Star.
London, England, 1819-06-17 00:00:00

,

;. i,. .:
t.l i.
li ~...i; 1
I . t

..the Bankip Ale any ordinary.purchases of Exche-
quer Bun fit the Market.
Mr. F. LEWIS thought this was not the proper
time for erneiing into a discussion of thiallill. But
at the same time be could not refrain from expressing
his satisfaction at the general objects of it, Ile hoped
that he would never again see the Government and
the Bank in the situation in which they had lately
been. If advances were to be allowed by the Bank
to Govern.i.ent without controul, the effect would be
to give the Bank the power of calling for re-payment,
or for a renewal of the Restri:tion Act.
Mr. HUSICISSON thought that this conversation
chewed nothing but the expediency of waiting till
this Bill was really before the House.'
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
sauisnusur raw SCOTLAND SILL.
On the motion for the third *reading of the Banish-
Ment from Scotland Bill,
Mr. J. P. GRANT objected to the power which
was given to the Siteriff.Substitute by this Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE said the power' was
given to prevent the delay of justice in sue the She-
riff of the County was absent, or prevented by illness
from ezetuting the duties of his office.
Mr. BOSWELL wished to know whether the effect
of this Bill would not be to impose an additional ex-
pense on the county ?
The LORD ADVOCATE said there was no rea-
son to apprehend that this Bill would occasion any
additional expense to counties.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
EXCHANGES TIETWEEN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
SirH. PARNELL rose, pursuant to his notice, to
move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the rate
of Exchange between England and Ireland. The
variation in the rate of Exchanges was a great ob-
struction to Commerce, by making it impossible to
know what quantity of a particular article could be
bought by a certain sum at any given time.. Ano-
ther very important object, was the equalization
of the currency of the two countries..— The best
precedent on this subject was what took place at
the time of the Union with Scotland. At that time
there was the same difference between' the coin of
England and Scotland, as now between that of Great
Britain and Ireland. The benefits which had been
produced by that change were so great as to induce
the House to make the same change for the sake of
the same benefits to Ireland. Indeed he did not ap-
prehend that any opposition would be offered to his
motion on principle. Nor did he think there could
be a better time for adopting such a measure than
now, when the finances and currency of the country
were undergoing a thorough arrangement. Ha Com-
mittee was now appointed, although the Session was
so far advanced that their report could not be ob-
tained this Session, they might do so much as to be
able to conclude their inquiries next Session. He
concluded by moving that aCommittee be appointed
to enquire into the means of assimilating the currency
of England and Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
jected to the motion, on account of the late period of
the Session at which it was brought forward. The
Honourable Baronet himself admitted that there
would not be titne for the Committee to make any
adequate enquiry this Session. At the same time the
financial arrangements, and the others respecting the
currency alluded to by the Honourable Baronet, were
of such a nature as Would make it very desirable to
suspend the appointment of such a Committee at
present. The expectation of such a measure would
excite alarm and apprehension. He therefore trusted
the Honourable Baronet would nut press his motion
at present. But being convinced of its inexpediency,
he felt it his duty to move the previous question.
After a few words froth Mr.Gaetireu. and Sir H.
PARNELL, the motion was withdrawn.
PRIVILEON.
Mr. W. SMITH presented the Petition of the Re-
porter of the Times who had been committed to the
custody of the Serjeant at Arms on the preceding
evening, for having committed a breach of privilege.
He had, he admitted, been of opinion, on the occa-
sion of his commitment to the custody of the Serjeant
at Arms, that he had committed a very gross of-
fence against the character of an individual, and a
high breach of the privileges of the House; but had
in the vote of last night voted for his being visited
with the mitigated punishment of commitment to
the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, rather than
subject him to a higher description of punishment—
namely, commitment to jail. The petitioner, he un-
derstood, indeed had satisfied himself, was not only
a young Gentleman of most respectable character,
but of considerable attainments, as might, indeed,
have been collected from the discussion of last night.
The Petition prayed that he might be discharged out
of custody upon payment of his fees.
Sir FRANCIS I3URDETT could not permit the
proceedings of this night and the last night to pass
over without entering his protest in the most unequi-
vocal manner against the line of conduct pursued by
the House. The facts now were, that the House had
charged with libel, and also found the petitioner
guilty of the fact, in a case where there had been no
opportunity afforded of proving the fact of his being
the author of the libel. He regretted to say, that
such was the opinion entertained of its privileges,
that the House might at any time convict a man
upon his own confession of the fact. Such was the
nature of the Law of Pgliament, as explained by the
expounders of the present day. He deeply regretted,
for the sake of those whose representatives the Mem-
bers of that House were, that such was our Law,
which in its nature involved a principle equally dan-
gerous as that Of the judgments of Ithadamanthus,
who was thus described in the ?Enid—
" Castigatque, auditque dolor."
First, the House punished the offence, and afterwards
it determined that the crime had been committed for
which the punishment had already been inflicted. It
was excessively dangerous to avow a principle own-
ing a power so dangerous in itself and in its, con-
sequences. There had already been sufficient evi.'
deuce before the House that the offence charged
against the individual had never been committed,
and that the statement mad; in the Newspaper, that
cheers bad been heard in the House during the speech
of the Honourable Member for Aberdeen—(Cries of
tin, no' from the Treasury Bench.) He did not
contend that the precise words had been spoken, but
he had been informed by several they had been very

nearly such as had been reported by the prisoner.
For his own part, he was not surprised with respect
to the facts alleged respecting Reporters occasionally
varying ia the detaaricif the proceedings of that.
House—he was only surprised the Gentlemen em-.
ployed on the daily press could give these reports
with so much fidelity and accuracy. If any misre-
presentation had taken place, it, had been proved and
not denied that it was merely a mistake; or, in other
words, that the ancient maxim had been applied to
the mistake by the Members of the House—
" Actes non fecit rerun, nisi mens sit rea."
All malice in the report had been disavowed and dis-
credited by the House. He must therefore contend,
that if RO intention had been manifested of offending,
if words extremely similar to those which had been
published in the report, had been heard by various
Members of that House, and if the cheers described
in the report had been heard by several, which last
had been merely added for the purpose of scenical
effect, that the Reporter should not have been appre-
hended on the former night, and that at least the
House should, on the present occasion, in justice to
his conduct and thai-acter, come to a vote dischar-
ging him out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms
without paying his fees—(Feat.)
Lord C A STLE It E AGH confessed he was altoge-
ther at a loss to divine in what-character the Hon.
Baronet had appeared this evening. If as the advo-
cate of the person committed, he must salltbe priso-
ner shared the fate of many whose Counsetin a Court
of Common Law often endangered the Wells liberty
of those whom they were bound to protect, by to
line of defence they injudiciously adopted. He was
glad the conduct of the Gentleman concerned, when
brought up on the former evening, had been very
different, and marked with more consistency and
propriety than that of the Honourable Baronet : that
defence was short, and upon the point of malice, de-
nied it was done to in:aka. lie should, on this ac-
count, vote for the motion.
Mr. COURTENAY considered that it was not at
all difficult for the prisoner, or iudeed persons en-
trusted with so arduous a duty as that imposed on
Reporters, and who were selected for their talent and
acquirements, to, perform a task of unparalleled dif-
ficulty, to prefer a statement at the Bar of the House
which should lead many to think his case was one
which entitled him to peculiarly indulgent consider-,
ation—(Hear, hear!)
Mr. HUSKISSON regretted the absence of his
Right Honourable Friend. He was satisfied that on
a similar occasion, when words might have been put
by a Reporter into the mouth of an Honourable Mem-
ber, reflecting in such strong terms on the conduct
or principles of the Honourable Baronet, that no such
proceedings as the present would have been instituted,
but that it would have been determined by a very
different issue—(Cries of " Order!")
Mr. HUME was sorry to think the Honourable
Baronet was not convinced he (Mr. Hume) had not
made a mistake with respect to the extent of the re-
marks he had made upon the conduct of the Right
Honourable Gentleman. He assured him he was un-
conscious of having even made use of words of the
calumnious nature attributed to him. He-believed,
from the conduct and testimony of the Gentleman
now in custody, upon his examination, that there WAS
no malice in his representation of the debate of that

evening.
Lord BINNING regretted, that, from some obser-
vations dropped in the course of former night's con-
versations on this subject, the Public should very
generally enter into an idea that the words re-
ported in the Times Newspaper were not so unlike
those spoken by his Right Honourable Friend. He
had not the slightest doubt of the correctness of the
assertion of the Honourable Member; and it was re-
markable, that upon his waiting on the Honourable
Member, although occupied in his Parliamentary
business, for his avowal or disavowal of the senti-
ments contained in the report of the speech attributed
to that Honourable Member, he had, without even
consulting his memory, at once denied the fact, and
stated upon the day after (Sunday) what were the
precise observations made; the tenor of which had
been corroborated subsequently by the recollection
of an Honourable Member (Mr. Littleton) in a con-
versation upon the subject.
Mr. LITTLETON corroborated the statement of
the preceding Speaker.
Mr. HUTCHINSON had seen the prisoner this
morning, whose only feeling of regret appeared to
originate in not having had any opportunity on the
former evening, or during this day, of convincing
the Right Hon. Gentleman alleged to be misrepre-
sented, that he had no intention whatever to calum-
niate or misrepresent him. He felt it his duty to
complain of the language used by the Noble Lord
this evening, who had stated he considered the Ho-
nourable Baronet had lent himself as a tool, for the
purpose of keeping up the impression already afloat
in people's minds, that the words imputed td►the
Honourable Member had been actually uttered by
him, although he did not choose to allow them.—
This was a charge of a heinous and certainly of a
most unparliamentary nature, and not to be listened
to with indifference by those who were anxious for
those privileges, the preservation of which was the
subject of debate. Of this species of language he
would complain, nor should he flinch from discus-
sing most minutely any question of the privileges of
that House, which the House ought by this time of
day to have learned were not granted to them 'on
their own accounts, but for the sake of the public,
whose interests were here discussed with greater fa-
cility by those means. He should on no occasion of
this nature be intimidated from entering into a ques-
tion of privilege, fully and radically by any lecture
from either of the Noble Lords, who had assumed
the task of administering advice to Honourable Mem-
bers, and most unpalateable doctrines to their con-
stituents. He hoped the present doctrines as to pri-
vilege had had a sufficiently long run, and that they
would not be strained to any greater pitch. As it
was, lie felt it his duty to protest against the conduct
which had been pursued, so far particularly as re-
lated to the wording of the Resolution of an Honour-'
able Member, respecting the offence alleged to have
been committed by the prisoner. He had hoped, after
the decorous conduct and serious disclaimer of any
intention to offend on the part of that Gentleman, that
the Resolution would have beerrvery different indeed.
It only proved to him that the Resolution had ►een
penned previous to the examination of the petitioner.

After what had then transpired, hevertainlphought
lit would have been sufficient if the Petitioner had
Neen reprimanded and discharged. If such, however,
was his opinion, he witrnet to'be called, by either at
She Noble Lords, to an account for bolding thole
sentiments, or pointed out as a Suspicious person in
that House. He would now fearlessly avow, that on
this occasion the Commons had exerted their privi-
leges with very great severity, on this as well as on
another late occasion. He hoped what he had said
would not be of prejudice to the cause now before'
the House, more particularly as the circumstance of
the cheers, of which so much had been said both by
the Right Hon. Gentleman now not present (Mr.
Canning) and others, had already been authenticated
by the evidence of two Members in that House. He
also should vote for the enlargement of the prisoner
upon this ground, that there never had been a more
ample case made out for the proper exercise of cle-
mency on the part of the House than on the present
occasion.
Lord BINNING disclaimed any intention to make
any allusion, in what he had said, personally offensive
to the Honourable Baronet.
The Petition was then read, and Mr. W. SMITH
moved that the Petitioner be discharged out of cus-
tody, on payment of his fees, having first been re-
primanded by the Speaker.
The Petitioner was then put the Bar.
The SPEAKER addressed him, and stated, that
having confessed himself, in the Petition now pre-
sented to the House, to have been the author of al
paragraph in the reports of a Daily Newspaper, which.
had the day before been declared to be highly defama-
tory and libelous, and a breach of the privileges of
that House, he had been ordered to be taken into the
custody of the Serjeant at Arms. Grave and serious
as the offence had been, the conduct of the prisoner
when examined ar the Bar, and the assurances there
given that be had had no intention whatever either
to misrepresent the sentiments of the particular indi-
vidual concerned, or offend the dignity of that House,
had given him a claim to the mitigation of the pu-
nishment usually attendant on such an offence as had
not hitherto in any case, nor scarcely could be ex-
perienced. The application of the Petitioner to the
House had been heard and examined with the utmost
attention to its spirit and contents, and had induced
the House to consent to the Petitioner's being solely
called to the Bar of the House, and upon being re-
primanded, being thereupon discharged. He trusted
the present mitigation of punishment would not be
misunderstood ; and that as the opportunity of abusing
the liberty granted to persons in his situation, bad
originated altogether in the indulgence awarded them
in the exercise of their professional duty, through the
bounty of the House, they would be aware that the
offence was necessarily aggravated by the facility
which the House had granted them, by a departure
in their favour font its established rules and orders.
Lastly, let them be convinced, that from the view the
House had been enabled recently to tale of represen-
tations of this nature, every future offence of this
description would be considered a wilful violation of
'the privileges of the House, and be treated with the
most severe infliction of punishment on the part of the
,Hotise.—The prisoner was then taken from the Bar
and discharged.
Lord CASTLEREAGH moved the reprimand,
given by Mr. Speaker to the prisoner on this occasion
should be entered on the Journals of the House, which

was agreed Id.
PETITIONS AGAINST THE FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT presented a Petition
from certain inhabitants of Liverpool against the Fo-
reign Enlistment Bill, which he considered as a dis=
grace to the country, contrary to the genius of the
British people, and totally inimical to the interests of
freedom and trade.—Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. WRIXON BEECHER presented a similar Pe-
tition from Mallow, and in presenting it, he begged
leave to say, that the proposed measure met his de-
cided disapprobation. He had heard nothing what-
ever in all the arguments which were used to recon-
cile him to the measure ; but much on the contrary
to fortify his reasons for disapproving it. It was said
to be rendered necessary in compliance with the terms
of a treaty with Spain, but that he could scarcely be
induced to credit. At all events, the laws of the
British Empire should not be altered merely to suit
the wishes of that country. The ingenuity of a
British Government might be thought to he better di-
rected than in arranging, or raking up, or new mo-
, delling laws for the purpose of repressing the strug-
gling exertions of a people anxious to be free.—
He gave the Government, however, much more cre-
dit for the candour they had displayed, than-for any
sound political judgment they exhibited on the ques-
tion ; and he thought they should scarcely be sorry
for its failure. The measure was an odious one
viewed in any light, but considering the consequences
to which it would lead it was doubly so. The dis-
tresses of the country were now become so great,
that emigration was deemed a blessing, and when
such a field for exertion offered itself as South Ame-
rica, he could not perceive why the Government
should so pertinaciously pursue it, in contradiction
to the universal opinion of the Empire. The only
advocates the measure found were in the House; the
sense of every man without it was in direct hostility
to its letter, spirit, and its ohject.—(llenr,hear).
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. PHILLIPS said that he should in a few days
have a similar Petition to present from Manchester,
and he hoped the Government would in time aban-
don a measure likely to prevent the progress of free-
dom, and cramp the exertions of the manufacturers
throughout the country. The interest of Spain should
not be preferred to the universal spread of Liberty,
and to the prospect of enlarged trade which South
America held out to the 'British trade in particular.
DISSENTERS-MARHIAGE ACT.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH presented a Petition from
the Dissenters of the 'Borough of Southwark, against
the Martiage Act.—Laid on the table.
A Petition was presented from the Dissenters of
York against-the Marriage Service.—Ordered to lie
on the table.
A similar Petition was also presented from the
town of Maidstone.—Laid on•the table.
Mr. W. SMITH, in rising to move for leave to
bring in a Bill respecting the Marriage Service Act,
did not in the least intend to make any alteration or
change in the service as now performed, so as to al=
felt the privileges of any class of persons, to narrow
the jurisdictiosi of the officiating clergyman or his

,
. ! ,
. 1
,
. ,
'
.il
4,