Star.
London, England, 1816-05-09 00:00:00

that it was not at all material to the issue

Court was trying then they must con
03n. In his opinion it was moat mat(
Court should have before it evidente
falsehootl, together with another &cunt
could in any way elucidate the at eller.
now stood, however, such a practice w;
He did not mean to say that the law
now from what it always. hod been. II
alteration had tarn place, it was in m;

extreme 'rigour upon the snbject. It shill
ed also, that the truth or falat•hoorl of

in a case of libel being wholly excluded,
circumstance to which that exclusion real

other which could in any way develope
or character of the offender was freely
produced. Thus, in the case of a libel
liament or a Court of Justice (becomin.
ever, only from the pubhcation), bei!
reported, the individual was allowed tit pi„ve 11,4
the report was a correct one, though, being
i Pored,
asililutinsi•tedwittsto"bejpurstoi'vfieedeittiThey 111iloeWCedouirtt; goh° ,ert,'
Jury, because they had to sift the gniiter
cence of the indieiduil, the protable maitre,
Which he was actuated, and to ascei.t4n
was only an imaginary speech, written, perhaps..;'
gratify private malignity, or a lona pi: accres;4'
what was really said. The Hon. and Learned Gd,
tleman then cited several cases, in which thepoe'
he mentioned had been adopted. Amengerbe„
referred to the celebrated Ca 5 2 of Lord Ituistit(se.'::,
,condemnation, he s tid, the Statute Book w0u,4,„
•
rant him in denominating a murder), and he d,“
the more willingly, because lees indulgence wa,
granted than what was usually sheWn. 1".
„ion Oat
trial, Dr. Tillotson, afterwards Archbishop (,!
terbury, was allowed to give evidence as to tie
moral and religious habits cif Lord !tinsel!, ant
the Court allowed it even to go to the Jury, as
tending to illustrate the probability or the imp,.
bability of such a man afterwards commuting
crime of high treason. In the case of Horae Tloic
also, who was tried for high treason in the sear
a book which be wrote in 1782 was permitted tot.
put in as 'evidence of his loyalty : he alluded to ba
celebrated Letter, addressed to Mr. Dunning, oath,
subject of Parliamentary Reform; and, lachily fa
Mr. Tooke, there happened to be in that letter, ,tole.
they with many constitutional doctrines some vey
satisfactory proofs of his loyalty. Upon that grolitql
the book was tendered as evidence, and uponttial
ground it was received. It was not, of course, CO.
sidered as a justification; but it went to prove tie
probability or improbability of a man using the Tits
tion of Parliamentary Reform in 1791, as a cloak ti
cover purposes of high treason, who, in 1782, hat
written upon the same subject with much loyalty.—
He thoureLt those cases sufficiently established the fat
that although the Court would not allow the
to be given in evidence in a question' of libel, y
every other kind of tvidence whichdrOuld throw am
light upon the subject was daily and hourly receive.
And what was there in truth that it s!tould ..ot
taken into consideration ?.. Why should that he G.
eluded, in tact, which +natty cases was der.;!,ivr,
Iland in all of sore? weight r• It was needless to eme.
tiply instances to prove the materiality of truth e
.false)lood, in de:A-fol./Tains Abe degree of guilt or inert
con... It was searecly posvibles-Wieleed, to ersocese
any circumstance which more closely affected the
malice, the Filthy,, or the motives of the delenhear
and it would be ineoulbent upon these who driiitsi
his proposition, to prove, that in a ntinity of coo,
the truth or falsehood of an alleged libel was ebony
beside the question at issue. There stets no pits in
which he considesed the present subject as of en-Air
importance than in libels• on pi ivate chatacar.
would appeal to every one who heard hies, as to !t.e
licentiousness of the Press (not meaning to Ain*
that its licentiousness was greater now than foram
years past); but when that licentiousness-was lames.
ted, the only thing ever attempted to be said in its
defence was, that. like the air, it was u a charteral
libertine," and that the evils must be endured toy di
sake of the good. The Press, in conseginnite,
joyed a sort of impunity in its licentiousness, and k
would tell the House whence that impunity ;loaf.—
In this country :hoe was no public prosecutor-0
one whose business it was to watch over the plot*
tion of private cliaractet and morals. When .n trio
vidual was defamed, therefore, in a libellous cal9t?).
lion, he had no remedy but by the expense
of a private prosecution. The law, it te,,s
would afford redress, it the law was sought ; Out tta,
reason why it was so seldom thought of was steS-
ciently obvious. There were only two ways in whirl
a person libelled could apply for justice—either try
an action for damages, or by a criminal prose( titiv.
Suppose the former' be adopted. Tue inditidual
went into (..:eifirt to demand reparation tar his injureb
chetraiier and wounded feelings. There, after ras•
gauntlet of the whole Court, and attar
curt mg the expense of the litigation, he ative.,;rd
the jury for such tilinAges as siii:;111 br tiamAllt
estimate of his character and Ow injury it had sse
gained. We was tar from meaning to cast any rr•
blection on the Trial by Jury, for no man felt a
greater veneration for its principles than lie did, id
every one who reflected upon the way in which Juries
were commonly couiposed, muss know that they sik
the last people from Whom an adequate compew•
tion in such a case entild be expected. Whit V
would be the pi ohahle issue of an appeal to the lim
in a case of Eitel ? individual would go out d
Court, alter a frill investigauori of his complaint, alts
a very ingenious 'peed', per
sal, and attar a spctea irom
compi:ed Li) which he Afoul(
such libels, Inc u:se it went
detantatii:n, cornmented upoi
ed more. publitit), and wa:
infinitely greater ability, w
did not mean to state that
Jury would award. There
cent instance in which AT
and upon that subject he
Idue respect for Courts of
names garnished the reef
always to be resisted.
own experience, not in cal
names appeared on one or
of pounds were awarded
otherwise have been given.
composed of men, so loo'
ble to influence front, such

side
via

tii

41
ie
61

•
;sue wttell 01 sp.
•to his conk fait
serial that tt aol
4 the tie.h q 1 for
ltst , fleet w!iic ' 404
• As the h. OW
Was prol..l)i?ej, tic(
V was differe, E prO
If, indeed, any the
litigation <4 ;4 met
ould be otsert ina
the alleg4tirre poi
i, was the otiy doc
cached. Every rat
pe the mom% did
r allowed btu oit
spolcco in tar. pro
[414 such, tatit- :Ile,
Pig a''tct *416 in(' 1 .

Igpia•ruit°:tri flrnisrLaull:isvo. CiAt- P
rom the defendant's Cow:A
maid tat.her base endured its 11
.cnt over the wht.le bi
upon its application, MAPS!. 14
was genvrati worked UP ..i
y, with sESU damages. H
iat sum as the greate•a*thatv
here had, indeed, been a it
02000 damages were give(' °
e wished to observe, with al a
of Justice, that wrien
cord their influence was W /I_,
It had happened within b
ases of libel, but ahem a
or both sides, that thotisas
d where hundreds would
en. As long at. Juries we
,ng they would always be lit ti
ch ipzti4ic calsv. • War b
. _

speft, Sommer, to the eespossatio' a nraturay 41
pined by ao actioa for damages, he would certainly
. . advise a man to adopt that course, were it not
for a material cause connected with the other method,
sad which formed the chief subject of the question
then before the House. He alluded to the prohibi-
tion of adducing the troth itrevidence, in a criminal
tion for libel ; but if that evil were done away,
then every man conscious of his innocence would,
meet the malignant accusations of a libeller, by de-
mandiag him to prove their truth. Every man would
flossess a powerful arm for the punishment of his tra-
ducer, and a shield for the protection of his own cha.
Toter. He begged to be clearly understood, that he
did not wish that the mere truth of .a libel should be
goostification of it ; for if malignity or any other im-
woer motisfe could be satisfactorily proved, punish.
'rent ought to be inflicted on the libeller. There were'
;s. deed many cases in which truth itself might be can-
sidoced as libellous, especially a: affecting the Go.,
lament. Fur instance, it might be true to state '
veil
• •sions were dear; but if that statement were made
to o multitude in an inflammatory and exaggerated
moaner, it would be a libel. In the same manner,
to address troops upon the subject of their pay, in
socha way as tended to excite disaffection or mutiny,
would be libellous, even though the matter stated were
true :NJ harmless, if stated in a different m inner.—
so, in a case which had been tried, where a regiment
embarking for foreign service were told that the ship'
in which they were to go was leaky, the offence was
polished. Now it might have been true (in that
paucelar case, however, it was not) that the ship
eas us that condition, and yet the exigencies of the
State at a particular period of the war might have
rendered such a thing inevitable, and the mentioning
it in an exaggerated manner would be an offence.--,
In the same way. reports spread with regard to inva.
ion, the succession to the Crown, and other State
affairs, though perfectly true, yet the law held them
to be punishable under certain circumstances. It was,
therefore, no part of his plan, either in civil or crimi-
nal cases, to make the truth, even when proved, a
defence of libel, but merely that it should be taken
into the account, that it should be given as evidence,
that it should go to the Jury, and come within the
scope of their inquiry, when they assessed what they
might think fit and adequate damages. lie would
now proceed to argue same of the objections which
be anticipated might be made to his motion. In the
int place, the ground of a libel was always its alleg•
ed tendency to disturb the peace ; but to that an
irresistible answer n ight be. given. It was merely a
technical formality, a fiction of the law, in order to
give the Court a jurisdiction. it stood as wide of
thereat ground, as the breaking into a close, or the
swritsde of a man's wife and daughter, in action fur
Maps or for seduction, were of the real ground
span which such actions were brought. In no other
sense could a libel be said to have a tendency to break
tbspeace. But why not say at once that character
vu of some value—that it des: rued protection on its
can account, and that an injury done to character
was the same as an injury done to life or propert, ?
Nay, the injury in the one case was sometimes greater
than in the other, for many persons would rather lose
eieir property and their lite, than their reputation.—
Bat the fallacy of the argument was obvious. A
aaa who wrote a libel, %valets Was held to have a
tendency to Weak the peace, was sentenced. peritaities.
b six, twelve, or eighteen months iasprisonrneut,
while an actual breach of it incurred only three
months. Was the mere tendency, then, to an offence
greaser than the offence itself ? But the spirit of the
times was, imfact, in opposition to that kind of rigo-
rous interpretation. For exampie, oue of the greatest
breaches of the law was going out to fight a duel,
and there was nothing which a Court et Justice pit.
sished more severely, when it came under its cogni-
unce. To send a letter to another, containing as:
itiollenge, or language calculated to provoke a cual-
lsoge, was considered as having a tendency to It
ketch of time peat-. •But suppose, instead of sending
slater, a man west out to fight a duel, suppose he
antoniy went out, .but actually fought it, nay, sup-
pose turtlivr, tima: he killed his antagonist (he assum- ,
ed the esti :. to ,t case to shew -.11.,w the spirit of the'
isles mi.isirti.:4l the letter of the law), yet, unless
there was soniethinaz untair in the transaction, he
who killed another was sine to get off free. Nine
out of ten, indeed, Were never brought to trial- Yet
a man writing all!) CI was sentenced to twelve of
eighteen months imprisonineat, for what was riclich-
Ludy called a tendency to break the pe Ice. by the,
Inewat administration of the law no witnesse, Wil.C.
ever were called on the part of the defendant, weliCh
*(1 well known to his Honourable and Learned
Fraud to be the case. Yet the Counsel for the de-
fendant might easily take advantage by giving hints.
',re prosecutor's Coonstl knew very well that often
titstatement he madi-, did not contain one word of
drib, a circumstalici'-.which Oh' Counsel f it the de-
*hot was prepared -to -talita advantage of. He
illintrated this by the CobJaet of ti,e Attorney -Gene-
"ii whose appoaament to the high situation he at
Pretest held hid ;martially been a loss to defeadants
i
ato the well known in , tft. he d- I.iyipd in their
!.,eti i , isp .
belUil• He could easily hint to the Airy, that had
any such crime as *•/as charged been committed, the
Plisitutqr would not have brought an indictment,
but would rather have raised an action of damages.
Now the plan he (Mr. Brougham) proposed was time
hest that could possibly be suggested. as it placed
the prosecutor in a situation of vindicating his elm-
"el', and thus blessing the day such a change had
lotroduced into the law. It was by no means
per to exclude evidence from being given as to
, truth of the libel on the part of the defendant.—
l a man was tried and found guilty, and afterwards
ought up for judgment, it had till lately been ge-
eun
IIY the custom to allow him some latitude to Lic-
it" himself, by producing some facts in support of
6libel• although that had been denied in the case
lt,. •
Finnerty. It was absurd in the extreme to
eno distinction between a man who libelled
4:11
tenth and a man who libelled on mere down-
'lllte falsehoods. If truth was not to be regarded
at thy alleviation of circumstances,it was surely
%amt all
1. 0 a the g:ounds he had already men-
tilled, he decidedly thought that.. the measure he
mei% so
thefar from doing any harm, would, on
Contrary, be
'freedo productive of the greatest good to
m, and particularly to the purity of the
11k„.._ which was the best and surest foand_ation for
omit,' ru ,
u cr. madam—fix; in the first place, it would do away
'arrente which at present exists liFtwee"ral

nos
'fere
lip•
11 rt.

:.:~- ,

- •

zdagvirittee• slander. By the patient gate% wit
, to whatever extent it might be cosimitted.
was overlooked, whereas when it wits' committed
to writing it because the proper object 'or pettish-
merit, as when they thus became punishable they
were considered as constituting an indubitable'
offence. Seditious words were doubtless an 'excep-
tion from this. Besides, he thought the fact of
the libel being published by the'party in cognizance
of the facts, was worthy of going before a Jury..-
-And he doubted very much whether, if such evi-
deface were presented, a Judge would hesitate to ad-1
mit it. The evidence to the material circumstance of
the truth of the facts, was also fit for the attention
of a Jury. It would be necessary in, this cast for
the defendant to give proper notice to the prosecutor
that such were his intentions, in order tp prepare the.
prosecutor for meeting them ; and he would extend
the production of such evidence to civil as well as
criratinal cases. He apprehended the House knew
well the cause of ex-f informations being vested
In the Crown. in point of fact no such delays existed
as they insinuated. The Grand Juries sat always
six times a-year, and particularly in London and
Westminster. It WAS impossible gravely to hear the
doctrine advanced of these cases, which came under
the Crown, as admitting of no delay. He did not
see why one law should exist for the corporation of
the country, and another law for the subject. Was
it because the character of the (me was more valuable
than that of the other I He did not like the idea of
thus personifying the State, of describing it as pos.
teasing feeling, &c. which tended in fact to produce
much confusion. The true cause of this dislike on
the part of Government to go before Grind Juries.
was, that they were sure of losing their oiiject. He
would ask, why was this the case ? Why did they
always lose their object? Not cert iinly because they
were always wrong. This country had a Govern-
ment acting in a free manner, and carried on by in-
dividual's, who as iudividuals had respectable,private
characters, yet, why don't they never chaise to risk
their cause to the oaths of twelve men? It WAS not
surely because they were more reproached than other
Governments, tor he believed in this point the mea-
sures of Administration were less questioned than
those of foreign countries. It was not because the Jury
were corrupt, but because the truth could not be given
before a Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury were there.
fore very cautious how they pot a man on trial when
not one word could be proved against him. If evi-
denCe into the truth of the libel was gone into, he
believed there was not a Grand Jury in this country
who would feel the slightest indisposition to bear it.
He detested ex-offich informations, as giving Go-
vernmesit a grievous power of hanging accusations
over the head of individuals, and thus keeping them
ht a dismal state of suspense. The individual had no,
power to force on his trial, and many cases, it-was
well known, had been put on the file which had never-
beer tried. He could particularly specify twenty-
four, nut one of which had been tried. It was a,
power which he deprecated, as creating endlessl
anxiety to the rich, and producing misery to the poor
by bidding them with expenses. Th.s power might{
also 'or used as an engine for political purposes, use 1
instance of which he mentioned, respecting an inclf.
vidual oho had been charged with addressing a num-
ber of troops going abroad,- as 4 stating that the vet-
seta is which shay were to sail *eve not sea worthy.:
This statement was hounded on foul falsehood ; ne-
vertheless the prosecution was not persisted in, and
why ? Because the man was stated to have given
up his author! 1--(llear, hear) All was quashed,
though the person spoken of as the author was abroad.
He mentioned this as an instance :of the power
being abused. He meant not to say such had ever
been done by hil-Learned Friend, the present At.
torney General ; and he trusted that his Learned
Friend would believe him sincere, when he st?ted i
his warm approbation of the manner in which he 1
ha4l anhtys exercised his aothorrty —(Hear, hear.),
Durinthis otEdial appointment Only one information'
had been filed. Now was she proper period for dis.l
cussing the improvements be had propre.ed. At pre.l
sent-there was no convulsion whatever in the coun-
try, but a profound calm. We had now a favour
able °ppm milky of coming to the discussion with our
minds unruffled. He trusted that opportunity would
i
not be lost. SrMie privileges on the part of the i
Crown hck woold now shortly advert to, as he SAW no 1
reason whatever for their continuince. The tight of
replying on the part of the Crown appeared to him to
be. another abuse, Ville), tOi, Ott %van, propriety be al.'
tired, as a rt main, .4.4iarbgous jurisprudence.—
With revect twayr.thied7pritrat in the measure he
should Aposi to' iritP,al4E, be conceived it sufficient'
to state, that,itirfilieriOs of ,libel prosecuted by in.
formation ex dfieia, Ake Crifista never went -to trial
without a Special dory. -All other crimes and mis.
demeanours, felony, and even the highest Ilium
known to the law, high treason, were always tried be.
fore a Common Jury. He saw no reason for giving
to the Crown in the inswfice of libel, a right of se-
lection which !. did not. possess in any other case.—
It appeared to him, therefore, that the only argument,'
. which could be urged 9n the other side, was one,
founded on the aversion to inndvate at all on the legal
institutions of the country. Excellent, however, as
the system was, the lapse of time had introduced
blemishes which it would be.more beneficial to its in-
terests to convert into beauties, than to regard, as
parts of its perfection. With these views he begged
to move for leave to bring in a Bill for securing and
extending the Liberty of the Press. (Hear, !sear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt no. disposi.
Lion to refuse his Honourable and Learned Friend
an opportunity of bringing into die House a Bill, the
object of which was to secure the Lilierty of the
Press. But at the same time be WAS obliged to enter
his protest against all and every of the changes pro:.
posed byJiis Honourable and Learned Friend. He
therefore reserved to himself the right of discussing,
the question in the progress of the Bill. Ple then
replied to the arguments of the Hodourable • and
LLearned Gentleman on the subject of en-ofria infor-
mations and Special Juries. As to the fiat, he con-
tended that it was absolutely necessary, for the 'seco-
4ity of the State, in troublesome, times, that there
ishould be the power of filing estifseis informations,
and the Honourable and Learned *Geiitleman had
.not shesen that it would be better to' vest this poser
fin an? other Officer than .the .one by whom it 'Was
-now eseteiseck..As to the other ifaitst—Special Juries,
ihe maintained that Common Juries. were -not A0113•'
posed of men who could be :opposed capable . of

11213,11Iftemtjadgmellt on direnice eloatrnotion
in a • Byis -particular detail of the
*Mee id which Special Juries are chosen, be totally
sehtidthe.audaclotts calumny, dot it • Was usual to
pia Juries., •
•The SOLICITOILGENERAL begged to be al-
Jewett° tate.this opportunity of entering his protest
against • the alterations in • the law proposed by•his
Hi.noarable and Learned Priem!, whose motion was
betore the House. As to this proposal of allowing
the truth of a libel to be given in evidence, he thought
it would. prove destructive of social comfort. It.
would allow a man, who had committed a wrong,
by publishing what he had no right to publish, if
Called to account for this, to put his accuser on his
defence. There was no min who might have been
guilty of any imprudence in the course of his life, of
which he might have well repented—who might have
by his future conduct retrieved his character--and
who might be worthily enjoying happiness in the
bosom of his family, who might not have his de-
servedly re-established character destroyed—and his
fortune ruined by aeirtnelicious person in a pamphlet
or newspaper, bringing up this circumstance forgot-
ten and repented of. When such a libeller was brought I
to trial, he had only to prove the truth of die libel,
according to the proposed alteration, and then he
would come off victorious. And this libeller might
day after day, or year al:.r year, repeat the publica-
tion of the libel, and when called to account, get off
by proving the truth of it. Would not such a case
shew the impotice, the injustice of such an alteration
Rii►the law? The Honourable attail Learned Gentle-
man then shortly replied to what was said by the
Mover on the subject *of ex.?ffitio informations and
special juries, and concluded by s3ying, that lie
would nut oppose the bringil)g in of the Bill, but
reserve the further discussibn of it till its ptugress
t rough the Hons...
Mr. MARRY ATT noeced one kind of libel, which
in its effects might he much inure anschieveus to in-
dividuals by ruining their character, their fortune,
perhaps even affecting their lives, which did not seem
to have come within the view •of the Hon. Mover
( Mr. Stougham). He alluded to expressions used
in that House towards individuals, in which their
characters might be unfairly attacked, and when the
.pens ins so aggrieved dentanded satisfaction,' they
were met by the person who assailed their character
with assertions of the privilege of Parliament; and,
instead of that atonement which was usual in private
life, the assailant would have the Speaker of the House
for his second, and the Seljeant at Arms for a bottle.
holder !—(4 largh.) The Honourable and Learned
Gentleman must recollect some such case as that to
which he thus alluded.

Mr. BROUGHAM begged to be permitted to say,
a few words, is consequence of the most unpreceden-
ted and unprovoked attack which he conceived had
just been made upon him attack' which had as
link to do with the subject of debit,: as the remarks
of the Honourable Gentleman, who could have no
possible concern with the measure under considera-
tion. lie (Mr. Bronfrham) wsfil recollected the cir.
curastance to hich r4.lerence had bees' made, thongh
it would have been much better it toe Honourable
Gentleman had been contented with plain terms, in-
! stead of resorting to a metaphor couched in lissiguage
stied and delicate, VINT the House WtHild

Afig, spew with in. retetftiort. ' With regard to
'the tact, it was necessary to remind the House of
some circumstances unconnected wish the question
before it.— (Cries of Question.) 'He hat a tight to
be heard in reply to the charge of the lion. Gentle.
man, who had nut been interrupted while mak.ng one
ut the most irrelevant and disorderly speeches ever
heard within the walls of Parliament. —(Hear, hear.)
—ln the course of an inquiry four years since, • in a
Committee of the whole House, a witness had been
called to the bar and examined, upon whose testimony
he ('Mr. Brougham) had made such remarks as ap-
pealed necessary : in doing so he had consulted no
man—least of all the witness himself, and still less

than least of • alb—if such a degree of comparison
could .be allowed—the Honourable Gentleman who
had now elosen t. interpose. The opinion which lie
(Mr. lcrcugiilto) had delivered, was strong and
voluted agaiiist tale conduct of the witness ; that opi-
Moo he was•now ready to repeat, if necessaty : and
he was not to be deterred, either by the conduct .01
the Honourable Gentleman's Friend cut of doors, or
by the still less regular proceeding. of the Honourable
Gealleman withal, doors. He had spoken at that
time sitting at a Judge upon the conduct of the wit-
ness; but soon afterwards he received a letter from
that witness,enclosing a copy of his ( Mr. Brougham's)
speeco, printed in one of the Newspapers, and re-
questing him to state if it were accurately reported..
le declining to give an answer to such a demand, he
was persuaded he had only acted • as every other
Member would have done ; for !ie was yet to learn
VIAL the privileges of-Parliament were so completely
at :mend, that, alter having retired from the business
of the Session, and after having discharged important
public duties, a Member of the House of Commons
tirasagrise .sompclied to become a corrector of the
Newspaper Reports of Deliares.-e-(Hear, hear.)—
Whew was the boasted f reeslom of sllseessioe, if Mem-
bers were (wind to answer such interrogatories ? As
the desire, however, was conveyed in civil terms, the
refusal to comply with it was also civil, but short.—
Near the close of the Session he had, however, re-
ceived a letter from the-same witness, very different
from the former, containing the most foul and
unfounded aspersions upon the character of
Member of Patliament, and making as deep an in-
road into the invaluable rights of Members as could
be fotind on the Journals at any period when the Fri-
vilegesof Parliament were at die lowest ebb.. This
letter repeated the former demand, accompanied by
a threat, and' the reply to it was a repeated refusal,
with the addition of a piece of advice for the govern-
iment.ed the miter of the threat; recommending him
to tate care how he proceeded fu: ller in the line of
conduct be • was pursuing, since if. he persisted he
might find it somewhat inconvenient to bimself. He
• (Mr. Brougham) heard no further_ upon the subject
until thiee weeks afterwards, when be was two hull-
dra Miles from London, cin.protessional busirmis :
the Nritness took that opportunity of publishing the
correspOndence, but, though strongly advised by his
friends to 'bring the Genilmissa to the bar of the
wove, he hid not thought it right t 9 proceed to that
utrell44 t be now regretted his forbearance, partly
on account of-Circumstances that bad since happened,
and pertly on 'gouge of the most jedscica, conduct

of the nonontable Gesdosia, whop an gal 'night
stood forward as the friend of the *mess...—.
He had been induced not to call the witness to the
bar by several circumstances, and mainly by one
which the publishers of the letters had duly consi.
dered, namely, that the Session was within three or
four days of its termination, and the imprisor; ent
which the House could inflict would, theretore, only
be of a very short duration. The lionourAble Gen-
tlemin had thrown out a hint, which was easily un-
derstood—that, instead of resorting to the House, be
(Mr. Brougham) ought to have given another kind
of answer to the invitation sent—( Mr. Marryat shook
his head.) It was vain for the Honourable Gen-
tleman to shake his head ; not a man in the- House
could mistake what was nieant—ani, shout.! he select
his elegant phraseology from all quarters of the town
it would be impossible for the Honourable Member
to convince the House that he intended to convey
any other meaning.. If ever he (Mr. Brougham)
was prevailed upon to give such a reply as that al-
luded to. it would be after considering well his own
and the feelings of the indivitinsl who supposed him-
self injured ; but there was one species of person et!to
never should possess the smallest influence over Is;s
conduct in this respect, because the least wort'ay of
such an answer—a man who took upon himself the
part of an interferer for the sake of rene wing and pro.
(noting personal altercation.—( L. u:Lix-s.)
Mr. MARRY eiT denied that he had either said
or intended that the flonotirable•Gentleman ought
to have given the personal satisfaction required ; but
after it had been publicly and unfoundedly asserted
in the House, that ..n individual, scum employed in.
t.is' manufactories 2000 workmen, had stated that
break: and water a as food go:)d enough for the lower
classes, it would have beer. hut fair for the Member
who had made that asset t;ott to explain or retract it.
(Hear, hear.).—This was ail he had intended to state ;
and looking at the sort of license which some Geode.
men allowed themselves, he must say that the true
line to be observed in debate, where the characters of
individuals were.involved, was as quid fail diecre au.
deat,ae quid yeti non audeat.
Mr. BROUGHAM added, that he was not the
only person who had misunderstood the Honourable
Member who had falsely accused him of refusing to
give mire:planation as to the correctness or incor-
rectness of his speech.
The question upon the original motion was then put.
Mr. BROUGHAM sail, that he should reserve
any of his remarks upon the objections urged to his
proposition until a future stage when the'Bill should
be before the House. With regard to what had just
transpired, he wished to subjoin, that be had on a
former occasion given an explanation of the charge
he had made asmainst the witness whose cause was ad.
vocated' by the Honourable Member (Mr. Marryat);
he had then stated, tf.at a pnt of the speech, as re-
ported in the Newspapers, was coirec., while another
part was erroneous.—Lcave was then given to bring
In the Bill.