Star.
London, England, 1819-06-15 00:00:00

THE COINAGE.

This day was published,
ASNALS of the COINAGE of BRITAIN and
its DEPENDENCIES, from the earliest period of au-
thentic Ifi.tory to the present time.
By the Rev. IroGERs RUDING, B.D. Vicar of Maldon, in
Surrey, F.S. A. and H.M.A.S. of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
In fivt large Volumes Octavo, and one Quarto Volume; con-
taining a Series of Coins, extending through a period of 1800
years, including the late issues of Sovereigns and Crown Pieces,
price .C 6 6s. boards,
The additional Plates and Supplemental Matter, not con-
tained in the Quarto Edition, are printed separately for the Sub-
scribers to that edition, price 12s. small, or 181. on large paper.
Printed for Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mayor, and Jones,
Finsbury-square. Where may be had,
Sneoa's ESSAV ON lams Corns, and of the Currency of nsreign
Monies in Ireland, Quarto, price 18s. in boards.

This day was published, in Ben. price 7s. 6d.
By BALDWIN, CRAW:::, and Joe, Paternoster-row ; and J.
iberciiaan, Piccadilly; also by WNL BLACKWOOD, Edinburgh;
and 'loam and M'AITHUR, Dublin:
ATREATISE on the most approved Modes of
restoring VIS lON, by the formation of ARTIFICIAL
PUPIL, with a Description of the diseased states of the Eye,
to which this practice is applicable. To this is added, the First
Annual :Medical Report, detailing the Cases of all the Pensioners
who, during the last year, have been treated and discharged
from the Institution founded by Government, for the Cure of
the Blind Pensioners afflicted with various Diseases of the Eye;
as °facially transmitted to the War-Office.
By Sir W. ADAMS,
Opthalmia Surgeon to the above Institution.
Illustrated with coloured Kngravings.
$7 The report may bar had separate, price 2s.
Reccutly putliNhed, by the same Author, price 16s.
A Practical Inviry into the Causes of the frequent Failure
of the Operations of Depression and of the Extractirn of the
Cataract, as usually performed, with the description of a Series
of new and improved Operations, by the practice of which
most of these causes of failt:re maybe avoided. Illustrated by
Tables of the comparative success of the new and old modes of
practice.

THE WATERING PLACES FOR 1819.
With Fifty Maps and Views.
This day was published, price 16s. in boards, or 175. in red. in
One thick and closely-printed Volume,
rpriE GUIDE to ALL the WATERING ar.d
1 SEA-BATHING PLACES in Erigbmd and Wales, for
1819; consisting of Ac:r•-ata and circumstantial Desesiptioes of
every Noce of fashionable :tesort, and of the Curiosities and
Scenery in their Environs, with an Itinerary of the Roads to
and from each place.
By the EDITOR of the PICTURE of LONDON.
The following Place and their Livirons are fully described in
this ute_ful and highly intcrestirg Volume :
Abbotshury Dawlish Ramsgate
Aberystwith Dever Recker and Costharr.
Appledom East Boerne Rottingdean
Bath , Remmith Sandgate
Blackpool Folkstone Saarboret.gh
linnor Yow2y Sidmouth
Bridlington Quay / larrowlate Southend
Brighton Ilarwl:at Southampton
Minot Ilastitle Swansea
liroadstairs Ilfracombe Telgnmouth
litirton Leamington Priors Tenby
Otarmouth Little Ilam2ton ''flinbridgeWells
Cheltenham Lyme Regis Weymouth
Chicl-tsta Lymington Wight (Isle of)
CP t :".1 Malvern Hills Worthing
Cowel Margate Yarmouth
Cromer Alati.rak
Printed for Longman. Must, Rees, Ormond Brown, Laotian,
and sold by Ws Booksellers.
Of whom may be had,
The Picture of London for 1811, with two large Naps and
120 Views of loildinp end Public theta, eke ge. in Green;
or, without the Views, price lis in Red.

COURT OF KlN6'g BENCH, TUNE 14.
moßßis, ESQ. V. HUNT.
This, it will be recollected, was an action against
the defendant, as one of the Candidates to represent
the City of Westminster in Parliament, at the last
General Election, to recover his third share or con-
tribution for the expense of erecting Hustings in Co-
vent-garden, paying Poll Clerks, &c. incurred by the
plaintiff as High Bailiff. At the Sittings in West-
minster after the last Term, a verdict was found for
the plaintiff.
Mr. Hoer, in person, now applied to the Court
with an alternative object—lst, for a nonsuit ; and
2d, for a new trial. As to the first he grounded his
motion upon four several objections—first, that the
Act of Parliament upon which the plaintiff sued was
a private one, inasmuch as it did not contain a clause
to rake it public, and consequently that an office
copy of it ougftt to have been produced and proved ;
second, that there was no proof that the plaintiff had
taken the usual oath against bribery and corruption ;
third, that the original writ to the Sheriff ought to
have been produced, authorizing the plaintiff to hold
the election, instead of the precept of the former to
the latter; and fourth, that the poll-book ought to
have been produced, in order to shew that the defen-
dant was a candidate at the election, and that a poll
had been demanded. As to the ground for the new
trial, the defendant submitted two objections to the
Learned Judge's direction to the Jury first, that,as
it appeared that Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir Murray
Maxwell had paid their respective shares of the plain-
tiff's aggregate claim of 0'23, a certain portion of
which was acknowledged to be irrecoverable at laW,
the surplus payment ought to go in reduction of the
defendant's liability, thereby reducing the claim
against the defendant to £199, instead of the sum re-
covered ; and second, that there were items in the
plaintiff's account for which the defendant nas not
liable ; viz. the charges for guarding the hustings
during each night of the election, beer for the carpen-
ters, and a sum of 10s. charged for cleaning the por-
tico of St. Paul's Church after the election. After
hearing the defendant at considerable length upon
all these objections,
The COURT were unanimously of opinion that there
was no ground made out, either for entering a non-
suit or granting a new trial. As to the first objec-
tion, in favour of a nonsuit, it was clear that the Act
of Parliament upon which the plaintiff was sued was
clearly a public Act, inasmuch as it related to a
branch of the legislature, which alone would make it
public if it did not (as was the fact), contain words
which would give it such an operation. As to the
second objection, as it had not been taken at the trial
it could not now avail the defendant, even though it
was maintainable upon principle, which their Lord-
ships were not prepared to say ; because the law
would presume that the plaintiff, as a public officer.
had taken the oaths required by law, which, if he did
not, he would be criminally answerable, and the
Court, in the absence of proof, were riot to presume
crime. As to the third objection, it had been held, in
a case in Sir James Burrows Reports, that the She-
riff's precept was quite sufficient, without the origi-
nal writ to the latter, to authorize a subordinate
officer to act ; and for which, in principle, there were
other equally cogent authorities. And as to the
fourth objection, the fact of the defendant having',
himself given to the plaintiff a written acknowledg-
ment that he was a candidate, was a sufficient cir-
cumstance
cumstance to dispense with the necessity of 'produc-
ing the poll-book. A different turn had now been
given to this objection, of which the defendant could
not avail himself. He had contended that the poll-
book should have been produced, to shew that a poll
had been demanded. This objection should have
been taken at the trial ; and even supposing it to
have been of any weight (which it was not), it could
not now be taken. Then as to the objections taken
in support of the motion for a new trial, the direction
of the Chief-Justice was perfectly correct. The pay-
ments made by Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir Murray
Maxwell to the plaintiff were rer inter alios ; and
however they might call upon the plaintiff to refund
what they might he supposed to have overpaid, the
surplus payment could not go in reduction of the de-
mand against the defendant. As to the items in the
plaintiff's demand objected to, the first two seemed
to be very reasonable, being incidental to the expense
of the hustings ; and as to the charge of los. for
cleansing the portico of the Church, a third of which
would be 3s. 4d. that would not be a ground for
granting a new trial, for even supposing it to he an
unlawful charge, it fell within the maxim of law
debitns non jurat ler. Their Lordshipsrefused the rule.
VIE KING V. CARLISLE.
This defendant, against whom there are several in-
dictments and informations for publishing alleged
blasphemous and libellous publications, pending, ap-
peared in Court for the purpose of founding a mo-
tion relative thereto, on an affidavit with only one
stamp, but
The COURT, observing that the affidavit related
not to one, but to several cases, said that there must
be as many stamps as cases to which the affidavit re-
lated, and therefore refused to hear the application ;
but said, that he might renew his motion to-morrow,
upon affidavits free from this objection.
IN THE MATTER OF PEARSON.
Mr. GURNEY last Term moved for a rule to shew
cause why Mr. Pearson, an Attorney, should not an-
swer the matter of an affidavit, charging him with
making affidavits of two fictitious persons (Jones and
Edwards) charging the Attornies in the prosecutioa
against Woolf, Levy, and others, for conspiracy, with
speaking to the Jurors during the trial, with a view
to stop the due course of justice.
Mr. SCARLETT opposed the rule, and produced the
affidavit of Mr. Pearson, who deposed that he had no
reason whatever to suspect that the persons who up-
.died to him and made the said affidavits, wcrc not
'respectable,The rule was discharged.

The Order upon which their Lordships were sum-
moned being read, the question for going into a Com-
mittee on the above Bill was pmt.
Lord KENYON rose, and addressed their Lord.
ships upon the subject. lie observed, that moral
considerations, combining with the principles and
feelings of humanity, solely induced him to come for-
ward and press their Lordships to give their sanction
to the measure now before them. Were the present
merely a question of speculative humanity, or grow-
ing out of feelings of morbid sensibility, he should be
one of the last to come forward. But the measure
in question clearly involved considerations of obvious,
of practical humanity. Notwithstanding it was a
general principle of the common law, that the young
and helpless, as well as other classes of the commu-
nity, should be duly protested, yet it was found, that
in the particular case in question the common law
could not extend an effectual protection to those ill.
fated young persons whom it was the princial object
of the Bill to protect and relieve. The proposed
measure had received much public inquiry and dis.
cussion, and he could say, that almost all the resident
Clergy, and the ftr greater number of the resident
Magistrates, in the various quarters where the urea.
sure would most extensively operate, were decidedly
in favour of the Bills passing, as was manifest from
their numcroos Petitions ; and of the necessity of
some express Legislative regulation. On the subject
he thought, from a full and fair consideration of the
evidence, there could be no rational doubt. The opi.
nions of numerous medical persons, who were con-
sulted or examined upon the subject, were also in fa-
vour of the measure. The Noble Lord then entered
upon some detailedZitonsideration of the evidence,
from many parts of which he inferred and argued,
that the extensive degree of labour imposed upon the
young persons employed in the Cotton Manufacto-
ries, and the great degree of heat which generally
prevailed in the atmospheres of those, were highly
prejudicial to their healths. He descanted, with
much feeling and effect, on the sjtuations of those

unhappy young rrsons in other respects, as connec-
ted mith the employment in Cotton Manufactories,
and contended that, upon the whole, their case was
one that called for a special Legislative protection ;
and he adverted to the consideration that in many
parishes the allowances would not be made to those
families who sent their children to work in Cotton
Manufactories. His Lordship concluded by moving-..
That the House do now resolve itatlf into a Com-
mittee on the
The Earl of nossuN contended, that accord-

ing to the principles established by tile best writers
on political economy, legislative intesference in such
cases was neither wise nor politic. The patents of
the children were naturally and evidintly the best
_
guardians of thebealthand corn
—and it was a fixed principle, that
be interfered with as little. as possib:
of proof lay with those who mair
position. kle expressed hil d.
btepq taken out of doors, and the
ings which appeared, with a view
fiurnice their discussion upon thi'
The Noble Earl also entered L
tensiye view and examination of
in cvidence.before their Lordsh'
re.Atit cif which, he argued,

i'l
1
1;
1
, •
;. •
•
/I 1(
, '

forts of their offspring •I
that free labour should I '
possible. The weight
aintained the contrary -
lisapprohation of the
!te various public writ.
iew to prejudice or in.
lis important question.
upon a still more ex.
what had appeared -
lips, the tendettediezi
wee totally if

~

froekthe
'frheswarks in which the children were em-
ployed were not injurious to their healths. Nor was
the beat of the atmosphere in those manufactories at
all prejudicial to them. This result appeared from
the evidence of the most enlightened professional
men, who were examined upon the subject, or who
had given in reporti upon oath. In illustration of
these positions, his Lordship went largely into a re-
view of the evidence. It was evident from what ap-
peared, that the children employed in those manu-
factories lived to a greater age than others, and he
must think it was preferable to employ them in such
works, to turning them out to starve. Neither did
such work obstruct their growth. The Militia of
Lancashire were in general stouter and taller men
than those of other counties where no such manufac-
tories existed. In many other trades children were
as insalubriously employed. Why should all these
be overlooked, and on.: branch alone attended to ?
Let not a particular or limited enactment be brought
forward, but let a general comprehensive measure be
introduced, extending its beneficial regulations to
every branch of manufacture known to require it.—
In-the present case he thought no very serious evils
existed. The Bill, if passed, would at best be nuga-
tory, but more probably pernicious. He should
therefore move, that the Bill be committed for that
day three months."
The question being called for, a division took place,
when there appeared—For going into a Committee,
27-,-Against it, 6—Majority 21.
On the re-admission of strangers, their Lordships
were in a Committee on the Bill ; when a few
Amendments were proposed and agreed to, and the
Report ordered to be received on Wednesday.—Ad-
journed till To-morrow.

-r
:;
a.
r,
,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
At a quarter past three o'clock the House were summoned to
the Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to
several Bills (for which see the Lords).
Mr. Attxtrr, from the Court of Exchequer, presented an
Account of the Emolument of the Remembrancer of the Ex-
chequer.—Laid on the table.
The Report of the Woollen Cloth Stamping Bill was received.
Sir W. LEMAN presented a Petition from Falmouth against
the Foreign Enlistment Mi.—Laid on the table'.
A Petition was presented from Grantham, against the Duty
on llalt.—Laid ou the table.
A Petition was presented from the Burgesses of Perth against
the Foreign Enlistment MlL—Laid on the tables
Lord W. BENTINCK presented a Petition from Notting-
ham, praying that the stock in hand might not be affected by
the new duty npn Malt.—Laid on the table.
Mr. HUTCHINSON presented a Petition from certain In-
dividuals of the City of Cork, against the Cork Harbour Bill.—

Laid on the table. -
SirJ. JACKSON, in presenting the Report of the Committee
appointed to consider whether the Plague was an infectious dis-
order, stated, that be differed from the opinion of the Commit-
tee, which was expressed in the affirmative. lie quoted the
opinions of Dr. Macleod and Dr. Mitchell, in support of his
own. Dr. Macleod considered that even if a large premium
were offered, the Plague could not be imported into England—
("l It would expire a natural death. It bad been
proved in seidence,:that the Turks constantly bought the clothes
of persons dying of the plague, and wore them immediately,
without being in the least affected. He wished also to impress
upon the House the fact, that for upwards of 100 years no La-
zaretto had been seized with the plague, notwithstanding the
number of ships which performed quarantine with that disorder
on board. The regulations of those places were very inconve-
nient, for when a ship had been kept several days, if another
arrived from the Levant. the former lost the advantage of its
priority, and was obliged to remain until the quarantine of the
latter bail been accomplished. He hojsed some alteration might
be adopted to remove that inconvenience. .
Mr. MORRITT adduced many instances to prove that the
Plague was contagious, and he wished the House would hear in
mind that the Report had met with the unanimous concurrence
of all the Members of the Committee, with the exception of its
Chairman.
Sir ISAAC COFFIN objected to making any alteration in
the Quarantine Laws, whether the Plague was contagious or
not, as they had proved most beneficial.
After a few words from Sir J. JACXSON, the Report way laid
on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. DICKENSON then presented a Petition from the town.
of Shepton Mallet, praying that some steps be taken for the
more effectual Recovery of Small Debts.—Laid on the table.
Mr. CURWEN moved the recommitment of the Wrexham
Inclosure Bill.
After a short discussion, in which Mr. WYNN, Mr. Alderman
Voisin, Colonel Wotan, and Mr. Waorrasaav participated,
the motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. HUTCHINSON presented several Petitions from the
Registrar and other Officers of the High Court of Chancery in
Ireland, praying for remuneration in the event of the Bill for
regulating the Fees of that Court being passed into a Law.—Or-
deeed to lie on the table.
Mr. GOOCH presented a Petition from the Farmers and
Dealers attending Ipswich Corn Market, praying that no addi-
tional Duty might be bid on Mak—Ordered to lie on the table.
Lord MILTON presented a Petition from the Protestant
Dissentersof Dewsbury, praying for an Alteration of the Mar-
riage Act.—Ordeted to lie on the table.
ItIITION aC4&NMT TUC Tax OW WOOL.
Mr. DICKENSON presented a Petition from Froome, in
the County of Somerset, against the new Duty on Wool.
On the motion that the Petition be brought up,
The SPEAKER observed, that he believed the Bill for im-
posing the Duty against which the Petitioners played wa; in the
I louse, and consequently that it wculd be a violation of the rules
of the House to receive any Petition against it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER also thought,
that to receive the Petition in the present stage of the 11111,
would be to infringe the privileges of the I louse.
Lord MILTON observed, that the question was, whether
the Bill alluded to, and the other Bills of the same description,
were for the supplies of the year ? lde thought they were not
so. They were not to furnish the supplies of the year, but to
support a Sinking Fund for the reduction of the National Debt.
Now it appeared to him, that not being tilts for fbrnishing the
Supplies of the year, the House ought not to claw its doors
against Petitions which might be presented against them. This
was a Parliamentary distinction, which, he believed, had been
recognised more than once.
The SPEAKER observed, that he believed all Resolutions
agreed to in a Committee of Ways and Means were, without
distinction, considered to be fur the supplies of the year. He
was not aware of the practicability of making any distinction
on the subject.
Lord MILTON, in explanation, stated, that it was in the
knowledge of the House of Commons, that the Bills in question
were founded on Resolutions originally agreed to in a Corn-,,
mittee of the whole House, but not in the Committee of Ways
and Means ; and that it was specifically stated In those Reso-
lutions, that it was expedient to make an addition to the Sink-
ing Fund.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said, that be had two Petitions on the
subject, both representing the ruinous effects of the proposed
Tax. As It seemed not to be the disposition of the House to
receive these Petitions,be gave notice, that when the Consoli-
dation Bill went into the Committee, he would take the sense
of the House on that proposition which respected the proposed
increase in the Ditty on Foreign Wool.
Lord LASCELLES, in consequence, asked the Right Ho-
nourable Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he meant to pro-
pose that the Consolilliwion Bill ahould be committed ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, on
Monday.
Lord LASCELLES declared, thatshould c i
ertanly join
In opposition to a measure, which di/unte he shsted to be of he most
injutioup nature, imposing, as it did, a duty on the raw mate-,
rial otamanufactont, which, although be should at all times ob-
ject 0116 being taxed, was, at the present moment, peculiarly
ineapileid of swinining any increased ptessure. •
Ah.CALCRAFT amended that the proposed Duty formed

service o.
toped the Petitions would be recei44, or that his No..
would take the sense of the HoSse on the subject.
Mr. ROBINSON maintained that the oew Duties stood ex-
actly on the same ground as former ones, part of which was ap-
plied to the Sinking Fund.
Mr. LUSHINGTON followed on the same side, after which,
Mr. DICKENSON consented to wiihdraw the Petition.
FOREIGN WOOL.
Lord MILTON held two Petitions, one from Wake-
field and the other from Dewsbury, against the addi-,
tional duty um,. Wool. Objections had been started
against the receipt of such petitions ; but he con-
ceived that there were precedents to prove their ad-
missibility, even after a Tax Bill had proceeded far-
ther than the present. He found on the Journals of
the House, that in the year 1733, when the famous
question of the Excise had come before Parliament,
a Petition from the City of London had been pre-
sented on the 10th of April by the Sheriff, although
the Bill imposing the new duties had been read for
the first time in the House. The Petitioners prayed
to be heard by Counsel at the Bar on the second
reading of the Bill. A motion was made that the
Petition should lie on the table. On this a debate
arose, and the result was, that the Petition was or-
dered to lie on the table, but that the Petitioners
should not be heard by Counsel on the second read-
ing, the latter part having been put to the vote, and
lost by a majority of 214 to 197. It was impossible
to find a case more in point than the present. The
Bill was in the House, and the limit for receiving
Petitions seemed to have been extended and fixed to
the second reading of such measure. He quoted
several precedents to shew that the Petitions might
at least be read to the House, even if they were not
received. He then presented the first Petition, which
was from the traders and manufacturers of Wake-
field, against the duty upon Foreign Wool, and
stated that the Merchants who expected large quan-
tities of coarse Wool from Russia, had, in consequence
of the proposed duty, written to their correspondents
to have it landed at Antwerp instead of this country.
Mr. HUSKISSON contended that the case men-
tioned by the Noble Lord did not apply to the pre-
sent question, as the Bill against which the Petition
had been received was one tending to introduce new
regulations into the Excise, and not to raise an ad-
ditional revenue. He thought that unless the House
felt disposed to open a new and a very inconvenient
course, the present l'etition could not be received.
Mr. P.MOORE maintained that thecountry had had
no opportunity to consider the merits of the tax now
proposed. The House itself was scarcely acquainted
with the subject. If Petitions against taxes were not
to be received, then let taxes be proposed at an early
part of the Session, when there would be abundant
time for their consideration..
Mr. BROUGHAM contended, that the Petition
mentioned by his Noble Friend, was almost the same
as the present. It had been received in consequence
of a strict examination of the Journals of the House,
which had afforded numerous precedents for the
course which had been adopted.
Lord CASTLEREAGH wished the House to
abide by the general rule which had hitherto been
observed. It Petitions were brought up, read, and
then rejected, that mode would certainly be both
unfair and inconvenient, because it would then ap-
pear that it was their prayer which was objected to.
NVhen it was known, on the contrary, that Petitions
could not be received against a Tax Bill when once
brought in, their rejection could not be productive
of disappointment to the country. He did not mean,
however, to say that Honourable Members might not
make motions and state the substance of Petitions to
the House, although they could not be received.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY read a note from Mr.
Ilatsall's book, which stated that the Petition to
which the Honourabie and Learned Gentleman (Mr.
Brougham) had alluded, had only been received be-
cau.:e it had been presented by the Sheriff of the city
of London, and not by a Member, and out of respect
to that City.
After a few words from Mr. BROUGHAM, the mo-
tion was negatived without a division.
TIMES NEWSPAPER.
Mr. CANNING rose and spoke to the following,
effect: " Before the House proceed to the other bu-
siness of the day, it is my painful duty, on this occa-
sion, to bring before this House the consideration of
an affair in which the privil2ges of the house are
involved, and in which, in more respects than one,
I feel myself personally concerned. There is no man .
in the House more deeply sensible than I am of the
expediency and propriety of providing, whether byi
some established and authorized mode, if that should
be deemed the proper course, or by connivance, as
is the case at present—that all that passes within this
and the other House of Parliament, should be com-
municated to our constituents and to the country at
large; and if I am of opinion, that the footing on
which that communication now stands is perhaps
preferable, on the whole, to art distinct acknowledg-
ment of its existence, it is because that footing of
indulgence affords greater facilities than any other
for animadverting on any occurrence like that to
which I am now about to call the attention of the
House. During the twenty-five years that I have
had the honour to have a seat in Parliament, it has
but once fallen to my lot to have to bring forward
any complaint of this nature, and that once was only
a short time ago—l think it was last Session—and it
was with respect to the same Newspaper, of the
conduct of which I now complain. On that occa-
sion, there was a most gross misrepresentation of a
transaction in the House, in which you, Sir, as well
as myself, were concerned. But when I called the
attention of the House to that transaction—and I
must say, that I did so as much with reference to
the character or interests of others as with reference
to myself-1 merely stated the case, and expressed'
my hope, that the misrepresentation might }ravel
been accidental; and you, Sir, will perhaps recol-
lect my having declined prneeding any further than,
merely putting the House in possession of the case,
and hoping that the notice then taken of it would,
operate as an admonition for the future. I am
sorry, however, to say, that that admonition had not
operated in the way in which it ought ; for it was
impossible that even the most candid mind could see
any thing like accident or mistake in the misrepresen-
tation to which lam now to advert. I am sorry to
say the misrepresentation is not only of so gross, but
also of so malignant a nature, as to leave no doubt
on uiy mind of its being in every way worthy of the

lover on such an occasion.
'rich is new even in tie ann.
ty easily occur in which th
.n Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume, the Member . .an extremity to which I sin
for the Burgh of Aberdeen), with reference to the (Hear, hear.) To prevent that eytremity
debate of a former night, made some observations ring to any other Member, I now lay -
on something that had fallen from me in the course the table of the House. I do it conscie,
of ,that debate, which, being absent, I had not an it in discharge of the duty I owe to th
'Opportunity of hearing. I came into the House be- not on account of any thing personal t
fore the Honourable Member sat down. Some of 'myself, lam satisfied. Having now (
the Members who now hear me may recollect the tention of the House to this subject—it
state cf the House that evening in point of numbers. of the Housecollectively, for the sake
From the thin attendance of Members, and not think- of its deliberations, for the sake of tl
jng there was any thing in what had fallen from the that communication of what takes plac,
Honourable Gentleman with respect to me, which to our Constituents—that I wish them
made it particularly necessary for me to notice it, offence under their consideration (Heal
and from my not having heard the former part of ing done so, I should now sit down, bi
his speech, I did not deem it advisable for me to pro- duty to state previously to the House,
long the discussion. The House will judge what ber of the same Newspaper of to-day I
must have been my surprise to find in The Times graph. which is intended for some apol
Newspaper of next day the following sentence, in sume, for the offence. The paragraph
which the Honourable Gentleman is made to say— and then I shall take the liberty of st
" Ministers might laugh, but let them look at the nion on it. The paragraph is as folio,
roefgret tollsotautex:stshat adhconski on rbleter
other side of the picture ;let them survey the misery
the Committee on the Finance'
Resolt:triot:lngis eli!
of the poor laborious industrious wretches at Car- Ac'c'oNtlV:t
lisle, or even of the unhappy beings they meet in In the great MISS of matter which man every
our streets, and he believed there would be found for the Press, after the Debates in the two
and whenever we fail of woo;
but one man among them who would still keep a . or while they are going on, it is im?osstble !h.
not sometimes
desire occur.t. forthforthcuria justrmasiVidraiL the
smile on his countenance, and that would be a smile
anxious •
of self-congratulation from a Right Honourable Gen-
of what passes
tleman (here my name is inserted by the Editor), that , the pains Wt. aim that we should hardly have
by habitually turning into ridicule the sufferings of fence upon the plea of ineuriafudil, our Wm
theuirmper
ofLcrtioHnuof our;
irpo e winch muchfeelin nature,
nalhis fellow-creatures, he had been able to place him-
the distresses of theur
Poor, and observing (argy
self so far above their unhappy condition--(continued
cheers)"—(Hear, hear, hear.)—Now, Sir, I think I our Reporter) a smile upon dm Ministerial ii
seated by us as taxing only one Right I itlflo4
may confidently say, if there be one man in the
(Mr. CA NNING) with indulging in laughter on su
House who has heard this sentence read, and will '
• present. We shall not now repeat the offensiv That Right Hon. Gentleman, we have since
get up and lay his hand on his heart, and say upon i
his honour he believes that sentence, if not spoken, sake of correcting it; suffice it to say, that
the most authentic source, to lay before our It
could have been accidentally inserted, then I will nut attacked as described in our Report. We
give up the busin&s, Aid not say one syllable fut-
which was so misunderstood by our Reporter.
ther on the subject. No Gentleman can, I conceive, „ Now, if the case complaiued of
have any other than that which is the impression on omission, or of accident4l misrepre
my mind. And there is no Gentleman who now might be some ground for this excuse
gof
hears me, who will not, I hope, agree with me that •
am •
ree ma, I will ask, could lead
I had but one course to adopt—to apply to the Ho-
—could lead to the belief, that the irn
nourable Gentleman himself, which I did, I hope in the original paragraph was calculi'
terms of civility, to know whether he bad made use namely, that I was present while tl
of the language attributed to him in the Newspaper Gentleman was speaking, and joint;
in question. From that Honourable Gentleman, as the sufferings of the poor, was ce.rii
soon as accidental circumstances admitted of it—as That in a long, and, as the House mut
soon as his absence from home and his engagement not hastily composed sentence—a sent
in an Election Committee would allow him, I re-
ing any marks of incrria about it, in
ceived such an answer as satisfied me he could not nourable Gentleman is made to direcit
possibly have made use cf the language attributed preach almost beyond bearing, and
to him, though he stated, that not having seen the with a 53711..1 9e $ lcl :ering On my mouth.,
Newspaper, he could not state bow far it contained, the descrip ;on of sufferings, such a:
or did not contain, an accurate report of what he could hardly bear—that this was the
said. With the Newspaper he was accordingly fur- sion or was' an accidental mistake, I
niched, and the Honourable Gentleman returned it who hears me, there is no man in
by a Noble Ft tend of mine, who was the medium of possibly believe. That it may be lai
communicatioa between the Honourable Gentleman fection of our common nature I am
and myself, with the most satisfactory, the most lieve ; for unfortunately of our comma
gentlemanly, and most honourable explanation. Af- hood is one imperfection, and maligns
ter receiving that explanation on Saturday last, I did (Hear, hear.) This paragraph, more th.
give that Honourable Gentleman an assurance, that in my -
opinion, calls for the interposition
satisfied as I was with that explanation, I deemed For what does it say? Why this—th,
it absolutely necessary for me to bring his Breach complaining, we ought to be thankft
of Privilege before the House this day. I said, are not worse than they are—instead •
that, as far as I was myself concerned, I saw no us for our accidental errors, you ou,
necessity for any farther satisfaction of any kind, thankfulness for our general fidelil
nor could I expect any; that that which might be which we are disposed to wonder
considered injurious to my character, if it came from ought to be thankful that we take u
any respectable source, being disavowed by that re- responsibility which is so very burthcaso:
spectable source— coming from a source which must (Hear, hear;)—lf we allow ourselves '
be below contempt—(Hear, hear!)—required no fur- in this manner, we can henceforward
ther notice from me on my own account; but that I to complain, if, collectively and ii
had a duty to discharge to ethers, which rendered it are held forth to the detestation of
necessary for me to bring the subject forward. There (Hear, hear.)—But when did this p:
must be persons in this House less hardened, from its appearance? This little failure of
situation and from inexperience, to attacks of this takes place on Wednesday, and th
nature than myself—men who would rather bear the comes 'forth on the Monday folio•
attack in silence, than expose themselves to the per- Honourable Gentleman, who was as
secution of continued attacks from the quarter from rect the misrepresentation as if he him
whence the former came. On their behalf, I feel it party to it, which he was not, had
my duty to bring this libel before the House—a libel for that purpose. In the mean time,
the most atrocious, that, instead of coming forth un- day Newspaper in this Metropolis, and
der the authority of the wretch, be he who he may, paper throughout the country, I am '
who was the author of it, he attempted to put for- manner described in this report. Ins.
ward an honourable man to give the greater counte- of thinking this paragraph any apiali
seance to his slanders— (Hear, hear, hear!) I ask, if an aggravation of the offence ; and I t
0
this practice is to remain unchecked, what will be the the
House will on this occasion exec,
consequence? It will put if in the power of any man which I hope they do not consider •
who overhears our debates making an abuse of the ti by a course of long indulgence,
most conspicuous and honourable names, to put into thoughea we have allowed an indulger.
the mouth of any man any slander he pleases. The casionally abused, though we may
Courts of Law are in such a case good for absolutely to wave the exercise of our privileges,
nothing. If I had gone to the Court of King's Bench, them for the proper discharge of the
for instance, I might, perhaps, have convicted the to ourselves and to the country—(
Editor of having published a libel; but I could not, If it is truiy, but of the Commons of Er
e that these are not the pi
by convicting him, have the satisfaction of fixing the House only,
blame on the right quarter ; for I could not have the hear,)—lf we possess these privileges,
satisfaction of proving that the words in question had of our own distinction but for tie .
not been said by the Honourable Member to whom great functions committed to us—an..
they are imputed—and I might perhaps run the not more necessary as a defence against theencrtiath.
risk of convicting an innocent man for ati ue report, ments of the Crown on the one hand, than against
as a Court of Law does not possess the means of the licentiousness of the people on the other, then it is
proving that the report is incorrect. I might have proper that these privileges should protect us from
the satisfaction of punishing the Editor, but I could abuses like that now brought before the House.—
not have the satisfaction of proving that the News-
paper was in fault, and not the Honourable Gentle- (Hear, hear, hear.)—l have now discharged my duty
man. I think I have shewn that any man who is —I now give in the paper, and that which is inten•
slandered in this manner must either acquiesce and ded as an extenuation of the offence. But in a case
remain silent under it, or have recourse to the other in which I am personally concerned, I do not con.
alternative of a personal appeal. Ile has no other ceive myself at liberty to suggest to the House any
alternative. It is in the row cr of the meanest scribe course of proceeding. This business may be disposed
the press to traduce in the of without any reference to the individual concerned
bier that ever disgraced
grossest manner the most honourable men.—l ask, if who, in the due discharge of the functions belongirs,
it is. fit that this should continue unchecked? But the to a Member of the House, has brought the offencc
matter might not rest there. A person in the same forward. Before I sit down I must add, that 1 h,,‘•
difficult situation might not have the advantage of taken a considerable degree of pains in ineau inE
:r
having so honourable a Gentleman to appeal to as I what was actually said by the Honourable lientl•
man, and there is not one Member, who was then
had. I might, perhaps, have had to appeal to a per-
son not deficient in honourable feelings, but in a mo- the house, who has the least recollection of any thing
meet of carelessness, or from an idea of impoliteness being said in the least like the passage complained
of."—The Right Hon. Gentleman then sat down, and
in the manner in which he was called on, or from the
the passage complained of and the paragraph in The
way in which I know many Members are in the habit
Times of Monday were successively read by the Clerk
of dismissing their speeches from memory after they
have delivered them, he might
to him in the Report which the Right Hon. Gentle-
have said that he did for him to deny having used the language attributed
not consider himself responsible for Newspaper Re- Mr. HUNIE said, that it was almost unnecessary
ports, and did not consider it necessary to enter into
man had brought under the consideration of the
any explanation as to what he said. If I had applied
to some Members who happened to hear the speech,
House. Whatever sentiments he entertained on th,
subject of discussion in the House, he should mere:
every man must have known the motives from which '
agood
deal
mere:iaie been guilty of that kind 'of personality, whic:i
I asked him, and it would have required
would
really take from the force of any observation
of nerve in any man to induce him to
give me a sae (Hear, hear.) The Right Bon. Cepa:man llii'i it

- .
•
.. A DA. 4.: 4, otos. porimo+ • .•~ +»a►F^»;: „ • 1.14.04e/.l°' 4.1.11/gl, 'IP -Vatik7o6,ooBlllm+ • -waissosidAsF.,,---- -vwwwrigni. - ..w.....,- Iptorriti,yogior ;topic imp . •
•
4 • '
"•. . ,
A '.. •
I,a I •
.1 •
S.
40 ,
t ~. . ' -
, . - - .
. tl. 'art of the Supplies of the year. They were not mentioned notice of the House. I happened to be absent, as bsfactory answ
•' t ` • frookthe inferences drawn by the Noble Mover of the in the Annual vote, but were intended for t►e Sinking. Fund. sometimes will happen, during the fiat two or three of slander whit
and evidently therefore not for she service of the year. He
• BIM 'The`~►orks in which the children were em- 'hoped the Petitions would be receiied, or mat his Noble Friend hours of the debate on Tuesday last. In that debate and a case ma:
• . . .• • ,_. 10-... .....• -IA ...1... .1.. ........r .k. linose en the subiect. an Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume, the Member ternative but a
_ _ .. . . • I _t-----..... •6n 1 Nome hone. %

•
' ,
' ••
•
1111
, s
I
•
I I, '‘
•
I

r t
1:;.
i t
1, •
; •

.
This r. a -.or
nals of licer.*
there is no 4. rl
',hall not aFr id,
ity from occur- to
this Paper ,)! it
.!,:tjously—l dr, r,
he House, ar,,
tommyself,..
•
called the a:
t is for the sak.
of the digni:
the secuntl r:!
.ce in the Hoes, 1
n to take this
Tr, hear.) H.Lv.
)ut I feel it rn..
that in a Nutt..
there is a pa..-3.
rlogy, as I ;It,
h I shall !.c...;
stating my
rror crept into t:
t up the ilepn:
Tu. ~.ruy
;,e it.c
I
!sat it is
rtiJl
:cess, such are ,•
re to so!icir .
are mutt :
ignoutta perm:
g and
Wild Cttldtig r ;
Benches, is r•
ourable Gent:
so .erious a schjer. .
'e learned, oast
live passage, far :t
e are trubled,
Readers the pasiT
were a case e
esentation. bet
ie ; but what de.
d to the n-,istal..
mpression winno
Dated to make,
the Honounthie
ed in a laugh a.
ing to incaria?
ISi be convinced,
ntence not bear-
which the He-
agaimt mere-
says, drat I sa:
s and sat soar
is human native
effect of orris-
there is no m.e
the country can
tid to the imper-
a willing to be-
tor. nature. false-
nity is a..o.her—
than the offence,
/oft of the Ileum.
—thin ir.stead at
tfut that matter
I of reproaEline,
Dugan to to Wt
ity—a fidelity at
ourselves; you
upon ourselves
rensome to us—
es to- be treated
d have no masts.
individually, s.l:
f the country—
paragraph mak,..-
of human nature
this ex la naticz
owing—after the
is anxious to cor-
mself had been a
exerted himseli
e, in every Sun-
rd in every News
r held forth in the
;stead, therefore,
Mlogy, I think
I trust, therefore,
ercise the power
they have
Igence, but
gence to be cc-
Ly often cozen',
es, we shall reran
he duty we ore
( Hear, hear.)—
privileges of this
England.—(Hear,
I, not for the sake
discharge of the
and that they are
inst the encroach-
and, than against.
it other, then it
protect
therote ctusfrom
Ire House.—
cha:zed my dory
at whirl, is intea:-