Star.
London, England, 1817-05-03 00:00:00

the passages which were tire subject of complAint.
Clerk accordingly (after repeating the Title
efthe Work) read as follows:
" Howe into the consitnelon of these Committees of
the Howe et and the mode of their. proceedings, and
I bay, so &At otben will be surprised as wetl as myself at the
deecrigition.- My impression was. that a Casualties Is composed
of a number of Members who personally attend, that tile ed.
dente of every witness, and the whole entire evidence of each
witness, eke entered 'in the Miuutes,fikratio d verktias, and
printed for the use of be Hoene.
" My information, however.hae taught me that my impression
is most erroneous, and that this was not the mode at least put.-
toed in the rumination of witnesses, upon the charges against
the Magistrates of the Tower Dividon. During the examination
of several of the witnesses, the Chairman only was present; Mr.
Calvert is the only Member I could learn who did assist him oc-
casionally, particularly when the House of Hanbury was in
question. 'Mit Honourable Member very much wished Mr.
Fox, of Shady's% to give his evidence, but the private esplaus-
tion of that Gentleman induced him not to imist•upon it.
" A eon-iderable part of the evidence given in was not entered
ma the Minutes, and a very material part that was offered was not'
accepted. I have out the unaliew knowledge of the Chairman,
other than by his occasional *percher as an Opposition Menthe e,
by the same of Captain Bennet, from which I inter that he has not
dedicated much of his time to the profession of the law, and di-
rected his studies to the nature of legal evidence.
. _

' " It is pretty well lutowo, my loy.lty to my King and attach.
meat to the Constitution. sad I had mimosa said enthusiastic ad.
sirs ion of its forms. I have contributed my part in the woe.'
of times to its safety. I hope, therefore, that my observations
will not be tortured into any Intentional disrespect to the Cont.
mitres. I acknowledge its authority, and how to its decisions.
But when I make this declaration, it does not fidlow that I am
bound against my conscience to adolit either candour or impar.
*thy. in the proceeding% swam tie body of Magistrates are
to be tried, I should not prefer Mr. Beatintoot bringing his cliarzes
before my Lard Ellenborougb, rather than before a Committee sf
the House of Comnions, with even Caraln Bennet in the Chair.
I am notpirtial to the Committees in the time of Cromwell, nor
to the Committees in France iu the time of floe Revolution. Ido
not wish to be tried by Committees. I protest against a trial.by
Committees, Inquisitions, or Star Chambers." •
Mr. 43ENNE1' proceeded so state, that when Mr.
Thirlwall appeared' before the Cosamittee, some ex•
planaiton was required from him of the passages
which had been read by the Clerk. He would pass
corer that part of the .explanation which related to
himself personally, and coiifine himself to that which
regarded the last paragraph which had been read by
the Clerk, beginning with is It is pretty well known
my loyalty to my King and attachment to the Con-1
stitution," and ending with ,4 I protest against a trial
by Committees, Inquisitions, or Star Chambers.—
The
Committee observed to Mr. Thirlwall, that this
passage contained an inuendo strongly pointed against
-them, and proceeded to ask for explanation on the
su'Sject. The Honourable Meibber proceeded to read
the interrogations and replies, which were as foilow:
Q. What grounds had you for accusing the Committee of wet
of candour and impartiality ?—I deny doing so.
Q. Do you' wish that to stand u your reply I—Yes. •
u. Huw do rou reconcile that denial with the coutpar4oo of
a trial by the Committee, and a trial before my Lord Ellenbo-
rough ?-1 merely mated:that I preferred the one to the other.
Q. Did you on, in toe passage jest read, mean to insinuate
that the Cummirtre had neither nodose nor impartiality I ob-
ject to any quedton tending to criminate myself.
Q. Hulot' stated that you preferred a trial by Jury to a trial
by a Cumm.ttee, you yid, " I am not partial to the Committees
to the thus of ..:romwell, nor to the Cum:Woes:a he Franca In the
Iliac 44 asevolu:km. Ido not wish to be tried by Commit•ees.
I prrest &Watt atrial by Committers, Inquisitions or Star Cham-
bers." What was your meaning to that ta,sage ?—1 meant that
which I Stated.

Q. Did you mean to assimilate the present Committee to rn-
qu Pr Star Chambers 3—No, co such thins. 1 had no Ur*
kat tI a kind.

Q. What then did you man ?—I meant to 53 up a period.
Q. It is likely that this subject will be brought before the
House of Cuaunou;. Do yo+ mean to stand by the answers which
you have just made?-1 dor.
fl Have you any thing le add to what you have Fused ?—...1410.

.
The Committee endeavoured, in this examination,
to induce the Reverend Gentleman to make such an
explanation and apology as might render it unneces-
sary to submit the matter to the consideration of the
House; but in vain. He must say also, that Mr.
Thirlwall's manner and Lone on vie occasion were'
the very opposite of what might li.orr twen expected.
That morning, however, he had tendered to the Com-
mittee an explanation of the obnoxious passages, and
of some of the teplies in his examination. With re•
spect to the insinuati,m, that the Committee bad nei-
ther candour nor impartiality, to the question on
which he had answered that he objected to .any ques•
tion tending to criminate himself, he now expressed his
contrition for•the passage With respect to his 'an-
swer to t.:.e question relative to the Inquisitions or
Star Chambers, that hr meant to fill up a period, he
now corrected it, by stating, that it was a rhetorical
figure of- speech, and that he had no intention of le-
dittoing a comparison between the Committee and
the Inquisition or the Star Chamber. He added,
that perceiving the publication had given offence to
the Committee, he had directed his publisher to stop
the saki of it.' Taking, however, the whole nature
and circumstances of the transaction into their consi-
deration, the Committee deemed them to be of such
importance as to require that they should be laid be.
fore the House. He wished to be entirely guided by
the Hausa with respect tu the farther proceeding
which it night be advisable to adopt on the subject,
his only anxiety being that the privileges of Parlia-
ment should not be compromised on the occasion.
'l'he first step, however, would be to require the at-
tenclanee of Mr. Thirlwall at the 'bar of the Hotise.
As the:Rev. Gentleman lived at some distance from
man, and as he bad his clerical datrao perform on
Sunday, it might, perhaps, be inconvenient for him, to
'lood on Monday, on which day he should .othltri
wise wove for his attendance.. He would thereto-id
move, " That the Reverend Thomas .Thirlwall .do
attend this House on Wednesday next."
Sir. USWA.LD MOSELEY, as a Member of the
Police Committee, corroborated in every -respect the
statement which bad just been made by the Honour-
able Chairman of that Committee. As he was net a
Member of that Committee at the time whin the 1
Reverend Gentleman published his book, he was not
open to the charge of being influenced by any perso-
nal feelings in giving it as his opinion, that the
passage in question sin, in his apprehension, a libel
on the Committees and the House, and ought not to be
passed over without due reprehension. He.mest add,
that if any thing could exceed the impropriety of the
Reverend Gentleman's evidence, on.being called be-
-1
take the Committee to explain his statements, it was
the general impropriety of his whole conduct while
before them.

Mr. LOCKHART observed, that the House
would have ample opportunities of considering whc-.
then the work, from which the Honourable Gentleman,
had read extracts, was a breach of privilege or not.
He was totally unacquainted with thc'parties in the
case; but he could nut refrain from nu,Ocing the
PeCuhasity-of tbi proceedings. in Os.

They were '3t least unntualo and indeed, he-believed,'
within': precedent. The Coelleittee had. entered into
the consideration of a breachpf privilege. Novi hei
always thought that it- wit the. doff Of a CothMittee
of that House, or of au inifividualidember'of it,
under such circumstances., to make an' immediate
complaint of the breach• of privilege •to the House,
and to the House alone. He.al ways anderstood.that
it.ComMittee of that House could never go beEond
its instructions.. The ComMittee in question was in-
stituted to inquite into the Police of the Metropolis.
and not into the nature (Army breach of privilege.— ,
Instead of complaining to the House of the breach of
privilege committed with respect to them, they called
a witness before them, and entered into an investi4a-
tiort of the breacli of privilege themselves. They
put questions to this' witness nut tending to promote
the inquiry which they had been appointed to pursue,
but to draw from him a confession or a denial.of his
guilt. He apprehended that .Cotnniiitees. of that
House were not entrusted. with► inquisitorial powers
of that nature. To hirn it appeared that it would be
extremely dangerous, indeed, if Committeei, instead
of coming -at once te• the House, should ester
such Investigations. He might be wrong s but he
was not aware of any instance on record of such a
proceeding. 11, as he apprehended. it was contrary
Ito the practice of Parliament, it behoved the House
Ito pause before they agreed to the motion made by
the Honourable Gentleman. He wished also to ask,
with viF.At view the Honourable Gentleman had read
the explanation's which had been given by the witnest
of the obnoxious passages in the work ? Did he in-
tend to lay it on the table'of the House or not if
he did, it came in the shape of evidence lit:witty a ,
set of Gentlemen in a Committee, which had no
right to enter into any such examination ; to which
the anise and the House alone was competent. He
hoped that some Honourable Member; more ezperi-
timed in the usages of Parliament, would fevhirr she
House with his opinion wn this, to say the least of it,l
deubitul point.
The SPEAKER said, he apprehended that
.the
present was the time at which the House should pro-
nounce, whether the passage in (he work adverted to
was or was sot a breach of privilege ? If not; the
author ought not to be called on to attend at-the
bar. From what had fallen from the Honourable
Chairman of the Committee, he did not'collect that
the Committee had inquired into the actual guilt in
that respect of the author of the work. All that the
Committee had done, which was not unreasonable,
was to ascertain before they complained to the House
whether the party advisedly persisted in the expres-
sions that he had used, •or whether he was disposed
by explanation to do Away that which, if unexplained,
might be considered by the House a breach of privi-
lege—(Hear, hear). As matters stood, therefore,
it was tor the House to determine, aye or no, it there
was a prima facie breach of privilege in the tefhections
which had been cast on the Committee. If the
House determined in the affirmative on that proposi-
tion, they would order the attendance of the party at
the bar ; if in the negative, they would proceed no
further in the business.

Mr. CALVERT observed, that he had very regu-
latly attended his duty as a Member of the Police
Committee, and that it gave him great satisfaction to
witness the attet-tion and ability of the Honourable
Chairman. It was not a fact that the Chairman
sometimes examined witnesses alone. The Commit-
tee was in general very fully attended. He (Mr.
Calvert) vindicated himself from the passage in Mr.
Thiriwall's publication, ascribing to him a alit to
have the evidence of Mr. Fox, of Nhadwell, on which
the private explanation of that Gentleman induced
' hint not to insist. Thh simple fact was, that he asked
Mr. Fox whether he came to the Committee to give
evidence? to which he replied in the negative.
Mr. WROTTESLEY merely wished to ask if it
would be improper to defer the motion before them
until the alleged libel should be laid on the table and
rioted for the consideration of the House?
The SPEAKER apprehended that a complaint of
breach of privilege must in all cases be disposed of at
once. Those who were conversant with Perliamen-
tary usages, knew that any publication (generally
I speaking) reflecting on the proceedings of the House
or of any of its Committees, was a high breach of
' privilege— ( Year, hear). The only question for the
House to determine was, whether or not the extract
which had been read by the Honourable Chairman
9f the Police Committee contained such a reflection ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER
was of opinion, that the motion of the Honourable
Chairman ought to be acceded to by the House-1
(Hear, hear). When the Reverend Gentleman should
attend, it would be for the Hoist to take into consi-
deration any circumstances of extenuation which he'
might submit to them. In his opinion, all that the
Committee had done, was, not to extort from the
party any improper declarlition, but merely to afford
him the opportunity of making such an explana-
tion as might induce them tolorbeak their complaint
to the House—( Hear, hear).
-Mr. WYNN contended, that on the very face of
the transaction the House had no discretion to exer-
cise.. .With/meet to any apology that might have
hemmed, by the individual in question, the House'
could take no cognisant* *fit, ior it was not officially
betake them. It could not consider 'rfte explanation
of 'the party either as an extenuation, or as an, aggra-
vation of his conduCt, hitless ihatpart of the.evidence.
were reported to them. Gy the Committee. There
wasbut one course tb purseeto agree to the motion.
Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE .bole testimony to the
temperate, impartial, and judicious manner in Qiich
the proceedings of the Committee had been conduct-
ed by the Hon. Chairman of hear). ••
Mr. BRODERIC contended; that the Committee,
in the course which they,pursued with respect.to the
subject in question, had not exceeded their authority.
The SPEAKER ingested to the Honourable
Chairman of the Committee, that after the present
motion should be disposed of, it would be his duty 'II
to move, that there be laid before the House so touch
of the Minutes of Evidence as related to the explana-
tion given in the Obnimittee. The House being in
possenion of that explanation, and hearing'any thing
further that the party might ye to state at the Bar,
would then be enabled to come to an ulterior decision
on the subject. At present the ably qUestion before
theni related to the attendance of the party. •
The Motion for thf.atfendance of Mr.
on Wednesday, war then, agreed to. 1 • •
da the motion Junin ter it was the Paned,