Noble Lord when a
Member of that House, and by another-Honourable Mem-
ber who had expressed some strong opinions at a public
meeting; but be should consider that the Government
would be disgracing itself if it instituted any prosecutions
on any such grounds. Were the Government to send spies to

I watch every expression that fell From a ,eiber of that House
at a public meeting ? And as to what had been said, by any
Member in the House, it was well known that that must be
considered sacred. But it had been said, why not prosecute
those who published such sentiments and expressions ? Never
with his consent should any one be prosecuted for publishing
what appeared to be a fair report of the proceedings either of
that House or of any public meetings? The Hon. Member
for Middlesex had said that the present Government were per-
secutors of the press ; but how did he sustain that assertion
when it appeared that only one ex-officio information bad been
prosecuted against the press since they had been in office ?
Let the Hon. Member look at this as compared with the pro-
secutions under other Administrations. Sir V. Gibbs filed no
less than twenty ex-officio informations one morning. Another
prosecution that had been instituted by the present Govern-
ment had he understood been alluded to on a former night by
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath when he (the At-
torney-General) was absent, and he was now desirous of CN:
plaining the circumstances under which that prosecution took
place. He should mention, in the first instance, that that was
not an ex-officio information, but proceeding by indictment
before a Grand Jury. It was the case of a man who published
the most scandalous and outrageous attack upon his Majesty
personally, as well as upon the Government, in a handbill
which he sold about the streets. Out of respect to his Ma-
jesty he would not read that part of the atrocious libel which
referred to the Throne.—( Cries of " Read," and " No, no.")
He (the Attorney-General) would certainly not read that
brutal and disgusting language unless it was deemed ne-
cessary by the House that he should do so.—( Here there
was a call of " Read, read," from one or two voices,
but an almost universal cry of " No, no.") He could pass
over then that part of the libel, but would read to the House
the other part, which was little less deserving of prosecution.
It ran thus :—" Every man has a right to vote for the making
of those laws which he is called upon to obey. If that._ be
denied to him he is nothing better than a despicable slave.
Let all the honest friends of Reform stand forward ; now is
the time to support the good cause. If the House of Com-
mons will not repsesent yourselves, let every county, city, and
borough elect its own delegates, and let them turn out those
mock Representatives, who are only waiting for notice to
quit.—( A laugh.) The National Convention will then be
complete." Was the Government to wait until the National
Convention should be formed, or was it not bound at once to
check by a prosecution this open and avowed intention of
destroying the Constitution of the country ? The publisher
of these handbills carried them in packages to Covent-garden
market, and there sold them at a penny a-piece, crying out,
" The National Convention for one penny l"—( Laughter.)
The man was seized by the police, and, an attempt having been
made to rescue him, blood had very nearly been shed even on
that occasion. The Calthorpe-street Meeting soon after
took place, avowedly to establish the National Convention
alluded to in those bills, and then blood was actually
shed. Numbers of the persons at that meeting went
there armed, determined to resist the police, and the
consequence was a fatal result to one of the police, and
several of them were stabbed. He would not now express any
opinion of his own upon that transaction, but should merely
observe that a Committee of that House appointed to inquire
into all the circumstances acquitted the police force of all
blame. These, then, were the circumstances under which the
second prosecution was instituted. He should fearlessly and
boldly do his duty to his Sovereign and his country whenever
occasion called for it, regardless alike of the praise or censure
of the Hon. Member for Middlesex. He was not afraid that,
for doing his duty he should, as the Hon. Member for Middle-
sex had said, incur the displeasure of his own countrymen,
because he knew that since those prosecutions had taken place
he had been returned to Parliament by a large body of his
countrymen, notwithstanding that the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex had written a letter to them advising them not to return
Sir John Campbell. He could not help taking this opportu-
nity of saying that he thought the Hon. Member would have
been better employed in attending to his own affairs than
writing such a letter. His Right Hon. Friend the Secretary
at War had been censured for interfering in an election ; but
that was not near so bad as the dictation attempted to be used
by the Hon. Member for Middlesex.—( Oh, oh.) He was
not afraid to rest his character upon the conduct he had
hitherto pursued in his public office, and he should continue
to be, while he held it, equally the defender of the prero-
gatives of the Crown and the rights of the people.—( Cheers. )
Mr. HUME said that as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
had alluded to a letter he (Mr. Hume) had written to Edin-
burgh, he should also have told the House of a letter he wrote
to Dudley, at the request of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, in favour of his interests there.—(Hear.) It was not fair
to refer to one without naming the other. The letter he had
written to Edinburgh was never intended by him for publica-
tion, but was an answer to one he had received asking his opi-
nion of the respective candidates.
The ATTORNE Y- GENERA L—The Hon. Member has
not told the whole truth. The letter that the Hon. Member
wrote to Dudley was declining to give any advice or opinion,
but the letter to Edinburgh was of a very different kind • and
from what he (the Attorney- General) knew of the Gentleman
to whom the letter was written, although he was opposed to
him in politics, he was quite sure that Gentleman would never
have published it without the consent of the writer.
Mr. HUME said that the letter he wrote to Dudley was in
answer to one he received from Mr. Cook of that town, and if
that letter were produced it would be found not to be of the
neutral sort that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had repre-
sented. He called upon the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to
produce that letter te-morrow ; or if he did not he (Mr.
Hume) would, and he had no doubt that he should stand in a
more favourable light as regarded its contents than the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman.
Sir 11. HARDINGE said that it was not his intention to
take any part in the discussion as to what happened at Dudley
or at Edinburgh, but he should confine himself entirely to the
motion be fore the House as it regarded the claims of the pro-
prietors of the True Sun to the lenient consideration of the
Government o r the Crown. He did not think that the per-
sons in question had any claim whatever to be relieved from
the just punishment under which they were suffering on account
of the nature or character of the offence they had committed,
because when the law was violated, as it clearly had been in
their case, they could lay claim to no mitigation of their sen-
tence. The wilful violation of the law he would always
punish. But the ground upon which he was disposed to
support the motion of the Hon. Member for Cork was, that
persons in much higher stations than the proprietors of the
True Sun had done the same thing with impunity, for which
those persons were now suffering in prison. Why, the Hon.
and Learned Member for Southwark, and a Noble Lord now
a Member of the other House, had recommended the very
same course that had been pointed out by the True Sun:
that was, to resist the payment of taxes. Now it seemed to
him rather too hard that people in a low station should be
punished while the brother of the Lord Chancellor and
another exalted person should not only escape with impunity,
but be preferred to office after such conduct. Perhaps the
proprietors of the True Sun might have thought that they
were pursuing the best mode of getting themselves raised to
office.—( Laughter.) The Noble Lord opposite (Lord John
Russell), he believed, received a vote of thanks from a body of
persons calling themselves the Political Union at Birmingham,
which body had been declared by a high judicial character
to be a treasonable assernblage.—( Cheers.) The Noble Lord,
a Cabinet Minister had, he believed, returned thanks to those
persons for their favourable opinions.—(Loud cheers.) He
did not agree with the lion. Member for Middlesex, or with
the Hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion, that
the motives of persons violating the law were to be considered
in cases of this sort, or that persons were not to be punished
because they only published the opinions they entertained. If
men spoke, or wrote, or published treason, must they not be
punished because their intentions might be good? This would
be a most dangerous principle to act upon. The present
Chief Justice of England to be sure, had, when he was Attor-
ney-General, held language somewhat similar to what had
fallen from the Hon. Member for Middlesex that night. That
Noble Lord had said that the happiest moment of his life was
when the sentence of a person whom he had prosecuted was
remitted by the Crown, and that as long as men only wrote
and published their honest opinions he would never be inclined
to prosecute them, because he was a friend to the liberty of the
Press, and no torturing power behind the curtain should ever
influence him to oppress it. How could editors of News-
papers be expected to refrain from publishing libels when
they heard language such as he had described coming from
an Attorney-General and from the brother of the Lord
Chancellor, and that neither of those persons received even
as much as a rebuke from his Majesty's Ministers ?—(Loud
cheers.) Those who allowed this conduct to go unnoticed
were now bound to interfere and prevent the proprietors
of the True Sun from suffering any further punishment.
—( Cheers.) The Attorney-General was perfectly right
in his determination to do his duty, but from the speech which
that Hon. and Learned Gentleman had himself that night de-
livered it would be impossible for any man to know what was
or what was not the Law of Libel. He said he would not
punish the publishers of any attack on the House of Lords or
the House of Commons.—( Hear.) Now, in the days of Mr.
Fox, those days of the pure old Whigs—(Cheers)—it was not
at all an uncommon thing to institute prosecutions for libels
on either House of Parliament. Then again, the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman would not prosecute for the publication of
anything said at public meetings, if fairly reported. But sup-
pose treason was spoken at those meetings, and afterwards
published, would not the Attorney-General feel it his duty to
prosecute the publisher if he could not get the speaker?
The Attorney-General told them to-night to punish those who
excited to sedition rather than the ignorant and deluded per-
sons who were or might become their victims. Why this was
the very principle for which they contended in the Coercion
Bill, and upon which the Government refused to proceed.
The acts of the Government were quite different to their prin-
ciples. It appeared to him that a case had been made out in
favour of these men, who had done no more than was previously
done by persons in higher station.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained. The Hon.
and Gallant Officer must have mistaken what fell from him.
He never said that he would not prosecute any libel upon the
the Houses of Parliament, however gross. The sentiment he
wished to express was, that he would not be disposed to pro-
secute constituents for any observations they might make on
the conduct of their representatives. With respect to libels
that might be uttered at public meetings, his observation was
that they could become known only through spies and infor-
mers, and such he would not be disposed to employ. He would
not abstain from prosecution in any case where sedition should
appear to have been uttered at public meetings.
Sir H. HARDINGE was sorry to have attributed to the
Hon. and Learned Member wLee he did net say. It eves quite
enough for him that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman de'
nied it.
Mr. O'DWYER supported the motion. The Lord Chan-
cellor in his evidence before the Committee strongly con-
demned prosecutions of this kind. Newspaper articles might