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

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 passes through other 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 succeed,- 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 more than two months ago ?—Yes.
Did Weaver continue to be your, journeyman up to the pe-
riod of the. agreement ?—Yes.-
. 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 about ten o'clock 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 Mr. Weaver 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 that sum?—lle 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'week ?—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 John 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.4Shackell 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 your 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 01
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 dOwll
by .the proceedings. He really thought that the
wishes-of the Hon. Member himself would not be
accomplished by the plan he proposed, and that
the House would be 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, it
would be'unjust to thernseLves, and to the privi'
leges of the Hotlse. What was the nature of the
question before them. There was no doubt WI
that it was a gross breach of their 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. know 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. if
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. lie certainly 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 ul9st.
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 have
justice also. In his opinion, if the -House went'
to follow the recommendation of • his 110°.
Friend,- its power to commit for contempt 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 article:
complamed of was a complete obstruction to O'
proceedings of the House, and standing uP°a
that ground, they ought not to hesitate in de;
creeing the punishment. He agreed with tl'
Noble Lord, that if the common law had bee"
infringed brany misrepresentation then a prose'
cution might be necessary ; but in such a case,
they- ought to have stopped the ,examinatio"
much sooner than at the stage to .which the Pre;
sent had been carried.. He thought also that
House would be doing an injustice to itself, ant,
abandoning its own privileges, if it did not proceei_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 FRANCIS BURDETT entirely coincided
-i/
the views taken by the Noble Marquess, relatio_
to the injustice of sending individuals ;
before
Jury with the judgment of that House uP°.
their backs. -He also strongly objected to the pro
secution, because he differed' as to the. proPril
of the House directing the Attorney-Gene'
upon such matters. The Attorney-General ".11,
not the servant of the House but of the Cr°"4:
and the proper way of proceeding, if a lircs•eco.
tion were necessary, would be by an Address t,
the Crown. As to the question of privilege, lo
did not know that it could. be a breach of prisal,
lege-unless it was a false revert of what
.1.071
place in the llouse. NOW as no one comploine`i
of the report, he could net Fey liew it was a brz3c./1
of privilege. The remarks upon the conduct °
a Member with regard to a discussion which
took place in that House, appeared to him to have
no more to do with privilege than remarks 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 IPd
Friend (if any sitch circumstances had passe i;
which he was .aware had not) for an explanatl°,
of what 'he had. felt it his duty to say in his Placo•
in that House. Because if every Member was t
be answerable for what he thought it necess?-ra-
_,'s
to say of persons in office, to all their relaticw
or friends, there_ would be-an end to free disci.'s,
sion ; because- Members could not act freely
under such intimidations or influences. He really
cea
thought that in this case the saddle had 110 t ,ny
placed on the right horse, and if there vras
breach o,f privilege it was in the quarter to `Which
he had alluded.
Mr. M. A. TAY,OR thought the !rouse ought
the
to take notice of the gross prevarication or
witnesses, and was in favour of the.
]louseo
committal.,
He thought the ]louse possessed, and ought
whenever
protect the power of vindicating itself. when°
it was treated with indignity or contempt. -
pose be
sitaMtiro'gßinA itaiNcGas''''eaTi.kneot'He thovuil.
it much better that the Noble Lord should .1
reason a sori
present.for the.

draw the amendments and that the House should
dispose of the person who admitted him Self re-
sponsible, and he (Mr. B.) for one, should feel no
difficulty in moving his commitment to Newgate.
Mr. WODEHOUSE was sorry the question had
been brought before the House. He thought
real character lost much of its weight by seeking
the protection of that House against the attacks
of such creatures of straw as these persons were
described to be. He thought there was no pro-
vision in either of the six Acts complained of, so
obnoxious as the power of the House which it
Was now called upon to exercise.
Sir ROBERT WILSON said, the object of his
Ron. Friend was not to protect his character,
but to drag to light the dastardly assassin who
attacked the defenceless under the shelter of the
press.

Sir T. LETHBRIDGE thought the Hon. Member
was entitled to the thanks of the House for hav-
ing brought the question forward. The libel
'as a gross attack :upon the privileges of the
House, and consequently upon _those of thf.--
people. He thought the Paper in question ::as
a disgrace to the press.—(Hear, hear, hear !)
Raving had the person brought before the house,
and heard his prevarication, there were grounds
quite sufficient to warrant their proceeding at the
moment.
The-question was then put and agreed to, that
the further discussion of this queStion should be
- adjourned till to-morrow.
Mr. BENNET asked what was to become of the
accused parties in the mean time ?
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY replied (as
-we understood his Lordship), that if the lion.
Member supposed that he was responsible for the
appearance of the parties, he was much mistaken.
- After a few words from Sir-R. -WILSON, it was
rnnved by Mr. BENNET, and carried, that Messrs.
Shackell, Arrowsrnith, Weaver, and Cooperi
do attend the House to-morrow. -
INTERFERENCE OF A PEER AT AN ELECTION.
,Sir F. BURDETT presented.a petition from a persoli nani-
txt James Mills, complaining of the interference of the Marquess
of llertibrd in the Election of the Marquess of Londonderry
for the Borough of Orford.
After some conversation between Mr. W. 'Wynn, Mr. F. Ro-
binson; and Sir F. Burdett, as to-whether this was to be con-
sidered an Election Petition or not,
The SPEAKER decided, that Mills having stated himself
rot to be an elector, bUt merely " a British subject," the Pe-.
tition could not be considered an Election Petition. It was
Possible that a Petition might yet be presented against the re-
turn of his Lordship, 14 days not having elapsed since the ele:.-
tium—The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
..
COUNTY REPRESENTATION IN SCOTLAND.
Lord A. 11.,--miriroN, in rising to bring forward
his
,promised. motion respecting the- State or
County- Representation in Scotland, adverted to
tile want of interest which the House appeared
to feel in the question; a circumstance which
-was evident, from the thin attendance of Mem-
bers. Indeed, he thought it was as much his
duty to count the House as to address it. He
felt a becoming respect for the House, but he
Also felt the highest respect for those who made
him a Member of it. "In justice, therefore, to
the feelings of those who were interested in the
Present subject, be should not enter at any length
into a consideration of- that subject. He would
riot act the farcical part of arguing a question
which would be decided by the votes of those
who were then .scattered about the Metropolis ;
and lie would therefore 'merely move a set of
-Resolutions, declaring in substance, that it rip-
' eared from the returns upon the table, that the
2:tal number of voters for Scotland was only
,):89 and that the house Would early in the en-
ug Session consider the propriety of establish-I
ftga connection between the Owners of the Land
-4a,(1 the Representatives of the Counties. The
\
°1)le Lord concluded by moving a formal.Re-
'alution that the number of voters for the seve-
ral Counties of Scotland appeared, by the Re-
turns upon the table, to amount to 2889. •
„Air. MACKENZIE said, he should meet the
P_rinCiPle of the motion, for of course the Noble
.:*°rd did not intend to confine himself to moving
resolution of mere figures, which already. ap-
ileared on' the table. He (Mr;M.) could not
41gree to any abstract proposition on this subject,
Sts the grounds of it were clearly stated, and
tts Practicability as clearly shewn... The present
ivate of the county representation in Scotland
,aS attributed' in a great measure to the state of
,roPerti. The Yeomanry of Scotland were corn.
of
very few ; and the proprietors were
ilerY-large. If, however, a practical remedy- to
alleged grievance were stated, he would be
Oeling to consider it with every attention, but
to would• not give a . pledge which must lead
Posy -n examination of a mere theoretical pro-
ioosi.un: He denied the basis of the pro-
ition of the Noble Lord. He denied that
tilr
thee Was no connection between the voters and
bo; landholders. Although the right of voting
"ged only to the tenants in chief, some of
ceoll°4l had no immediate beneficial interest in
r land, yet they had a mediate interest in
the land
feudal rights which they possessed over
e land itself. _ Besides, any alteration in this
4spect would- be a violation of the Act of Union.
.• e did not say that no case could occur in which
so legislative, measure might not be adopted in
jorlie measure repugnant to the Union, but it was
s_eumbent upon those wilo proposed such a mea-
, it7e, to make out a very strong case in support of
It was worthy of remark, that the people of
it?tland. themselves did not require a Reform.
Ref east there had been no petition'presented for
orrn from any of those persons who would be
i\refitted by the alteration suggested by the
1ot)le Lord. The lion. Member concluded by
ving, as an amendment, that the House "'do
Proceed upon the other Orders of the Day."
trangers were then ordered to withdraw, and
.t;'e
Rouse divided upon the original motion,
hen there appeared,
For the Motion - - - - -
41
Against it
- - - The Majority - -
- - - —l6 Amendment was then carried, and the House proceeded
IlPosint the other Orders.
PARNELL moved the third reading of the Irish
Tithes te_s
ing Bill:
„a.he Marquess of LONDONDERRY spoke against the
xieSirnt
oGrEedORGE HILL also opposed the Bill at some length.
three monthass.,ar. Amendment that the Bill be read this day
InSir RENRY PARNLL replied,E after which the Amend-
eut was carried without a'
Fn i"' Bill11/ STEAM ENGINES.
.TAYLOR, moved the third reading of the Steanl
PHILLIPS supported the Bin, but wished tLat sane

! measure should be brought in to apply to all engines•etitting
smoke.
-' Mr. M. A. TAYLOR assured the House that he looked upon
this Bill as a preliminary measure, and that if the House should
accept of it, he would not be idle, but would endeavour to ob-
tain a Committee, in "which he Would be able to show that it
was' possible to reduce smoke in eveify species of engine em-
played in manufactories,
The Bill was then read a third time; and after -a clause, pro-
viding that the provisions should not extend to furnaces and
engines employed in mines. and in smelting ores, had been add-
ed to it as a rider, was passed:
BANK. OF IRELAND BILL..

The CHANCELLOR-a the EXCHEQUER movett
second reading of this Bill.
Mr. MABERLEY objected to the Bill, on the ground that
it went to perpetuaM on the country the system of improvident
bargains, which had characterised all the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's proceedings with- the Bank of Ireland. If these bar-
gains were looked at by the House, it would be found that the
Right Hon. Gentleman . had almost invariably paid a greater
amount of interest than he could have procured it for in Eng-
land. • Perhaps the Right Hon. Gentleman had something to
say in favour of the measure ; if not, he hoped the House
would not pass it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Hon.
Gentleman was mistaken in suppoSing that he had always given
five' per cent. to the Bank of Ireland. At the time of the peace,
and ever since, the Exchequer Bills at five per cent. were drawn
in and exchanged for others at four per cent. and it was to per-
petuate this rate that the Bill was intended.
Mr. HUME thought the objection of his Hon.' Friend (Mr.
Maberley) still existed ; for although the rate was not five per
cent. it was four, and if money continued as plentiful as it was
now, that rate would. be one per cent. too much.
Mr. RICE supported the Bill. He thought that this ought
not to be a mere matter of figures ; it ought to be more a mat-
ter-of feeling, and the depressed state of the property of Ire-
land, in consequence of its union with England, be considered
in whatever bargains were made with it.
After a few words from Sir H. PARK ELL and the CUAN-
cEI.LoR of the EXCHEQUER, the Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be.committed to-morrow.

• _ POST OFFICE.
The House went into a Committee on the Postage Act.
Sir H. PARNELL suggested that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man ought not to go on_ with the Bill before the correspondence
which had taken place on the subject between Government and
the Post Office had been laid before the. House.
Mr. F. PALMER made a few observations on the same sides.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER • maintained
that the country ought not to be precluded from benefiting by
the improvements which had been Made in regard to other car-
riages when applied to the mail coaches. Other coaches could
go 12 miles an hour, and it was the object of this Committee to
come to a Resolution on which to found a Bill to enable the
Postmaster-General to introduce this improvements and charge
additional rates for it.

Sir .T. NEWPOia thought the House should not agree to
any such measure, till it was ascertained-that it would not be
productive of injury to the community and danger to the indi-
viduals concerned.

Mr. PHILLIPS supported the measure, anti reprehended
the idea of depriving the nation of the benefit of modern disco-
veries on account of groundless apprehensions.
Mr. RICE thought that some consideration ought to be given
to the system of cruelty it would tend to countenance in over-
working the animals.
After a few words frOna Mr. F. Palmer, Mr. Ricardo, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Gladstone, the Com-
mittee divided.

For the Original Motion -
Against it - 7

Majority - - - —23
The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be re-
ceived to-morrow.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

THE COLONIES.

LOWER CANADA-(PROITINCIAL PARLIAMENT,

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,
.11LIRcir 17, 1821.

This day, at two o'clock', his Excellency the
GOVERNOR=IN-CHIEF came down in State to the Legislative
Council Chamber, and being seated on the Throne, the Gentle-
man Usher of the Black Rod was sent to command the presence
of the Assembly, which being come up, his Excellency was
pleased to dose the Session by the following Speech :
" Gentle Men of the Legislative Council,.and
Gentlemen of the House of Assembly, •
" Although I cannot by any means express my satisfaction
in the general. result of your deliberations, yet it is with great
pleasure Z acknowledge your assiduous and zealous attend-
ance in the discharge of your public duties, during the long and
laborious Session which I am now to close.
" Gentlemen of the House of Assembly, •
" I thank you in his Majesty's. name. for those supplies
which have been granted by Bills of Appropriation, and assure
you of my best attention in the application of them to the pu
poses for which they were intended.
" I exceedingly regret that the expectations of his Majesty,
which by his command I had the honour to.express to you at-
the opening of the Session, have not b6en realized.
' "- Gentlemen of the iegislative Council, and
Gentlemen of the House of Assembly, '
" 'When this Parliament met for the dispatch of public busi-
ness, I did entertain a hope that the experience of the last few
years would have led you to a mature and serious consideration
of the consequences that would inevitably follow if the then
state of things should not be remedied; you cannot therefore
be surprized that I should now express not only my disappoint-
ment but great concern, that the same /question of Constitu-
tional principle should have again disturbed the Unanimity ,of
your legislative proceedings.
" Upon this occasion, 1 think it a duty which_ I owe to you
and to your country to call upon you to consider-during this
summer the result of the discussions of the Session in all its
bearings.
"You will see the administration of the Civil Government
left without any pecuniary means but what I shall advance
upon my own personal responsibility ; you will see individuals
suffering under severe and unmerited hardships, cause& by
the want of that Constitutional authority that is necessary for
the payment of the expences of the Civil Governirient ; you
will see the interior improvements of the country nearly at a
stand ; you will see, in short, the Executive Government in a •
manner palsied and powerless.
" When I shall again summon you to meet here in Parlia-
ment, you will come to decide the important question, whether
the Government shall be restored to its. Constitutional energy,
or whether you are to deplore the prospect of lasting misfortune,
by a continuance in the present state of things ; important 'as
that question is, there can be no difficulty in the decision.
When the blessings of the British Constitution were granted to
this Province, you received with it the recorded experience of
centuries of practice ; there is no question of doubt or difficulty
that may not find its precedent in the records of the Imperial
Parliament, and I cannot think that any wiser guide need be
desired."

After which, the llonourable Speaker of the Legislative
Council said, that it was the pleasure of his Excellen the
Governor-in-Chief, that the Provisional Parliament shout be
prorogued until Thursday, the 26th April next : and the
Provincial Parliament is accordingly prorogued until Thurs-
day, 26th April next.

LONDON ORPHAN ASYLUM.-The Anniversary
Dinner of the friends and supporters of this lau-
dable Institution took place yesterday evening
at the City of London Tavern. The Duke of
SUSSEX; en entering the room, was warmly
cheered, the band playing " God save the King."
His Royal Highness's health was proposed by Mr.
Sheriff Williams, and drunk with three times
three, after which he addressed the assembly.
He had heard ft was intended to erect a rno-
lipment to the memory of his Royal Brother
the late Duke of KENT. There was no
structure of brass or of marble so well
calculated to perpetuate a recollection of his
worthiness, as the lasting prosperity of the
London Orphan Asylum, of which he had
been the Patron, and in the success of which he
had always felt the deepest interest. His Royal
Highness, in concluding, begged leave to pro-
pose that his MAiEsTv's health should again
be drunk with three times three, which was done
with great cheering. The children of the Insti-
tution now entered the room, boys and girls,
and went round in procession. They stopped
at the lower end of the room, and were addressed
by the Rev. Leigh Richmond, in an eloquent and
appropriate exhortation of considerable length. A
collection was made, and the party kept up the
conviviality till a late hour.