Star.
London, England, 1819-06-16 00:00:00

WEAVERS OF CARLISLE.

Mr. CURWEN wished to ask a question as to a Petition
which be understood had been referred by his Royal Highness
the Prince Regent to his Ministers, from the Weavers of Car-
lisle and some other places:—Had any measures been taken, or
were any in contemplation for their relief?'
Lord CASTLEREAGH said he was not in possession of any
further information on this subject.
PUBLICANS LICENSES.

The Report of the Publicans' Licenses Bill being
taken into further consideration,
Mr. BENNETT moved that the Bill should be
re-committed.

The motion was agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into the Committee. Several of the clauses
were debated, and several amendments were pro-
posed and adopted.
Mr. EISTCOURT objected to the clause giving
Publicans, in cases where Licenses were withheld, an
appeal to the Quarter-Sessions, on giving five days'
notice of their intention. He thought the operation
of the clause would be found very inconvenient, par-
ticularly
in the country.
Mr. BENNETT expressed his apprehension that,
in consequence of the great opposition which that
clause seemed to experience, he should be under the
necessity of relinquishing it. • He stated shortly the'
considerations which had urged him to introduce the
Bill. It was well known that there were a great
many brewers, who, for purposes of interest, entered
into Corporations, became Magistrates, and ultimately
Proprietors of Public-houses. Those persons were
in many cases induced to give a bounty on the con-
sumption of their own liquor, by the encouragement
of every kind of vice. He bad received a letter from
a respectable Clergyman at Exeter, stating, that he
resided in a ravish in that city, inhabited by the
poorest classes of the people, 800 in number, of whom
only 18 paid Poor's Rates; that out of those 18 seven

kept Public-houses,
five of which were with;n a hun-1
dyed yards of. each other; that, nevertheless, one of
the Members of the Corporation, who was a Brewer,
wished to set up another house in the parish, against
the establishment of which the Clergyman in question
had in vain applied to the Magistrates, to his Dioce-
san, and to one of the Members. The Honooralile
'Gentleman here read a list of the number of Brewers
who were Magistrates in a variety of small towns,
which he named, and declared the happiness he
should feel if he could be.the humble instrument of
putting down so great an evil.
Mr. COURTENAY warmly defended the Magis-
trates of the City of Exeter against the charges pre-
ferred against them—not in the Report of the Com-
mittee on the subject, but on an ex parte statement
contained in an anonymous letter. And what was
the whole of this mighty accusation? That, in the
opinion of a Clergyman of Exeter, there was one ale-
house too much in a parish of that city. The Hon.
Gentleman felt so strongly that the sense of the
Ilouse wat: against the clause which he had described,
that he had abandoned it, and having abandoned it,
proceeded to utter calumnies against a body of men
who were not there to answer for themselves.
Mr. BENNET replied, that as he had beer. accuse.]
of calumny, he would read the letter, and the name
of the. Clergyman from whom be had received it,
which the Honourable Member accordingly did.
Lord MILTON said he could not help complain-
ing that his Honourable Friend had consented to
abandon the clause relating to Boroughs and Towns
having separate jurisdictions where the evil exited.
In the country, the Public-houses were no doubt often
in the hands of the Brewers; but the Magistrates did
not let the evil attain such a head. • He would press
it on his Hon. Friend not to abandon the clause.
After some further observations on the part of
several Members, a division took place:—For the
clause, 76—Against it,' 114—Majority, 38.

Some discussion took place as to whether cert:tin
parts of Southwark and its vicinity, not under the
jurisdiction of the City of London, ought to fall
within the operation of the Bill? and Mr. lioLstE
SumNER, with whom the discussion originated, stated
that he would not press the matter at present, hut
would take an opportunity of bringing. the subject
forward in a future stage of the Bill.
The other clauses of the Bill were read and agreed
to. The House resumed, and the Report was or-
dered to be received to-morrow.

THE TlNtrs NEWSPAPER.

Mr. WYNN moved the Order of the Day for the
attendance of Charles Ilell,,the printer and publisher
of the Times Newspaper.
Mr. BELL was then called in, and the Papers which
had been put in at the table by Mr. CANNING were
handed to him.

Q. Are you the printer and publisher of these Papers?—l ant.
Q. Who is the Editor of that Paper?—'There is an FAitor.
who has the general superintendence of the Paper; but I have
brought the manuscript of the paragraph which is complained
of, and the author is in attendance, and ready to appear before
the House.

Q. Who is the Editor?—The Editor who has the conduct of

the Paper is Barnes.
Q. from whom did you receive the manuscript of that part
of the Publication which purports to be a speech of a Member
of this House ?—I was not at the Printing Office on the evenini
when that report was written; but •I have searched for the ma-
nuscript, and and that it was written by a Gentleman whose
name is be is in attendance, and ready to acknowledge
it. I can speak to his hand-writinir.
Q. Prom whom did you receive that paragraph (skewing him
the paragraph in the Monday's Paper)?—lt is necessary for me
IQ state, that I was not at the Office at the time. I have been
forty years Printer of the Paper, and do not attend to it as much
as I formerly did. The Gentlemen who report the debates have
the strongest injunctions from the Proprietor to give a faithful
report of what passes in the House, without partiality. The'
execution of this must rest on their own responsibility, as it is
impossible that any one cah controul what is written by them.
If the House knew the method in which a Newspaper is com-
posed, the number of Reporters who are employed, and the
haste in which it is necessary that they should write, and that
what they write should be printed, they would see that it would
be impossible to correct what they have written. The Repor-
ters of the early parts of the proceedings often return to the
House, after they have written an account of what they have
before heard.
The question referred to the paragraph in Monday's Pa-
per; who wrote it ?—I conclude that it was written by the Edi-
tor. I mean the letter fiom Mr. Hume and the comments. I

was not In town when it was printed, but in Hampshire.
Question by Mr. Huani,—?Vas the part of the debate complained
of signed by the person who wrote It?—\o.
Question by Mr. HOLME SIMNEL—Was that debate transcribed
from the short-hand notes by the person who took it in short-
hand?—ln some instances, the notes are not taken in short- I
hand; but the Gentleman who wrote the account in question is',
in attendance.—The witness was then directed to withdraw.
The SPEAKER said, that he had also been in-
formed by a letter from Mr.— that he had reported
the speech in question, and was in attendance.
The Gentleman who reported the speech in The
Times was then called in, and having looked at the
printed paper, was asked who had written that part
of it which purported to be a speech of Mr: Hume ?
He said that he had. The manusci ipt which'Mr. Bell
had produced was also shewn to him, and he stated
that it was in his hand-writing. Being asked whether'
the original was in short-hand? he stated, that ii
was necessary far him to explain, that from the situa-
tion in which those who reported the debates were in the
Gallery, it was impossible always to hear, or, if hear-
ing, to write what was heard with perfect accuracy,
and by these circumstances he was led into the error,
which was the cause of his appearance at the Bar.
He'had been seated in a back row of the Gallery,
and in consequence of the passing and repasing of
persons in front of him, and the station rather under
the Gallery, which the Honourable Member, Mr.l
Hume, had taken, lie was obliged to apply to a per-
son before him to learn what the Hon. Member
had said, and the person to whom lie had applied,
had distinctly stated to him,.. not -the words, but the
substance of the paragraph which had. been com-
plained of. He added, that the inconvenience which
he had been subjeq to, was one of frequent recur-
rence, and was an unavoidable cause of occasional
incorrectness in reports. .In the *sent faitante, he
had no motives to misrepresent the Hondniiiile Mem-
jeer,
had
neitherpassion nbr political--animosityto gratify.
now been engaged many years is Concerns
of this kind, nearly ten years, and •thisi was the first
occasion in which he had given cause of complaint
either to the House. or any of Members. .Witnesi
was. sked, 'whether; the manuscript poisession cf
the House, was a transcript of an original in short-
hand? f said. they Were,rasTar as the inconvenience
ro:wkich Ittihad been subjected allowed him to take
notes i the notes in questiOn he.had mislaid. •
Mr. C. HERVEY asked when the report was

'4- -

written ? Witness said that it 'was written the same
night, immediately after the debate had taken place.
From the great haste in which it was necessary to fur-
nish the account of the proceedings, each slip of pa.
per being taken away by the printers as soon as the
hand of the writer was removed from it there
was no room for deliberation beyond that which
could be given to it in the act of writing. Witless
was asked whether he had inserted the words n to&
tinned cheers" in the parenthesis? he answered that
'he had. He had a certain mark for Cheers which
might be heard in the House, and his idea of their
continuance was derived from recollection which
might be incorrect. He had also inserted the name.
of Mr. Canning in a parenthesis. He had a strong
recollection that Mr. Hume bad alluded to a smile
on the Ministerial Bench, though Mr. Hume had not
mentioned that allusion in his sketch of the speech t
and he had also heard, though indistiuctly, other
words, which corroborated his opinion, that the in-
formation which had been given him that the alltik
sion was directed personally against Mr. Canning'
was co; rect. He was at the time not able to Inter,
toin whether Mr. Canning was in his place, and
front the previous allusions which had been made to
him, he had no reason to believe that he was not r
for if Mr. If ume, as he stated, had regretted dal
absence of the :'!ember for Liverpool, nb such words
had reached the witness's ears: he expressed his re-
gret that he had fallen into an unintentional vier,
which he was convinced would not have occurred
if those inconveniencies to v.hich he had alluded
were removed, and added, that he might appeal to
the frequent misconceptions between Honourable
Members themselves—(Cries cf Order.)
The witness having retired,
Mr. WYNN said, that after the evidence whiA
they had heard, nothing had occurred to ;alter tit
opinion which be had before expressed, that the min
representation did not originate in misconception;
but if it had arisen from misconception only, still it
was a breach of privilege, not merely as a publics-
tion of a debate, but as containing matter libellous
on one of its Members, for though reflections on par-
ticular Members might be uttered in the House, it
was not on that account fit that they should be puls•
fished. In this he was confirmed by the greatest au-
thority on the subject of Parliamentary privilege,
Mr. Fox, who had said, that he might not only
be justified, but bound by his duty, to make ol;-
servations, which it would be a gross libel to publish
in Newspapers. The reports of what passed in that
House must be given at the responsibility of those
who composed them—and as for that extreme haste
which was pleaded in excuse for inaccuracy, how.
ever strongly he felt the advantage of the present
mode of publishing the debates, he still thought it
far more advisable that their publication should be
delayed for a few hours than • that they should be
given without the possibility of revision or corm-
tion.—(Ficar.) He should therefore move that the
paper which had been put in and read was " a scan-
dalous misrepresentation of the debates and proceed-
ings of this House, a calumnious libel on the charac-
ter of one of its Members, and an aggravated breach
of its privilege-rt.". .
Mr. BROUGHAM said, he had no intention to
oppose the declaration that the publication was a
breach of privilege, but he reserved to himself die
liberty, if any further proceeding SAOUId be pi epose,e,
of remarking on the various circumstances of exte-
nuation which had come to the knowledge of the
House. But it occurred to him that there would be
a great difficulty, after condemning in terms so strong
as those contained in the Resolution now proposed to
the House the publication which had been laid before
them, whether they could consistently stop, without
inflicting on the writer a severer punishment than he•
really merited? It therefore might be more advis-
able that he should first observe on those circum-
stances of extenuation before they came to that Reso.
lution, and submit it to the House, whether it would
be necessary to put the Resolution at all ? For there
would be a great inconvenience, if, by a Resolution
thus framed, the House should feel itself bound ts
go farther than in justice perhaps; certainly farther
than in mercy, they were warranted in going. Then.
were circumstances in the examination of the last
witness, which induced him to think the usual pro
ceeding in such cases, viz. to commit the individua:
to custody, would be too-severe. If he thought that,
after Such Resolution as that which had been pro-
posed, they could stop at a reprimand, and he should
not objectto the motion before them ; he would fain
hope that they might do so, framing the reprimanc
so as to refer to the circumstances disclosed in evi
dence, as an extenuation of what would have been.
but for those circumstances, a grave offence. He had
thrown out these suggestions, being either prepared
at once to enter upon the discussion of those circum-
' stances of extenuation, or to allow the Resolution to
pass, under the agreement, that it should lead only
to the mitigated punishment.
Mr. BATHURST' thought the House could no:
do less than commit the witness, whatever the eaten:
of it might be v.mild be a matter for after considera-
tion. Though the defence of the witness had been
ingenious, it appeared to him that though.this Gen-
tleman might in the hurry hate substituted one thiny
for another, he could not, with intention, have inserte.
a complete sentence containing the most unfounde.
aspersion.
Mr. PHILLIPS said,. the defence of the witne-
. did not appear to him, as to the Riglit Honourabi •
Gentleman, ingenious, but most ingenuous—(Hear
henr.)—The account which he had given of the marl-
' nor in which he had been led into the mistake, ap
peared to him very natural and probable. He hair
himself often heard in the House expressions applier-
, to the Right Honourable Member for Liverpool.yery
like those which 'the witness had attributed to tb
Hohourable Member for Aberdeen--(Cries of 2%
If that. was a mistake in the ivitness, it was a riaistak
which by - the cry: in the House, he had himsch
fallen• into on sonic other occasions., for he (Mr. Phil-
, liPr)'fiad imagined that at ogler tinieS the Right Ho
'tearable Gentleman (Mr. Canning) had been repro-
: seined as.- associating mirthful ideas with the repre-
; sentations• of lunhan suffering—(Hear,- hear)e—lt
was, aierifore, anatiiral mi,takefor a hearer to fall
iota . The whole of the evidence at the Bar had-con-
vinced him that there was no malignity in the snia,!
oithe 'Wintention br gay to misrepresent;. ant-
as hecosild not sever the •or ihttintiosthern the
declaration that it was " caluruniouslibed," he could
not, as an honest man, vote for the Resolution.

CASTLERZ AGII slid, that if' he had '
seed ;lei a doubt as to the course which The House
pursue, the speech of the Hononralde Mern-
ilk. Phillips) would have relieved him from it—
u hear).—Ele knew unfair imputations had
cs Oil his. Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Can-
a treating with improper levity descriptiinis
; but it was not to be b, Mite thkt on that
out individuals should follow' their own anodes,
lublish similar calumnies, only with .this excuse,
they heard them from a stranger in the Gallery
ligr, hear. )—What was the question then before
.Moshe ? The Resolution went to condemn the
rrm• cut in question es a gross And calumnious libel
t Member of that House. Were they then to he-
in pronouncing this statement to be a libel ?
would be glad to know in what situation the
:1„,, would stand if, after having entered the corn-
,
;;It of the Right Honourable Member (Mr. Can-
on the .Tournals, they were to pass to the Order
Day—(No, no),—after having reprimanded
author of such a misrepresentation, on an expla.
~,a which. was not entered on the Journals. If
°fending party were committed to prison, he
have an oppcttuty of petitioning Parliament,
t:' ctatin.; the reasons why he gave such a Re-
t' .c House would then have grounds for ex-
ch_lneticy. It was for the dignity of
that sach a line of proceeding should be
otherwise they would be at the mercy of
who thought proper to enter the Gal-
. and :Owe reports of their speeches. The House
:.t w vindicate its dignity by shoving that such
!iota would not be allowed to pass with impunity.
1:t. 111iLurs explained. He did not attempt
t!.e tnistatement. He only wished to pre-
:. t!te a‘h.pticnt of an expression which implied an
0:1 the part of the Reporter. In what he
I the Eight Honourable Member (Mt. Can-
he w ',Led no more than to express what he
,
aignt a vet y natural reason Why the Report should
.e taken the tendency it did. ,
4113ERCROMBY supported the Resolution,
he thought the House would act wisely, and in
tice to :ts own character, in discussing this ques-
.: with temper and with mercy. He fully agreed
~I!. the Honourable Mover of the Resolution, that.
t', statement in question was a serious offence, but
he considered the conduct of the Gentleman
s .gin called to, the Bar, when he heard the explana-
t a which was glven, he bad no doubt but he (the
ontleman who reported the speech) felt a convic-
ta at the time that the words had been used. It
:Teased from the account of the Honourable Mem-
, r (Mr. Hume) that up to thp period when the in?
Taption 'o°4 plice in the gallery, report of
speech was perfectly correct. character of
Paper in question was much improved in his es-
;nation since yesterday; as it appeared that the
.kor, or other managing persons on that Establish.
'had not seen the Report in question before it
a put into the bands of the printers. From what
e House had heard, it was impossible to believe
I at the Gentleman could have come into the gallery
,tilt a determination, with malice prepense, to mis-
ii.resent the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
tuning) or any other Member of the House. The
Lase was, however, to vindicate its dignity, but
to hoped that the punishment to be inflicted would
ac slight as svas coosistent with the support of that
t:gnity—(Hear, heal.
Lord COMPTON alluded to a misrepresentation'
'Lich had occurredin the last Session, of rathei an
qgravated description, and said that the lenity which
lad been extended to the Editor on that occasion,
contrary to his wishes indeed, had the effect, of pro-
:ring a very mischievous carelessness. He con-
cluded by saying that, he thought so gross a misre-
resentatitin should be visited with some severity.
Mr. PROTH:EROE complimented the delicacy of
'3e Bight Hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Can-
ning), in absenting himself during this discussion.—
He felt convinced, that if the Right Hon. Gentliman
lad been present at what took place this evening, he
would alter his opinions as to the conduct of the
writer of this mistatement. There was no Member
•vllo did not now see that the Gentleman had been
mistaken in his Report. The witness said, that he
heard allusions made to the smiles on the Ministerial
Botches. The Honourable Member (Mr. Hume) had
not mentioned this, but some Members near him (Mr.
"rutheroe), distinctly recollected the allusion having
ban made. He hoped the Resolution would be so
modified as to meet the feelings of the House ; he for
en felt himself bound to vote for lenient measures,
HUME then said, that feeling himself called
be an allusion to his report of the speech, by
the Hor.ourable Member who had just sat down, he
:bought it but just to avow that he now recollected
;here was a smile upon the faces of Gentlemen on
:Ile Ministerial Benches to which he frequently al-
Laded in his speech—(llear,hear.)—He certainly felt
loneuhathurt at these indications, and possibly some-
iag might at the moment have escaped him, which
night render the mistake excusable—(Hear, hear,)
Mr. RA.THURST also bore testimony to the cor-
-ctness of the report, inasmuch as there actually was
a smile on the faces of Gentlemen on that side of the
House, byt it did not occur at the vet y period of the
honourable Gentleman's Speech noted in the report.
hear.)--This, however, was antecedent to the
ost offensive part, which was giving it a character
1 " loud cheers." He repeated, that it was correct
far as regarded the mention of a smile—(//ear.)
Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON said, that if he had any
cluebts before as to the vote he should give on this
they were totally removed by the speeches
e two last Members who addressed the House.
.: requested the House to recollect what had fallen
`tom the Right Hon. Member for Liverpool yester-
"Y—thilt Right Hon. Member had then said, that
if there was any Member who could put his hand to
his breast, and declare upon his honour, that he.bo
sieved that Ns as not a wilful and malignant misre-
t?cientation, he would give up the question altoge.
t -cr. He (Mr. Hutchusson) now solemnly stated
:post his honour, that from the statement of the Gen-
tleman who appeared at the Bar, he believed the
mis-statement to have been the result of anuninten-
!toaal mistake. He could not COMMA to give his vote
fivour of a motion which went to imply intention.
';11 the part of the Gentleman who reported that
'Peech. He begged at the same time to state, that
40 Member in the House was more anxious to defend
Lle privileges and dignity of Parliament thanhe was.
:,Ir.BRAND hoped the proposed Resolution would

not be adoptedo as it went to impute intention to the
offending pithy. If the House wished to have ;heir
debates sent before the, public, they ought to furnish-
those Gentlemen who so diligently collected theM,
some more accommodation than they had at present,
but with an understanding of additional responsihi-
litrop their parts.
• Mr. W. WYNN said there was nothing in the
wording of the Motion
.which irr.pited intention to
ihe•Gentleman accused. It only stated that this paper
was a misrepresentation of the proceedings of the
House —..that it was a calumnious libel on one of its
Members, and that it was an aggravated breach of
the privilege of Parliament. " He appealed. to the
House how it could be urged that this contained any
imputation of intention ? He considered any report
of the proceedings of the House a breach of privilege.'
If this Resolution werc adopted, it would be for the
House to say what further steps they would take on
this occasion.

Lord BINNING said, that Mr. Canning bad de-
clared last night, that as far as he was concerned he
was satisfied by the statement of the Honourable
Member (Mr. Hume), and that it was for the House
to decide what line of conduct they should adopt in
vindication of their privileges. He therefore declined
any further interference with it.
The Resolution was then put and carried.
Mr. WYNN said, it was now his duty to follow up
the Resolution just carried, with proposing the pu-
nishment to be inflicted for this breach of privilege.
He was willing to make every allowance for what'
had been urged in favour of the witness. It was just,
when an accused person was called to the Bar, to al-
low him to enter into a justification of his conduct,
as far as he was able so to do. He found it difficult,
however, to imagine how such a mistake could have
been made, and ow the witness could • have added,
" continued- cheers," without having heard those
cheers. He ought not to have depended on the in-
formation cf a stranger, as to what hail passed ; his
more obvious course would have been to have ap-
plied to the other reporters, none of.whoni had given
the speech in the same manner. He bore ,testimony
to the accuracy and fidelity with which the debates
were generally given, considering the very short time
there was allowed for writing them. He felt the
proprity of- having the debates published, but he
could not see the necessity of -having them published
at so early an hour. Every purpose of publicity
would be equally well answered by having the papers
published at two or three o'clock in the day, as by
having them published at nine or ten in the morning'.
If this were done the reporters would have sufficient
time to attend accurately to what they had to write.
What he wished the House to do was, to impress
upon t'abse who undertook to report the dcbatos, that
they-did sb at their peril ; and that if this.toleration
was abused the offending parties would be visited
with the utmost displeasure of the Parliament. •He
made every allowance for the proper conduct of the
Gentleman when he appeared at the Bar, as well as
for the manner in which he accounted for the. mis-.
statement ; but at all events he was guilty of very
culpable negligence, and for this some punishment
ought to be inflicted. The. Honourable Member
Occluded by moving, that the Gentleman who had'
acknowledged himself to be the writer of this breach
of privilege, be committed to his Majesty's Jail of
Newgate. The
_question being put,
Mr. GURNEY said, that he had entered the House'
on the evening when the Honourable MeMber (Mr.i
Hume) delivered the speech in question, and just at
the time when the Honourable Member alluded to
the smiles on the Ministerial Bench, he had heard re-
peated cheers. He mentioned this with a view to
shew, that that part of the speech where the words
" repeated cheers" were, inserted by the Gentleman,
could not be considered as any invention on his (the
Reporter's) part.
Mr. BROUGHAM observed, that the circum-
'stances of extenuation had been so fully entered into
as to leave him but little to say, yet much still rested
on the statements of the witness as to the origin of
the mistake. He had a right to assume that this
statement was fully credited, as no Member had at-
tempted to put a question intimating a doet of its
' truth. For instance, any Member might have put
the question who were the Gentlemen who sat near
the witness when he received this communication
from the stranger? But no such question was put.
Ile would himself have put it if he had any doubt of
the testimony which had been given. The Honour-
able Member then alluded to former mis-statements,
in which he himself had been made to use language
foreign from his feelings and his opinions. On those
occasions the parties had been allowed to depart
without punishment. He observed, that this leniency
on the part of the House contributed in a great de-
gree to mislead those Gentlemen who gave the Re-
ports, to make them careless of the responsibility
under which they acted. But there were other
breathes of privilege of a more serious nature which
frequently appeared in the public prints, without
having the excuse of the great haste with which Re-
porters were obliged to write the debates. . He
could state several instances of observations of
the strongest nature being made by writers in the
public journals. There was an article in a Paper of.
yesterday, in which. the speech of an Honourable and
Learned Friend of his was spoken of in terms which
'could not be considered in any other light than that
of a gross Breach of the Privilege of Parliarrient.
Those observations were not made m the hurry of re-
porting, they did not appear until five days after
that speech had been delivered. The Journal in
question said, speaking of his Honourable Friend
(Sir J. Mackintosh) that he had made a shameless and
impudent attack on Ferdinand. That an attack. and
.that too an effectual attack, had been made on Fer-
dinand, he admitted, but that it was a shameless and
impudent one, he left it to the House to decide—(Laud
cries of hear).—After some other observations the
Honourable Member concluded by hoping that the
House would be satisfied with reprimanding the Gen-
tleman who had been guilty of this offence ; but if
the sense of the House should be otherwise, he begged
to suggest that he be taken into the custody of the
Serjeant at Arms, instead of being committed to
Newgate, and that his confinement be for as short a
period as possible.
Me. BANES said, that in all cases of a Breach
of Privilege like this, the invariable pri.i.tipoiiisio
commit tbe. Offenders to ISevolatc,... .•
Pik ,(of 'Cambriagel said, there was, a
precedent SikithibY Mr. "Petir'Sfutir of Vie

Oracle Newspaper, was, for a libel, committed to the
custodyt u 4
sinolft7 Serjeant at Arms. He recommended.
course should be adopted on the pre-
sent occasion., . He fully subscribed to the terms of
eke-Motion; cifs6ibed the Mere of this par-
ti
on eoxitetreaktinbettrhtittlp
par-
ticular offence; but bethought that the minter urged
the individual complained of.
Could consistently afford (Hear).
Mr. WYNN said, that the old place of committal
was to the Gate-house, but in' ater times it was to
Newgate; and in selecting that prison, perhaps they
would be consulting the Convenience of the individual,
and avoiding for him the expense which being in the
custody of the Serjeant at Arms would induce. He
had no objection to frame his motion either way.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH entirely concurred
in the terms which had been applied to this libel, but
from the statement made by the Reporter at the Bar,
he was fully convinced the error, great as it was,
was unintentional—(Hear.) He fully acquitted the
individual of wilful intention, and feeling this, he
could not but vote for the lighter punishment. The
appearance of talent and education which the witness
at the Bar sheaved would, he was persuaded, induce
the House to select that sort of punishment which
would convey to such a Gentleman the least feeling
of disgrace. As to attacks upon himself from any
part of the public press, he should ever treat them
with indifference—in such a case as that which was
represented (for he had not seen it), to have so calum-
niously reflected upon him, with contempt—(Hear.)
He also felt himself bound to express his opinion in
favour of the generally improved character of the
public press, for whatever political bias particular
newspapers may have and may exercise respecting
the several parties to which they were attached, he
never recollected a period in which their columns
exhibited more general decorum, more general abi-
lity, more exemplary abstinence from all attacks
upon private life, and from those disgraceful inva-
sions of the privacy of domestic character which were
once so much indulged in—( Hear, hear).—This
great and valuable improvement in the public press, I
had arisen from the superior talents, the judgment,
and character of the proprietors, and the improved
advantages and better conditioo, in every respect, of
the Gentlemen who are employed under them. On
this account alone, even exclusive of the demeanour of
the Gentleman whom they had heard just at their Bar,
he should strongly urge upon the Home the propriety
of abstaining from any, degrading penishment—
I (Hear, hear),—the effect of which must be to have a
tendency to take away that sense of 'self-respect and
independent character which it was' so essential to
cherish in persons of this description—( Hear, hear).
Mr. W. SMITH joined in pressing upon the House
the adoption of the lesser punishment. Allusion had
been considerately made to the expense which being
in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms would entail
upon the Gentleman who had been examined, but he
could assure the House that he knew the family of
that Gentleman, who were of great respectability ;
he also knew the individual himself, who had always
borne the character of being a well-behaved, an ex-
cellent, and an intelligent young man ; and that from
his knowledge of them all, it would, he was convinc-
ed, be a great relief to their feelings that the com-
mittal should be to the Serjeant at Arms, instead of
to Newgate.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, that in explanation of the
misrepresentation which had given rise to the present
proceedings, he thought himself bound to state, that
on the evening of the debate he had sat behind the
Honourable Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hume), and
that he had a distinct recollection of the following
expression :—" The Right Hon. Gentleman and the
Honourable Gentlemen around him may smile."—
Soon after this there certainly were several cheer's,
although, no doubt, a few sentences intervened, which
Were lost in the gallery. The error therefore of the
Reporter, was in this respect natural enough, as far
as respected the words in the parenthesis (Continued
cheering).
Mr. BENNET rose for two purposes--Ist, to con-
cur in intreating the House to adopt the milder pu-
nishment, and abstain from exposing a cultivated
mind to imprisonment in such a place as Newgate ;
and he rose, 2dly, for the purpose of exposing a ca-
lumnious statement not in the reports, but in a com-
mentary upon them, which appeared a few days ago
in a Newspaper.—CHere the Honourable Member
read a long extract from a Ministerial Morning Pa-
per, which reflected, in very coarse terms, on some
Gentlemen at the Opposition side of the Housel
Mr. PROTHEROE also preferred the moderate
punishment. To men of education and literary ta-
lents, naturally imbued with the feelings of gentle-
men, a punishment of the extreme kind would be
keenly and severely felt. If, therefore, instead of
there being a precedent of committal to the Serjeant
at Arms, there had not been one, he thought this
was just the case in which they should make a pre-
cedent, for inflicting the milder punishment—(Hear.)
Mr. WYNN said he did not feel the least difficulty
in acceding to what appeared to be the general wish
of the House. He was therefore ready to alter the
words of his motion, and he trusted sufficient would
be done to warn the daily press against a repetition
of the offence which brought the individual in ques-
tion under the displeasure of the House--(hear.)
The Reporter was then committed to the custody
of the Serjeant at Arms.
CESSION OP PAIIGA.
Lord CASTLEREAGH, in presenting Papers or-
dered by the House, respecting the Cession of Para,g
denied that this country would have been justified
in resisting by force of arms, the Turks, in support
of the Parguinotes ; besides, it ought to be consi-
dered, that the lonian Islands did not grow corn or
other provisions for more than nine months consump-
tion in the year ; so that in the event of their rupture
with the Turks, a strong force would be necessary to
secure, by artificial means, their regular supply.—
Neither neutrality nor sound policy to the Port;
would have justified this country in taking any other
part than it had taken respecting the fate of these
unfortunate people. •
. Sir C. MONCK condemned Government for de-
ceiving the Parguinotes, who had'always believed
themselves under the protection of the former. Thel
Honourable Member endeavoured to prove, that the
Cession was contrary to the faith of treaties ; and that
as by one of the treaties Parga was described as a
dependency of the lonian Islands, it consequently
tagtls nadir the protection of alit Width (Guyanatenn
of et was impbuibk tee). -itap dice:maim that night
•

r-.s there was no motion before them which afforded
such a scopes But he believed he could at any tinsel;
provesthat she Parguinotes bad a claim upon our just.„;l
tice for protection against the Turks. The Noisier;
Lord had forfeited the affections of the Greeks Ix'
giving up the mouth of Albania, whence pro;visions
of every kind were produced. The British Artily,
on the commencement of a new war, would not be
able to maintain itself for want of provisions of every
kind. Ile lamented the receipt of the calamitous
news concerning the cession of Parga.
Mr. FAZAKERLY regretted the cession of Parga
as a violation of faith with the natives of that un-
happy country.
Mr. GOULBURN vindicated the conduct of Go-
vernment and that of the gallant Officer under whose
direction the cession had been carried into effect.
Sir C. MONCK said, that the Papers now before
the House ought to have been produced sooner. , •
Mr. GOULBURN observed, that the soil of the
Island of St. Maura (whither the Parguinotes were
removed), was similar to that of Parga, and fully
equal to 11at which they had left.
Sir C. MONCK Maintained, that it was very rocky,
and very barren, and he believed without water.
From a population of 5 or 6000, the people of Parse
had been reduced to 3000 only.
Lord CASTLEREAGH thought that Gentlemen
would see the impropriety of continuing a desultory
conversation without any specific motion.
Mr. HUME,. *lto had been at the island of St.
Maura, assured the House that it was nearly one mass
of stone ;,and as to water, they had landed there for
the pitirpose of obtaining a supply, but had not suc-
ceeded.
Lord COMPTON lamented the cession of t'arga,
as the last remains of the independence of Greece.
,His Lordship noticed that the olive trees amounted
fit number to 80:000, in value £200,000. He under-
stood that the amount of the whole, was £500,000.
There was therefore a great difference between that
and the sum of £150,000, said by the Noble Lord en
have been received. He was astonished kiwi tr
Chancellor of the Exchequer could come down 011ie
House and ask for an enormous sum to build 'n4i
Churches, while the Government abandoned the' fee-
. quenters-of the Christian Churches of Greece.
Lord CASTLEREAGH had every reason for be-
lieving-that the sum of £150,000 would not be much
short of the average stipulated by the Comrnissioneri%
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH was shocked to hear'
it said in a British Parliament that any indemnity
could be given to a nun for tearing him from his
home. Was this the example that ngland was to
hold out to the world? Was it proper to say to these
persons, " You shall receive every recompense for
your trees, your churches, your stones, your lime, &c.
but with respect to yourselves, you shall be considered'
merely as the dust in the balance; you shall be de-
prived of your home, and driven into exile, but you
shall have no reward adequate to make up your loss"
—( Hear, hear).—Such had been the case, and most
of them had quitted the soil which gave them birth.
The Honourable and Learned Member proceeded ton
argue that the Ottoman Porte hid no rights under
the Treaty of Bucharest, as in that Convention the
Treaty of 1800 was not recited. Both Russia and
the Ottoman Porte had forfeited all title by a mast
notorious breach of faith. Russia in ceding the loniail
Islands and Parga to France—the Ottoman Porte.l4
the violation of all the provisions of the Convention
of 1800—by the destruction of the three towns, whose
protection and security it guaranteed.

4.1 '

Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST riefended
merit for tie generous attentions bestowed on the
people of Parga, who had never been_promised a
continuance of our protection. The very best terms
had been made for•them which could be obtained ;
and the Honourable Member considered they hod no
other claims on us than what characterized du' cam-.
passion and indulgence.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the opinions
of Sir James Mackintosh. By stipulation, we had
not surrendered to the enemy one ntan'only; but a
whole people. This violation of faith would excite
great distrust on the future protection of the British
Government.
A MEMBER expressed his regret at the abandon-
ment of character which the sacrifice of the Pergui-
nots would display to the- world. British protection
would, when offered hereafter, be received with dis-
trust. It was a sad contrast with the part we had
before taken in the concerns of other nations. How'
reconcile it with the endeavour to communicate a
'purer system of Religion, through Greece? It was,
indeed, absurd to institute prosecutions for anti.reli-
gioui opinions at home, when we gave our assistance
to propagate Mahometanism abroad. But if our
Government acted cruelly to the Parguinots..—if
their expectations of protection were disappointed,
they would at least have the consolation to learn, that
their sufferings and their wrongs were neither un-
known nor unfelt ift this country—
Sent hic etiam sua pramia laudl,
. " Sunt lacrynue return, et mentem thortalia tanguntr
Mr. BENNET complained of the treatment these
exiles received.. lie had gu,,d information on the sub-
ject, but he begged to assure the House that he would
be found ever ready to raise his voice against any op-
pression towards those
-unfortunate people.
After a few words from 'Mr. WYNN the papers
were laid on the table.
BREACHES OF IrRIVILEGR.
The SPEAKER stated that the Serjeant at Arms
had a communication to make respecting.the Privi-
leges of that House. It was stated that a stranger
was found taking notes, with his bo?I; restingte the
front rail of the gallery. When desired' tit desist he
refused—he was then taken into custodtandbinught
before the House. After an examin:ttidn Of Witnesses
and a suitable apology from the prisoner, he was dis.
charged on 'the payment of his fees.
Mr. WINN called the attention of the House to
another Breach of Privilege, which he conceived to
have been committed by a *Morning Paper, 'called
Ts4e New Times. The offence of which*he complained
Was contained in a letter published yesterday in that
Paper. The letter attacked the speech of an Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman (Sir James Mackintosh)
on the Foreign Enlistment Bill, and asked whether
Sir James had felt so warmly in favour of liberty- in
1808? And whether he had not then been willing,
and long afterwards, to submit to the real •tyrant,
Bonaiarte? It then added the following paragraph :
And yet, if I Am .to boliere the Newspaper reports,